2014_1110_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A recommended by staff even though different. Member Boguszewski stated that he understood there was some discrepancy with the minimum referenced in the lead paragraph, and found it interesting that current City Code language stated an average illumination range of 0.40 to 1.00, while also including an average versus range clause. Member Boguszewski opined there were many inherent things that interested him in how they resulted over time, and while unsure of whether that made him more or less comfortable, he was in agreement that any disparities should be eliminated. Specific to Member Daire’s comments, Member Boguszewski stated that understood them to indicate that any disparity should be eliminated in the final version. Member Daire reviewed his rationale for determining the minimum level for safety and appropriate depending on the case and/or location. However, Member Daire expressed puzzlement about open parking, pedestrian areas, and their safety as vehicles pulled in and out, and how lighting would affect that. Member Daire advised that, generally speaking, he was concerned about foot candles at the edge of a parking facility or property and that they not exceed 0.50, while still considering a higher candle within the parking or pedestrian domain itself. Member Daire clarified that he was not objecting to the range, only to addressing the minimum for safety, while addressing any potential for stray light going into adjacent properties. Specific to that question, and for staff’s response, Member Boguszewski questioned if these candle numbers had been discussed and were supported by lighting consultants for their preferred range; and if they were supportive of the proposed language based on a safety range or not. Mr. Paschke responded that staff reviewed lighting requirements for other municipalities, with several of them including similar ranges at 0.40, and others with other types of minimum standards, but all addressing maximums to not exceed a certain foot candle at the property line and designs other than the City of Roseville’s current code allowed. Member Daire stated that he didn’t’ want to get into a situation where the City could become liable due to proscribed minimums if a pedestrian was hit in a parking lot. Mr. Paschke advised that he could not address liability issues; but based on his experience, he had yet to review a plan requesting the bare minimum for lighting, with requests typically seeking to achieve maximums and remain brightly lit 24/7. Mr. Paschke reviewed the rational for suggested language for a minimum 0.40 candle for some commercial or industrial properties where the only pedestrians are workers, and that particular use – under current code language – were still required to install additional standards to achieve higher minimum standards for their dock area when it was deemed unnecessary since there was no public coming or going there or needing additional safety compared to a retail strip mall where it was appropriate and necessary to make certain appropriate pedestrian lighting was incorporated to and from the site as well as within the site itself. Mr. Paschke noted that most of those commercial developments would design accordingly with more lighting rather than only the minimum. Since most developers over-lighted versus under-lighting, with those lighting aspects receiving negative input from neighborhoods, Chair Gisselquist opined that this proposed text amendment provided flexibility as outlined by staff. Mr. Paschke advised that the most recent plan reviewed by staff for a dock area and several employee parking areas provided for a minimum of 0.70 candle; thus staff’s