07-08-15-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 3 Topography: Relatively level Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Review noting staff has two primary concerns about Holiday’s proposal for accent lighting. First, the lighting is intentionally designed to have a blue hue in order to further brand the site as a Holiday service station. Holiday has installed similar light fixtures on many of the canopies, buildings, and monument signs at their other locations in the metro region. The effect of the accent lighting would be to turn the length of the canopy and building roofline into architectural advertising for the business. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the precedent that could be set if the City approves this type of lighting fixture, which also has a commercial branding purpose. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the second issue identified in the staff evaluation is the glare that would result from the accent lighting. Staff has discussed with the applicant the need to minimize the visual impact of the lighting through improved design. A different manufacturer would be used for the proposed accent lights than the LED lighting that is now installed on the monument sign on the property. However, staff believes that the lighting would still create glare that could have a negative impact for those travelling along Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, as well as for residents in the Arden Manor manufactured home park and residents on the east side of Round Lake. Staff has included two conditions for the Planning Commission’s consideration if a motion to approve is made that would require the accent lighting and the existing LED lights on the monument sign to be dimmed during nighttime hours to reduce their visual impact. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the Planned Unit Development process provides additional flexibility that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. It is intended to overcome the limitations of zoning regulations and to achieve a higher quality project than would otherwise be possible. In considering whether to grant a PUD Amendment in this case, the Planning Commission should consider if the proposal forwards the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the community. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for consideration: 1. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD Amendment for the property at 1920 West Highway 96. 2. A Master PUD was approved for 1920 West Highway 96 in Planning Case #05-013. 3. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to install a single tube of LED illuminated architectural accents at the roofline of the canopy and building on the property. 4. The amendment would update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. 5. Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 of the Sign Code does not permit service station canopies to be illuminated other than by lighting associated with approved signage. 6. The proposed accent lights would illuminate the canopy face beyond the illumination associated with the existing signs. 7. Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code states that direct glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets.