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
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
RSS Feed
