05-26-15-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 6 Chair Thompson stated that when she originally reviewed the planning case she was concerned because she thought the monument sign was too bright. She appreciated the fact that the applicant was proposing to dim the monument sign. She questioned if the dimmer percentage could be regulated by the City. Associate Planner Bachler deferred this question to the applicant. Mr. Cronin indicated that the Commission could amend the condition and recommend that the LED lighting reach no more than 350 nits. He would be happy to work with staff to ensure that the dimmer was properly set. Commissioner Zimmerman did not want more light on the Holiday site than what was currently present. He encouraged Holiday to be sensitive to the surrounding properties and to blend in with the adjacent residential and commercial uses. He did not want to see an island of light created from this site. Commissioner Holewa discussed the amount of light pollution in the metro area. He was in favor of a dimmer being installed on the monument sign whether or not the PUD amendment was approved. Chair Thompson asked how the Commission should address the LED dimmer condition. She questioned if staff was willing to work with the applicant on the nits measurement. Associate Planner Bachler stated that he would recommend that the nits standard be followed as this would provide a clear and objective measurement on the amount of light coming from the site. Commissioner Hames questioned how staff would like the language within Condition 3 to read. Associate Planner Bachler suggested that Condition 3 be amended to read: An automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED accent lights on the canopy and building to sixty percent (60%) of the daytime level during night time hours and reduced to a nits reading of no more than 350 if complaints are received. He believed it may be more effective to have the 350 nits requirement in place from the beginning as it would be easier to enforce. Commissioner Holewa asked if staff was provided with the applicant’s findings of fact. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the applicant’s findings of fact were provided to staff prior to the meeting. He explained that if the Planning Commission were to approve the Planning Case, it would need to state, for the record, findings of approval. Commissioner Jones encouraged the residents that did not support the PUD amendment to be present at the City Council meeting on May 26, 2015, when this matter will be reviewed. Chair Thompson noted that the City Council meeting to be held on May 26th would not consist of another public hearing for this planning case.