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

Browse Search

31 • There are a total of sixty-four (64) parking lot lights on twenty-five (25) foot tall light poles each with a 250 watt High Pressure Sodium light fixture generating approximately 25,000 lumens per fixture. • There are a total of sixteen (16) court yard lights on twenty (20) foot tall light poles each with a 100 watt High Pressure Sodium light fixture generating approximately 9,500 lumens per fixture. • In total, there are approximately 1,752,000 lumens being generated on the sixty- five (65) acre property, which translates to approximately 26,953 lumens per acre. In reviewing this information, as well as other comments made during the October 7, 2009 meeting, staff would like to offer the following comments: 1. As previously indicated staff has determined that our current recommendation on establishing a lumen cap was based on erroneous data. As a result staff no longer recommends the adoption of the lumen cap limit as currently proposed. 2. Staff is not in favor of an amendment to the lighting standards requiring the issuance of a Special Use Permit in any situation where outdoor sports field lighting is erected on a parcel of property. 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 we need to re- assess those land uses that utilize such fixtures and determine if they ought to be reviewed under the Special Use Permit process. In this manner we are being consistent with the various existing standards of the Ordinance. 3. Board members made several excellent 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, 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 UDO process. 4. The Planning Board has the following options concerning the continued review of this item. There are as follows: a. Leave out the proposed modifications detailed within Section 6.31.6, relating to the establishment of a lumen cap, and take action on the remaining amendment package suggesting that further study is necessary to establish an acceptable lumen cap for non-residential development within the County. Staff is not longer comfortable with recommending approval of the lumen cap as contained within the proposed amendment for the reasons detailed herein. It should be noted that the `dark skies' initiative and the lighting industry are presently developing new compromises and standards that would be valuable in a