03-06-24 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 8 Commissioner Erler questioned if the applicant had a materials board available for the Commission to review. He stated he would like to see the veneer product that would be used on the building. Mr. Campbell provided a materials board to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Erler reported this property would have a large amount of illuminated signage. He indicated he could support the ground signage, but suggested the size and scale of the wall signs be reconsidered as well as the tube lighting on the building. Senior Planner Fransen noted the yellow tube lighting did not meet City requirements due to the proposed color and would require additional consideration. Chair Vijums asked if any other businesses in Arden Hills had similar lighting stretched across the top of its building and does Arden Hills want this look going forward. Senior Planner Fransen explained staff reviewed recent examples and noted there was a property that went through a PUD process and the proposed tube lighting on the canopy was not allowed though tube lighting on the principal structure was approved through a PUD amendment. She stated this information indicated that there was not a clear opinion on if this material would be approved. Chair Vijums asked the Applicant if other cities have allowed the yellow tube lighting. Luke Kittly, Director of Operations for Mister Car Wash, explained the Mister Car Wash in Hudson, Wisconsin is located along I-94. He stated the City of Hudson determined the tube lighting would not be allowed, given the heavy levels of traffic along I-94. He reported he has been successful installing this lighting at all other locations as it is a signature of the brand. He mentioned that there could be some flexibility with the use of the tube lighting. Commissioner Collins stated all lighting on the site was to be downlit or shoebox. He reported the tube lighting was not either of these, rather it was part of the business’s signage. He inquired if the City’s sign code should be amended to address this type of lighting. He asked about the Commission’s consideration of the proposed color of the lighting. He noted if this was a Holiday Station, they would be requesting blue lighting from the City. Senior Planner Fransen stated she interpreted this comment to mean that there could be more guidance for tube lighting in the City Code to determine if it is considered lighting, signage, or building materials. She shared that the Planning Commission could consider if this type of lighting is recommended based on the site characteristics and the location of the site. Commissioner Mitchell noted this lighting was part of their branding. She explained she would hate to have the applicant put up their building without all of their branding in place because the building would look less than in Arden Hills. Chair Vijums offered that the City may consider the design of buildings on Lexington Avenue. He did agree that the proposed yellow lighting was not a helping light but rather a branding light.