Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200300034 Minutes 2003-08-05 4SD-P=03-034 White Gables Final Site Plan, Decorative Lighting Waiver---,Kequest ror a modification ofthe standard-in-section 4-17 4-(a)-that-requires-that-each-outdoor luminaire subject to the outdoor lighting regulations be a full cutoff luminaire. This request is made in support of a final site plan request for 20 condominium units in 6 buildings on 7.097 acres zoned CO, Commercial with a Special Permit approval for residential (see SP-02-23) and Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 26 and 27A, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of Rt. 250W (Ivy Road), approximately 1/4 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office Service in Neighborhood 7. (Margaret Doherty) Ms Doherty summarized the staff report. She stated that this was a request to waive our lighting requirements for decorative lighting at the White Gables development. The applicant is proposing a decorative lighting fixture that they believe is a good fixture and meets the intent of our ordinance. The ordinance defines a full cut-off luminaire as an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane. The applicant presented documents showing their fixture and it was found not to meet that standard. Staff is not inclined to waive that for a variety of reasons. One reason is the precedent setting of waiving our lighting full cut-off Most especially at this site, which is on the edge of commercial development on. Route 250 and entering into more rural character, staff just does not think it is appropriate in this location Just in the last two days, staff came up with a lighting fixture that is pretty much exactly like what they want to do, but it meets our ordinance Staff has been working the applicant's consultant on a different site at St. David's Anglican Church Staff feels that there is a fixture that will work for them that meets our ordinance. Staff hopes that rather than continuing to pursue the waiver that the applicant will just go with this. The applicant would still like to address the Commission about this issue. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—AUGUST 5, 2003 29 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED 9/2/03 The following information from the staff report is provided for background information for the minutes: BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested a modification of the standard in section 4.17.4 (a)that requires that each outdoor luminaire subject to the outdoor lighting regulations shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The ordinance defines a full cutoff luminaire as an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane. On October 17, 2001 this definition was added to the ordinance and the term "decorative luminaire with full cutoff optics"was repealed. The Zoning Department has determined that a decorative fixture that is constructed with the light source, which includes the bulb that contains the lamp, located above the low edge of a horizontal housing and contains no elements designed to reflect light above the horizontal plane can be approved. The minute percentage of light that may be reflected above the horizontal plane from the components of such a fixture does not meet a strict interpretation of the definition but is negligible. The County does not pursue discrepancies of this degree because they are diminimis. The proposed fixture manufactured by King Luminaire (#27641), see Attachment D, shows a portion of the bulb positioned below the horizontal plane of the shield. The'Zoning Department has determined that this design does not meet the definition of full cutoff luminaire, and therefore requires Planning Commission approval of a waiver of 4/17/4(a)to be used. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 4.17.5, any standard of section 4.17.4.a may be modified or waived in an individual case, and the commission may impose conditions on such a modification or waiver which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations, in either of the following circumstances: 1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an equivalent degree. 2. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for an athletic facility cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the facility for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable. The applicant contends that the proposed fixture does not contribute to any light spillover on the adjacent properties and meets the one-half foot-candle at the property line requirement. The fixture is decorative in style similar to what is found on the University grounds. The applicant does not believe they can find a decorative fixture that meets the County requirements. Please review their request as attachment D. The Architectural Review Board, at its meetings on June 2 and July 21, approved the site plan with conditions and approved the elevations for Phase 1, but noted, in part, that the applicant shall clarify and/or revise the lighting details to show full cutoff fixtures for lamps that emit 3,000 lumens or greater, and . . . reduce the amount of decorative lighting. The ARB guidelines indicate that "light should be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to eliminate glare" The ARB has not reviewed this specific waiver, however, given their condition of approval above and the design guidelines, the Design Planner has advised staff that she does not support the request. Staff believes this location is part of a unique area in the County, characterized with large estate properties that have a residential appearance while serving commercial uses. Allowing a light ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—AUGUST 5, 2003 30 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED 9/2/03 4 fixture, which does not meet the full cut-off requirements, will increase the light pollution in the area and may serve to erode the residential appearance, thereby increasing the commercial appearance of the area. Urban areas predominantly surround the lights used at the University. The lights at White Gables will be located in an area that currently has no lighting. Further, it has been the County's consistent policy and practice to not waive the lighting ordinance, except for sporting facilities. RECOMMENDATION: With the support of the Zoning Department, Planning staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a waiver of the lighting regulations. Mr Thomas asked if the light resembles the other light fixture Ms. Doherty pointed out that the light fixture looks exactly the same She asked if the applicant wanted to bring the two light fixtures in. Mr Rieley opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to show the display to the Commission Mr. Thomas asked what the height of the pole was that the light fixture would be installed on. He asked if they would be at the same height as the ones behind Cabell Hall. Ms. Doherty stated that the applicant had said that they would be at 13.5 feet, but she did not know how high the ones were at Cabell Hall. Steven Edwards stated that he represented the developer of White Gables,Weatherhill Homes. He stated that they have a simple request to allow this decorative fixture on site. The reason for this request is that they feel that this fixture is architecturally appropriate and compliments the project's character. These fixtures are identical to the style that has already been used and approved in the County, however, despite that the fixtures are on the University of Virginia grounds. He stated that they would like for the Commission to just see the light fixture themselves if they have not taken the opportunity before tonight to see them in operation around town and just see their reactions to them. The proposed fixtures is very similar and emits less than 2 '/z percent uplight and is therefore not in compliance with the County's regulations. To the naked eye, they feel it is very negligible and you won't even be able to perceive it unless you have a light meter in your hand standing underneath the fixture. He stated that he would ask that they turn the lights on and allow the Commissioners to see the fixtures for themselves. He introduced Pat Morgan who was the lighting representative for both fixtures, Antique Lighting and Sun Valley. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Pat Morgan stated that he though what the County has looked at in the past is that they consider that any lamp that is horizontal in a reflector would meet dark sky criteria. That means no light above 90 degrees shall be emitted out of the fixture. Dark Skies will say what is a good fixture and what is not a good fixture and what emits light up. As you can see the shoebox with a flat glass or a cobra head with a flat glass meets it, but any kind of a cobra head or a shoebox fixture that has any kind of drop lens does not meet that. He pointed out that he has done a lot of jobs in the County and this was a real popular fixture that they use in the County This lamp has a horizontal lamp and has 4'/2 percent uplight. The reason why it does not meet the Dark Sky criteria is because there is reflective median below the lamp. Any decorative fixture that you use in the County that has any kind of reflective media below the lamp,whether it is a vertical lamp or horizontal lamp, is not going to meet any kind of Dark Sky criteria. He pointed out that what they were trying to show the Commission tonight was that the King and the Antique fixtures is that the arc to is actually positioned up inside of a vertical reflector in a vertical lamp fixture He stated that the fixture puts out the luminaires out where you need them to the side Underneath the fixture would be sort of dark since the light goes out this way. The spacing mounting height ratio, that means how far he could place each fixture apart, is about 1/3 more with this fixture What does that mean? As the uniformity gets better, that means that the ratio from the darkest spot and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—AUGUST 5, 2003 31 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED 9/2/03 •i a F • lightest spot, it gets minimized In other words, you would have a more uniform light. He pointed out that when using this fixture you could use less of them on a project than you could with a horizontal lamp. This would be due to the fact that the lighting does a better job and you have a nice reflector system. With this medium being down here there was no way that you could shine light through it and not get a percentage of uplight. He presented both fixtures to the Commission. Mr Loewenstein stated that when they first started this that Ms. Doherty said that there were very similar fixtures that don't have any uplight at all He asked why the applicant could not use them. Mr. Morgan stated that then they would have to restrict it to a shoebox type of fixture. Mr. Edwards stated that the fixtures had two different manufacturers and were a little bit different. He stated that they were not opposed to using that fixture, but they wanted to bring to light today the fact that the bulb itself and where it ties into the socket should not be regulating the horizontal plane, but more so the arch to itself. It would be where the arch to goes in relation to the horizontal plane, and not the bulb. That is what the County is trying to push us towards and regulate towards having that bulb be the plane where the horizontal plane has to be at. Ms. Hopper stated that they were really talking about a zoning text amendment. Mr. Loewenstein stated that it was hard to see what the disadvantage would be for the applicant to use one that meets the County standards. He noted that he had not heard what the advantage would be for them to use this one Mr Edwards stated that as Ms. Doherty stated that this fixture just came to them just two days ago and it was brought to his attention. He stated that he wanted to get this decorative fixture idea approved and the fact that they could use this type of fixture with this kind of design to allow this to regulate the horizontal plane and not the bulb itself. Mr. Loewenstein stated that he had previously stated that this fixture accepts a different kind of bulb altogether, and Mr. Edwards stated that was correct. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they would not necessarily be configured in a way that this bulb would be anyhow which might or might not produce the advantage that he was talking about depending on what other type of bulb might be put in here. Mr. Morgan stated that was just a different light source. Mr. Rieley stated that if you had a high-pressure sodium or mercury vapor you might not have a filament in the same location. Mr Morgan stated that the manufacturer when they specify a lamp source would adjust the height of this so that the lamp center falls directly into the optical chamber to get the most optical percentage in here This part might not be the same for one lamp versus the other lamp Ms Hopper stated that it would be different with different bulbs. Mr Rieley pointed out that it might also leave more projecting below the horizontal plane or the filament or the part that is actually bright. Mr Morgan stated that this filament would not be below this plane no matter what type of bulb Mr. Thomas asked if the ordinance said bulb instead of filament. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—AUGUST 5, 2003 32 DRAFT MINUTES—SUBMITTED 9/2/03 • Mr. Kamptner stated that the ordinance defines the term lamp and it is defined as the component of luminaire that produces light. The lamp is also commonly referred to as a bulb. The ordinance does not break it down to the point that it is looking at the location of the filament itself. Mr. Morgan stated that this fixture was approved for the North Fork project for the University of Virginia. The fixtures should have been grandfathered, but they were installed after the ordinance was adopted. The University of Virginia came to us and asked us to get them to meet the ordinance, which he tried to do for eight months by using different types of reflectors and actually rebuilding the fixtures He stated that was the reason that they have done this. Mr Rieley asked what the uplight was on both of these fixtures. Mr. Morgan stated that the Antique fixture was 1 7 and the other one was about 2 0 Mr Rieley stated that this was educational, but seemed to be an issue that has pretty well resolved itself. He asked if the other Commissioners agree with that. Mr. Loewenstein asked what type of action would they need to take. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the action here would be that the applicant would default to use the fixture that complies with the ordinance Mr Rieley asked that the minutes reflect that this issue of the percentage of uplight as a criteria that might be something that we want to look at. But he did not think they should do it under the pressure of a specific proposal He noted that the great thing about the full cut-off was that it was easy to define and enforce, but they might want to have broader criteria. Ms. Hopper moved to recommend denial of SP-03-034, White Gables Final Site Plan, Decorative Lighting Waiver, to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion carried (4.0). (Edgerton, Finley, Craddock—Absent)