Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2023 08 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2023 Page 9 of 14 Osterman says it is hard to compare options with respect to cost, compliance, time to get to full compliance and asked for more details. Brackett Hogstad said costs for options 2 and 3 could be absorbed by what we already do. This would involve night enforcement regardless, but the scale is really the biggest difference. The important point is how can we help homeowners learn about dark sky lighting before buying new lighting (this is slower paced than amortization timeline). Brackett Hogstad says they have done no modeling on how long to get to optimal compliance, and that it is possible that some lighting will not come into compliance unless there is an amortization timeline. The survey polled how often businesses upgrade lighting, and the answer was not very often it turns out (15, 20, 30 years). Option 2 would capture changes to mixed use, as there is going to be some redevelopment. Staff do not want to make the costs of a small project balloon. Baskett is curious to see if Option 2 is what Council really wants, as the City might not get much bang for the buck with Option 2. Choi asks about how triggers for Option 2 were set; was there a consideration for a scope -based permits and alterations (like projects just replacing light fixtures, but not required due to 50%? He asks about whether staff thinks that people would trying to skirt regulations by piece-mealing improvements. Brackett Hogstad says it was about what "seemed workable"- the original regulations draft was use -based, within PUD, GDP, tenant use evaluation. From the business community's perspective that did not make sense. Brackett Hogstad says staff would have to create a new review process, but is happy to think about other thresholds or permit types. Baskett asks staff to consider a 25% threshold. Brackett Hogstad says staff considered many options and thought that 50% is a good balance between community feedback and rate of compliance due to redevelopment and facade changes. Doubling in size is admittedly rare, but demolishing half of building and rebuilding would also need to upgrade light. Howe asks if this applies to Marshall Fire rebuilds. Brackett Hogstad says it would depend on where they are in the build cycle. If plans have already been approved, they wouldn't need to comply (amortization option aside). If not yet, then would be a requirement. Howe asks about irregular lot sizes and motion activated lighting installed for safety and security; i.e. what if the lumens restriction does not allow for full lot coverage? Brackett Hogstad says when you have lumens caps, there is a possibility that people will add more lights. However, more and brighter lighting does not necessarily mean more security. Howe brings up pets and predators and asked if different regulations were considered for properties bordering open space and greenbelts. City of Louisville Community Development 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) www.LouisvilleCO.gov 11