Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2008 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, January 22, 2008 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: January 8, 2008 5. Unfinished Business: On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Code Discussion 6. Design Review: 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. 2007 Community Design Review Board Annual Report b. Update on Board Member Interviews 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the rneeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board mernber John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board mernber Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Board mernber Olson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. December 11, 2007 Board member Wise moved approval of the minutes of December 11, 2007 as submitted. Board member Demko seconded The rnotion passed. Ayes - all V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Code Discussion Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and asked the board comment on issues regarding dynamic display signs in the city. Ms. Finwall also asked the board for their comments regarding issues with public service messages. In response to a previous question from the board, Planner Finwall said the League of Minnesota Cities has advised that a total ban of dynamic display signs is legal and an option. Board member Wise said he is not in favor of a total ban on dynamic display signs. Board member Shankar said he thinks the rules should be the same for both on-site and off-site signs, but feels there will be fewer issues with on-site signs due to the generally lower driving speeds in front of properties where those signs might be constructed. Board member Ledvina agreed a total ban of dynamic display signs is not feasible. Mr. Ledvina had questions on why setbacks are not related to land use and why dynamic signs are not prohibited in some zoning districts in the city of Minnetonka's ordinance. Mr. Ledvina Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 01-08-2008 feels the Minnetonka ordinance is a good example and said he recommends the board use the Minnetonka ordinance as a guide. Mr. Ledvina requested staff research whether the city of St. Paul's on-site ordinance has been adopted. Mr. Ledvina suggested a moratorium on dynamic display signs would be reasonable until the ordinance is amended. Board member Wise asked what constitutes unique zoning districts and he had questions on spacing of dynamic signs. He asked whether there are other cities with examples of sign spacing. Planner finwall said she will research these questions and also other cities for examples of sign spacing and requirements, and also whether the city of St. Paul has adopted an on-site ordinance. Board member Demko said he agrees with using the city of Minnetonka ordinance as a guide. Mr. Demko said he has questions with the 20-minute display time and also the 15- foot maximum height requirement. Board member Shankar said he also agrees with using the Minnetonka ordinance as a guide. He has questions on the number of signs allowed per property and with having differences in display time for on-site and off-site dynamic signs. Board member Ledvina, noting the competition among advertisers, said he has strong concerns with having too many signs in high-traffic areas in the near future with displays changing continually. Board member Olson suggested the board move ahead with this review. Ms. Olson suggested the need for language to regulate the "blinking, flashing and fluttering" of signs, and the need to review the setback distance and sign spacing issues, change time of displays, and necessary language defining public service message. Planner finwall asked the board whether only freestanding dynamic signs will be considered. Board member Olson responded that non-freestanding signs also need to be considered. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Concept Review - Maplewood Mall Dynamic Display Sign Planner finwall presented the staff report. Ms. finwall said the request for concept review is to allow feedback to the applicant prior to an official sign request submittal. Ms. finwall explained the comprehensive sign plan requirements pertaining to this request. Ms. Laurie Van Dalen, with Simon Properties of the Maplewood Mall, explained their proposal for digital marquee and wallscape signs. Ms. Van Dalen said the digital marquee sign location is proposed on White Bear Avenue and that the sign location determines what size sign should be proposed. Ms. Van Dalen said the sign would be used for promoting tenants and advertising products and services marketed or sold on the site. Ms. Van Dalen exhibited examples of Simon Properties' wallscapes constructed in various other malls which are used to advertise products and services of tenants. Board member Ledvina asked Ms. Van Dalen if Coca Cola is a tenant of the Maplewood Mall and if they occupy space at the Mall. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-08-2008 3 Ms. Van Dalen explained that Coca Cola has a lease agreement for their machines located at the Mall and for some special promotions at the Mall. Ms. Van Dalen explained that the signs would promote tenants of the Mall and a few surrounding businesses that the Mall has contracts with. She said the signs would operate 24-hours daily. She explained that the sign would be monitored electronically with a camera and sensors and if a malfunction was observed, it would be corrected on-site. She said the Mall would have control of the sign since they would be the owner of the sign. Board member Shankar said he prefers that the architectural design element be considered as part of a wallscape sign design rather than hanging a sign anywhere on a wall without consideration of the building's design. Board member Olson said she would prefer that Maplewood Mall update their existing signage before considering new wallscape and digital marquee sign age. Board members Ledvina and Wise both agreed with Mr. Shankar that the building's design should be considered when installing a wallscape sign and said this issue would be part of the review of any future request for a wallscape sign installation. Board member Wise asked Ms. Van Dalen to consider the square footage for a wallscape sign display as it pertains to the footage of their approved existing sign-which would mean that 35% of the existing pylon sign footage is what might be allowed. Ms. Van Dalen thanked the board members for their time and comments. Board member Olson asked staff to obtain a copy of sign ordinances for the cities of Woodbury and St. Paul for review by the board. She also mentioned she is having a hard time understanding applicants' requests for the state minimum display time of eight seconds for dynamic display signs. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Council member John Nephew, 628 County Road D, Maplewood, addressed the board and said he is open to their comments. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Comprehensive Plan Update Planner finwall requested that board members complete the visioning worksheets they received regarding barriers to the comprehensive plan process and return them to her within the next week. Ms. finwall reported the parks, trails and open space advisory committee has met several times and visited some sensitive areas such as south Maplewood. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: fROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Shann finwall, AICP, Planner On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance Discussion January 17, 2008 for the January 22 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting feedback from the community design review board (CDRB) on the creation of an on-site dynamic display sign ordinance. Recent advances in the sign industry have introduced a variety of technologies to the outdoor advertising arena, including the use of light emitting diode (LED) signs (dynamic displays). These signs are becoming a highly sought-after means of advertising for businesses and are also becoming increasingly affordable. As such, the city will likely see more requests for these types of signs in the near future. It is important that the city review this new technology as it relates to on-premise signs, as we did for off-premise signs in 2007, to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding properties and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the city as a whole. BACKGROUND November 27 and December 4, 2007, the CDRB and the planning commission recommended approval of a prohibited and dynamic display sign ordinance amendment based on a settlement agreement with Clear Channel on the installation of an LED billboard sign in Maplewood. The board and commission recommended that staff bring back information on on-site dynamic display signs for a possible ordinance amendment in the near future. January 8, 2008, the CDRB discussed on-site dynamic display signs. The CDRB expressed support for allowing on-site dynamic display signs with restrictions and directed staff to draft an ordinance for review and requested an update on ordinances existing in the cities of Woodbury, Oakdale, and St. Paul for comparison. DISCUSSION Other City's Ordinances St. Paul Ordinance The City of St. Paul recently adopted an off-site dynamic display sign ordinance which allows for LED-style billboards with the removal of other nonconforming billboards. They did not adopt a new on-site dynamic display ordinance, but have existing restrictions in place which permit electronic message signs (signs that have periodic changes in copy or symbols by electronic means) within their business and industrial zoning districts with the following restrictions: 1. Setback 600 feet from other electronic message signs on the same side of the street. 2. Setback 75 feet from a residential district. 3. Display can fade in/fade out, travel from side to side, or travel from top to bottom. Woodbury Ordinance The City of Woodbury currently has a moratorium on off-site dynamic display signs and they are working on drafting an ordinance for these types of signs. They do not have and are not considering an on-site dynamic display sign ordinance. Their existing ordinance allows electronic message signs (signs which can change messages but not change instantly) on any freestanding sign as long as the message remains constant and steady. There is no time-line specified for when they can change over, but Woodbury city staff has been requiring the messages to remain constant for 24 hours. City of Oakdale The City of Oakdale currently has a moratorium on off-site dynamic display signs and they are working on drafting an ordinance for off-site and on-site dynamic display signs. Their existing ordinance prohibits signs that blink or flash, except for intermittent time and temperature signs. City of Minnetonka In June 2007 the City of Minnetonka adopted a dynamic display sign ordinance. Minnetonka's ordinance allows on-site dynamic display signs on up to 35 percent of a freestanding sign, message must remain constant for 20 minutes, with no setback restrictions to residential or other signs. City of EaQan In October 2007 the City of Eagan adopted a dynamic display sign ordinance. Eagan's ordinance allows on-site dynamic display signs on freestanding signs if they are not the predominant feature, the message may change every 20 minutes, and must meet graphic height requirements based on the speed limit in front of the sign, with no setback restrictions to residential or other signs. Maplewood's Existing Ordinance The city's current ordinance allows signs which have blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights if used primarily for public service messaging. Since the CDRB is supportive of allowing on-site dynamic display signs within the city which will give businesses an opportunity to utilize this new technology, staff recommends that the prohibited section of the ordinance be amended to prohibit signs that blink, flash, or flutter regardless of messaging (text in bold was amended by the city council in December 2007): The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts: ." Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. Signs that give public service informatien, such as time and temperature are exempt. 2 Proposed Restrictions Zoning District: Staff recommends that dynamic display signs be allowed in the Business Commercial and Heavy and Light Manufacturing zoning districts only. Setbacks: Staff recommends that the dynamic display signs be allowed if they are at least 75 feet from residential and 600 feet from any other dynamic display sign located on the same side of the street. Time of Message: City staff recommends allowing the signs with the restriction that they are allowed to change over once every 20 minutes. Size: City staff recommends that dynamic display signs be allowed to take up to 50 percent of the coverage area of an allowed freestanding or wall sign. RECOMMENDATION 1. Amend the prohibited sign code at section 44-737 as follows: The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts: ... Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights. Signs that give public service information, such as time and temperature are exempt. 2. Adopt an on-site dynamic display sign code as follows (text underlined has been added to the proposed off-site dynamic display sign code amendment which was recommended for approval by the CDRB and planning commission): a. findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction of drivers can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. In such a case, drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers also are distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end. Additionally, drivers could be more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. finally, drivers are Generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed by those observing them, and are only accurate with frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction, to minimize their proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 3 Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity of sign owners to use such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This impact on drivers would be compounded in a traffic corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, requiring a longer display time on dynamic signs is in the public interest. A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, all of which could result in traffic accidents. In conclusion, the City of Maplewood finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on off-premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public health, safety, and welfare. b. Dynamic display sign means any sign designed for outdoor use that is capable of displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode- ray tubes (CRTs), light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially available televisions or computer monitors. c. Standards for all dynamic display signs: . (1) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign; (2) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. (3) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must stop the dynamic display within one hour of being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this ordinance; (4) Dynamic display signs must meet the brightness standards contained in subdivision f. below; 4 (5) Dynamic display signs existing on (insert the effective date of this ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above. d. On-Site Dynamic display siqns are allowed subject to the followinq additional conditions: (1) Are allowed in the Business Commercial (BC) or Heavy or Liqht Industrial (M-2 and M-1) zoninq districts only. (2) The imaqes and messaqed displayed on the on-premise dynamic display siqn must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of 20 minutes. and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects: (3) Are allowed as part of a permanent freestandinq siqn or wall siqn. provided that. the siqn comprises no more than 50 percent of the total square footaqe of said siqn. (4) No such siqn containinq a dynamic display shall be erected closer than 75 feet from any residential land use district on which there exists structures used for residential purposes. or any residential structure. (5) Must be located at least 600 feet from any other dynamic display siqn which is located on the same side of the street. d. Off-Site Dynamic display siqns are allowed subject to the followinq additional conditions: (1) A dynamic display sign is allowed by conditional use permit approved by the city council. (2) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects; e. Incentive. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premises signs and they are distracting and their removal serves the public health, safety, and welfare. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premise signs in certain settings. This sign removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentive. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentive creates an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout Maplewood. 5 Reduction of Sign Surfaces (1) A person or sign operator may obtain a conditional use permit for a dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met: (a) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premise sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one surface of an off- premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant, which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts (2) and (3) of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the applicant does not do so, and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off- premises sign with a dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface. (b) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. (c) If the removed sign surface is one that a state permit is required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until the sign owner or operator provides proof to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. (2) If the applicant meets the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue a dynamic display sign permit for the designated off- premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every 12 seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. f. Brightness Standards. (1) City staff shall approve the following brightness standards for all dynamic display signs: (a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. 6 (b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made within one hour upon notice of non-compliance from the city. (3) All dynamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date of this ordinance) will have illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one hour after being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this section. (4) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the city's outdoor lighting requirements (section 44-20(1)). p:ordlsign codeI1-22-08 CDRB 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Shann finwall, AICP, Planner 2007 Community Design Review Board Annual Report January 17, 2008 for the January 22 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION The city's community design review board (CDRB) ordinance requires that the CDRB submit a report to the city council once a year. The report is intended to outline the CDRB's actions and activities during the preceding year. Also, the report may include recommended changes, including, but not limited to, ordinance and/or procedure changes. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached draft of the CDRB annual report and be prepared to make recommendations and comments on the report at the January 22,2007, CDRB meeting. P:com-devlcdrblannual report cover memo Attachment: 2007 CDRB Annual Report MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board Chair DRAFT - 2007 Community Design Review Board Annual Report January 8, 2008 INTRODUCTION Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board's actions and activities for the city council for the previous year. In 2007, the CDRB reviewed the following 27 items during their 13 meetings: Type of Proposal # Reviewed New Development Proposals 6 1. Caribou Coffee (1720 Rice Street) 2. Costco (1431 Beam Avenue) 3. The Woodlands (Sophia Street, north of Larpenteur Avenue and east of McMenemy Street) 4. Pond Overlook (South of 1-694 and north of County Road D) 5. The Shores (940 Frost Avenue) 6. Regent at Legacy Village (Southeast Corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street) Expansions/Remodels 10 1. CarMax Auto Superstore Exterior Modifications (NE Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) 2. Ramsey County Correctional Facility (297 Century Avenue) 3. Corner Kick Indoor Soccer Facility and Retail Space (1357 Cope Avenue) 4. Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park Office Building (1316 Pearson Drive) 5. Premier Bank Second Story Addition and Parking Lot Expansion (2866 White Bear Avenue) 6. Police Department Shooting Range Containment Structure (2621 Linwood Avenue) 7. Costco Exterior Design Revision (1431 Beam Avenue) Type of Proposal # Reviewed Expansions/Remodels (con!.) 8. Comforts of Homes Exterior Design Revision (2300 Hazelwood Street) 9. Lexus Parking Lot Expansion (1245 County Road D) 10. The Shores Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan (940 Frost Avenue) Miscellaneous Reviews and Actions 7 1. Maplewood Business Center 1 and 2 Comprehensive Sign Plan (1616 and 1730 Gervais) 2. Review of Wetland Ordinance 3. Nonconforming Four-Plex and Three-Plex Landscape/Screening Parking Plan (1349 and 1359 County Road C) 4. Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Readerboard Signs 5. Gladstone Streetscaping 6. Concept Review for the English Street Manufactured Home Site (Gladstone Neighborhood) 7. Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance Special Proiects 4 1. Community Pride Awards 2. New Member Orientation 3. 2006 Annual Report 4. City Council Questions for New CDRB Members Total 27 COMPARATIVE INFORMATION Year Number of Items Reviewed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 25 25 27 33 27 2 MEMBERSHIP The CDRB consists of five members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for two years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The current membership is as follows: Board Member Membership Beqan Term Expires Ananth Shankar 8/8/94 1/1/08 Matt Ledvina 3/10/97 1/1/09 Linda Olson 3/26/01 1/1/09 Matt Wise 2/12/07 1/1/08 John Demko 2/26/07 1/1/09 On February 12 and 26,2007, the city council appointed Matt Wise and John Demko to replace John Hinzman and Joel Schurke who resigned from the CDRB in 2006. The city council also reappointed Matthew Ledvina and Linda Olson to the CDRB with terms expiring January 1, 2009. City council interviews for re-appointment or appointment of terms expiring January 1, 2008, are tentatively scheduled for the beginning of February 2008. DISCUSSION 2007 Actions/Activities In 2007, the CDRB reviewed 6 new commercial developments which could potentially add up to 17,661 square feet of new commercial space; 10 commercial expansion/remodels which could potentially add up to 77,760 square feet of new commercial expansion space and ai, 100,000 square foot indoor soccer center; and 4 new multi-family developments which could add up to 348 new residential units. The CDRB has consistently demonstrated keen interest and skill in their reviews of these development projects to ensure they are of the quality of design and materials that complement the surrounding areas and improves a site's aesthetics. The city has become more developed over the years, with very little vacant land available for new developments. Because of this, city staff has processed many of the city's remodels and additions as 15-day reviews, as allowed by code, rather than the more formal review by the CDRB. Also, because of the developed nature of the city, many of the new commercial and residential developments reviewed by the CDRB are either redevelopment of existing buildings or in-fill development. The CDRB will continue to be a vital advisory board to the city council in the future, particularly with more redevelopment and in-fill development projects on the horizon. Maplewood's current sign code was adopted in 1977, with minor revisions made in 1996. The sign code is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. Over a period of three years the CDRB researched, gained public input, and drafted a new sign code to address some of the existing code's shortfalls. In March 2007, the CDRB recommended approval of a new sign code to the city council. The CDRB looks forward to the city council's review and eventual adoption of that code in 2008. 3 2008 Recommendations/Areas of Interest 1. The CDRB will be drafting the on-site dynamic display sign code for approval by the city council. 2. The CDRB is looking forward to the city council's review of the draft sign code for implementation in 2008. 3. The CDRB will work with staff on recommended site and design criteria for the city's proposed Gladstone neighborhood redevelopment area, including streetscaping. 4. The CDRB is interested in gaining a better understanding of sustainable building design concepts. The board hopes to support the implementation of these concepts for projects that are reviewed and approved by the city, particularly projects within the Gladstone neighborhood redevelopment area. 5. The CDRB is interested in gaining a better understanding and working knowledge of the use of pervious surfaces in development - how they function, how they age, and how they relate to the city's codes. CONCLUSION In 2008, the CDRB will continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments, ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood. P\com~dev\community design review board\annual report (2007) 4