HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1997BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
July 15, 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 24, 1997
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
a. Parking Deck Design Changes- St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue.
6. Design Review
a. APT Telecommunications Tower- MnDOT Property, 1779 McMenemy Street.
b. Comprehensive Sign Plan- Heather Ridge Office Complex.
c. Ordinance Amendment- Roof-Top Equipment Screening.
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. Representatives for City Council Meetings of July 28 and August 11.
10. Adjourn
p:~,om_dvpt\cdrb.agd
WELOOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY D"=SIGN 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.
The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
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 further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notifl/the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
jw\forms~:lrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
JUNE 24, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
I1. ROLL CALL
Marvin Erickson
Marie Robinson
Ananth Sankar
Tim Johnson
Matt Ledvina
Present
Present
Present--arrived at 6:02 p.m.
Present
Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of June 10, 1997, as submitted.
Boardmember Ledvina seconded.
Ayesmall
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Ledvina seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Roof Equipment Screening WaivermABRA Auto Body and Glass, 2020 Rice Street
Ray Shepard, of ABRA Auto Body, was present at the meeting. Mr. Shepard said ABRA was adding
some additional equipment on the roof. Their structural engineer has determined that the roof
trusses will support this equipment but would not support the weight of snow drifts created by the
roof-equipment screening. Therefore, ABRA has proposed painting the roof-top equipment and
venting to match the building fascia. Boardmember Robinson commented that the roof should have
been designed to accommodate all the equipment and screening because the city code does require
roof-top equipment screening. Boardmember Edckson said he would be worried about a roof that
was designed so closely for such a critical factor as snow load. Boardmember Ledvina suggested
that the equipment be painted a light tan to match the building instead of the dark bronze color of the
fascia.
Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board waive the screening
requirement for the roof-mounted mechanical equipment and vents on ABRA Auto Body and Glass at
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 06-24-97
-2-
2020 Rice Street. This waiver is subject to the applicant painting all the roof-top equipment a neutral
color to match the building, subject to staff approval.
Boardmember Ledvina seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Landscape Plan Revision--Tri-District Elementary School, 30 County Road B East
Miles Britz of Pope Associates ( an architectural firm) was present representing Tri-District School.
Mr. Britz spoke about the trees that they propose to eliminate from the landscape plan. He said
these trees are being omitted because of large cost overruns, including over $100,000 for soil
correction. Mr. Britz said the existing trees next to the dental clinic and adjacent to the Hideaway will
be saved. He also mentioned that students are planting trees each year as part of a tree trust--12
were planted this year. Boardmember Ledvina thought the small island in the bus corral needed
some landscaping. He also was concerned that the front area have more trees. Mr. Britz offered to
recommend to the district that more trees be planted in front.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the revised landscape
plan for the Tri-District School at 30 County Road B East, date-stamped May 23, 1997, with the
deletion of 34 to 36 trees.
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
6. Design Review
Ordinance Amendment--Roof-Mounted Equipment Screening
Tom Ekstrand, associate planner, said that roof-equipment screening is often worse than the equipment
itself. He felt the emphasis should be to cover screening by building design rather than fencing around
units. It was agreed that sometimes a decision on screening is required before the architect has
completed the construction drawings. Boardmember Erickson thought a minimum parapet height should
be required on all buildings. Another option, according to Mr. Erickson, would be to wait until after the
equipment is installed and then make a decision on the screening. Boardmember Shankar suggested if
the design was preliminary, and roof-top equipment would be included, a minimum height parapet should
be required. Boardmember Ledvina said it would be difficult to require a parapet on a generic
basis oach application is specific to the site.
The board worked on changing some of the wording in the ordinance. Boardmember Robinson proposed
changing mechanical equipment to roof-top equipment. She also preferred defining roof-top equipment
as mechanical equipment, including stacks, vents, et. al. in the ordinance. The board decided to revise
the screening requirement of ground equipment and possibly covering that, if necessary, as part of the
landscape plan.
Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board table the ordinance amendment for
roof-equipment screening for revision until the next meeting.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 06-24-97
-3-
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Ray Shepard of ABRA talked about requiring parapets for roof-top equipment screening. He showed
photos of roof-top screening that had become more of an eyesore than the actual equipment.
8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Erickson reported on the city council meeting of June 23, 1997.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Shankar will attend the July 14, 1997, city council meeting.
Tom Ekstrand, associate planner, said St. John's Hospital is redesigning the exterior of their proposed
parking deck. They now plan to use a granite aggregate product rather than brick on the panels. Mr.
Ekstrand asked the board if they were okay with this change being reviewed on a staff level.
Boardmember Ledvina thought the brick was important for the unity and richness of the site design and
didn't feel that there was an abundant amount. He is opposed to any change in downgrading this
material. Boardmember Robinson said it might compliment the design. The consensus of the board was
that this item should be returned at the next meeting for consideration.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Design Revisions - St. John's Hospital Parking Deck
1575 Beam Avenue
June 26, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Mark Hansen, of OSM Associates, Inc., is requesting approval of changes to the parking deck
design for St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue. Mr. Hansen is proposing these changes to
lower construction costs. Refer to the maps on pages 3-5 and the enclosed plans.
The changes proposed are:
Remove the retaining wall from approximately the northerly half of the parking structure.
This area is still meant to be on-grade parking, but would not have a continual, precast
concrete wall in front of it as originally proposed. Compare. enclosed plans marked original
submission and revised submission. The applicant would screen this area with plantings on
the Hazelwood Street side.
Substitute the face-brick sections with precast panels that would have an aggregate surface
comprised of rock pieces affixed onto precast concrete panels. This material is proposed to
have the same color tone as the brick on the building.
BACKGROUND
May 12, 1997: The city council approved the following for the proposed St. John's Hospital
expansion:
1. A 25-foot front setback variance for a portion of the proposed parking deck. The code
requires 30 feet. Most of the parking deck would meet the required setback. The southerly
25 feet would only have a five-foot setback from the Hazelwood Street right-of-way line.
2. A 10-foot front setback variance for an open parking lot. The code requires 15 feet. This
parking lot would be five feet from the Hazelwood Street right-of-way.
3. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the hospital expansion.
4. Approval of site and building design plans.
DISCUSSION
I do not find any problem with the redesigning of the parking structure with the elimination of the
northerly section of precast wall. Regarding the substitution of the face brick, the applicant did
not have a sample of the exact material available for me to review at the time of this writing. He
plans to have this to present at the community design review board meeting on July 15, 1997.
The sample Mr. Hansen showed me on June 24 was attractive, but was not the correct color for
the hospital parking deck. Staff would be satisfied with the material substitution if it is the same
quality as the sample I previously reviewed.
RECOMMENDATION
I will give the staff recommendation at the meeting after viewing the applicant's material sample.
p:sec3\parkdeck.hos
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Plans date-stamped June 26, 1997 (separate attachments)
2
TY RD. D
COUNTY
ROAD
ROAD
1, SUMMIT CT.
2. Cou~rRYVIEW ClF
3. DULUTH CT.
4, LYDIA ST.
BEAM
KOHLMAN
EDOEHILL RD.
COUNTY
COURT
KOHLMAN
OERVNS
COPE
OERVN$
~K~NO
SHERRE~ ~.
Lake
AVE.
LOCATION MAP
COPE AvE. ~ d"
I ' I ~ ,,.~
ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL ~ '~,~ :,,; ~_
PROFESSlONA~L iST. ', .
: .... ,:.,,,...,.,-_ "~v"ic,-,.,c Li
,,, '. · I · ¥ I"L"~l~Fi'~T -',~ ,~ I ~
..... ~--[,,: ~ ~: ,.,.~.~.~ ~ ~..,.....-
~ OFFICESHORES'~ ~
-M
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP I ~ ~
.Attachment 3
SITE PLAN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Chad Bergo, Community Development Intern
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
American Portable Telecom Monopole
1779 McMenemy Street
July 8, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Michelle Johnson, representing American Portable Telecom, Inc., is proposing to install a 165-
foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to install this monopole on the
site that the Minnesota Department of Transportation owns at 1779 McMenemy Street. (Refer to
the maps and plans on pages 6-10.) There would also be a 5' x 3' x 3' prefabricated equipment
cabinet near the base of the monopole. APT would lease a 50' x 50' area from the property
owner and would enclose the lease area with an 8-foot-high chain link fence.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city approve:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an M-1 (light
industrial) zoning district.
2. The design, site and fencing plans.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
Concerns of the neighbors included esthetics of the tower, interference with other radio
frequencies, safety issues, and decreased property value if the city approves the tower. City
staff received many comments from nearby property owners expressing their concerns that the
tower might cause interference with other radio and satellite systems. Michelle Leseman had
several concerns with maintenance and ice build up in the winter months. See the attached
letter dated June 18, 1997 on page 12.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This
licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with
existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC;
requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct
the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower)
because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to regulate and monitor. The city may
only base their decision on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns.
This project meets the requirements of the tower ordinance and the criteria for a CUP. As
proposed, the site design would be compatible with the adjacent commercial structures and
uses. The city council should approve this request.
Design and Site Issues
Access to the lease area and tower would be from the existing driveway from Larpenteur
Avenue. As proposed, the monopole would be at least 400 feet from McMenemy Street and
100 feet from Interstate 35. The site design would fit in with the nearby commercial buildings.
COMMISSION ACTION
On July 7, 1997, the planning commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit
for this telecommunications tower.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 13 and 14. This resolution approves a conditional use permit
to allow a 165-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval
is for the Minnesota Department of Transportation property at 1779 McMenemy Street.
Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following
conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The owner or applicant shall start the proposed construction within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications
equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions.
Approve the plans date-stamped June 6, 1997, for a 165-foot-tall telecommunications
monopole and equipment on the property at 1779 McMenemy Street. Approval is based on
the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project.
Before getting a building permit, provide a grading, drainage, driveway and erosion
control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all
ordinance requirements.
2
3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and dispose of any
debris and ensure that the site is cleaned up.
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. The director of community development may
All work shall follow the approved plans.
approve minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
We had sent surveys to 20 property owners within 350 feet of the proposed site. One of the 20
property owners copied the survey and distributed it to a neighboring apartment building. Of the
27 replies the city received, I had no comment, 1 was in favor, 24 objected and I had other
comments.
For
If they need it and it helps them, I'm for it. They do nice work. (Lewis - 1766 McMenemy St N)
Objections
1. I object to the proposal because it seems to be a problem area during storms. They are not
good neighbors and (the tower) an eyesore for the neighborhood. (Webb - 382 Ripley Ave.)
2. I object to this proposal because it will affect our property. (Xiong - 305 Bellwood Ave.)
3. We object, we do not want this awful 150 foot high structure in our immediate area. Put it
where there are fewer homes and playgrounds. (Stepenson - 1860 McMenemy St. Unit J)
4. I object to this proposal because it would be an eyesore in the winter. (Waegener - 1739
McMenemy St.)
5. We do not want this structure so close to dwellings where there are children. (Scarella -
1860 McMenemy St. Unit B)
This is a residential area, this would be an eyesore for the area. The state has land at 35 E
and Maryland to erect a tower where no homes are located for long distances. During last
year's storm when high winds blew down sheds on this property, damage was done to my
property. I reported this damage to the state. They did not return calls or come out. They
are not good neighbors. (Vogt - 378 Ripley Avenue)
I am very opposed to this significant intrusion into our neighborhood. In addition to the tower
being a terrible eyesore added to a property that has, for the last three years, been the
subject of neighborhood concern because of loud noises and general lack of upkeep, it will
significantly impair the view of sunsets from several residences on McMenemy St.
(Swenson - 1780 McMenemy St. N)
8. I object to this proposal because it will cause too much interference and trouble. (Wendt -
1746 McMenemy)
Miscellaneous Comment
Repair of street is needed. (Keulty - 334 Bellwood Ave.)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 2,500 square feet (.57 acres)
Existing land use: Minnesota Department of Transportation vehicle storage
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Vacant property planned residential
South: Houses on McMenemy Street
West: Interstate 35
East: Town houses, house and a church across from McMenemy Street
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light industrial)
Zoning: M-1
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-600(5)(b)(1) requires a CUP for a monopole in an industrial zoning district.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards
for approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 13 and 14.
p:secl 8~apttower.mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Enlarged Site Plan
5. Elevations
6. Applicant's letter dated June 12, 1997
7. 6-18-97 letter from M. Leseman
8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Attachment 1
LI7-FLE CANADA
COUNTY RD.
FENTON AVE.
Sondy
, "~ Loke
SKILLMAN AVE. ~
MT. VERNON
DOWNS Ad[.
BELLWOOD AVE.
SUMMER AVE.
BELMONT LN.
SKILLMAN
II~.nvERNON AV E~
AVE.
SUMMER
i.-: V1KING DR.
o RIE CT.
Z
v
BURKE
BELMONT
AV,
BELLWOOD
KINGSTON ~AVE.
SAINT
LOCATION
MAP
Attachment 2
PARK
~mm mmmmMJPm, l~ mm m m l~J m m m Hm.Jmm
1876
I
I
c.u~c- or Tr .~(.ouc I
I /~' I',
1-35E'"
F~ ' '" T'(~WN HOUSES
: ' ~ ,860 R3.,~ J'
,'. i,..~..' ~ ,,.
.. SITE j B.). E ~IPL£¥ ~v~'J~ 1 ,~,L£'r
· 4'::",- '" !
'"'?,-.,o ' ' ! 1766 i "'" -
~' ~ '
~ -~ ~ I em~ 9 ~Z~1740 ~ ~ ~"
' ~? "~ - ~'~ ~ ~
~ ' 1724c,,) x
.,. ,,..
i~ '~ ~'1'
~,.~ ' - ~)""~'~ "'' ~v~. ' ,.._ , ...~
' ...... I ~~
.... ~,. ~--s-[ o, ~ OkINT PAUL
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
Attachment 3
PF~'OPOSED TELCO ~OUIE
5 TREES
TO BE
RELOCATED
'\
,---PROPOSED
CELL SITE
OVERHEAD TELCO-
TERMINATION POINT
- EXISTING FENCE
,- EXISTING PAVED
,' SURFACE
/
/
EXISTING
BUILDING
I f
~Z_ EXISTING
BUILDING
~x"~_ EXiSTiNG
PAVED SURFACE
SITE PLAN
8
Attachment 4
PROPOSED TELCO ROUTE
50'-0" LEASE AREA
48'-0"
< 25'-0"
PROPOSED APT
ANTENNAS
FACING 240'
;
I
/
PROPOSED APT
EQUIPMENT &
FOUNDATION
--PROPOSED APT GATE
8'-0' WIDE
.X X X 4
PROPOSED APT CHAIN UNK FENCE
8'-0" HIGH w/ THREE STRANDS
OF I~ARBED WIRE
SITE PLAN
I
-- PROPOSED'. APT
ANTENNAS
FACING O' I
--PROPOSED APT
'50 ~ETER
MONOPOLE
PROPOSED APT
ANTENNAS
FACING 120'
--PROPOSED APT
WAVEGUIDE BRIDGE
X
Attachment 5
PROPOSED COLOCAT£ ANTENNAS
-- PROPOSED APT ANTENNAS
FACING O'
PROPOSED APT ANTENNAS
FACING 240'
.---PROPOSED AP1 ANTENNAS
FACING 120'
--PROPOSED aJ:~l GUARD RAIL--
AND PLATFORM
--PROFOSED COLOCAT£ ANTENNAS--
--PROPOSED AP1 5OM
PROPOSED 8'-O' HIGH CHAIN LINK
FENCE WITH 3 STRANDS BARBED WIR£
PROPOSED ICE BRIDGE
PROPOSED APl £OUiPM£NT
PROPOSED APT FOUNDATION
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: l" = 20'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE I' = 20'-0"
l0
I
Attachment 6
APT
1701 E. 79th Street
Suite 19
Minneapolis, MN 55425
612-858-0000
Fax 612-85 i -9103
A TDS COMPANY
I 6 Ig97
12 June 1997
Ken Robeds
Associate Planner
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE:
Application for Conditional Use Permit
Proposed PCS Wireless Telephone Antenna Tower
Site Al N061
Dear Mr. 'Roberts:
On June 5, 1997, APT submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
proposed Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless telephone antenna tower
and cell site at 1779 McMenemy Street in Maplewood, Minnesota. The property at issue
is owned by the State of Minnesota. The application contained incorrect information in
that it stated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation intended to be a co-locator
on this tower. In fact, the DOT has no current plans to utilize this tower for their own
needs. APT will be the highest user on the tower at the height of 165 feet. Other future
users may negotiate space below this on the tower.
APT apologizes for the confusion about this use on the application. If you have any further
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Michelle R. Johnson
Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc., on behalf of APT
$58-0090 (office), 854-4105 (fax)
11
June 18, 1997
Attachment 7
,~-
JUN 2 3
To Maplewood Neighbors: ........ -_3~ 7~'~'7
Attached please find a copy of a survey I received from the City of Maplewood regarding a proposed 165-
foot monopole for telecommunications equipment to be built at 1779 McMencmy Street. (If you received
this survey already, I encourage you to complete it by opposing building the proposed telex~mmunicafions
tower.)
My reasons for opposing the tower and questions that arise are as follows:
Current radio frequencies from KSTP AM Radio located on 61 near Beam Avenue already interfere
with neighborhood telephone and television frequencies. We cma also pick up cellular telephone
conversations on our television. This tower may compound the problem. The proposal states that
"interference is not generally a concern.., and if a problem were to arise, APT would act _oromptly to
correct it." Since there will be no personnel located at the tower, how quickly would APT be able to
react?
If this tower were to pose a safety issue (i.e., tornadoes, severe weather), how quickly could APT
respond? /tS~'- ~Lz/L/;) ~ /to ~/~~ .t
APT's antennas must be located at 150 feet, yet they are proposing an approximate 165 feet with nine
panel antennas 77" high mounted on the top of that tower. If you drive around where other cellular
towers are located you will see how high 165 feet looks. In fact, APT has recently installed one at
36 and English by Mayflower moving. The fact that the tower is not required to be lighted does not
aid in the resident's view of it in the daytime. Additionally, in the winter months, this galv,~zed steel --
tower will be an eyesore to the residents of McMenemy Street. 07%o- ~'c)coe~x .~b//Cio.,
The memo further states property values will not "diminish or impair property values within the area"
and asks the city to see attached property value analysis. The residents who received this survey did
not receive this property value analysis to see how it affects our property.
The tower requires heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment to be located inside the
cabinets, yet no personnel will be located on site. The questions: 1) how much power will the tower
use; 2) if an outtage were to occur, how does this affect power to other neighboring residents; 3) how
!
quickly would power be restored to the neighborhood? :
If the structure is approved, what is to prevent APT from adding additional frequency equipment?
What will prevent other co-locators from using it? Would Maplewood residents be able to have input ,'
/
if the structure were to be modified? What are APT's long term plans for expansion?
Please send your completed surveys to:
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109-2797
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
M. J. Leseman
1741 McMenemy Street
12
Attachment 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ms. Michelle Johnson, representing American Portable Telecom (APT), Inc.
applied for a conditional use permit to install a 165-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and
related equipment.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1779 McMenemy Street. The legal
description is:
Subject to McMenemy street; the North 132 feet of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of
the southeast 1/4 in Section 18, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PiN 18-
29-22-44-0001 )
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On July 7, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
The city council held a public hearing on July 28, 1997. City staff published a notice in
the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The
council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission. At this meeting, the council tabled action on this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
o
The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
13
=
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city.
2. The owner or applicant shall start the proposed construction within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications
equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
1997.
14
TO:
FROM:
SUBdEGT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Chad Bergo, Planning Intern
Comprehensive Sign Plan Review- Heather Ridge
July 2, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Hank Breems, representing Mulcahy, Inc., is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan for
Heather Ridge, a seven-building office complex on Ariel Street behind Cub Foods and Home Depot.
Refer to the maps on pages 2-4. Mr. Breems is proposing two 160-square-foot ground signs at the
north and south ends of the site to identify the complex and one four-square-foot freestanding sign at
each building's entrance to identify tenants. Refer to sign-location map on page 5 and the sign
sketches on pages 6-7.
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 1996, the city council approved a conditional use permit and the design plans for Heather
Ridge. Condition 6 of the design approval required that the applicant submit a sign plan for review.
CODE REQUIREMENT
Section 36-231 of the sign code requires a comprehensive sign plan for multi-tenant centers with five
or more tenants.
DISCUSSION
Staff does not have any problem with the proposed signs. The applicant has developed an attractive
alternative to the use of wall signs. The signage would be attractive and complimentary to the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped June 30, 1997 for the comprehensive sign plan for Heather Ridge.
The two Heather Ridge identification signs must meet the ten-foot minimum setback from any property
line. Staff may approve minor changes.
p:secl 1/heather. sin
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Sign Location Map
5. Monument Elevation
6. Pedestal Sign Elevation
7. Sign Plans date stamped June 30, 1997 (separate attachment)
'EIGHT5
1 SUMId(I CI
2. COUNTRYVllEW CIR
3 DULUTH CT
¢ LYDIA ST
BEA~
KOHLMAN
ROAD C
G£RVNS AVE..
AVE.
COUN Th"
EDGEHILL RD.
Z
SHERREN AVE. KnM,c,~.,~od Lake
I~ -'~'~t AVE 1~
CT.
®
COUNTY
COURT
KOHLMAN
ROAD
ALLachmenL
WHITE BEAR I_,
CALL AV~
wOODLYNN AVE
AVE.
AVE.
V1EW AVE.
AVE
NORTH
STANDRIDCE
RD.
INCTION
AVE.
ROSEWOOD AVE.
AVES.
RAMSE'Y COUNTY
NURSING HOME ~
FAIR GRO~IND5
LOCATION MAP
2
N
Attachment 2
!'i/ .,=gDE,N.._T. ALOFFiCE IJ 1~, R3
~ ....... DENTAL O'FFIOE
~ :~,~v~~#,,,~=.=.,,.-,---~- UNDER CONSTRUCTI{
'-~i ~vr.~ LEVENTH. AVENUE
^~ ~ c;~ ~.Woof~/~~''
HOLL'YW' OOD ,..~i "~ -c-[
_ __ __
_
/
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
3
PROPOSED HEATHER RIDGE SITE
PROPOSED BC(M) ZONING
_~ ~, -n AVENUE---
)LDING:
', POND ",'
CUB
FOODS
HOME
DEPOT
IINTH AVENUE
',,.
HIGHWAY 36
4
SITE PLAN
PROPOSED HEATHER RIDGE
OFFICE PARK
Attachment 4
tr.:-;
I~, :_ . :,L '
Attachment 5
~ENTERLINE
OUI~OIN~ NAU~
t ........ i [:.'.'.'.'.'C~ _--- ,o ~,
'~'"' ..................... iF -', ' ~ ~"~"1'
........... i i, ............ i X I I"'0~!' 'HI6,H
,.* ........... i r ........... ~ ~_.._t ~,~,o ,~,~
: , I } '
i .g.~ .~ tONG.
,, '~ monumen ?
elevo?ion" ~
'/~'-I'-o'
' '
.SIq#~ ~ ,~ ~ ~zJ j,
~ ~ I N /' '
. .. . - ~_ - ~: - .
..I
Monument Elevation
1
.NJ
Attachment
To:
IIIULLi~flY
.qFALE
Date:
Subject:
MEMO
L ~X
f"l Please Reply
r-I No Reply.Necessary
Signed:
Sheet No._
To:
IBlULLi~flY
Date:
Subject:
D Please Reply
E3 No Reply Necessary
Signed:
MEMO
Sheet No.
Pedestal .Sign Elevation
7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Ordinance Amendment - Roof Equipment Screening
June 30, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting that the city council amend the ordinance that requires screening for
roof-mounted mechanical equipment.
BACKGROUND
June 24, 1997: The community design review board (CDRB) tabled their review of this
ordinance amendment. The CDRB wanted staff to revise the ordinance to include a
requirement for the painting of other objects on the roof like vent stacks and exhaust hoods.
They also wanted deletion of the requirement for ground equipment screening for simplification
since they can require that as part of the landscape plan.
DISCUSSION
Present Ordinance 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
Reauire Screening?
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, unless the screening is accomplished by a tall parapet or roof design that
screens the equipment.
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
unless the building abuts residential property. The code would still require that applicants paint
any visible equipment to match the building no matter where the building is located. There is no
reason to retain the current requirements considering the number of screening waivers granted
in the past two years. The code, though, should stress building designs that hide roof-top
equipment.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance amendment on page 4.
p:ord~roofscm.cod(5.4)
Attachment:
Ordinance Amendment
3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE ROOF-TOP 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)
Roof-toD. ,,,,.,,,"--'---;--',,,, ,,,.,,, oquipment ,,,A-, thc grc'..'r;,d ,,,-- re, cf would be visible from a residential
lot line. -'
~, ................ J ....... u prcpc,,-ty. Roof-toD equipment is defined as
mechanical equipment, vents, exhaust hoods, stacks and similar items on top of a
building. Roof-to~quipment shall not include chimneys. Dlastic Dlumb. ing
vents and antennas c,r vc.r;,t~. The city shall not require screening for single dwellings,
double dwellings, mobile homes or equipment for individual town house units.
Equipmc~,t
The community design review board may waive the screening requirement for
mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve a t-he
building's appearance or protect property values. ~f thc. bce, rd ';;c.i;'¢; thl; rc,q.'.':,rcment,
'" .... ~--"'--' ':'~ "--' '" ~ -~'h--;~-', .... ; .... ' "~ --:-'- -' '~-~t ~h '"~ "' ':'-'I"" The
community design review board may require screening on all sides of roof-top
eauipment if the premises abut8 a residential lot line, not iust the side facing the
residential lot line. The review board may also require modification of architectural plans
for taller Dare_pets or modified roof designs to conceal roof-toD eaui_Dment no matter
where the building is located.
In all instances, roof-top equipment that is visible from any public street or adjoining
property shall be painted to match the building, ~,c~h Screening. when required, shall
be compatible with the mat~rials and design of the f)r-kteil~ building and subject to staff
or des n review board approval
......... ~,- ........... ~ ,.,f th,. -' ............
;:,~, ................. d "-- pc. rc, cnt of
,.,., ...... ,.,., ,,,:--,~ ;ffcrdad. T-f~:~-¢~ ~,rc.¢r,~r,g .,, ,d u mcnt ........ p&;ntcd .,,
-~,..,,' -:--,,.,~" '-.., ---,,,..t,.h- thc.
Section 2. This ordinance ~;~all take effect after its appr~,~al and publication.
Approved by the Maplewc~d City Council on
,1997.