05-16-16-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—MAY 16, 2016 9 would only be permitted where the intent is to provide accent or interest, or to help identify building entrances. Senior Planner Bachler commented based on the feedback provided by the City Council, staff will complete revisions to the draft amendment to Section 1325.05, Subd. 3. The Planning Commission will be required to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment prior to formal action by the City Council on this item. Councilmember Holmes expressed concern with the fact the footcandle language was still within the draft amendment. She recommended the amendment further address LED lighting and include standards for lumens and nits. She noted she did not agree with the accent lighting provision. She wanted to see the language be more technologically savvy. Senior Planner Bachler defined nit and lumen for the Council. He explained LED was new lighting technology that was more energy efficient. He recommended that any language addressing LED lighting be broad in nature. Councilmember Holden expressed concern with the brightness of the Presbyterian Homes sign and how this had to be addressed. Further discussion ensued regarding LED lighting requirements. Councilmember Holmes questioned if the proposed language would address the concerns at Mounds View High School. Senior Planner Bachler commented the sign at the Mounds View High School was an exception, since it was a non-commercial sign used for sporting events. He discussed how the City's lighting code was consistent with the surrounding communities. Councilmember Holmes believed that the language within G1 and G2 were too vague. She thought that F 1 should be prohibited. She stated she was hoping for more within the proposed lighting design standards. The consensus of the Council was for F 1 to proceed as written. Councilmember Holden requested that staff insert additional language regarding holiday lights. She recommended this language refer to special events. Mayor Grant questioned the next steps for this document. Senior Planner Bachler reported the Planning Commission would review this document and hold a Public Hearing after which time it would return to the City Council. Community Development Director Hutmacher asked if the Council wanted to see this document prior to it going before the Planning Commission. The consensus of the Council was for the document to proceed to the Planning Commission.