TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
February 8, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chairman Jon Britt, Members Marilyn March and John Jenkins.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr., Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
Member Darnall was not present for the meeting.
There were no members of the public in attendance.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for February 8, 2006 at 6:35 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Planning Board that the PRK Conditional Use Permit was approved with a few minor changes at the Town Council Meeting.
She also noted that the Council tabled the discussion of the zoning text amendments so that will be brought to the Board at a later date.
Ms. Cotellessa briefly discussed some new legislation that was recently adopted on the state level. She indicated that the new legislation makes it mandatory for Planning Board to review and provide a recommendation on all zoning text amendments and rezoning actions. The Town of Duck ordinance already provides for this. Legislation now requires Planning Board to make a recommendation within 30 days of receiving a written zoning text amendment from the Town Council. She noted that there are several other small changes that may possibly require some changes to their By-Laws. There are some quorum changes with respect to Town Council decisions. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she would bring a report to the Planning Board at their next meeting, and she would also be providing this information to Council. They will need to make sure that their code is in line with the State regulations because if there is a conflict, the State rules preside.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Presentation and Q&A Session on Dark Sky Lighting (Bright Ideas Lighting, Tony Gomez)
Chairman Forlano introduced Tony Gomez and Chip Gillenwater of Bright Ideas Lighting.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she has had numerous calls regarding dark sky lighting and Mr. Gomez was kind enough to come to speak to the Planning Board regarding same. She noted that as of May 2006 all of the lighting in Town is supposed to be conforming to the lighting ordinance which was adopted when the Town became a town. The ordinance provided an amortization period in which to comply with the ordinance. Compliance to a large extent has not occurred. Staff is proposing a combination of education, resources and grant funding to promote compliance.
Tony Gomez thanked Ms. Cotellessa for inviting him to speak, and provided a brief introduction of his company and Mr. Gillenwater.
Mr. Gillenwater provided the Board with some background information on himself and his company, Dynamic Lighting, Inc. He provided the Board members with a pictorial guide handout and explained the different cutoff classifications; full cutoff, cutoff, semicutoff and non cutoff. He indicated that the dark sky organization’s intent when referencing the term shielded is to obliterate the source of the light. Mr. Gillenwater indicated that one of things they need to do is clarify whether the Town’s ordinance wants cutoff, semicutoff or non cutoff. He indicated that non cutoff has the highest lamp lumens, no shielding, no reflectors, no control. He stated that the colonial lanterns in the development at the Town office are considered non cutoff; light goes out in all patterns, up, out and down. Costs tend to increase as you restrict lighting; non cutoff lighting is the least expensive. The cost goes up because you are adding to the fixture, reflectors, shields, etc. Reflectors are the most efficient way to control lighting; they use less light and burn more efficiently. In order to accomplish the task that dark sky started, to keep the skies from being filled with light, you do not have a choice.
Mr. Gillenwater noted that if you go down to Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills and Kitty Hawk where the dark sky ordinance has been in effect much longer, you will see a lot more of the cutoff and full cutoff units in use, and the owners and developers are accepting it. He suggested that as planners, it is important for them to be mindful of the costs associated with dark sky lighting and how restrictive they want to be. He indicated the definitions in the Town ordinance are spelled out pretty clearly and are easy to interpret. He commented that the dark sky organizers fell short in their use of the term shielded because it allows for to much interpretation. The specific cutoff classifications detail what criteria a fixture must meet; it leaves no room for wiggling.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that the Planning Board will be charged with looking at various photometric analyses and lighting layouts on commercial sites. She asked Mr. Gomez and Mr. Gillenwater to explain what the Board could expect a designer to bring forward to them. She also asked them to briefly differentiate between the various types of lighting and their intensity. Lastly, she asked that they detail how dealing with Dominion Power affects the Town’s ability to achieve their goals.
Mr. Gillenwater spoke to the Dominion Power question first. He indicated that Dominion Power acknowledges no community code. They put up what they want to put up, and mostly what they install falls within a non cutoff classification. It’s cheaper and easier. You will have very restrictive choices from Dominion and the lighting will be strictly high pressure sodium. High pressure sodium provides a lamp with the longest light so its use is legitimate. The lumens it puts out are greater by 10-15%.. Mr. Gillenwater explained some of the differences between metal halide and high pressure sodium lighting.
There was some discussion as to light spillage and reflection from parking lot lights based upon height, pavement, fixture, light source, etc.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether the Town could take the initiative after May to eliminate all of the Dominion power light fixtures.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated the Town’s ordinance applies to private property; it does not apply to the right of way.
Mr. Gomez raised the question that if a light fixture is in the right of way or on an easement but influences private property, where is the line drawn.
There was much discussion about Dominion and their monopoly. It was suggested by Mr. Gillenwater that the tides are changing because you can sub-contract with other lighting companies allowing you to broaden your options and decrease your expenses without being held hostage to Dominion’s time schedule.
Ms. Cotellessa noted Mr. Gomez and Mr. Gillenwater were going to help the Town in designing the park lighting. It was also noted that Mr. Gillenwater was involved with the lighting design at the new Currituck County park. Mr. Gomez invited the Board to take a ride up to the park. The roadway and the parking area were designed entirely with cutoff lighting. The light poles are 25 feet tall and the lights were designed with high pressure sodium but the use of cutoff lighting eliminates spillage and provides for very directed lighting.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that one of her lighting concerns has to due with gas station lights that have descending lights that come down out of the canopy; they create glare and a heliport effect.
Mr. Gillenwater indicated that there are fixtures available that do not drop the lens down and that would address the cutoff element. Gas station lighting intensity was born out of safety; the lighting provides a security element, but the light spillage is not necessary. The cutoff fixtures available for gas stations are readily available and cost no more than what gas stations are already using.
Mr. Gomez indicated that business owners can save money in the long run by bringing their lighting into compliance. Non-compliant lighting with no cutoff is a waste of electricity, and the business owners need to be educated about the savings associated with dark sky lighting.
Chairman Forlano indicated that when the lighting ordinance was passed, many business owners indicated that changing their lighting would cost them a fortune. He questioned, if they already have lighting to a sign, how much would it cost to make that lighting compliant.
Mr. Gillenwater and Mr. Gomez showed the Board members some examples of fixtures that would be suitable for building and sign lighting. Mr. Gomez indicated up lighting a sign may require a 300 watt flood lamp whereas you can accomplish the same illumination with less than a 100 watt light is you use down lighting.
Chairman Forlano and Member March asked what they were looking at in terms of cost.
Mr. Gillenwater stated that based on a cost per foot basis, since signs are different sizes, you would be looking at generally less than $250.00 per fixture regardless of whether it was 1 foot or 4 foot long, generally.
Mr. Cotellessa also noted that operating costs will decrease with the energy efficiency.
Chairman Forlano asked if there is grant money available for lighting?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the Town does have a grant program wherein a business owner or a home owners association can apply for a grant to improve their property. She explained that funding is available for up $2500.00 for commercial sites and $1500.00 for home owner associations. The funding must be matched by the applicant. This budget has $25,000.00 allotted for commercial projects and $15,000.00 neighborhood projects this fiscal year. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that so far the Town has only had a few applications.
There was some further discussion and description of cutoff lighting and it was explained that you will likely need to purchase these types of fixtures from a lighting supplier because you won’t find them at Home Depot or Lowes. They will carry primarily flood lights or non cutoff lights because they are the most prolific and generic items. Mr. Gillenwater explained that this is where there is the communication gap with residential owners because they do not know this.
Chairman Forlano asked how costly an engineered lighting design is on commercial development sites.
Mr. Gillenwater suggested that it should not be costly if you have an engineer that is familiar with the code. He should be committed to providing the owner with a project that complies with Town code. It was noted that Mr. Gomez and Mr. Gillenwater would provide their services in these types of instances to the engineer.
Chairman Forlano asked whether it would cost money to obtain design suggestions from Mr. Gomez and Mr. Gillenwater. Mr. Gomez indicated that for existing small developments where photometric analysis is not necessary, he did not believe so.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that the Town does not require a site plan to go through the Planning Board and Town Council unless there are 10 or more site lights. Locations with less than 10 site lights, still need to be compliant with the code, but you do need to go through full photometric analysis.
Member March asked how businesses can change their lighting. Ms. Cotellessa indicated she would explain the ordinance and try to educate first and suggest they speak with a lighting design expert to assist them.
Mr. Gillenwater suggested that the requirements of the Town could be much more restrictive and require site plans to make lighting changes, but that is not the intent here.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the first area she is concerned with is the Village Commercial District, however she has had more complaints about residential lighting. It was noted that there are no residential lighting regulations except to the extent that they can enforce through the lighting ordinance. There was some discussion of the different types of residential lighting that is glaring and causes spillage across property lines.
Ms. Cotellessa informed the Board of a site meeting that she recently had with the owner of Prudential to discuss their lighting situation. She detailed some of their lighting and discussed some of their options, one of which was installation of lighted bollards along the sound side of the property. Mr. Gomez provided the Board members with some paperwork with samples of bollard fixtures.
Chairman Forlano asked how a designer monitors light trespass. Mr. Gillenwater indicated quantitative measurements. There was some discussion regarding light levels and the new Brew-thru in Kill Devil Hills was used as an example of good use of light levels on the property line to deal with light trespass. Mr. Gillenwater also suggested the use of landscaping elements to accomplish a screening effect, and he has a table with calculations to determine the size/height of landscaping necessary to obtain your desired effect.
Mr. Gillenwater raised concern with regard to the Town ordinance and the definition of fully shielded. He read the definition and questioned whether it should read “not opaque” rather than “opaque”.
Vice-Chair Britt suggested the use of cutoff classification to avoid any misinterpretation as to the intent of the definition.
Mr. Gillenwater also had a concern with the lighting allowances by foot candle. He cautioned against the use of minimum foot candles, and would recommend the use of average maintained instead. He further suggested if you wanted to keep the minimum, you might reduce it to .5 and add a column for maintained foot candle average. There was some explanation of the ideal ratio between minimum and maximum foot candles. There was also a brief discussion regarding the maintenance factor in lighting which is a combination of how a lamp depreciates in output over time coupled with what is called the dirt depreciation. These two depreciation values multiplied together will give you what is called the maintenance value.
Member March backtracked a bit to the discussion of the meaning of “opaque”. She indicated that opaque curtains are defined or characterized as to allow light in, but you cannot see through them.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this lighting ordinance was adopted when the Town adopted its zoning ordinance so as we learn more and go through the process, there may be some tweaking necessary.
Mr. Gomez commented that overall the Town’s lighting ordinance is very good.
Mr. Gillenwater noted again with regard to the foot candle allowances that under the walkway use both the minimum and maximum are the same, and he would imagine the maximum was intended to be a 5 versus a .5.
Chairman Forlano thanked both Mr. Gomez and Mr. Gillenwater for their time.
B. Approval of 2005 Planning Board Annual Report to the Town Council
Vice-Chair Britt thought the report was fantastic.
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to approve the Annual report. Member Jenkins seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Joint Work Session December 14, 2005
Member March made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Board Regular Meeting on January 11, 2006.
Vice-Chair Britt seconded the motion.
Minutes for the Planning Board Regular Meeting on January 11, 2006 were approved 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
Vice-Chair Britt asked if it was known what was going to happen with Swan Cove. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that her understanding from meeting with Cathy Herron was that Mr. Herron, Sr. was ready to get out of the businesses. At this point, there is nothing going on with the Conditional Use Permit for Swan Cove.
Member Jenkins asked if Swan Cove was a compliant property and Ms. Cotellessa indicated it was not. Ms. Cotellessa detailed some of the issues making Swan Cove non-compliant. There was some discussion about Herron’s Restaurant.
Member March indicated that she does not feel the Planning Board should set special meetings that are not either their regular meeting or work session meeting dates. She thinks they need to think about that in the future.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated he did not agree. He likes to have flexibility when they can help someone out.
Member Jenkins stated he was concerned because the ordinance was supposed to make things better in Duck, but when it comes to you as a challenge and a demand by right, he questions whether the redevelopment ordinance is working.
Chairman Forlano indicated his only problem with the ordinance is that he does not think it makes is that easy for nonconforming properties. It is supposed to bend the rules and he does not see that they are bending the rules all that much.
Vice-Chair Britt argued that this ordinance enables some completely nonconforming properties to be recreated. It’s a unique approach and a learning process each time because it is a give and take. They never grasped the give and take part.
There was further discussion on the lack of give and take that occurred with the last Condition Use. There was no desire from the applicants to change the architecture of their building from day one. This was not the iterative process that it was supposed to be.
There was brief discussion about the project that Duck Village Outfitters is expected to bring forward.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting.
The time was 8:27 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman