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.