Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, July 11, 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: June 27, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 3001 White Bear Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. July 6, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting - Linda Olson b. July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - Matt Ledvina 9. Staff Presentations: Sign Code - "Outdoor Television" Definition 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present at 6:04 p.m. Present Present at 6:18 p.m. Absent Staff Present: David Fisher, Interim Community Development DirectorlSldg Official Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 13, 2006. Chairperson Olson had corrections to the minutes on pages 6 and 9. On page 6, in the seventh paragraph, second line, add the word those in front of the word located. On page 9, third paragraph, third line, change autumn glaze to Autumn Blaze. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of June 13, 2006, as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes --- Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. Ms. Finwall introduced David Fisher, Interim Community Development DirectorlBuilding Official. Mr. Fisher was present to familiarize himself with the board members and observe what occurs during a Community Design Review Board meeting. The board members welcomed Mr. Fisher and wished him good luck in his role as Interim Community Development Director/Building Official. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 2 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Legacy Village Townhomes - County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy Village Development) Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group; the master developer of Legacy Village is proposing to develop the final segment of town homes at Legacy Village. The application is for 119 town homes which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. This portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) was previously approved for 96 town house units and an office building on a 1 %-acre site at the southwest corner of Kennard Street and County Road D. The applicant is now asking for an amendment to the approved PUD (planned unit development) to build town homes on this office site as part of their town house development. June 19, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan change, PUD amendment and preliminary plat. They also suggested that the CDRB require designated crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the pedestrian trail to the south. Board member Ledvina asked about the colors of the townhome units. Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group is proposing the town home units to be in the color palette as shown on the plans. Board member Hinzman asked if each of the townhome buildings would have different color schemes or would they follow the same color pattern as shown on the plans? Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group didn't propose any other range of colors so staff is assuming the only colors being used were the ones shown on the plans. Chairperson Olson asked if they are going to be able to save any of the trees on the site? Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group is not going to be able to save many of the trees, only the trees along the wetland area and along the pond. Board member Hinzman said the retaining wall on the east side of the pond appears to range from 5 to 14 feet in height. He asked what product they would be using for the retaining wall? He asked if it would be possible to terrace the retaining walls to break up the wall and then plant landscaping? Mr. Ekstrand said that could be made a requirement, however, the applicant has not proposed that. Often times the city prefers to see a fence or railing on top of the retaining wall for safety, if that is not shown as a condition in the staff report, it should be. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 3 Board member Hinzman asked if the retaining wall would be made of keystone block? Mr. Ekstrand said that typically has been what the retaining walls have been made of in the Legacy Development area. Board member Hinzman said he noticed the garages are rear loaded and there are no additional parking spaces outside of the garage doors to park. Mr. Ekstrand said correct. It's very tight between those buildings. Other phases of town homes within this project have a similar parking situation. The parking was something the CDRB reviewed with the other Legacy town home developments and the board was told there would be covenants telling the homeowner that people cannot park outside the garage doors and that it would be up to the association to maintain that covenant. Staff is not aware of any parking concerns in the Legacy developments currently but the sites aren't fully built yet either. Mr. Ekstrand said he wanted to recommend two additional conditions. 1. All street lights shall match the design already in use at Legacy Village. 2. Install wetland protection buffer signs as spacing of eveI}' 100 feet around the outer edge of the wetland buffer. These signs shall comply with the city's approved design for such signs and shall say wetland buffer area do not mow, cut, dump, disturb beyond this point - City of Maplewood. Board member Schurke said he noticed in the staff report that the original concept plan for Legacy Village had a park in the master plan. Mr. Ekstrand said there have been two major changes in the original plan. The Ramsey County Library, which is on a seven acre parcel, could have been three commercial sites with possible restaurants built there. The park elements have not changed and the sculpture park is built. The tot-lot south of this site is still proposed to be built by the city. Everything else is going according to plan. There has also been a small reduction in density then what there could have been. Board member Schurke asked if the wetlands are being reduced? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant is complying with the original plan. There is a misconception with some of the neighbors who feel this wooded lot should remain wooded and that is noted in the staff report. The 120 units of senior housing will be built in this area as well but the application has yet to come in to the city. Chairperson Olson asked if the senior housing to be proposed would be independent senior housing or assisted living? She also asked if the senior housing would have elevators and be accessible? Mr. Ekstrand said he believed it's planned as independent senior housing at this point and the building would have elevators and be accessible. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 4 Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the board. The Hartford Group intends to landscape around the wetland area and make the area look natural. The senior building is planned for a four-story building with 116 independent senior housing units that would be accessible. Board member Hinzman asked if the color variations of the building would be repeated on every building or would the color palette be inter-mixed? Mr. Shaun Knoth, Architect, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the board. He said the colors selected were chosen based on similar colors that are on the adjoining properties. There are four different building types, five units, six units, and two different seven unit building types and the colors would be repeated in some manner. Board member Ledvina asked if they had determined what colors would be used on each individual unit and for each five, six, and seven unit building? Mr. Knoth showed the board the seven unit buildings that would have the same color renderings that were shown on the plan. The units will be in the same color scheme but mixed in a different combination interchanging different gables and other design elements, so no two sets of buildings would look the same or be next to each other. Board member Ledvina said there are substantial retaining walls shown on the plan along the wetland. In past projects the CDRB has asked applicants to break the expanse of the retaining wall up or step the walls over a certain height. He asked if that would be something they could do here? He asked what type of material would be used for the retaining wall? Mr. Patrick Sarver, ASLA, Director of Development and Principal Landscape Architect for the project with Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the board. He said they can terrace the retaining walls and still maintain the function of the walls. The retaining wall product they are using is called an Anchor Landmark Series retaining wall and in his opinion it's one of the more attractive walls out there. The block comes with in a multiple sized retaining wall block with a tumbled appearance which really softens the way the wall presents itself and speaks of great quality. Board member Schurke asked what they would plant in the terracing of the retaining walls? Mr. Sarver said they would plant low maintenance plantings, shrubs along with mulch. Board member Ledvina said earlier there was some discussion regarding fencing along the top of retaining walls. He asked if this was something they planned on doing? Mr. Sarver said generally fences are needed along retaining walls that are immediately adjacent a wall higher than 30 inches. In his opinion it's better to be on the safe side to keep an accident from happening. He said they would use a similar metal railing system as was used for the Wyngate project. Board member Ledvina asked what staffs opinion was regarding railings on top of retaining walls? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 5 Mr. Ekstrand said any retaining wall over 4 feet in height requires a railing. Chairperson Olson said it appears the retaining walls are going to be right up to the sidewalk. Mr. Sarver said that's correct because of the proximity of the buildings relative to the buffer. Board member Schurke said he suggested the applicant use a darker color palette rather than the lighter color palette because of the size of these buildings. The nice thing about using the cream color palette is that it creates a separation of the units but the down side is that the dark color seems to recede more. The venting on the roofs are never shown on the plans so people don't think of what it's going to look like until they see the finished product but he would challenge the applicant to find other ways to do venting through the wall. He said he has successfully done that in projects and it looks a lot nicer. Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant is agreeable to the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Janes said yes. They still own the area on the plans labeled park which is 2 acres and they will be dedicating that to the city. They will be using soil from that area for this site. The sculpture park and walking trails are already built as part of the development. The Ramsey County Library is already under construction and the application for the senior housing will be coming into the city soon. Chairperson Olson asked if they are comfortable with the visitor parking space without taking up too much of the permeable space? Mr. Janes said as they mentioned at the planning commission meeting they can alter the visitor parking to comply with the city requirements. Board member Hinzman said he noticed the development has tuck under garages and there is no additional parking space in the driveway. He asked if the applicant had encountered that being a problem at all? Mr. Janes said these units have tuck under garages and visitors will have to park in the visitor parking spaces. There would also be on-street parking in certain marked areas. He personally has not spoken to anybody at Town & Country regarding any complaints about the parking. The design of the units are not meant to have cars parked in the driveway. Board member Ledvina said he believes people know what they are buying into when they purchase these units and understand the parking situation ahead of time. Board member Hinzman said people will park where it is the most convenient and sometimes that can cause a problem. He wants to make sure there are enough visitor parking spaces and that they are not too far away or they won't be utilized correctly. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 6 Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, for the Legacy Townhomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (changes made by the community design review board are underlined if added and crossed out if deleted): 1. Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revIsion from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build town homes on the previously-approved office site. 2. Obtain city council approval of a revision to the previously-approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtain city council approval of the preliminary plat for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated June 1, 2006, must be compiled with. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance and the PUD approval. 10. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11. The applicant shall: . Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. . Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. . Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. . Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. . Revise the site plan for staff approval providing for all visitor parking stalls to be at least 9% feet wide. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 7 . Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval providing considerable landscaping in and around the rainwater gardens and around ponds. . Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. No end units facing County Road D shall have meters. . Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer prior to applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil stability for construction. 12. The applicant shall take care to make sure that site lights do not exceed a A-foot-candle spillover onto homes when lighting the private street and drives. 13. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 14. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall detenmine the dollar amount of the escrow. 15. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 16. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 17. The applicant shall work with staff to provide three crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the power line trail to the south. The applicant shall also provide three paved trail connections to the power line trail. This plan must be established before a building permit is issued. 18. The applicant shall submit buildino colors of the units for staff approval. 19. The applicant shall install wetland protection buffer sions as spacino of everv 100 feet around the outer edoe of the wetland buffer. These sions shall complv with the city's approved desion for such sions and shall sav wetland buffer area do not mow. cut. dump. disturb bevond this point - Citv of Maplewood. 20. Retainino walls shall be staooered or terraced if the retainino walls are more than 6 feet in heioht and are subiect to approval bv staff. There shall be railinos built on the top of the retainino walls that exceed 4 feet in heioht and approved bv staff. 21. All street liohts shall match the desion alreadv in use at Leoacv Villaoe. 22. The applicant maximize the use of throuoh wall ventino to reduce neoative aesthetics of multiple roof penetrations. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 8 This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. b. 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion - 2289 Minnehaha Avenue East Ms. Finwall said the owners of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue have purchased the single family house located to the east of their existing property (2303 Minnehaha Avenue). Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is proposing to demolish the single family house for the expansion of the restaurant's parking lot. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the comprehensive plan change, rezoning and conditional use permit. Ms. Jill Skogheim, Director of Operations, JBJ Dining, Inc., representing the 5-8 Tavern & Grill, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. She said they are in agreement with the conditions listed in the staff report. They are amenable to working with the neighbors regarding the fencing, landscaping and screening. The lighting proposed is between o and .1 foot-candles. Board member Hinzman said it appears that the light poles are 15 feet tall and located in the center of the parking lot. He recommended they look at moving the lights further to the east and put cut-off shields on the lights to get the light intensity across the parking lot without spilling light over to the east property line. Ms. Skogheim said her understanding was the lighting contractor was going to use cut off shields so she was not sure why the light illumination was shown so high on the plans. Chairperson Olson asked if someone could point out where the new trees would be planted and where the landscaping enhancements would be on the site. Ms. Skogheim clarified where the new trees and landscaping would be on the site plan. Board member Schurke asked if the current parking lot was fairly level? Ms. Skogheim said the parking lot slopes downward to the south. Board member Schurke asked if they considered relocating the rainwater garden that is on the south edge along with the small strip of rainwater garden and relocate that to the north to provide more of a buffer for the neighbors to the north? Ms. Skogheim said the primary concern of the neighbor to the north is that there is a drainage problem now where everything drains to the northeast corner of 2303 Minnehaha Avenue near Mr. Beardsley's and Ms. Sorenson's property. By draining everything away from there they would be decreasing the amount of water that gathers there by 75% which is viewed as a positive thing by the engineering department. Board member Schurke said he was more interested in knowing if there was an advantage to having the buffer. It may make the residential area feel softer. From a lighting standpoint, he asked what the operating hours were and if the 5-8 Club turns the parking lights off? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 9 Ms. Skogheim said they typically turn the parking lights off that face the south, and the west - facing lights stay on into the night and shut off on a photo cell. They close at 10:30 p.m. on Sundays, all other nights they are open until midnight except on Fridays they stay open until 1 :00 a.m. The cut off shields for the lights will help with the dark sky policy. Chairperson Olson asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak to address the board. Mr. James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said his house is the most affected by this development. The drainage from the parking lot runs into his property already from the winter and spring rains. He doesn't want to add to the drainage he already gets on his property. Moving the rainwater garden would only force the water into the direction they don't want the water to flow. He currently has a sump pump that runs most of the year because of the drainage situation. It would be greatly appreciated to get the water to run to the south. Regarding moving the fence, he hadn't heard about the fence being relocated seven feet from the east property line. Originally they had talked about moving the fence ten feet away. He is not opposed to the fence being seven feet away, but he wants to make sure that whatever happens, it doesn't adversely affect his plantings that he has worked so hard maintaining. In general he is opposed to this proposal. He personally doesn't believe its right to allow a reasonably priced home to be bulldozed just so a parking lot can be constructed. Mr. Beardsley said, however, knowing that this proposal is going to happen anyway he would like to continue working with the 5-8 Club to make sure his property is not compromised in anyway. Chairperson Olson said Mr. Beardsley's letter stated that he is a Master Rosarian for the American Rose Society and is one of only 250 in the United States. She asked how many roses Mr. Beardsley has on his property? Mr. Beardsley said he has approximately 180 roses in his yard. Chairperson Olson asked how many of his plantings would be affected by this? Mr. Beardsley said along his west property line there is a 20-foot hedge of roses and many other types of plantings. There is a water garden along with a path on his property. Dale Trippler from the planning commission said the yard looks like a jungle because there are so many different plantings on the property. He didn't believe there was an adverse affect on relocating the fence between seven and ten feet. Whether the fence is seven or ten feet away that will still give his plants the light and air circulation needed and should not affect their root systems. Chairperson Olson said Mr. Beardsley said something in his letter regarding a fence that was damaged on the 5-8 Club property. Mr. Beardsley said the damage to the fence had happened in the past. He said his yard is toured by groups of people and he would like to see that the property looks as nice as possible so it does not adversely affect him. Tours of his yard are coming up in August and September so people can enjoy the plantings he has worked so hard on. Chairperson Olson congratulated Mr. Beardsley on his gardening efforts. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 10 Board member Schurke said as a precedent the city should not be supporting the demolition of affordable housing in Maplewood. He asked if the city has a policy regarding the elimination of housing for the use of parking lot? Ms. Finwall said she wasn't aware of a policy in the comprehensive plan, except the policy to promote affordable housing. In this instance it will create a more confonming parking situation for an existing business which is desirable. Board member Schurke said he can understand the value of that but would appreciate an answer to that question. As was voiced by the neighbor the goal should be to retain affordable housing and not get rid of it. Chairperson Olson said she and her husband have tried to eat at the 5-8 Club several times and have seen vehicles parking on the grass, across the street, and literally on the boulevard so she is sympathetic to the need for more parking for the 5-8 Club. She looks favorably regarding relocating the driveway to the east because this intersection is partially blind and can be tricky so any parking improvements are a positive thing. She is sympathetic to the landowners living close to the 5-8 Club and is glad everyone is working together to resolve the issues and concerns. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 19, 2006, for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) parking lot expansion. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. The applicant shall do the following: (changes made by the community design review board are underlined if added and crossed out if deleted): a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot expansion the applicant must submit the following for staff approval: 1) Revised grading and drainage plan showing the relocation of the driveway to the west, in line with the first drive aisle. The grading and drainage plan must be approved by the city engineering department and must comply with all requirements as specified in the June 9, 2006, engineering review. 2) Revised site plan showing the following: a) Relocation of the fence seven feet from the east property line. b) Relocation of the driveway to the west, in line with the first drive aisle. c) All new parking stalls 18 feet deep. d) Reduction in the new drive aisles to 20 and 19.5 feet wide and posting the drive aisles as one-way traffic with arrows and signs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 11 e) Replacement curbing (to match existing) along Minnehaha Avenue from the west side of the existing driveway entrance up to west side of the new driveway entrance. 3) Fence elevations showing style, height, materials, and color; and also specifications on which portions, if any, of the existing fence will remain. 4) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Sizes of all proposed plants. b) A detailed plan of the plantings on the west side of the fence to include at least 1 tree and 18 shrubs. c) A detailed plan of the plantings on the east side of the fence to be approved by the property owner of 2311 Minnehaha Avenue prior to planting. d) A detailed plan of the plantings proposed in the rainwater garden. e) A detailed plan for the area north of the Stillwater Road driveway to include hearty plants andlor decorative boulders. f) The replacement of all dead or unhealthy plants previously required. g) The location of all sprinkler heads for the required underground irrigation system (code required). h) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). 5) A revised photometric plan showing the light illumination from all exterior lights not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. 6) Obtain a permit from the Ramsey County Public Works Department for the relocation of the Minnehaha Avenue driveway. 7) Obtain a permit, if required, from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for the grading of the expanded parking lot. 8) Submit a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. c. Prior to final inspection of the expanded parking lot by the city the applicant must: 1) Complete all required exterior improvements including parking lot, screening fence, landscaping, underground irrigation, and exterior lighting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 12 2) Repair all portions of the existing fence (unless a new fence is installed) that are broken or loose. At a minimum. the applicant must replace the existina fence located on the east propertv line. 3) Stain the existing fence (unless a new fence is installed) and the patio boards to match the new fence. 4) Install the required replacement curb along Minnehaha Avenue. 5) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. e. Mounds Park Academy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue Ms. Finwall said Dave Aune of Mounds Park Academy is proposing to install several new signs within the expanded school campus at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Signs proposed include identification signs along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road, identification signs on the building, and directional signs within the campus. The city's sign code requires a comprehensive sign plan for a "business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project." While Mounds Park Academy does not have five or more tenants within their campus, they do have five or more uses. Requiring a comprehensive sign plan for Mounds Park Academy meets the intent of the code by assuring consistent signage throughout the campus and ensuring compatibility with the building's architecture and the surrounding residential uses. As such, Mounds Park Academy is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Kirk Van Blaircom, Pyramid Signs, 245 Marie Avenue East, Suite 150, West St. Paul, addressed the board. He said the planning stage for the signs at Mounds Park Academy lasted four months because they were very sensitive that this is in a residential neighborhood and were careful with the placement of the signs. The bulk of the signage is in the center of the campus. The monument signs will be located at each entrance to the campus and only the lettering will glow rather than the whole surface of the sign minimizing the amount of light. Mr. Blaircom reviewed the signage on the site and correct placement of the signage on the campus. The signage color palette is brushed aluminum and a darker metallic with black and blue coloring. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 13 Ms. Margaret Earley, 1783 Beebe Road, Maplewood, addressed the board. She is the immediate neighbor to Mounds Park Academy behind the new field house. Ms. Earley's concerns were: 1. She has put up with all of the construction noise, trucks driving back and forth, for the past 1 % years as have the rest of the residents on Beebe Road. 2. She asked the city council to lower her taxes because of what she has had to endure but they said they couldn't do that. 3. She had to look at the two trailers for 1 % years and she asked if the art department could paint a nice scene on the trailers because she hated to look out her window and see the trailers. 4. The plan shows all this nice landscaping and how manicured the lawn and landscaping will end up looking like but who at the city goes to the site to make sure that it is done right and keeps up with maintaining it. 5. If Maplewood is going to have a major construction project they should construct a parking lot first for the workers to park that come to the site every day so they aren't parked on the street. That was a real problem on Beebe Road, there were cars parked on both sides of the street, city buses running both ways and across the street there is an apartment building with handicapped people and they needed to get to the buses and most of the time you couldn't even get the buses through because of the congestion. She told people to call it in and complain but nobody did anything about it. She is sure the city knows her name from her complaint calls. She also complained to Mayor Cardinal and the new Mayor Longrie. 6. She would like the city to talk to Ramsey County regarding her taxes along with the others who live on Beebe Road and pay taxes. Mounds Park Academy does not pay taxes and from what she gathers there will have to be a new street built now because of the construction and truck traffic. Xcel Energy dug up about 3 yards and said they would resod the property and make it look the way it was and that is just not so. They planted sod at her house when she was out of town for a week. Nobody called her to make sure she would be there to water it and then the sod died. She poured water on it for days to see if the sod would come back. The City of St. Paul sent her a letter stating that her water bill is so much higher this year compared to last year. They asked if there was a reason or did she have a leaky faucet. She has yet to have that situation taken care of. 7. She was concerned about the soil conditions of the site. The dirt smelled funny - like horse manure. Was the soil contaminated because it smelled like manure and that's a concern, especially because of the children. There used to be a lab there that made medicine for horses and animals at one point in time. 8. She was sorry the rest of her neighbors didn't feel it was important enough to show up at this evening's meeting to speak regarding the issues at the school during the construction phase. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 14 Mr. David Fisher, Interim Community Development DirectorlBuilding Official said as far as the landscaping issue goes that is something the planning staff deals with. If it were regarding construction, that would be his area of expertise. The Planning staff goes to the site when the site is complete to make sure what is shown on the landscaping plan was actually planted. Through the construction process there is a lot of traffic and noise which is "typical" of construction projects. Ms. Finwall said the expansion of Mounds Park Academy is not quite complete yet. It's difficult to be a neighbor next to any type of construction. Ms. Finwall said the plan reflects that the sign is off the property line. That is a condition of approval that the applicant submits a revised site plan showing that they maintain a 10-foot setback. Regarding the smell of manure, people have called the city during construction before and have found that when old compost is dug up there is sometimes a strange smell to the soil. During the construction of the 3M Leadership Development Institute building a similar complaint was called in regarding the smell of the soil. Mr. Fisher said the contractor had to dig down very deep on the site in order to correct the soils to handle the additional weight of the building addition. Mr. Blaircom said he was unaware there was an issue regarding the property line for the sign to be located. He is sure Mounds Park Academy will get things cleared up with a site survey and ensure the appropriate setback is maintained for the sign installation. If the sign has to be moved another 10 feet that would greatly impact the visibility of the sign. Chairperson Olson asked if the sign in question would have an impact on Ms. Earley's property? Mr. Blaircom said there would be no impact on her property regarding light coming from the sign. The colors are very subtle, the lettering is opaque and does not allow light to come through. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 23, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions (changes made by the CDRB are underlined if added and crossed out if deleted): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for the Mounds Park Academy within this time-frame. 2. Mounds Park Academy signage shall be limited to: a. Three wall signs (one at 43 square feet and two at 32 square feet). The signs must consist of individual letters and can be internally illuminated. b. Three 8-foot-tall freestanding signs (identification signs). These signs must be located along Larpenteur Avenue, Beebe Road, and in front of the school. Only the text can be illuminated. c. Five 5-foot-tall freestanding signs (interior directional signs). These signs must be located within the interior of the parking lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 15 d. Fifty 1-square-foot directional signs. These signs must be located within the interior of the parking lot and must not be over 6 feet in height. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following: a. A revised site plan showing that the freestanding signs located along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road maintain a 10-foot setback from all property lines and that they do not pose visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians exiting the parking lots. .D The freestanding signs located along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebo Rood maintain a 10-foot setback from all property lines and that tRey j! does not pose visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians exiting the parking lots. n The freestandino sian located alono Beebe Road meets appropriate site line reouirements. b. A detailed landscape plan which shows landscaping around the base of the two freestanding signs located along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road. c. Structural engineering for all freestanding signs over 6 feet in height. 4. The applicant must obtain sign permits from the city prior to installation or relocation of the signs. 5. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plan. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Olson said she attended an ice cream social at the Bruentrup Farm on County Road D. Representative Chuck Wiger was there and mentioned the $100,000 the legislature appropriated for the irrigation system for the farm so the Bruentrup barn can hold social events. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 16 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall gave an update to the board regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. She said the city council held another workshop June 26, 2006, from 5-7 p.m. to discuss the city council's individual comments for the master plan. City staff is hoping to have a final decision by the Gladstone moratorium date of September 8, 2006. If there is no final decision at that point and a development proposal was submitted to the city, the applicant would be bound by the existing zoning and land use on that property rather than any type of concept or future zoning or land use. a. Planning Commission and CDRB Duties Ms. Finwall said the planning commission and community design review board recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Specifically, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of the development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. On June 7, 2006, the PC reviewed the city ordinances which guide the PC and CDRB. Based on the ordinances and past experience with development proposals it was determined that there are areas of development requests which impact both group's decision making process. In general, the PC deals with all land use request such as comprehensive land use plan changes, rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, etc.: and the CDRB deals with all of the exterior improvements of commercial or multi- family housing and some variances. The PC requested that the item go to the CDRB for comment. Staff asked that the board provide staff with direction regarding changes the CDRB wants to see with the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CORBo Chairperson Olson felt comfortable with the way things were being reviewed and thought it was appropriate to have some review overlap. It's beneficial to have a second opinion since the PC and CDRB review proposals for different things. Because the PC usually reviews applications first it's very seldom that the CDRB reviews something and then passes feedback onto the planning commission. She does see a problem with parking code and thinks the CDRB could use direction from the PC regarding revising the parking code. Ms. Finwall said she believes the CDRB should review the parking code and then bring it to the PC for discussion and then to the city council. The parking code would include parking space width, parking drive aisle width, visitor parking, off-site parking, and number of parking stalls. Board member Ledvina agreed with staffs recommendation. Mr. Ekstrand said no matter what you do, there will probably always be overlap of discussing items. It's beneficial to get views from both groups on certain subjects. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 17 Mr. Ekstrand said he just reviewed the application for a Car Max proposal on Beam Avenue and Highway 61. They had requested a PUD to have narrower parking spaces at 9 feet wide versus the code of 9% feet wide. He thought that was appropriate and he recommended approval of the 9 foot width request. That is an issue that the CDRB would probably want to weigh in on. As part of a PUD that request would be discussed by the PC and he believed the CDRB would also want to review it as well. The CDRB members agreed. Board member Schurke said a few CDRB meetings ago he brought up the question of how the city could fund open space in Maplewood. He wondered if the city would be willing to allow the developer an advantage in lieu of the developer doing something for the city. For example, the city is willing to give you the developer approval for 9 foot wide parking space instead of following the code at 9% feet wide but here is a list of things you the developer can do for the city. It would be an incentive approach to get what the city and the applicant want by working together. Chairperson Olson said she thought that was what the city did by negotiating with Town & Country for Legacy Village to pay for the parks to be built in return for the higher density to be allowed. Mr. Ekstrand said there was a lot going on with the whole development and negotiations but said he couldn't answer that question specifically. Board member Hinzman agreed with the comments made and believed the CDRB and PC look at things in a different manner. This is good to get two different views regarding the same topic. He would like to take a look at the proof of parking areas and the needs of the applicant because often times the needs are different between the city requirements and the actual needs of the developer. The CDRB decided it would be best to work on the parking code revisions in the near future and then engage in dialogue with the planning commission before passing it onto the city council for review. Staff will schedule a time for the chair of the PC to attend the CDRB meeting and vice versa. b. Community Development Tour - Monday, July 31, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Finwall reminded the CDRB of the Annual City Tour and asked that the board RSVP to Community Development as soon as possible. c. Sign Code Update Ms. Finwall said the CDRB recommended approval of the sign code update in March 2006. Staff hopes the sign code will be heard by the city council on August 14, 2006. There are some code enforcement issues that need to be ironed out before the city council reviews the sign code. More information will follow. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 18 d. Community Design Review Board Special Projects Ms. Finwall said during the May 9, 2006, CDRB meeting the board discussed topics of interest for future meetings. Since the sign code has been completed the other areas of interest included: recommending site and design criteria for the Gladstone Redevelopment Area, gaining a better understanding of sustainable building design concepts, exploring specific design standards for new commercial and multi-family developments, reviewing and updating the city's landscaping requirements for commercial and multi-family developments, and parking code requirements which will be items to discuss in the near future as mentioned by the CDRB in their 2005 Annual Report. e. CDRB Representation at the July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting Board member Ledvina volunteered to be the CDRB representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Legacy Village Townhomes at County Road D and Kennard Street and the 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. f. Board member Joel Schurke said it has bothered him to read the articles in the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding the negative press the City of Maplewood has received lately which is unbecoming. He wanted to voice his support to the staff at the City of Maplewood regarding a most recent article that some staff at the city were thinking of making a career change as a result of what has been going on at the City of Maplewood. He personally wanted to go on record that he has been truly impressed with the quality employees at the City of Maplewood and he hopes the city staff will weather the storm during this time of change. Board member Ledvina agreed with those comments. With his personal experience of serving as a volunteer on the PC and CDRB for many years now he has enjoyed dealing and working with city staff on many different issues. He said he has found they are very professional and do high quality work for the City of Maplewood and he supports them. He would recommend Board member Schurke make an official motion. Chairperson Olson agreed with the comments made. She personally made that comment to the city council during the Gladstone Redevelopment process and said that the city council should appreciate the advice and direction that the staff at the City of Maplewood provides. Board member Hinzman also agreed with those comments. He said as someone who has worked in different municipalities and with a lot of different people in city government, the City of Maplewood has some of the best employees around. Unfortunately there are times from a political standpoint which make it difficult for city employees to do their job. He said he personally has experienced that and he hopes the employees at the City of Maplewood will stick around. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 19 Board member Schurke recommended that the employees at the City of Maplewood weather the storm during the political change and continue to do professional and high quality work as they have done in the past. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Maplewood Mall - Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall 3001 White Bear Avenue July 5, 2006, for the July 12, 2006 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall, is proposing two billboard-style signs on the east and west elevations of the mall. The signs are called wallscapes and are constructed of BriTex, which is a white, flexible and durable vinyl substrate material. The signs will advertise the mall products (i.e., Simon Gift Cards, etc.), mall tenants (i.e., Old Navy, etc.), and ultimately could advertise the "products" sold by the tenants. Request The city's sign code requires a comprehensive sign plan for "a business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project." The addition of the two wallscape signs requires an amendment to the mall's comprehensive sign plan. BACKGROUND The Maplewood Mall was constructed approximately 30 years ago. Signage on the exterior of the mall has been approved by the community design review board (CDRB) and city council individually during the construction or remodeling of the mall or anchor tenants. Therefore, there are no specific sign criteria for the exterior signage of the mall; just that each sign get approved individually and be consistent and compatible. DISCUSSION The owners of the Maplewood Mall, Simon Property Group, and its subsidiary partnership owns or has an interest in 285 properties in the United States containing 200 million square feet of gross leasable area in 39 states plus Puerto Rico. Four of the retail properties are located in Minnesota including the Maplewood Mall and the Mall of America. Simon Property Group is proposing to install wallscape signage at 70 of these properties, including the Maplewood Mall. There are currently no other malls in the Twin Cities that have wallscape signage. Existing Signage The Maplewood Mall has the following signage which advertises the mall: 1. Entry monuments: Four entry monuments approximately 25 feet in height. The monuments are located at the entrance to the mall long White Bear and Beam Avenues. 2. Wall signs: One large wall sign on the upper portion of the east elevation and six smaller wall signs located above the entries on the east and west elevations. 3. Directional signs: Six directional signs located at the end of the driveway entrances. The signs are six feet in height. All of the monument and building signs, except one, were constructed during the first years that the mall was open. The wall sign above the east facing entry, next to Barnes and Noble, was added a few years ago with the exterior addition of the Barnes and Noble store. The directional signs were added in 1996. The signs, excluding the new entry sign, are pink in color and seem outdated and worn. Proposed Signage The Maplewood Mall proposes two wallscape signs including: 1) a 750 square foot sign on the east elevation, toward White Bear Avenue. This sign will be located between Potbelly's and JC Penny. 2) a 600 square foot sign on the west elevation, toward Southlawn Avenue. This sign will be located in between Sears and the mall entrance. Comprehensive Sign Plan Requirements Comprehensive sign plans are required for multi-tenant buildings to ensure an improved relationship between the signs, building, and neighborhood. Staff finds that the wallscape signs are compatible to the commercial nature of the neighborhood and the building. However, staff has concerns that these signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs including: 1. The signs are large and resemble a billboard. 2. The signs will likely display products sold within the mall, rather than the stores located in the mall or the mall itself. 3. The signs are made of a vinyl material which is susceptible to wear and tear. 4. Approval of these signs could open the door to the mall refacing the signs with LED signage similar to the Myth's sign in the future. 5. The existing mall signs including the four monument signs, six of the seven wall signs and six directional signs are old and outdated. It is staff's opinion that the addition of the wallscape signs would not meet the intent of the comprehensive sign plan. Simon Group and the city would benefit more from an update of their existing signs at the mall. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan amendment to add two wallscape signs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan amendment to add a 750 and a 600 square foot wallscape sign on the east and west elevation of the Maplewood Mall located at 3001 White Bear Avenue. Denial is based on the fact that the wallscape signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs as required by the sign code for a comprehensive sign plan. PlSec 2NIMaplewood Mall\Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (2006) Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Existing Sign Elevations 4. Proposed Sign Elevations 5. Wallscape Sign Examples 2 Attachment 1 _ __ ___ c= -- 1-6~~~::-_ =-l=-==- c-c~--=="cc-- '. 1II'II~lll-N' '.-f~~~~m~~~JIi'i~~~~ql-~~'.;~\-~1~~~~~2r;!l_ __ _ __ --~ ".\~It [~ T-'I'I't.. I_II ~ l'II-.Ljlii~ ~I'I~'~~ --'--1 I -::. -;N.~I~I~fL'_= r;:'f.f~: ...il.U I I.I-II! .,-'Q -1' '1'11 J I -= - I ,1~Wl:. T :1' ,. -', -I v)-=rll~~ -- -ll I I __ - 'TlTIIIIGlr-r;;I~I--:'_ .... Maplewood Mall L_ / i'I... ,; ~'I'.. ~ ,1J!,~,~_lill1llill"'1,,"#,:'~',II'~I."~"" 3001 White Bear Avenue,' h~ I -:,~/'~-_- T.r~~~,~;i=:-"~"'1 :i'~~'~t~lff~~~~ ___, III '-_L di(L __u_ =-_II,~ _~~~r~=-... "_'~JIL ~lltli:F,lht~rt-::, ,I1, I II'" J " '~'II,I n ,I " jl?ill! d; I . II ,'';' I'~-"-"te' I .~_ ire, ". -~-I il . "'W;l::' -.. ..,- - ,,~"c,."II- I, --I ~ rl~ L-411 -T --- . (jJI., ;p I~_~~./'l$ _II,I'IS 11,'1 __'. :JII: 1-t',"~I, I' I :~, i~.t~- ~F~t~ =~~~~~~,~__~~\~~_~_Ii~I' ]1,. _ __,tf~l!=_~_~ __ _-I=-\;.-.';'I~nE,I~?n_~'~J' .;C-i'I~"il,;'~~~J; 1~ --. .112:~~,~~~~[~:~,-~ ~~lfY-fI~I~~IIII[1;~ . __1111---=-1 --L_' Itil~I+~/,},.l.I'.:"'"ll;:,:!t~;.",:,~_,.~r:j~'~~""'l;'.~~.lo~~! L__' '-1"11 I 1.~llr~'i'''';~..~~JGtll~.tT.' ! . J~ ~I'I I . 111.~o,;"''',j''l ~.C(II l.:.. I I .. '-.'-+ . .JuJ '.' ~~'I --=- c":j'l Ii{ I I. I ~;ft~crrlll, ~r:rl _~Ii:tj -I ~. , ~'-"I~ " 1 _'~1~1,' 1.1 t'"..IJ.c=~i , ~..l.-.lul'(i 11:1 . I I -~I--"ijlft.='-+-f-II, Tr;.-ifl.i~~I.,;:I/I - I I-I .... .__ r _ "T--~ ~ ."___ i, .L~i. {,I,',',' j; I... =]IIP,~<'i'l II.. ;- FII II -II'rB-i I-i-h..lii- I I":!! I. ,;!i'I~r!tI_ ,l ~~ \o=f..III,T-h;;:;;~i,I,,,'~fSjl~j,.~'11 Iii'" I,. I 1--.. c'II.'iII' ...~.,rrr:-.L:" \..... T....".~'I'I'n..,'IIW..-~.-.~I'lf....'rJli..~ 1"71./;;:]Je..-....l3l..:r.. . --IIII!:t;I:,fi' I ~~I . 1'lm,I~) 1.1 L= 61 _IJ'L ~I . ~111~,; .....~~II. - '1m' r ~...!ryj'lt-__ I It. 1,I~--ttI~ II I. I. 7:, '. . \ ~ III I, _l: :,.- 1'.':'=-" " N W*E Location Map s Attachment 2 ~ c&> ~ ~ -1 ! ~ ~ S *" ~nu:'IAV =8 ( I ~ - C/) _N~ -"0 ",0_ ""-~ "" u~ -05;2: o~::E og....:- ~ 5 ~ 0)>" -<~ g. ~ (/l :?J~ ~ 1 I , I o o ~ ~ \: .s Uj 0 iil ~ I ~Iqi i z J ,I , o ~~ ~~ I I_ ! IJlI : ~ , , I~ 111~ """I' II~ "'~O> ... "'....N., .. "'''';:; ~ . ~ I ~ . , , . ~ ~ . ~ " l . " l) ;;: . . !; ~ "> I l . , ~ ! <3 , i~ 00 o. ~ s , j ~, ~Ih I .. ~ U ~ ~ ~ . , , Attachment 3 0\ t s -ry Ie ..el\-11'1 ""~ 1 W'Il\ S 'j (\ CD \cvy_ we, 1\ S IJ r'\ @ Mw st'/ Ie.. er'.'if\j w"y W'111 511 Y1 Lr.tc.:hoY\"1 \ MOl\vffler\~ Attachment l! .!! Iii .. '" . % . . - := . - ~ . :IE C- . . 0 0 .- . + . . ~ cr- . ~ ." . a ">.l . ;: . ~ . 't' e 'E! .. .:J 11)+ . :l! .!! . .. C ifl E . in . .. . 0" \f) cS " . . ~ . CD . ~ r- . ~ ~ . ~ . . . ~ . IICi !!:t~~ I --. ..... I ~A ~i~~~ ::i~~~ t.) .~~c; N .~~ ~~ ~(.,).. ..0:; ....::-a.l5~ - .. i i F ~ c- o -t- <r ? ~ ,~ 11\ ~t . . . ~ . u ~ :i E. ] g :t: .~ c::I..!. ~. :: ocX -;:; . .: '. c,: .~.~:' = "I:;f . . p''- U.~::'t ~I _....... I .-- ..... . eej ~i~~~ ::i:iE u _..;. .C !l.~fJi3~ u ~ .....i::~c 5 co. .; > . S i MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Draft Sign Code - Outdoor Television Sign Definition July 6, 2006 for the July 11, 2006. CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION In April 2006 city staff requested that the community design review board (CDRB) give an interpretation of the city's sign code in regard to electronic message board signs. The interpretation was requested based on two sign proposals received by staff. The first proposal was by Plaza TV at 1918 Beam Avenue. They requested the addition of a 34 square foot electronic message board sign to be installed on their existing freestanding sign. The city's existing and proposed sign code prohibits signs which blink or flash. Electronic message board signs have the capability of blinking and flashing. Plaza TV requested the sign on the condition that it remains constant and steady. The second proposal was by the Myth Nightclub at 3090 South lawn Drive. They requested and have installed a 230 square foot light-emitting diode (LED) sign. This type of sign is similar to an outdoor television and has the capability of displaying millions of colors and video displays on the screen. During the CDRB's review, and based on the city attorney's comments, it was determined that the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs - outdoor televisions) was different enough from anything that has come before that it needed its own category in the sign code. DISCUSSION Draft Sign Code Language The draft sign code was created by the 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 summer 2006. The following pertinent language regarding electronic message board signs is found in the draft sign code. Definitions: Public Service Sign: 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 Sign: A sign that contain an electronic message board portion that only displays the time and temperature. Electronic Message Board: A sign with a fixed or changing display message composed of a series of electronic illuminated segments. Flashing Sign: An illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits with noticeable changes in light intensity. Changeable Copy Message Board: A sign or portion of a sign which is characterized by interchangeable letters and figures. This definition shall not include electronic message boards. Prohibited Sians: 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. Proposed Draft Sign Code Language The city attorney's office suggested the following definition for LED or outdoor television signs: Video Board: A video board is any device desianed for outdoor use which is capable of displayina a video siana!. includino. but not limited to. cathode-ray tubes (CRTs). liaht-emittina diode (LED) displays. plasma displays. Iiauid-crvstal displays (LCDs). or other technoloaies used in commerciallv available televisions or computer monitors. The CDRB recommended that language be included in the draft sign code to ensure these types of signs are prohibited. Staff recommends the following revision to the prohibited signs section of the draft code: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color includina. but not limited to. electronic messaae board sians. flashina sians. and video board sions as defined in this chapter: 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. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve an amendment to the March 1, 2006, draft sign code pertaining to LED or outdoor television signs as follows (language added is underlined): Definitions: Video Board: A video board is any device desianed for outdoor use which is capable of displaYina a video siana!. includina. but not limited to. cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), lioht-emittino diode (LED) displavs. plasma displays. Iiauid-crvstal 2 displavs (LCDs). or other technolooies used in commerciallv available televisions or computer monitors. Prohibited Signs: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color includino. but not limited to. electronic messaoe board sions. flashino sions. and video board sions as defined in this chapter: 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. p:ordlsign codeloutdoor television definition 3