2014_1110_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A EMO8,2014, XTRACT OF THE INUTES OF THE CTOBER RPC OSEVILLE LANNING OMMISSION b.Project File 0017-Amendment 21 Request by the Community Development Department to amend certain requirements contained in Roseville Zoning Code, Section 1011.11.E.2.c.I (Open Parking Area) pertaining to parking lot lighting Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at 6:46 p.m., and reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and subsequent process. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the focus of this consideration of text amendments to parking lot lighting that came up recently during staff analysis of an industrial use project. Mr. Paschke advised that staff also compared various codes from other communities for flexibility and consistency purposes, as detailed in the staff report. Mr. Paschke advised that this potential text amendment had been identified as staff reviewed current code language related to parking requirements for an industrial use area with only truck traffic and limited pedestrian traffic near a loading dock. Mr. Paschke noted that, since there was currently an across the board standard, it became evident that text amendments would be amenable to provide more flexibility and ranges for various uses as each case was reviewed on a case by case basis with safety in mind. Discussion Prompted by Member Daire, discussion included foot candle definitions and standards; standards established so very little light left the site (e.g. no more than 0.50 foot candle at property line) as detailed in lines 51-52 of the staff report; changes only for open parking lots, with no changes proposed for parking structures through this text amendment; lighting to address pedestrian versus vehicular use areas and how to ensure the utmost safety with multiple use parking lots or where pedestrians may be; and staff review of each project via their site plan and lighting plan and standards where pedestrians may be walking as well as along the periphery, that each area be lit accordingly for safety. Further discussion included minimum foot candles for parking structures versus other parking situations; and depending on how a specific site functioned related to safety and pedestrian traffic. Member Murphy noted the text in the staff report (City Code Section 1019.11.E – Parking Lot Lighting – lines 11 – 31) stated specific numbers and “average minimums” versus the “range” addressed in lines Section 1019.11.I - Lighting – lines 32-37 of the staff report. Member Daire opined that reading that interpretation of that particular requirement could range from 0.40 to 0.90 for a range of vehicular uses. Chair Gisselquist suggested that the initial text was perhaps intended to be broader versus the specifics called out later in the current text. Mr. Paschke responded that he was not sure why one place had a range versus a number for minimum lighting levels. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m., no one spoke for or against. Member Boguszewski opined that, if the overall goal of this requested text amendment was to bring disparate guidelines into compliance, and the first original range was acceptable when current code was written, he was amenable to replacing the language as