Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-16 NAC Memorandum to OPH Re CBD Design Guidelines y y • • NAC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St, Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 pianners©nacpIanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Judy Holst FROM: Scott Richards DATE: January 16, 2003 RE: Oak Park Heights — CBD Design Guidelines FILE NO: 798.04 — 02.01 As per your request, I have reviewed the Central Business District Design Guidelines and the draft revisions that Kris Danielson had completed in December of 2002. In order to have meaningful guidelines for the area that is currently zoned CBD, I would suggest that the guidelines drafted by BRW Inc. in 2000 and the suggestions made by Kris be incorporated into a new document. My recommendation is to take the BRW document format and revise many of the sections, but not as radically as suggested by Ms. Danielson. There are provisions in the Design Guidelines that will relate well to the current development proposed, especially those related to the residential areas of the CBD. In general, I would make the following suggestions following the format of the BRW Design Guidelines: 1. Purpose and Scope (page 3): Revise the document to incorporate Ms. Danielson's Purpose and Scope section. 2. CBD Precincts (page 3): Revise the precinct section to reflect the four development categories recommended by Ms. Danielson. Eliminate the next two pages that include the Master Plan and Master Plan Precinct maps. 3. Building Context and Character (page 3): Revise section to reflect Ms. Danielson's recommendations. 4. Building Setback/Build to Line (page 5): Revise section to incorporate at least the residential setbacks. • • 5. Building Width (page 5): Revise section to incorporate provisions for entire district. Retain the two graphics on residential building setback, remove the one relating to commercial setbacks. 6. Building Height and Upper Story Setbacks (page 6): Revise section to remove third story setback language. 7. Roof Design (page 6): Revise and incorporate into section with Rooftop Terrace (8). 8. Rooftop Terrace (page 6): Incorporate with roof design. 9. Screening of Rooftop Equipment (page 7): Okay. Leave in graphic. 10. Facade Transparency (page 7): Revise section to update provisions. 11. Building Materials and Details (page 7): Update to include new materials. 12. Colors (page 8): Okay. 13. Franchise Architecture (page 8): To be discussed. Recommend using language from other Design Guidelines. Leave in graphic? 14. Walkways (page 8): Revise section to incorporate provisions for entire district. 15. Street Types (page 9): Revise to incorporate conceptual road designs now being considered. Leave in graphics? 16. Surface Parking (page 9): Revise section to incorporate provisions for entire district. Retain surface parking graphic. 17. Parking Structure (page 10): Okay. Leave in graphic. 18. Bicycle Parking (page 10): Revise but leave in requirements for required bicycle parking stalls. 19. Streetscape Elements (page 10): Revise to incorporate provisions for entire district. Leave in graphics. 20. Lighting (page 11): Okay. 21. Streetscape Furnishings (page 11): Okay. 22. Landscaping (page 11): Update with City's Arborist comments. Leave in graphic. 2 • • 23. Presentation Requirements (page 12): Okay. Leave in graphics. Glossary (pages 13 -14): Okay. The changes to the document are relatively minor. I propose that Cynthia Putz -Yang of our staff could make changes to the document pending City Council direction on this matter. If we can access the electronic copy of the text, the cost to revise the document would be fairly minimal. With Cynthia Putz -Yang making the changes under my supervision, I would suggest the cost would be $500.00 or less. This would not include any special meetings to discuss the draft or printing costs. 3