Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 13, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: November 22, 2005 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: None Scheduled 7, Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revisions - Feedback Received and Final Proposed Changes b. Gladstone Redevelopment Joint Meeting - December 19, 2005 c. December 27, 2005 Community Design Review Board Meeting - Canceled 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present at 6:12 p.m. Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 9, 2005, Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of November 9, 2005. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61) in between the Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 2 This item was heard at the November 9, 2005, CDRB meeting and the board moved to table the proposal until November 22, 2005, so the applicant could bring back revised landscape and lighting plans and photos of the building material colors that were used on another development he was involved with. Mr. Ekstrand passed out revised plans that staff received November 21,2005. Mr. Ekstrand said this project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9, 120-square-foot, two-story building. Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440-square-foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have an office front. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fa<;:ade. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fa<;:ade with overhead garage doors. The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. .The primary differences were that the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fa<;:ade (now overhead doors) and the proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout. The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's engineering staff. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jim Kellison, President, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd, Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the board. Mr. Kellison said he didn't bring a revised landscaping plan because when he last met with the CDRB he thought it was determined that the landscape plan should be worked through with staff at the time that they are out at the site doing some of the work. The landscape area in question is at the extreme west end of the property which is adjacent to the residential area. When they get the survey stakes in the ground and they can determine how many of the existing trees the neighbors want to save that can actually be saved, then they will augment the plan to incorporate trees and plants into that area to provide a very good buffer for the residents. The landscape plan the CDRB has indicates that there is one row of trees there. They have since looked at the plan and feel they will be able to plant a staggered row of trees so it will be twice as dense. Some of the neighbors talked to him at the end of the last CDRB meeting and had asked if it was possible to use an Italian cypress tree as opposed to the Blue spruce because it grows fast and is shaped like a tall cylinder and is very dense and provides more privacy. A Blue spruce tree can still be seen through and is a very slow-growing tree and only grows about six to eight inches a year. Mr. Kellison said they will try to use the Italian cypress tree and the landscape contractor believes the Italian cypress tree will do well in that area. If it doesn't do well in that area, they will look at using another type of tree. They made the commitment to the neighbors that if they want a fence or trees or a fence and trees in their backyard then they will provide that for the neighbors so they have a better sense of privacy. He said that's the long explanation as to why he didn't provide a revised landscaping plan for the CDRB. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 3 Mr. Kellison said the revised lighting plan should be in compliance with the city's lighting requirement. The sign plan shows how the signage will be shown on each of the buildings, and he would be happy to review the sign plan with the CORBo Board member Olson asked if any changes to the building elevations were made and if Mr. Kellison had a color rendering of the building elevations? Mr. Kellison said he brought a color rendering to show the CORBo There were no changes made to the building elevations. The only modification made was for the signage on the buildings. Mr. Kellison passed the building sample material board around for the CORB to review, and he went through the details of the materials to be used on the building. Chairperson Longrie asked if Mr. Kellison knew what color the lettering for the signage would be? Mr. Kellison said these units are being sold to individual users and the location of the signage would be dictated by the association. The users would have to individually apply for the sign permits on each condominium unit with the city. Chairperson Longrie was wondering if the CORB should give a general direction of what color scheme the board would like to see on the signage so the tenants know in advance what is or isn't acceptable? For example, hot pink lettering may not be approved by the CORBo Mr. Ekstrand asked if Mr. Kellison anticipated the letters be lit letters, cabinet signs or individual letters placed on the sign areas? Mr. Kellison said in the past the signs have been individually illuminated letters or a channel letter with an individually illuminated letter set up on that channel. As the developers of the property, they are not fans of a box with a white plastic background with hot pink letters on it for example. They have taken the position that it really becomes the purchaser's responsibility to come to the city to obtain the sign requirements and to apply for a sign permit. Everybody's signage is so different, and like a retail shopping center, it is the tenant's responsibility to apply for the proper approval for the signage. Chairperson Longrie said she assumed there would be some type of a governing document for this property? Mr. Kellison said there will be an association for this office condominium complex which will be very similar to a homeowner's association. Chairperson Longrie asked if within that document will there be a section that is specifically looking at signage so the tenants know what is allowed under the signage document? Mr. Kellison said the association document will have a section on signage with a sign drawing stating all signage must be contained within this area and all signage must meet city ordinances and be approved and permitted through the city. They won't go any further than that in the association document regarding signage. This is what they typically do for developments such as this. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 4 Mr. Ekstrand said the sign plan should create criteria for the new tenants to follow which will identify the type of sign, lighting, maximum size and width. The city hopes to accomplish a set of guidelines for each tenant so they know what is allowed. Sometimes with centers like this there is a uniform coloration on the signage such as all blue lettering with a white background. It may not be the companies' color scheme, but staff has seen it with some signs in Maplewood. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Kellison's sign plan needs more work and there isn't enough information for the CDRB to act on, but it's a good start. The ground sign is a very nice looking sign and the wall signage placement looks acceptable to staff, but he would hope we could establish a set of criteria defining what each sign would consist of for this office condominium development. Board member Shankar asked if there would be any lit signs on the west face of Building #3? Mr. Kellison said the west face of Building #3 is the back of the building, so there wouldn't be any signage on that side of the building. Board member Olson said she was looking for specific language in the recommendations regarding the signage but didn't see anything. She asked staff if this is something the CDRB needed to act on separately? She said she wouldn't be against hot pink lettering if that was the corporate color, but she would rather not see channel lit letters on one sign and a large backlit sign for another. She would rather see sign consistency across the face of the office condominium buildings, and she wasn't sure how the CDRB should handle this. Board member Hinzman said he understands Mr. Kellison's reasoning as to why a revised landscaping plan wasn't available, but he believes the landscaping plan should come back before the board for review because this area is so close to the residential homes. He asked staff for their feeling on the landscaping. Mr. Ekstrand said he agrees the landscaping plan needs more work and the board needs to see better details. Staff realizes the applicant wants to move forward on this plan and go through the process with the city council. The landscaping plan could come back before the board even after the applicant begins construction on this proposal with the stipulation that the landscaping needs to come back before the CDRB with better detailed information. The city would not issue a certificate of occupancy before the landscaping is complete. Staff would recommend allowing the applicant to move forward with the rest of the process and recommend that Mr. Kellison bring a revised landscape plan back for final review. Mr. Kellison said he has been doing this for 30 years and has done several projects in Maplewood and he is as good as his word, and his word is very good. Mr. Ekstrand is correct in that they can't get a certificate of occupancy until the city gives them the go ahead. The city holds a large amount of escrow money until the landscaping is completed according to the final plan. He would be happy to come back before the CDRB with the final landscaping plan once he has a better handle on what is going to happen on the site. Mr. Kellison said sometimes things are put on the plan in "plan view" but until you are actually on the site and see how the grading works out, it can be difficult to see how things will work out. He said he recently finished a project in Woodbury where the neighbors were very concerned about the landscaping on the project and after it was done, two neighbors drove up and said "thank you, the landscaping was exactly what they were talking about and, they were very happy with the end result." Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 5 Mr. Kellison also said he received a telephone call from the Woodbury City Planner and they told him that was one of the best landscaping jobs they had seen to help screen commercial property from the residential homes. He said those are the words they expect to walk away with in Maplewood when they are done with this project. He said he would be more than happy to spend another meeting with the CDRB once he has talked with the neighbors and sees what they actually have to work with on the site. Chairperson Longrie asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the board regarding this proposal. Nobody came forward. Mr. Ekstrand said in condition number 6., on the first line, that could be changed to read CDRB approval rather than staff approval then. Board member Olson asked how staff felt about the comprehensive sign plan for item number 7. on page 7? Mr. Ekstrand said he would suggest leaving that condition stand as is. Normally the CDRB does approve such things, but staff is fine with it either way. His largest concern is that the city establishes uniformity in the types of signs for all of the occupants. Board member Hinzman said with the comprehensive sign plan he would agree that uniformity is the key issue, and he would be comfortable making an amendment to condition number 7. that there be some sort of uniformity established for signage on the site to be determined and reviewed by staff. Chairperson Longrie said she disagreed, and she would like to see all the signage come before the CDRB for review. Board member Olson said she thinks the wording needs to be expanded on for the comprehensive sign plan. She is concerned that the first applicant comes to the CDRB with a particular type of sign and if the CDRB approves the sign, you then set a precedent for everyone else who will be coming to apply for a sign permit for their tenant space. She doesn't know if the city is in a position where they can say specifically that this is the only sign you should be using for their sign. Mr. Ekstrand said he doesn't want to have individual tenants come before the CDRB and tell the board what they want to do with their sign. He believes the city should establish the guidelines and let the tenants know upfront what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the city of Maplewood regarding signage. Board member Olson asked if it would be appropriate to ask staff to come forward with a suggestion for products, style, and format regarding signage for the CDRB to review? Mr. Ekstrand said he could provide examples of signage in other centers or developments, but usually developments come to the city and say this is what they want to do with their sign and the CDRB or staff reacts to the request. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 6 Chairperson Longrie said when she used to work for Target Corporation the operating documents would have a section in them regarding the signage specifically set for the tenants with parameters for the signage, and it would give alternate choices that the tenant could work with within the governing documents. It was in conformity and already approved by the city. In this case, the CDRB would be the one approving the signage because they have already reviewed the language and signage options provided in that document with choices for the tenant to work within. Board member Shankar would recommend that the intermediate band that is shown on the east, north and south elevation be extended all the way around Building #3 to improve the look of the building. Otherwise the wall looks too tall with the appearance of nothing going on. This would improve the wall without looking like there is punched out openings where the dock doors are to be located. Board member Olson said she likes that idea because it gives the building a look of uniformity on all sides. Board member Shankar said he understands they will not be doing that on Building #1 and #2, but he is not concerned about that because Building #3 faces the residential area. Mr. Kellison said they can accommodate that request to add the banding to make it look more uniform. Board member Shankar moved to approve the site plan date-stamped October 11, 2005, #Ie lanElsoapo plan dato stamped Octobor 17, 2005, aR€l the liqhtinq plan date-stamped November 21. 2005. Approval is subject to the applicanUdeveloper complying with the following conditions: (Changes made by the CORB are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions of Chuck Vermeersch's engineering report dated October 17, 2005. 3. Obtain necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation before the issuance of a building permit. 4. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. 5. Provide fencing on the top of all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. The fencing shall be a black chain link fence at least 3.5 feet tall. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer, and the applicant must obtain a building permit. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 7 6. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for sta#-CDRB approval that provides a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be an all-season screen that may include decorative fencing, berming and evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and shall extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 7. Obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan from the community design review board before any sign permits may be issued. 8. Submit a complete lighting plan to staff for approval. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light- intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 9. Provide a revised landscaping plan to stuff for CDRB approval for the area along the street frontage, increasing the amount of plantings in this area. This shall be provided before the issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 11. The rear elevations of all buildings, and any parts of the side elevations that are rock- face block, must be painted to match the front building colors. 12. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements, before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 13. All customer parking spaces must be at least 9% feet wide. Employee parking spaces may be nine feet wide if signs are posted identifying them as employee parking only. 14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 15. The west elevation shall match the east, north and south elevations incorporatinq a CMU band at half the heiqht of the walls so it wraps all the wav around the entire buildinq. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 8 This item goes to the city council on November 28, 2005. b. Ashley Furniture Design Reconsideration (Neon Lighting) - 1770 County Road D East Mr. Ekstrand said on October 25, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) discussed the neon accent lighting on the Ashley Furniture store. This issue came up during the board's recent review of The Myth nightclub across the street from Ashley Furniture. While reviewing the proposed neon lighting on The Myth, the CDRB noted that the new Ashley Furniture store had neon lighting that was not part of their approved building design. The CDRB felt that The Myth was a suitable use for displaying neon. The board felt that it fit in with the type of business they were operating. The CDRB did not necessarily feel that way about a furniture sto re. The CDRB subsequently moved to have staff inform the owner of Ashley Furniture that they must either: . Remove the neon accent lighting, or . Submit a request to the CDRB that the board accept the neon accent lighting as a revision to their approved architectural plan. Mr. Ekstrand said that Michael Diem, of Architectural Network, the architect for the Ashley Furniture building, has requested that the CDRB accept the neon lighting that has been installed on the Ashley Furniture store. He explained to staff that this is trademark accent lighting for Ashley Furniture stores. He also feels that their use of neon is considerably softer in appearance since it is a concealed lighting, not exposed like other businesses in this area. Buildings in the area with exposed neon are The Myth, Arby's, Maplewood Best Western and the BP filling station at County Road D and White Bear Avenue. While reviewing this matter for CDRB consideration, Mr. Ekstrand found "notes to the file" documenting that he and Mr. Diem had discussed the addition of a "band of neon in the front parapet cove detail." He accepted this change as a minor revision to the approved plan. The e-mail from Mr. Diem had stated, however, that he was requesting approval for a neon band in the front parapet cove detail of the building, not around the perimeter of the building as is now in place. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. David Baillie, Furniture Outlets USA, DBA Ashley Home Stores (Ashley Furniture), addressed the board. He said to clarify, the neon lighting is not on the west side of the building towards the Town and Country townhomes and it is not on the dock area. It stops on the corner. Mr. Ekstrand said he did not see any lighting on that side but he thought the lighting was burnt out in those areas. Mr. Baillie said as far as turning the neon lighting off, he thought the city ordinance says the neon lighting needs to be shut off at 10 or 11 p.m. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 9 Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't sure the city ordinance specifically states the neon lights need to be off by 10 or 11 p.m. He said he was recommending the neon lighting be turned off at the close of business. Mr. Baillie said The Myth nightclub acroSS the street leases parking space from Ashley Furniture so the nightclub has more parking available for their customers. He doesn't see a reason to shut off the neon lighting. He looks at the neon lights as helping security in the parking lot for the customers from The Myth. He said Ashley Furniture has only had one security problem that occurred when somebody threw rocks at the EIFS on the Ashley Furniture building but that was before The Myth opened. He said as long as people will be in the parking lot, he would like to keep the neon lights on for security. Chairperson Longrie asked if there were any other lights on the building exterior besides the neon lights? Mr. Baillie said there are wall sconces on the building and the glass block at the two entrances are illuminated. He said the lights are on a timer and shut off at 11 p.m. Board member Olson said she believed the lights were on later than 11 p.m. because she has driven by that area at 12 midnight and. the lights were still on but they were off by 2 a.m. She said she has several issues with the blue neon lighting on the Ashley Furniture building. The first issue is that the neon lighting that the CDRB approved for The Myth nightclub is a subtle blue neon light and The Myth shuts the neon lighting off when they are not doing business. The blue neon lighting for Ashley Furniture is a very bright blue neon light and it can be seen from Sam's Club across the freeway. You can see the neon light from County Road C, and from the top of the hill where County Road D is being extended, and you can see it when the trees are in full bloom. The backlit entrance lights to Ashley Furniture are also very bright and she would think that the light coming from the light panels from either side of the doorways would be sufficient enough to light up the parking lot. She said that Mr. Ekstrand was not aware that prior to the CDRB meeting with Ashley Furniture the CDRB had turned down a request by Buffalo Wild Wings to have neon lighting around their building. There are commercial buildings with existing neon band lighting in the city of Maplewood, but the CDRB is moving in the direction of not approving entire neon belly bands on any building in the mall area in the future. The issue for her is that the blue neon lighting is too bright and the lighting does not get turned off when the building is closed and has remained on much later than she would expect. The brightness of the neon lighting has been and will affect the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Baillie asked where the residents Board member Olson speaks of are where the neon lighting is affecting them because the new town homes next to Ashley Furniture are still being built. Board member Olson said many of the homes in this area are not even built yet, but her point is the neon lighting is visible for at least one mile in all directions and it's very bright. She has an issue with this and would like the neon lighting turned off when Ashley Furniture closes for business. She realizes that the neon lighting at The Myth and the lighting at Ashley Furniture are two separate issues but she feels the blue neon lighting at Ashley Furniture is inappropriate and is much too bright, especially when you can see it over a mile away. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 10 Board member Hinzman asked if the preference of the board was to eliminate the blue neon lighting completely or just limit the hours the neon lighting can be left on? Board member Olson said her personal preference is to have the neon lighting turned off when business is closed. She doesn't want the neon lights on at 12 midnight. She doesn't think it is appropriate that the residents on County Road C should have to see the blue neon lights from the Ashley Furniture building when the residents look across Markham Pond. As she stated before, the blue neon lighting can be seen for more than a mile from the north, south, east and west directions. Board member Ledvina asked if it would be possible to reduce the intensity of the blue neon light by turning down the transformer or something of that nature? Mr. Baillie said he doesn't know that answer. The neon band of lighting is on all of their Ashley Furniture buildings and is a signature mark along with the glass block and the awnings, etc. When they laid out the soffit area it was a concern that the neon light not be seen directly, so they went back and redesigned the soffit area so it was not as visible. They designed the neon lighting so it appears more of a wall wash verses a blue neon light standing out. They really didn't realize they had done anything wrong until they were contacted by Tom Ekstrand. At the point and time the building elevation issues were under staff review, the people at Ashley Furniture were told it was okay by Tom Ekstrand to have the neon lighting. Chairperson Longrie said she appreciates the fact that the representatives of Ashley Furniture came before the CDRB tonight. The crux of the matter is that Ashley Furniture had received approval from staff to have the blue neon lighting on the front building elevation, but it appears that the amount of blue neon lighting on the building is greater than the area it was approved for. According to the staff report it states "Mr. Diem requested approval for a neon band in the "front parapet cove detail" of the building, not around the perimeter of the building as is now in place. So the ultimate question is was the approval of the blue neon lighting more extensive than what was noted in the file and was the installation of the blue neon lighting more extensive than what was actually approved by staff. How can the CDRB rectify this situation once the board gets the answer to those questions. Mr. Baillie asked where the CDRB thinks the front of the Ashley Furniture building is because they have three store fronts and this is a very unique building. They had to move and redesign the placement of this building three times because of the setback and other issues. Chairperson Longrie said that may indeed be where the crux is then if there are three fronts to a building and the approval was for blue neon lighting on the front of the building. Then the question is where is the front of the building? The CDRB is facing the question of how to solve this problem in a way that is agreeable to everyone. She asked Mr. Baillie if he would be agreeable to turning the neon lighting off at 11 p.m.? Mr. Baillie said he doesn't have a problem with that. However, he has to go back and see when the timer shuts the lights off. At one point and time it says signs have to shut off at 12 midnight, and he knows the lights are on two different time clocks for the sign and the lighting on the building. Chairperson Longrie asked what time Ashley Furniture closes for business? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 11 Mr. Baillie said business closes at 9 p.m. Chairperson Longrie said Mr. Baillie said Ashley Furniture has a leasing agreement with The Myth nightclub to share the Ashley Furniture parking lot for overflow. Is the parking agreement set up for weekends, certain nights or just when there is a concert? Mr. Baillie said the parking agreement is set when The Myth has a concert and needs additional parking for overflow. Chairperson Longrie asked if there are other lights on in the parking lot? Mr. Baillie said yes. Chairperson Longrie asked if he knew the hours the parking lot lights were left on? Mr. Baillie said he isn't positive but he believed the lights come on by a photo eye when it gets dark and a timer shuts the lights off, but he wasn't sure of the exact times. Board member Olson asked if there was any way possible to reduce the intensity of the neon light? Mr. Baillie said he wasn't sure if the transformer can be reduced or not. There is a certain tag voltage so you can change what the actual spark is, but most sign companies that you talk to people complain that the neon light isn't bright enough so they want to have a better gas and a higher intensity, but that is something he would have to call the sign people and ask. If they had to replace the neon lighting for a dimmer light it would be very expensive. Chairperson Longrie said if the CDRB asked your preference would it be to either turn the voltage of the neon lighting down or turn the blue neon lighting off? Mr. Baillie said they would prefer to shut the neon lighting off at 11 p.m. or something like that but he would have to go back and see the configuration of the circuitry and how the lighting works and what the easiest solution would be. Chairperson Longrie asked if he would be open to tabling this issue now and getting the answers to the questions that the CDRB has and bringing the answers back so the CDRB can come up with a solution that everyone can live with? Mr. Baillie asked which solution the CDRB was heading towards and what the board's thought was? He said they were not trying to be sneaky and go behind the city's back with the neon lighting. Ashley Furniture thought they had the proper approval from Tom Ekstrand and he thinks the building is very attractive and the neon looks nice in this setting. He said the Ashley Furniture building in Shakopee is bordered with 694 feet of red neon lighting. Chairperson Longrie said if indeed Ashley Furniture has gotten approval for the blue neon lighting for all three front building elevations, then the CDRB can't really tell Ashley Furniture they have to do something different unless they volunteer to do it. Maybe there needs to be a better clarification by staff on this. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 12 Chairperson Longrie said she understands the statement in the staff report that the neon lighting was approved for the front parapet cove detail of the building, but exactly what front parapet cove detail are we talking about, and if there are three fronts to the Ashley Furniture building, how does the board know what was actually approved? Mr. Ekstrand said it may have been the applicant's intention to call all three sides of the building the "front elevation" when referring to the addition of the blue neon lighting. But when he read the notes in the file regarding this, the front of a building to him is where the front door or entrance to the store is. He knows when you have a multi-street frontage lot a person may consider all street fronts the "front" of the building because all sides of the building on street fronts are designed to have attractive fronts on all views. Chairperson Longrie said maybe the CDRB and staff could dig out the old staff report/packet and look at the elevations and see how it calls out the different sides of the building and see if it calls out one side of the building in particular as the "front" of the building to give the CDRB a better idea. Mr. Baillie said they had to put awnings on the Ashley Furniture building because of the design of the walkway to highlight the northeast corner of the building. To say this is the front of the building and this is side of the building etc. is difficult, and everyone has a different interpretation. He said just look at how many roads run next to this location. Chairperson Longrie said she understands the issue completely, but before the board can make a recommendation or action they have to fully understand what the approval was for and what it was entailing because if the CDRB asks you to do something different than what the approval was, that puts the city in jeopardy of you coming back and saying you are being forced to do something you don't have to do. Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't know if it would ever be clear what was actually proposed by Ashley Furniture and what staff understood was proposed by Ashley Furniture or what was actually approved. Neon lighting had not been an issue in the past. If he was asked one year ago if Ashley Furniture could wrap their building in neon lighting, he would have said it looks fine to him. There is some vagueness of how the request for neon lighting was proposed to staff, but he personally doesn't consider four sides of a building to be the "front" of a building. He considers the "front door" the front of the building, which is probably where one would assume the neon lighting would be. Board member Hinzman said he doesn't think the CDRB is going to firmly establish the front of the building either. He personally doesn't see an issue with the neon lighting. He has seen this building along with the Ashley Furniture in Woodbury and he personally finds the building attractive and not offensive. He understands that the board would appreciate it if the intensity of the neon lighting could be reduced. This is a very intense area around Maplewood Mall and he knows Board member Olson feels very strongly about this, and he respects her opinion, but he doesn't have an issue with neon lighting on this building. Board member Olson said when Ashley Furniture first came to the CDRB, the board agreed this building was attractive. She reads the front parapet cove to mean the arched area over the front doorways, not the fascia or banding that goes all around the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 13 Board member Olson said she would've been okay with having the neon lighting over the peak area of the front door only based on the statement front parapet cove detail. Her feeling is the board has gone through the process with the Ashley Furniture building elevations and the lighting plan, and the board thought the lighting plan that was provided was sufficient. The neon lighting is a pretty strong addition to the building. As this area of the mall continues to intensify in development and more and more lights are added, the board will be in opposition to the tenants requesting more lights because of the board's feeling about the dark sky at night policy. This area is already flooded with lights, and it's only partially developed. The board is headed in the direction to not approve neon banding around any more structures in the Maplewood Mall area because it is just "too" much. She is looking to the future and what the CDRB approved for the Ashley Furniture building for their exterior lights on the building, in between the awnings, along the sidewalk and the very strong presence that the front entry has with the lighting. If Ashley Furniture had proposed a band of neon lighting at the initial CDRB meeting, she would have recommended limiting the band of neon lighting to the peak above the front door, and she wouldn't have allowed it anywhere else. The neon lighting isn't visible in the daytime but it's very visible at night, and after she drove around the area and through different neighborhoods, she noticed how intense and how visible the neon lighting at Ashley Furniture actually was. Mr. Baillie said you don't think of things like that until you start driving around. He said he drove around the Maplewood Mall area and noticed the neon lighting on the Red Lobster building. He said he would bet you can see the Red Lobster neon lighting even more than you can see the Ashley Furniture neon lighting. Board member Olson said she disagreed with that statement because of the facing and positioning of the Red Lobster neon lighting on the building. Mr. Baillie said that is Board member Olson's opinion. He said they didn't come into this project to trick the city, and as a representative of Ashley Furniture, they think the neon lighting is an architectural accent to the building and it highlights the building to make it look nice. He doesn't think the neon is too intense or offensive to people. Board member Shankar said the neon lighting is on the building already. If the building closes at 9 p.m. then we should have the applicant make sure the neon lighting is completely turned off by 9:30 p.m. There is no reason to leave the neon lighting on until 11 p.m. like the applicant stated if business hours close at 9 p.m. If the applicant is agreeable to that condition, then that is what the board should recommend. Board member Ledvina said he agreed with Board member Shankar. The CDRB talked about the dark sky at night policy, and to require lights at commercial properties to be turned off at night helps achieve the dark sky at night policy. He isn't sure the neon lighting gives any additional security to the Ashley Furniture building for the customers that are using the parking from The Myth nightclub. If Ashley Furniture needs additional lighting for security, they should talk to the city about adding more wall pack lights to the building exterior. The blue neon lighting is intense but is not displeasing. He would like the applicant to investigate alternatives to reduce the intensity of the neon lights. He feels with the neon lighting turned off the wall pack lights and other lights in the area will serve as good security for the area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 14 Mr. Baillie said if they reduce the intensity of the blue neon lighting and it costs $15,000, they won't look at that option. The neon lighting was an expensive architectural element to put on the building. He said you can't just paint the neon lighting to tone down the intensity. Neon lighting gets dimmer as it ages because neon loses its lumens as it is left on. The neon lighting on the Ashley Furniture building is about 6 months old, and 1 year from now the lighting will get dimmer. If you ever notice a section of neon lighting that was just replaced, you can really tell where the newly replaced section of neon is because it's much brighter. Board member Olson said she is comfortable with that explanation. If this neon lighting is replaced, she would like it to be a softer, not as intense neon light and not as bright. Board member Hinzman moved to approve a revision to the Ashley Furniture building design that allows the blue neon accent lighting that is in place on the building. The applicant shall investiqate wavs to diminish the intensitv of the blue neon accent liqhtinq and staff shall report back to the CDRB on the findinqs of the applicant. This is conditioned on the blue neon accent lights being turned off at 9:30 p.m.tho ond of Ashloy Furniture's businoss hours. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar Board member Olson thanked the applicant for coming before the CDRB. c. Regions Sleep-Health Center Mr. Ekstrand said Pope Architects is proposing to build a 7,084-square-foot, one-story building at 2688 Maplewood Drive. This building would be a sleep-health center for Regions Hospital. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick, cement-board siding and asphalt shingles on a hip roof. Mr. Ekstrand distributed the engineering report dated November 17, 2005, by Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer, and the revised staff recommendations dated November 22, 2005. Mr. Ekstrand said the planning commission recommended increasing the parking space width from 9% feet wide to 10 feet wide. Board member Shankar asked if we really need 10-foot-wide parking spaces for a sleep center? Mr. Ekstrand said that was only a request of a planning commissioner. The code states the parking space width shall be 9% feet wide for this type of use. Employee parking can be 9 feet wide. Board member Shankar asked what the reason was for the recommendation for a 10-foot-wide space versus the standard 9% foot wide parking space? Mr. Ekstrand said the 10-foot-wide parking space was recommended because a comment was made that dings get put in car doors with 9%-foot-wide parking spaces. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 15 Mr. Ekstrand said a parking space at 10 feet wide is very generous these days although that is what is recommended for retail parking due to more space being needed to get in and out of cars with packages. Some people are more conservative than others. Board member Olson said she would recommend 10-foot-wide parking spaces because these people will have an overnight bag or luggage and maybe even medical equipment with them. Getting out of their car may be easier and give them more space if there were wider parking spaces at this sleep disorder center. Board member Ledvina said the CDRB tries to reduce the amount of impervious surface in developments and widening the parking spaces only increases the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Ekstrand says that's a very good point. This is within a shoreland district and the applicant is meeting a bonus to go beyond the 30% maximum impervious surface coverage that would normally be allowed in this area. It could go up to 50% coverage if they were providing adequate on-site methods of collecting storm water and purifying it. The applicant is at 41 % coverage now. Ms. Laberee's engineering report covers that information, and she makes some recommendations regarding these issues. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. James Johnson, AlA, Project Manager for Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, addressed the board. This is a residential-looking facility. Parking is needed for a maximum load of 12 patients and 7 employees on a nightly basis. Board member Hinzman asked if the parking needs are sufficient if parking is reduced? Mr. Johnson said yes. The CDRB agreed this is a very attractive building. Chairperson Longrie said she is comfortable with the 9%-foot-wide parking spaces and the number of reduced parking based on the number of employees and visitors to this building on a nightly basis. She would prefer to reduce the amount of impervious surface as Board member Ledvina said. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 27, 2005, for the proposed Regions Sleep-Health Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the applicanUdeveloper complying with the following conditions: Revised plans date-stamped November 22. 2005. Changes made by the CDRB are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions of Erin Laberee's engineering report dated November 17, 2005. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 16 3. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. 4. The applicant shall work with staff to eliminate or reduce the number of parking stalls in the back of the building. This area shall be redesignated as "proof of parking." +Ae applicant sl:1all make overy attempt to provido 10 foot wide parking stalls as suggested by tho planning cOFRmission. Handicap parking stalls shall comply with ADA requirements. 5. Provide a revised parking lot screening plan for staff approval for the rear parking lot that provides screening that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque on the north/northeast and south/southeast sides. This requirement may be waived or lessened in scope subject to the elimination or reduction in size of the back parking lot and its redesignation as "proof of parking." 6. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 7. The design of the trash enclosure shall be submitted to staff for approval. The materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building. 8. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 9. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 12, 2005. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Longrie said there is a vacancy on the CDRB and interested candidates can go to the city website and download an application form if they are interested in applying. Chairperson Longrie is stepping down as Chairperson of the CDRB to become the new Mayor of Maplewood in January 2006. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-22-2005 17 Chairperson Longrie was the CDRB representative at the November 14, 2005, city council meeting and the only CDRB item to discuss was the Edgerton Manor, 2021 Edgerton, which was passed by the city council. Board member Hinzman will represent the CDRB at the November 28, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss is the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center at 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB received a mailing for the Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan that they should refer to. There will be a joint meeting between the city boards and commissions to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment Area on Monday, December 19, 2005, at 6 p.m. in the city council chambers. b. Board member Olson will be the Community Design Review Board Representative at the December 12, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss is the Regions Sleep-Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Shann Finwall, AICP, Planning Sign Code Revision City of Maplewood December 7, 2005 Over the last two months city staff has requested public feedback on the revised sign code. The revised sign code was finalized by the community design review board (CDRB) on September 14, 2005. City staff created a document which outlined the major changes in the code. This document was mailed to 200 random business owners within Maplewood with a return envelope and a form for feedback. In addition, city staff advertised the sign code revision process and requested feedback in the Maplewood Review, City News, and on the city's website. Feedback Received on the Proposed Sign Code 1. Rosemary, owner of Les' Superette: She operates a convenience store. In this business there are many reasons they have to advertise in a window. These reasons include: a) cigarette companies require a certain amount of signage in order to belong to their program and they also require signs advertising that they card for selling cigarettes; b) U.S. Post Office sign; c) windows painted for the holidays. Allowing only 25 percent window coverage does not seem adequate to advertise these items. Also, the main concern would be the time limit of 60 days for each sign. Some of these signs have to be displayed all of the time. Who enforces this type of code anyway? 2. Steve Blessing, Director of Administration at Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary: consider a definition for "property owner" regarding temporary signs - i.e., a church that also has a school and a daycare - each use should be allowed the temporary sign for 30 days out of the year. 3. Thomas Schuette, Azure Properties: It is not clear what size wall sign a multi-tenant building can have. The code states the wall sign should be based on the gross wall area of the tenant space. The chart below this differentiates the amount of wall signage based on the square footage of the building. Each tenant in a multi-tenant building should be allowed a certain percentage of wall sign, regardless of the overall size of the building. Also, consider restricting window signs to 25 percent of the window area for 60 days per sign, not 60 days per year total for all signs. 4. Dave Aune, Mounds Park Academy: Concerns with the size of temporary banners. the city should allow up to 64 square feet for schools and churches regardless of what zoning district they are located. Concerns regarding the size of signs for schools (wall and freestanding), there should be a standard size allowed for all schools and churches, regardless of the zoning district they are located in. 5. Tammy Gilbert, 1st In Service Realty: Two concerns with the proposed code: a) real estate signs - the city should consider allowing open house signs at the intersection in addition to a directional sign. The directional sign should be allowed throughout the extent of the listing, and the open house should be allowed only during the open house. Her concern is in the winter when directional signs become frozen in the ground, it is difficult to remove the directional sign and replace it with an open house sign just for one day; 2) window signs - I have a small real estate company, with a window sign that covers about 25 to 30 percent of the office window. My office is close to Gervais Court, with little or no drive-by traffic. The sign is only for identification so my clients can find the building. If I have to remove that and do a "lighted sign" it would be a waste of money and not attractive for the building. 6. Char Brooker, 2172 Woodlyn Avenue: I would say that the wording of the new ordinance seems to be one going in a more conservative direction - smaller signs, fewer temporary signs, and fewer signs in general. If that is the case, I am in favor of the change. We live near the mall and have found the clutter and ugliness of the temporary signs to be the most disturbing. I also support restrictions on billboards, on the heights as well. One other question - what about lighting? Some of the glare that neighborhoods get is from the lighting on billboards, car dealers, and lighted signs. Also, neon colors that are chosen for the temporary signs lend to the tacky look in front of some strip malls. Perhaps they should be required to blend in with the primary colors of the mall. I also notice the large number of the small push in signs that are around the mall for tires, apartments, and a bar. They are numerous and they get out of the ground easily so they look messy. Was there anything about them? 7. Sherry Wilwert, Edina Realty: As a local real estate agent in the east Metro area I feei the sign ordinance needs to be "cleaned up" a bil. In Cottage Grove directional arrow signs are not permitted except for open house signs. It makes the city look a lot more appealing. If you drive up and down McKnight Road it looks terrible with all the directional arrows. 8. Angela Chen: Opinion Signs: There is a billboard off of 494 right around Maplewood, but between Newport and Woodbury. As you go up the hill on the highway, it's right off the right hand side of the highway. This sign says "Got Soot - Call Marathon Oil." I have friends who work at the Marathon Petroleum refinery and I'm a little offended by the new sign they have up. It's not really advertising, but insulting to the company. Can there be a restriction on how long the opinion sign can be left up? If the opinion sign is facing a high traffic area, such as a major highway, doesn't that pose any potential traffic hazards? I don't know if your ordinances will address those issues, but just thought I'd mention them. This is a case where, as difficult as it can be to, I truly appreciate and respect our free speech rights. 9. Robert A. Johnson, 1060 Mary Street: I am really tired of seeing the temporary real estate signs and private ads put on our boulevards and utility poles (i.e., we buy old houses, owner to owner, and Team Boo). These people are littering the neighborhoods and advertising at our expense. We have on-line shopping, newspapers with want ads, radio and television to advertise in. Please help me clean up our neighborhood! 10. Matt Auron, Sl. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce: Interested to see that the City of Maplewood is proposing a new ordinance. Sl. Paul is considering a new ordinance this year as well. The main concern that the 51. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce has with Sl. Paul's new ordinance is the proposed fee schedule. One example is that Sl. Paul is 2 proposing to charge a yearly fee for signs. Is Maplewood changing the fees charged for signs as well? 11. P. Arne, Walker at Hazel Ridge, 2730 Hazelwood Street: Can banners on building that say "Apartments Available" be up for longer than 30 days? White Bear Avenue Business Association The White Bear Avenue Business Association (WBABA) is a group of business owners located on White Bear Avenue, from Highway 94 north to Interstate 494. WBABA was established with the vision and desire to make White Bear Avenue a viable place for businesses and residents alike. WBABA invited city staff to discuss the proposed sign code at their November meeting. Following is a summary of some of the member's concerns and questions regarding the proposed code: 1. Window signs: Window signs are one of the few inexpensive ways for small businesses to advertise. The city shouldn't restrict the size of window signs to 25 percent. Also, the code should clarify whether the window signs are allowed for 60 days per year total, or 60 days per sign. 2. Temporary signs: The code should clarify whether the temporary signs (under 12 square feet in area) are allowed for 60 days total, or 60 days per sign. 3. Banners: The city should allow larger banners than 32 and 64 square feet in area. Proposed Changes Based on Feedback and Additional Research Special Purpose and Temporarv Siqns Permitted in All Zoninq Districts 1. Directional Information Signs Existing Code - Up to (2) directional signs up to (4) square feet in area per curb cut to facilitate the movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and no more than (2) directional signs up to (10) square feet in area advertising the location and nature of a building, structure, or use which is not readily visible from the street. Proposed Code - On-site directional signs up to (6) square feet in area, with no limit or requirement for placement. Proposed Change - Should we consider a maximum number of directional signs and require them to be placed with a certain setback? 2. Menu Boards Existing Code - Menu/price signs for drive-up service windows do not require a sign permit and have no restriction on size or placement. Proposed Code - Menu boards are permitted for drive-through restaurants only. The area of each sign shall not exceed (64) square feet and the sign shall not be located as 3 to impair the vision of the driver of a vehicle traveling into, out of, or through the drive through isle. Proposed Change - The McDonalds on Cope Avenue recently added a second drive through to their restaurant. Should we consider a limit to the number of menu boards? 3. Off-Site Directional or Open House Real Estate Signs Existing Code - Signs up to (3) square feet may be placed on the public right-of-way, no closer than (8) feet to a street pavement or (2) feet to a sidewalk or trail. The signs can be placed from 12 noon until 8 p.m. on weekdays and from 6 a.m. on Saturday until 8 p.m. Oon the last day of a weekend. Proposed Code - Signs up to (3) square feet may be placed on the public right-of-way, no closer than (5) feet to the street pavement or (1) foot to a sidewalk or trail. Said sign shall not be placed between the street and a sidewalk or trail. Real estate signs are limited to (1) per intersection for each separate real estate listing. Proposed Change - The new code should be clarified. Is it one per intersection or one per corner per intersection? Should we specify that open house signs are only allowed during the open house only? Should we consider allowing an open house sign in addition to a directional signs, only during the open house? Should we be more restrictive on these types of signs considering some of the feedback received, i.e., only allow them on the weekend? 4. Temporary Signs and Displays Under (12) Square Feet Existing Code - These types of signs are not restricted in the existing code, allowing commercial properties to have as many temporary signs under (12) square feet as they want for as long as they want. Proposed Code - One non-illuminated temporary sign under (12) square feet is allowed per property (except for single and double dwelling properties) for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year. For commercial buildings with multiple occupants, each separate occupant is permitted (1) such sign. No more than (3) temporary signs under (12) square feet shall be allowed at a property at anyone time. Proposed Change - Should we change "for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year" to "for a period not to exceed (30) days total per sign"? 5. Temporary Banners Existing Code - Banners may be used as temporary signage and are not required to have a permit unless used for more than 30 days. Banners shall not exceed 150 square feet or 20 percent of the street frontage wall area, whichever is greater. Proposed Code - Temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per property at anyone time except for multiple-tenant buildings which are allowed (1) banner per separate tenant at anyone time. Each banner shall not exceed (32) square 4 feet for residential and neighborhood-type commercial zoning districts, and (64) square feet for higher impact commercial zoning districts. Proposed Change - Should we change "displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year" to "displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per banner"? Should we consider allowing banners up to (64) square feet in area for residential and neighborhood commercial and (92) square feet in area for higher impact commercial based on feedback received? Should we allow one individual banner to be installed for (60) days rather than just (30)? 6. Temporary Window Signs Existing Code - Window signs not exceeding 75 percent of the window area are allowed without a permit. Proposed Code: Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit for a period not to exceed (60) days total per year per property or separate occupant of a multiple tenant building for all said signs. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no more than 25 percent of the total area of the window. Proposed Change - Should we consider allowing up to 50 percent of the total area of the window based on feedback received? Should we change "for a period not to exceed (60) days total per year per property" to "for a period not to exceed (60) days total per temporary window sign per property"? Should we not specify a maximum amount of time for each window sign, based on feedback received? Siqns in the BC. BC-M. M-1. and M-2 Zoninq Districts 1. Wall Signs Existing Code - A property is allowed up to (2) wall signs per street frontage, with (1) additional sign allowed if property is located at an intersection. Wall signs are limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Proposed Code - For each occupant of a building, one wall sign is allowed for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total number of wall signs may be increased by one for each clearly differentiated department of a business or enterprise. The total size of all wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. The total coverage area of wall signs shall be based on the wall surface to which the signs are attached. For buildings with multiple occupants, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area of the exterior facade of the premises occupied by such tenant or user. The following table indicates maximum signage permitted: Principal Structure Gross Maximum Size and Coverage Square Feet Area of Each Sign Less than 10,000 sq. ft 80 sq. ft. or 20% of wall face, whichever is less 5 10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. or 20% of wall face, whichever is less 20,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. or 15% of wall face, whichever is less Greater than 100,000 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. or 10% of wall face, whichever is less Proposed Change - The proposed code does not make clear how much signage is allowed for multiple-tenants, only single-tenant buildings. How much signage should we allow for each tenant space, 10%, 15%, or 20% of the gross wall area, with a minimum of 32 square feet? 2. Freestanding Signs Existing Code - The size of freestanding signs is based on the size of the lot, ranging from 150 to 300 square feet in area. Proposed Code - The size of freestanding signs is based on the street classification of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located, ranging from 80 to 180 square feet. Proposed Change - Which street classification should we go by if the property is on an intersection? Siqns for Churches and Schools Existing Code - Restricts signage at a church or school based on the zoning district which the facility is located. The city allows churches and schools in all zoning districts with a conditional use permit. Proposed Code - Restricts signage at a church or school based on the zoning district which the facility is located. Proposed Change - Should we create a separate sign criteria for all churches and schools, regardless of what zoning district they are located? Most churches and schools in Maplewood are located in a residential zoning district. This would allow them wall signs of (24) square feet and freestanding signs of (32) square feet. However, some are located within commercial zoning districts which would allow them much larger signs. Is this fair? Is it legal to prohibit signs based on type of use, not location (question for the city attorney)? Siqns for Residential or Commercial Uses which are Zoned as a Planned Unit Development Existing Code - Does not specify the allowable signage for PUDs. City staff has been allowing signage based on the original underlining zoning district (prior to the PUD), or based on PUD conditions of approval. Proposed Code - Does not specify the allowable signage for PUDs. 6 Proposed Change - Should we require all PUDs to have a comprehensive sign plan or in the event that they are proposing just one development identification sign such as a residential development should we have these signs reviewed by the CDRB? Courtesv Benches Existing Code - Benches at or near mass-transit stops in the city are allowed with a license through the city clerk's office. Advertising on the benches is allowed on the front and rear surface of the backrest and shall not display the terms "stop," "look," "danger" or any other word, phrase or symbol that might interfere with or distract traffic. Proposed Code - There is nothing in our proposed sign code which restricts advertisement signs on courtesy benches. Proposed Change - Should we propose a change to the existing courtesy bench ordinance which would require more restrictive standards for advertisement or design review of courtesy benches since these benches are placed within the public right-of-way for all to see? Enforcement of Siqn Code Existing Policy - City planner, mainly myself, monitors and enforces all permanent and temporary signs. This is very difficult when the city planners generally are not driving through the city that often and when the city planners have development, comprehensive plan, and other work load conflicts. Proposed Change - Should we recommend a policy for enforcement of the sign code, Le., strongly encourage assistance for the enforcement of sign code in some way or another? Proposed Code Timeline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Public Comment (Web Page, Random Mailings, Articles, etc.) Compile Data and Present to CDRB Revise Draft Code as Needed Based on Above Attorney Review City Council Review Oct. - Nov. 2005 December 13, 2005 January 2006 January 2006 Feb. or March 2006 Summary Please review and be prepared to comment on the above-mentioned items at the next meeting. P:ordlsigncode projectI12-13-05 CDRB Report Attachments 1. September 14, 2005, Revised Sign Code 7