Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2008 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 8,2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Board member Olson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. December 11, 2007 Board member Wise moved approval of the minutes of December 11, 2007 as submitted. Board member Demko seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Code Discussion Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and asked the board comment on issues regarding dynamic display signs in the city. Ms. Finwall also asked the board for their comments regarding issues with public service messages. In response to a previous question from the board, Planner Finwall said the League of Minnesota Cities has advised that a total ban of dynamic display signs is legal and an option. Board member Wise said he is not in favor of a total ban on dynamic display signs. Board member Shankar said he thinks the rules should be the same for both on-site and off-site signs, but feels there will be fewer issues with on-site signs due to the generally lower driving speeds in front of properties where those signs might be constructed. Board member Ledvina agreed a total ban of dynamic display signs is not feasible. Mr. Ledvina had questions on why setbacks are not related to land use and why dynamic signs are not prohibited in some zoning districts in the city of Minnetonka's ordinance. Mr. Ledvina Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-08-2008 2 feels the Minnetonka ordinance is a good example and said he recommends the board use the Minnetonka ordinance as a guide. Mr. Ledvina requested staff research whether the city of St. Paul's on-site ordinance has been adopted. Mr. Ledvina suggested a moratorium on dynamic display signs would be reasonable until the ordinance is amended. Board member Wise asked what constitutes unique zoning districts and he had questions on spacing of dynamic signs. He asked whether there are other cities with examples of sign spacing. Planner Finwall said she will research these questions and also other cities for examples of sign spacing and requirements, and also whether the city of St. Paul has adopted an on-site ordinance. Board member Demko said he agrees with using the city of Minnetonka ordinance as a guide. Mr. Demko said he has questions with the 20-minute display time and also the 15- foot maximum height requirement. Board member Shankar said he also agrees with using the Minnetonka ordinance as a guide. He has questions on the number of signs allowed per property and with having differences in display time for on-site and off-site dynamic signs. Board member Ledvina, noting the competition among advertisers, said he has strong concerns with having too many signs in high-traffic areas in the near future with displays changing continually. Board member Olson suggested the board move ahead with this review. Ms. Olson suggested the need for language to regulate the "blinking, flashing and fluttering" of signs, and the need to review the setback distance and sign spacing issues, change time of displays, and necessary language defining public service message. Planner Finwall asked the board whether only freestanding dynamic signs will be considered. Board member Olson responded that non-freestanding signs also need to be considered. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Concept Review - Maplewood Mall Dynamic Display Sign Planner Finwall presented the staff report. Ms. Finwall said the request for concept review is to allow feedback to the applicant prior to an official sign request submittal. Ms. Finwall explained the comprehensive sign plan requirements pertaining to this request. Ms. Laurie Van Dalen, with Simon Properties of the Maplewood Mall, explained their proposal for digital marquee and wallscape signs. Ms. Van Dalen said the digital marquee sign location is proposed on White Bear Avenue and that the sign location determines what size sign should be proposed. Ms. Van Dalen said the sign would be used for promoting tenants and advertising products and services marketed or sold on the site. Ms. Van Dalen exhibited examples of Simon Properties' wallscapes constructed in various other malls which are used to advertise products and services of tenants. Board member Ledvina asked Ms. Van Dalen if Coca Cola is a tenant of the Maplewood Mall and if they occupy space at the Mall. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-08-2008 3 Ms. Van Dalen explained that Coca Cola has a lease agreement for their machines located at the Mall and for some special promotions at the Mall. Ms. Van Dalen explained that the signs would promote tenants of the Mall and a few surrounding businesses that the Mall has contracts with. She said the signs would operate 24-hours daily. She explained that the sign would be monitored electronically with a camera and sensors and if a malfunction was observed, it would be corrected on-site. She said the Mall would have control of the sign since they would be the owner of the sign. Board member Shankar said he prefers that the architectural design element be considered as part of a wallscape sign design rather than hanging a sign anywhere on a wall without consideration of the building's design. Board member Olson said she would prefer that Maplewood Mall update their existing signage before considering new wallscape and digital marquee signage. Board members Ledvina and Wise both agreed with Mr. Shankar that the building's design should be considered when installing a wallscape sign and said this issue would be part of the review of any future request for a wallscape sign installation. Board member Wise asked Ms. Van Dalen to consider the square footage for a wallscape sign display as it pertains to the footage of their approved existing sign-which would mean that 35% of the existing pylon sign footage is what might be allowed. Ms. Van Dalen thanked the board members for their time and comments. Board member Olson asked staff to obtain a copy of sign ordinances for the cities of Woodbury and St. Paul for review by the board. She also mentioned she is having a hard time understanding applicants' requests for the state minimum display time of eight seconds for dynamic display signs. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Council member John Nephew, 628 County Road D, Maplewood, addressed the board and said he is open to their comments. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Comprehensive Plan Update Planner Finwall requested that board members complete the visioning worksheets they received regarding barriers to the comprehensive plan process and return them to her within the next week. Ms. Finwall reported the parks, trails and open space advisory committee has met several times and visited some sensitive areas such as south Maplewood. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.