Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that he could not address liability issues; but based on his <br />148 <br />experience, he had yet to review a plan requesting the bare minimum for lighting, with <br />149 <br />requests typically seeking to achieve maximums and remain brightly lit 24/7.Mr. Paschke <br />150 <br />reviewed the rational for suggested language for a minimum 0.40 candlefor some <br />151 <br />commercial or industrial properties where the only pedestrians are workers, and that <br />152 <br />particular use –under current code language –were still required to install additional <br />153 <br />standards to achieve higher minimum standards for their dock area when it was deemed <br />154 <br />unnecessary since there was no public coming or going there or needing additional <br />155 <br />safety compared to a retail strip mall where it was appropriate and necessary to make <br />156 <br />certain appropriate pedestrian lighting was incorporated to and from the site as well as <br />157 <br />within the site itself.Mr. Paschke noted that most of those commercial developments <br />158 <br />would design accordingly with more lighting rather than only the minimum. <br />159 <br />Since most developers over-lighted versus under-lighting, with those lighting aspects <br />160 <br />receiving negative input from neighborhoods, Chair Gisselquist opined that this proposed <br />161 <br />text amendment provided flexibility as outlined by staff. <br />162 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the most recent plan reviewed by staff for a dock area and <br />163 <br />several employee parking areas provided for a minimum of 0.70 candle; thus staff’s <br />164 <br />proposed range from 0.40 to 1.0 foot candle to allow greater flexibility but lower the <br />165 <br />minimum as appropriate depending on thespecific use. <br />166 <br />MOTION <br />167 <br />Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to <br />168 <br />the City Council, text amendments to Roseville City Code, Section 1011.11.E <br />169 <br />(Parking Lot Lighting), specifically sub-section c.i and ii, as submitted by the <br />170 <br />Planning Division and stated in the project report dated October 8, 2014. <br />171 <br />Member Murphy expressed his continued concern in having language stating that 0.4 <br />172 <br />foot candle was a “range” when the statement was for a “minimum;” opining that id didn’t <br />173 <br />make sense; and offered a friendly amendment to change the wording accordingly. <br />174 <br />Amendment <br />175 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the <br />176 <br />City Council, text amendments to revise the proposed wording to read as follows: <br />177 <br />Section 1011.11.E (Parking LotLighting” <br />178 <br />2.c.i“General parking and pedestrian areas: 0.40 minimum candle” <br />179 <br />AND <br />180 <br />Section 1011.11.E.2.c(Open Parking Areas) <br />181 <br />i.“General parking, Vehicle use areas, and pedestrian areas 0.4 to 1.0 <br />182 <br />foot candle.” <br />183 <br />Member Murphy clarified that the intent of his amendment was to identify Section 2 (lines <br />184 <br />16-31) as a minimum, with language of line 30 clearly identified as a minimum number <br />185 <br />rather than a range. <br />186 <br />Discussion <br />187 <br />Discussion included how to measure candle feet and their range based on the location of <br />188 <br />an engineer and light meter, but depending on the grade and ranges of that fluctuation; <br />189 <br />additional lighting to bring certain spots up to a minimum; and flexibility for individual <br />190 <br />measurements clearly interpreted as minimums. <br />191 <br />Amendment <br />192 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />193 <br />Nays: 0 <br />194 <br />Motion carried. <br />195 <br /> <br />