Planning Commission Minutes 2017 02 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2017 Page 9 of 14 Trice says that is a typo on the slide. It is 1500 lumens per light on soffit lighting and 900 lumens on string lights. Hsu asks where these numbers come from. Zuccaro says the 1500 lumen number is roughly equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. The previous lighting SRU condition says that all lights should be low wattage. Wattage is not a measurement of light output. Staff came up with a more measurable standard. The 900 lumen was proposed by the applicant, because it is the existing or proposed light strings they want to use. Hsu says each light can be 1500 lumens, but what stops someone from putting multiple lights in one area and making it extraordinarily bright. Zuccaro says we do not have a limitation and have not written that into the regulation. On lighting regulations where you try to reduce the amount of light, we purposely do not put in a limit on the number because we want even light spread and applied in a safe manner. A best practice is to limit the per -light output but not limit the number of lights. We also want them fully shielded to reduce light glare and light pollution. We want this with the downcast soffit lights. It is the front part of patio and shielded to the residents and a more Downtown urban situation, so Staff thought it was okay. O'Connell says I have similar concerns to Sheets. These changes pertain to an outdoor upper level space. When we saw this proposal as the Rex, we had neighborhood concerns about visibility. Between the lights, live music, and amplification, this proposal should be noticed. Moline says what were the existing uses at the Rex in terms of light? What types of outdoor lighting and sound were there and were allowed? How does it compare to the proposal tonight? Trice shows the original SRU conditions from 2011. They are not very specific. They state low wattage downcast lighting. O'Connell says those 2011 conditions are what residents were expecting to see tonight. Moline says while we are talking about a different way of measuring light, it may be the same. Zuccaro says regarding public notice, often with development cases, conditions of approval are proposed by Staff or proposed during hearings. They are not part of the public notice. This proposal will also go to CC for public hearing so there will be public notice for that. It is common for design conditions to be brought up and adopted during meetings or part of Staff review. The applicant's actual proposal did not have any of these conditions. Staff recommended conditions. The applicant presented counter -conditions as part of the process which is typical with a development review process. Rice says from a public standpoint, the status quo is Resolution 02, Series 2011. That is what the public expects regarding allowed use on this property. That includes the lighting condition and no dancing and live music permitted on the open deck condition. The proposal does not say anything about having a condition of live music being permitted and amplified nor was it in the Staff recommendations nor was it considered until we received the letter. I do have serious concerns about it. I do not think it is immaterial. Zuccaro says my general understanding is the applicant's proposal when this was publicly noticed did not include any of these provisions on the plan or on the materials. If anyone was interested in those issues, they were given notice and the materials at that time did not include the provisions. I understand there is concern, but I do not think there has been improper notice. There was a mailed notice and a posted public sign. Trice says the PC is referencing the Staff Report. Zuccaro says this proposal has changed from the Staff Report. Sheets says when the public has an opportunity to review what is presented to PC, did the packet state that Staff recommended there would be no amplified music? If so, that is my concern. This particular area of Downtown had a lot of comments for the Rex and Waterloo from the adjacent neighbors to the west. Rice says my point is their expectation would be that Resolution 02, Series 2011 would still stand since it was not proposed to be changed.