Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/20052. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: March 8, 2005 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: None Scheduled Visitor Presentations: Board Presentations: March 14, 2005, City Council Meeting -Overview Town Homes Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Orientation b. Sign Code Revisions c. CDRB Representation at the April 25, 2005, City Council Meeting - Heritage Square 4th Addition, T&C Homes, Highway 61 Adjourn I1. III. IV. VI. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice Chairperson Matt Ledvina Board member Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kml[, Recording Secretary APPROVALOFAGENDA 2004, City Council Meeting-University Auto should read February 14, 2005, Public Works Expansion report by Board member Olson. Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for January 25, 2005. Chairperson Longrie moved approval of the minutes of January 25, 2005. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Longrie, OIson, Shankar The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW a. 3M Buildings 232 and 246, 3M Company, Conway Avenue (6:07- 6:16 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said 3M Company is proposing to build two buildings on their campus on the south side of Conway Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Mr. Ekstrand said Building 232 would measure 40-by-40 feet in size and be used as a water chiller. The second, Building 246, is a cooling tower and would be located to the east of proposed Building 232. Building 232 is meant to be temporary. Mr. Ekstrand said in two to five years, 3M plans to remove it and incorporate its function into a permanent and larger building to the south. These structures are, essentially, more "equipment" than building. They are needed for 3M's water-cooling operations. The water to be cooled is the recycled "heated" water used in the campus building-heating operations. Building 232 is proposed to have an exterior of corrugated, almond-colored metal siding with bronze-colored trim. Building 246 would match the grey/green color of the adjacent cooling tower to the east and have metal louvers and openings to facilitate its water-cooling function. Board member Shankar said if there is so much land to the south of Building 232 and Building 246, why does the cooling tower need to be located so close to Conway Avenue? Mr. Ekstrand said it has to do with the piping that is in place and needs to be contiguous because of the way the structure is set up right now. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Rob Darnell, representing 3M, 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 975, Minneapolis, addressed the board. He said Building 210 will be expanded to the west which is on the south side of Building 232 and 246. Currently there is an ongoing project to relocate the underground utilities in the area. The cooling tower will be in the permanent location of Building 246 Building and Building 232 is the temporary building that will house the chiller and electrical equipment to run the chiller. This will allow 3M to expand Building 210 to the west and then physically relocate the electrical gear and the chiller to the permanent location in the building expansion and then demolish the temporary building. Board member Shankar asked if the second phase of Building 232 will be in the west expansion of Building 2107 Mr. Darnell said yes. Chairperson Longrie asked if they could describe the exterior materials they propose to use? Mr. Darnell introduced Michael Scanlan so he could describe the building materials. Michael Scanlan, representing 3M, 4334 Harriet Avenue, Minneapolis, addressed the board. The exterior of Building 232 would be an almond color metal panel (which Mr. Scanlan brought a sample of). The trim around the top of the parapet will be a medium bronze color and the colors will be conducive to the surrounding adjacent buildings which are all various forms of beige brick and bronze trim. The roof for Building 232 will be a metal panel and Building 246 is a combination of various materials, all gray in color and mostly made of fiberglass. It is basically a fan with water inside and the structure will match the existing cooling towers. Board member Shankar asked what color the garage doors would be? Mr. Darnell said the garage doors are white with a glazing and will face the south. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped February 24, 2005, for the proposed chillers at 3M Center on the south side of Conway Avenue. Approval is conditioned upon 3M Company restoring the site of Building 232 after its removal. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. Heritage Square 4th Addition, T & C Homes, Highway 61 (6:16 - 7:45 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand introduced Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner. Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner, said Town and Country Homes has requested a new subdivision plat for part of Lot 1, Block 5, Frattalone's Highpoint Ridge. They are asking for CDRB approval of building and location plans. Mr. Thorvig said the developer is proposing to plat seven lots for condominium construction and one common lot surrounding the seven lots occupied by the condominiums. Ninety units are proposed for the parcel. Six of the seven condominium buildings would have 12 units. One building would have eighteen units. Each of the condominium units would have an exterior entrance. The units would sit back-to-back on top of an underground parking garage that would accommodate two parking spaces for each unit. There would be a private staircase to the garage from each unit. The buildings would be two stories tall, not including the underground parking garage. The first floor would be about eight steps up from grade level. The exterior materials consist of vinyl shakes, cultured stone, and lap siding. Two color schemes are being studied for this project. Colors include earth tone browns, tans, and greens. Outside stairs, railings, and trim are white. There would be two parking spaces in the underground garage and 44 additional guest spaces (.5 per unit) distributed throughout the site that meet the code requirement. Significant landscaping using overstory and coniferous trees is planned for the slope on the west side of the site. The rest of the site would also have generous amounts of shrubs and trees. Board member Shankar asked what the distance between the six buildings was? Mr. Thorvig said the buildings are about 20 feet apart which meets the code requirement. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Krista Novack, Community Planning Manager, Town and Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 130, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. These units will be built with their newest townhome called the Regency Collection and they are excited to present these units to Maplewood. There are four floor plans to choose from with many windows to make the floor plan feel bright and airy. They brought new color palettes to show the board and will present them tonight. The two color packages include lap siding, vinyl shake and shingle products. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 3-8-2005 Board member Olson asked if they proposed to make all the units the same color scheme or to alternate the two color schemes between the buildings? Ms. Novack said they would probably alternate the color schemes between the buildings but would like input from the board. Board member Olson asked why the dark forest green color was eliminated from the color selection that was shown in the CDRB packet of information? Ms. Novack said they tried to create color packages that would complement each other. Board member Olson asked if the dark green color scheme was eliminated that is shown in the staff report? Ms. Novack said they eliminated the green color package and feel that they have provided equally if not better color packages as an alternative that they brought samples of tonight. Board member Shankar asked if color option I was still an option? Ms. Novack apologized if this was confusing the board. The colors shown in the CDRB packet are old colors that they have eliminated and the new color palettes are shown in the samples they have provided tonight for the board to see. One is in the cream and brown family and the other is in the gray family. Board member Olson said it appears the porches are white in the staff report and now the board sees the porches shown on the screen as dark brown. Ms. Novack said correct. Board member Olson asked if they had samples of the rock face block? Mr. Mitch Liffin, Division Architect, Town and Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 130, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. He said they didn't bring samples of the rock face block with them tonight but they would use a similar product as they did with the Majestic Collection in the Heritage Square development. The style is reminiscent of a brown stone building that you would see out east. Board member Olson prefers the white porch over the dark brown. The dark porches look dirty, recessive and not inviting. Mr. Litfin said they were going for a natural wood tone look to the porches. Board member Olson said these buildings remind her of a building down on West Seventh Street in St. Paul. She prefers the color choices shown in the board packet over the color samples shown tonight. Board member Shankar agreed with Board member Olson regarding the white porches. The dark brown porch seems too intense to him. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Mr. Litfin said they can offer the white porches but they wanted to offer something different. Town & Country Homes wanted to show the board they are willing to offer different trim colors other than the typical white or linen color and that is why they have shown darker colors. Board member Olson said she likes the light tan color trim but doesn't care for the dark brown color for either the trim or the porch color. Chairperson Longrie said maybe an eggshell color would work? Mr. Litfin said they could use a linen color or another lighter color. Board member Olson said she sees the dark brown porch as forming cubbyholes and looks uninviting. Perhaps the white colored porch would attract more dirt and possibly an off-white color on the porch would be nice. Town & Country Homes and the board members spent a lengthy amount of time discussing the color choices for the Regency Collection units. Mr. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development, Town and Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 130, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. Board member Olson asked the applicant to address the issue of the sidewalks around the buildings? Mr. Clark said they are in the process of working through the plan review with city staff and one of the things they are addressing is upgrading these buildings to include a second exit door, which is at the opposite end of the underground garage entrance/exit. This will connect to a walkway from the exit door to an adjoining walkway. Because of the grade they didn't look at connecting the sidewalks around the buildings but would check to see if it's feasible to connect the sidewalks around the building. Board member Olson said the second exit door makes sense, especially for security. She asked where the trash would be contained and where the meters would be located? Mr. Litfin said the garage is set up to maintain the garbage and most of the services that are needed. Each unit will have its own electrical and gas meter but the meters will be banked on the building exterior. The water meters are located in a room off the garage that will hold the sprinkler, water and drainage systems. The electrical and gas meters would be banked on the outside of the building, out of view, away from the front and at the opposite end of each building. Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant could describe how they plan to screen the meters. Mr. Litfin said these meters will be a foot to one and a half feet tall and they would plant some bushes in front of the gas and electrical meters. They will be out of view, but still easy to read when someone needs to read them. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Chairperson Longrie asked what type of landscaping and how tall the landscaping would get? Ms. Novack said Town & Country Homes has submitted landscape plans for the foundation plantings for the site which was displayed on the screen. Mr. Liffin said shrubbery and bushes would be planted to block the view of the gas and electrical meters. They aren't going to bank the meters together, they plan on spacing them one foot to one and a half feet off the ground. If they banked the meters together the meters would extend out of the ground about six feet tall and about four feet wide. These bushes would protect the meters, be kept Iow to the ground and keep the building exterior looking nice and clean in appearance. Board member Olson asked about the trail through the abandoned Lydia corridor and the trail under the power lines and asked if staff could discuss the density. Mr. Clark said they have looked at this area along with the different grades. It would require a series of retaining walls and switch-back trails and be very difficult to build. Town & Country Homes asked themselves if it's necessary to have two trails connecting to the same area. The neighborhood responded that they were not in favor of having both trails. There are public safety concerns and Town & Country Homes feels there is a hardship in building both of these trails. The planning commission recommended building the southern trail and eliminating the northem trail. Chairperson Longrie said it made sense to her to build off the existing trail and continue the trail along County Road D. It's important to have the trail there for a more walkable neighborhood especially with such high density in this area. Board member Olson agreed with the planning commission's decision that the trail to the abandoned Lydia corridor isn't necessary. Mr. Ekstrand said he would like to introduce Mr. Kellison who is representing the Trout Land Development to discuss the density. Mr. Jim Kellison, Kelco Properties, 7300 Hudson Boulevard, Oakdale, addressed the board. He said about 1% years ago the 91 units were approved by the city council so there really isn't much to discuss. Ms. Novack discussed the landscaping plan for the site. She said the neighbors requested as many trees be planted on the site as possible. Therefore, the plan would be to plant as many trees as possible that would not be affected by the construction. Some of the trees at maturity would reach as high as 60 feet. Mr. Thorvig said staff finds Town & Country Homes has provided a generous landscape plan. Board member Shankar asked if there was an exterior lighting plan? Mr. Thorvig said they don't have a lighting plan but that is one of the conditions of approval and staff would make sure the lighting plan complies with the ordinance. Community Design Review Board ? Minutes 3-8-2005 Board member Olson asked if there were plans for individual street lights or wall pack lights on the buildings of any kind? Mr. Novack said for the safety of the community they install lights on the entrance of the townhome buildings. Mr. Ekstrand wasn't sure about the lighting plan but he knows the realignment plan for County Road D has been looked at. Mr. Kellison said there will be street lights there as part of the County Road D realignment which is part of the assessments the developer is paying. The height of the lights and the spacing of the light poles were designed per the county standards with the redevelopment of County Road D. Board member Olson was concerned about having a streetlight right outside someone's window. Chairperson Longrie said the board is concerned where the streetlights would be placed because the light could be a nuisance as well as the proximity of the trees in relationship to the light posts. Mr. Clark said typically people close their blinds or curtains if light is shining into their windows and he assumes the homeowners would do the same in this situation if light was a factor. Mr. Thorvig said the trees would be placed in the best location given the location of the light posts. Board member Shankar asked who would be installing the lights? Mr. Thorvig said the county would be installing the lights and city staff would coordinate the placement of the light posts with the county and with Town & Country Homes for the tree placement for this development plan. Mr. Ekstrand asked if the board was concerned that the lights would be a nuisance or is the concern that there would not be enough lights? Board member Olson said both are concerns for her. These are tall buildings and even if the lights direct light downwards she is concerned the lights could cause problems for the residents as well as the placement of the lights relative to the landscaping. She believes the lighting plan and the landscaping plans should be worked out together rather than independently of each other. Mr. Ekstrand said that is what city staff will do. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Board member Olson moved to approve the building and location plans based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined.) Comply with the requirements of the city engineer and those of Chris Cavett in his report dated March 1,2005. 10. 11. 12. 13. Meet all requirements of the building official and fire marshal. Obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Revise the site plan to provide a 15-foot setback for the proposed frontage drive and visitor parking spaces or obtain a variance from the city council. The applicant must provide at least .5 parking spaces for each unit. The northernmost building needs two additional visitor spaces while taking into account the 15-foot setback requirement. Revise the site plan to provide pedestrian trails as recommended by Mr. Cavett in his memo dated March 1, 2005. The applicant shall construct these trails as part of this development. The city would allow one building permit before the plat is filed. The plat must be recorded before the city would issue permits for any additional buildings. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. The applicant shall install an inground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for staff approval before getting a building permit for the first building. When city staff does the final .qhtin.q and andscapin.q plan they shall cons der the iqhtin.q and andscap n.q p an to.qether to form a harmonious plan for the residents. A temporary sales office is allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. The director of community development may approve minor changes to these plans. The electrical and .qas meters shall be shielded with andscapin.q that is at least two feet tall. The applicant shall submit revised elevations for staff to review incorporatinq color scheme number 1 and color scheme number 2. Color scheme number 1 shall include sandlewood shin.qles, pebblestone clay, cameo and wicker. Color scheme number 2 shall include oakwood shinqles with silver .qray, everest wood qray, and white shakes. Both color schemes shall incorporate the linen color window trim and be incorporated with the porch and railinq trim color. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Longrie, OIson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council March 28, 2005. c. Overview Town Homes, Masterpiece Homes, McMenemy Street (7:45 - 8:17 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrend said Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 24 town houses in a development called Overview. It would be on a 5.5-acre site on a cul-de- sac on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal- lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and a stone veneer on the front. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garege. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Gordie Howe, Masterpiece Homes, Little Canada, addressed the board. He reviewed the landscape plan, the street lighting and the building products proposed for the units. They have proposed 14 rambler-style homes and 10 story and a half homes. Some will have side-loaded garages and othere will have front-loaded garages. Instead of using lights on the building exteriors they would use eyeball lights in the soffits so the light will shine down on the driveway and the lights would be on a timer. He has been working with the neighbors and MnDOT and will plant 75 red twigged dogwood trees along the pond area. Mr. Howe said after meeting with MnDOT the landscape plan has been revised and is being shown for the first time tonight and is dated February 23, 2005. Chairperson Longrie asked if all the buildings would be the same materials and colors? Mr. Howe said the building materials would match and would be almond color. Chairperson Longrie asked how many trees were removed from the site? Mr. Howe said around 105 trees were removed and they are going to plant 122 new trees. Board member Shankar asked if there were a lot of mature trees removed from the site? Mr. Howe said there were some mature trees removed but there was more brush removed than mature trees. Board member Olson asked if there were any retaining walls proposed for the rear of the property? Mr. Howe said there would be a four foot retaining wall which butts up to Highway 35 E. They proposed to cut the berm down but considered the berm would act as a noise buffer and retaining wall. Board member Olson asked what product they would use for the retaining wall? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Mr. Howe said the retaining wall would be made of boulders. He said they prefer to use boulders because if you have any ground movement the boulders don't shift around. Board member Shankar asked if there was adequate turning radius for large trucks to turn in the cul-de-sac? Mr. Howe said the cul-de-sac is large enough for emergency vehicles and would be built to the standards of Maplewood. Board member Shankar asked staff what the radius of the cul-de-sac was? Mr. Ekstrand said city cul-de-sacs are 120 feet in diameter, so he estimated 60 feet wide. Board member Olson asked if there were any other species designated for the pond area besides the 75 red twigged dogwood trees? Mr. Howe said there are also some birch trees and a weeping willow tree. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005, (site plan, grading, drainage plans and building elevations and landscape plans date-stamped February 23, 2005), for the Overview town houses on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction would disturb. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 1! (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. A revised design for the storm water pond that shows curves, rather than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the required storm water capacity. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show the drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provi~te the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas. (h) Show details about the proposed fence by the pond including the materials, gate, height and color. The contractor shall extend the fence along the east side of the pond, near McMenemy Street. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer would remove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street (including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (c) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the street, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. Community Design Review Board ].2 Minutes 3-8-2005 (d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (e) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with "no parking" signs to meet the above-listed standards. (f) The streets labeled as Summer Avenue and McMenemy Street labeled on all plans. (g) The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans. (5) The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The addition of trees for screening along the north and south sides of the site. (3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped January 25, 2005, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit. (7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 13 (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street boulevard with sod. (10) Adding at least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the north. (11) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. Present to staff for approval colored building elevations or building material samples of all elevations of the town houses. These elevations should show that the town houses would have two tones of ivory and beige-colored vinyl siding and either brick or stone accents on the front elevation. These elevations also should show that the front elevations would have a wainscot of brick or stone. The developer or builder would pay the city Park Access charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there would be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the private utilities, landscaping and any retaining walls. k. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b, Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s). d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto McMenemy Street and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional trees along the north and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 pement opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 ]5 The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Chairperson Longrie seconded. Ayes - Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 14, 2005. d. Woodland Town Homes, Integra Homes, McMenemy Street (8:17 - 8:55 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Brian Bourassa, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve plans for a 24 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 24 town houses (in 16 detached townhomes and four twin homes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on a 6.6-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The design of the buildings is not finalized, but staff believes each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Mr. Ekstrand said because of neighborhood concern the applicant requested that the planning commission table the review for the comprehensive plan, change in zoning from R-1 to R-2, conditional use permit for a planned unit development, and a preliminary plat for 24 lots. The applicant would like the CDRB to discuss the design elements, landscaping and building elevations. Board member Shankar said in terms of density the site plan looks packed. Mr. Ekstrand said the density meets the city requirement. Board member Olson asked what happens if the CDRB approves the design but the planning commission doesn't approve the zoning? Mr. Ekstrand said that could be viewed as "the cart before the horse" so to speak. The question remains how would the units be placed if the zoning wasn't approved by the planning commission. Chairperson Longrie said she attended the planning commission meeting and heard the developer say they had other plans they were working on with the neighbors. Because of these other plans mentioned by the applicant she feels it's difficult for the board to approve the landscaping and placement of buildings without plan approval by the planning commission. The board can discuss the building materials and building colors though if the applicant is looking for feedback. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Mr. Ekstrand said if the developer gets their revised plans back to city staff in time for the next meeting it would be brought back to the planning commission on Monday, March 21 and to the board on Tuesday, March 22, for review. Chairperson Longrie asked staff how to handle this matter procedurally. She asked how the board should review the building materials and colors if the planning commission hasn't made a recommendation to the city council yet because the item was tabled. Mr. Ekstrand said he would recommend having the applicant address the board and listen to what they have to say. The applicant may just be looking for feedback from the CDRB. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Brian Bourassa, Project Manager, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 - 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, addressed the board. Mr. Bourassa said they are looking for feedback regarding the townhome design and the materials and colors they have chosen. They brought color boards with to discuss with the board. Ms. Lisa Lillestrand, Project Manager for Integra Homes, Dayton, addressed the board. She is unavailable to attend the board meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, and she would appreciate any comments or feedback that the board can offer tonight. Ms. Lillestrand showed the board homes Integra Homes built in the past along with building colors and building materials they used in the past. They have proposed using building materials Integra Homes has used on high end priced homes they built and use those products on these townhome units. She reviewed different shingles, siding, shakes, stone, window frame colors, window grids and shutters with the board. They are trying to make this development look like a residential neighborhood. She said they propose to use two different color schemes. Board member Olson said because there are 24 units and the applicant has only two color choices she would recommend adding a third color choice. Ms. Lillestrand asked if the board had any color recommendations? Chairperson Longrie said they prefer not to see more browns or grays. She said maybe adding a forest green or dark green color would be nice. Ms. Lillestrand said they have a leaf green color they could use along with a forest green shingle and door along with a brick with shades of green in it. Because blue is outdated they prefer not to use it. Board member OIson asked what the price of these units would be? Ms. Lillestrand said these units start at $350,000 each. Chairperson Longrie said she went to the Integra Homes website and the site recommended people visit the site in White Bear Township so she drove out and looked at the units there. She noticed there were no architectural elements of any kind on the back of the units and the rear elevation had very small windows. Community Design Review Board t? Minutes 3-8-2005 Ms. Lillestrand said the units you referred to in White Bear Township back up to a pond so nobody would be looking at the rear of those units. Chairperson Longrie said that may be true, however, the proposed units in Maplewood are going to look the same from the rear in this development. Ms. Lillestrand said these buildings have upgraded windows. Chairperson Longrie said she is trying to understand what to visually expect with these townhome buildings in Maplewood and this is a concern of hers. Ms. Lillestrand said the windows in the back of the units are small because they are windows in the master bedroom closet and in the master bathroom. For the homeowners sake they want to let daylight in but still have privacy that is needed. She said they use large windows in the rest of the house so the home is light and airy. Board member Olson said the point is the rear of the units will still have a flat side to them with no design elements which will look featureless. Board member Shankar said units 7 & 8 and 15 & 16 will be looking at the rear of the other townhome unit. Ms. Lillestrand asked the board how they would recommend breaking the rear of the units up for more detail? Chairperson Longrie said maybe using two different color siding products on the building? Ms. Lillestrand said you can't really do that. She would be happy to do that if the board felt it was necessary but she doesn't believe the consumers would buy the product. Ms. Lillestrand said she is fairly knowledgeable regarding design and what the consumer wants to buy and she deals directly with the customers when buying these units. Board member Shankar said maybe they could use window shutters on the rear elevation of the townhome units that look into each other. Ms. Lillestrand said they could use window shutters on the units that back up to each other, however, they want to make sure it cosmetically looks appealing when driving through the development and that it doesn't stand out. Board member Olson said because of the angle of the units and the way the development is laid out, the units won't be visible anyways. The only unit she sees that would be visible would be unit 17. Chairperson Longrie said some issues and questions may be lessened if the site plan changes. It depends on if the orientation of the units change or not. Ms. Lillestrand said to keep the site look more natural they would use a boulder stone retaining wall instead of a keystone block. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Board member Shankar asked if these units would have fireplaces? Ms. Lillestrand said the units would have gas fireplaces and would be vented through the roof or out the back of the unit. The applicant and the board discussed the preferred building colors and materials. The applicant will bring this item back to the board for approval at a later date. Ms. Lillestrand said they would prefer to use the same exterior light fixture on the units and just change the color of the fixture. They would use muted pewter, black wrought iron, and bronze color fixtures on the building exteriors that would coordinate with the siding color. Board member Olson thought the applicant did a nice job with the building colors and design elements for these units. Board member Shankar recommended the applicant hide the meters for each unit with proper landscaping. Ms. Lillestrand said the placement of the meters can be discussed when the final plan and layout has been finalized. They realize people don't want to look at meters on the front of the units and the meters need to be hidden behind proper landscaping. Chairperson Longrie moved to table the plans date-stamped February 1, 2005, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Woodlands of Maplewood townhouses on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue until Tuesday, March 22, 2005. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion to table passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. February 14, 2005, City Council Meeting - Public Works Expansion Board member Olson was the CDRB representative at the February 14, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss was the Public Works Expansion at 1902 County Road B, which passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. CDRB Representation at the March 14, 2005, City Council Meeting Chairperson Longrie volunteered to represent the CDRB at the March 14, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss is the Overview Town Homes, Masterpiece Homes, McMenemy Street. b. 2004 Annual Repo~ Board member Olson said she sent an e-mail to Shann Finwall and assumed Shann forwarded the e-mail to Tom Ekstrand. Mr. Ekstrand said yes he received the e-mail. Board member Olson said this same issue came up last year regarding the annual report. Every year there is a number comparison reflected in the report that shows how many items the CDRB reviewed. Every year the number of items reviewed seems to decline. Board member Olson said this report is misleading and it appears the CDRB didn't hold many meetings or do many reviews. She would like the report to reflect how many units were in each of the housing developments the CDRB approved, the amount of square footage of the buildings reviewed, or something else that would give further information to the city council reflecting what the CDRB reviewed in the year. Chairperson Longrie agreed with Board member Olson. When the CDRB reviews a project with landscaping and building products or something as large as a CVS Pharmacy building, these items take a long time to review and somehow should be reflected in the report. Board member Shankar recommended putting the job valuation in the report so Maplewood residents could see the amount of money involved in the project that the CDRB reviewed. Mr. Ekstrand said not every job valuation would be available. Unit count and square footage of commercial buildings may be helpful and could be further expounded upon. Board member Olson said she understands this makes more work for city staff. Chairperson Longrie said while the board understands it creates more work for city staff, the report would reflect the many hours that went into the CDRB making a recommendation to the city council. Board member Olson asked if this format was designed by the city council for staff to follow for the annual report? Mr. Ekstrand said it's just a format that has been used over time. Board member Shankar said he has no problem leaving the number of items reviewed in the report. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 20 Board member Olson and Chairperson Longrie have issue with the numbers reviewed shown in the Annual Report and feel that the report needs to be expounded on to reflect the amount of work that went into the decisions made by the CDRB. Mr. Ekstrand said he would be happy to bring this back to the CDRB with further information. Chairperson Longrie asked staff if there had been any new applications for the CDRB opening left by Judy Driscoll? Mr. Ekstrand said Melinda Coleman has been putting a memo together for the city council letting them know the interest of Maplewood residents to serve on the board or commission. Melinda has been given the application forms that people sent in and more information will follow regarding this issue. Board member Olson asked if the city pulled old board and commission applications to see if past applicants are still interested in serving? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has done that in the past if we know there is a particular person that could be valuable on one of the committees or boards, but staff doesn't pull them as a rule. Board member Olson asked if as a rule did the city wait for people to reapply for openings? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Board member Olson said the reason she asked is at one time there were individuals that were not selected to serve but were very qualified. If those individuals are still out there and would like to reapply, they should be aware there are openings again. c. 2005 Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Ekstrand said Section 2-284 of the Code of Ordinances requires that the community design review board member elect a chairperson and vice chairperson each new year. Mr. Ekstrand said he knows the city council proposed a procedure on how to handle elections for chair and vice chair on the board and commission but that it was voted down. If the board would like to decide who should serve as chair and vice chair, the board may do so. Board member OIson said she thinks Diana Longrie has done an excellent job serving as Chairperson and has done an excellent job researching items the board reviews. She knows previously there had been discussion about rotating the chair position, in which case she would like to recommend ^nanth Shankar to serve as chairperson. Board member Shankar said he is not interested in serving as chairperson and turned the position down. Board member Shankar recommended Diana Longrie to continue as the Chairperson and would recommend Linda Olson as the new Vice Chair for the CDRB. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-8-2005 Chairperson /ongrie said she would be happy to continue serving as the Chairperson on the CDRB and would support Linda Olson as Vice Chair on the CDRB. Chairperson Longrie said board members just need to be reappointed by the city council now. Diana Longrie will remain as the Chairperson and the Vice Chair has changed from Matt Ledvina to Linda Oison. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p,m, MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Temporary and Off-premise Sign Code Revisions City of Maplewood April 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION Proposal Sign codes are in existence to help protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to give guidelines to businesses for visibility and promotion. The City of Maplewood's sign code has only undergone minor changes in wording and consistency since the city adopted it in 1977. Upon recommendation by the community design review board (CDRB), staff initiated a three- phase plan to review the sign code and make recommendations to the city council on revisions to the code. Such changes should bring the code up-to-date and more in line with the vision for the City of Maplewood. During phase 1, the sign code was researched and reviewed in comparison to other cities. Phase 2 involved receiving input from the many businesses and residents that will be affected by the city's potential sign code revision. Staff is currently working on phase 3, which entails gathering and examining all input, and drafting sign code revisions. Staff's goal is to have a final revised sign code submitted to the city council for their acceptance by fall 2005. To accomplish this, staff proposes to bring suggested sign code revisions to the CDRB through a series of meetings to receive comments, guidance, and eventual recommendation to the city council. This memorandum will serve as an overview of the work that has been complete, provide suggestions for areas of the sign code that staff believes need revising, and open the code revision process to input from the CDRB. Temporary and Off-premise Sign Code Revisions During a series of CDRB meetings, the sign code will be broken up into smaller sections in order to thoroughly review all suggested revisions. The first meeting will discuss the sections of the code pertaining to the regulation of temporary signs, which include banners, portable signs, window signs, and special event signs. Also, the meeting will discuss off-premise signs such as billboards, open house signs, real estate signs, and directional signs. The applied sections of interest are section 44-771 (required exceptions), section 44-807 (temporary signs), section 44-836 to section 44-841 (off-premises billboards), and section 44-891 (special purpose and temporary signs in all districts). The entire sign code is included as an attachment on pages 9 through 20 with the relevant sections highlighted. Staff has attached the sign code for White Bear Lake on pages 21-32. This code is an example of a well designed and drafted sign code. The beginning of their sign code contains a general and a specific purpose statement, sign definitions, and a sign permit chart specifying the types of signs allowed and prohibited in each district and the necessary permits or approval needed. Staff likes this design because it is very user-friendly and works great as a quick reference to find general sign information. The White Bear Lake sign code also does a good job at customizing the sign regulations to meet the distinctive nature of each zoning district. Staff would like the city to incorporate some of these elements into the revised Maplewood sign code. BACKGROUND February 14, 2003: The CDRB recognized in their annual report (2002) the need to review and make recommendations on potential modifications and updates to the city's sign ordinance. February 2, 2004: The CDRB recognized in their annual report (2003) that the sign code is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. The CDRB also recognized the time and effort involved in the boards work on the sign code design criteria for the mixed-use zoning district. June 2004: The city began phase I of the sign code update. This involved researching and comparing the sign code of the following cities: Woodbury, Oakdale, Roseville, White Bear Lake, Brooklyn Center, and Edina. In each analysis, the sign codes were compared based on style and format of written code, quantitative data associated with written code, definitions of sign types, and associated terminology and restrictions based on zoning districts. The comparison illustrates that, on average, Maplewood has the fewest number of prohibited types of signs, allows above average sign sizes, and allows the greatest number of temporary signs without permits. July 17, 2004: Staff presented the detailed summary report highlighting the City of Maplewood's sign code and a comparative analysis of six other cities to the CDRB. The purpose of the meeting was to familiarize the board with Maplewood's current sign code and the different approaches, through code writing and enforcement, that cities utilize pertaining to sign approval and enforcement. August 2004: The city began phase 2 of the sign code update. This phase involved the local business associations, the chamber of commerce, and residents and business owners of the general public through surveys, newsletters, and open forum meetings. September 2004: Staff created the first online opinion survey published on the City of Maplewood's website. Educational materials on the website informed the survey takers of the types and sizes of signs allowed by the code as well as information on the current sign code revision process. The survey intended to gauge the opinions of interested residents and business owners within the city in order to create awareness and validate the cooperative nature of the project. To market the survey, an advertisement ran for two months in the Maplewood City News. In addition, staff sent the survey to a randomly selected group of 200 business owners in Maplewood. September 21, 2004: Staff attended a luncheon with the White Bear Avenue Business Association presenting information and surveys to business owners regarding revising the sign code. October 3, 2004: The city received 50 survey responses from the online survey and mailings. The responses were coded and input into a statistical database for comparison and interpretation. The general opinion of the residents and business-related individuals that took the survey is in favor of sign code writing, enforcement, and the proposal to revise the sign code. In general, the main types of signs the respondents expressed concern over were billboards and temporary signs. March 2005: Staff began phase 3 of the sign code update. This includes gathering all input and drafting sign code revisions. Staff sent a memorandum to the CDRB serving as an update to the work that has been completed up to date and offering a proposed structure and timeline for the completion of the sign code revisions. DISCUSSION TEMPORARY SIGNS Temporary signs are defined in the code as "...any banner, portable sign, advertising balloon, searchlight, or other sign allowed for a limited time." These signs are usually made of cheaper materials and are not permanently attached to any immobile structure. Staff feels that the part of the sign code pertaining to temporary signs under 16 square feet, temporary portable signs, special event signs, banners, and window signs needs revising and updating. Temporary Signs Under 16 Square Feet Under the current sign code, temporary signs less than 16 square feet in size (excluding banners) do not require a permit and there is no timeline for removal. Without a record of when the exempt temporary signs are erected or a timeline for removal it is difficult for staff to monitor and enforce sign code ordinances. This is particularly true for sandwich board and small ground signs that clutter the streetscape. 1. Suggested time period changes Temporary signs under 16 square feet could only be allowed for a limited time period. The time period could be 30 days per year per business, 60 days for a new business, and 90 days for a temporary or seasonal business. This is the time period currently allowed for temporary signs by permit. 2. Suggested fee structure changes Option 1 · A permit and fee could be required for all temporary signs, regardless of size, in order to monitor compliance with the time period. Option 2 · All temporary signs must obtain a permit but the fee for signs under 16 square feet would be waived. Temporary Portable Signs Portable sign are defined as "...a sign constructed to be movable from one location to another and not permanently attached to any immobile structure." Under the current sign code, temporary portable signs that are over 16 square feet are allowed only with a permit and no more than one temporary portable sign is allowed at a business location at any one time. The permit is valid for 30 days per year per business, 60 days for a new business, and 90 days for a temporary or seasonal business. In addition, there is no maximum allowable size. 1. Suggested changes Option 1 · Set maximum sizes for temporary portable signs to prevent disproportionately large signs in relation to surrounding uses. The maximum allowable square footage could be specialized by zoning district. Exact sizes could be further discussed in the following meetings when each district is separately addressed in detail. Option 2 · Prohibit portable temporary signs all together in Maplewood. The signs are popular forms of advertisements for businesses because they are inexpensive and can be thrown up very easily. The heavy use of these signs clutters the streetscape and adds to visual blight. The signs are often poorly maintained and the intended message gets lost from missing letters, missing decimal points, and confusing terms. There has also been trouble enforcing the time period because most of the owners of the portable signs do not obtain permits in the first place. Portable temporary signs are also banned in five of the six cities in the comparative analysis. Special Event Signs Special event signs pertain to campaigns, drives, or events of political, civic, philanthropic, educational, or religious organizations. Under the current code, special event signs are exempt from other temporary sign restrictions and are permitted in all zoning districts. The signs must not be erected or posted more than 14 prior to the date of the event and must be removed three days thereafter and can be over public property only with city council approval. Staff currently requires a permit and fee for the erection of a special event sign over 16 square feet. 1. Suggested fee structure changes Waive the permit fee for special event signs erected by a civic organization, non-profit organization, or religious groups that promote or identify a fundraiser, festival, bazaar, tournament, or other non-commercial one-time or annual events. Staff feels that waiving the permit fee is justified because these types of signs provide a public service by promoting awareness and involvement in community based activities. Banners Banners are defined in the code as, "...a temporary sign that is made of flexible material, contains a message, and is not inflatable." Under the current sign code, banners can be used as temporary signage but are limited to thirty days per banner. Banners can be up to 150 4 square feet in size or encompass 20 percent of the street frontage wall area, whichever is greater. 1. Suggested permit requirement changes Option 1 Without a recorded list of banners on file it is very difficult to monitor and enforce the amount of days a banner is posted. A permit could be required for all banners regardless of size. Option 2 · The permit could be free of charge for banners that do not exceed 32 square feet. 2. Suggested time period changes The maximum time period to display a banner with or without a permit should remain 30 days. There should also be a limit of one banner per business at any given time and no more than four permits per business per year to prevent visual clutter. 3. Suggested size changes Option 1 The maximum allowable square footage should be reduced to 75 square feet for all zoning districts. Option 2 · The maximum allowable square footage could be specialized by district. Window signs Window signs are defined in the code as, "...signs painted on a window or placed in a building to be viewed through the glass by the public." The window signs are permitted in all districts without a permit if the window sign does not exceed 75 percent of the window area. There is no time limit for the display of window signs. 1. Suggested size changes Option 1 · Reduce the maximum size for window signs to 25 percent of the window area. Window signs that are greater than 25 percent of the window area but less than 75 percent of the window area could be permitted only with a permit. Option 2 · Reduce the maximum size for window signs to 25 percent of the window area and prohibit window signs that are greater than 25 percent of the window area. 2. Suggested time period changes The maximum time period to display a window sign with or without a permit could be 30 days per year per business, 60 days for a new business, and 90 days for a temporary or seasonal business. Establishing the same time period for the display of window signs and the other temporary signs would make the sign code more standardized and less confusing. OFF-PREMISE SIGNS Off-premise signs advertise a product, event, person, institution, activity, business, service, or subject not located on the premise on which the sign is located. The signs can be erected on private property or on the public right-of-way under special circumstances. Staff feels that the part of the sign code pertaining to off-premise billboards, real estate signs, and directional signs needs revision and updating. Billboards Billboards are the largest and most controversial permitted off-premise signs in Maplewood. The current sign code places many restrictions on the location, size, and structure of billboards. Billboards are only allowed in the SC shopping center district, BC business commercial district, M-1 light manufacturing district, and M-2 heavy manufacturing district. Billboards cannot be located within 2300 feet of another billboard on the same side of the street, within 100 feet to a commercial, industrial, or institutional building, within 200 feet to a residential district or 500 feet to a residence, 500 feet to any local park, and ten feet from any lot line. The maximum allowable height of a billboard is 35 feet and themaximum square footage is 450 square feet. Billboards must also meet further state restrictions required under the Minnesota Outdoor ^dvertising Control Act of 1971. An advertising permit and annual fee for all billboards affronting interstates and highways must be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Extensive billboard sign restrictions are in place because of the negative impact billboards have on the local community and environment. Billboards are large, evasive, and add unnecessary visual clutter to the streetscape. Billboards fronting highways can distract a passerby from the on-site signs of local businesses and degrade the aesthetic quality of the community. Currently there are only a dozen billboards in Maplewood, which are located along the major highways (refer to attached billboard map). With the current restrictions there are very few places that additional billboards could be located in Maplewood. However, the billboards in place were erected years ago and have not been continually monitored or inspected by the city. Staff feels that the billboard regulation section of the sign code needs to be further examined and revised because of the controversial nature and potential negative impact caused by this type of sign. 1. Suggested distance restriction changes The distance billboards can be from a residence or residential district could be increased from 200 feet to 300 feet and the distance from a residence from 500 feet to 800 feet. The change would reflect resident concerns towards billboards addressed in the online sign survey. The survey showed that 72 percent of respondents would like to see changes in regards to billboard size and distance to residential districts. 2. Suggested permiffed use changes Option 1 Proposals for billboards that meet the required regulation could also be required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) with city council approval. The extra step would allow the city to further review the potential impact of the billboard. Option 2 Prohibit the erection of new billboards and allow present billboards to remain as non- conforming structures. Within the last few years the issue of billboard regulation has gained more momentum and attention. Many communities nationally and in Minnesota are prohibiting billboards. For example, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Eagan, Hopkins, Woodbury, Roseville, St. Paul, and Edina allow present billboards to remain but prohibit the erection of new billboards in their sign codes. 3. Suggested fee structure changes An annual inspection fee could be charged for all billboards. The inspection would ensure compliance with zoning and building code regulations. Neighboring communities such as Saint Paul and White Bear Lake require annual fees for billboards. Real Estate Signs The sign code defines off-premise real estate signs as, "...signs advertising a lot, groups of lots, or premise upon which the sign is not located." The current sign code regarding real estate signs is overly complicated, hard to enforce, and not inclusive. Off-site real estate signs of three square feet or less can be placed on the public right-of-way. The signs are allowed from 12:00 noon until 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and from 6:00 A.M on Saturday until 8:00 P.M. on the last day of a weekend. t. Suggested time period changes Option 1 Restrict all off-premise real estate signs to weekends only to make enforcement easier and reduce clutter on the right-of-way. Option 2 Restrict time period for off-premise real estate signs based on intended use. Real estate signs posted for directional purposes and to advertise open houses could be restricted to weekends only. However, open house signs could be allowed the day of the open house if the open house falls on a weekday. The sign must contain the actual date and time of the open house. Directional Signs Directional signs are designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic to a certain destination such as schools and hospitals. The current sign code only allows on-site directional signs. ? Suggested restriction change Off-premise directional signs could be allowed for certain non-commercial organizations such as religious institutions, hospitals, and schools. Signs of this nature provide a public service by defining important places in our community and guiding people to these destinations. The signs could be required to meet uniform design and placement standards and get approval by the community design review board. RECCOMENDATION The proposed revisions to the temporary sign and off-premise sign section of the code are only suggestions at this stage. Staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on the suggested revisions to the sign code found in this memo. City staff looks forward to meeting with the CDRB to continue our work on the sign code revisions at our next regularly scheduled CDRB meeting. P:\com_dvpt\ord\4-12-2005 CDRB Sign Code Revisions Document Attachments: 1. City of Maplewood Sign Code 2. City of White Bear Lake Sign Code 3. Billboard Location Maps Attachment 1 13 20 Attachment 2 23 24 25 26 '~E'~ 27 g8 29 3O 31 32 Attachment 3 694 Billboard Location Map ~gh~dod Ave J