HomeMy WebLinkAboutA016 - citizen comments about proposed ordinance 05/25/1999 11: 26 515673379E MAPLE WOODS PAGE 61
Bob Women
From: Bob Wersen
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 10:58 AM
To: 'SChMItt@cIty.amesJa.us'
Cc: 'dmaahsgames.net'
Subject: Lighting ordinance
Eden:
As you requested, here is a written summary of my comments concerning the absence of any provision for nightscaping
in the revised draft lighting ordinance that the City Council will consider tonight.
We light the exterior of our buildings for two reasons: security and esthestics. The techniques we use differ depending on
the purpose_
For security lighting around loading docks and some personnel doors (usually those adjacent to loading docks as well as
emergency exits that are not otherwise used), we place economical (low wattage high pressure sodium or mercury vapor)
high output lighting above the areas being lighted and down-light. I understand that this type of lighting Is acceptable In
industrial parks under the proposed ordinance.
For nightscaping, we also use similar economical lighting however we place it at ground level and then wash particularly
attractive parts of the building exterior with light. In Oskaloosa, we used this technique on the front exterior of the building
to highlight three tiled surfaces, each of which were about 40 feet long by 20 feet high. Two lights were placed at ground
level to cover each of the surfaces. Each light has a 70 watt high pressure sodium bulb with an estimated light output of
6700 lumens (at I am not sure what distance). All of the lights are aimed at a point about seven feet above the ground so
there Is no light spill above the building. The result however is that at night the building Is one of the most attractive in
Oskaloosa. Furthermore,we have eliminated dark spots in the front of the building that makes the front entrance much
more inviting to approach and enter after dark.
Unnecessarily restrictive limitations (1800 lumens)on up-lighting around industrial and office buildings as well as with
landscaping (trees In particular)will needlessly inhibit designers efforts in creating buildings that will reflect well on the
community both in the daylight and at night.
Thank you for presenting these thoughts to the Council tonight.
Best regards,
Bob Wersen, President
Panel Components Corporation
Clare Bills
From: Joan C Breiter<jbreiter@iastate.edu> w �
To: billsc@city.ames.ia.us ! :,
Subject: Ames Outdoor lighting code
Date: Sunday, May 23, 1999 9:15 AM
petition the city council to pass the above code. To avoid wasted
lighting and give the city a wonderful night sky.
This is not in conflict with Merchants who can still aim their lighting so
as to assure identification.
Thank you
J. Wesley Sticken 1328 Curtiss Ave
Page 1
Why We Should Consider Maximum Lighting Levels
The Ames Chamber of Commerce would be willing to support the proposed Outdoor Lighting Code if
requirements calling for maximum light levels were to be dropped from the ordinance. They felt that other
provisions of the Code would be sufficient to deal with potential problems created by what some consider to be
excessive light levels. They thought that the requirements for full-cutoff fixtures and glare control would be
enough by themselves to keep bright lighting from being a problem. I feel the Chamber's willingness to support
these parts of the Code is definitely commendable.
I also feel, however, that there are good reasons to consider including maximum light levels in the proposed
ordinance. I suggest considering maximum light levels for the following reasons:
1. Maximum levels should be set now to avoid potential problems later. Current light levels may still be
low enough so that glare control and full-cutoff fixtures will fully address the problems that glare and spill
light create. However, if light levels continue to escalate, eventually even full-cutoff fixtures may create
excessive levels of light on neighboring properties and excessive contrast between brighter and less bright
areas. I think it would be a more effective use of the City's time to address the light level issue now. Doing
so now would preclude the need for the City to form another task force in the future in order to amend the
lighting ordinance. It might also alleviate concerns among some businesspeople that more regulations might
be looming several years down the road.
2. Setting maximum levels will decrease the average amount of contrast between adjacent businesses. A
high degree of contrast in light levels between adjacent businesses is a major factor driving light ratcheting.
If one business decides to install brighter lighting, this can cause neighboring areas to look too dim. The
greater the difference between the adjacent properties, the greater the potential for this problem to develop.
If light levels were kept within a certain range throughout the city, this would enhance the potential to
maintain more uniform light levels. An analogy to this situation would be the problem of setting highway
speed limits. One could say that keeping highway speed limits at 65 mph better promotes uniform flow of
traffic than a speed limit of 80 mph. The range of speeds at which people drive will be narrower with the
65-mph limit than with the 80-mph limit.
It is true that different lighting applications have different light level requirements. Nevertheless, one could
say that a convenience store canopy that is only five times as bright as an adjacent parking lot would create
less visibility-reducing contrast than one that is twelve times as bright.
3. Maximum light levels will stop the problem of light ratcheting once and for all. With maximum light
levels in effect, light ratcheting can only go so far. Any remaining problems caused by high contrast
between adjacent properties will then need to be resolved in more creative ways. Adjacent businesses could
consider working together to ensure that each other's lighting promotes the best possible visibility for them
all, rather than simply fall into the pattern of installing bigger, brighter lights every several years.
4. The question of optimal light levels therefore needs to be addressed on a scale that is somewhat
greater than the area of individual business properties. Dealing with light levels in a neighborhood is
probably better done on a scale of several adjoining blocks or of the entire neighborhood, rather than merely
of that of individual properties. Self-regulation by such agencies as the Chamber of Commerce might be
possible if their members would be willing to learn about and apply some principles of lighting design when
they install and maintain their outdoor lighting. But then again, the problem has been driven partly by out-
of-town chain businesses that follow a"one-size-fits-all"policy with regard to their outdoor lighting. To
deal with whatever situations that might arise, I therefore think that a more effective way to deal with light
levels on a wider scale would be to regulate light levels with a specific section in the lighting ordinance.
—Royce Bitzer, Outdoor Lighting Task Force Member