Agenda - 12-07-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 • Attachment Five (5) for the Planning Board abstract from the November 4, 2009 regular meeting where staff provided a detailed breakdown of various issues associated with this proposed amendment including a breakdown of existing lighting levels at non- residential developments within the County. In reviewing this information staff offers the following observations: 1. Staff's original recommendation was to establish an overall lighting cap on non-residential development within urban and rural areas of the County. In developing this cap, staff relied on permit data entered by various staff for approved non-residential projects. Prior to the November 4, 2009 Planning Board meeting, staff discovered that the data utilized to create this proposed limit was incorrectly recorded and, as a result, the assumptions on existing lighting levels was incorrect. Staff recommended to the Planning Board that the lumen cap as originally recommended for Section 6.31.6 (a) be removed. 2. At the Quarterly Public Hearing, a local resident requested that the Ordinance be amended to require the issuance of a Special Use Permit prior to allowing for the erection and use of outdoor sports field lighting. As staff indicated during the public hearing, the installation and use of such lighting fixtures is connected to a proposed land use. It is staff's opinion that, in order to be consistent with the various existing standards of the Ordinance, those land uses that utilize such fixtures need to be reassessed to determine if they ought to be reviewed under the Special Use Permit process. 3. Planning Board members made several recommendations to modify specific sections of the lighting Ordinance, specifically modifications to: a. Section 6.31.1 Purpose and Intent b. Section 6.31.2 Definitions c. Section 6.31.3 Applicability d. Section 6.31.4 Exceptions Given the limited and specific nature of the public hearing advertisement (See Attachment Two), the majority of these recommendations cannot be included within this amendment package. These suggestions will be further reviewed by staff and incorporated into the proposed modification of outdoor lighting regulations that will be part of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process. 4. Staff has included language clarifying the intent not to require single-family residential structures to submit detailed lighting plans. Further amendments will be necessary to eliminate all identified inconsistencies within the Ordinance relating to this topic. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board voted eight (8) to (1) to recommend the following: 1. The deletion of proposed regulations establishing a lighting lumen cap on non-residential development as originally recommended by staff at the Quarterly Public Hearing, 2. The adoption of the proposed amendments as recommended by staff, and 3. That staff continue to revise existing lighting regulations to address Board members comments as part of the UDO project.