TMAPC and the Zoning Code Update

[patric]

But the Planning Commission really likes the Sign Advisory Board!  (Bunch of sign industry people.)  They sure listen to their recommendations!

Did you catch the big blanket exemption the sign folks gave themselves?

It reads: "Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, signs that cannot be electronically adjusted to bring dynamic display elements into compliance shall be considered legal non-conforming signs."  60.100-J



Then there's this:


(page 19) " Parking lot lighting and building lighting is not required; however, when it is provided the Kennebunkport formula standards in the curren Zoning Code have been eliminated and replaced with a simpler standard to design and enforce. "

The Kennebiunkport Formula was as simple as it gets.  You draw an imaginary 70-degree slope at each shielded light; then you adjust the height and/or setback of the light fixture until the slope doesnt intrude on the neighbors.


At one point I saw a handout of what someone was calling the "Kennebunkport Formula" that was a load of trig, but the real formula is just this:

H = 3 + (D/3)  where H = height of fixture and D = distance in feet to fixture from a property line.    Thats it.

Instead, this is what some (like the county BOA) are claiming the formula is:
http://www.countyoftulsa-boa.org/Documents/applications/Standard%20Elements%20PUD%20and%20CO%20DSP.pdf

This is what the Kennebunkport Formula actually is:
http://ecode360.com/attachment/RI0508/RI0508-108g%20Outdoor%20Lighting%20Table%202.pdf

[PonderInc]

Hey Patric -

I think there was an accidental omission in the Public Hearing Draft in the lighting section, and I think it will be included with the list of "typos" that staff is supposed to correct before the City Council hearing.  If this gets fixed, it seems like an improvement to the lighting code.

In the "work session" draft (this draft was adjusted after public input), the lighting code said:

65.090-B
2. Shielding
Light sources must be concealed or shielded with cutoffs so that no light that is emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle 90 degrees or more above nadir and no more than 10% of the light emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle at or above 80 degrees above nadir.

In the "Public Hearing" draft (this was the most recent draft considered by the TMAPC), the language reverted to:
65.090-B
2. Shielding
Light sources must be concealed or shielded with cutoffs so that no more than 2.5% of the light emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle of more than 90 degrees above nadir and no more than 10% of the light emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle of more than 80 degrees above nadir.

[patric]

In the "work session" draft (this draft was adjusted after public input), the lighting code said:

65.090-B
2. Shielding
Light sources must be concealed or shielded with cutoffs so that no light that is emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle 90 degrees or more above nadir and no more than 10% of the light emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle at or above 80 degrees above nadir.

In the "Public Hearing" draft (this was the most recent draft considered by the TMAPC), the language reverted to:
65.090-B
2. Shielding
Light sources must be concealed or shielded with cutoffs so that no more than 2.5% of the light emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle of more than 90 degrees above nadir and no more than 10% of the light emitted directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture is projected at an angle of more than 80 degrees above nadir.

That changes it from Full Cutoff to Cutoff (as defined by the IESNA), which permits more glare (but would be better than no regulation at all).

[PonderInc]

Thanks for the terrific graphics! 

Like I said, I believe the intent was to include the "full cutoff" language, and I believe it will be added back in before the City Council hearing.

Fingers crossed.  Of course, this doesn't impact the stupid acorn lights that blight our city, but it would make a big difference to all the people who live, walk and drive past commercial developments in town.

[Townsend]

Thanks for the terrific graphics! 

Like I said, I believe the intent was to include the "full cutoff" language, and I believe it will be added back in before the City Council hearing.

Fingers crossed.  Of course, this doesn't impact the stupid acorn lights that blight our city, but it would make a big difference to all the people who live, walk and drive past commercial developments in town.

We could put these on all the acorn lights.

[PonderInc]

I love it! Start knitting!

[patric]

Thanks for the terrific graphics! 

Like I said, I believe the intent was to include the "full cutoff" language, and I believe it will be added back in before the City Council hearing.

Fingers crossed.  Of course, this doesn't impact the stupid acorn lights that blight our city, but it would make a big difference to all the people who live, walk and drive past commercial developments in town.

Back when Vision 2025 was for infrastructure (and not slush funds for departments that cant stay within budgets) we spent a lot of money on those "Acorn" lights because they gave the city a nice old-timey look in the daytime, but at night, they became glare bombs because turn-of-the century optics were never meant to be pumping out as much light as they do today.

The "save" would be to refit them with light sources more to scale with their original design, bring back the warm, inviting incandescent look at much lower intensity, and still have streets safely illuminated with the addition of fully-shielded fixtures that dont put all their power in your face.

We can do it... the technology is finally on our side.  The only barriers now are political.

[Bamboo World]

Back when Vision 2025 was for infrastructure (and not slush funds for departments that can't stay within budgets), we spent a lot of money on those "Acorn" lights because they gave the city a nice old-timey look in the daytime...

...such as can be seen near the corners of Fourth & Boulder in this nice old-timey, day-timey photograph:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

[patric]

...such as can be seen near the corners of Fourth & Boulder in this nice old-timey, day-timey photograph:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

Thats the dayform planners want, but I think they often overlook that streetlighting in that era was incandescent (warm white, not cold blue) and not nearly as bright. 
You can have your (acorn) cake and eat it too by relegating decorative fixtures to decorative intensities, while supplemental shielded fixtures illuminate the streets.  If done properly, you should be able to look directly at an acorn light at night without it smarting or wiping out your vision.

[Bamboo World]

That's the dayform planners want, but I think they often overlook that streetlighting in that era was incandescent (warm white, not cold blue) and not nearly as bright.  

I think those planners overlook other factors, too -- such as the spacing of the fixtures.

To me, it appears as though the fixtures on the east side of Boulder were about 80 to 100 feet apart:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

I'm guesstimating the spacing based on the corners of the buildings which World Publishing and the Lortons chose to destroy.

On the west side of Boulder, I think the fixtures were about 100 feet apart, and it seems that they were at least partially shielded covered, with small caps on their tops:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

From the June 2014 Google Maps street view, I'm estimating that the new acorn lights are spaced along Fourth Street about 65 to 70 feet apart, instead of 100 feet.  And, it seems as though the old-timey poles were taller than the current-timey poles are.  But with fewer buildings now, it's difficult to know for sure.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1520221,-95.9917416,3a,75y,285.49h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swz_PyC1PRYwnEMQ01MeXMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Buried somewhere in my files, I have a Holophane brochure from the 1920s or '30s 1918, and I think it includes photometric charts for various fixtures and lamps.  But as I recall, even in those days, Holophane recommended lenses that pointed down toward the pole, or double-lens fixtures mounted on short arms projecting from the pole, facing downward instead of toward the sky.  I really don't comprehend why, decades later, with all of the advances in technology, the City of Tulsa is choosing to revert to such inefficient fixtures.  

The day-timey, old-timey ambience is okay, I suppose.  I understand what you're saying...but when I see those glaring fixtures around 4th & Boulder, or in the M.B. Blue Dome District, I see a waste of tax dollars.  If the planners simply want an old-timey appearance that harkens back to Tulsa's days of codified racial segregation, oil booms, street cars, et cetera, then they could propose a few "acorn" light fixtures (with no power connections to them at all or with much less intense light sources, as you suggested).  

But how many "acorn" lights does Tulsa really need?  My answer:  zero.  If we must have some, to keep up with Jenks, Joplin, or wherever, we certainly don't need the poles crammed together at 70-foot intervals along block after block.  I'd like to see residential on the upper floors of buildings downtown, and I'd think that most downtown residents and hotel guests would not want an "acorn" light anywhere near their windows at night.  I wouldn't.

In my opinion, the City should not install any more "acorn" lights.  I've seen one in my neighborhood, near 17th & Cheyenne, recently installed.  I have no idea why it's there!

You can have your (acorn) cake and eat it too by relegating decorative fixtures to decorative intensities, while supplemental shielded fixtures illuminate the streets.  If done properly, you should be able to look directly at an acorn light at night without it smarting or wiping out your vision.

Your idea of re-fitting the fixtures we have with low intensity lamps would work.  But please, whenever an Owasso cheerleader crashes into one (or into many, Lord willing) is damaged, let's not waste money on any repairs or replacements -- let's just remove it (or them, Lord willing).  

And, thanks, but I think I'll pass on having and eating any more (acorn) cake.  I'll be more than happy to never have that recipe again.



I wish rain would have the devastating effect on Tulsa's acorn lights as I imagine it would have on acorn cake.  But, alas, that's merely wishful thinking and a fleeting fantasy.

Because when someone leaves an acorn light out in the rain, it endures.  Actually, the increased humidity enhances the patina and colorization of the pole, producing even more old-timey ambience.

I don't think I can take it.  Oh, no!

[patric]

On the west side of Boulder, I think the fixtures were about 100 feet apart, and it seems that they were at least partially shielded, with small caps on their tops

For the sake of clarity, "shielded," when referring to light distribution, means you cant see the source from a reasonable distance (usually about three times the mounting height or more).  In simpler terms, the glare is eliminated by "cutting off" illumination that would be traveling along the horizon.
So an acorn light with a solid cap on top wouldnt be considered "shielded" if the glass was frosted or refractive, because the light is still being scattered about at angles useless to human vision.

To do what you envision, the acorn would have to be clear glass, with a solid top, AND the light source tucked underneath that cap to shield it from view.

It might look like the acorn on the right:


or something like this:



...but shielded lighting comes in many forms




and of course the newer lights along the Riverparks jogging trail.

From the June 2014 Google Maps street view, I'm estimating that the new acorn lights are spaced along Fourth Street about 65 to 70 feet apart, instead of 100 feet.  And, it seems as though the old-timey poles were taller than the current-timey poles are.  But with fewer buildings now, it's difficult to know for sure.

You hit it on the nose:  They had to install more because what they chose wasnt very efficient.

Your idea of re-fitting the fixtures we have with low intensity lamps would work.  But please, whenever an Owasso cheerleader crashes into one (or into many, Lord willing), let's not waste money on any repairs or replacements -- let's just remove it (or them, Lord willing).  

If you can avoid hitting an acorn streetlight, do so... the globe is larger and heavier than it looks and its lethal when it comes thru your windshield.

[Bamboo World]

Thank you for your comments and clarifications.

For the sake of clarity, "shielded," when referring to light distribution, means you can't see the source from a reasonable distance (usually about three times the mounting height or more).  In simpler terms, the glare is eliminated by "cutting off" illumination that would be traveling along the horizon.
So an acorn light with a solid cap on top wouldn't be considered "shielded" if the glass was frosted or refractive, because the light is still being scattered about at angles useless to human vision.

To do what you envision, the acorn would have to be clear glass, with a solid top, AND the light source tucked underneath that cap to shield it from view.

It might look like the acorn on the right:

"Shield" was not the correct terminology for me to use -- I agree.

In the Beryl Ford Collection, there are a number of photos taken in the vicinity of 4th & Boulder, from different decades.  I based my incorrect "shield" comment on the light fixtures I saw when I zoomed in for detail, on two photos in particular.

Here's the first photo, looking toward the northwest corner of 4th & Boulder, which I posted in a previous reply:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society
Link:  http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B1911.jpg

To me, the shape of the acorn glass in the Beryl Ford photo looks similar to the shape of the acorn on the left fixture (in the photo you posted):


But when I zoom close to the glass in the Beryl Ford pic, it appears to me to have a cover.  The cover is not black, but maybe silver or gold metallic, or some light color.  Based on the black and white historic photo, it's difficult to tell, but the cover looks similar to this:

Source:  acuitybrandslighting.com

Or similar to the fixture with the gold cover, on the right in this photo:

Source:  holophane.com

Here's the second Beryl Ford photo I used, taken from an upper story window of the Beacon Building:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society
Link:  http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B0447.jpg 

If you can avoid hitting an acorn streetlight, do so... the globe is larger and heavier than it looks and its lethal when it comes thru your windshield.

Thanks for the word of caution...and that's another good reason for the City to stop installing new fixtures.  Whenever one is damaged, it should be removed, not repaired, and not replaced with a similar fixture.

Last night, I found that Holophane brochure I mentioned.  It's from 1918, not the 1920s or '30s, so I'll go back to my previous post and make some edits...

[patric]

Thanks for the word of caution...and that's another good reason for the City to stop installing new fixtures.  Whenever one is damaged, it should be removed, not repaired, and not replaced with a similar fixture.

And thanks for the cool historical photos.
Cosmetic caps on acorns would reduce a small amount of uplight at the most, but do nothing for glare.  Acorns are about dayform, not efficiency, and that alone should be enough of an argument to rethink their suitability as the primary street light source.  At the very least, there should be a ban on new acorn installations of over 1000 lumens intensity.

[PonderInc]

Enjoyable diatribe, but remember, the zoning code does not regulate street lights.

The zoning code update goes to the City Council for it's first public hearing tomorrow night, Thursday, 10/29/15.