Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, April 25, 2006 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: April 11 , 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Town Center Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (Best Buy) -1795 County Road D b. Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Reader Boards 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. Special City Council Meeting, April 18, 2006 - Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan 9. Staff Presentations: a. CDRB Representation at the May 8, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items to Be Discussed Include Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Reader Boards b. Planning Commission and CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Joel Schurke Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 28, 2006. Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of March 28, 2006. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes --- Hinzman, Shankar, Schurke Abstentions - Olson The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan - Recommendation to the City Council Ms. Finwall said on March 28, 2006, the CRDB along with the HRA in a joint meeting heard a staff presentation about Plan B for the redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood. This plan had about 490 housing units in the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. The master plan had 800 housing units. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 2 The city council is meeting Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at the Maplewood Community Center at 7:00 p.m. Staff is looking for a CDRB representative to give the Gladstone recommendation from the board to the city council. Chairperson Olson said she has served as a Gladstone Task Force member for the past 18 months. Board member Matt Ledvina could not be present for tonight's meeting but provided comments for staff to read and present to the CDRB members for the record. It read: Matt Ledvina supports the 800 unit development plan concept that was presented in the master plan. The area has significant amenities that support and justify planning at a higher density. These include the Gladstone Savanna open space, access to recreational facilities such as parks and trails, excellent transportation connections, and existing city improvements associated with the roundabout. The master plan concept provides greater leverage for obtaining significantly higher property values with a relatively marginal increase in cost. He believes if the lower density plan (490 units) is chosen, in 10 years the conclusion will be that the city should have done better with this opportunity. Board member Shankar asked how many board and/or commissions are making a recommendation regarding the Gladstone plan to the city council? Ms. Finwall said the Gladstone Task Force, Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board, Housing Redevelopment Authority, Park and Open Space Commission, and Historical Commission will be giving their recommendations to the city council on Tuesday, April 18, 2006. Board member Shankar said in the past the city council has looked to the CDRB for recommendations regarding design issues. Density issues are normally looked at by the Planning Commission. He wondered how the recommendation from the CDRB in terms of density would carry with the city council? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission normally deals with land use and density issues. In this particular instance staff feels the density correlates with the design elements of the overall plan. Approving one plan over the other based on the fact that it might offer added amenities would be within the bounds of the CDRB's duties. Board member Schurke asked if staff had a recommendation regarding this plan. And if shy a recommendation from staff, what is the sediment in terms of density? Ms. Finwall said the consultants are putting a staff report together which will outline our recommendations. The planning commission has recommended the master plan, the HRA will be discussing this tonight, the historical commission recommended the master plan, however, had concerns about development with one particular historical house in the area. The Parks and Open Space commission recommended the master plan because of the added amenities that would be involved on the Savanna. City staff has been working towards a redevelopment project that would set the bar for future redevelopment high. This is the first large proactive redevelopment in the city, and the city wants to make sure this is something special and that will attract quality development. Board member Schurke asked if that recommendation would be made by staff to the city council prior to the meeting on April 18, 2006? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 3 Ms. Finwall said staff may be looking towards the consultants for that recommendation but staff would be supporting the consultant's recommendation. Board member Shankar said he got the impression at the last meeting that Chuck Ahl was thinking of somewhere between 490 and 800 units and it wasn't clear to him why Chuck Ahl was not supporting one plan over the other. Chairperson Olson said she can't speak to Mr. Ahl's comments but in the packet the CDRB received the list of comments from the last Gladstone public meeting where 30 people wanted option A, and 38 people wanted option B. As the second choice, 16 people wanted option A and 22 people wanted option B. In the first choice there was one person who had another response which was a compromise somewhere in between the 490 and 800 units (that person was Chairperson Olson) and she believes that is what Chuck Ahl was referring to. The master plan was not a "universal" choice. Almost everybody had some criticism of something in the master plan, however at the end it was a compromise of the "best choices available" and she thinks it's important to recognize that fact. Plan B is the least possible impact development plan. As such, almost everyone from the task force had something negative to say about plan B because it was too minimalist and that there needs to be some enhancement. As a board we have the opportunity to heal some wounds and take some steps in the direction that is going to unify the situation for many people that have been very uncomfortable with the idea of the Gladstone Redevelopment plan. In the CDRB packet staff made reference that the CDRB could recommend either plan A or plan B or come up with a combination to recommend to the city council. She would like to see if the board could come up with some recommendations that would be acceptable to everyone on the board. Board member Hinzman said people can see certain things they like in both plans and what they think would work better. This area is served well by the separation of the residential property from the commercial property by Gateway trail and the Bruce Vento trail systems. Everything to the south and to the west of the trail system is pretty well buffered and has minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. However, when you go east of the Bruce Vento trail you are getting into the neighborhoods that are already established as single family homes. It seems the plan puts town homes and densities in areas that come in close conflict to one another, so he questions that part of the plan. The density along Frost Avenue and English is essential. He is disappointed in plan B with the intersection at Frost Avenue and English because it does not have any commercial property. It appears to have mid-density townhomes right up to the intersection and he thinks that's a tremendous loss to not have density at that intersection. You can put in more density and buffer it with the trail systems and take advantage of that. Chairperson Olson said the trail system and the walkability for this project have been key components to this plan and any recommendation the board makes to the city council needs to reflect that. The issue of preservation of the existing businesses is a very substantial issue. She was approached by business owners and in plan B there is no provision for the existing businesses. There is a laundromat, a hair dresser, a dog groomer, and there are multiple small businesses that are not included with this plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 4 Chairperson Olson said the Maplewood Bowl is a profitable enterprise and it has a long term lease and the developer would very much like to develop this, however, with a long term lease and the opposition from the lease holders, this is not an issue the CDRB can deal with. The city needs to consider that the Maplewood Bowl is a viable entity and it's going to be there for awhile. Chairperson Olson said the funeral home has decided to remain, the Moose Lodge wants to remain, the Boatworks is ready to leave, Gladstone Doors and Windows is looking at relocating along Highway 61 and there is a tremendous amount of change that is going to happen regardless of the situation. The pedestrian issues and commercial property retention and attraction are major issues that have been discussed endlessly and need to be addressed by the overall design. Board member Shankar said his opinion is that the CDRB should recommend whatever they feel is appropriate and not necessarily look at how the community may respond as a compromise. The community is looking at the board for their best professional opinion as the CDRB and he does not particularly see a need for a compromise. Chairperson Olson asked if the board members are alright addressing the issues as individual items and coming up with a recommendation to the city council? Board member Schurke said he would concur with what board member Shankar said. He thinks it is important that as a board member he would personally value staff's recommendation because he would like to see Maplewood stand on their own two legs from a staffing standpoint to have staff make recommendations that are not necessarily driven by either a vote of community members or a consensus building approach. He thinks there are directions that this community needs to look at that establish a new quality standard for Maplewood as a community. He spent a lot of time driving through the neighborhood and has biked the trails extensively over the past 10 years while living in the City of Maplewood. The clean up that is necessary around the area is unacceptable and has been tolerated for far too long. The last few years the backside of properties that adjoin the trail have been cleaned up a little bit but even still there are properties that are unacceptable in his opinion. Board member Schurke said personally he would like to see certain things happen in this area. He would like to make sure the city does not make a significant public investment in acquiring viable existing businesses. The properties that are east of English Street have a chance to sustain themselves on their own and can remain and if you can attract a developer who is willing to work with those businesses then that is what should happen. Maybe there is some way to support some visible improvements like streetscape improvements to the existing businesses and keep them there. He agrees with board member Hinzman's comments regarding the housing densities east of the Bruce Vento trail. More importantly to him is the cost that the city incurs to buyout viable businesses that could sustain themselves and in time, as the market evolves, let those businesses decide what they want to do. He would also like to see the city secure outside financial resources to pay for other improvements. Maybe there is a way to do that in lieu of increasing densities to pay for public improvements. He asked what other grants or resources there are at the federal, state or county level. If this is the first proactive redevelopment in the City of Maplewood we need to respect the investment made and the process that the task force and city staff has gone through to get this far. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 5 Board member Schurke said he looked at the results that HKGI has achieved and aside from "minor" criticisms he thinks it's a tremendous planning effort. If we don't respect and recognize this plan it could set a bad tone for other people who could be involved in future planning efforts of this magnitude if they should ever come up in Maplewood. Board member Schurke said we also need to respect the time and energy that people have invested with this plan as well as their insights. This is really a great plan. Chairperson Olson said she has personally invested well over 100 hours and over two years of time on this process which has been a real challenge. The issue she has with plan B is that there is really only two housing formats that are being proposed. One is a multi-family unit where there are shared walls and the other is rowhouses. One comment that came up at one of the task force meetings is that there are too many rowhouses and that it would be a mini Legacy Village. She commented that with all those rowhouses there cannot be accessibility because there are interior and exterior stairs to the units. Remember there are no handicap accessible housing units in the Legacy Village development. Gladstone as a community needs to look at providing accessible housing, which is not necessarily senior housing and is not necessarily low income housing. The Gladstone plan should provide senior housing because this is a community with a lot of seniors living here. HKGI, the consulting firm has identified that fact. People who have retired would like to move back into the community. There are snowbirds that live in southern states and want to live here in the off season and take advantage of the recreational facilities and other options. It's an aging community and the elementary school has been converted to a senior center. Chairperson Olson said this area needs affordable housing built here as well, which does not necessarily mean "low income" housing. The St. Paul Tourist Cabins site has a letter of intent from Central Community Housing Trust (CCHT) and this would provide affordable housing and they would be able to access additional funding for the environmental clean up on the tourist cabin site which is significant. The existing residents who live in the tourist cabins could apply for housing in this development once it is built. There are currently about 80 homes on the site which would be replaced with around 150 housing units. The residents who live in the tourist cabins are mostly 65 years of age and older and on a limited fixed income, however, there are some families that still live there. There is no proposal at this time, it's only a concept, but if the Gladstone Redevelopment plan is accepted CCHT may be applying to the city very soon. At this time she is in favor of this concept plan by CCHT and she feels this development would be a great asset to this community. Chairperson Olson said she feels current business owners should be allowed to remain in the area, subject to the city codes and ordinances. She feels there should not be any forced displacements on the site. The city needs to restore and retain what little historical quality that's left on this site. In the original plan that HKGI put together there was an area close to Lake Phalen that featured the oldest park in Maplewood and is called Lookout Point but was eliminated from the master plan because as the master plan evolved, the density was reduced. There is nothing there right now representing Lookout Point. Some of the residents wanted to see a bench and sign or a small gazebo representing the historical quality of the park. She would like to see that idea put back into the plan. The Savanna has some serious environmental issues and there needs to be funding for the clean up of that site and there needs to be walking paths through there. She has heard a multitude of stories about small petty crimes, kids stealing bikes and losing them in the tall weeds, etc. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 6 Chairperson Olson said the Savanna is not accessible, it's not friendly, it's threatening and some of the residents have said there is a change in tone in the neighborhood after dark. So lighting and streetscape issues are important there. Flicek Park was a hot topic; there was a lot of passion for the ball field which is very active in the summer. The park is being used by other communities and the parks department is in effect subsidizing other teams from other city's who do not have their own ball fields. Everyone felt that if there was any way to preserve the ball fields that would be their preference. In the end, the issue of storm water retention took precedence over that. At one of the meetings Chuck Ahl said for many years the city felt the best thing was to get rid of the surface water and the plan was to move it into Lake Phalen. Now there are a lot of issues with storm water retention and the pathing of that water. Chairperson Olson said many people thought it was a good idea to retain the pond on the Savanna. There were a lot of mixed reactions regarding the pond draining under Frost Avenue and into Flicek Park for an additional storm drain, collector and treatment area. That will have to be a parks issue. HKGI and Kimley-Horn, the consulting firms, presented two different design plans for a bebo which is the larger more expensive version and a box culvert which is much smaller and less expensive. She said she spoke to many people who were opposed to a box culvert because it's too small, feels claustrophobic, could be a place where more petty crimes occur and because of the width of the space probably would not be handicapped accessible. The bebo is definitely preferred by the people she spoke with, but is the more expensive route. Chairperson Olson said she spoke to the business owners and the issue of connecting the trails and creating sidewalks is a major issue to them. Most of this area does not have curb and gutter or sidewalks. Sidewalks are something the city and the CDRB have been pushing for and recommending for some time now and remains crucial for people to use. She would like to see parking areas with pervious pavers, similar to what Schmelz Countryside did in their parking lot. There are a lot of resources for this, it's more expensive to construct, but she feels this would solve a lot of drainage problems and the CDRB could make a recommendation on this in the near future. Initially in the conversations with residents there was a definite limit of no taller than 3 story buildings but as the task force toured areas in the twin cities they saw a lot of ways to make very nice developments that are three, four or five stories tall and are very attractive. This would require elevators and make the housing accessible. Higher stacking results in a smaller footprint, and a smaller footprint allows for more green space or open space around it. If there were taller structures in the Gladstone neighborhood that would provide wonderful views of Keller Lake, Lake Phalen, and the Savanna and those units could definitely be priced in a higher bracket and provide some assets to the community. So the issue of density and taller buildings is something she thinks the CDRB can address and she thinks some high stacked structures are necessary for this area. The buildings could be set back and do not have to be near Frost Avenue. Setbacks are another issue that she would like the CDRB to make a recommendation on. In the master plan you will see the structures are pushed right up to the right of way. Chairperson Olson said during the tours the task force liked the Excelsior Development on Grand and Excelsior. There was an extremely wide sidewalk with a large setback which allowed for cafe tables and space for wheelchairs to access and space for parking, trash containers and bollards on the sidewalk to protect pedestrians from traffic. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 7 Chairperson Olson said on the north side of Frost Avenue she would like to see the larger setback and maybe even on English Street but particularly with the commercial areas. We could cut costs on the landscape medians. She would personally prefer not to see the landscaped median between the area north of the Savanna and the development because she thinks it forms a barrier and she would rather see the Savanna environmentally accessible. Chairperson Olson said she thinks it serves as a traffic calming device. She would like to see a landscape barrier at the top of the hill on Frost Avenue by White Bear Avenue rather than down by the Savanna where things are already green and heavily treed. She wants to see streetscape, pedestrian lights, lights, sidewalks, and accessible ramps on the streets, and colored concrete pedestrian crosswalks. These are all cost items and they are important to the community but she is afraid those are items that will be sacrificed. There needs to be some recreational development on the Savanna. Everyone thought there should be no residential development on the Savanna. There need to be trails on the Savanna. The Savanna could have a fountain on it and the Historical Committee discovered there is a very deep historical well in the center of the Savanna which would be great to have a fountain there. Ms. Finwall thanked Chairperson Olson for all her time and effort on the Gladstone Task Force and thanked the CDRB for their comments and recommendation. The Gladstone master plan is a concept for possible redevelopment in the area. This is similar to the Hillcrest area where the City of Maplewood adopted the Hillcrest Redevelopment plan in 2004. This was based on the Metropolitan Councils studies of the smart growth site. Gladstone is the first proactive "redevelopment" site and the redevelopment of the Hillcrest area was guided by the Metropolitan Council. This is step one which is a vision and a concept plan, step two is creating the land use, zoning and design standards, step three is the implementation and how the city council proposes to implement that. This is the first step of about 12 steps. All the comments made by Chairperson Olson and the rest of the CDRB members are important and valid and will be looked at closely during the design standards portion of the process. Chairperson Olson said she wants high quality housing and does not want substandard housing. She knows the issue of housing materials and housing design is way down the road but she wanted to share her comments. Board member Schurke hoped that the city council will read the comments that were shared by the board members so the city council can understand some of the opinions and concerns that were addressed here. For that reason he will make a simple CDRB recommendation to the city council. A clear recommendation is always better. Board member Schurke moved that the CDRB recommend the master plan (800 units) to the city council. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Tuesday, April 18, 2006. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 8 Ms. Finwall recommended the CDRB select a CDRB representative to give the recommendation to the city council. Staff will not have time to recreate the minutes verbatim for the April 18, 2006, city council meeting but staff will type discussion items up and pass them on for the staff report by Chuck Ahl. The CDRB minutes of 4-13-06 will be in the next packet. Chairperson Olson said if staff could condense the discussion down to bullet points that would be most important to provide. Staff would be happy to do that. Board member Shankar said even though the CDRB is recommending the master plan we should talk about some of the issues that were brought up last time. One was the growth of the population in the Metropolitan area which Chuck Ahl said is estimated to grow to 1 million people over the next 20 years. The issue of stacking of homes was brought up which is more energy efficient compared to spreading the units out. Someone asked Chuck Ahl about the additional need for schools and staff felt this development would trigger a demand for more classrooms because there would be more kids moving in, but he felt there would be no need for more schools and the school system could handle the growth of more children. Chairperson Olson said the population of school age children in this area of Maplewood is on the decline and there may be a need to close another school in Maplewood. So there would be no need to build new schools in this area and which appears not to be an issue. Board member Schurke said he heard a comment at the last meeting regarding the trails in proximity to the downtown areas and other work areas including Maplewood Mall, the opportunity for this to be a live, work place and provide for alternate means of transportation might mean the city could entertain a lower requirement of parking as a result of that for development. Recognizing that in a formal way and saying if you were to attract people as young professionals they could possibly give up cars and use bikes to get around. Board member Hinzman said he strongly believes the master plan with the 800 units is going to be a benefit for the property owners in the area. As someone who has grown up and lived in this area his whole life and has seen this area slowly look more ragged, that is going to reflect on the neighborhood and being able to infuse new density and different housing choices is only going to highlight the great amenities and is going to boost the property values in the area, especially since there is a good separation. Board member Schurke said one thing that's really intriguing about this location is that it provides affordability adjacent to a lake setting. Lake Phalen is one of the last affordable lakes in the metropolitan area. For some people, that may not be affordable, but generally speaking it is a very affordable as far as living on a lake goes. Chairperson Olson said one of the first things that came up early in the project regarding density is that people who used to live there want to come back and people that grew up there want to move back, but because of the afford ability factor you have to wait for someone to either move or pass away before a home opens up in Gladstone. This would allow people to move back into the neighborhood and should be a consideration. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-11-2006 9 Board member Shankar said based on Chairperson Olson's 100 hours of volunteering and her knowledge of the Gladstone meetings, he would recommend Chairperson Olson be the most appropriate person to represent the CDRB at the city council meeting. Chairperson Olson agreed to be the CDRB representative to make the recommendation to the city council. She thanked the board members for their comments. Board member Hinzman thanked Chairperson Olson for all her hard work and efforts regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment plan. Board member Schurke requested that Chairperson Olson pass along to everyone involved the CDRB's gratitude to all who participated in the lengthy planning process including the Gladstone Task Force, city staff, consultants, members of the commissions and boards, and the public. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Best Buy's Request for an Amendment to the Town Center Shopping Center's Comprehensive Sign Plan Paul Anderson, WCL Associates 1795 and 1845 County Road D April 19, 2006 for the April 25, 2006 CDRB Meeting APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Project Description Paul Anderson of WCL Associates, LLC, representing Best Buy, is proposing signage for the new Best Buy store located at 1795 County Road D (Attachment 1). The new Best Buy store is currently under construction and is located within the Town Center Shopping Center. Best Buy is proposing three new wall signs on their building and is also proposing to reface the existing Frank's Nursery freestanding sign located along the highway. All existing signs on the current store will be removed. Request The city's sign code requires all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants to have a comprehensive sign plan approved by the community design review board (CDRB). Any amendments to the approved plan must be reviewed by the CORBo Best Buy is requesting an amendment to Town Center's existing comprehensive sign plan. BACKGROUND September 23, 1986, the CDRB approved a comprehensive sign plan for the Town Center Shopping Center located at 1845 County Road D (Attachment 2). May 24, 1993, the CDRB approved a comprehensive sign plan amendment to allow replacement of the Best Buy wall sign on their existing store in the center (Attachment 2). August 28, 1998, the CDRB approved a comprehensive sign plan amendment to allow the Best Buy pylon sign to be moved to the northeast corner of the site, a wall sign to be located on the north side of Best Buy's addition, and two pylon signs for a previous business in the center (Egghead Software) to be removed (Attachment 2). August 22, 2005, the city council approved a parking count reduction for the Town Center Shopping Center and design review for the new Best Buy store. The project includes demolition of the existing Frank's Nursery store within the center, redevelopment of that portion of the center with a new freestanding Best Buy store, and eventually closing the existing Best Buy store located at the east side of the center. August 23, 2005, the CORB approved the building elevations for the new Best Buy store. DISCUSSION Draft Sign Code The CDRB should reference the board's recently drafted new sign code when reviewing this proposal. The CDRB recommended approval of the draft sign code on March 1, 2006. The city council's initial review of the draft sign code is scheduled for May 8, 2006; with city council final review happening sometime this spring or summer. The draft sign code, when approved by the city council, would allow one wall sign for each street upon which the property has frontage, plus one wall sign for each clearly differentiated department. The size of wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. Best Buy's new store will be 45,243 square feet in area, with wall signage limited to 150 square feet per sign. One freestanding sign is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total size and maximum height of the freestanding sign is determined by the street classification of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located. Town Center Shopping Center is located on a principal arterial (1-694) and on a minor arterial (County Road D) and would be allowed a freestanding sign which is 180 square feet in area and 25 feet in height. A freestanding sign must maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines. The freestanding sign must be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or project, with the base of the sign, including pylon sign poles, consisting of materials and colors compatible to the building or project. The area around the base of the sign must be landscaped. Proposed Signage Best Buy is proposing three wall signs for their new store, refacing the existing Frank's Nursery freestanding sign located along 1-694 with their Best Buy logo, retaining the Town Center Shopping Center freestanding sign located along County Road D as is, and removing all existing Best Buy signs from the existing store once the new store is complete. (Refer to Attachments 3 through 5.) No changes are proposed for the existing tenant wall signage. Wall Signs: Three wall signs are proposed for the building, one on the front of the building (east) and two on the south and west elevations. In order to comply with the draft sign code, one of the wall signs would have to be removed from the building. The sizes of the wall signs vary from a 375.4 square foot sign on the front of the building, to two 168.2 square feet signs on the south and west sides of the building. The two smaller signs are more in keeping with the draft sign code requirements which would allow wall signage up to 150 square feet in area on this building. Freestanding Signs: 1-694 Freestanding Sign - Best Buy proposes to reface the existing Frank's Nursery sign located along 1-694. This sign is currently 128 square feet in area and 25 feet in height. The Frank's sign is an internally illuminated cabinet sign posted on two steel beams. The refaced sign will be 200 square feet in area and approximately 27 feet in height. The Best Buy sign will also be an internally illuminated cabinet sign posted on the same two steel beams. 2 In order to comply with the draft sign code, the size of the sign face would need to be reduced from 200 square feet to 180 square feet and the height of the sign would need to be reduced from 27 feet to 25 feet. In addition, if Best Buy proposes a sign face which is larger than the existing sign face (128 square feet) the city's building official will require that a certified engineer approve the existing footings and wind load carrying capacity to ensure a larger sign face would meet building code requirements. A condition of approval should include that the area around the base of the sign be landscaped. County Road D Freestanding Sign - No changes are proposed to the existing Town Center freestanding sign located along County Road D. This sign is approximately 25 feet in height, consists of an internally illuminated sign cabinet posted on two steel beams, and advertises four of the main tenants within the center, including Best Buy. With the proposed amendment to the comprehensive sign plan, this is a good opportunity for the city to require Best Buy and the Town Center to dress up this sign, which is very visible from vehicular and pedestrian traffic along County Road D. A condition of approval should include that architectural detailing be added to the base of the County Road D sign which consists of materials and colors compatible to the center or the Best Buy building. Staff recommends a four-foot or higher base be constructed around the existing steel beams. The base should be constructed of brick or split face concrete masonary units to match the new Best Buy store. In addition, landscaping should be planted around the base of the sign. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped March 28, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Town Center Shopping Center located at 1805 County Road D. Approval is subject to the following conditions (changes to the originally approved comprehensive sign plan are stricken if deleted and underlined if added): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the citv has not issued a sian permit for the Best Buy store within this time-frame. 2. Best Buv sianaae shall be limited to: ~ Two wall sians. These wall sians are limited to 168.2 sauare feet in area and can be located on anv wall of the buildina. !L Two freestandina sians as follows: 11 1-694: One freestandina sian limited to 180 sauare feet in area and 25 feet in heiaht--Best Buv proposes to use the existina Frank's Nurserv freestandina sian located alona 1-694. This sian is 128 sauare feet in area and 25 feet in heiaht. The followina conditions to this freestandina sian must be met prior to issuance of anv Best Buv sian permits on the property: ID If the new sian face exceeds 128 sauare feet in area. Best Buv must submit certified enaineerina approval that the existina footinas and wind load carrvina capacitv which meets buildina code reauirements. Ql A detailed landscape plan must be submitted which shows landscapina around the base of the sian. 3 fl All existino Best Buy wall sions located on the old store must be removed prior to certificate of occupancv of the new Best Buv store. Ql The sion cabinet located on the existinq Best Buy freestandino sion at the northeast corner of the Town Center Shoppino Center site must be removed prior to certificate of occupancy of the new Best Buy store. ~ County Road D: The existino Town Center Shoppino Center sion will remain. This sion is approximatelv 25 feet in heioht and consists of an internallv illuminated sion cabinet posted on two steel beams. and advertises four of the main tenants within the center. includino Best Buy. The followino conditions to this existino freestandino sion must be met prior to the issuance of any Best Buy sion permits on the property: ID Revised elevations of the Countv Road D sion must be submitted to staff for approval. The elevations must show a four-foot hioh. or hioher. brick or concrete masonarv unit base constructed around the existino steel beams. Ql A detailed landscape plan must be submitted which shows landscapina around the base of the sion. a. Permitted si!jRa!je fsr Frank's ~lllrsery and Crafts shall be limited to a wall sign on the front and rear elevations of tRe IlllilsiR!j, aRs a f'lylsR si!jR SR IRe I 694 frontage, as J:lroJ:losed on J:llans sale stamf'les 9 8 86. The location of the J:lylon si!jn must comf'lly '....ith all reElllired setbacks since tRe f'lreeise IseatisR is RSt known. ll. Permitted signage for tRe Best BllY ComJ:lany shalllle limited to a wall sign on the front of the lll,JilsiR!j aRS a f'lylon si!jn on lhe I 694 fronta!je, as J:lroJ:loses on f'llaRS dalo stamf'les 9 8 86. The location of lhe J:lylon sign mllst eeFRf'lly '.\'itR all reElllirss setllaeks, siRce lhe f'lrecise lecatien is net known. c. TRe Best BllY J:lylon si!jn may be moved to lhe RSFlReast esrRer of the site with the new si!jR fass as shown on the J:llans dale staFRf'led 7 10 911. The si!jR sRall FRsst setllael( reElllir-ements. d. TRe twe ~ylen si!jns en lhe Eggheas SoftvJare site sRalllle r-emeves. Relocation to the Town Center site is f'lrohibites. e. The Best Buy wall si!jR SR tRS rear of the builsin!j asditien is aJ:lJ:lrElved. 3. Tenant wall signage shall be limited to: a. Signs composed of a single line of copy shall not exceed three feet in height. b. Signs composed of two lines of copy (stacked) shall not exceed a letter height of 18 inches per line with a maximum space between lines of eight inches, for a total height of 44 inches. If more than two lines of copy are used, the total height shall not exceed 44 inches. 4 c. There must be at least 18 inches of margin between any sign and the end of the store front. d. All wall signs shall be composed of individual, internally-lit letters, not canister-type signs. e. Tenant wall signage is allowed on both the front and rear elevations. f. Logos are permitted on the sign fascia, but shall not exceed a height of four feet and shall follow the 18-inch spacing requirement. 4. All holes from sign mounting shall be properly patChed and painted upon sign removal. 5. The shopping center identification pylon sign shall be located along County Road D and be subject to staff approval. 6. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans. P\Sec34\Best Buy\Comprehensive Sign Plan Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Comprehensive Sign Plan 3. Site Plan 4. Wall Sign Elevations 5. 1-694 Freestanding Sign Elevation 5 New Best Buy Store 1795 County Road D ~ I~an ~ N W.E s Attachment 1 o Q'O 'ITlJ '" Location Map ii MAPLEWOOD Together We Can November 26, 2002 Ms. Gabriella Lambert Dorsey and Whitney, LLP. 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct Dial Telephone No. (651) 770-4563 Re:. Maplewood TownCenter Dear MS. Lambert: , , " " ' . Maplewood's sign code reqUires all multi-tenant buildings with more ilianfourterumts to have an approved comprehensive sign plan. On September 23, 1986, the city's. community design review board approved a comprehensive sign plm!. forthe Maplevvood. Town Center located 1845 County Road D in Maplewood (September 23, 1986, . community desigttreview board minutes enclosed). The original comprehensive sign plan conditions are asfollows: 1. .. Permitted signage for Frank's Nursery and Crafts shall be liniited to a wall sign . on the front andrear elevations of the building, and a pylon sign on the 1-694 . frontage, as proposed onplans date-stamped 9-5-86: The location of the pylon sign must comply with all required setbacks since the precise location is not known. 2. PeIInittedsignage for the Best Buy Company shall be limited to a wall sign on the front of the building and a pylon sign on the 1-694 frontage, as propOsed on plans date-stamped 9-5-86. The location of the pylon sign must comply with all required setbacks, since the precise location is not lmowrt. 3. Tenant wall signage shall be limited to: a. Signs composed of a single line of copy shall not exceed three feet in . height. b. SignS composed of two lines of copy (stacked) shall not exceed a letter height of 18 inches per line with a maximum space between lines of eight inches, for a total height of 44 inches. If more than two lines of copy are . used, the total height shall not exceed 44 inches. c. There must be at least 18 inches of margin between any sign and the end of the storefront. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B 651-770 - 4560 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Attachment 2 b0 -~ c ~ f1-~ -...::... -n-J~ ~- rt- Q) C7 Ms: Gabriella Lambert November 26,2002 Page 2 . d All wall signs shall be. composed of individual, internally lit letters, not canister-type signs. '. . e. This tenant signage is allowed on both the frontarid rear elevations. f. Logos are permitted on the sign fascia, b1l,t shall not exceed a height of four feet and shall follow the 18-inch spacing requirement. 4. All holes from sign mounting shall be properly patched and painted upon sign removal. 5. The shopping center identification pylon sign shall be loca~ed along County Road D and be subject to staff approval. On May 24, 1993, the city council approved a comprehensive sign plari amendment as follows: Replace the Best Buy wall sign above the store en.trance (approved sign elevation enclosed). On August 28,.1998, the community design review board approved a comp.rehensive sign plan <UlleildIDent as follows (August 28, 1998, community design review board minutes enclosed): . . L. . The Best Buy pylon iign may be moved to the northeast comer of the site With the new sigri face as shown on the plans. This sign shall meet setback requirements. . . The two pylon signs on the Egghead Software site shall be removed. Relocation to the T owil Center site is prohibited. . . . The Best Buy wall sign on the rear of the building addition is approved. Stllffmay approve mirior modifications of the sign plans. 2.. 3. 4. Please feel free to contact me With questions regarding the history of the Maplewood Town Center's comprehensive sign plan. S. incerely, '.---1. _ _, . " . ~~ Shann Finwall Associate Planner Enclosures ;/ .. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. OESIGN REVIEW A. Sign Plan Amendment--Pasquales Restaurant (Maplewood Square) Geoff Michael of Impulse Concept presented the sign proposals. They are the company that does the message center. . Secretary Ekstrand said the only thing that needs approval is the electronic sign. This would be the only sign allowed on the upper fascia. The Board agreed that this tenant space does have a visibility problem as far as their signs are concerned. . Board Member Rossbach moved the board recommend approva1 as recommended by staff. Board Member Kochs iek seconded Ayes-all. @SjgnPlanRe~~~~~a~lew.ood J.own 'tenter (County Road D), Steve Hickok, Brody Associates, was present at the meeting and indicated he had nothing to add to the staff report. Board Member Peterson moved the board recommend approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Town center, subject to the following conditions: 1. Permitted signage for Frank's Nursery and Crafts shall be limited to a wall sign on the front and rear elevations of the building. and a pylon sign on the 1-694 frontage, as proposed on plans date-stamped 9-5-86. The location of the pylon sign must comply with all required setbacks since the precise location is not known. .. < -'- U, j -l. . r'.:\~ ';:{ t cQ \I .7' ~f\ \.11'\ H( \l '=> to ~ Permitted signage for the Best Buy Company shall be limited to a wall sign on the front of the building and a pylon sign on the 1-694 frontage, as proposed on plans date-stamped 9-5-86. The location of the pylon sign must comply with all required setbacks, since the precise location is not known. 3. Tenant wall signage shall be limited to: a. Signs composed of a single line of copy shall not exceed three feet in hei ght. b. Signs composed of two lines of copy (stacked) shall not exceed a letter height of 18 inches per line with a maximum space between lines of eight inches, for a total height of. 44 inches. If more than two lines of copy are used, the total height shall not exceed 44 inches. f':). o 01 f c. There must be at leat 18 inches of margin between any sign and the end of the store front. ~ 71(;) C- .=, d. All wall signs shall be composed of individual, internally-lit letters, not canister-type signs. b -i-. ... ") 3. This tenant signage is allowed on both the front .and rear elevations. ~~ ~. J y' / ." ./ .,... f. Logos are permitted on the sign fascia, but shall not exceed a height of four feet and shall follow the 18-inch spacing requirement. 4. All holes from sign mounting shall be properly patched and painted upon sign removal. S. The shopping center identification pylon sign shall be located along County Road D and be subject'to staff approval. Board Member Kochsiek seconded Ayes-a 11. C. Design Review--Hazel Ridge Model Unit and Office (Hazelwood Avenue) Lisa Fowler and Carol Roeller were present at the meeting, and rather than having a stairway they would rather have a ramp to provide accessibility to seniors. They do plan to sell the unit and have it removed from the site. Tom Speral, 1585 E. County Road C, questioned how close it would be to the property line. Ms. Fowler showed Mr. Speral a diagram of where the unit woul.d be and indicated it would be at the site for one year. . . Board Member Rossbach moved the board recommend approval of plans date-stamped 9-8~86 fo the temporary Hazel Ridge model and office. subject to the following conditions: 1. This structure shall be removed one year after the model is erected. unless a time extension is granted by the design review board. 2; The landscaping shall be concentrated in the front of the building. Planting on the sides and rear are not required. Plantings in front shall be in the following quantities: five four-foot tall upright arborvitaes. two spreading Prince of Wales junipers and 20 marigolds. Board Member Peterson seconded Ayes-all. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS The board discussed the type of construction for the buildings around Maplewood Mall. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. 9-23-86 --- ---....-- _.:::oT_ 1 NDIS3a Nn aOOM:ndYII YW Y3.J.N3:J NMO aOOM31dY., .O.L......WllSJi'ldG -~ , i . , 1;;1 n , IN :...~ .. . a a a .,.. . " , ,c:-'-. '~ c F ~\ ,'GI? o I... ~ c , -~- - i :::. , z ~ 0 ;:: z .. 0 a > ;:: w .. ! ... > w w 0.; ... :J: w -111 .... " .... 0 " 51J,~fC0 " .. l--_T -- W .ao,D' . , . commu~"~Il;l11 ~w Board Minutes f 07-28-98 -7- 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment on the addition to match the building. b. Provide all required landscaping. c. Install continuous concrete curbing along the edges of all new parking lots and drives. d. Remove the two pylon signs from the old Egghead Software property. 4. All work shall fo.llow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. ~ Approval of the proposed sign changes for the Maplewood Town Center Shopping Center LV as shown on the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Best Buy pylon sign may be moved to the northeast corner of the site with the new sign face as shown on the plans. This sign shall meet setback requirements. 2. The two pylon signs on the Egghead Software site shall be removed. Relocation to the Town Center site is prohibited. 3. The Best Buy wall sign on the rear of the building addition is approved. 4. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. r- --7-- Attachment 3 M . 1m ,~ , o " L__ I ~~, ~~~ illl!1i . *~~ ! ; .TllllE..... MAPLEWOOIl M'NNEIIOTA ~ "'W CONS1lIUCf'ON -,..... - '" -" n'" >0 rz !'!1-l '"m ~r ~~ II ~ --:6 qZ w ~ Ii '" ~ ~ ,~ ~ w ~ J N ~ q ~ Attachment 4 ~~ ~~ " ,. ~l= 6!!! , C1 Z r '< o c -< :: ~.t-f--1 o ~ '" ,~ ~ I: -, ~ ~ OJ eM .1 -<fit i' L '" ~-- THOS DRAWlNG.S THe """PERTY OF THO.....' '''''' & AWN'..... co.,"",. AU "lGH" TO ITS use FOR REf OXTION.....E .,,".,,<0 BY THOMAS S'G.. & AW,""" ca,l"". ~,.^"WA"" Fe 'N'BU.O.no. ~-, 0'" ~!Nt1w2QM!! 4590 118TH AVENUE NORTH. ClEARWATER, FL. 33762 800-526-]325. 727-57]-7757. FAX727-573-0328 CU'NTBESTBUYll0 11""'" HII...,. 40822.E~Ie" "'S:'" P>C:: -,,"--i :-lj;;co II:EC '"0-< 0:l0:: ~pO s: Z ~ ,~ :: ~,,-- ~ r2100 ! III IIII 0........0 J"A" 3f2J06 In" MN ~. MR MnsTKKS1SHUT ] o. MAPlEWOOO O.........,..NOT.. t:l............"" '" z n 0 )> ~ :"l IT' :I: w ~ m ~ ~ m ;;; ..., '-l 0 q Z 5 n <; is z o ~ o o o ~ < z -< r ~ !NHw9G~Y!'!! 4590 1181h AVENUE NORTH. CLEARWATER. FL. 33762 800-526.3325 . 727.573-7757 . FAX 727-573-0328 "? ~ ~~ n ~ . , '-0 ,"0 wO ,~ ~:5 " z ~~ ,.r 0' ," o ~ F m o o o ~ w ~--~ CUlHTliE5TBUY,lO -- HUM.D 4OlI22.H~lev """"'."MOVEPTIO<EHOIlEAAWESTELEVfflIO(,l(lI! iqi s:~ ~~ ~'" me ~-< 0"'; ,00 s: z ~'" ." m> "'. .' lI"m ~~ ~ 9 ~ " ~ .- o , ~ . , ~ o -1 ~ ~ , ~ q "'-"""'''m..'u..''''."...ournooo........ ~n'''' = MAPLEWOOD .T.....MN ~w MR 0..._.. ."'" . '" om ..___.,x O..........~NOTID 0................ ~ ~ (")m ~:':J ['!1Vl wO Ci;C ...:;! II~ m - ~ ,m 6~ ',-< <5 z if F ~ ~\ ~ w \~ ~ .c ~ ~ ~ "1 I , ~ ~~ ~~ " ". ~r . r 6!:!! . " z r '!< o c .... '" J~r ~S:'" P>[g ""-i :-q~ CD II:EC 0-< ~o~ i-Jpo s: z .~ .. ~ w, ~\ I ---- r 0; "' ~ w ~ w OJ ! J ~ .c o w 'l ~ .c o w 'l ~@]0 IIII IIII ~!Nt!2G~Yt!! 4590 118TH AVENUE NORTH. CLEARWATER, FL. 33762 800-526-)]25. 727-573-7757. FAX727-571-0328 "'IS "-'WINGISTH'Pf'lOf'E.TYO'THOMA $ .. Awt<'NGCO.'NC ALLAIGHTSmOT'USE'OA.'. UCTlON_RE""""D.Y"'O"'ASS>GN~_'NGCo.''''' CU....._T. " CL.....8ESTOUH10 ::,=t.,..x D"IGN CITY ""..... 40822-F.,jev MAPLEWOOD ,,""""',. ''''"' . q "1 5IAT. MN ~ MR ",",or KKS SHIn 0- [J_W""<mi~ 0..........'.._ ~ ~ " m "'''' ,:0 !"1:1~ Wm ~~ ~-i II~ PJ ~m ,~ :S q::::j o z w ~ :::.:;:; ":", " l> ~, ., '~ a- .'" Z , ~ o c ..., '" ~. ~ ,:_. ~ "'l w " ~\ '" w ,~ ~ J ~ r~" -0 C. -.. I ~ CM'" ~ ~ ::: ~ 0; IhH-;t J I "i . ~ " ~ ~ ~ ": " - '" '" TH"ORAWl......n<.PROP"....OfTHOMA'" I<WN'NGCQ.'NC ALl"<;HTS rom USE '''''AEP. UCl10NARE..SEAvl'Q ..'l1iOM~."GN..AW"'''''CO.INC, OCE~"W"n" Fl ,"....LA,_ 0001'" "" MI\PLEWOOO ~!N!t2G!p!! 4590 118TH AVENUE NORTH. CLEARWATER,.Fl. 33762 800.-526-]325 . 727-573-7757. FAX727-573-0328 CU'N'JBESTIIUYI10 D""'" HUMII"4Q822-GeH>v ..........w.'No.n<<".."",.,.""" ~ W :J;;" ., ~;;::a> O",m 'n,,'q -i'a> .11 :g C ~O-< ~O:!!; i-JPO ;;:: z I 0; ~ ~ n! ['J@]8 i III Ii II 0......,.". .....TI 3/1106 I".T<MN ::~.. MA IAlTlS. KKS I....... 1 OF "'-,,~ 0...........""'''' 0...........-. Attachment 5 I' T 10'-0" L 3'-51/2' t 2'-21/4" -1 T 2'-21/4" -L 7'-63/8" HIO.AW'NG'HHEPROPERTY OMA'S1GN"AWNINGCO"N ,All"'GHTSTOrr'U'EFO"~ ^ D"YT ~ !Ntt2a!p!! CLIENT BESTBUY"O I~NST"LlATION I ~~E5DN IDATli03/17/06 ADDRESS X DESIGN CITY MAPlEWOOD 15TATEMN I ARTISjSl I NUMBER 41981 FACEREPL REI'l5l~H REVl5lON1,X RfllIlIONI:X 4590 H8th AVENUE NORTH - CLEARWATER, Fl- 33762 Rl:\I1S1Ot1l'X REVI"ON4:X IlEVLl~6.' 800-526-3325 . 727.573.7757. FAX 727-573-0328 " o,~ " PRODUCTION REAESERvE HOMASSlG".....WN'NG<;U'NCClEllIlWATERfl MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Reader Boards April 19, 2006 for the April 25, 2006, CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting an interpretation of the city's sign code in regard to electronic reader board signs. An electronic reader board is a sign with a fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights that are changed through electronic means. BACKGROUND Sign Code Compliance Officer As a planner with the City of Maplewood over the last five years one of my responsibilities has been sign code compliance, including the issuing of sign permits. In the five years I have been interpreting the sign code to disallow electronic reader board signs, except for electronic reader boards associated with a public service message sign such as a bank's time and temperature sign. My interpretation is based on language in the code which prohibits signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color, except for public service message signs. The language was placed in the code to ensure that no nuisances were created from these types of signs, particularly for surrounding residential uses and vehicular traffic. Each year that I have been with the city the request for electronic reader board signs has increased. Most of these requests include adding electronic reader board signs to existing freestanding signs. This seems to be due to the fact that these types of signs are becoming more affordable to businesses. Electronic Reader Board Requests Plaza TV and Appliance is a new business that moved into an existing building at 1918 Beam Avenue last year. Plaza TV applied for a sign permit that included the addition of an electronic reader board onto the existing freestanding sign. I explained to the sign company that the city prohibits those types of signs based on my interpretation of the sign code. The president of Plaza TV, David Motz, discussed the matter with me and indicated that they could program the electronic reader board sign to have a steady and constant message rather than to blink, flash, or flutter. I stated that this request has been made to me in the past, and that I have always denied the request due to the fact that the sign still has the capability of blinking, flashing, or fluttering. Allowing such signs, in my opinion, would become a problematic code enforcement issue if a new manager or owner wasn't aware of the requirement of maintaining the text or image as a steady and constant display. The city would be constantly monitoring those types of signs. I indicated to Mr. Motz that the only way I could issue a sign permit for such a sign is if the city council approved a variance from the sign code. After notifying Mr. Motz of the variance requirement, Mr. Motz submitted a letter to me further requesting an electronic reader board sign (Attachment 1). Mr. Motz's rationale is that they are not looking to vary from the ordinance, only to comply with the ordinance by programming their sign to be constant and steady. Myth Nightclub LED Sign Early in March, prior to Plaza TV's request for a reader board sign, the Myth Nightclub located at 3090 South lawn Avenue constructed a new freestanding sign along County Road D (Attachment 2). The sign is 25 feet in height and 230 square feet in area. The sign face is a full color light emitting diode (LED) display. The Myth's LED sign is a state of the art, full color sign capable of taking multiple video signals, similar to signs installed on the Las Vegas Strip or New York's Times Square. According to my interpretation of the sign code, this type of sign would be prohibited in the city. After noticing the sign's installation I researched the city's sign permits to investigate whether a sign permit was issued, and if so, what the circumstances were behind the issuance of the permit. The Myth Nightclub received a sign permit from the city on December 30, 2004. During this time period I was on a leave of absence and my planning coworker, Ken Roberts, issued the sign permit. Prior to my leave of absence Mr. Roberts rarely dealt with the city's sign code and was filling in for me as sign code compliance officer during my leave of absence. When questioned on why the Myth Nightclub was issued a sign permit for an LED sign, which in my opinion would be prohibited in the city, Mr. Roberts stated that his interpretation of the sign code differed and that the Myth's sign met code requirements. Mr. Robert's interpretation is based on language in the code which allows animated signs if they are located less than 75 feet from any residential land and do not obstruct the vision of or be confused with a traffic signal or stop sign. DISCUSSION Existing Sign Code Language The city's current sign code does not clearly define electronic reader boards, but does have the following pertinent language: Prohibited sions: Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. Signs that give public service information, such as time and temperature are exempt. Sion tvoes bv function: Public service sign means any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. Time and temperature sign means a changing sign giving the time and temperature. 2 Siqn tvpes bv method of movement: Animated sign means any sign which depicts action or motion. For purposes of this article, this term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing, all of which are separately defined. Animated signs shall comply with the following conditions: 1. No animated signs shall be erected or maintained closer than 75 feet from any residential land use district on which there exist structures used for residential purposes. 2. No animated sign may be erected in any location which would obstruct the vision of or be confused with a traffic signal or stop sign. Changing sign means a sign, such as an electronically or electrically controlled public service, time, temperature and date sign, message center or reader board, where different copy changes are shown on the same lamp bank. Flashing sign means an illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity. Siqn types bv structure: Changeable copy sign (reader board) means any sign which is characterized by changeable copy, letters or symbols, regardless of method of attachment. Draft Sign Code Language The draft sign code was created by the community design review board (CDRB) over a two-year period. The CDRB recommended approval of this code on March 1, 2006. The city council will review the code for possible adoption in the spring/summer 2006. The following pertinent language is found in the draft sign code. Prohibited Siqns: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color except for electronic message boards that display only time and temperature or similar public service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in this chapter. Signs that by reason of location, color, or intensity create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicles or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls such as "stop," "caution," "warning," etc., unless such sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. Signs that advertise a product or service not sold on the property, except for billboards or other off-site signs where specifically permitted in this chapter. Public Service Siqn: Any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. Time and temperature signs are considered a public service sign. Time and Temperature Siqn: A sign that contains an electronic message board portion that only displays the time and temperature. 3 Electronic Messaae Board: A sign with a fixed or changing display message composed of a series of electronic illuminated segments. Flashina Sian: An illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits with noticeable changes in light intensity. Chanaeable Copv Messaae Board: A sign or portion of a sign which is characterized by interchangeable letters and figures. This definition shall not include electronic message boards. Sians Permitted in the Business Commercial Zoninq District Changeable Copy Message Boards: Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign or wall sign but are limited to comprising no more than 70 percent of the total square footage of said sign. Electronic Message Boards: Electronic message boards as defined (public service signs) are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign or wall sign, provided that, the sign comprises no more than 50 percent of the total square footage of said sign. No such sign containing an electronic message board shall be erected closer than (75) feet from any residential land use district on which there exists structures used for residential purposes. Interpretations The difference in the planning staffs' interpretation of the city's sign code regarding electronic reader boards, and the request by Plaza TV, warrants clarification of the sign code by the CDRB and the city council. Planninq Staff Interpretation The difference in staffs' interpretation is based on the definitions of sign types by method of movement. The city's existing sign code defines an animated sign as a sign which depicts action or movement. However, this definition goes on to specify that the animation term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing. The code defines a flashing sign as an illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity. In my opinion, the Myth Nightclub's sign is clearly a flashing sign since it has the capability of programming the lights to blink, flash, or flutter, which is prohibited in the city's sign code. An animated sign is not animated by function of its lights, but by function of its movement. An example of an animated sign would be a sign with movable parts, such as a sign depicting a person waving where the arm of the person is clearly moving up and down on the sign. If my interpretation of the code is correct, the Myth Nightclub's sign permit was issued in error and the Myth should be required to obtain a variance from the code in order to retain their sign. While this sign is a state of the art sign which illuminates high quality videos, it may have the potential to be a nuisance to residential uses located in Legacy Village and a safety distraction to vehicular traffic. In addition, the approval of this type of sign without variance approval would set a precedent for other businesses and the city may be inundated with signs which have the capability of flashing and blinking. 4 Plaza TV Reauest The request by Mr. Motz to allow an electronic reader board sign on the condition that they program the sign to be constant and steady is based on city staff's concern with code enforcement. Messages and displays on an electronic reader board sign are programmed through a computer. The software for these signs allows the programmer to display the message in various ways, including constant and steady, or flashing and blinking. This programming can be done in an instant. If we allow one business to construct such a sign on the premise that they keep the text and display constant and steady, other businesses may request this, which would pose a problematic code enforcement issue for the city. SUMMARY There are approximately eight electronic reader board signs within the City of Maplewood. At least two of these signs are public service signs associated with a bank, at least two of these signs have special approvals from the city council (Aldrich Arena and Maplewood Community Center), some signs were approved by previous staff, and some signs may have been approved prior to the prohibition of flashing signs. Electronic reader boards are designed to advertise products sold within a business, not to advertise the business itself. Many businesses have claimed that they depend on this form of advertisement to make their businesses viable. However, these signs are specifically designed to draw attention away from a motorist or pedestrian, which is a safety hazard. They also add to the constant barrage of advertisements the public experiences on a daily basis. Sign codes are written to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and to give guidelines to business for visibility and promotion. It is important to balance the desires of the businesses to the welfare of the citizens. Is it in the citizen's welfare to allow this form of advertisement? RECOMMENDATIONS City staff recommends that the community design review board and city council offer clarification on the city's sign code pertaining to electronic reader board signs. Interpretation questions to be answered include: 1. Should businesses be allowed to install electronic reader board signs on the condition that they keep the text and images steady and constant? 2. Is a state of the art, full color LED sign considered an animated sign or a flashing and blinking sign? If considered a flashing and blinking sign, should the Myth Nightclub be required to obtain a variance to retain their sign, even though the city issued them a sign permit? 3. Is the draft sign code language adequate to address these issues in the future? p:ordlsign codelelectronic readerboard interpretation Attachments: 1. Plaza TV March 24, 2006, Letter 2. Myth Nightclub LED Sign 5 Attachment 1 2C:'J TV & APPLIANCE, INC. 946 S. Robert St. w. St. Paul, MN 55118-1447 (651) 457-1196 (651) 457-3621 - fax 1918 Beam Ave. Maplewood, MN 55109-1159 (651) 731-3603 (651) 735-5308 - fax WWW.PLAZATV.COM March 24, 2006 Shann Finwall, AlCP Planner City of Maple wood Office of Community Development 1830 E. County Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Shann Finwall: We are writing to request an outdoor sign permit at our 1918 Beam Ave. location. We have been discussing this issue with you for quite some time. We understand you are hesitant to issue the permit to us, as you feel we may illegally use the sign. We understand, per the Maplewood Code, Sec. 44-737: The City of Maplewood prohibits signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. The size of the sign is not an issue. Our property is 31,552 square feet. Per the Maplewood Code, Sec. 44-988: The maximum area of a freestanding business sign with the lot area of 6,000 square feet to 43,560 square feet (1 acre) would allow a Total Sign Copy Area (square feet) of 250 square feet. The sign we are interested in installing, would be an electronic reader board. Per Bob Sherlock from SignArt, the sign would be one double sided 2'-4 \4" x 13'-8 W' which equals 33.59 square feet. Our new and current pylon sign is a double face lighted cabinet, measuring 7'-2" x 14'-0" which equals 100.8 square feet. The total of freestanding signage is 134.39 square feet, which falls beneath the allowable signage for our property. The issue is the capability of blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. Although, the digital reader board we are considering to purchase does have the optional features of flashing, blinking, scrolling, etc., we would not utilize those optional features. We prefer a steady, constant message, which we feel is Shann Finwall, AICP Page 2 March 24, 2006 easier to read. We would only change our message, at the most, once a day, but more likely, once a week, especially after the newness wears off. We did inquire with the software company and the option to flash, blink, scrol~ etc., can not be eliminated. We are in need of a digital reader board, because we have found, a manual reader board is more difficult to use and maintain. We have had a manual reader board at our Robert St. location for over 11 years and with our older employee staff, have noticed it is difficult for them to change the lettering. Also, the terrain at the Beam Ave. location is on an incline, which would be unsafe to use a ladder to change the lettering on a manual reader board. An electronic reader board is more energy efficient, environmentally- friendly (no fluorescent bulbs), requires less maintenance, and looks better, longer: no bulbs out, no need to call in professionals to change the costly fluorescent bulbs, no fading or yellowing and no tracks for dirt to collect. We understand the city's concern, that if you grant us the permit, there is the option to blink, flash or flutter the lights or change the message in brightness or color. We feel, as with any law or ordinance, it is up to the individual or business to comply or there will be consequences for breaking the law. As with our vehicles, we have the option of going 100 MPH, but we would not drive 100 MPH down White Bear Ave., because we know it is illegal, dangerous and we would be breaking the law and we would have to pay the consequences. We hope not to be prejudged as lawbreakers. You expressed, that we may be law-abiding, but if we sold the building with the sign, that the next owner(s) may not understand nor adhere to the ordinance. One idea that was mentioned, which we would be agreeable to, is to tie this ordinance to the deed. You suggested that we should take this matter to the Variance Committee to get a variance. We are not looking to vary from the ordinance, only to comply with the ordinance. We do not want our sign to blink, flash or flutter or change in brightness or color and we intend to comply with the ordinance. We feel if we apply for an unnecessary variance, we would be spending $1,000.00, needlessly. Please reconsider and grant our request for an electronic reader board. Sincerely yours, tan/tan Enclosure ~~~~~~g~~g~~g~gz~~~~~~~ ~4~~~~ffi~0~Zg~~~;~~O 4~Z ~~~>og~owc~~~a~~~g~~W~4 1:l;;;OD...o.;:a:",~g;~gD~;!!';:I: z"'c!n:..... A ...w~a:o~~~~~~...::l~lIIDZ~B .>-u... ttachment 2 ~~"'~~g~~~~~s~"'~~~~o.N~~ ~ w~~w~...gw~~~~g~mo~~:.~D ~ ~~~~~~~~~2 ~~~4~g~Z~Z~ f .....~ ~ W:I:O~ .rw ~~u~ 0- ~ ",~",-",gg...~~",... n:bw>~~"'~~ ~o~~w~~w ~~~~D~ ~...wn:4Z ~ .....> On:>O"'wc.....z:I: -...w"'cu~"'ww ~ o.~~ cz~c:~...e...~~Z~~zm~...... w......~ c~:I::I:zw~n:caOo. ...~o.tt ~ =~w~~~g~g~=~~juw~ffi~~~~; ~~~3;g~~i~~~bgg~~~~n:g~... . ~ II .~ I I ~ U II h u h H .< . . ,: ~.' -, 1~ ~1~1 .:..... "" .. -,' ':. ...... ":','':,. . . '. . i I ~ Q ~ ~ I ~ I fIt "' ~) ~ f If "" 11 " ~ .8 is ~ ~ ~ ~ tP l 1': g. ] i i ~lh U) ~ u: ~ ~ 0 :Ii ~ ~ ~ [Q x , u C~ ~~.~ . -, " Sl >-- 0 l..) .0-,9Z ,,0-,1. 0 - 1~ o' . . ~ i<l ~ . I, -. . 00 ;;- -. -. l ..1r/12 n-.z~ STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGY CUSTOM CAPABILITIES - PROVEN EXPERIENCE FC.HX2 is Hi"Tech's latest engineering achievement. Developed by our engineering team's brightest talent, this system incorporates the latest in electronic design. This 256 Grayscale LED Video Display Control System was designed solely by our team to stand up to the adversities of installation and environmental requirements of electronic sign usage. The FC-HX2 technology excels in simplifying installation, set up, operator training and maintenance. Most importantly the FC-HX2 delivers to you a cost effective solution in a highly competitive market place. BENEFITS ~ ~ ~ f '~ j '-~ Simplicity: FC-HX2 uses less hardware to achieve belter performance than competing products. HX2 Controllers are simple to setup, easy to install and make connectivity a breeze. Buill in diagnostics simplify troubleshooting. Flexibility: FC-HX2 is capable of taking multiple video signals as input (DVD, VHS, cable TV, video camera, etc.), and it can simultaneously drive different size displays. Performance: FC-HX2 provides millions of colors. It can communicate long distances using fiber optic cables. FC- HX2 system is also a real time video LED display system, due to ils capability of showing video with up to 75 frames per second. Cost-effectiveness: The FC-HX2 system has been designed to minimize cost without compromising superior quality or capabilities. .:. Capable of displaying 16.8 million colors (256 grayscale) from a color palette of 68 billion colors (4096 grayscale) .:. One HX2 system can support displays with up to 262,144 pixels .:. Frame rate 30-75 Ips - Refresh rate 180 Hz .:. Fiber optic video signal transmission up to 4000 feet .:. 8-level automatic dispiay brightness controi .:. Support VESA 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 display modes .:. Optional analog VGA or component video Inputs .:. Standard Interfaces include NTSC (composite thru ReA jack), S-Vldeo, USB 2.0 and Flrewire (IEEE-1394) Interfaces .:. Automatic monitoring of system for problems including temperature inside of each section, accuracy of communications and many other diagnostic information. .:. Simple inter module connections .:. Multi.faced displays up to 8 faces - Group Display support .:. Realtime monitoring of video signals .:. High pertormance 64MB graphic card . fil.~E:[h ELECTRONIC DISPLAYS Fresard, MI-192 x 256, .71N Pilch Frasier Field, Lynn, MA - 176 x 240, .9" Pitch Myrtle Beach, SC - 80 x 128, 1.02" Pitch