Loading...
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