2014_10_08_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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