Coos County Watchdog


  • Home >>>
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Links
    • Whistle-Blower’s Page
  • Blog >>>
    • Info Blogs
  • Issues >>>
    • Johnson Creek Dam
    • Jury Nullification >
      • Jury Nullification on Facebook
    • More Choices in Bandon
    • NO Bandon Marsh Expansion >
      • Bandon Marsh Expansion on Facebook
    • Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance >
      • S.A.S.O on FB
    • State of Jefferson >
      • State of Jefferson on Facebook
    • The Coos County Charter
    • Urban Renewal Information

Bandon Planning Commision's PUBLIC HEARING ON Outdoor Lighting

9/9/2012

Comments

 
PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BANDON CITY HALL

THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2012
PRESENT: 
Vice-Chair Patricia Soltys Commissioners Sheryl Bremmer, Daniel Graham, Sheri McGrath, Alexis Proctor, Harvey Schubothe

STAFF: 
City Manager Matt Winkel, Deputy City Attorney Shala Kudlac, City Planner Charlice Davis, Minutes Clerk Blythe Tiffany

ABSENT: Chair Jason Tree

3.0 PUBLIC COMMENT

 None
4.0 PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED

4.1 Ordinance 1594 - Outdoor Lighting - Amending Zoning Regulations
 Commissioners had been provided with copies of proposed Ordinance 1594, along with a memo from Winkel, stating:
 
Preparation of the proposed Outdoor Lighting Regulations was initiated in 2010 by Nancy Noble Post who served as a volunteer intern in the Planning Department. She worked with the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), Dave Ledig of USF&W, Sheryl Bremmer, the Planning Commission, and several members of the community to promote the important concept of keeping the night sky free from intrusive light. In September, 2011, the CCI scheduled a Community Forum at the Barn/Community Center. The intent of the Forum was to engage the public in an informative discussion regarding the protection of wildlife and preservation of the night sky.
 
On March 22nd, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposed Outdoor Lighting Regulations. Based on public input, the Commission continued that hearing to the April 26th meeting,and appointed a subcommittee (City Manager Matt Winkel, Planning Commissioner Sheryl Bremmer, and Nancy Noble Post) to amend the proposed regulations and bring back for Commission review a draft of revised regulations. At that meeting, since there had not been sufficient time for the subcommittee to complete the final review and final document preparation, the Planning Commission continued the matter to this May 24th meeting.

The Commission had also been provided with copies of a letter from Liza Ehle of By-the-Sea-Gardens, commenting on aspects of the proposed ordinance.  Soltys opened the hearing, and Winkel reviewed the contents of his memo. Soltys then called Planning Commission Meeting 05/24/2012 Page 1 of 10 for public testimony.
 
Nancy Post, 1365 Strawberry Drive, referenced two items under the exceptions section (17.78.050): Item N - In her research, the term, “Low voltage” opens up a huge can of worms, as anyone who converted to low voltage could essentially do anything they wanted; it just means that it has been taken from 120 AC and made it 12 to 15 volts through a conversion (transformer). So, there needs to be a limit on the height–from 12-15 inches off the ground–or, have that sort of landscape lighting fall under the fully shielded requirements.
 
Item P - The light needs to be less than or equal to the lumens produced by a 40-watt incandescent bulb. There are basically three kinds of bulbs of concern:  Fluorescent, incandescent and LED (Halogen is simply a different version of incandescent). A  forty watt LED will produce massive quantities of light, so there needs to be a benchmark, which
might be a 40 watt incandescent bulb.
 
The discussion which followed touched on the nature of AC vs DC, whether some limitation of more than the 525 lumens is needed, whether there should even be an exception from the full cutoff requirements or if item N should be removed from the exceptions section, and possibly adding a height limitation of somewhere between 12 and 30 inches from the bulb to the ground. As a result of this discussion, it was agreed to leave out the words, “low voltage” and add a height limitation, so that Item N will state:
 
Landscape lighting powered at less than 15 volts and limited to luminaries having a rated initial luminaire lumen output of 525 lumens or less, and a bulb no higher than 24" above grade.
 
In discussing the phrase in item P which read, “...with each light limited to a maximum of a 40 watt incandescent bulb...,” it was agreed to change it to read, “...with each light limited to a maximum output equivalent to that of a 40 watt incandescent bulb...” With regard to the section entitled “Scope” (Section 17.78.020), 

McGrath inquired as to the meaning of the phrase, “any other lighting,” and Bremmer stated that the sub-committee had wanted to include all of the lighting “might-be’s.” Winkel added that its inclusion would appy to “basically anything”in exterior lighting.
 
McGrath inquired regarding the permit process, including enforcement, and Winkel replied that it would be complaint-driven, as are most of the City’s ordinances. 
 
In discussing the 30 days provision in item G of the exceptions, Proctor state that it was not enough, and noted that, under “Definitions” (Section 17.78.080),“Temporary Lighting” references a period of 60 days. Bremmer stated that the sub-committee’s discussion on this item has recognized that there appeared to be a range between six month–which the sub-committee felt was excessive–to two weeks–which the sub-committee felt was not enough. She had no issue with changing the limitation on item G to 60 days, and the other Commissioners expressed agreement.
 
This led to a discussion of the permit process, with McGrath suggesting that the ordinance needs to be more specific in this area, in order to be consistent with existing code provisions. In discussing the matter with staff, it was agreed that the wording in items E and J of the exceptions Planning Commission Meeting 05/24/2012 Page 2 of 10 section should be changed from “appropriate permit” to “a temporary structure permit.”
 
Graham inquired regarding the word “reverse” in item B under “Purpose” (Section 17.78.010), as to whether this word made the provisions retroactive. 

Bremmer replied that nothing in the ordinance was intended to be retroactive. 

Proctor stated that this was not clear in the first paragraph under “General Provisions” (Section 17.78.030), which stated:
 
The Planning Administrator and/or Planning Department shall have the authority to require new lighting and existing lighting pursuant to Section 17.78.020 hereinabove, to meet the general provisions, recommendations and guidelines, in addition to the requirements of this Ordinance.
 
As the result of discussion among Commissioners and staff, Kudlac proposed that the paragraph be changed to
read:
 
Pursuant to Section 17.78.020, the Planning Administrator and/or Planning Department shall have the authority to require lighting to meet the requirements of this Ordinance.
 
Commissioners agreed that this change should be made.
 
It was later agreed, in discussing the second paragraph under “General Provisions,” that the phrase, “...within five(5) minutes of activation has ceased, and...” should be changed to read, “...after five (5) minutes of activation, and...” 
McGrath questioned the time limit on item M under the Exceptions, and it was explained that this would prevent the lights from being on all night, and would allow for complaints to be lodged. It was agreed that, “by 11:00 p.m.” should be replaced by “within an hour of the end of the event.”
 
There was some discussion regarding enforcement (Section 17.78.070), and Winkel explained that penalties are provided for under another section of the City Code.
 
There followed some discussion of the definition of Holiday Lighting, which read:
Holiday Lighting: Festoon type lights, limited to small individual bulbs on a string, where the spacing of bulbs is not closer than three (3) inches and where the output per bulb is no greater than 15 lumens; also includes rope lighting.
 
The discussion ranged from whether the definition needs to be so specific, to whether holiday lighting should be defined at all. Winkel stated that the intent was to prevent people from doing “just anything.” As a result of discussion, it was agrred that the wording should be changed to:
 
Holiday Lighting: Festoon type lights, limited to small individual bulbs on a string, where the output per bulb is no greater than 15 lumens; also includes rope lighting.
 
Internally lit items shall be limited to the equivalent of a 40 watt incandescent bulb.
 
Winkel later added that Item G under the exception section should be changed to include the Planning Commission Meeting 05/24/2012 Page 3 of 10 words “and/or holiday” between the words “seasonal” and “lighting.” General agreement was expressed with this change.
 
Soltys noted that it appeared to her that the word “protect” had been omitted from the opening paragraph under Section 17.78.010 Purpose, in the phrase, “and the natural environment.”
 
It was agreed that the phrase should read, “and to protect the natural environment.”
 
Soltys closed the hearing, and called for a motion to pass the Ordinance on to the City Council.
 
McGrath asked whether the Commission wanted to see a draft first, and Winkel suggested that the motion be made, including all of the amendments made at this meeting; staff will then email a copy to all the Commissioners so they can review it and advise staff for any corrections. That way, it will not e necessary for the Planning Commission to have a special meeting prior to the June Council meeting.
 
Schubothe moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations regarding outdoor lighting–including all the changes made at this meeting. Graham seconded the motion, which was passed on a Roll Call vote, 6:0:1 absent (Tree).

Related Posts: 
VERY IMPORTANT: Bandon Citizen Committee Agenda‏ and the Bandon Marsh
UPDATE: The Committee to Keep the Lights ON in Bandon
Meeting to discuss the reasons to repeal Bandon City Lighting Ordinance 1594.
Sign  the Petition to Keep the Lights ON in Bandon---Vote NO on the Bandon Outdoor Lighting Ordinance  1594
STOP THE BANDON OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE--1594
Bandon: The City of Ordinances

Comments

    Categories

    All
    A.F.P.
    Agenda 21
    Bandon
    B.I.A.
    B.L.M.
    Coos Bay
    Coos County
    Coos County
    Coquille
    County Charter
    Curry County
    C.W.A.
    Democratic Party
    D.E.Q.
    Eco Devo
    Eco Devo
    Economic Development
    Educational
    Elections
    E.P.A.
    F.D.A.
    F.E.M.A.
    Individual Rights
    I Spy Radio
    Jury Nullification
    Legislation
    Letter To Editor
    Mary Geddry
    N.D.A.A.
    News Wave
    N.O.A.A.
    North Bend
    O&C Land
    O.D.F.W.
    O.D.O.T.
    O.F.F.
    O.H.A.
    O.P.R.D.
    O.R.C. Mining
    O.W.E.B.
    P.E.R.S.
    Petitions
    Port Of Coos Bay
    Public Comments
    Public Events
    Regulation
    Republican Party
    S.A.O.V.A.
    State Of Jefferson
    The Bandon Marsh
    The Economy
    The Rob Taylor Report
    The Supreme Court
    The Tea Party
    Urban Renewal
    U.S.A.C.E.
    U.S.D.A.
    U.S.F.S
    U.S.F.W.S.

    Sign-Up Now to Stay Informed

    * indicates required

    View previous campaigns.

    Send Letters to:
    ​cooscountywatchdog@gmail.com​

    Disclaimer: Letters to the Editor and other opinions published in The Coos County Watchdog blog are not necessarily the views of the Editor, Publisher, or possible anyone else in their right mind.  The Watchdog reserves the right to edit, omit, or copy any and all submissions. 
    Letters to the Editor must be attributed with a name, address, and contact phone number. 

    WARNING:
    Political correctness is not practiced on this
    page & some content is inappropriate

    RSS Feed


    Archives

    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from DieselDemon