Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment A <br />proposed range from 0.40 to 1.0 foot candle to allow greater flexibility but lower the <br />minimum as appropriate depending on the specific use. <br />MOTION <br />Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to <br />recommend to the City Council, text amendments to Roseville City Code, <br />Section 1011.11.E (Parking Lot Lighting), specifically sub-section c.i and ii, as <br />submitted by the Planning Division and stated in the project report dated <br />October 8, 2014. <br />Member Murphy expressed his continued concern in having language stating that 0.4 <br />foot candle was a “range” when the statement was for a “minimum;” opining that id <br />didn’t make sense; and offered a friendly amendment to change the wording accordingly. <br />Amendment <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend <br />to the City Council, text amendments to revise the proposed wording to read <br />as follows: <br />Section 1011.11.E (Parking Lot Lighting” <br /> 2.c.i “General parking and pedestrian areas: 0.40 minimum candle” <br />AND <br />Section 1011.11.E.2.c (Open Parking Areas) <br />i “General parking, Vehicle use areas, and pedestrian areas 0.4 to <br />1.0 foot candle.” <br />Member Murphy clarified that the intent of his amendment was to identify Section 2 <br />(lines 16-31) as a minimum, with language of line 30 clearly identified as a minimum <br />number rather than a range. <br />Discussion <br />Discussion included how to measure candle feet and their range based on the location of <br />an engineer and light meter, but depending on the grade and ranges of that fluctuation; <br />additional lighting to bring certain spots up to a minimum; and flexibility for individual <br />measurements clearly interpreted as minimums. <br />Amendment <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Original motion as amended <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />