Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/1997BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 24, 1997 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Roof Equipment Screening Waiver- ABRA Auto Body and Glass, 2020 Rice Street b. Landscape Plan Revision - Tri-District Elementary School, 30 E. County Road B 6. Design Review a. Ordinance Amendment- Roof-Mounted Equipment Screening 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjourn p:\com_dvpt\cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staffs recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No furthdr public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms~lrt).agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JUNE 10, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Absent Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the minutes of May 13, 1997, amended to show Ananth Shankar in attendance at this meeting. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Equipment Building--Watershed District Storm Water Facility, Century Avenue between Margaret Street and Minnehaha Avenue Cliff Aichinger was present representing the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. He discussed their proposal to build a water retention pond with a treatment facility to add alum to the storm water for purifying Tanner's Lake. Mr. Aichinger explained the project to the board. He described the function of alum and discussed the architectural design of the proposed equipment building. The building would have a brick exterior. He stated that there would be a small building (approximately four by four by six feet tall), in addition to the one shown, that would be about the size of an outdoor toilet building. The board asked Tom to review the design plans for this small structure. Mr. Aichinger, furthermore, stated that the smaller structure would only be in place for about two years. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-10-97 -2- Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board recommend: Approval of the plans dated May 19, 1997, for the proposed storm water treatment facility on the northwest corner of Century and Margaret Avenues, based on the findings required by the City Code. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this structure. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall be comply with ordinance requirements. b. Submit to city staff a certificate of survey for the property. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that the construction or contractor removes. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install all required landscaping, paving and an address on the building. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. The applicant shall submit a design detail for the small outbuilding in the southwest corner of the site to staff for approval. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes~all The motion passed. B. Merit Chevrolet Building Additionm2695 Brookview Drive Darwin Lindahl was present representing Merit Chevrolet. Mr. Lindahl gave a presentation to the board describing their proposed expansion plans. The board asked several questions about the building design and the fence that staff was recommending Merit install. Roger Bortnem of Merit Chevrolet addressed the board and discussed the history of the Merit Chevrolet property development and the fence issue. He also stated that he is in favor of installing such a fence. He suggested a good alternative would be to place the fence part way down their slope towards the abutting residential land to save some mature trees that are Community Design Review B6ard Minutes of 06-10-97 -3- up theslope next to the parking lot. The board discussed fence options and fence placement with the applicant and staff. The chairman asked if there was anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter. Thomas Brudvig, the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hayak of 2685 Brookview Drive, addressed the board. He requested that the city deny this request. He said that there is already excessive encroachment toward the residential properties with the present building. Code requires automotive repair businesses now to be 350 feet from residential properties. The existing building is 55 feet away. The Hayaks also feel that Merit has not explored other optional locations for this addition. In addition, Mr. Brudvig discussed the problem with Merit being open until 2 a.m. for automotive repair. Chairman Erickson informed Mr. Brudvig that the CDRB cannot deal with land use matters and that Mr. Brudvig should take this up with the city council at the public hearing. Board member Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board recommend: Co Approval of the site plan date-stamped April 25, 1997, and the revised building elevations submitted to the community design review board on June 10, 1997, for the Merit Chevrolet service garage addition at 2695 Brookview Drive. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Do the following before getting a building permit: ao Submit the fence design plan to staff for approval. The fence shall be a decorative fence made of wood. It shall be at least six feet tall above the grade of the parking lot and 100 percent opaque. The owner or contractor shall install this fence on the top of the slope at the same grade as the parking lot. The fence shall be placed to buffer the adjacent residential lots to the south and west, except that portion behind Merit's storage building. If the fence is taller than six feet, it shall be designed by a professional engineer. b. Submit a parking lot paving and striping plan for staff approval showing: (1) Paving and striping in the unpaved area at the comer of Brookview Drive and Century Avenue. (2) Two handicap-accessible parking spaces that would meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint all proposed roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. The color must match the building color. (code requirement) Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-10-97 b. Aim or shield all exterior site lights on the proposed addition as required by code so they are not a nuisance to neighbors. (code requirement) c. Pave and stripe the truck-parking area at the corner of Brookview Drive and Century Avenue. d. Install the screening fence along the south and west sides of the parking lot that abut the residential properties 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. City staff will review signage through the sign permit process. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Present a sample of the proposed fence and a cross section drawing to the city council at the public hearing showing the proposed fence design and profile on the slope next to the parking lot. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes- all The motion passed. C. Roof Screening WaivermABRA Auto Body and Glass, 2020 Rice Street Chairman Erickson asked if there was somebody present to discuss this item. Secretary Ekstrand stated that they were notified but were not in attendance. The board expressed some concern over this particular building. There is a great deal more equipment on this building than the usual commercial building. The board stated that perhaps this is a case where they should not grant such a waiver. Boardmember Ledvina moved that the Community Design Review Board table this issue until the next meeting to give the board an opportunity to look at the existing building for comparison and then consider this request. Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayes- all The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of. 06-10-97 -5- Boardmember Robinson seconded The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS Ordinance Amendment--Roof-Mounted Equipment Screening Boardmember Shankar moved to table this issue to consider when the request for ABRA is brought back to the board for review. Ayes-all There were no board presentations. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Staff mentioned to the board about the upcoming June 30 annual city tour. The members stated that they had received a notice of this event in the mail. Staff requested a CDRB representative for the next two city council meetings. Board member Erickson volunteered for the meeting of June 23. Ananth Shankar volunteered for the council meeting on July 14. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Roof-Equipment Screening Waiver- ABRA Auto Body and Glass 2020 North Rice Street June 16, 1997 INTRODUCTION Ray Shepard, of ABRA Auto Body and Glass, is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) waive the roof-equipment screening requirement for the new ABRA shop at 2020 Rice Street. This building construction is completed. Refer to the maps on pages 3-5 and the letters on pages 6-7. BACKGROUND September 23, 1996: The city council approved a lot split, a conditional use permit and the design plans for ABRA. The design approval required that the applicant submit a roof-equipment screening plan to the city for approval. June 10, 1997: The CDRB tabled their review of this request since the applicant was not at the meeting. The CDRB had concern over the large amount of visible equipment on this building and discussed whether this is an instance where they should require screening. CODE REQUIREMENT Section 36-27(b)(3) requires roof-equipment screening where the mechanical equipment would be visible from public streets or adjoining property. The CDRB may waive the screening requirement for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect property values. If the CDRB waives this requirement, they shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to match the building. When screening is provided, the roof equipment must also be painted to match the building. DISCUSSION The CDRB and city council have waived the screening requirement for several building proposals in the past two years. These projects are Home Depot, Cub Foods (some of the units), Lexus, Maplewood Imports, Maplewood Toyota's proposed service building, LaMettry Auto Body and Collision, Batteries Plus, National Tire Warehouse and Precision Tune. The CDRB has felt that roof-equipment screening is more noticeable than the equipment it is intended to hide-the cure is worse than the disease. Such screens are also a problem since they need regular maintenance (a task often ignored by building owners), they may restdct air flow around the equipment, cause snow-loading problems and create rain leaks when fasteners go through a roof deck. The code only requires that mechanical equipment be screened. Vents and exhaust hoods, which make up most of the items on ABRA's roof, need not be screened. The better option would have been to require a building design with a higher parapet that would have concealed the equipment. This is too late, however. Staff does not feel that individual screens around equipment boxes is a very good alternative. The city should require building designs that better hide equipment with tall parapets instead of relying on larger boxes around smaller boxes. Staff is also proposing a code change (in another report) to amend the screening requirements. Staff agrees with the applicant's request for waiver of the screening requirement. There would not be any affect on property values and the applicant has agreed to paint the units to match the building. RECOMMENDATION Waive the screening requirement for the roof-mounted mechanical equipment on ABRA Auto Body and Glass at 2020 Rice Street, because: 1. It would not improve the building's appearance or affect property values. 2. Painting the units a color to match the building fascia would be less noticeable and obtrusive than building a large enclosure around it. 3. The applicant's structural engineer stated that there would be snow-load problems if the units were screened. 4. Screening would not be very effective on the north side because of the higher grade elevation of Rice Street. This waiver is subject to the applicant painting all of the rooftop equipment to match the building as code requires. p:sec11~abraroof, mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter from Ray Shepard of ABRA Auto Body and Glass dated May 7, 1997 5. Letter from Larry G. McMurtry of Clark Engineering Corporation dated April 7, 1997 2 Attachment 1 ~ound LOCATION MAP 3 Attachment 2 --W '- COUNTY ROAD -' SINCLAIR STATION 1~ ~ Re A CUB FOODS SCHROEDER .MILK 2000 ABRA SITE TRI-DISTRICT SCHOOL TAVERN ~ ZIlTTEL GREENHOUSES 01944 CUSTOM RADIO & TAPE ROSELAWN AVENUE Attachment 3 SITE PLAN 5 Attachment 4 May 7, 1997 Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand: I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with Marge Oslxom, Duane Grace and myself on April 16, 1997. In keeping up with industry standards and current technology, ABRA has decided to add two prep stations to the Maplewood facilit3' in pursuit to deliver our customers the highest quality product available. I am w-riting you to ask for the city's permission to waive the requirement of rooftop screening for our rooftop mounted equipment. Enclosed please find a copy of our equipment layout drawing along with a copy of a letter fi.om Clark Engineering. The letter states that the building is able to handle the additional weight of the added prep stations and make. up - air units as long as there is no exterior rooftop screening. The highlighted area in the equipment layom drawing indicates where the two make-up-air units will be placed. As a representative of ABRA, I would like offer and ensure that the exposed equipment will be painted to match the front exterior facia. As Ms. Ostrom stated, the facility is under consU'uction and near completion. I will wait to here fi.om you regarding your decision on the rooftop screening. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at 585-6221. Ray Shepard Project Manager cc: Marge Ostrom Dmme Grace CORPORATE OFFICE 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway · Suite 200 · Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 561-7220 · Fax (612) 561-7433 · Alt. Fax (612) 585-6433 6 ENGINEERING CORPORATION Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors Equal OPpo~nit7 Employer Attachment 5 ApriJ7,1997 M.r. Ray Shepard Abra Auto Body 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Spray Bake Hood & Rooftop Mechanical Unit Abra Auto Body, Maplewood, Minnesota Clark Comm. No. S96183-004 Dear Mr. Shepard, We have reviewed the roof structure (30K10 joists, 16K2 joists and W21xS0 beam) for the Maplewood Abra Auto Body Facility for the Spray Bake Hoods and the 900 pound Rooftop Mechanical Units as shown on Shop Drawing #P-2000-F, dated April 1, 1997. In my opinion, the existing 30KI0 joists, 16K2 joists and W21xS0 steel beam are adequate for the 1,500 pound Spray Bake Hood and the 900 pound Rooftop Mechanical Unit. The Rooftop Mechanical Unit shall be suppbrted with C3x5 spanning between the joists and nested in the flutes of the deck. The Spray Bake Hood shall be suspended fi.om eight points. The suspension rods shall be supported fi.om 5" tube sections spanning between the joists and nested in the flutes oftbe deck. If the Rooftop Mechanical Units are placed on the roof without enclosures, in my opinion, no snow dri~ loads are produced by the units. (Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1365, Section .008.) If the Rooftop Mechanical Units must be enclosed in screens to conceal the unit, in my opinion, snow drift conditions will be produced and the roof joists are not adequate. Please call if you have additional questions or comments. Respectfully, CLARK F_fqGINEERING CORPORATION Larry G. McMurtry, P.E. LGM/mo 96183_1.doc C: Wemlinger Architecture file 621 Lilac Drive North Minneapolis, MN 55422-4674 Phone (612) 545-9196 Fax (612) 541-0056 Fort Myers Aberdeen Sioux Falls Rapid City Florida South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Tri-District Community Elementary School 30 County Road BEast June 18, 1997 INTRODUCTION Miles Britz, of Pope Associates, Inc., is requesting approval of changes to the approved landscaping plan for the Tri-District Elementary School at 30 County Road B East. Refer to the maps on pages 2-4 and the letter and enclosures on pages 5-8. In his letter, Mr. Britz explained that 36 fewer trees were planted due to construction cost reductions. He is asking for approval of the landscaping as it has been installed. The plan on page 8 shows the trees (blacked out) that were required, but not put in. BACKGROUND August 14, 1995: The city council approved the following for this new school: 1. A land use plan change to S (school) and OS (open space). 2. A conditional use permit. 3. The site, landscape and building plans. May 12, 1997: The city council approved a request for $9,500 of charitable gambling funds for additional trails and landscaped areas at the Tri-District School. Peter Fischer, one of the applicants of that request, said that they have completed the Maple/Basswood Forest Ecosystem part of the plan. This area included 15 trees and several shrubs. DISCUSSION Thirty six trees is a considerable number to be short. The community design review board should decide if they want these trees planted or if the site looks all right without them. Staff feels that it looks acceptable as is. There are not any noticeable voids in the planting arrangement as viewed from the street by the casual observer. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the revised landscape plan for the Tri-District School at 30 County Road B East date-stamped May 23, 1997, with the deletion of 36 trees. p:sec18/trischol.lan Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter and enclosures from Miles Britz dated May 20, 1997 (four sheets) Attachment 1 SAINT PAU LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 , ..j :lr Ln'TLECANADAG ~:' I~'.S G A, I~ - - , ~t, ,, . E, - . ~ ., ,M~ ~ ~ ~. ~ -' -~'~ '<~: ~--- ' ':~"-~ ~ C~NTY gOAD B~ ~. .. .... ~~ ~: ~.- _ .... ,~ ~~ ~ ~NTAL J~ :~ ~S'&BE ~ I:~'~: THE HIDEAWAY ~ I ~,,- ..... ~ ' ' ' ..... ~ J ~ /SCHROEDERMILK :':~ ~',, . ',, ~.~ ~ ~ '/ ~,~ I ~~..=,,,, ~. i ~:~._. , ,, ...... ... E:,,, . /,../ ~ , ~ / , .~ ', ~ .... ~ ....... ~ ~ ..... PROPERTY LINE 7/ .71 1 './ / ;~ONING MAP CUB FOODS ROAD B Attachment 3 TRI-DISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HIDEAWAY BAR SITE PLAN 4 0 P E A Attachment 4 A T E S May 20, 1997 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 I: County Road B Maplewood, Mn 55109 RE: Tree Planting Quantity TRI-DISTRICT #6067 COMMUNITY SCHOOL 30 East County Road B Maplewood, MN Dear Tom: Since our phone conversation a few weeks ago, our landscape consultant and I have investigated as to why the quantity of tree plantings was reduced from the original concept plan to the actual construction plan. There are approximately 30 less trees planted per construction documents than were originally imagined on the conceptual plan. The major reason for the reduction in quantity was due to construction cost reductions. Numerous items were deleted from the project (including trees) in order to bring the overall project within the Owner's allowed budget. A few sections of planned sidewalks were deleted, thus eliminating the need for lining the walks with shrubbery and trees. Enclosed for your review are the original plant list, revised plant list with reason for changes, and the revised planting plan. Keep in mind that without several budgetary cutbacks throughout the project, this facility might not have been built, at least not of the magnitude required and constructed. We apologize for maybe not keeping your department informed of these changes. However, we did anticipate concurrent departmental plan reviews when we submitted the final drawings for the building permit. The plant list revisions were on the final construction document plan submittal. At this time, at 99% construction completion (with only minor punch list items to be corrected by the contractor) we request that the revised quantity indicated on the plant list be acceptable and approved. Budgetary constraints prohibit the School District to include all plantings as on the conceptual plan. Please review and consider this variance request. Sincerely, POPE ASSOCIATES INC. Miles D. Britz, AIA Project Manager cc: Jene Sigvertsen Tri-District Greg Johnson SWB Paul Holmes PAl 1360 Energy Park Drive Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 551 O8-5202 612 642 9200 FAX: 612 642 1101 05/02/9? 14:36 S W W B ~ 6126421101 N0.625 Q02 MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: lViiles Britz, Pope Associates Greg Johnson, Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. Tri-District School Planting Plan May 2, 1997 The following chart shows the planting plan cha~es between the conceptual plan and the as-built. OmGINAL PLAN 42 Norway Maple 13 Honeylocust 14 White Oak 24 Austrian Pine 243 Alpine Currant 247 Siberian Carpet 129 Japanese Spreading Yew FIN pLAN 11 Black Ash 19 Hackberry 9 Honeylocust 5 White Oak 2 Burr Oak 13 Austrian Pines 213 Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 70 Creeping Juniper 80 Dense Yew REASON FOR CHANGE city requested specie change / quantity reduced due to cost overruns quantity adjusted due to deletion of concrete walk to play fields city requested more specie variety / quantity reduced due to cost overruns quantity reduced due to cost overruns city requested specie change / quantity roduced due to deletion of concrete walk To play fields city requested specie change / quantity changed due to deletion of monument sign at entrance and cost overruns city requested specie change / quanti~y changed due to spacing adjustment  7 HAY 'ON .I '(I .I ' T'~'T 9£ :~T ~.6/~0/S0 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Sign Ordinance Amendment- Roof Equipment Screening June 16, 1997 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting that the city council amend the ordinance that requires screening for roof-mounted mechanical equipment. DISCUSSION Present Requirement Section 36-27(b)(3) requires roof-equipment screening where the mechanical equipment would be visible from public streets or adjoining property. The community design review board (CDRB) may waive the screening requirement for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect property values. If the CDRB waives this requirement, they shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to match the building. When screening is provided, the roof equipment must also be painted to match the building. Recent Waivers The CDRB and city council have waived the screening requirement for several building. proposals in the past two years. These projects are Home Depot, Cub Foods (some of the units), Lexus, Maplewood Imports, Maplewood Toyota's proposed service building, LaMettry Auto Body and Collision, Batteries Plus, National Tire Warehouse and Precision Tune. The CDRB felt that roof-equipment screening is more noticeable than the equipment it is intended to hide. In essence, the cure is worse than the disease. Other Cities I surveyed eight nearby cities for their screening requirements. city Require ScreeninR? Mounds View North St. Paul Oakdale Roseville Woodbury Plymouth White Bear Lake New Brighton NO. NO. No, but equipment should be set back from roof edge and painted. Yes, if the roof design or building parapet does not hide the equipment. Yes, if the roof design or building parapet does not hide the equipment. Yes, if abutting residential property and the units exceed three feet tall. Yes, but prefer that equipment is set back from roof edge for concealment. Yes, however, they do not enforce it. They feel screening is often worse than no screening at all. Alternatives 1. Do not require any screening, but require that all roof-top equipment be painted to match the building color. Maplewood presently requires painting. Encourage screening by means of a taller building parapet or a roof design that would hide roof-top equipment. City staff typically does this when reviewing development requests with applicants. Sometimes, though, there is nothing that can help hide roof-top equipment. Such was the case with Cub Foods and Home Depot that are below the road-grade elevation of Highway 36. 3. Require roof-equipment screening if the units abut residential districts but not commercial districts. The City of Plymouth has this requirement. 4. Make no change. The CDRB would continue to review special requests to waive the screening requirement for new businesses. Conclusion The reason for roof-equipment screening is to make the building look better. The trouble is, though, that screening eventually needs repair. Commercial building owners, unfortunately, do not always see the need for such repairs. The screens then look worse than the equipment they were supposed to conceal. In spite of the question of maintenance, the screens themselves are always more noticeable than the equipment. You end up with a bigger box around a smaller box. Two additional problems with screening are restricted air flow and roof damage. Air flow blockage is a problem which has caused some equipment manufacturers to rescind their warranties. Screens can also create snow-loading problems and cause a rain leak potential when fasteners go through roof decks. Staff is recommending that the city council change the code to drop the screening requirement. The community design review board, instead, should stress taller building parapets and roof designs that would hide roof-top equipment. The code would still require the painting of roof-top equipment to match the building colors. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance amendment on page 3. p:ord\roofscm.2(5.4) Attachment: Ordinance Amendment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN oRDINANCE REVISING THE ROOF-EQUIPMENT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. The Maplewood City Council approves the following ordinance: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.) Section 1. This section changes Section 36-27(b)(3), Landscaping and Screening, as follows: (b) Screening shall be provided where: (3) Mechanical equipment on the ground or roof would be visible from a residential lot line. · ,,,~.,:,- o,,~ .... -;^;,-~ ....... '-", Mechanical equipment shall not include chimneys, ~' ~, '~J~" '" '~ I"" ~1''~' ~$' antennas or vents. The city shall not require screening for single dwellings, double dwellings, mobile homes or equipment for individual town house units. ,~e/a.~me~ .......... ~. ..... , ..... ~. ........ ;~ --~--,,, ~. ........ '~ The community design review board may waive the screening requirement for,~'""~'"";"'", ,.v, ,., ,,v-, .... ..~.,~,; ...., ,_, ,.~ if they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect property values, if thc ............................... '~"~' ......... .,..~,.,~,4 ,,. -....+,.~, ,~,~ k, ,..~;,.,. The community desi,qn review board may require screenin,q on all sides of mechanical equipment if the premises abuts a residential lot line. The review board may also require modification of architectural plans for taller parapets or modified roof desi,clns to conceal roof-top equipment. In all instances, mechanical equipment that is visible from any public street or adioinin_q property shall be painted to match the buildin,q. Sac~ Screening, when used, shall be compatible with the materials and design of the p;!nc~p=! building and subject to staff or review boa d approval A ....... ~ ..~,,,. ~,~ ~,,,o-,-~ .... c.~+;,,~y ~,, ,~,-~-;-," ~'- design r . · .~.~. .................................... ~ .... Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after its approval and publication. Approved by the Maplewood City Council on ,1997. 3