Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/1997BOOk AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD November 25, 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 -- October 28, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Forest Lawn Memorial Park Addition -- 1800 Edgerton Street b. Signs as a Design Element-- Discussion 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Volunteers for December 8 and 22 City Council Meetings b. December 23 CDRB Meeting m Cancel Meeting due to Holiday? 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. 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. 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 notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms~cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 28, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Robinson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Absent Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of October 14, 1997, as submitted. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. St. John's HospitaI--HealthEast, Inc., 1575 Beam Avenue Tony Thomas, system director of construction and general management for HealthEast, explained the reason why St. John's is requesting that this be a separate building rather than an addition to the existing hospital. Mr. Thomas said alterations to the landscaping plan will be submitted for review. He described this change as still consistent with the overall intent, only scaled down and moved slightly more to the north. Mr. Thomas also stated that no future addition to this building, which will be leased to various medical specialists, is planned. There also is no link planned between this building and the St. John's Hospital building. Mr. Thomas affirmed that medallions are shown on the elevation of the office building. He thought these were also being proposed for the ambulatory care building. They will be approximately 24 inch squares of decorative tile. Gary Bengston and Ronald Cannamore, of Community Design Review Board Minutes of 10-28-97 -2- OSM & Associates, Inc., and Tom Nonnemacher, of McGough Construction Company, also were at the meeting. Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans date- stamped October 17, 1997, for the Medical Specialty Center at St. John's Hospital to be a stand-alone building and not an attached wing of the hospital. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayestall The motion passed. B. Buck's Unpainted Furniture---Buck's Unpainted Furniture, Inc., Northwest corner of Radatz and White Bear Avenues Randy Buck, the owner of Buck's, said that this is the first building, in 38 years of business, that Buck's has constructed. Dick Krumm, the architect, presented the proposed project. Mr. Krumm asked to have a few items in the staff recommendation clarified. He said the lighting shown on the back of the building could be shielded if necessary. The applicant and staff discussed the proposed signage. Mr. Buck said the proposed monument sign would identify the development, not individual stores. He felt this would give character to the area and allow for attractive landscaping. The applicant had no problem with the staff recommendations. Cathy Buck was also present at the meeting. Secretary Ekstrand presented four concerns of Donald Patwell, 1927 Radatz (the property directly to the west). These concerns were: (1) the need for a screening fence to block light glare, (2) the adjacent driveway behind the building looks too close to his yard, (3) this drive may be detrimental because of its proximity during snow plowing, and (4) the trash hauler may have trouble maneuvering and cross onto his property. Mr. Buck addressed these issues. Mr. Krumm had a problem with requiring a screening fence between this property and Mr. Patwell's. The property at 1927 Radatz is zoned commercial and is for sale. If this property is sold soon, the fence would serve no purpose. Mr. Krumm also distributed some reductions that showed the proposed color scheme. Bruce Fisher, the resident of 2836 White Bear Avenue, attended the meeting because of interest in the proposal. Mary Magnuson, a neighbor of Mr. Fisher, was also present. Secretary Ekstrand determined that, according to our present code, the roof-top equipment will need to be screened. Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans, date- stamped October 10, 1997, for the proposed Buck's Unpainted Furniture store, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the property owner meeting the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 10-28-97 -3- 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval b. Revise the landscape plan for staff approval replacing the shrubs that are within the 25-foot sight triangle with lower growing shrubs and substituting the amur maple trees with another species. c. Revise the site plan for staff approval showing: (1) The closing of the two existing driveway curb cuts along White Bear Avenue. These openings shall be curbed over, filled with dirt and sodded. This work shall also be subject to the Ramsey County Public Works Department's approval. (2) A third handicap-accessible parking space as required by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). One of the three handicap-accessible spaces must be van accessible. (3) Low-profile, ground-mounted lights on the west side of the site to illuminate the back driveway. Care should be taken so the intensity of these lights are not so strong that they overly light up the back of the building. d. Revise the building elevations for staff approval showing the brick wrapped around onto the west elevation up to the first service door. e. Applicant shall submit canopy and color samples to staff for approval. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the White Bear Avenue exit, handicap parking signs for each handicap parking space and an address on the building for each store. b. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures around the equipment. c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to match the building for any outside trash storage. The enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate that extends to the ground. d. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. e. Provide site security lighting. Lighting fixtures shall be directed or designed so the bulb and lens do not shine into drivers' eyes, neighbors' windows or onto neighboring properties at levels that exceed code. f. Install continuous concrete curbing around the parking lots and drives. VII. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 10-28-97 g. Plant trees along the north lot line to replace any that die due to the construction. Staff shall determine the number of trees that the applicant should provide. h. Sod all boulevard and landscaped areas. I. Provide concrete sidewalk aprons at the driveway crossing along the VVhite Bear Avenue frontage. j. Post traffic directional signs for the one-way traffic flow around 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 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring and summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. The applicant, however, must submit the details of the proposed signage for staff review and approval. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Boardmember Shankar seconded. The motion passed. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. * VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS The director of community development may Ayes--all IX, There were no board presentations. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Review of the 6 p.m. Meeting Start Time The members of the CDRB present at the meeting were in favor of the 6 p.m. start time for meetings. B. Cancellation of the November 11 CDRB Meeting--Next Meeting Date is November 25. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 10-28-97 X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. -5- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review-Forest Lawn Memorial Park Crematory Addition 1800 Edgerton Street November 5, 1997 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Don Rundquist, of Forest Lawn Memorial Park, is proposing to build a crematory addition at their facility, 1800 Edgerton Street. Refer to the maps on pages 6-8 and the project description on page 9. The applicant also informed us of three sites in the twin cities where the.proposed metal-shingle siding has been used so that we may see it in use. Refer to page 10. Requests The applicant is requesting approval of: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the expansion of their crematory. The city code requires a CUP for cemeteries, crematories and mausoleums. 2. The building and site plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this permit. The proposed expansion would meet the code criteria for a CUP. Forest Lawn has been a good neighbor and a compatible use with this neighborhood. Building Design Staff does not feel that the proposed metal-shingle siding is appropriate for this expansion. When reviewing plans for building additions, the city always strives for designs that have an exterior compatible with the existing building. The proposed metal siding would be too different from the stone of the original structure and the brick of the last addition. Staff realizes that using stone would be cost prohibitive, but there are alternative materials available that would tie in the design of addition closer to the existing structure. The building could be designed with an exterior of brick, stucco, rock-face concrete block, E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish system--a stucco-look product), stone or manufactured stone as examples. Perhaps a combination of aggregate or concrete material(s), such as those listed above, could be used. The proposed metal-shingle siding could even be used as an accent ' material much as it was used on the two towers at Metro State University. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the exterior of the proposed addition for approval by the community design review board (CDRB) in consideration of these comments. Roof-top Equipment Screening On October 27, 1997, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance change regarding the screening of roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The proposed amendment would drop the screening requirement unless the equipment would be visible from residential properties. The proposed building addition would have a substantial setback from any neighbor. Staff does not feel screening is needed in this instance. Parking Forest Lawn does not have a parking lot for their mausoleum and crematory, only for their office at the south end of the site. Their facility does not need one to operate, however, since visitors park along their internal streets. The zoning code does not have parking criteria for cemeteries or mausoleums. There is no need for striped parking. If a problem occurs in the future, the city council can require a parking lot through the CUP review process. Landscaping and In-ground Lawn Irrigation Forest Lawn is nicely landscaped. The additional trees proposed would be an attractive supplement to the existing landscaping. The code requires that the applicant install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the expansion. The code, however, allows the council to waive this requirement if the property owner has "suitable alternative irrigation arrangements." Forest Lawn's grounds are always kept in excellent condition. Because of the applicant's track record, and their ability to water with hoses, there is no reason to require in-ground lawn irrigation. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 11-12 approving a conditional use permit for the crematory addition at Forest Lawn Cemetery at 1800 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the findings required by code and 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 proposed construction must be substantially started 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. 2 Bo Approve the site and landscape plans (date-stamped October 22, 1997) for the crematory addition at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 1800 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and 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. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval before obtaining a building permit. The erosion control plan shall be meet all ordinance requirements. b. Resubmit the building elevations to the community design review board for approval showing a building exterior that is compatible with the existing building. Paint all roof-top mechanical equipment if placed on the addition. The color shall match the building color. Screening is not required. Keep the lawn and plantings around the proposed addition watered. Based on Forest Lawn's lawn maintenance practices, there is no need for in-ground lawn irrigation. 5. 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 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 44.93 acres Existing land use: Forest Lawn Memorial Park SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Roselawn Avenue and single dwellings South: Gateway Trail and Single dwellings West: Edgerton Street and single dwellings East: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: CEM (cemetery) Zoning: F(farm residential) Ordinance requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for cemeteries, crematories and mausoleums. Section 36-448(b) requires a CUP to enlarge or expand a use that requires a CUP. Section 25-70 requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. CUP-Criteria for Approval Section 36-442(a) requires that the city council determine specific findings to grant a CUP. Refer to these findings listed in the resolution on pages 11-12. p:sec17\forest, lwn Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Narrative 5. Letter from Steven C. McDowall dated October 21, 1997 6. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 7. Plans dated-stamped October 22, 1997 (Separate Attachment) 5 Attachment 1 LFFFLE BURK£ I.~ka ~ IN. SKILLMAN AV. ~-I~I SK~LLM,~ aVE. OOWNS AG SU~UER AV£. F'~DITON AVE.. .~> SAINT PAUL LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 mll! I L BELLWOOD D 1897 1889 581 ,580 F FOREST LAWN M£MORIAL II~RI'~ ASSOCIATION PAU/ CEMETERY PLAT A :1799 .LAVE: --~ NC./STO N I I FOREST LAWN CEMETERY .-.1 .- I: l.-. I...I -l G A PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 7 SITE PLAN Attachment 3 Forest Lawn Crematory Improvements Project Description and Approach Current and projected trends indicate that the public is selecting more and more, cremation a their choice for their disposition at the time of death. Responding to a very competitive market, Forest Lawn is seeking to meet this need with modifications to their existing facility. The significant component in this effort will be an addition measuring approximately 35 feet wide by 60 feet long. This addition will house new equipment that will make the cremation process cleaner, more efficient and more considerate by allowing family members to observe the process if desired. This addition will also provide for the addition of equipment in the future and eventually eliminating the need of the existing units. Architecturally, the interest for the new addition is to recall aspects of the original mausoleum structure in terms of massing, proportion and detail. The goal of the addition is to help "camouflage" the existing chapel/crematory addition built in the 1950's. Through architectural massing and landscaping, the effort is to screen the majority of that brick structure. The use of metal shingles is in response to budgetary concerns. The rectangular modules of the shingles with a painted white finish is an attempt to emulate the stone components of the original mausoleum. At this time it is not expected that any significant rooftop mechanical units will be used. A 1'-6" - 2'-0" high parapet is proposed to help visually conceal the presence of equipment (if any). The new crematory chamber requires a 10'-0" high exhaust stack. Due to manufacturer's requirements a clearance height must be maintained; therefore, increasing the height of the parapet will require the height of the stack to be increased. Landscaping/Site Work All landscaping proposed is to give a general intent of what new plantings may entail. All new landscaping will be selected and installed by Forest Lawn's grounds staff. The general goal is to use planting materials to screen or direct views around the new structure. The layout is generally based on a formal organization, incorporating existing materials or arrangements to appear as an extension of the existing direction used around the mausoleum and on the cemetery grounds. Drainage will be surface directed to the existing pond within the cemetery boundary, directly in front of the mausoleum. At this point no tiling or piping systems are being proposed or considered. The main objective is to visually separate crematory activities from the activities (chapel, mausoleum visitation and services) of the general public. Staff and service functions will now have dedicated entrances opposite the public (Edgerton Streetfront) side. A new, more accessible entry plaza and entrance is proposed to accommodate general public visitation. This plaza and entrance will face Edgerton. October 21, 1997 AttacNnent 5 Ettel Franz Mr. Don Rundquist Forest Lawn Memorial Park 1800 Edgerton Street Maplewood, MN 55117 RE: METAL SHINGLES Dear Sir: Thank you for your interest in our "stamped" sheet metal shingles. There are three (3) locations in the metro area that these shingles have been installed on. However, no prefinished colored shingles are on these buildings. WCCO TV - 16 oz. copper shingles 90 - 11th Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 Minnesota Farm Bureau Center - 24 ga. galvanized iron shingles 3080 Eagandale Place Eagan, MN 55121 Metro State University - 700 East 7th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 16 oz. lead coated copper shingles Also, I am enclosing three (3) stamped sample shingles so that you can get a better idea of what they look like up close. Please call 'if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, C.E.O. forstlwn 2222 Robbins Street · St. Paul, MN 55114 * Tel. 612.646.4811 · Fax 612.646.2776 10 · Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Forest Lawn Memorial Park applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a crematory addition at their facility. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1800 Edgerton Street. The legal description is: THAT PART OF THE WEST 1503.15 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, LYING NORTH OF THE SOO LINE RAILWAY RIGHT-OF- WAY, INCLUDING ST. PAUL CEMETERY PLAT AND 3 FOREST CEMETERY PLATS IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 11, 1997 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,1997, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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. 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 run-off, 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. 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. 8. 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. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1997. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Signage as a Design Element November 21, 1997 INTRODUCTION Request On October 14, 1997, the community design review board (CDRB) directed staff to study the pros and cons of changing the code to give them the authority to review signs as a design element during project reviews. Reason for the Request While reviewing the proposed Erickson Freedom Fuel Station on October 14, Boardmember Ledvina raised a concern about the proposed pylon sign. He felt that the sign lacked the appropriate design aesthetics for this site and location--located across Hazelwood Street from St. John's Hospital. Mr. Ledvina felt the CDRB should be able to deny or modify the proposed single-pole pylon sign and require a decorative, Iow-profile monument-style sign. CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 25-66(1) states that the duties and responsibilities of the CDRB shall be to review all building plans, except proposals excluded from review under section 25-65. The board shall review sign applications as required in Article III of Chapter 36. Section 36-231 (of Article III) requires that a comprehensive sign plan be provided for business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts, or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project. DISCUSSION There is no question that signs have design elements and can affect a site's aesthetic appeal, But should the city regulate the signs for each new project? Presently, we do so only as part of a comprehensive sign plan for a shopping center (a multi-tenant facility having five or more tenants). These are the pros and cons on this matter: Pros Reviewing signs as part of a project review would give the CDRB the ability to require sign designs that architecturally match the project. For example, as in the case with the Erickson Freedom Station, the board could prohibit the proposed single-pole pylon sign and require a Iow- profile monument sign with a matching brick base. Cons Reviewing signs as part of a project review would: Infringe on a business' standard sign design package. We are often told by businesses, especially auto dealers and fuel station owners, that the manufacturer has very specific signage criteria for their products. This has recently been exhibited by Countryside VW/Saab, Royal Nissan and Texaco (for Les's Superette). Requiring a different sign design for nationally-recognized companies would be difficult and may prompt variance requests. Infringe on a business' (actual or perceived) ability to adequately compete. Business owners always want to make sure that they are clearly and easily seen by the public. And, always, the farther away they can be seen the better. In the example of the proposed Erickson Freedom Station, the point was raised that there is no competition for them in this neighborhood. Therefore, they do not need a tall freestanding sign on a pole to attract customers. Fuel sales is not a destination-oriented business. It is a business that survives off of the traffic already in the area. With this in mind, why would they need a tall sign? This is not a question easily answered. Businesses are always, adamant about the need for their specific signage package, whereas cities are often doubtful and question these signage needs. It simply boils down to a business wanting to erect a sign they feel gets them noticed and maintains the "look" they have established. Delay the review process. It would take longer to conduct a project review if signs were included each time. Also, changes to a sign because of a new owner, repairs or replacement would need CDRB approval again if the board's sign criteria was not met. 4. Make administering the sign code difficult. The rules would become unspecific. Staff would not be able to give our sign requirements to a sign company because it may depend upon the opinion of the CDRB during the project review. Sign manufacturers and installers must know our rules in order to properly propose signage to their clients. The board would potentially end up writing a customized sign code each time. This would be impractical and time consuming for all parties involved (staff, CDRB, the business owner and sign manufacturer). Conclusion Though it seems advantageous on the surface, staff feels that the negatives outweigh the pluses on this issue. If the board wishes to evaluate signs during their review of a project, the council would need to amend Sections 25 and 36 of the city code. RECOMMENDATION Take no action. p:ord\desrevs.mem 2