Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 08 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2023 Page 8 of 14 administration; installation costs need to be revisited with the Facilities Department. However, the majority of City parking lot lights may already be in compliance, apart from brightness. Howe requests a cost estimate for the next step, fixtures and labor. This might make a big difference for those voting. Choi asks if there is anything in the current language of the ordinance that talks about maximum mounting height for outdoor lighting. Brackett Hogstad said there is a height limitation: 20 feet for parking lot poles and 20 feet for building mounted 20 light fixtures (exemption for second story decks). Choi asks if all commercial plans are required to submit photometric plans. Brackett Hogstad says it depends on the permit type, only some require a site -wide lighting plan. Choi asks if there are added requirements for automatic timer lights. Brackett Hogstad says no. Baskett says that Old Town is defined as all the way to alley at La Farge, meaning there are significant residential properties in Old Town which would be exempt. She asks if staff has considered this. Brackett Hogstad explained that residences would not be required to meet trespass standards, but the rest of the regulations apply. Brauneis asks to clarify that no open flames are permitted in the City (the ordinance language refers to this). Brackett Hogstad said this was standard adapted language that can be revisited. Brauneis asks about swimming pools and water features; Brackett Hogstad says lighting within a pool would be exempt, and that for water features/fountains: the intent is to have no up -lighting, but lights within the water might be allowed. Choi asks about lighting on address numbers. Brackett Hogstad says this is not yet captured, though the intent to allow necessary safety lighting (like wayfinding / driveways/ addressing). Choi thinks the potential cost of Option 1 is a major con, and it is important to consider carefully. He asks if the cost is the main reason for staff recommending Option 2, or if there are other reasons. Brackett Hogstad said it is a value question, i.e. is this the project that City Council wishes to spend money on? Cost is not the only consideration — Option 1 is inviting and adding something for neighbors to have miscommunications and disputes about. In reality, most jurisdictions either do not do enforcement or have complaint -based enforcement. Choi asks if there is any option for grant funding. Brackett Hogstad has looked into existing funding from the city, but unfortunately most of that is area -based or is available only for historic preservation. She mentions that Moab has a robust rebate program ($100-200), which has encouraged faster adoption. Although, this was funded by a community organization, not the City of Moab. Brackett Hogstad said this would be one of the first things to explore if Option 1 is selected. City of Louisville Community Development 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) www.LouisvilleCO.gov 10