120506 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON A VENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 5, 2006
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to
order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken,
Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Tom Schmidt,
Steve Svendsen
Absent: Tim Buggy, Bill Oelkers
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Kim
Berggren, Community Development Assistant, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC06-15 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, discussion of
Item 4.1 Design Guidelines, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Commissioner Houle, chairman of the Design Guidelines Subcommittee,
reported that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to
develop design guidelines for the commercial/industrial districts of the
city. The committee utilized documents developed over the last several
years, including the 2004 City Center Framework Manual and the 1998
Streets cape Master Plan. The Planning Commission appointed a
subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners Houle, chairman, Jim
Brinkman, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, and Bill Oelkers. The
subcommittee met six times and developed a draft document. Houle
commented that city staff played a key role in providing necessary
information for the commissioners. The subcommittee and staff worked
well together and entertained good discussion. Commissioner Houle
stated the subcommittee felt the draft document was a good start and
should be viewed as a new beginning for development in the city.
Commissioner Houle explained the guidelines were broken down into
several sections, including the introduction, architectural guidelines, site
design guidelines, and appendices. The subcommittee reviewed chapter 5
of the 2004 City Center Framework Manual and added/subtracted from
that document. Portions of design guideline documents from several Twin
Cities suburbs were also utilized. The design guidelines are intended to
recommend design goals for new construction and expansion of existing
buildings and sites. They set forth design character without dictating
every specific design requirement for commercial, industrial, mixed use,
and multifamily buildings of three or more units. The guidelines are
mandatory, however, there may be many ways to achieve the goal. Staff,
the Planning Commission and City Council would need to work together
in applying the design guidelines for each project.
The primary functions of the design guidelines would be to: 1) guide
developers proposing projects, 2) facilitate dialog between developers and
city staff to achieve creative design solutions, and 3) assist the council and
commissions in reviewing development proposals. Commissioner Houle
stated that the city was trying to reinforce the community's vision for
development, foster high quality architecture and site planning,
encourage creativity in accomplishing design goals, and protect public
and private investment in infrastructure. This document would be linked
to the zoning code and be referenced in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan,
which would be updated next year. Compliance would be determined
through the city's planning review process. Houle suggested that staff,
planning commissioners and city council members know and understand
this document and come to a consensus on the intent of the document for
it to be received successfully in the private sector. He suggested the
Planning Commission and the City Council meet to discuss the intent of
the document. McDonald interjected that generally the Commission and
Council would meet at a work session to discuss the document, come to a
consensus, and then take formal action at a council meeting. There would
be opportunity for public input at the council meeting.
Commissioner Houle explained there are five design districts within the
design guidelines document. Two geographic districts include City Center
and highway commercial along Highway 169. The three land use districts
include general commercial along Winnetka, industrial and multifamily
residential scattered throughout the city.
Ms. Kim Berggren, community development assistant, gave a brief
explanation of the seven architectural guidelines. (1) Fa<;:ade treatment
would add visual interest and variety, emphasizing the pedestrian scale,
and avoiding long monotonous facades. This could include defining the
base, middle and top floors of the buildings, and the use of canvas and
fabric awnings. (2) Ground level expression would create visual interest,
opportunities for sociability, and the overall pedestrian safety and
comfort. To accomplish this, all buildings should have a minimum 16-foot
cornice height, distinguishing ground floors from upper floors, and the
use of different building materials, trellises, pocket parks, etc. to create
more expression at the ground level. The objective of (3) transparency
would be to enliven the streetscape and enhance security by providing
views into and out of buildings through the use of window and door
designs. The committee suggested that the glass should be clear or only
slightly tinted to provide better views of the inside of buildings. Specific
standards are proposed for the City Center and the general commercial
areas, including at least 30 percent of the primary ground level fa<;:ade for
window/door openings. Highway and multifamily districts would be less
restrictive at 20 percent on ground level facades. For the highway district
only, spandrel glass would be allowed on up to half the window and door
Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 5, 2006
openings.
The objective of (4) entries would be to establish the visual importance of
primary street entrances and to ensure that entries contribute to the visual
attractiveness of the building. Entrances should face the primary street
and canopies, overhangs, peaked roofs, etc. are encouraged. The objective
of (5) roof design would be to add visual interest and variety and to
minimize views of rooftop equipment from public streets and pedestrian
ways by utilizing a variety in rooflines and screening rooftop equipment.
(6) Building materials and colors should be used to ensure that high
quality building materials are used and that building colors are
aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their surroundings. Buildings
should use neutral or muted colors with bright colors used as accents.
Specific building materials are outlined for each district and were taken
from the 2004 City Center Plan. For commercial and industrial districts,
the primary materials should be brick, natural stone, precast concrete, or
glass. Secondary materials could include a decorative block or stucco, and
accent materials could include door and window frames, cornices, metal
work, glass block, copper flashing, etc. Residential districts may utilize
wood or synthetic lap siding. Materials to avoid in all districts except
industrial would be plain or unpainted block, precast concrete panels,
prefabricated steel or sheet metal panels, or aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass,
asphalt or fiberboard siding. In the industrial district, materials should be
chosen that withstand damage, such as vandalism. No pole buildings,
postframe construction or exposed metal finished buildings would be
allowed. The 2004 Plan included a section on (7) franchise architecture.
This section was included in the design guidelines due to the fact that
franchise architecture needed to be sensitive to the city's design goals.
Drive-through canopies and accessory structures must be of the same
materials and detailing as the building.
Ms. Berggren next provided an explanation of the 12 site design
guidelines and the objective of each. (1) Building placement/site planning
consists of orienting buildings toward the street to improve walkability
and attractiveness to pedestrians. The City Center district has specific
requirements about the location of buildings with facades facing the
street. It restricts buildings of more than 10,000 square feet except by CUP.
Buildings should occupy at least 60 percent of the lot frontage and be set
back a maximum of 10 feet. The general and highway districts maintain
less restrictive focus on orientation to the street. The multifamily
residential is more relaxed and would require creating a transition
between public and private space.
The objective of (2) parking areas would be to soften the appearance and
minimize the visual impact when viewed from adjacent properties, streets
and sidewalks. The idea would be to keep parking lot frontages away
from the street or to have appropriate screening, such as hedges, railings,
wall, trees, etc. or provide a combination of landscape materials, landform
or fencing. Shared parking areas would be encouraged when possible. (3)
Parking structures should be compatible with surrounding buildings and
Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 5, 2006
positively impact the streetscape.
The subcommittee added a section on (4) pedestrians and common space.
The objective would be to ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists have safe
and convenient access to all business establishments and to enhance
community interactions through the provision of usable common space.
This would provide for five-foot wide walkways that are well landscaped,
green space at main intersections, and the use of plazas and courtyards.
(5) Landscaping and site improvements should ensure private
landscaping to enhance the visual appearance of the community and
complement existing and planned public improvements. This section
stresses that front yards should be intensively landscaped, and street trees
should be planted within the boulevard no more than 30 feet apart. The
subcommittee added a section entitled (6) preferred trees and the
objective would be to ensure trees planted in the city thrive and
contribute to an attractive landscaping system. The city's preferred
boulevard tree list consists of trees with characteristics such as hardiness,
salt tolerance, and rooting habits. The objective of the (7) screening section
would be to screen views and ensure noise from service and loading areas
was not audible from surrounding streets and properties. The section
specifically addresses loading areas and service equipment being
incorporated into the building design and screened with similar design
and materials, six-foot high screen for landscape materials, and service
bays for auto repair should be located at side/rear of the building. The
recommendation for service bays was taken from a project done in
Columbia Heights where the bays were located at the rear of the building
and the front of the building along the major thoroughfare was
aesthetically pleasing.
The objective of (8) lighting is to ensure quality lighting design through
glare reduction, minimum overspill, and the use of pedestrian-scale
lighting fixtures, while maintaining adequate light levels for safety. The
emphasis would be for adequate lighting without being excessive.
Suggestions were made for the types of light fixtures and location along
walkways and on the buildings. Parking lot lighting was also included in
this section. Information on minimum lighting standards was provided by
the building official.
The objective of the (9) sign section was to encourage signs that were
architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors,
and details of the building, and with other signs on nearby buildings.
Signs should be an integral part of the building and site design. This
section addresses shape, colors, materials, and illumination. Internally lit
awnings are prohibited and electronic message signs and internally lit box
signs are discouraged, which is a somewhat different than in the past.
Free-standing signs would be encouraged rather than pylon signs and the
signs should have significant landscaping at the base. The (10) hierarchy
of street treatment section was taken from the 2004 City Center Plan and
the committee made it more general to apply to the entire city. The
objective was to ensure that streets create a backbone for the community,
Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 5, 2006
establish a setting for casual meetings, and provide open space for public
gatherings and festivals. The three districts are: gateways and parkways
which would receive the most significant streetscape enhancements, i.e.,
42nd and Winnetka avenues, commercial streets, and local/residential
streets.
Ms. Berggren stated that another new section in the guidelines, as directed
by the city council, is (11) transit facilities. The objective here is to support
and encourage the use of public transportation by adding quality transit
facilities along main transit routes in the city. This could be accomplished
by incorporating transit facilities into projects, utilization of courtesy
benches, and transit shelters with concrete landings and amenities.
The last section is (12) stormwater treatments. The objective would be to
promote storm water systems designed as amenities that serve as
attractive enhancements to the community, while achieving the city's
water quality standards. Innovative storm water management strategies
are encouraged. Site planning principles could include minimizing the
total impervious area, minimizing direct connection between impervious
surfaces, and planting more trees. The information from the 2004 City
Center Plan would be included as a reference in this document.
The next steps would include discussion by staff/consultants in January to
determine how the Zoning Code would need to be changed to coincide
with this document. The changes to the code would be discussed by the
Codes and Standards Committee after the design guidelines were
presented to the City Council and feedback was received. If the Planning
Commission recommends changes to the design guidelines at this
meeting, a revised document could be presented at the next Planning
Commission meeting. Once the Commission is comfortable with the
document, a work session would be scheduled with the City Council. Ms.
Berggren stated that it was important that this document be included in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Houle added that these guidelines would apply to all new
construction, as well as any exterior changes for redevelopment or
renovation projects that would result in additional parking. Minor
alterations would be handled administratively. For the renovation of an
existing building, the guidelines would apply to that portion being
renovated. Currently, the city code states that buildings expansions under
25 percent of the total building area do not require Planning Commission
review. With the requirement that developers include elements from the
design guidelines, the Design and Review Committee may have to meet
with staff and the applicant to review the plans. Houle recommended a
revised definition for franchise architecture by saying that it could be
thought of as "any building solution that was still identifiably with a
particular commercial entity when all the signage was removed." Mr.
Steve Sondrall, city attorney, interjected that the city could not dictate that
a franchise could not utilize a particular "logo," such as the arches that
McDonalds utilizes. Discussion ensued on whether or not the city could
Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 5, 2006
regulate something that was integrated into the architecture as opposed to
part of the signage.
Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the building materials with
regard to allowing precast concrete (units) for some districts and then
discouraging precast concrete panels in all districts but industrial. Ms.
Berggren explained that these were two different types of building
materials. Houle suggested that the city consider allowing architectural
precast tip up panels and to not allow unadorned precast concrete panels.
Svendsen concurred. Houle added that the city was not trying to restrict
the building materials in the industrial district. Mr. Sondrall reminded the
Commission that the design guidelines could not be more restrictive than
the state building code or fire code. The city could request some
enhancement to fit the design guidelines. Commissioner Houle stated he
had read several other cities' design guidelines that restricted certain
materials and wondered how that was possible. He also stated that he had
read certain communities had adopted greater sprinkler coverage
requirements. Mr. Sondrall stated the court had determined it would be
unfair to make builders/contractors/ developers understand hundreds of
cities' building codes, therefore, most cities utilize the state building code.
If the state has not regulated a specific item, then the individual city could
provide some restrictions. Commissioner Schmidt commented that this
document was regulating design materials and not the structure.
Commissioner Nirgude stated that the design guidelines were only
guidelines for the building design and not intended to override state
regulations. The guidelines were intended to provide direction in making
the city look better. Some of these guidelines were taken from other cities
who had already adopted them into their respective codes. Developers
with projects in other cities indicated they were agreeable to utilizing
design guidelines for their development projects. Schmidt added that the
document puts the expectations of the city up front for the developers.
Discussion ensued on the notation on page three that the guidelines were
mandatory. Houle responded it was mandatory that developers review
the guidelines, follow the intent, and apply them to the development.
Commissioner Anderson stated that for new buildings/developments
suggesting a color scheme and other design guidelines was great and
requiring the review of plans by the Planning Commission and City
Council. He was concerned that renovation projects would now need to
go through the time and expense associated with planning review just to
paint their building. With the recommended neutral colors, he questioned
if New Hope wanted all its buildings to look the same as surrounding
communities.
Mr. McDonald stated that the zoning code currently required site and
building plan review for expansion projects of 25 percent or more of the
total area. Typically, plans are forwarded to the Design and Review
Committee and the full Planning Commission after the submission of a
planning application and fees are paid. Due to the fact that the design
Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 5, 2006
guidelines would apply to smaller projects too, when the inspections
department receives a building expansion plan that does not require a
formal planning application, the Design and Review Committee may need
to schedule a special meeting with the builder to determine whether or
not the design guidelines have been met. No planning application fees
would be collected. Commissioner Houle suggested clarification should
be added to the document as to exactly when review by the Design and
Review Committee was necessary. Commissioner Nirgude added that
when developers inquire about a potential project city staff can give the
design guidelines to the developer to be incorporated into the plan prior
to submission.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that the city was adding
another layer of codes for developers to follow, and the fact that the
guidelines dictated building color. He questioned if awning colors were
regulated too. It was noted that an accent color could be used for the
awnings, dependent upon the size of the awning. Houle stated that if a
developer used a particular accent material in a thoughtful, sensitive,
timeless way, the committee could approve the plan. The idea was not
want to take away all flexibility. A question was raised as to staff's
reaction to a franchise project that utilized flashy, bright colors. The city
would need to make a determination on a case-by-case basis, however, it
was the feeling that the major portion of the building should be somewhat
neutral. Nirgude commented that if developers had the guidelines at the
beginning of a project, there would be some pressure on them to build the
project according to the city's requirements. Mr. McDonald pointed out
that an important statement in the guidelines is on page three where it
states "The guidelines are mandatory; however, it is understood there will
often be many ways to achieve the intent of the guidelines. The city may
permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the
objectives of the design guidelines. The city may also waive any guidelines
when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make
compliance difficult or inappropriate." If a developer came to the city
with a project that placed the building to the front of the property, met
the setback, provided heavy screening of the parking lot, screened the
rooftop units, and used quality building materials, and complied with
other items, the Planning Commission may have to take that into
consideration when reviewing the building plans and judge whether the
intent of the guidelines were met or not. A checklist could be developed
for use in reviewing the plans to determine how many of the architectural
and site design guidelines had been met. If one or two guidelines have not
been met, it would be up to the Design and Review Committee or
Planning Commission to determine whether or not the project would be
appropriate as proposed.
Chairman Svendsen initiated for discussion the requirement that single
use buildings must be less than 10,000 square feet. Ms. Berggren clarified
that any building over 10,000 square feet would be required to apply for a
conditional use permit. Site and building plan approval would be
required on new commercial and industrial buildings. Mr. Sondrall
Planning Commission Meeting 7 December 5, 2006
questioned the purpose for limiting single use buildings to 10,000 square
feet. Houle answered that point was taken from the 2004 City Center Plan.
Sondrall stated he felt this requirement could be located in a different
section and not try to regulate the use of a building by limiting the size in
the design guidelines. Schmidt interjected that the building placement/site
planning section allowed SOlne overlap with the zoning code.
Commissioner Landy commented that he recalled this statement in the
2004 City Center Plan dealt with regulating a big box retailer.
Commissioner Brinkman stated he thought this statement was intended
for the northwest quadrant of 42nd and Winnetka avenues. Nirgude
stated he did not favor deleting the reference for a 10,000 square foot
building at this time.
Mr. McDonald stated that the purpose of this meeting was for the
Planning Commission to review and discuss the design guidelines. The
planning consultant and city attorney would now need to determine how
the zoning code would need to be changed to coincide with this
document. A list of items in the zoning code that need to be updated
would be compiled.
Commissioner Crough stated he wanted to see the design guidelines
integrated with the building code. The design guidelines do not supersede
the UBC.
Mr. McDonald stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee
would begin reviewing the changes, and staff could present the document
to the City Council in January with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. Staff would recommend that the Council schedule a work
session with the Planning Commission in January or February.
The Commission commended Ms. Berggren and staff for the excellent job
in assembling the information for the subcommittee and making changes
to the document after each subcommittee meeting.
Commissioner Houle suggested that a change be made in the building
materials section to include unadorned precast concrete panels (such as
Navarre) in the materials to avoid list and that architectural precast (such
as Paddock) was acceptable in the primary building materials. The
purpose and background section on page three should be revised to state
that additions/alterations of less than 25 percent would be approved
administratively with Design and Review Committee involvement in the
review of the plans. A suggestion was made for staff to provide a one-
week notice for plan review by the Design and Review Committee.
Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee did
Committee not meet in November. The next meeting was scheduled for December 14.
Item 5.1 Staff would contact the committee if a meeting was necessary.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee
Committee had not met. Mr. McDonald interjected that staff would probably
Planning Commission Meeting 8 December 5, 2006
Item 5.2 schedule a meeting in January to discuss several minor issues.
Comprehensive Plan The initial meeting was held in October and the committee toured the city
Update Subcommittee by bus on November 18. The first regular meeting was scheduled for
Item 5.3 January 18. Mr. McDonald stated that staff was producing planning
district maps with photos of issues identified that the committee would
review. An open house would be held in February. Residents would be
able to view each planning district along with issues identified by the
committee. A suggestion was made by Chairman Svendsen to advertise
the open houses dates in the city's "In The Pipeline" insert in the utility
bills, as well as in "In Touch," the city's newsletter.
OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Nirgude initiated discussion on the noise issues associated
Miscellaneous Issues with Twin City Poultry on Quebec A venue. He stated neighbors of TCP
indicated to him they were angry at city staff and city officials due to the
continued noise. He wondered whether the city could adopt a code that
would be more stringent than the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
guidelines. Mr. Sondrall confirmed the city had adopted the MPCA
guidelines. TCP met the MPCA guidelines and complied with the city
code. The continuing noise may be a nuisance issue for the neighbors;
however, from a legal point the company was compliant with adopted
guidelines.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 3,
2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen pointed out that recent code updates were available
and requested that the commissioners insert them into their codebooks.
Chairman Svendsen announced that his three-year term as planning
commission chairman expired at the end of the year. Elections would be
held at the next Planning Commission meeting. Nominations would be
accepted for chair, vice-chair, and thir d officer. Subcommittee
appointments would also open up for the Design and Review Committee
and the Codes and Standards Committee, if anyone was interested in
changing. The terms for Commissioners Landy, Oelkers, and Houle
expired at the end of the year, and all had requested re-appointment to
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Landy commended Commissioner Houle on chairing the
design guidelines subcommittee, as well as staff, on the great job. He also
thanked Chairman Svendsen on the great leadership during the past three
years.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on the Terra Linda storm water
report and he wondered why the flooding was occurring now due to the
fact that the area had been developed since the 1960s. Nirgude stated he
Planning Commission Meeting 9 December 5, 2006
had talked with the neighbors in this area. There was one property in
particular that continued to get water in the basement with heavy rains.
Chairman Svendsen reported that he thought this had been addressed
when New Hope and Golden Valley reconstructed Medicine Lake Road.
Mr. Sondrall added that the City Council was aware of the situation and
had discussed it several times. McDonald added that the city engineer
would be at the February Planning Commission meeting and could
address questions at that time.
Mr. McDonald stated that Commissioner Brinkman had been selected for
the fall 2006 outstanding business award and would be presented the
award at the December 11 Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:45
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Q~0}~
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 10 December 5, 2006