Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 11, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 21 of 32 <br /> <br />14. #16-3814 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF PETER AND MELISSA <br />SANTRACH, 1700 BOHN’S POINT ROAD – VARIANCES (continued) <br /> <br />Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, Application No. 16-3814, Alexander Design Group on behalf of <br />Peter and Melissa Santrach, 1700 Bohn’s Point Road, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution <br />granting an average setback variance and hardcover variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br /> (Recess taken from 9:24 p.m. to 9:28 p.m.) <br /> <br />15. #15-3784 TEXT AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO LIGHTING REGULATIONS, <br />NUISANCES <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the proposed text amendment consists of two separate ordinances. The first amendment <br />establishes guidance and regulation for property owners throughout the City, with the goals of preserving <br />a dark sky characteristic by minimizing light and glare onto adjacent parcels. The second text <br />amendment establishes lighting that is measurable over 1.0 foot candle to be considered a nuisance. <br />The Planning Commission and Staff have developed a comprehensive zoning code amendment that <br />would establish standards for every lot in the City and a new ordinance that codifies changes to the <br />nuisance standard. <br /> <br />Any changes to Chapter 78 would grandfather existing fixtures that do not meet the requirements. These <br />fixtures would be allowed to remain in perpetuity until they are removed or otherwise abandoned for six <br />months or more. Barnhart stated Chapter 70 is critical in addressing ongoing issues with nuisance light. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission has reviewed the ordinance and has recommended approval. The Planning <br />Commission further directed Staff to inspect the lights at 375 North Shore Drive. Staff inspected the <br />property on April 6. Staff observed that the light sources were visible, with the closest light being 40 feet <br />away from the property line, but the highest light levels as measured at the property line were 0.1 foot- <br />candle. Based on the draft nuisance ordinance, those lights would not be considered a nuisance. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated while a visible light source can be annoying, enforceable nuisances should be measurable, <br />and in that particular situation, adjusting the light angle would benefit the adjacent property owner. <br />Barnhart noted light drops off very quickly from its source and most lights would not be considered a <br />nuisance. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated the comprehensive lighting ordinance is based upon a model ordinance obtained from <br />a city in Illinois. In Staff’s view it seemed to be the most comprehensive without being too restrictive. <br />Barnhart noted lighting is also very personal to property owners and helps with concerns relating to safety <br />and security. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated Staff is looking for feedback from the City Council. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the lack of shielding is the crux of the problem. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the majority of the complaints relate to the fact that they can see the light source. <br /> <br />McMillan stated if the house is located up on a hill, the shielding will probably still not be adequate.