Laserfiche WebLink
With the permission of the second, the motion was withdrawn. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to allow decorative lighting that did not cause glare. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson displayed a picture of an entrance way light fixture that would not be allowed <br />under the code even though it did not produce a harsh glare. She thought that the draft code <br />provision seemed unnecessary. She raised concern over prescribing certain kinds of lighting <br />instead of proscribing compliance with objectives and allowing designers to meet the objectives. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that there were many decorative lights that caused glare. He commented that <br />decorative lighting could be achieved in a variety of styles that did not cause glare and would be <br />allowed under the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the code did not prevent existing fixtures from continuing to function, but would <br />limit some architectural options. He said that he would not support such a broadly phrased <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that there was nothing to prevent good technology being put in old fixtures. He <br />added that he did not want light pollution just because someone called it decorative. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer suggested a more finely tuned document be created by staff for council approval. He <br />said, for example, changing the requirement of "full cut off" to simply "cut off" would allow a small <br />amount of ambient light but would prevent glare. <br /> <br /> With the permission of the second, the motion was withdrawn. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that her perception was that any light that was pointed up to illuminate a wall <br />or a statue was prohibited outright. She said that the regulations were too restrictive. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that Subsection 13 of the lighting standards in the draft code allowed the <br />Planning Director to have building facades, statues, and other objects illuminated in such a way <br />that light was directed downward. She said that it was a policy choice to what degree light <br />should be allowed to be directed upward when it was not addressing a safety issue. <br />Mr. Rayor suggested adding a subsection to the lighting standards that would allow exceptions <br />for historic landmarks. <br /> <br />In response to a comment from Ms. Nathanson regarding the possible upward illumination of <br />signs and statues, Mr. Farmer said that the shielding requirement mandated that signs be lit by <br />shielded lights that were oriented from the top downward. He noted that other kinds of displays <br />were only required to shield lighting so that light was not cast on to adjacent streets or properties. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted, for the record, that he had not spoken at all to the subject of lighting <br />standards. He recused himself from the balance of the particular discussion because of a <br />conflict of interest and called on Ms. Taylor to facilitate in his place. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted that there were lighting exceptions already existing for flags. He suggested <br />adding statues and historic buildings to that exception list. He stressed that granted exceptions <br />should add to the cultural resources of the City. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />