My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-09-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
11-09-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2015 2:38:29 PM
Creation date
12/1/2015 2:32:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
352
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 19, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 16 of 17 <br /> <br />McGrann asked if the City’s current light ordinance is sufficient to cover other properties. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance only talks about glare and heat and that he is not proposing any <br />level of shielding with this ordinance for non-lakeshore properties. Barnhart indicated that could be a <br />topic of discussion in the future if the Planning Commission would like to expand that. Barnhart <br />suggested the Planning Commissioners use the City’s light meter to gain some idea of what one foot <br />candle is. Barnhart stated he is trying to balance the annoyance factor with the nuisance factor. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if existing light fixtures would be grandfathered in. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated they would be unless they throw more than one foot candle at the property line. In that <br />situation they would be considered a nuisance and would need to be addressed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated at some point any light can be a disturbance, but if the foot candle is measured at the <br />property line, it seems reasonable and also fairly straight forward on mitigation. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the ordinance can always be changed, but that the Planning Commission may want to <br />explore it further on how it impacts the neighborhood. Barnhart stated it would be difficult for Staff to <br />enforce the lighting ordinance since Staff is not here in the summertime at night and the police would <br />need to be involved. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he does not know what the exact lumens should be but that he is comfortable with a <br />baseline. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission likes the language in the text, they can either test the lumens <br />or forward the ordinance to the City Council. Barnhart stated he would offer the Planning Commission <br />the opportunity to use the light meter to explore it at their convenience if they so desire. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated he would suggest moving the living wall component forward and having the Planning <br />Commission take a look at the lumens. <br /> <br />Lemke asked whether they could do that as a group.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.