My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2021 07 20 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2021 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2021 07 20 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:15:47 PM
Creation date
8/25/2021 1:10:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
7/20/2021
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 20, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />General topics that need discussion include: the quantity, spacing and location/placement <br />of lighting and the design of lights themselves (light/color type, even light spread, <br />direction/shielding of light, dimmers/timers, etc). <br />The Comprehensive Plan currently recommends the examination of policies and <br />procedures to lessen light pollution impacts but the current design guidelines do not <br />require dark sky lighting in residential development or public infrastructure. <br />Common dark sky codes require some level of the following: full cut-off so that light does <br />not extend horizontally or upward from the light source; limits on the lumen output <br />(brightness); limits on color temperature (require a more yellow -spectrum light rather than <br />white light); requirements for even light spread; limits on the overall height of certain types <br />of light; and possible exemptions for holiday lighting, athletic fields, uplighting for flags or <br />architectural elements, or landscape lighting. <br />Ritchie stated staff would like direction on if Council wants to consider Dark Sky <br />regulations in residential zones, should it be for new construction or have an amortization <br />period to bring all properties in compliance; if there should be incentives rather than <br />requirements; if Downtown should or should not be included, and if and how commercial <br />properties should be regulated. <br />Public Comments <br />Josh Cooperman, 216 Griffith Street, stated his support for moving forward with these <br />regulations and to apply them to all types of buildings to keep light from escaping and <br />benefiting everyone. <br />Sherry Sommer, 910 South Palisade Court, stated she supports a shorter amortization <br />timeline to get lights changed out more quickly and she would like the ordinance to also <br />address lighting on buildings themselves. <br />Cindy Bedell, stated her support for dark sky lighting for better star gazing and to help <br />wildlife. She would like requirements that parking lot lights be dimmed at night. She would <br />like the City to have incentives to help residents pay for changing out lights. <br />General consensus of the Council was to direct staff to move forward with a draft <br />ordinance supporting dark skies. <br />Councilmember Dickinson stated he is more supportive of regulations for commercial <br />districts than for residential. <br />Councilmember Lipton stated he supports reasonable regulations for residential districts, <br />but the details in the ordinance will matter. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.