2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 3 property line) as detailed in lines 51-52 of the staff report; changes only for open parking 98 lots, with no changes proposed for parking structures through this text amendment; 99 lighting to address pedestrian versus vehicular use areas and how to ensure the utmost 100 safety with multiple use parking lots or where pedestrians may be; and staff review of 101 each project via their site plan and lighting plan and standards where pedestrians may be 102 walking as well as along the periphery, that each area be litaccordingly for safety. 103 Further discussion included minimum foot candles for parking structures versus other 104 parking situations; and depending on how a specific site functioned related to safety and 105 pedestrian traffic. 106 Member Murphynoted the text in the staff report (City Code Section 1019.11.E –Parking 107 Lot Lighting –lines 11 –31) stated specific numbers and “average minimums” versus the 108 “range” addressed in lines Section 1019.11.I -Lighting –lines 32-37 of the staff report. 109 Member Daire opined that reading that interpretation of that particular requirement could 110 range from 0.40 to 0.90 for a range of vehicular uses. 111 Chair Gisselquist suggested that the initial text was perhaps intended to be broader 112 versus the specifics called out later in the current text. 113 Mr. Paschke responded that he was not sure why one place had a range versus a 114 number for minimum lighting levels. 115 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearingat 7:00p.m., no one spokefor or against. 116 Member Boguszewski opined that, if the overall goal of this requested text amendment 117 was to bring disparate guidelines into compliance, and the first original range was 118 acceptable when current code was written, he was amenable to replacing the language 119 as recommended by staff even though different.Member Boguszewski stated that he 120 understood there was some discrepancy with the minimum referenced in the lead 121 paragraph, and found it interesting that current City Code language stated an average 122 illuminationrange of 0.40 to 1.00, while also including an average versus range clause. 123 Member Boguszewski opined there were many inherent things that interested him in how 124 they resulted over time, and while unsure of whetherthat made him more or less 125 comfortable, he was in agreement that any disparities should be eliminated.Specific to 126 Member Daire’s comments, Member Boguszewski stated that understoodthem to 127 indicate that any disparity should be eliminatedin the final version. 128 Member Daire reviewed his rationale for determining the minimum level for safety and 129 appropriate depending on the case and/or location.However, Member Daire expressed 130 puzzlement about open parking, pedestrian areas, and their safety as vehicles pulled in 131 and out, and how lighting would affect that.Member Daire advised that, generally 132 speaking, he was concerned about foot candles at the edge of a parking facility or 133 property and that they not exceed 0.50, while still considering a higher candle within the 134 parking or pedestrian domain itself.Member Daire clarified that he was not objecting to 135 the range, only to addressing the minimum for safety, while addressing any potential for 136 stray light going into adjacent properties. 137 Specific to that question, and for staff’s response, Member Boguszewski questioned if 138 these candle numbers had been discussed and were supported by lighting consultants 139 for their preferred range; and if they were supportive of the proposed language based on 140 a safety range or not. 141 Mr.Paschke responded that staff reviewed lighting requirements for other municipalities, 142 with several of them including similar ranges at 0.40, and others with other types of 143 minimum standards, but all addressing maximums to not exceed a certain candle at the 144 property line and designs other than the City of Roseville’s current code allowed. 145 Member Daire stated that he didn’t’ want to get into a situation where the City could 146 become liable due to proscribed minimums if a pedestrian was hit in a parking lot. 147