Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses from the applicant included: <br /> <br /> <br />-The fixtures in use now are no longer available? Mr. Nittler confirmed that was correct. <br />According to correspondence from Public Works and Parks staff, the existing lights are <br />mostly decorative and provide little lighting. <br /> <br />-An explanation was requested for the Plan showing two lights in very close proximity to each <br />other near Sgt. Mike King Drive. Mr. Nittler stated he would have to look into the matter <br />further and indicated it would not be their intention to install lights so close together. <br /> <br />-Discussion about the existing pedestrian lights to remain and the reason for the tall cobra- <br />head lights. Mr. Nittler explained that the reason for the proposed tall lights was due to the <br />roundabout and necessary for more lighting on the pavement for driver safety. <br /> <br />-Within roundabout itself, will this result in a clash of styles with the existing? Mr. Nittler <br />stated that, as he understood, the City was proposing to move forward with removal of the <br />double-globe lights. <br /> <br />Mr. Rich Wilson, Director of Public Works and Parks, stated that the globe lights are not bright and <br />have faded over time. He stated that PWP was looking into replacement of those lights but was not able <br />to get approval from City Council for next year, but would continue to try to have them replaced. He <br />stated they did a lot of research to try to match existing lights, but could not find an exact match; <br />however, the replacement would be similar. He added that the existing lights are inefficient and would <br />like to replace them with a more efficient light; the same posts would be used. <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked about the asymmetrical layout shown for the drawing with the new <br />lights. Mr. Nittler stated that the lights had to be arranged to provide sufficient lighting and <br />if moved it might be too dark. <br /> <br />-It was stated that this was not a sufficient reason and the arrangement of the new lights <br />should be symmetrical. If it could not be done with four lights, perhaps there needed to be <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Greatens stated that the locations were previously approved in July of 2012 and the standards refer <br />to compatibility within the Historic District and that the 1985 Civic Plaza Plan could be used as a <br />reference for review. He stated that the proposed lights are not specifically addressed in the 1985 Plan, <br />which was adopted as a guideline. <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked about discussion of the lights in previous meetings and in what <br />context was the light location addressed. Mr. Greatens stated that, in the table in the memo <br />distributed, it was stated that it was based on the proposal for four new roadway lights. <br /> <br />-Concern was expressed about the previously approved light locations as it related to the <br />symmetry as shown in the updated roundabout layout. <br /> <br />-The applicant was asked about the impact on their timeframe if no decision was made <br />tonight. Mr. Nittler stated it would impact the timeframe because they were trying to get the <br />project out to bid as soon as possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai <br />locations, to not impact the timeframe for the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Nittler stated they would be open to any discussions necessary to move the project forward and the <br />pedestrian lights proposed on the poles could be removed and a light could be added at a later date. He <br />tğŭĻ Ћ ƚŅ Ў <br /> <br />