Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. RollCall 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: June 14, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Maplewood Business Center Landscaping and Screening Plan -1616 Gervais Avenue b. Maplewood Toyota: 1) New Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility (South Site) - Located on the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing sales lot 2) Maplewood Toyota Expansion (North Site) - Located on the west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettrey's Collision 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. June 27, 2005, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: a. Si9n Code Revisions b. Reschedule September 13 and November 8,2005, CDRB meetings due to elections. Proposed dates - September 14 and November 9,2005. c. CDRB Representation at the July 11, 2005, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Staff Absent: Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the agenda. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 14,2005. Board member Ledvina wanted the minutes clarified at the bottom of page 4. To reflect that the Maplewood Marketplace freestanding sign would only be 18 feet in height, not 20 feet as shown on the elevation submitted. Chairperson Longrie requested a correction to the minutes on page 14 in condition b. 1) in the second sentence it should read reconfiguring the westerlv not oasterly and also in c. 2) a) it should state after in between the driveways, half way down the drive and strike out adjacent to tho builElings; in front sf the doors; Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of June 14, 2005, as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstentions - Shankar The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 2 v. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Business Center Landscaping and Screening Plan - 1616 Gervais Avenue Ms. Finwall said Mr. Patrick Lensing with Steiner Development, leasing agent for the Maplewood Business Center, is requesting that the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) review a landscape and screening plan for the west side of their property. The Maplewood Business Center is a multi-tenant office/warehouse building located at 1616 Gervais Avenue. This plan was required by the city council after a revision to the center's conditional use permit (CUP) following noise complaints the city received from an adjacent neighbor. The applicants are proposing two landscape/screening plans for review. The first plan consists of 57, five-foot-high techny arborvitaes, planted in a double row. The second plan consists of 150 linear feet of a 6-foot high, white PVC fence and Black Hills Spruce. Chairperson Longrie asked if there was currently an irrigation system? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Longrie was concerned about maintaining the plantings used for screening. Board member Hinzman asked what elevation the fence and/or plantings would be placed on the hill? Ms. Finwall said the fence and plantings are proposed at the top crest of the hill which is eight feet higher than the Maplewood Business Center and six feet higher than the residential homes. Board member Olson asked about the sound absorption of the PVC fence? It appears the fence is dense but she wondered if there would be air space in between the fence. Ms. Finwall said the applicant could address that issue. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Patrick Lensing, Steiner Development, 3610 County Road 101, Wayzata, Minnesota, addressed the board. Regarding the construction of the fence, they plan on using the brookstone design for the fence in a tan color. Mr. Lensing presented a sample of the fencing material. Mr. Lensing said the PVC fence product is hollow and may create echoing between the fence and the building on the business center side of the property. Mr. Lensing said that is one of the reasons they wanted to put plantings on that side to dissipate the echoing as much as possible. Board member Shankar asked if they would be using lattice on the top of the fence. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 3 Mr. Lensing said this would be a six-foot high fence without lattice on the top. Board member Olson asked if there had been any sound studies done using this PVC fencing product? Mr. Lensing said he didn't have any material stating whether or not any sound studies had been done. Chairperson Longrie asked if he thought a hollow fence would actually accentuate the noise? Mr. Lensing said with any fence there will be some sound bounce back from the fence, so they are trying to mitigate the bounce back by having trees on that side of the fence. Chairperson Longrie asked if Steiner Development approved of staff's recommendation for a longer fence? Mr. Lensing said their preference is the 57 arborvitaes because they feel there wouldn't be any sound bounce off of the arborvitaes because they would be planted as tight as possible and in a double staggered row. In addition, the berm is four feet in height, and the trees would be five feet tall trees and both would provide a nine foot barrier which could grow as tall as fifteen feet tall. Board member Hinzman asked about the spacing of the proposed arborvitaes? Mr. Lensing said the arborvitaes would be packed in as tightly as possible. Chairperson Longrie said it appears the living fence would be 225 feet long and the PVC fence would be only 150 feet long. Mr. Lensing said the reason for that is they designed that option to be done in phases because there are two buildings on the site. The building to the north is called Building A and the building to the south is called Building B. The Pioneer Press building is located in Building B and because that is where the noise is coming from they only designed the fence to take care of Building B. Mr. Lensing said they don't have any tenants in Building A but any future tenants would not be operating at night so they didn't feel the cost for additional fencing at this point would benefit the property. It could be done in the future if need be. It's going to be a costly endeavor no matter what; they are trying to balance the issues. Chairperson Longrie asked if they were planting the living fence today, what length would the fence be? Mr. Lensing said the living fence would be 225 feet long and would accommodate both Building A and Building B. The PVC fence only accommodates Building B. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 4 Board member Olson said the first proposal with the double row of arborvitaes is estimated to cost $17,750 and the second proposal with the PVC fence is estimated to cost $14,700. She asked if she understood correctly that the applicant preferred the first proposal for the living fence even though it's more expensive? Mr. Lensing said correct. The owners of the building don't care for the fence and would much rather see live trees there. They realize there is an issue that needs to be taken care of and they agree to do whatever the CDRB recommends. They have had some difficulty getting bids on the irrigation system along the top of the berm where they would be planting the greenery. They may have to move the current irrigation system to add a line of irrigation for that area along the berm. So those issues are unsolved and cannot be solved until they begin digging. Chairperson Longrie asked if the living fence was planted would they make sure the living fence would be irrigated the entire length of the properties? Mr. Lensing said correct. Chairperson Longrie asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the board regarding this proposal? Ms. Cindy Hall, 1596 Grandview Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. She's one of the people that's been complaining to the city regarding the noise problems at the Pioneer Press building. The problem with both option A and option B is this is a facility where people drive to pick newspapers up and then leave. Metal carts come out of the warehouse and go the entire length of the parking lot of Building A and Building B. Trucks drive in and honk their horns and slam their car doors. She hears hundreds of car and truck doors slamming every single night. Because of this noise she can't sleep with the windows open. She was recently diagnosed with a spine problem and if she doesn't get enough sleep it affects her job which is why she has been complaining to the city. They have been trying to deal with these noise problems. They have learned how things are processed through the city and this has been a good experience to learn the steps that need to be taken to get something resolved. Ms. Hall said she hopes the CDRB can see the neighbor's side of how the noise affects them. When they came before the city council the council said they wanted a solid wood fence like Mounds Park Academy and this fence is nothing like that. Ms. Hall's fear is that they are going to spend all this money on this project and she is still going to hear the noise. She is up every night between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. There is no quality of life for her because of the noise. She doesn't want businesses to go away but she wants this problem resolved and she wants the board to understand the problems here. Chairperson Longrie asked how Ms. Hall would propose changing option A or option B? Ms. Hall said she would recommend using option B with the PVC fence, but she would extend the fence to cover the entire parking lot. She was assessed over $4,000 for street improvements recently. She contacted Patrick Lensing to tell him people throw stuff into their pond and report other problems and vandalism in the area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 5 Ms. Hall said when the street was redone there was some old plastic stuff left from the sprinkler system which kids threw into the pond. Even though she called to let them know what had been happening on the property nothing was done to resolve the issues. She asked if trash could be picked up after 6:00 a.m. because the trash hauler was coming before then, which was very irritating. Mr. Lensing guaranteed her the garbage would be picked up after 6:00 a.m. and then today the trash was picked up at 5:30 a.m. again. There is also carpeting, boxes, tires etc. dumped at the site. She doesn't have much faith from anything she has heard from the Pioneer Press representatives. Chairperson Longrie said whatever option the board decides should extend a minimum of 225 feet. Ms. Hall said the workers slam metal carts into the cement walls of the buildings. The noise bounces off the walls and into her house. She sleeps with earplugs and keeps her air conditioning on and she can still hear the noise. She has called the Maplewood Police Department over 8 times because of the noise problems here. Board member Ledvina said the staff report indicates the fence should be 285 feet long and he asked Ms. Hall if that length would be adequate? Ms. Hall said as long as it extends the length of the parking lot. Board member Ledvina asked if Ms. Hall preferred the use of the PVC fence verses the plantings. Ms. Hall said yes. Board member Hinzman said this has been an issue for this tenant for a long time now and asked what conversations have they had with the Pioneer Press over noise and what do they expect long term for the leasing situation for that tenant at this location? Mr. Lensing said they have installed different doors at the building to alleviate the issue of the metal carts banging into the walls. Every time he would hear complaints regarding the banging noise he would go and talk to the folks at the Pioneer Press, whether it was the district manager or the manager of the facility. Mr. Lensing said the issues have been brought to their attention but don't seem to go away. This could be due to the fact that there is a big turnover in personnel or some other reason; the problems don't seem to go away. Mr. Lensing said he personally called the garbage company four times and is disappointed to hear the problem is still occurring. Mr. Lensing said in the past the garbage hauler was not aware of the city ordinance but stated they wouldn't come until later in the morning. Board member Hinzman said here is a tenant who is causing a noise problem adjacent to a residential area. Looking at this business so close to residential he would assume an overnight operation wouldn't occur so close to residential, especially with the exterior noise factors that happens nightly. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 6 Board member Hinzman was wondering if this is the right kind of tenant to have in this type of building so close to residential homes. There were revisions made to the conditional use permit (CUP) because of the noise concerns and he hopes what ever conditions are recommended to the city council that this helps mitigate the noise concerns for the neighborhood. Mr. Lensing said the partnership he works for didn't own the building when the Pioneer Press tenant signed their lease in this building. The building is 20 years old and there is not enough room for them to exist in any other part of the building this is why the Pioneer Press exists in this part of the building. Once the fence is installed they will require drivers to park along Building B extending south along to the front of the building facing Highway 36. Chairperson Longrie asked if the living fence shown on the plan was to scale? Mr. Lensing said yes. Ms. Hall said when she first moved in Maplewood SMP trucks were in this space and a year later Pioneer Press came in. If Pioneer Press can't train their people not to slam their doors, not to blast their car radios and leave their car doors open, not to slam the metal carts into the electric eye doors that were just put in, she doesn't know how they can train people not to park in certain areas. It's human nature and she doesn't think the people coming to pick up the newspapers or the employees that work there can change the way they have been operating. Chairperson Longrie said the CDRB can't control whether or not the Pioneer Press people can train people not to do the things Ms. Hall mentioned, the only charge the CDRB has is to review and recommend the trees and fence option for this property. Ms. Hall said the only reason she brings these issues up is even if they plant trees and or a fence, these other problems will still exist if they are not addressed and taken care of. Chairperson Longrie said Option A is for a living fence with a berm four feet tall and five foot tall trees, which equals nine feet in height with the potential to grow taller. Option B is for a four foot berm and a six foot high fence for a total of ten feet in height. She asked Ms. Hall if she saw any benefit to the living fence for Option A that would continue growing verses Option B for the six foot high fence that would always stay the same height? Ms. Hall said she prefers to have something solid as a noise barrier so she prefers the fence option. Board member Shankar said if noise is the primary issue then the fence is the best way to screen noise. Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments. If noise is the primary issue the more solid the barrier, the better off the neighbors would be. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 7 Board member Ledvina agreed. Board member Olson agreed and is very sympathetic to the residents. She lives next door to a school and even though there is a landscape barrier it is not significant enough. She would be interested to know the pros and cons of a hollow plastic fence verses a solid fence. She thinks if the hollow plastic fence butted up against landscaping it would be better than a solid plastic fence because noise would tend to bounce off. She thinks the plastic is not as good as wood as a sound barrier but the wood fence would be a higher maintenance issue to deal with. She remembers the noise issue coming from the Pioneer Press at the city council meeting and she remembers the Pioneer Press representative stating they would caution staff and would be installing rubber bumpers and other items to help with the complaints issued. She would like to put some language into the condition to send a message back to the Pioneer Press representatives that they need to hold another training session with their employees. Board member Shankar recommended the fence be staggered at a 5 degree angle every 15 feet to help with the sound barrier. Board members thought that was a good idea. Board member Ledvina stated those trees are strategically planted. He would like to strike number 4 in the staff recommendations regarding the removal of the Black Hills spruce. In his opinion the city has to do everything they can to help with the sound. Chairperson Longrie said she would like to include the provision of the irrigation repairs as necessary throughout the construction zone to ensure the irrigation is operational. Board member Shankar recommended approval of the PVC Fence landscape/screen plan date-stamped June 17, 2005, for the Maplewood Business Center at 1616 Gervais Avenue with the following revisions and conditions: (changes made by the CDRB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted) 1. The fence shall be installed on top of the berm, along Germain Street, and shall extend from the south side of the south building, to the north side of the north building (approximately 285 linear feet). 2. The fence Golor shoulEl FfIatch the solem and mateFials of the 13~i1ding, eitt-Jor beige to FfIatsh tho color ef the bricks eA tt-Jo building er I3rO'.vn to matsh the color ef tt-Jo upper fm:Gia and doors. 2. ~ Six landscape areas should be planted in front of the fence, along Germain Street. Each landscape area should include six low-maintenance evergreen and deciduous shrubs (5 gallon pots), planted in a rock mulch. The landscape areas should be staggered along the west side of the entire length of the fence, along Germain Street. 4. Remo'lal of the five Black Hills spruce tFeeG from the plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 8 ~. The fence should be constructed with a minimum of a 5 deqree anale from the horizontal everv 15 feet. 4. The irriqation system shall be modified with the installation of the fence. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. Maplewood Toyota: New Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility (South Site) - Located on the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing sales lot. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and his consultants, BWBR Architects, are proposing to build a one-story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood Toyota parking lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed ramp would be a one-level ramp above the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to continue to store and sell cars from this site. The proposed ramp would have a ground-level sales office in the southeast corner of the structure near the intersection. The elevated level would be at grade with the abutting Maplewood Toyota site to the north and would be bridged across to that site for vehicular access. The proposed ramp would have an exterior of precast concrete spandrels (panels) and precast concrete columns. The proposed sales office in the southeast corner of the structure is designed to be the more decorative and prominent element. The proposed outside walls of the office would have an exterior of metal panels, aluminum framing and glass. The upper-level fascia material of the office area would be constructed of reinforced metal panels. During the construction of the proposed ramp, the applicant proposes to move the cars from this site to his vacant lot between Gulden's Roadhouse and LaMettry Collision. Mr. McDaniels proposes to put in a graveled parking lot there to temporarily store the cars. Staff recommends denial for the proposed parking ramp proposal to give the applicant the opportunity to revise the plans for a more attractive and compatible design. Board member Shankar had a conflict of interest for this proposal since he is an employee of BWBR Architects, the architect and consulting firm for this proposal. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Steve McDaniels, owner of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board. Mr. Tom Dornack, Architect with BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600, St. Paul, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 9 Mr. Jake Boerboon, Project Manager, Kraus Anderson, addressed the board. Mr. McDaniels said in regards to the landscaping on the west side of the lot, Maplewood Toyota planted a lot of trees there as well as on the resident's property. With the holding pond in the front it makes it difficult to plant any more trees. As it is, it makes it difficult for the homeowner to get in and out of his property without falling into the pond. He asked how many, what size and what type of trees staff proposed Maplewood Toyota plant. Chairperson Longrie asked if the Maplewood Toyota plans were different or revised in any way from the packet the CDRB received? Mr. Dornack said other then embellishments and development on the design, there were no changes made to the design. There is more information regarding color and texture of the material, but no changes since the submittal. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. McDaniels was asking where staff thought the additional landscaping should be added and then he displayed it on the screen. It's pretty well screened now he said, but not in the winter. There is one house that has an obscured view and that homeowner came to the planning commission meeting to voice her concern for additional landscaping to screen the vehicles. Mr. McDaniels said if staff advises them where to plant the landscaping, they would be happy to plant additional plantings. Regarding the lighting plan, they propose to move the current lights up on top of the parking ramp. The lights cast downward and would have screens on the back. The lights would maintain the same grade all the way up to Gulden's restaurant. Mr. Dornack said regarding the parking ramp design, the only difference they are proposing is the color. He showed photos of the St. John Hospital parking ramp with smooth concrete panels which have the same concrete spandrel section. It's embellished with an aggregate type finish in different locations. The primary difference is this is a painted or pigmented aggregate panel construction. For Maplewood Toyota's protocol their buildings are white with a red stripe and there isn't a lot of room to alter the corporate protocol. Mr. Dornack said that's the primary reason they are proposing the white color on the smooth portion of the concrete and the red band or stripe painted on the concrete. He said they are using similar building materials and color as they did on the existing Maplewood Toyota building. Mr. McDaniels said corporate protocol for Toyota has a certain nationwide image requirement. Toyota came out with a new image 1Y:z years ago and this proposal has the new material proposed to comply with their new image. It should last 10 to 12 years. Mr. Dornack showed some building samples to the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 10 Chairperson Longrie asked about the life expectancy of the paint? Mr. Dornack said this is a special concrete paint and it should last 20 years. Board member Ledvina asked what the spandrel's vertical dimension is. Mr. Dornack said the vertical dimension is about 6 feet. He showed these dimensions on the screen. Chairperson Longrie said one of the residents made a comment regarding sidewalks and she asked staff to discuss the sidewalks in the area. Mr. Ekstrand said residents were concerned at the planning commission about the loss of a sidewalk or lack of sidewalks. The only sidewalk is along the north side of Beam Avenue and there are no sidewalks along Highway 61. Board member Olson asked if there was a possibility of reducing the lights on the top deck of the parking ramp to 18 feet in height? Mr. Ekstrand said 25 feet high is the maximum height allowed by city code but that height is usually measured from the ground up, he wasn't sure if that was an appropriate height for a light post on top of a parking ramp. He is concerned about the residents' view of lights. He understands Mr. McDaniel wants to keep the area illuminated and the higher the light, the better the light spread. Mr. Dornack said the lights they propose to use on the top of the parking ramp would not be any higher than the existing lights that are currently on the ground. Board member Olson said the applicant indicated they were going to take the existing light posts (20 feet high plus a 2 foot base) and relocate them on top of the parking ramp which means they are going to be 22 feet above the floor of the new parking ramp. She wondered if the light post height could be reduced down to 15 or 18 feet high and still have the lighting plan work. Mr. Dornack and Mr. McDaniels discussed the lighting and agreed to work with the architects and city staff to ensure appropriate lighting. Chairperson Longrie asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Nobody came forward to speak. Board member Ledvina said he was involved in the approval process for the parking ramp for St. John's Hospital and at that time the discussion was to match building materials between the hospital and the parking ramp. The board requested St. John's Hospital use the face brick on the parking ramp but that was cost prohibitive. Then the concept was to develop a complimentary building product so it would be compatible and complementary to the hospital. If the board uses the same logic here he would think the applicant would propose using the same products as corporate Toyota requires. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 11 Board member Ledvina believes the higher textured exposed aggregate would be a good choice for a better contrast. The plan the applicant has submitted is acceptable. The rest of the board members agreed the higher textured exposed aggregate would be a better choice along with the white color along the westerly side of the parking ramp. Board member Olson said she wished Board member Shankar could give the board some ideas for other building materials that could be used on this parking ramp to increase the architectural features. (Because Mr. Shankar abstained from the discussion due to a conflict of interest the board cannot ask for his input.) Board member Olson agreed with staff that this parking ramp design is boring, utilitarian and non-decorative. However, she understands the corporate protocol image for Toyota. It's just that this concrete parking ramp lacks architectural features. She is uncomfortable with the light post height and would like staff to take another look at the pole height to prevent anymore light pollution especially if the light is going to bounce off a white structure. Board member Olson asked staff if there would be a stop sign installed at the end of the driveway? Mr. Ekstrand said no stop sign is required. In fact said Mr. Ekstrand, staff was recommending denial of this proposal with some changes to the plan but it sounds like board members may be making a motion to approve this proposal. Board member Olson said she wanted to clarify that staffs recommendation for denial was based upon the design of the structure? Mr. Ekstrand said staff felt the lighting plan wasn't fully developed, there was the question of adding a few more trees, and a lot more could be done to the design of the parking ramp structure to enhance its looks. It still appears to be utilitarian, it may be compatible with their color scheme but in staffs opinion that isn't good enough. During previous meetings staff stressed over and over again that this parking ramp had to be a better than average attempt at a parking ramp and they haven't come close to what the city staff would like to see. Board member Ledvina asked if staff had some idea of what else could be done to improve the appearance of this parking ramp? Mr. Ekstrand said staff doesn't feel the parking ramp needs to match St. John's Hospital parking ramp in appearance, but it should match in quality. If he lived in this neighborhood next door to this proposal, he would feel cheated that the city didn't look after his views as a neighbor. In his opinion this looks like a scaled down Victory parking ramp currently located in downtown St. Paul. It's staff's opinion that this is just a white concrete parking ramp and is as plain as you can get. He respects the boards' opinion but he thinks this is only the first attempt to make it better and it could be improved quite a bit more. The view from the highway is okay but there is more to do with texturing, or relief with the spandrels and the columns. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 12 Chairperson Longrie asked if there had been any discussion regarding variations that Toyota has at other locations that are still within their corporate protocol? Mr. Ekstrand said the city staff requested this parking ramp look architecturally pleasing and nice but there haven't been other variations discussed. Board member Olson asked if the reason Maplewood Toyota is expanding this from a storage lot to a parking ramp is so they can add more vehicles for sale and parking for employees and customers? Mr. Ekstrand said the addition of the parking ramp is primarily for inventory parking. At the planning commission meeting there was a lot of discussion regarding employees and customers parking along Beam Avenue. Staff finds with this parking ramp proposal there is no reason Maplewood Toyota has to use the street to park vehicles. There was a lot of discussion at the planning commission meeting regarding vehicle congestion at the intersection at Beam Avenue. There was also discussion regarding on-street parking and lack of internal customer parking at Maplewood Toyota. As a Maplewood Toyota customer it's very hard to find a parking spot, some times impossible. Staff's recommendation is that Maplewood Toyota needs to utilize some of this new space to provide adequate employee and customer parking and no parking shall occur on Beam Avenue. Board member Olson said this relates to something she saw a year ago when Maplewood Toyota initially expanded the storage lot. It was her understanding that the storage lot was also going to be used for overflow parking for employees and customers as well as storage. She asked if Maplewood Toyota was growing so fast that they are outgrowing this site? She understands the vehicle congestion situation at this intersection. She read that the planning commission recommended that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south of Beam Avenue be clearly marked as an exit only. This brings her back to her initial question regarding the use of this parking ramp. Is this ramp for customers, employees, sales staff, inventory and when you go to the Maplewood Toyota dealership how will drivers know where they should go? Mr. Ekstrand said in discussing the issue of traffic congestion, the planning commission took a look at Maplewood Toyota's original site south of Beam Avenue and tried to look at ways to alleviate congestion out onto Beam Avenue and one way was to make the easterly curb cut closer to the highway and make that an exit only. The purpose of the parking ramp is to give more inventory parking. Mr. McDaniel's can elaborate on that but staff believed the ramp is for storage and employees to park. Board member Olson asked if the applicant could address these questions. Chairperson Longrie said she believes the board is looking at the design elements and the board may not have the right to say the land use there is inappropriate based upon use. Board member Olson said it relates in terms of staffs statement that this is a plain, utilitarian, concrete structure. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 13 Board member Olson said if the purpose is for storing inventory only and customers are not going to this site then maybe it's okay to look plain and utilitarian. If it's a sales office she would assume that customers would be directed to this ramp and the use would change. Therefore, she would agree with staffs recommendation to add more architectural features. Chairperson Longrie thanked Board member Olson for clarifying her question of the function of this ramp and asked the applicant to clarify. Mr. McDaniel's said staff is right; cars are parked very close together in the car lot to try to keep the overflow off the streets. Their employees park in the storage lot across the street except along the edge of the parking lot to keep cars off Beam Avenue. This is why they want to add another level above the storage lot making this a parking ramp. They understand the customers are frustrated and Maplewood Toyota wants to provide more parking spaces. Customers won't even know how to get to the top level of the parking ramp. Maplewood Toyota doesn't want customers to drive up there. The top level will be for inventory and employee parking and the bottom level will be for inventory. Chairperson Longrie asked Mr. McDaniel if he was to add more interest to the parking ramp exterior could he imagine what some of those changes would be? Mr. McDaniels regrets that he didn't talk directly to Mr. Ekstrand because he wasn't aware of the serious concerns. He is struggling with the cost of the parking ramp and the setback issue along Beam Avenue is going to make for fewer parking spots. He understands the variance may not be approved. He can't imagine what else he can do to the parking ramp structure and still comply. Chairperson Longrie asked if there was a difference in cost between the flat material and the textured material? Mr. Dornack said the textured concrete is more expensive simply because it includes another step of washing and removing the mixture to expose the aggregate. In terms of quality of construction, these materials are of the same cost for construction as the St. John's Hospital parking ramp. There is no difference other than this parking ramp is proposed to be painted white with some red on it. Board member Olson would prefer the smooth concrete surface simply because it is more polished. She likes the exposed aggregate for the red paint because the paint would adhere to the crevices and add more interest. The red stripe is only six inches high and six feet long. She is looking for some decorative elements that would give this parking ramp more visual interest. Mr. McDaniels had no other ideas of what they could do to enhance the parking ramp. Board member Olson used the Maplewood Community Center as an example of decorative elements added. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 14 Board member Olson said a variation in texture, different sized blocks or something to add interest would be nice. She doesn't want anything that appears busy; she wants to see something quiet and classy on this structure. Chairperson Longrie said she wondered if corporate Toyota would accept Maplewood Toyota using the white textured concrete product. Mr. McDaniels said they have to go through corporate Toyota's architect and he believes they would accept the white concrete product as long as they used white with the red stripe. Chairperson Longrie said St. John's Hospital parking ramp has small medallions on it, maybe Maplewood Toyota could have something similar but be white textured instead. That may give the architectural enhancements that the board is looking for but perhaps because it's a limited exposure and it's not increasing the cost that much, yet it adds something to the design. Board member Olson said she finds it very hard to accept that the corporate architect for Toyota or even Mr. McDaniel's architect couldn't come up with something that would be a little more interesting and she would like them to go back and rework this project. She would really like to see additional elements added to this project. Board member Hinzman said the question is does the board deny the proposal as staff has recommended, or table this proposal and ask that it come back before the CDRB for review again. He asked how the board members felt regarding this project? Chairperson Longrie said in the past if there have been other materials that could be used, the board has asked the applicant to come back with the new materials or colors and the board reviews the changes before it goes to the city council. Board member Olson said she would like to see this project tabled. This is the first parking ramp that she is aware of for all the dealerships that extend through Maplewood and through White Bear. This is the first parking ramp, but probably not the last to be requested. Board member Olson said for that reason, this parking ramp is an issue that needs to be considered very carefully. It's really the first example of what the city expects to see when a dealership requests to build a parking ramp in the City of Maplewood. Board member Ledvina said he would suggest Chairperson Longrie ask whether the applicant is willing to have this proposal tabled and rework the plan and come back before the CDRB, or whether he prefers the CDRB deny this proposal and have it go onto the city council for review without the recommendation from the board. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant what they preferred? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 15 Mr. McDaniels said he doesn't know if staff would accept the textured product but he would prefer to work the details out with staff so they can continue to move forward on this proposal. He has been working with the city for 22 years and if he can't work things out with the staff, he will withdraw this proposal. Tabling this proposal would put this plan into 2006. Mr. Ekstrand said procedurally this would still need to go to the city council, if the board recommends approval or denial it would move ahead to the city council and they would consider the recommendation. If the board tables this proposal that would mean this needs to come back with revisions for the CDRB to review again. Staff was recommending this plan be denied. One thing that came out of the planning commission meeting was that the commission directed staff to do a traffic study and Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, is working on that along with one of the city's traffic consultants. Mr. Ekstrand is not sure how long that takes to complete, but the ball is rolling. If this was delayed a few weeks longer that would allow the CDRB to review this again and then it could go to the city council after the board reviews it for the second time. Mr. McDaniels asked if the board tabled this request would the board table the next request that is still to be heard tonight? Chairperson Longrie said no, they are two separate proposals. Mr. McDaniels said at least he could get started on one of the projects. Board member Ledvina recommended to GeRy table this proposal for the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This is based on the strong concern that the board and city staff have regarding the quality of the design, architectural details and materials proposed. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstention - Shankar The motion to table passed. Board member Ledvina said it bothers him that during the CDRB's review of this application for Maplewood Toyota and on two previous applications for consideration by the board city staff, city council members, board and commission members have driven by this site and has seen vehicles parked on the grass. Maplewood Toyota knows what the ordinances are as far as vehicles parking on grass, they have been warned about it over and over again and yet tonight there are vehicles parked on the grass again. He would think that especially when Maplewood Toyota has a request into the city that they could at least adhere to the city ordinance requirement not to park vehicles on the grass during the review and approval time. Specifically, he is referring to the southwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 there is a truck parked on the grass and two more vehicles as you go further south on the main site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 16 Mr. McDaniels said he doesn't want to wreck the grass so he will move the cars. He has 700 cars jammed on the site until this project is complete. Board member Ledvina thanked Mr. McDaniels in advance for taking care of the problem and adhering to the city ordinance that has been in place for years now. Maplewood Toyota Expansion (North Site) - Located on the west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettry's Collision. Mr. Ekstrand gave his report on the Maplewood Toyota Expansion for a parking lot proposal located on the west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettry's Collision. The applicant is requesting that the CDRB and city council approve the site and landscaping plans. This site was created in 1997 by the lot division that also established the LaMettry Collision and the Maplewood Toyota development sites to the south. The City of Maplewood recently purchased the drainage pond on Mr. McDaniel's property for area-ponding purposes. There are two main issues to consider with this proposal. First are the impacts on the residential neighbors from a visual standpoint (lights and screening) and the second is compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance impervious- surface area requirements. Board member Olson said she would like to keep this lot as a parking lot and not have the service building built on it. She asked what the city can do if the applicant decides not to build the building? Mr. Ekstrand said the city ordinance states with parking lots by themselves as a primary use the lot must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. With a building on the lot the lot can be 20 feet from residential. If the applicant decides not to build the building they would be breaking the city ordinance because the lot would then be 20 feet from residential when it should be 350 feet from residential for a parking lot only. Chairperson Longrie said when she worked for Target Corporation and a plan came through for review like this the applicant had to show a building pad on the plans representing where the future building would be. If the applicant changed their mind and did not chose to build the building they had to come back for review and change the parcel back so it meets the city code. Board member Hinzman is concerned about how this lot will cut into the land. Mr. Ekstrand said a retaining wall will be required. Board member Olson asked what type of pervious pavement product they proposed to use? Mr. Ekstrand asked the applicant to address that comment. Mr. Steve McDaniels, owner of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 17 Mr. Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects, addressed the board. He said there are two or three pervious paving systems available. The soils are pretty good here. The first layer is 1 Y:z feet of 3 inch rock; the second layer is six layers of % inch rock, a compaction gravel, then the system itself. Overall it is 2 feet deep which allows water to percolate through. This is the same system that was approved by the city for Schmelz Countryside Volkswagen. Mr. Jake Bourboon, Kraus Anderson, addressed the board. Mr. Bourboon said just to clarify; it is a crushed granite not compacted gravel as Mr. Dornack referred to. It comes out of St. Cloud and it allows water to pass through but not penetrate the surface. The board thanked him for his clarification. Mr. Dornack read a letter from the landscaping architect regarding the 80% opaque screening for the plantings and his reluctance to use an 80% screening because the plantings become too overcrowded which kills the landscaping. Board member Olson asked what the function of this lot is? McDaniels said this lot is primarily for storage. Once they build the service and light maintenance building there it will serve two purposes. Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant had any problems with staffs recommendations listed in the staff report? Mr. McDaniels said no. Board member Hinzman asked about the height of the evergreens? Mr. McDaniels said 6 feet tall. Chairperson Longrie asked about the retaining wall. Mr. Dornack said they propose to use a keystone block for the retaining wall. He said it will match the existing retaining wall they have used in the past and will be a tan color. If necessary they will use a metal railing with the retaining wall. Board member Olson commended Maplewood Toyota for using the pervious paving system. She agreed with the report that it should be increased to 20 feet. Board member Olson asked if there was any need for fencing? Mr. McDaniels said no there is no need for any fencing here. Chairperson Longrie asked staff about the landscaping letter that was read and staff's opinion of the recommendation to use 80% screening. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 18 Mr. Ekstrand said he recommends packing the landscaping in. With the town homes being built the city needs to heavily screen this area from the vehicles on the lot. It is important to have an 80% opaque screen right away so the residential homes won't have to look at the cars. Board member Olson said she just wants the plantings to compliment each other. Board member Ledvina discussed the 12 foot high retaining wall and lighting plan. He said if the lighting plan and landscaping plan has to come back to the CDRB then the retaining wall plan should come back as well for review. Board member Olson said in her opinion she feels staff can work those details out with the applicant. Chairperson Longrie asked if the CDRB requested this be brought back to be reviewed would this hold the construction plan up for the parking lot? Mr. Ekstrand said staff would recommend the parking lot plan be treated as it would a building. The typical requirement is to have an escrow account in case the landscaping or retaining wall is not completed. Board member Hinzman said he doesn't have any reservations regarding this proposal. This is all going to be newly constructed and will blend in with the landscaping that will be done for the new town homes. Mr. Dornack recommended these things be worked out with staff. If these issues can be worked with staff he would recommend that it be handled between the applicant and staff. Board members Olson and Hinzman were fine letting staff and the applicant work the details out. Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking lot proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the (west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettry's Collision). Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted) 1. The applicant shall work with staff and provide resklbmit a detailed site-lighting plan that includes fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that li9ht intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan st-JoulEl be submitteEl for cOr-Rmunity Elesi!]n review board approval. The city shall not issue permits for this site development until the lighting plan has been approved. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 19 2. The landscaping plan submitted will be modified to have increased veaetation or trees. In workinq with staff the landscapina shall be consistent in character and nature with the adioininq property to the south alona with their landscapinq. sAall 130 resul3mitted te tho semmllAity ElesigA reviow l3earo for a~pro'lal ~revieiAg for 3 visual SSreOA that is at least six feet tall and 80 ~orcent o~aElue UpOA planting. This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick-owned, over- story trees. The site shall also have an in-ground irrigation system installed when the plantings are planted. future builEling is built. The landscaping plan shall provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural. The city shall not issue permits for this site development until the landscapina plan has been worked out and approved by staff ligt-Jting ~Ian has been approved. The landscape plan shall be complementarv and compatible to the landscapina plan desian for the 4th Addition Heritaae Sauare town homes. 3. The design of the retaining wall shall be a tan keystone block to match the retainina wall found between the south parkina lot and the service buildinQ submitted to tRe oemml-lAity design review 130arEl aloAg 'oVitt-J the landssaping ~Ian. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The landscapina desian shall be consistent and cohesive in relation to the retainina wall. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure this direction. TRe review l30arn shall review the fonce ElesigA. The sit)' st-Jall not issue ~ermits fer this site Ele'/elo~m()nt until the retaiAin9 wall Elotails t-Ja'le l3eon a~proved. 4. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's parking lot or property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall. 5. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements detenmined by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the Shoreland ordinance. 6. The Class-5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the Ramsey/Washington Watershed District. This gravel parking lot shall not be used longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30, 2007, after which time, it must be removed or replace with a permanent surface. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use, the parking lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance. 7. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the Shoreland ordinance. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 20 8. The property owner shall obtain city approvals for a permanent building on this site by September 30, 2007, to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. 9. Escrow shall be required to ensure that the landscapinQ. retaininQ wall and parkinQ lot are constructed as recommended. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson Nay - Ledvina Abstention - Shankar The motion passed. Board member Shankar abstained from voting because he is an employee of BWBR Architects and there is a conflict of interest. Board member Ledvina voted against this proposal because there is a serious issue with this proposal related to the determination of pervious pavement being counted as impervious surface. This should have been addressed in the land use section and he did not want to discuss it then. It should be looked at with more detail. The engineering report on page 28 states that since the pervious pavement proposed for the north parcel should have infiltration capacity equal to or better than the existing condition of the parcel, it is not counted as impervious surface. He doesn't find sufficient evidence to back up that statement. The standard is 30% within the shoreland district of Kohlman Lake and this is going up to 50% and exceeding 50% by counting this pervious pavement. The shoreland ordinance is to protect the surface waters and these areas would be grassed or vegetated to reduce run off. The shoreland ordinance is to protect the surface waters and the report is trying to state that the pervious pavers are like a grassy area and he can't agree with that. You are putting cars on this pavement and surface water into this area and what is the capacity of the surface water for these impervious pavers to handle. Perhaps it's equivalent for a Y:z inch rain storm but is it equivalent for a 2 inch or 5 inch rain storm? Chairperson Longrie said in her opinion because of the direction of the CDRB the board wouldn't be able to deny something based on a land use plan usage because the board would be putting the city in jeopardy with that decision. Board member Ledvina said the board is making a recommendation to the city council and the board is the last place to make the recommendation. He believes this needs to be brought to the attention of the city council because it's an important issue and is important to get it on the record. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 21 Board member Olson agreed with Board member Ledvina because pervious pavers are fairly new to the city. Board member Ledvina brought up that this area is in a shoreland ordinance area which she didn't even think of this area being in the shoreland ordinance area until he mentioned it because of the function of this proposal. She knows the board is reminded that the focus is supposed to be limited and restricted but she feels very strongly as citizens that they have the right and responsibility to bring these issues that may have been missed by other people. This is the last step before a proposal goes to the city council for approval or disapproval and it is the responsibility of the board to speak for the community if there is an issue they have concerns about. Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't disagree with those comments but on the other hand the board is responsible for looking at certain areas of review. That doesn't stop anyone of the board members as "citizens" outside their duty as board members to go to the city council meeting and speak out regarding other issues that are outside the board's parameters. Board member Ledvina said it is still important to get this on the record. Board member Olson said she doesn't necessarily agree with that because she thinks the board has the responsibility to bring up issues that may pertain to planning issues, traffic, land use issues etc. as community design review board members. She's comfortable saying this use may not be a good use for this area and she would like to see that information reviewed in the minutes or over the cable cast outside of her going to the city council meeting. This information should be included in the minutes if the board member believes this is relevant to the ultimate design of the project. Waiting until the city council meeting to speak up on an issue is often too late. Board member Hinzman believed the comments would be reflected in the minutes and the board should move ahead to the remainder of the meeting. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Chairperson Longrie was the CDRB representative at the June 27, 2005, City Council Meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss was the Pondview Townhomes - Northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street, which was approved by the city council. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall said Andrew Gitlaff, planning intern is going to give an update on the sign code revisions but she wanted to let the CDRB members know that Andrew has accepted a position with the City of Hugo and his last day is Friday, July 1, 2005. She thanked Andrew for his time and efforts while working at the City of Maplewood. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 22 a. Sign Code Revisions Mr. Gitzlaff said over the past few months staff has been receiving comments and guidance from the CDRB regarding revisions to the sign code. Staff has reviewed and compiled all comments and has completed a draft of the new sign code. Staff is requesting that the CDRB review the new sign code draft and discuss the new sections of the ordinance as well as make a recommendation on political campaign signs. Items of discussion are Prohibited Signs, Special Purpose Signs, Political Campaign Signs, and the Sign Code Revision Timeline. A handout was given to the board members regarding political campaign signs. Mr. Gitzlaff said the city has experienced problems in previous elections regulating political sign usage. Currently the sign code requires political signs to be placed on private property, and not within the right-of-way. This has caused confusion by political candidates and the public as right-of-ways vary in width. Also, the current code does not regulate the size or number of political signs. The sign code amendment draft is proposing to allow political signs up to 16 square feet in area, with an overall square footage allowance of 64 square feet per property. These regulations would apply to local elections only. State elections would be restricted by state statute, which currently does not prohibit the size or number of signs allowed per property. In addition, the new sign code draft is proposing that the signs be placed at least five feet from the street edge and at least one foot from a sidewalk, and would specify the sign must be placed in front of the property to whom the views are expressed. There will be local elections in Maplewood this year. As such it is staff's intent to have this portion of the sign code adopted by the city council as soon as possible to ensure there are clear, consistent, and well defined political sign regulations for all candidates. Board member Olson asked if a political sign could be mounted on the face of a garage? Mr. Gitzlaff said yes. Board member Hinzman asked why the city wants to regulate the number of political signs when the state doesn't regulate them? Ms. Finwall said the city receives many complaints from people about the location of political signs and the number of them in one location. Ms. Finwall said a lot of staff time has been spent enforcing the sign situation, moving signs and sending letters out to candidates. Chairperson Longrie said she thinks what Board member Hinzman was referring to was why is the city concerned about the number and size of signs for local candidates when the state isn't concerned about state or local signs and wondered why there is an inconsistency here. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 23 Mr. Gitzlaff said staff feels there should be some restriction and as an example there shouldn't be a 50 foot political sign in someone's yard and the city should protect residents against that. Chairperson Longrie asked if the state doesn't allow that what is the city's legal rational on the local municipal elections that the city should have a different standard then what the state does. Board member Shankar asked when you say the state doesn't allow it, you are saying the state doesn't allow any restrictions. Chairperson Longrie said correct, if the state doesn't allow any restrictions what is the city's legal basis for saying this? Board member Shankar said every two years there is an election, when would the city have a case where someone is running for city council and the state legislature is not running for office. Board member Hinzman said he has a hard time supporting any language that sets limits on how much signage can be on a property and doesn't think this is something the city should be involved in. It is definitely a nuisance and he personally finds it annoying to see a lot of signage on one property but it is something that only occurs once every two years and is something the city should be able to handle on a case by case basis. There are already restrictions on when the signs can be posted and when they have to be removed and also where the signs can be posted. Board member Shankar said personally he is more irritated by realtor signs that are posted and left out a long time. Ms. Finwall said the main content of the political campaign sign ordinance is based on St. Paul's ordinance which was suggested by the Maplewood City Clerk, Karen Guilfoile. Planning staff reviewed it and thought it was acceptable. Chairperson Longrie asked why Maplewood would want to be like St. Paul? Ms. Finwall said the ordinance is a guide and as city staff they look at these political signs as a real nuisance. As an example, certain candidates were stacking their signs which irritated candidates and other individuals. Allowing an overall number of signs doesn't seem like the best interest for the community at large. It may be the best interest for the candidates, but as an individuals driving by on a public street in clear site, it can be a real distraction. Chairperson Longrie said if it's a stacking issue because it's too high; maybe say no stacking of signs? Board member Hinzman said he sees this as creating a lot of work for city staff to enforce sign standards for the number of complaints and accusations from one side against the other and what is the benefit. There is a fixed time frame when the signs can go up and down, it isn't very pretty but it's something the city has to deal with. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 24 Mr. Gitzlaff said the state statute states political signs can go up August 1 until 10 days after the election. White Bear Lake's ordinance states no political sign greater than 12 square feet in area, Oakdale's ordinance states no political sign greater than 9 square feet in area and 4 feet high, Roseville's ordinance states no political sign greater than 12 square feet in area, and Brooklyn Center's ordinance states no political sign greater than 6 square feet in area and 1 sign per candidate per frontage. Board member Shankar said that sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Board member Olson agreed. If the state doesn't restrict the size or number of signs she is uncomfortable with this as proposed by the city. Ms. Finwall said staff is proposing an overall square footage of signs per property. Board member Olson asked what if you have an extremely large lot. Board member Shankar asked what if there is an apartment building with 12 buildings, is the city saying they can only have one sign per property. Board member Hinzman moved to recommend to the city council to approve the political campaign section of the new sign code draft with the following changes: Remove the requirement for a maximum size and number of political campaign signs. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. Ms. Finwall said due to the late hour staff recommended bringing the remainder of the sign code draft back to be reviewed for further discussion and board members agreed. b. Reschedule September 13 and November 8, 2005, CDRB meetings due to elections. Proposed dates are Wednesday, September 14 and Wednesday, November 9, 2005. Staff will check to see if the CDRB meeting could be cablecast or if it would need to be replayed. c. CDRB Representation at the July 11, 2005, city council meeting. Board member Shankar volunteered to represent the CDRB and the only item to discuss includes the political sign draft. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.