Loading...
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.