HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/2005
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, April 12, 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: March 8, 2005 Minutes
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review: None Scheduled
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations: March 14, 2005, City Council Meeting - Overview Town Homes
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Community Design Review Board Orientation
b. Sign Code Revisions
c. CDRB Representation at the April 25, 2005, City Council Meeting - Heritage
Square 4th Addition, T&C Homes, Highway 61
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Chairperson Diana Longrie
Board member Matt Ledvina
Vice Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Present at 6:13 p.m.
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 8, 2005.
Chairperson Longrie requested the last paragraph on page 16 read:
Chairperson Longrie said she went to the Integra Homes meeting with the neighbors and the
developer recommended a visit to the site in White Bear Township to see their development.
Chairperson Longrie drove out and looked at the units in White Bear Township. She noticed
there were no architectural elements of any kind on the back of the units and only very small
windows on the rear elevation.
Chairperson Longrie moved approval of the minutes of March 8,2005, as amended.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes ---Longrie, Shankar
Abstention - Hinzman
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-12-2005
2
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
None.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
There was no CDRB representation at the March 14, 2005, City Council meeting. The only
CDRB item to discuss was the Overview Town Homes by Masterpiece Homes off McMenemy
Street which was approved by the city council.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Community Design Review Board Orientation
Ms. Finwall introduced and welcomed the newest board member John Hinzman who
was appointed by the city council on March 28, 2005. Mr. Hinzman replaces the
vacancy left by former board member Judy Driscoll. His term runs now until January 1,
2006. The city council reappointed Board members Matt Ledvina, Linda Olson and
Diana Longrie whose terms expire January 1, 2007. When a new board member joins
the CDRB, staff likes to review orientation materials. The intent of the orientation is to
outline the objectives, review the process, the responsibilities and scope of authority of
the Community Design Review Board members.
b. Sign Code Revisions
Ms. Finwall introduced Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern, who joined the City of
Maplewood's Planning department in February 2005. Andrew has been continuing
work that was done on the sign code from the former planning intern, Rose Lorsung.
Andrew will present the Temporary and Off-Premise Sign Code Revisions. These
revisions are part of the staff initiated three-phase plan to review the sign code and staff
encourages the board to recommend revisions of the sign code before it goes to the city
council.
Chairperson Longrie asked what cities were included in the sign code study?
Mr. Gitzlaff said the sign code study included the cities of White Bear Lake, Woodbury,
Brooklyn Center, Oakdale, Roseville, and Edina.
Chairperson Longrie asked which city had the most restrictive sign code?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-12-2005
3
Mr. Gitzlaff said White Bear Lake wasn't the most restrictive in its sign code but was the
most concise of all the sign codes.
Chairperson Longrie asked which city had the least restrictive sign code?
Ms. Finwall said Brooklyn Center, being a larger city, was the most restrictive in their
sign code compared to the other cities reviewed.
Chairperson Longrie asked if the cities that were reviewed were Class A or Class B
cities?
Board member Shankar asked what class Maplewood was?
Chairperson Longrie said Maplewood is a Class B city.
Ms. Finwall said staff would check into that, however the six cities that were chosen
have similar populations and character as the City of Maplewood.
Chairperson Longrie asked how many sign complaints the city receives in a year?
Ms. Finwall said the city receives about 10 complaint calls a year but city staff
proactively addresses an additional 20 cases a year which are mostly from businesses
that are repeat offenders. The largest complaint comes from businesses installing
portable temporary signs and keeping the signs up longer than the 30 days allowed or
putting a sign up without a sign permit.
Temporarv Sians
Board members were concerned that requiring permits for all temporary signs would
require too much staff time and paper work which could require an additional person on
staff for code enforcement for temporary signs, which didn't seem like a good idea.
Temporary Portable Signs
Board members agreed temporary portable signs should be required to have a permit to
monitor usage. Portable temporary signs include signs which can be installed on a
temporary basis and are over 16 square feet including reader board signs, spot lights
and large balloons. These signs can become a nuisance and the use should be
monitored and enforced. Board members felt temporary portable signs shouldn't be
prohibited as was stated in option 2.
Special Event Signs
Board members agreed it was a good idea not to charge non-profit and civic
organizations for special event signs.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-12-2005
4
Banners
Chairperson Longrie and Board member Hinzman liked option 2 requiring a permit with
no permit fee for banners that do not exceed 32 square feet.
Board member Shankar recommended combining the banner and the window sign
square footage allowance. Having a window sign and banner together would be too
much at one time on a fayade. Chairperson Longrie and Board member Hinzman
agreed.
Window Signs
Chairperson Longrie has heard from residents that too much window signage is
allowed.
Off-Premise Sians Include:
Billboards
Board member Hinzman recommended option 2 prohibiting the erection of new
billboards to remain as non-conforming structures. Many communities nationally and in
Minnesota are prohibiting billboards. The cities of Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Eagan,
Hopkins, Woodbury, Roseville, St. Paul and Edina allow billboards that already exist to
remain but prohibit the erection of new billboards in their sign code.
Board member Shankar sees a double standard in option 2 because it allows existing
billboards to remain. He prefers option 1 which requires more stringent distance
requirements from residential and is comfortable requiring an annual fee.
Staff recommends putting a map together showing where the existing billboards are
located, then show the possible billboard locations with the recommended distance
restrictions for new billboards.
Real Estate Signs and Directional Signs
Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't care for either option 1 or 2 restricting the use of
real estate directional signs to weekends only. She feels realtors use real estate signs
as a tool in the community. Realtors don't just sell houses on weekends. Advertising
with real estate signs during the week lets customers know there is a house for sale and
to keep an eye out for the potential open house. Board member Hinzman and Shankar
agreed.
Ms. Finwall said a majority of the complaints that staff receives regarding signs are
about open house and directional real estate signs in the right of way. These signs can
stay up for a long time, two months or more, which in her opinion adds clutter and
unsightliness to an intersection and gives an unfair advantage to realtors over other
businesses. Realtors are allowed on-site signage in the yard of the property for sale
and they advertise their listings in the MLS, and in the newspaper.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-12-2005
5
Ms. Finwall said she feels very strongly allowing an unfair advantage to realtors and to
clutter the city streets is wrong and is something she would like to see changed in the
code.
Board member Hinzman said he can understand where staff is coming from. On the
other hand he sees the need for real estate directional signs so people can find homes
that are for sale or when there is an open house. Businesses are located in commercial
districts where customers expect a business. He suspects the city can remove signs in
the right of way that are cluttering the streets.
Chairperson Longrie said when there are too many signs at an intersection it's hard to
differentiate between signs which aren't good for anyone's business. Maybe there could
be a city awareness outreach to real estate companies and to realtors letting them know
the sign code and the importance of taking signs down and not leaving signs up for two
months.
Board member Hinzman said the metal realtor signs are an investment for realtors and
they would be upset if their signs were taken down. If they are paper signs then realtors
are less likely to care if they are taken down or left up.
Directional Signs
Board member Shankar asked if it would make sense to specify colors for certain
directional signs such as a different color sign for hospitals, schools, etc.
Ms. Finwall said that was a good idea.
Board members thanked staff for the work completed on the sign code revisions so far.
c. CDRB representation at the April 25, 2005, City Council meeting to discuss
Heritage Square 4th Addition, Town & Country Homes, Highway 61
Board member Shankar volunteered to represent the CDRB at the April 25, 2005, city
council meeting.
x. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.