Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#15-3784 <br /> 19 October 2015 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> bedrooms, etc. <br /> Solution: The most common, non-regulatory solution is for the property owner to willingly adjust <br /> or shield lights so that does not impact a neighbor. For situations where that does not occur,the <br /> proposed regulatory solution establishes measurable (1.0 fc) lighting at the property line as a <br /> nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the code, including citations and <br /> mitigation. The proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding "Glare or Heat" to a <br /> more specific "Lighting", and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting. <br /> The ordinance also requires light fixtures in the lake yard to be fully shielded, which is a new <br /> defined term. A full moon on a cloudless night is approximately .03 foot candles, based on <br /> internet studies,though that measure can vary based on several factors, including elevation. The <br /> standard for variance (1.0 fc) is purposely higher than the design standard for new fixtures. We <br /> recognize that existing lights provide light higher than 0.4 foot candles at the property line, but <br /> those lights would be allowed to remain as a permitted non-conforming improvement. <br /> Staff performed a real world test from a single light source in a residential neighborhood on a <br /> clear night with a crescent moon 2% illuminated. Results are tabled below. Topography, <br /> vegetation and competing light sources prevented full measurements. <br /> 60w clear <br /> bulb, <br /> Distance clear 60w frosted 150w flood Excel energy <br /> from source enclosure enclosure light street light <br /> @5 feet 0.34 <br /> @10 feet 1.73 0.9 12.5 0.46 <br /> @15 feet 0.4 0.34 <br /> @20 feet 0.22 <br /> @25 feet 0.22 3.3 <br /> @30 feet 0.12 0.13 <br /> @50 feet 0.07 0.06 <br /> All measurements are taken in footcandles <br /> Previous versions of the ordinance included a time limit. Upon further analysis,the time limit was <br /> removed, due to behavior modifications (a neighbor could simply turn off the light once every 2 <br /> hours or 2 minutes) and the expense of an officer or staff staying on the site for an extended <br /> period of time to verify that the light(s) never turned off. <br /> Options considered: Early drafts of the ordinance proposed regulating lighting in the zoning <br /> ordinance only, but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring properties <br /> would be considered legal non-conforming,and allowed to continue in perpetuity. The city should <br /> be cautious about over regulating lights, recognizing that lights are very important features,often <br /> directly linked to safety and security. <br /> Enforcement: The enforcement of this code may be challenging,and will likely require equipment <br /> not currently owned by the city. Due to the nature of the potential violation, enforcement will <br /> most likely be completed by Police officers. <br />