Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/2009 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, December 8, 2009 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: a. October 13, 2009 b. November 10, 2009 c. November 24, 2009 5. Unfinished Business: a. Sign Ordinance Amendments 6. New Business: a. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood b. Community Design Review Board Membership Interview Questions c. City of Maplewood Commission Handbook Appendices (no report, handouts only) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Michael Mireau is scheduled to attend the December 14,2009 city council meeting for T-Mobile's request to build a monopole at the Harmony Learning Center b. December 22, 2009 CDRB Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting chair Shankar called the rneeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmernber Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice-Chair Matt Wise Present Absent Present Present Absent Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner Alan Kantrud. City Attornev III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. August 11, 2009 Boardrnember Mireau moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 2009 as presented. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. In-Service Training: Commission Handbook Review Planner Michael Martin introduced city attorney Alan Kantrud. Mr. Kantrud gave a presentation explaining the corn mission handbook and received comments and questions from the board. Mr. Kantrud invited the board to contact hirn or Planner Martin with any further questions or cornrnents that might occur. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-13-2009 2 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Update on Sign Code Amendment status Planner Martin updated the board on the Sign Code Amendment, explaining that staff has visited with several community business groups soliciting feedback. Planner Martin said staff will be attending the St. Paul Area Charnber of Cornrnerce business meeting this week to provide comment on the sign code and solicit feedback. b. Update of applications currently being reviewed by planning staff Planner Martin updated the board on current applications, saying that Aldi's has withdrawn its application for the White Bear Avenue site but they are interested in finding another site in Maplewood. Planner Martin explained that the application by T-Mobile for the communications tower at the Harmony Learning Center has been revised and will be resubmitted. Planner Martin said staff has had communications from businesses who are considering applying for a comprehensive sign plan amendment, which will be forwarded to the board for consideration if received. X. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Lamers moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m. Boardmember Mireau seconded Ayes - all DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice-Chair Matt Wise Present Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner Shann Finwall, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardrnernber Lamers moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmernber Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13, 2009 Boardmember Lamers moved to table the minutes of October 13, 2009 due to lack of a quorum. Boardmember Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. T-Mobile Telecommunications Tower, 1961 County Road C (Harrnony Learning Center) Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request from T-Mobile to erect a 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications tower for cellular telephone operations on land leased from Independent School District No. 622 at the Harmony Learning Center located at 1961 County Road C East. The pole is proposed to be located where a 30-foot light pole currently exists within the school's parking lot. Amy Dresch of FMHC and representing T-Mobile addressed the board. Ms. Dresch said other locations for the tower were evaluated, but none were feasible. Ms. Dresch said the school district was not open to exploring other areas of the Harrnony Learning Center site. Boardmember Ledvina asked why the tower site was not rnoved to the other side of the parking lot to the north. Ms. Dresch responded that there are ball fields and bleachers in that area and the school district did not want to locate the tower in that area. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 11-10-2009 2 Chairperson Ledvina asked for comments frorn the public. Linda Olson, 2005 County Road C East, said she lives immediately next door to this site. Ms. Olson said she feels the tower location at this site is an accident waiting to happen. Ms. Olson said she spoke with the pastor frorn the neighboring church and said it would be possible to locate this tower in the undeveloped part of the church property. Ms. Olsen said the church would appreciate a cell phone tower located on their site. Ms. Olson showed photos of other cell phone towers in Maplewood. Ms. Olson said safety is a concern with this tower location and asked that statistics be kept on safety and vandalism on the site. Boardmember Ledvina said he understands Ms. Olson's concerns regarding the positioning of the tower and alternative sites, but he feels her concerns are land use issues and outside the scope of the board's discussions this evening. Boardmember Ledvina said these issues are best discussed at the planning commission. Boardmember Wise said he feels this tower location is an obnoxious use as close as it is to residential and asked how much lower the tower could be and still provide coverage. Mr. Wise said he has no concerns regarding the proposed cedar fencing. Mr. Wise said he disagrees with Mr. Ledvina on the scope of the board's review which includes site planning saying this is a use on a particular site. Mr. Wise encouraged city staff to track vandaiism and concerns from citizens on congregating or damage to this structure, particularly the fencing. Boardmember Ledvina suggested that bollards be installed inside the fencing for additional safety. Boardmember Wise agreed. Boardmember Mireau said the tower will be highly visible anywhere it is located on this site, but moving the tower to the north side of the parking lot would provide more screening. Mr. Mireau said he would like to hear the issues for not locating it near the ball field area. Mr. Mireau said he is not opposed to the tower site as proposed. Boardmember Larners said if this tower is going to be vandalized, it would be vandalized anywhere on the site. Mr. Larners said the proposed location of the tower is not of great concern for safety or vandalism, but his concern is more aesthetic. Mr. Lamers said he is in favor of the 8-foot-tall cedar fence rather than building another structure on the site. Boardmember Lamers moved approval of the site and design plans stamped October 14, 2009 for a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment within the parking lot of Harmony Learning Center at 1961 County Road C East. Recornmendation is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating the review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. All work shall follow the approved plans. The comrnunity development staff may approve rninor changes. 3. The flush mount design for the telecommunications tower shall be utilized. 4. The lighting fixtures installed on the tower shall corn ply with city ordinances and shall be approved by city staff. Cornmunity Design Review Board 3 Minutes 11-10-2009 5. An 8-foot-tall cedar fence shall screen both the ground equipment and the base of the tower. 6. The applicant shall provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping before a building permit will be issued. 7. The applicant shall address the safety concern relative to the proximity of vehicles by adding bollards internal to the fencing arrangement. Boardmember Ledvina seconded Ayes - Lamers, Ledvina, Mireau Abstention - Wise The rnotion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sign Ordinance Amendments Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and reviewed the sign ordinance arnendments as proposed. Boardmember Ledvina suggested that the first part of item (d) on page one is superfluous and should be deleted. It was also suggested that the definition of "window" be better defined to consider the use of different types of glass. Planner Finwall agreed with both suggestions. The board discussed opinion signs and felt that all opinion signs should be limited to 16 square feet in size. The board further discussed proposed changes and made suggestions for rnodifications to staff. Chris Green, a local Realtor who lives in Maplewood, addressed the board saying he heard "really good stuff" from the board tonight, agreeing that signage needs to be regulated somewhat and he discussed real estate and open house sign age. Boardmember Ledvina moved that the Sign Ordinance be forwarded to the city council for consideration at the November 23, 2009 city council meeting. Boardmember Wise seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Novernber 23 City Council Meeting Representative: Matt Ledvina b. December 14 City Council Meeting Representative: Michael Mireau X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:22 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Wise called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Boardrnernber Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present Absent Absent Present Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar rnoved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmernber Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13, 2009 and November 10, 2009 Boardmernber Shankar moved to table the minutes of October 13, 2009 and November 10, 2009, due to lack of a quorum. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendrnent, Panera Bread, 2515 White Bear Avenue (Mapleridge Shopping Center) Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request from Panera Bread for approval of a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Mapleridge Shopping Center, located at 2515 White Bear Avenue. The applicant is proposing to install an awning that would have the company's wheat graphic displayed. The current comprehensive sign plan does not address the use of awnings for signs. Design plans were approved in August 2006 for this site showing solid colors being used for the awnings. Boardrnember Wise asked if the sign application submitted by Pan era Bread is tied to this request. Planner Martin responded that the wall sign request is a separate request and not tied to tonight's comprehensive sign plan amendment request. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-24-2009 2 Boardmember Shankar asked if the request with the wheat graphic is considered advertising. Planner Martin responded that the reason staff is recommending denial of this request is that the wheat graphic would be a sign for Panera Bread and would create an inconsistent look within the shopping center. Mr. Martin explained the sign plan approved in 2006 had solid colors that were intended to show consistency from store to store. Scott Laage of Leroy Signs was present representing Pan era Bread. Mr. Laage showed samples of the awning rnaterial and said that the various locations in the area have the wheat graphic on the awning. Boardmernber Lamers said he feels the tone and brightness of the new colors proposed for the awning are different from what exists and would change the image of the shopping center. Boardmember Shankar said since not all of the tenants have awnings, there is already an inconsistent look and questioned whether a different kind of awning would rnake it worse. Boardmernber Lamers questioned if Panera Bread has made this awning change at other area locations as part of their national imaging, does Maplewood not want to be a part of that. John Hohman, operating partner of Panera Bread, said the wheat graphic is used in many of the Panera Bread sites in the Twin Cities, but not every one of them. Mr. Hohrnan said there are a variety of different colored designs used. Mr. Hohman said they are putting a large commitment into the remodel of the interior and exterior of this site and they feel the new awnings proposed improve the look of the exterior. Boardmember Shankar said he does not equate the wheat graphic with the golden arches or the apple and that he is ambivalent for that being considered sign age. John Nephew, 628 County Road B East, asked if the notification to neighboring properties included the tenants of the shopping center. Planner Martin responded that typically only property owners are notified; therefore the tenants were not notified. Mr. Martin said the property owner of the shopping center supports this amendrnent. Planner Martin explained that if this request were to be approved, it would apply to all tenants in the center. Board mernbers voiced their concerns that the tenants have a chance to speak to this matter, that their opinions matter, and to make them aware that the board is trying to do what it can to reinvest in the shopping center. Board rnembers agreed they do not consider the wheat graphic a sign and that other companies also use a wheat graphic. Planner Martin explained to the board that the current comprehensive sign plan requires landlord approval of any signs by the owner of the building. Mr. Martin said any sign application request needs the approval of the property owner before staff considers it and this application was signed by the building owner. Boardrnember Shankar moved to approve the comprehensive sign plan amendment as visualized by plans date-stamped October 30, 2009 for the proposed awning sign for Panera Bread at the Mapleridge Shopping Center, 2515 White Bear Avenue. This approval is based upon the tenants of the shopping center approving this signage and awning for Panera Bread. Boardmember Lamers seconded Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-24-2009 3 Boardmernber Wise suggested a friendly amendrnent be added to clarify what tenant approval would be required. Boardmember Shankar said he would request that staff survey the tenants to see that a majority of the tenants approve this awning and signage. Boardmembers Shankar and Lamers approved that the friendly amendment be added to the motion. The board voted: Ayes - all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Wise spoke concerning the safety of monopoles. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Planner Martin reported that the city council held the first reading of the sign code arnendment. Mr. Martin said the arnendment was approved with changes to the percentage of window signage allowed and the timefrarne. Mr. Martin explained the amendment will go back to the city council for the second reading before it is adopted into code. Planner Martin said the terms for board rnembers Shankar and Wise will end this year and reminded those board members that applications for reappointment are due by November 30. Planner Martin requested that board members let staff know if they will be unable to make the December 22 scheduled board rneeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 6:35 p.rn. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Sign Ordinance Amendments December 1, 2009 for the December 8 Community Design Review Board Meeting INTRODUCTION The city council adopted the first reading of the sign ordinance on November 23, 2009. The second reading is scheduled for January 11,2010. Prior to the second reading, the city council directed staff to review the regulations proposed for temporary window signs and off-site real estate directional signs. In addition, staff is requesting that the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) consider additional revisions being proposed by staff and the public since the first reading. DISCUSSION Window Siqns: Due to concerns expressed by various business associations regarding the reduction in allowable window sign coverage from 75 percent to 30 percent, the city council directed staff to review this language further. The city council suggested a compromise of 50 percent window coverage. Staff researched three adjacent city's sign ordinances to compare this regulation: . Oakdale: Window signs allowed up to 50 percent coverage . White Bear Lake: Window signs allowed up to 33 percent coverage . Woodbury: Window signs allowed up to 30 percent coverage The board should review the additional information and make a recommendation on the allowable percent window coverage for these types of signs. Off-Site Real Estate Directional Siqns: Due to a concern expressed by a resident that lives adjacent an intersection regarding the nuisances associated with off-site real estate directional signs including unsightliness and difficulties in maintaining lawn area when signs are installed, the city council directed staff to review this language further. The city council suggested that realtors be required to place their contact information and date of installation on the directional sign. This would make the ordinance easier to enforce and ensure that signs don't become a nuisance. For comparison, following are the three adjacent city's regulations for these types of signs: . Oakdale: Off-site real estate directional signs are allowed in the right-of-way for up to seven days. . White Bear Lake: Off-site real estate directional signs are prohibited. . Woodbury: Off-site real estate directional signs are prohibited, open house signs are allowed for 48 hours. The board should review the additional information and make a recommendation on the proposed off-site real estate directional sign restrictions. Portable Siqns: Portable temporary signs generate the largest number of sign complaints within the city. The current sign ordinance allows portable temporary signs 16 square feet or larger to be installed for up to 30 days per year, per business (60 days for a new business). These signs require a permit. The current fee for this permit is $42. The permit can be issued to the business or the sign installer, however in almost all occasions it is the business that pulls the permit. This practice has made it difficult to ensure the sign installer removes the sign in a timely manner. Portable signs under 16 square feet are not regulated, which has lead to many businesses installing these types of signs on a permanent basis. The proposed sign ordinance reduces the size of portable temporary sign which requires permits from 16 square feet to 12 square feet, with the same time frame for installation and permitting. In addition, the ordinance would restrict portable signs under 12 square feet to one per property for 30 days per sign. For commercial buildings with multiple occupants, each separate tenant is permitted one sign under 12 square feet, with no more than three signs per multi-tenant property at anyone time. For comparison, following are four adjacent city's regulations and permitting procedures for these types of signs: . Little Canada: Allows portable temporary signs of any size for a maximum of 120 days per year with a permit. The city requires a $200 deposit in addition to the temporary sign permit fee. The deposit is returned if the applicant abides by the sign permit and sign ordinance requirements. . Oakdale: Allows portable temporary signs 15 square feet or larger for up to 10 days per year, per property with a sign permit. The sign permit must be issued to the sign installer to ensure that the installer removes the sign in the allotted timeframe. . White Bear Lake: Prohibits portable temporary signs. . Woodbury: Prohibits portable temporary signs. The board should review the additional information and offer feedback on the best way to enforce the regulation of portable temporary signs. Off-Site Directional Siqns for Non-Profits: George Rossbach, former Mayor of Maplewood, volunteers at the Good Samaritan Home Care Center in Maplewood. Mr. Rossbach has indicated that the nursing home is interested in installing a directional sign in the Edgerton Street right-of-way, directing visitors to the nursing home located on Roselawn Avenue. Our current and proposed sign ordinance would not allow directional signage for nonprofits in the right-of-way. For comparison, the three adjacent cities regulate these signs as follows: . Oakdale: Off-site nonprofit directional signs allowed in the right-of-way for places of worship only. Signs must be approved by the governmental body responsible for the right-of-way on which the sign is installed (city/county/state). Signs are limited to 4 square feet. 2 . White Bear Lake: Off-site nonprofit directional signs allowed in the right-of-way for places of worship, hospitals, and nursing homes. Sign must be approved by the city council. . Woodbury: Off-site nonprofit directional signs allowed in the right-of-way for places of worship, schools, parks, and public buildings. Signs must be approved by the governmental body responsible for the right-of-way on which the sign is installed (city/county/state). Signs are limited to 4 square feet with a maximum number of 3 signs per nonprofit. The board should review the additional information and make a recommendation on allowing off-site directional signs for nonprofits. RECOMMENDATION Review the additional information regarding the proposed sign ordinance and be prepared to discuss and give recommendations prior to the second reading which is scheduled for January 11, 2010. P/Ord/Sign/12-8-09 CDRB 3 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board (CDRB) Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood Natural Resources Coordinator Steven Kummer, P.E., Engineer Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood December 2, 2009 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION In 2008, University of Minnesota students worked with the city on the Sustainable Maplewood 2050 project. One of the groups focused on vegetation and recommended that the city establish policies to encourage sustainable vegetation. Their report can be accessed on-line at: www.ci.maolewood.mn.us/DocumentView.asox?DID=915. The city has an opportunity to partner with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) on landscaping along highways. Staff would like to begin a discussion of vegetation guidelines with CDRB commissioners. DISCUSSION Mn/DOT has a Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program (CRLP). This program provides landscape design services and funding for plants and landscape materials along highways. For many commuters, their primary experience of Maplewood is the landscape they see when they drive through the city on Highway 36 or Interstate 94. The CRLP program is an opportunity to improve the aesthetics of the highway landscape and the impression it gives of Maplewood. Staff has invited Todd Carroll, Landscape Architect for Mn/DOT, to the January 12, 2010 CDRB meeting to discuss possibilities for landscaping along Highway 36. Before meeting with Mr. Carroll, staff would like to discuss with commissioners the larger context of vegetation in Maplewood. We would like to begin developing guidelines for vegetation on city lands with the goals of: 1. Creating a visual image that people associate with Maplewood; 2. Ensuring plantings are sustainable and the city only plants what it can maintain; 3. Creating plantings that reflect our natural heritage; 4. Minimizing the need for watering, fertilizing, and the use of pesticides. At the December 8, 2009 CDRB meeting, staff will do a presentation and would like to discuss the following questions: 1. What are the main principals of sustainable landscapes? 2. What level of maintenance is needed for different planting styles? 3. Why do we need a hierarchy of plantings and what might that involve? 4. What boulevards in Maplewood should receive the highest level of planting? 5. What type of vegetation and plantings do you associate with Maplewood? There will be an opportunity to continue this discussion in 2010. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that commissioners discuss and provide preliminary input on vegetation guidelines. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director CORB Membership Interview Questions December 1, 2009 SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION The city council is asking that each advisory committee review the current list of questions that the council typically asks during interviews for committee vacancies. Please consider questions specific to the reappointment of existing members as well as questions specific for new members. The council would like these questions to consider when they interview for CDRB vacancies and reappointments. DISCUSSION Existing Questions asked by the City Council Please refer to the attached interview questions for the CDRB applicants. Suggested Questions by Staff The following questions are suggested for discussion and elaboration by the CDRB as possible interview questions. These suggested questions are meant as a discussion starting point for the meeting. Questions for New Members 1. What is your knowledge and ability in interpreting architectural drawings and site plans? 2. What role do you feel design should have in the development and redevelopment of the city? 3. Do you feel you would be able to judge the effect of a proposed building, structure, or sign upon the surrounding community? 4. Do you have any background or professional experience that would help in your role as a member of the CDRB? 5. What is your understanding of the role the CDRB plays as it relates to the city council? 6. In addition to attendance at the twice a month Tuesday CDRB meetings, would you be available to attend a Monday city council meeting periodically as the CDRB's representative to discuss the CDRB recommendation on a proposal? 7. The city has seven other advisory committees that provide input to the city council. Why do you feel you are most suited to serving on the CDRB rather than one of the others? These are the housing and redevelopment authority, the planning commission, the environmental and natural resources commission, the historical preservation commission, the parks and recreation commission, the business and economic development commission and the police civil service commission. 8. How would you react if you felt strongly about what the CDRB should be recommending to the council if you were in the minority or perhaps the only member opposed to the views of the rest of the body? Questions for Existinq Members Seekinq Reappointment 1. After serving on the CDRB for several years, what suggestions do you have that would improve the groups role in the city's design review process? 2. As a follow-up to the first question, what suggestions do you have that would improve the city as a whole in terms of its design goals? 3. What has been your greatest reward, if any, serving as a member of the CDRB? 4. What has been your greatest disappointment, if any? 5. Do you feel that you have been effective or have made a difference while serving as a member of the CDRB? 6. Do you feel that the CDRB as a group has been effective in its role in the Maplewood development process? CONCLUSION The above interview questions are merely suggestions. Please accept, rewrite or disregard them as you see fit. Any additional questions the CDRB would like to forward are welcome. Staff will then forward them to the city council for their consideration. RECOMMENDATION Please review the attached questions and forward a recommendation to the city council to expand upon their interview questions for CDRB membership. P:cdrblCouncillnterview Questions for CDRB Membership 12 09 mm Attachment: 1. Current CDRB Interview Questions For Applicants 2 Attachement 1 Community Design Review Board Interviews 1. Why are you interested in serving on the Community Design Review Board? 2. Are you available on Tuesday evenings? 3. Have you ever attended a Community Design Review Board meeting? 4. Are you committed to serve on this Board for the two full years of the appointed term, or do you intend to run for an open City Office in the next election, which could create another vacancy on this Board before your two-year term is completed? 5. Can you read construction plans? 6. What is your experience in analyzing design or architectural elements for compatibility with surrounding buildings, cost to the building owner, functionality, and maintenance? 7. Are you familiar with the different types of building materials on the market today that are used in construction? 8. Do you have any experience in signage design and/or ordinance development regarding signage? 9. What is your experience and knowledge base regarding different types of landscaping techniques? 10. What is your experience and knowledge base regarding plantings with regard to their ease of maintenance, resistance to disease, longevity, compatibility of other plants, expected growth rates, expected longevity? 11. Can you discuss your viewpoints regarding new development, retrofitting existing buildings, multi-use zoning, and the direction Maplewood should take in developing design standards? 12. Are you familiar with new techniques for reducing the amount of impervious surfaces? 13. What is your experience with regard to the review of parking lot plans, parking requirements, balancing the ratio between impervious and pervious surfaces?