02/16/1993 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Hearing of 2/16/93 watts and amps which are power measurements. Mr. Nashar asked haw .many foot candles would be produced by a 100 watt bulb. Mr. Tallon said it depends where the light bulb is placed-the light diminishes the farther away you get from the source. Mr. McKay quoted the ordinance as saying, "....for parking and pedestrian areas, 6/10 of a foot candle" and asked what this meant. I~r. Tallon said it was dim lighting, used for basic security. to light a darkened. area. Mr. Tallon stated that he felt Council should °act on this ordinance. The ordinance is a model outdoor lighting ordince based an information from the Chicago Lighting Institute, the Dallazs Illumi.x~ating Company, anc3: the GE I~I,A Park facility. He feels this ordinance will protect city residents and at the same time allow businesses to exist. He feels it is a fair and equitable ordinance and highly recommends its passage. Adele Duffy, 5265 East Park, said she was very much in favor of the ordinance because she feels the city should be in sole control of lighting. Richard Margolius, 4809 Coi~bia Road, .was concerned about the enforcement section of the legislation that called for a fine of $500 and i~ri.sonsyent of 60 days for violations. He felt that, if a light bulb were to be burned out, he could be found in violation. Mr. Boehmer said he did not feel that could possibly be enforced because the light was installed by a utility car~any. Mr. McKay felt that there were requirements of notification, aa~d he doubted that any judge would impose a $500 fine for a burned out light fiulb. Mr. Nashar noted that the city inspectors do notify residents by letter of building violations, and residents are given a gxace period to ccxnply. Mr. Tallcm .said he had spoken to Law Director Gareau on the enforcement section acid had been. told that criminal intent mould have to be proven in order for that to beccxne a legal liability to the owner. Mr. Margolies the gv~estioned why.. the ordinance affected multi-family property since this wars residential and not ca~mercial. Mrs. Babas and Mrs. Saringer agreed that the reason had to do with security in the parking lots of apartment complexes. Mr. Margolies then cor~mmented on the ill~ination levels in the ordinance. He felt that weather conditions could. prevent an owner from meeting the standards as set forth in the legislation. He felt that eliminating the section regarding i11~ni.nation levels,. which is inside the property ar~d not the overlap onto other properties, would still allow the the city to meet the objectives of the legi.slati.an. He agrees with the testimony of CEI that the language is so vague that it is almost unworkable. Pat Graham, North Olmsted resident, General Manager of Great Northern Dodge and the president-elect of the Chamber of Ccxxnmmerce, spoke in opposition to the legislation. He felt the 10 foot height restriction on poles was too stringent and would result in extensive vandalism. He also felt the amount of light shed by 10 foot poles would be minimal, which w©uld require a lot more poles to light the same area. Mr. Graham also questioned the ill~ination section of the legislation. He said it is very .difficult to measure a foot candle, the amount of illumination deper~s on haw, where and when the measurement is made. He also feels the issue of glare is subjective. He feels there are a number of items in the law that are vague. For example, when it comes to enforcement, will it be across the board or on a cocsplaint basis? He would like to see Council defer the third reading on this legislation awl. form a task force so that all interested parties could work together on resolving this issue. 2