Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 24, 2006 6:00 P,M. Council Chambers. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: January 10, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Ramsey County Public Library - South lawn Drive, South of Leg*y Parkway (Legacy Village) . 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Si9n Code - Final Recommendation b. CDRB AppointmenVReappointments c. Annual Report d. Election of Chair and Vice Chair e. Reschedule February 28, 2006, CDRB Meeting Due to Special ~Iection f. Member Representation at the February 13, 2006, City Council fII1eeting - Design Review Items to be Discussed Include Ramsey County Library 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOtA TUESDAY, JANUARY 24,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present until 7:05 p.m. Present at 6:20 p.m. Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Kevin Christianson, Planning Intern III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, ~edvina, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for January 10, 2006. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of January 1 0, 2~06. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, ~hankar Abstentions - Hirlzman The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Ramsey County Public Library - South lawn Drive, South :of Legacy Parkway (Legacy Village) Ms. Finwall said Jay Biedny, project manager for this proposal with Ramsey County is requesting approval of plans for the proposed Ramsey County Library in ~egacy Village. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 2 The proposed library would be located in the southwest corner of ~egacy Parkway and Southlawn Drive in the Legacy Village planned unit development (PUD)j The proposed library would be 34,000 square feet in floor area, 1,600 square feet of which wpuld be a coffee shop by a private vendor. The proposed coffee shop would have a drive~up window for in-car service. The applicant is requesting approval of site, architectural, sigryage and landscaping plans. The proposed building would have an exterior of bronze anodized met~1 panels, large glass window panels and copper-"shingle" siding. The copper shingles wou~d be a horizontal-lap material with periodic seams to give a segmented appearance. These "'-lould be copper, not a copper-look material. This one-story building would have a roof with a c~mbination of flat and sloped profiles. The sloped, taller roof would be for the high-ceiling areasl i A PUD requirement of the city council was that building(s) on this si~e have "architectural character and exterior building materials in keeping with the nearby 1 senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present." The commercial bUi~ings and townhomes approved so far in Legacy Village do not have the same architectural haracter and type of materials proposed for the library. The commercial buildings are com rised of brick, stone, masonry and EIFS (exterior insulation finish system "stucco"). The town omes have horizontal lap siding, shakes and pitched roofs. i Staff is recommending approval of the plans date stamped December 1112, 2005 with several conditions outlined in the staff report. i , i Board member Hinzman asked if there was a color rendering of the arc~itectural elements the applicant could show the board because the board members did not receive any in their packets. ! i Board member Ledvina said the applicant could display that when they ~ave the opportunity to co~fu~~~s~~ i i i Ms. Finwall apologized to the board members, the board was suppo/sed to receive large booklets with color renderings along with their board packet. (Ms. Finwal' then handed out the booklets to the board for further reference during the meeting.) I Board member Shankar asked if this plan had been reviewed by a traJic engineer regarding traffic concerns in the area? 'I i Ms. Finwall said this was reviewed by the Assistant City Engineer, ~rin Laberee and her comments are in the staff report. i I i Board member Shankar said he does not have concerns regarding gr ding or drainage. He has concerns regarding traffic flow in the parking lot. Cars entering th parking lot from the east have to make a decision whether to go north or south. This could c use congestion at the entrance and he wondered if there was enough space for cars to stack a the entrance. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 3 Ms. Finwall said there are two driveway entrances proposed, one along\Southlawn Drive and one to the north along Legacy Parkway. It's a tight lot to work with. St ff's suggestion would be for some good directional signage. They will have easy flow through he parking area once going south. Cars can turn around and go north if the parking lot is full a~d make another drive through the lot with plenty of space to turn around. , Board member Hinzman said he understands there will be a loading d~Ck area on the south side and then there is a separate entrance at Birch Run Station. He thinks it would serve an advantage to the site to have a south entrance if that can be done. Thi would help alleviate some of the vehicle trips that go out through the center if people have t e option to exit to the south. Ms. Finwall said Board member Hinzman is suggesting an entrance whifh would go along the easement. Perhaps the applicant can address that later. I I , Board member Shankar asked if the copper shingles would be horizontall' or vertical? If the rest of Legacy Village is horizontal lap siding he wondered how compatib e the vertical copper shingles would be. ' Ms. Finwall said the copper shingles appear to be horizontal. , Board member Ledvina said the applicant can clarify that. The chair ~sked the applicant to address the board. i I Mr. Jay Biedny, representing Ramsey County for the Library project, ad~ressed the board. He said they will have horizontal and vertical siding. He introduced Mr. Tim ~arl with HGA who will give a presentation. ' Mr. Tim Carl, HGA Designs, the architect for the project, addressed th1board. Mr. Carl gave an extended presentation with color boards. The staff and Ramsey C unty are very excited about this site and the proposal for this new library next to the park. Th y wanted to create a library on the park. The goal was for the library to embrace the park. Ttey are trying to bring the park into the library. They propose to have an outdoor deck so th library is accessible from the park side and the street side. The library was designed aroun the great view of the park. The library will have large windows that will overlook the park are*creating a great vista into the park. There will be a two-sided courtyard with a deck. The libr ry will be created into two zones. One zone is for the staff and library support space. The ot er zone is the library collection, seating and reading areas that will visually bring you back td the park. This library structure will be a transition point between the commercial areas and thelresidential areas. i I The idea to not have a second vehicle entrance to the south is becaus the library is required to have a pedestrian path from the park to Southlawn Avenue. The serv ce trucks will use that area but the trucks are few and far between throughout the day and the don't see any safety issues with that as a service access. To allow cars to drive back and fo h, however, may be a safety issue. The library will also have a coffee shop integrated into the building. There will be a drive-thru window on the north side of the building for patrons of the co ee shop. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 4 Mr. Carl said they are trying to save as many pine trees on the site as po sible. The library site will be surrounded by nice landscaping. The library has an informal uality to it and they wanted to respond to what the community would want to have here. Co onial architecture has more of a formal feel to it and the library wanted to be more informal. Colonial architecture introduces different shades of red and it has vertical building elements t it. You will see some of those qualities in the design of the library as well. There will be metal anels on the building exterior that have sort of a "book stack" quality. They are looking at usi g a bronze anodized metal. Anodizing has a depth to it so as you move around the buildin there is not a shiny quality but has a certain depth to it. They are looking at some bro zes that have been anodized a second time in red in some cases which gives the affect of a "dance of color" on the building. They showed an example of the anodized bronze material s well as a sample of the copper product for the board to see. The copper usually starts to atina in a few weeks time. Within a year to two years the copper starts to look more of a deep Ipurple color. Because we are in the suburbs copper doesn't patina quite as fast because there is less smog and pollution. The copper would take 15 to 20 years before it turns green. THe library could decide to take the copper to an earlier state of patina if they chose. Another pr~duct that came up in conversation recently is a specialty metal which is very similar to copper !but doesn't patina the same way. Chairperson Olson asked how they plan to channel snow accumulatio~ and rainwater to the surrounding property. ! ! Mr. Carl said the roof butterfly's at the grid line on the plan. There are fO internal drains and most of the water is taken down into the internal drains and into the st rm drain system so it would not run off the building in anyway. ! , , Chairperson Olson said her first instinct of the library design is that the design is very 1970's modern yet also retro modern in style. She doesn't see a colonial style n this building design at all. She does like the analogy of the shades of red and the book styl . This building design is designed very sparsely, probably for cost reasons. The community i going to look at this and say this is a new building, the city and county are on a tight budget, nd there are no extra decorative elements to this building design which keeps the cost lower hich is better for the public. When she looks at the copper elements proposed for this build ng she estimates the copper could be higher in cost, which could be at the expense of not doing some other design features on the building. She wondered if the cost of the copper is justifia Ie. Mr. Carl said one of the reasons they are looking at the zinc alternative i that it's slightly lower in cost, so they are looking at that from a budget standpoint. The cost f the copper can vary greatly depending on where copper is at in the market. The system they are using is not going to bring a hardship to this project but the way they are detailing this uilding with shingles creates a kind of texture and detail to the rest of the building. The mat rials they propose to use on this building will have a different type of beauty and detail compa d to features that are used in colonial designs such as cornices and columns. Chairperson Olson said the illustrations she sees appear very "block" ike and "book" like in style and appear to be very sparse and simple, which can be a good or b d thing. Mr. Carl said a "simple" design is good but they don't feel the design is "sparse" because the materials are very rich and offset any lack of detail. Community Design Review Board 5 I Minutes 1-24-2006 Board member Shankar asked if they have decided which product they ate going to use yet? Mr. Carl said no they haven't. I Chairperson Olson asked if it was fair to estimate the copper is the m4re expensive product compared to the zinc? Mr. Carl said yes it is. Copper is about $2 more a square foot compared t the zinc. Chairperson Olson asked what the advantage of using copper was bes des visual enjoyment of it? Mr. Carl said the advantage of copper is that it changes over time and that makes buildings more interesting. They are trying to find a compatible material with the ra ge of bronze and red colors with the anodized material so both of the materials in different wa s do that. The copper picks up on the reds and oranges and the zinc product compliments it wit a different color. Board member Ledvina asked what the rational was for showing mor parking than what's required by the city? Mr. Carl said the parking was designed based on the request of the libra Ms. Susan Nemitz, library director, Ramsey County Library, addresse the board. Currently the library site has 185 parking spaces. The library has been very rei ctant to give up any parking spaces. They have certain peak times at the library and one of he largest attendance times is for summer reading program when they usually get over 200 c i1dren. Parking is very important to suburban libraries. If people can't park close to the entranc of the library people will start to find a different library to attend. The library is concerned t at people visiting the park will park in the library parking lot to begin their journey to enjoying he park, therefore the library feels the number of parking spots they plan for are very important ere. Chairperson Olson said she was asked by some Maplewood residents a out the closing of the North St. Paul library, the closing of the satellite library in Maplewood, a d about the closing of the current library to build a new library in the Legacy Village area. She i concerned about the commitment of Ramsey County to making the new library site work. Is th library sure this new building is going to fit the needs of the community for an extended period of time. Ms. Nemitz said there were significant budget cuts in 2003 like many u its of government and that was when the decisions were made to close libraries in Ramsey C unty. She is happy to say the Maplewood Ramsey County Library site is the second busi st library next to the Roseville Ramsey County Library. Ramsey County is very committed t this proposed library. Much of the library book collection shrinks as the library gets more digit I formats. The library continues to see growth, circulation and customer visits across the amsey County area. About 10 years ago studies showed Ramsey County wasn't going to gro significantly but that turned out to be incorrect. Ramsey County has done their very best t plan for growth and other things in mind. They do expect some circulation growth as a r suit of both the new building, a fresher book collection, and because of the way Maplewood i~ developing. Ramsey County thinks this new library will be suitable for the future but they c~n't predict things like how technology will affect library services. : , Community Design Review Board 6 Minutes 1-24-2006 , I Board member Shankar asked if there was a drive up area to drop bOO~S off or would you be required to get out of your car to return books. ! Mr. Carl said there is a lane designated for dropping books off but you ~ave to get out of your car and walk about 8 to 10 feet and drop the books in a return which is b~ the front door. I Board member Hinzman asked what kind of approval is needed from th~ Birch Run Station for access to the south for the library? ! , I Mr. Biedny said the easement is owned by the City of Maplewood. Map ewood has asked the library to inform Birch Run Station that they will be modifying the traffic 0 the northeast corner of their lot. Ramsey County has sent letters back and forth to the owne of Birch Run Station who lives in California. They don't anticipate any problems with this. Th owner's of Birch Run Station are happy their site will get more traffic to the north and they are appreciative that they were even asked. I Chairperson Olson asked about the landscaping plan and asked if the dolor blue represented ponds on the plan? Mr. Carl said the blue doesn't represent a water feature but shows a way to improve the overall drainage on the site. It's an infiltration area with grasses that allow water to filter slowly into the ground rather than dealing with more runoff. Board member Shankar asked if it was possible to have another curb cut? Mr. Carl said there was a discussion with the city to limit the number of curb cuts on Southlawn Drive to only one. There are requirements regarding the distance between curb cuts and they would be flirting with that if they were to allow two curb cuts. Board member Shankar is concerned that people will drive around looking for parking spots and when they make their second attempt through the site there could be a traffic jam of cars trying to drive into the site as well as the cars trying to drive back through the parking lot. Mr. Carl said he thinks everything will work fine. They can show a more detailed traffic analysis of the site but what you don't see on the plans is the turning radius and car movements showing there are enough clearances. There is a wider parking area there than two lanes wide to help with any congestion that could occur. Chairperson Olson said she agrees with the concerns of Board member Shankar with the book drop off and the coffee pick up and traffic collecting around the main entrance. She thinks there could definitely be some potential traffic backups. She asked if the city engineer reviewed this? Ms. Finwall said the Assistant City Engineer reviewed this and she doesn't mention anything like that in her report. But the city is attempting to limit the curb cuts alohg Southlawn Drive to one. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 7 Chairperson Olson said she can understand that but she asked if the city engineer could review this factor again. Maybe the entrance off Southlawn Drive could be moved to the north or to the south so traffic isn't bottle necked there? Board member Hinzman said maybe they could utilize the access road to the south to the Birch Run Station. Mr. Carl said they will look into that scenario. Board member Hinzman said he liked the rational for the design and position of the library on the site. He likes the form and the function of the library but he is trying to contend with the starkness of the building with the panels on the south end of the building towards Southlawn Drive. Chairperson Olson said the initial reaction she had was that this building would not fit into the more traditional housing that is being built in the Legacy Village area and this building would stick out as being modern in concept but stark in design. However, she said she can grow to like it because of the materials and the way it is formatted. She does like the analogy of the red color and the book style. She would recommend using the zinc product as opposed to the copper material. With cost cutting and this being a public building she doesn't recommend using copper especially when you see what happens to it over time. The other concern for her is the potential traffic in front of the building. There will be some congestion problems and she believes this should be looked at a second time by the city engineer before the plans are finalized. Board member Ledvina said he likes this building and its design and thinks its been well thought out. Considering the Birch Run Station and the residential neighborhood to the north this building is going to be a nice addition. He likes the idea that the building is going to be accessible to the natural environment. He likes the design concept with the anodized panels and the variation in color. It is hard to envision it but he thinks it will turn out very nice. As far as the copper or zinc product he thinks they are equal and said he is comfortable leaving that up to the applicant to choose the material of their choice. He also has concerns about the possible traffic congestion and he thinks a condition could be added in the staff report to have that reviewed again. Board member Shankar said the copper he has seen on the University of Minnesota building lends a certain amount of richness to the building so he likes the idea of using copper. Chairperson Olson said when she thinks of copper she thinks of the. renovation of the St. Paul's Cathedral dome and how expensive that renovation turned out to be. Board member Hinzman asked what type of trees they would be planting. Mr. Carl said they are still looking at that but the diameter of the tree trunk will be 2 to 3 inches. Board member Ledvina said with the interest of the overstory windows and the landscaping he thinks Board member Hinzman's concerns regarding the starkness of the one side of the building will disappear once the building is built and the landscaping is in place. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 8 Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans for the Ramsey County Library date stamped December 12, 2005. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined if added) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the applicant has not applied for a building permit by that time. 2. Signage is not approved. The applicant must submit a comprehensive sign plan for review and approval by the community design review board. According to the approved planned unit development requirements, ground signs shall be limited to 12 feet in height. 3. Comply with all requirements of Erin Laberee, the assistant city engineer, and those listed in her report Engineering Plan Review dated January 10, 2006. This includes entering into a developer's agreement with the city detailing the responsibility of the developer regarding construction of public infrastructure such as the sidewalks and storm sewers. 4. The plan appears to, but the applicant shall make sure that it meerts the requirements of the city's wetland protection ordinance. 5. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment must be screened according to the requirements of the planned unit development and city code. 6. As required by the planned unit development, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the city to dedicate a trail along the south side of the property to connect the existing park trail to a future sidewalk along Southlawn Drive. The developer must construct these trails and sidewalks and any others deemed necessary by the city engineer. 7. Additional overstory trees shall be added along the Southlawn Drive frontage to meet a maximum spacing of 30 to 40 feet as required by the planned unit development. 8. The Amur Maple trees shall be substituted with another similar ornamental tree. 9. Before a building permit is issued, the two lots comprising this site shall be combined into one, legally-described parcel. 10. The applicant must get approval from the owner of Birch Run Station and the City of Maplewood for use of the Birch Run Station rear driveway for access to the library delivery doors. If the applicant cannot obtain these approvals, they must revise the site plan for staff approval. This must be worked out before the issuance of a building permit. 11. The parking lot and driveway shall have concrete curb and gutter. 12. Parking stall drive-aisle dimensions and parking stall sizes shall comply with city code requirements. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 9 13. All lawn and landscaped areas must be equipped with an in-ground lawn irrigation system. 14. The building placement and site grading must comply with the wetland ordinance and cause no ground disturbance within 25 feet of the wetland delineation line. The building must be at least 35 feet from the wetland delineation line at its closest point. 15. The director of community development may approve minor changes to these plans. Major changes must be submitted to the design review board for aIPproval. 16. The Citv Enqineer shall review the traffic circulation near the Sou~hlawn Drive entrance to the site. Consideration shall be made for an additional entrance! to the site to alleviate potential conqestion. One option could be the addition of an exit ~Ionq the south side of the parkinq lot. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. Mr. Carl asked if they could continue to research using the copper and the zinc material before they make a final decision. Board member Ledvina said this proposal is approved as proposed. Any minor changes or modifications would be covered under staff approval. If the changes were significant regarding how the building would look this would have to be heard by the CDRB again. Otherwise this proposal is approved as proposed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. CDRB Appointment/Reappointments Ms. Finwall said on Monday, February 13, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. the city council will conduct interviews for openings on the CDRB. The two current bOard members Ananth Shankar and John Hinzman have agreed to serve another term orj the CDRB. Because the board member's terms expired 1-1-2006 they will be interviewed along with the five new applicants applying for the CDRB. One boar<il opening was due to Diana Longrie becoming Mayor of Maplewood. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 10 Board member Hinzman said because he has to be present at the Hastings planning commission meeting he asked if he could be interviewed by the city council first so he could make it to his meeting on time. b. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Finwall said the city code requires that the community desigr!l review board elect a chairperson and vice chairperson at the second meeting of January. The 2005 chairperson was Diana Longrie and the vice-chairperson was Linda Olson. Linda Olson has been the acting chairperson since December 2005 after the vacancy left by Ms. Longrie to become the Mayor of Maplewood. Board member Shankar moved to recommend Linda Olson as the chairperson and Matt Ledvina the vice-chairperson of the CDRB for 2006. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, ledvina, Olson Shankar The motion passed. Board member Ledvina excused himself from the meeting at 7: 10 p.m. c. Sign Code - Final Recommendation Kevin Christianson reported that on January 10, 2006, the CD~B began discussions about the final changes to the draft code. Due to time constraints at the last meeting, the CDRB tabled the item for further discussion until January 24, '2006. Staff included a copy of the draft sign code in the staff report with the original ohanges highlighted in blue and the agreed upon changes highlighted in red. Chairperson Olson asked about murals. On page 3 of the sign code there is a definition of painted wall signs and she noticed there is not a definition tHat applies to a mural. She wondered if the city would allow a mural under any circumstances or not and if so, how would somebody get approval for a mural. Could we create a new category for murals that would require the CDRB review murals for any proposed building. She has been involved with murals with older buildings in St. Paul and there may be some instances where it would be appropriate for a 5 year maximum. Ms. Finwall said the city doesn't define a mural. The city prol1ibits signs which are painted directly on a building as an example Larry's Live Bait couldn't paint Larry's Live Bait on the side of a wall. On page 4 of the sign code the definition of a sign states: any structure, device, advertisement, advertising device or visual representation intended to advertise, identify or communicate information and to attract the attention the public for any purpose. Ms. Finwall said with that she is not sure a mural would fit in witlh that definition or not. However, with the city's CDRB ordinance these types of minor changes to a building would have to go through the 15-day review process. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 11 Ms. Finwall said as an example, say Larry's Live Bait wanted to do a mural of fish on the side of their building, city staff would approve that if it was under this set dollar limit of $200,000. The city would then notify the CDRB and the city council for comment so that could be one way of addressing and allowing murals. Board member Hinzman said the sign definition by design is pr$tty broad. One could make the argument that a mural is a sign, therefore this is prohi~ited, so the review of the CDRB is not of consequence because it is prohibited under the definition of the sign code. Ms. Finwall asked if the CDRB would be supportive of murals in the city? Board member Hinzman said he would be supportive of murals. He likes the broad definition of the sign because you want to catch things that you m,ght not normally think of qualifying as a sign. One of the intended consequences migh~ be the mural design. When you are talking about murals that it is not a direct advertisement for that business, it may reflect aspects of that business without the company's narine. For example, with Larry's Live Bait they could have some fish or fishing scenes on the wall but could not have the words "Larry's Live Bait" painted anywhere on the mural. Chairperson Olson said she feels that a mural should have its own category. Larry's Live Bait had deer, hunting, and fishing on it. It wasn't the best ~rtistic quality but she feels it added a neighborly flavor to a very neighborhood friendly business. She does not want to discourage murals in the City of Maplewood. She; doesn't want to see murals hand painted or spray painted on the side of buildings everywhere and she thinks murals would require some review, but she doesn't want to say "all murals" are prohibited in the City of Maplewood. Ms. Finwall asked the board if they thought it was a good idea tel allow murals through the comprehensive sign plan review? Chairperson Olson said she thinks the murals require a review of $ome kind. Board member Hinzman said he wants to ensure the CDRB has the opportunity to review the mural but not necessarily saying the CDRB is going to approve it. The city will probably have to create some type of guidelines as to what would be an acceptable mural. His fear in reading this under the broad definition of the sign code murals would be prohibited outright just because murals could be seen as a sign. Chairperson Olson said that's the exact way she read that. Ms. Finwall said staff will research murals, come up with a definition, and a proposal of how to handle them. Chairperson Olson said she thinks there should be a five year time limit for the mural because of the maintenance issues. Paint peels and deteriorates !n the weather. Design elements need to be reviewed so it's not a distraction, so it dQesn't send the wrong message, and so it's not offensive to the surrounding areas. However, she doesn't want to see murals prohibited all together. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 12 Chairperson Olson said on page 4, under the sign definition, it says a sign also includes any beacon or search light intended to attract the attention of the public for any purpose. She is wondering if that means illuminating letters or objects inaluding logos and she wondered if that should be included. Ms. Finwall said there is language regarding any symbol, letter, figure, etc. Chairperson Olson asked if illuminated letters and objects including logos could be added. Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Olson said regarding the statement "architecturallighling such as neon that has no signed copy shall not be considered a sign" because sdmetimes architectural lighting such as neon can be construed as a sign even though it doesn't have any sign copy. Ms. Finwall said if you were to include architectural lighting (a~ an example Ashley Furniture) the city would calculate that as part of their allowable w$1I signage area. Chairperson Olson said the blue neon was not considered part ofthe signage at Ashley Furniture. That was a very confusing issue and she predicts it will happen again. Is it the foot candles it puts out, is it an architectural element, part of the fa<;:ade, or is that an advertisement used as part of their logo design. Board member Hinzman said he thinks neon is a design element but it would not fall under signage in his eyes. Chairperson Olson said regarding Sign Area: The entire are~ within a continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of the sign message and bcllckground. She wasn't clear about this language: it says the supports, uprights or structliJres in which any sign is supported shall not be included in determining the sign are$. She thought of the Ashley Furniture sign. The sign area could be relatively small but they had that giant triangle on the top, giant expanded side pillars, and a big monument on the bottom. When the CDRB calculated the sign height the board looked at the top of the structure so the sign area and the sign face language was confusing. To hler the sign area is the area of the sign from the top to the bottom and all the way to the Sides. The sign face is the sign in her opinion. Ms. Finwall said staff would review that terminology. Staff said ~hat is important when determining how much square footage a particular business is iallowed and how it is defined. Chairperson Olson said on page 6, it says signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color except fqr electronic message boards that display only time or temperature or similar public s~rvice messages. She approves of not having signs that blink, flash, flutter, or make! noise. Regarding the change in brightness or color on electronic message boards, s~e may have an issue with. . Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 13 Chairperson Olson said because she sees in the near future that was stations may want to change over to electronic message board style signs so they c~n have the gas price shown electronically rather than having those plastic numbers ~hat someone has to stand outside with a pole and magnetically attach to the sign a~ the gas station. She thinks electronic message boards only being allowed to display the time and temperature is too prohibitive and should be considered for the fut~re. Ms. Finwall said the electronic pricing for gas stations would nqt blink and would be stationary which meet the code requirements. Today staff had t~at same inquiry on a different gas station. Chairperson Olson is correct, that type of rllquest will come very soon. Staff is also receiving interest in regular businesses in~talling the electronic reader boards because the price has come down and electrjonic signs are more reasonable for business owners. Currently the code states elect~onic message boards are prohibited because of the flashing and blinking capabilities. ~usiness owners have asked what if they promise not to program their sign to flash ori blink. That opens up code enforcement issues for city staff because a new manager qr new owner may not know the requirements and code of the city. Some of these !Ilusiness owners may propose a variance to have an electronic message board sign. Chairperson Olson said she would be in favor of considering a v~riance for those types of signs. As an example, if Premier Bank were to advertise a highl school play is coming up, she sees that as a public service issue and wouldn't be oppos~d to that. , Ms. Finwall said electronic readerboards are currently allow~d for public service messages only. The draft code allows them as well. Chairperson Olson said at this point staff is not approving any! other LED electronic message boards. . Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Olson said maybe the word "stationary" should be ad~ed to that code. I , Ms. Finwall said staff has strong concerns about those types ~ signs and as a non business owner she doesn't appreciate those bright, flashing sig s when she is driving by, it takes away from the view and could be deemed as a nui ance. So if the board wants to consider something like that, staff would recommend tha~ they require distance from residential properties. . Chairperson Olson said she would support some restrictions re~arding the number of lines of text, or flashing and blinking restrictions. . Board member Hinzman said rather than having a variance protess there could be a special use permit required for electronic readerboard signs. Tha way the city could set restrictions upon the use of the sign and they may be all wable under certain circumstances. He asked what staff's opinion would be regarding that? Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 14 Ms. Finwall said with a variance they have to prove a hardship arid why they should be allowed to have that type of sign when others are not allowed. rrhrough the variance process the city could condition that variance. Having a variance puts the responsibility on the property owner to prove why they should be allowed to h~ve it and try to prove their case. . Chairperson Olson said Caribou Coffee has a new location at ithe corner of County Road D and White Bear Avenue and the sign seems extremely bright. She asked if the city has any type of illumination guidelines for those types of backlit signs? , Ms. Finwall said in the city's new lighting ordinance which the boaird drafted a few years ago, signs were included in the light illumination requirement. T~at is a difficult one to enforce. With new developments they are required to submit phot~metric plans, but with an existing sign they may switch the lighting. In that type of !situation it would be complaint driven or if city staff recognized the problem. Chairperson Olson said she would like to register a complaint ~ecause a Maplewood resident complained to her that the new Caribou sign was too brig~t. Board member Hinzman said that was previously a Hardee's ~estaurant and then it changed over to Fazoli's and the sign was refaced. Then it cha~ged hands again and was sold to Caribou Coffee, who had the space remodeled and! the sign was refaced again. The original sign for Hardee's probably would not meet the sign requirements today as it did back then. The new Caribou Sign has a lot of whit~ and lets a lot of light shine through. Ms. Finwall said that sign is a pre-existing non conforming sign and does not meet the current setbacks so they were able to reconfigure it as long as they stayed within the existing square footage. With a sign permit the city did not includle light illumination but staff will address that issue. Chairperson Olson said on page 9, regarding garage signs, th$ first sentence reads garage sale signs not exceeding three square feet or four in ~umber. She thinks it should read per intersection, otherwise what are you defining, th~ four (in number) are permitted on private property. She thinks that in previous di~cussions it was "per intersection" . Ms. Finwall said this was referring to four for one sale sign is how ~he understood it. Chairperson Olson said that seems unrealistic to have four garage sale signs in total in the city. Ms. Finwall said that does seem unrealistic, but that is how it i~ reading. Chairperson Olson is referring to the off-site real estate signs, having one Ireal estate listing per corner with a total of four maximum. ' Chairperson Olson said correct. She doesn't see much difference in garage sale signs and real estate signs. The setbacks are generally the same. ! Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 15 Ms. Finwall said staff will clarify that. The main concern is at each lintersection that there is not more than one per corner and four per intersection. Staff '-\Jill reword the garage sale signs to be similar to the real estate signage requirements. Chairperson Olson said item A. says for single and double units o~-site real estate signs not exceeding 9 square feet. She asked if that was referring to ? single site 9 square feet per unit side or for both units together? Ms. Finwall said that would be for one on-site real estate sign per Isign face. That is why the definition of the sign face is so important. Chairperson Olson asked if the board reduced the sign hei~ht anywhere in this ordinance revision? Ms. Finwall said in the residential zoning districts the dra~ code would allow freestanding signs at 10 feet in height and in the commercial zoring districts the draft code would allow free standing sign height based on the street fnontage. Currently, the sign code would allow a commercial district to have a sign up to 25 feet high, however, if you push the sign back for a greater setback the sign can be i~creased up to 50 feet in height. Chairperson Olson said on page 10, under non-commercial oP~' ion signs, it says for multiple unit developments the sign must be attached to the dw lling unit or placed in another location which clearly does not represent the opinions 0 bother residents in the area who have not agreed to the sign. She said there is a d uble negative in the statement and she suggested rewording the statement rePlacinr. the wording starting with the word anothor with "a location to clearly indicate ownership and that it does not represent the opinions of other residents in the area who have no. agreed to the sign". Chairperson Olson said on page 12, in the middle of the page, tJere is a spelling error, it says sings instead of signs. On page 14, in item B., under wall ize, she asked what it meant by the statement "The total coverage area of each wa I sign including each differentiated department". Ms. Finwall said staff would look into that. Chairperson Olson said on page 16, under temporary banners, it~m A., it says no more than one banner may be displayed per property at anvone time. There should be a space between the word anyone. . Chairperson Olson said on page 18, regarding prohibiting signs: i~ addition to prohibited signs specified for all zoning districts, electrical message boards~and changeable copy message boards, except for changeable copy message boards hat display gas prices at minor motor vehicle fuel stations are prohibited in the (MU) mi ed use zoning district. This sentence didn't make sense and she wondered if it could be . eworded. Board member Shankar said he thinks it could be reworded so lit is made clearer, the language is too confusing. Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 16 Ms. Finwall said staff would make the wording clearer. Chairperson Olson thanked staff for their time and effort on the sigln code draft. ! Board member Shankar and Ms. Finwall thanked Kevin Christian~on for his work on the sign draft as well. ! Staff will bring the recommended changes back to the board at th~ next CDRB meeting. , d. Reschedule February 28, 2006, CDRB Meeting Due to the SPtcial Election for the City Council . ! I The Tuesday, February 28, 2006, CDRB meeting is resched~led for Wednesdav, March 1, 2006. e. 2005 CDRB Annual Report Kevin Christianson said the city's community design review bo~rd (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 no limited to, ordinance I and/or procedure changes. ! Chairperson Olson said the way the annual report is forma~ed it puts too much emphasis on the number of items that were reviewed by the ORB rather than the actual items themselves. For example, special projects, 1, which is the sign code. The sign code is a very large project and it doesn't look very sUbstatial on paper but took many months of work for the staff and the board to go through be re the final sign code was ready. Some times the numbers denigrate what the boar members do on the CDRB. ! I I Ms. Finwall said in the discussion of the 2005 Actions/Activities st~ff could expand more on those developments such as the number of housing units, the ~mount of commercial projects. ! , Board member Shankar said we discussed last year including thf dollar amount of the commercial projects reviewed. ! I Chairperson Olson said we could put the amount of square foo~ge of the commercial project, or number of units within the project or something. When you look on page 2 of the report, under comparative information, it looks like the CD B didn't review many projects when you compare things year to year. ! Ms. Finwall said maybe including the number of items isn't very ifPortant to include on the report, maybe the projects should be listed. ! Chairperson Olson asked if the other committees do their annual ~port the same way? ! ! Community Design Review Board Minutes 1-24-2006 17 Ms. Finwall said this is the format that is used for the Planning Co~mission (PC) Annual Report but staff didn't think the Housing Redevelopment Authorityl(HRA)was required to do an annual report. I Ms. Finwall said staff could expand on the information listed in thelannual report. I Board member Hinzman said he doesn't have an issue with trie number of projects shown in the annual report. The CDRB knows the time and effbrt they have put into these projects so it doesn't bother him the way the report is writte~. ! Chairperson Olson said the bulleted items do speak to the sUbsta~tial projects that were reviewed by the CDRB. ' , Board member Hinzman said it looks like a pretty consistence tr~nd when you look at the number of projects reviewed from years to years. Some of the projects are more substantial than others so it balances out. . Board member Shankar said staff may consider removing the wbrds Area of Concern on page 3 under 2006 Recommendations and add Areas of Interert instead of concern. Ms. Finwall said that was a good suggestion. Board member Hinzman said the city council is not really concer ed about the number of projects that were reviewed they are going to look at what p ojects were reviewed and the desire to have a volunteer board that are of good value to the community for the betterment of the City of Maplewood. As one of the newer bard members, he is surprised there were that many projects in 2005 because as he I oks around he didn't think there was much development left to do in the City of Maplew od. Ms. Finwall said staff feels it will be important to take a look at th redevelopment in the city as well. Chairperson Olson said she would like to have a new board me ber that knows more about landscaping since that is part of the design criteria a d the current board members don't have much experience in that area. The board would like to add a number 7. to the 2006 list of reco mendations to review parking space width requirements in the city in comparison to what other cities recommend. Staff will bring the recommended changes to the 2005 Annual Re ort back to the board at the next CDRB meeting. f. Board member Shankar will represent the CDRB at the Fe ruary 13, 2006, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Ramsey County Public Library. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.