Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 13,2005 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: November 22, 2005 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: None Scheduled 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revisions - Feedback Received and Final Proposed Changes b. Gladstone Redevelopment Joint Meeting - December 19. 2005 c. December 27, 2005 Community Design Review Board Meeting - Canceled 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:03 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 Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 22, 2005. Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of November 22, 2005. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW None. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-13-2005 2 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Olson was the CDRB representative at the December 12, 2005, City Council Meeting. Board member Olson said the only CDRB item to discuss was the Region's Sleep Health Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive, which was passed by the city council. b. Board member Hinzman said he was at the November 28, 2005, city council meeting and the only CDRB item to discuss was the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park at 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive, which was passed by the city council. c. Chairperson Longrie said she went to a League of Minnesota City's Conference and there were a number of seminars she attended regarding soliciting citizen input from the community and incorporating that into the process of reviewing plans and proposals for the community. There was also a seminar regarding eminent domain for economic development purposes. If anyone on the CDRB is interested in any of the seminars she brought back information regarding these seminars and she would be happy to share it with the other board members. Chairperson Longrie said this is her last CDRB meeting since she is stepping down as chairperson to be the new Mayor of Maplewood starting in early January. She thanked the CDRB members and staff for the opportunity to serve on the board for the past three or four years. She has enjoyed being on the board and she passes the gavel onto Vice Chairperson Linda Olson. The board congratulated Diana Longrie on becoming the new mayor and wished her well in her upcoming role. The board said they appreciated her knowledge and skills while serving on the CDRB and said she will be missed very much. Diana Longrie said there is a vacancy on the CDRB now that she is moving onto Mayor of Maplewood. If anyone is interested in serving on the CDRB, Maplewood residents can go to the city website and download an application. The CDRB meets the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 6:00 p.m. You can also contact staff for more information on the responsibilities of serving on the CDRB. d. Board member Shankar asked how to get connected to the public access channels on cable television to watch the CDRB meetings from home. Chairperson Longrie said anyone in Maplewood can call Comcast cable and request the universal service for free cable in order to view the public access television channels. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code Revisions Ms. Finwall said over the last two months city staff has requested public feedback on the revised sign code. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-13-2005 3 Ms. Finwall said the revised sign code was finalized by the community design review board on September 14, 2005. City staff created a document which outlined the major changes in the code. This document was mailed to 200 random business owners within Maplewood with a return envelope and a form for feedback. In addition, city staff advertised the sign code revision process and requested feedback in the Maplewood Review, City News, and on the city's website. The board reviewed and had much discussion regarding the following items: 1. Directional Signs The proposed code - On-site directional signs up to (6) square feet in area, with no limit or requirement for placement. The proposed change - Maximum number of directional signs and require them to be placed with a certain setback? CDRB comments: The board decided to leave things as they are for directional signs since they haven't been an issue so far in the past. 2. Menu Boards The proposed code - Menu boards are permitted for drive-through restaurants only. The area of each sign shall not exceed (64) square feet and the sign shall not be located as to impair the vision of the driver of a vehicle traveling into, out of, or through the drive through isle. Proposed Change - The McDonalds on Cope Avenue recently added a second drive through to their restaurant. Should we consider a limit to the number of menu boards? CDRB comments: The board commented that they didn't believe there would be a case where a restaurant would have more than two menu boards because of the space it takes up and the stacking of the cars and the distance that is needed. 3. Off-Site Directional or Open House Real Estate Signs The proposed code - Signs up to (3) square feet may be placed on the public right-of-way, no closer than (5) feet to the street pavement or (1) foot to a sidewalk or trail. Said sign shall not be placed between the street and a sidewalk or trail. Real estate signs are limited to (1) per intersection for each separate real estate listing. Proposed change - The new code should be clarified. Is it one per intersection or one per corner per intersection? Should we specify that open house signs are only allowed during the open house only? Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 12-13-2005 Should we consider allowing an open house sign in addition to a directional sign, only during the open house? Should we be more restrictive on these types of signs considering some of the feedback received, i.e., only allow them on the weekend? CDRB comments: Some board members felt open house signs should be able to be posted a few days before the open house so people can prepare to plan ahead of time to attend the open house. Some board members felt the open house signs should only be allowed to be posted during the day of the open house. The signs are expensive and realtors would be reluctant to leave the signs up longer than the day of the open house. One board member felt people usually look on-line at the real estate sites, work with a realtor, or look in the newspaper, but people probably aren't going to be driving around and thinking ahead a few days to plan on attending an open house. The board agreed there can be one directional real estate sign per listing, per corner, per intersection with a (30) day limit. Open house signs should be allowed the day of the open house only but can be installed in addition to, and next to the directional sign. 4. Temporary Signs & Displays under (12) square feet The proposed code - One non-illuminated temporary sign under (12) square feet is allowed per property (except for single and double dwelling properties) for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year. For commercial buildings with multiple occupants, each separate occupant is permitted (1) such sign. No more than (3) temporary signs under (12) square feet shall be allowed at a property at anyone time. Proposed change - should we change "for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year" to "for a period not to exceed (30) days total per sign"? CDRB comments: Same as above but adding per business as well. Businesses have to survive and changing the signs out will allow a business to stay visible and draw customer's attention. 5. Temporary Banners The proposed code - Temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per property at anyone time except for multiple-tenant buildings which are allowed (1) banner per separate tenant at anyone time. Each banner shall not exceed (32) square feet for residential and neighborhood-type commercial zoning districts, and (64) square feet for higher impact commercial zoning districts. Proposed change - should we change "displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year" to displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per banner"? Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-13-2005 5 Should we consider allowing banners up to (64) square feet in area for residential and neighborhood commercial and (92) square feet in area for higher impact commercial based on feedback received? Should we allow an individual banner to be installed for (60) days rather than just (30)? CDRB comments: Board members thought (30) days per year, per business is sufficient and thought the city should be more restrictive for temporary banners, especially since no permit is required for a banner. Board members were opposed to charging a permit fee for banners. Banners should remain at (32) square feet for residential neighborhoods and (64) square feet for higher impact areas like commercial. 6. Temporary Window Signs The proposed code - Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit for a period not to exceed (60) days total per year per property or separate occupant of a multiple tenant building for all said signs. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no more than 25 percent of the total area of the window. Proposed change - Should we consider allowing up to 50 percent of the total area of the window based on feedback received? Should we change "for a period not to exceed (60) days total per year, per property" to "for a period not to exceed (60) days total per temporary window sign, per property"? Should we not specify a maximum amount of time for each window sign, based on feedback received? CDRB comments: One board member thought we should allow 50 percent of the total window area. One board member commented that 25 percent was sufficient since there are many other types of advertising mechanisms such as wall signage, banners, temporary signs, etc. The board agreed to 30% of the total window area. They would like to see the window sign changed out every 30 days. The board agreed there should be some exceptions to permanent window signage such as "we card" notices and similar type of notices. 7. Signs in the BC, BC-M, M-1 and M-2 Zoning Districts, Wall Signs: The proposed code - For each occupant of a building, one wall sign is allowed for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total number of wall signs may be increased by one for each clearly differentiated department of a business or enterprise. The total size of all wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. The total coverage area of wall signs shall be based on the wall surface to which the signs are attached. For buildings with multiple occupants, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area of the exterior fac;;ade of the premises occupied by such tenant or user. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-13-2005 6 Proposed change - The proposed code does not make clear how much signage is allowed for multiple-tenants, only single-tenant buildings. How much signage should we allow for each tenant space, 10%, 15%, or 20% of the gross wall area, with a minimum of 32 square feet, or should it also be based on the overall size of the building also. CDRB comments: For a strip mall a tenant can have up to 10% of the gross wall area for their tenant wall surface with a minimum of (32) square feet. Signs for five or more tenants would be covered under the comprehensive sign plan. Freestanding Signs: The proposed code - The size of freestanding signs is based on the street classification of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located, ranging from 80 to 180 square feet. Proposed change - Which street classification should we go by if the property is on an intersection? CDRB comments: The board agreed the street classification should be based on the higher classified street. 8. Signs for Churches and Schools The proposed code - Restricts signage at a church or school based on the zoning district which the facility is located. Proposed change - Should we create a separate sign criteria for all churches and schools, regardless of what zoning district they are located? Most churches and schools in Maplewood are located in a residential zoning district. This would allow them wall signs of (24) square feet and freestanding signs of (32) square feet. However, some are located within commercial zoning districts which would allow them much larger signs. Is this fair? Is it legal to prohibit signs based on type of use, not location? CDRB comments: The board felt the sign criteria should be kept with the zoning district. 9. Signs for Residential or Commercial Uses which are Zoned as a Planned Unit Development The proposed code - Does not specify the allowable signage for PUDs. Proposed change - Should we require all PUDs to have a comprehensive sign plan or in the event that they are proposing just one development identification sign such as a residential development should we have these signs reviewed by the CDRB? Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-13-2005 7 CDRB comments: The board agreed all PUDs should require a comprehensive sign plan and signage should be reviewed by the CDRB. 10. Courtesy Benches The proposed code - There is nothing in our proposed sign code which restricts advertisement signs on courtesy benches. Proposed change - should we propose a change to the existing courtesy bench ordinance which would require more restrictive standards for advertisement or design review of courtesy benches since these benches are placed within the public right-of-way for all to see? CDRB comments: The board felt the procedures for courtesy benches should remain the same. The standards for courtesy benches seem appropriate as currently written. 11. Enforcement of Sign Code Proposed change - Should we recommend a policy for enforcement of the sign code, i.e., strongly encourage assistance for the enforcement of sign code in some way or another? CDRB comments: Chairperson Longrie said she felt the fire and police personnel are very busy and do not have the time for sign enforcement. Chairperson Longrie said it may be a good idea to have the city council form some type of code compliance volunteer sign code group to help with sign enforcement. The other board members thought that was a good idea. Board member Olson said the sign code could be advertised in the Maplewood City News so that people knew the sign rules of the city and raise awareness. Board member Shankar said this information could be given out at the neighborhood watch meetings. Board member Shankar asked if the citizens have the legal right to pull signs? Chairperson Longrie said that is something to check with the city attorney. The proposed code timeline is to revise the draft sign code as needed and bring it back to the board for final approval in January 2006. The revised sign code will then be revised by the city attorney some time in January 2006 and to the city council for review in February or March 2006. b. Gladstone Redevelopment Joint Meeting - December 19, 2005. Ms. Finwall said there is a joint meeting on Monday, December 19, 2005, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. This meeting will be played on cable television. c. The CDRB meeting for Tuesday, December 27,2005, meeting has been cancelled. The next CDRB meeting will be Tuesday, January 10, 2006. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-13-2005 8 d. Ms. Finwall thanked Chairperson Longrie for her years of service on the CDRB and wished her well in her new role as Mayor of Maplewood. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.