DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MOTIONS
SPECIAL MEETING – MONDAY, March 14, 2005
SIMSBURY TOWN OFFICES - 5:30 P.M –
BOARD OF EDUCATION CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, called the Meeting of the Design and Review Board to order at 5: 30 PM in the Board Of Education Conference Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Linda Kennedy, Anthony Drapelick, Mark Naccarato, Kevin Gray, John Carroll, John Stewart, Charles Stephenson, Richard Schoenhardt.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
John Carroll was appointed to serve for Bill Gardner.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of David Holden, Business Manager-Simsbury Public Schools, Simsbury Board of Education-Owner, Barry Blades, Blades and Goven Landscape Architects, Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment for track and field renovations at Simsbury High School, 34 Farms Village Road. (Continued from 2/22/05 meeting)
Mr. Barry Blades, Blades and Goven Landscape Architects, Mr. Don Rearda, Musco Lighting Company, Mr. David Holden, Business Manager-Simsbury Public Schools, Dr. Diane Ullman, Superintendent of Schools, and other interested parties were present.
Mr. Blades reintroduced the site plan with the lighting configurations to the board. He reiterated that there will be four 70-foot high poles Two of the structures will have thirteen (13) fixtures and the other two will have (15) fifteen fixtures. Since the last meeting there has been a change to the foot-candle lighting system. It is felt that the 30-foot candle system is sufficient, instead of fifty feet. Also, three light fixtures at forty-five feet high will be used for recreational lighting, not to be used during sporting events. In terms of controlling spill and glare, they are requiring that the system not have more than a half a foot-candle at a distance measured 150 feet from the perimeter of the track.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if any other lighting is proposed. Mr. Blades said that there will be lights for emergency lighting, which will be placed on the poles. He said that as part of the approved lighting for the high school project there are 3 existing poles along the edge of the parking lot which will be remain, but be relocated, and some smaller poles in the parking lot.
Mr. Don Rearda of Musco Lighting, spoke to the board. Mr. Rearda, stating that Musco Lighting specializes only in sports lighting explained the light process to the board. The lighting technology used is a level eight (8) spill and glare control. He showed the board and explained the photometric projection diagrams of lights and the spillage around the facility and neighborhood. Mr. Rearda stated that the plan is the worst-case scenario, and as the technology improves the plan can improve.
Chairman Dahlquist asked Mr. Rearda to describe full cut-off fixtures. Mr. Rearda explained that the term full cut off means that no light that is emanated above horizontal. A full cut-off fixture shines directly down. He stated that a full cut off is not a solution for this project.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that he searched Musco’s website and found a fixture classified as “Light Structure Green” manufactured by Musco, and asked Mr. Rearda to explain this type of fixture. Mr. Rearda said that this fixture is a combination of all of the current technologies. The fixture collects even more of the light produced and directs it even tighter to the field. With the new technology they can reduce the fixture count by 30-40% from what it is now. He showed pictures of the fixture and explained how the fixture came to be designed, adding that it is used in the dark sky program.
Chairman Dahlquist noted that foot-candle levels, and spill and glare are main issues in discussing sports lighting. He asked Mr. Rearda to compare the current fixtures versus the Light Structure Green fixture. Mr. Rearda compared the designs and differences of each.
Chairman Dahlquist asked whether neighboring properties will not see any luminaire. Mr. Rearda said no. He explained that with any light fixture there will always be glare depending on where one is standing whether the design is level eight or green.
Mr. Stewart stated it was said that the “green fixture” fulfilled the requirement for the dark skies program. Mr. Rearda acknowledged this. Mr. Stewart acknowledged that Musco Lighting is one of the best. He added that Simsbury is not currently a part of dark skies program, but will most likely be in the future, and by using these fixtures, Simsbury will be a step ahead.
Mr. Stewart asked about elevation differentials. It was concluded that the lower buildings and those to the west will most likely not see the lights. It was also revealed that the “haze in the distance” normally seen with older lighting designs is non-existent with this new type of lighting.
There was a discussion about the lights at Memorial field and other fields in the valley. Mr. Rearda said that the reason the spill and glare feature was not put in at Memorial Field was because of the cost. He said that if one wants to view the extremes in lighting, one should go to Farmington, etc.
Mr. Stewart asked about the cost of the lighting. Mr. Rearda explained that they will not have a premium. It will be the same cost as the first proposed design.
Chairman Dahlquist asked about the re-lamping process. Mr. Rearda explained that the product carries a ten year parts and labor guarantee and the lamp carries a 5,000 hour parts and labor guarantee. He noted that as long as the lamp is burning the light levels are also guaranteed for 5,000 hours. If there are any failures Musco will fix and/or replace the problem. Mr. Rearda explained the replacing process, stating that a truck with a pole would be used to replace the lamp and that Musco would be responsible for servicing it.
Chairman Dahlquist asked how many times a year the lights would be used. Mr. Holden answered that the lights would be used at most for 5 night football games a year, 3-4 soccer games a year, and in the spring a couple lacrosse games played. He stated that they have made a commitment not to have the lights on after 9:30 pm. He informed the board that from 9:30-10pm low-level lighting will used in order to clean up field and to give people the time to vacate the field.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if any weeklong tournaments will be scheduled. Mr. Holden responded, “not initially.” He added that they have made a commitment during the first year with the neighbors to see how and if the changes negatively impact the neighbors. They are not intending for the field to be in constant use. He added that there is the potential for the field to be rented out but on a limited basis and only after a thorough review.
Mr. Drapelick asked if the three furthest properties from the field will see the field. It was explained that given the elevation they will not see it. Their eye level is above the level of the top fixture, and there are many trees acting as buffers.
Mr. Stephenson asked why specifically designated lower level public use lights are up at the high elevation. Mr. Rearda explained that it was purely by choice. His preference is for them to be up above, but others, rationalizing that the fixtures will be less visible, prefer them to be lower. It was noted that based on the presentation, if the lights were at the higher level they would be less visible.
Mr. Stephenson asked, based on the presentation, if games such as lacrosse and field hockey, which use a smaller ball and have faster movement, would be better with a 50-foot candle instead of a 30-foot candle system. Mr. Rearda said that field hockey is fine being played under a 30-foot candle, and that national recommendations allow lacrosse at a class four high school to be played under 30-foot candles. But, he explained he recommended the committee use a 50-foot candle system, which is also used for little league per their rules and regulations, based on the fact that teenagers are physically getting bigger and that lacrosse is also an aerial sport.
Mr. Blades said the committee feels a 30-foot candle system is sufficient. This is due to the fact that the Design Review board has concerns about the lighting, and based on the suggestion of the Athletic Director, a competitive lacrosse player, who feels that a 30-foot candle system is adequate for competitive lacrosse.
Mr. Stewart asked if the mid-level lights (task lighting) were to be switched over to “Light Structure Green” lights and elevated to the top how many of them would be needed per pole. Mr. Rearda answered that 3 lights per pole would be needed because of the spacing. Mr. Stewart stated that if the green fixtures were to be used it eliminates the whole middle proliferation of fixtures.
Mr. Stewart asked what color the poles would be. Mr. Rearda said they would be galvanized silver with a dull matted finish.
Mr. Naccarato asked why the green fixtures were not the first choice, and why they are not being used. Mr. Rearda explained that when planning for the project came about, the green fixture was not an option, it had not been designed yet. It only became an option mid January 2005.
Mr. Blades stated that while Musco is presenting, they have to open the bidding up to other competitors. He stated that it is not a certain that Musco will be doing the lighting for the project.
Mr. Stephenson asked that if the performance specifications were written to specifically match the performance capabilities of the “green” fixture, would the bidding be closed out because Musco Lighting is the only one who is able to provide this technology. Mr. Blades stated yes, they want to implement this new technology, but do not want to restrict other bidders chances, potentially causing problems.
Chairman Dahlquist said that there should be some assurance that if Musco Lighting is not awarded the contract, the performance would be identical to the presentation at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Blades stated yes, they want to write the specifications as tightly as possible and reiterated that they want to give other lighting companies to have an opportunity to bid for the contract as well.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked how tall the poles at the little league fields are. Mr. Rearda stated they are the standard 60 feet, and that the high school poles will be 70 feet.
Chairman Dahlquist asked whether another consideration was given to the exiting of people from the field directly into the parking area. Mr. Blades said that the main discharge gates are on either side of the bleachers. Mr. Holden said that they will have pedestrian areas, and also will have staff for crowd control. He explained that the visitor side bleachers will be empty before the people sitting in the home bleachers have even begun walking towards the exit. He added that it will be an improvement with the new walkways and the new night lighting system.
Mr. Stewart said that there is only one exit and all of the traffic flow is going away from the pedestrians. He said that the inclusion of the pedestrian isles was a good idea and was happy to see that his idea of adding the handicapped parking was included in the plan.
There was a discussion about the access to the field and pedestrian walkways to and from the field. Mr. Stewart stated that even with walkways in place, our tendency is to take the straightest line to our destination, which means that people will walk in between the cars and in the parking lot, not on the walkways themselves.
Mr. Holden said that with the east parking lot being at the other side of the school. About 30% of the people will get to their cars on that side by going around the tennis courts and behind the soccer fields.
Mr. Carroll asked who will be making sure that the project is done according to the specifications. Mr. Rearda said that Musco does on-site testing, and will make sure that it will perform properly, and that it is guaranteed per an insurance policy. The specifications will state that this is part of the requirement of the supplier.
Mr. Blades said that the only difference between the plan that was presented and the one in the design review board’s set is that the four lights have been put on, and that the handicapped parking is part of the high school project plan.
Mr. Gray asked that the photometrics be part of the record. Mr. Blades said that could be done.
There was a discussion about what to include in the motion. No one disagreed with having fewer lights and having the lights higher on the poles. The preference is also for the “light structure green” fixture.
Motion
Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the application with conditions. The lighting is to be similar to the fixture classified as “Light Structure Green” manufactured by Musco Lighting, presented to the board by Mr. Don Rearda of Musco Lighting. The mid-level task lighting is to be moved to the upper location of the poles in order to clean up the poles’ look. In addition, the specification for the lighting is to be written as a performance specification, specifically indicating that the lighting levels are to be checked to meet all requirements for foot candles, as presented on the drawing to be given to the town as part of the package by Mr. Blades. It is understood that there will be no additional signage, no additional landscaping anticipated, and with the exception of the visiting
side bleachers, no changes to the structures.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Gray, and carried unanimously.
Chairman Dahlquist made a design note.
The board members unanimously concur that they are pleased with the way the applicant dealt with the potentially contentious situation regarding the problem of light spillage and glare from the site. The applicant went to great lengths to mitigate the potential problem and the board is pleased by the decisions made by the Board of Education in their selection.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Carroll motioned adjourn the meeting at 6:50pm.
Mr. Stewart seconded with all in favor.
| 
