Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 16, 2016 9 <br /> <br />would only be permitted where the intent is to provide accent or interest, or to help identify <br />building entrances. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler commented based on the feedback provided by the City Council, staff <br />will complete revisions to the draft amendment to Section 1325.05, Subd. 3. The Planning <br />Commission will be required to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment prior to formal <br />action by the City Council on this item. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes expressed concern with the fact the footcandle language was still within <br />the draft amendment. She recommended the amendment further address LED lighting and <br />include standards for lumens and nits. She noted she did not agree with the accent lighting <br />provision. She wanted to see the language be more technologically savvy. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler defined nit and lumen for the Council. He explained LED was new <br />lighting technology that was more energy efficient. He recommended that any language <br />addressing LED lighting be broad in nature. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden expressed concern with the brightness of the Presbyterian Homes sign <br />and how this had to be addressed. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding LED lighting requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes questioned if the proposed language would address the concerns at <br />Mounds View High School. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler commented the sign at the Mounds View High School was an exception, <br />since it was a non-commercial sign used for sporting events. He discussed how the City’s lighting <br />code was consistent with the surrounding communities. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes believed that the language within G1 and G2 were too vague. She <br />thought that F1 should be prohibited. She stated she was hoping for more within the proposed <br />lighting design standards. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was for F1 to proceed as written. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden requested that staff insert additional language regarding holiday lights. <br />She recommended this language refer to special events. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant questioned the next steps for this document. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler reported the Planning Commission would review this document and <br />hold a Public Hearing after which time it would return to the City Council. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher asked if the Council wanted to see this <br />document prior to it going before the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was for the document to proceed to the Planning Commission.