Loading...
2c. Highway 5 Overlay District Ordinance Amendmentr i CITY CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Acton by City AdnibifWffl modwe W& 7 - - 7 - TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: July 7, 1994 SUBJ: Highway 5 Overlay District Ordinance Amendment At the June 27, 1994 meeting, the City Council Overlay District. Chris Deitzen, Mills Fleet Fai or not this was a public hearing._ Roger Knu, hearing was held before the Planning Commi along the corridor to provide them an additi "a. district. Another person that spoke at the -W questions regarding the parking requir r - Lake Drive East. Staff would like to proposed ordinance under Section 20- Parking areas shall not be located wi yard setback of any lot." This r<steI DataSery is located in the HC-- hstri �1 1 E place. This is zoned IOP 25 feet for side street.yaf parking within the 'ut standard would 1w4wha 00 Submitted to Commission Date Submitted to Council `7- it -9S the first reading of the Highway 5 omey,. had concerns regarding whether .y Attorney, clarified that the public d this meeting was noticed to everyone O unity to comment on the overlay & Jim Paulet from DataServ. He had ieAts and whet tfy that issue 53, Building a i the required i eted to be the where the and ice Institutional so the to or 30 feet front yard. The the underlying The IOP district allows f to be reduced to 10 feet if the a� an demonstrate that there is 100% screening. The 'ct "WAffiffEnum requirement would still be 30 feet, thus, no reduction would pe x., 's would apply to the frontage road in front of the DataServ, Lake Drive East, as w °Hwy. 5. Staff feels that we have already considered the fact that there are existing lots a Highway Corridor 1 District. These standards already give flexibility to those lots in creating the two districts. The setback in the HC 2 for those lots west of Powers Boulevard have a 50 foot setback minimum with a 70 foot maximum. This is illustrated on the figure on page 6 of the ordinance. Again, the intent is not to have parking as the visual perspective as you go up and down the corridor but should be aligned with the buildings or preferably between or behind buildings. Staff the front yard setbacks apply along it reads in the ordinance. The Parking Orientation states "(b) en k ` um front primary or secondary k in the underlying district. zoning district standards are in rl g parking standards would be f this is not to have the entire MEMORANDUM Don Ashworth July 7, 1994 Page 2 certainly feels that the DataSery property is developable with the underlying standards and the requirements of the overlay district which states that there shall be no parking in the front yard or front setback. Staff is recommending approval of the second reading of the Highway 5 Overlay District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the second reading of the Highway 5 Overlay District and approve the attached summary ordinance for publication purposes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Jim Paulet from DataSery dated June 30, 1994. 2. City Council minutes dated June 27, 1994. 3. Highway 5 Overlay District Ordinance. 4. Summary of ordinance for publication. d'a�a;�ser�r A.EUSOUTH Company 4 12125 Technobgy Drive Eden Prairie. Minnesota ' 62/82 7399 6000 June 30, 1994 RECEIVED 05 1994 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson CI1 r Vr Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' P.O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Kate: I am writing to you as a follow up to the June 27th Council meeting concerning the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone and as a follow -up to my letter dated June 23, 1994. We came to understand only last Wednesday, June 22, that the no- parking requirement in the , front yard setback along Highway 5 also applies to the access mad (Lake Drive East). All of the site planning we have done to date places the buildings at the back of the site and the parking in the front. We feel that this is the most functional design as it gives our building the best visibility and provides our employees, customers, and vendors the easiest access to our building. It also provides better security for our second and third shift employees and better access for handicapped employees, customers, and visitors. While we partially understand, but do not support, the rationale for minimizing parking along Highway 5, we do not understand the rationale for imposing the same standards to the access road. ' During the course of Council discussions on the subject, Mayor Don Chmiel stated that he supports the plan in the entirety and feels that people have a choice as to whether they wish to develop within the corridor district. That may be true for people who are searching for sites, but in our case we already owned the land prior to having any knowledge of a corridor development plan. Therefore we do not have the luxury of choosing a site with restrictions I that coincide with our needs. We must instead modify our needs to coincide with restrictions that we cannot support nor do we understand. The resulting design options may be unworkable and may limit the use.of our property. I We are also concerned that we purchased the property assuming certain development standards and now the standards have changed, possibly reducing the value. I I FAC0004.LTR City of Chanhassen, i r . June 30, 1994 AV Page 2 t r .s ' ? a \ Y We would like to hold further discussions with the city staff to A1tat+F;+ hopefully, arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Thank you. -� Sincerely, : ti s aU K ill DATASERV, INC. un Paulet Facilities Manager CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Mr. Jim Paulet, Facilities Manager DataSery 12125 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -7399 Dear Jim: I am writing in response to your letter and a follow -up of the June 27 City Council meeting. I understand you are concerned about the no parking requirement along Lake Drive East. Staff has addressed this issue by establishing two different setback zones with the Highway Corridor 1 and Highway Corridor 2 Districts. The DataSery property falls within the HC -1 district which states that the underlying zoning and setback shall take place. The only additional parking requirement that shall be placed on this property, as we have interpreted it, is that parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front primary or secondary yard setback of any lot. Since this property is zoned IOP, the building setback is 30 feet where it abuts Lake Drive East. Therefore, no parking shall be located within that 30 foot building setback. The HC -2 district requires a minimum of a 50 foot setback or a maximum of 70 feet. We feel that the underlying district already allows you flexibility within the corridor and staff has taken into consideration the existing lots and that is why two districts were developed. We feel that the 30 foot setback 1 1 i.not punitive and the intent is that as follow along the frontage roads, there are not parking' lots along the entire frontage road. A parking lot can be located in front of the building as long as it maintains the 30 foot front yard setback and is appropr ately .screeaed I hope this answers your questions. If you have additional questions, pleasefeel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kathryn R. Aanenson Planning Director KA:v PC: City Council d n July 7, 1994 I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR. ' Public Present: Name Address Jim Paulette DataSery Corporation Chris Dietz Mills Fleet Farm ' Stuart Mills Mills Fleet Farm Kate Aanenson: The background is on March 28th you looked at the EA document and the Highway 5 corridor. ' At that time we recommended that you adopt the overlay standards... public hearing on January 19th. I think you felt uncomfortable with that. Subsequent to that we've had numerous work sessions and I think that we feel like, based on the fact that you probably won't any ... until August and you have development occurring along the corridor, that we would recommend adoption of the overlay standards. We did notify those along the corridor that have interest. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 13th...and January 28th. I didn't, I wasn't prepared to go through specifically the ordinance itself. If there are questions... ' Mayor Chmiel: Great. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to come forward if you have some concerns regarding the Highway 5 overlay district. And if you do, please indicate your name and your address and what those concerns may be. And who you're also representing. ' Chris Dietz: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Chris Dietz and I'm representing Mills Fleet Farm. Also with me are the board of representatives from Mills Fleet Farm, including Stuart Mills. We didn't find out about this public hearing until, they found out about it late Friday. I found out about it this afternoon. And it was, we were notified that it was a public hearing for Highway 5 corridor study and the EAW for the north access boulevard alignment analysis and review of Highway 5 overlay ordinance. When I met with my clients, the first concern was, this is an important, these are all important issues to us. Can the city hold a public ' hearing essentially on 72 hours notice? And attached to what we received was a document that's entitled notice of public meeting. And then at the bottom it says published in Chanhassen Villager on June 23, 1994. When we contacted the Chanhassen Villager to see if notice had been published as a public hearing, found out, at least I had the individual check the newspaper for the last several publications. No notification had been given. I looked at the Statute, Minnesota Statute 426.357 Subd.3 which states that before a city council can adopt or amend an ordinance, they must hold a public hearing. And they must give at least 10 days published notice before the hearing. Based on that, it's our interpretation of the statute that you can't hold a public hearing without 10 days published notice. The City Council adopted an agenda and the public hearing was opened, we think that going forward is in violation of the statute. We would oppose that. Beyond that, what our concern is, is that we have serious concerns about the overlay ordinance. The corridor issues. The access issues and I'm ' sure that there are other members of the public that have concerns over those issues. We found out late this afternoon that what was going to be discussed at this public hearing was going to be Highway 5 only. We didn't know, nor could we know, until we came to the hearing today, what exactly was going to happen or what the City Council was going to consider. We're not prepared to respond to the issues at this point. We would request that the City Council reschedule the public hearing. Give the 10 days published notice so the public can participate and if the intent is only to consider the overlay, the Highway 5 overlay ordinance, then fine. So be it. We can come prepared for that and narrow our comments on that particular issue. At this point, not knowing ' what was going to happen, we're not in a position to comment on this. We would then request that the notice be 6 t City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You'll have the opportunity within 2 weeks to come back. Hopefully that will give ` you enough time to review your concerns and bring them back to Council at that time. Chris Dietz: Thank you Mr. Mayor. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Jim Paulette: Honorable Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Paulette. I represent DataSery at ' 19011 Lake Drive East. After reviewing the Highway corridor overlay zone ordinance. I had a meeting with city staff. We concluded that we have a concern about the parking restrictions within the required minimum ' front yard setback. Especially, well as it relates to Highway 5 frontage but also, especially as it relates to the published and that we be given an opportunity then to make our remarks. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd probably like to respond and I'd like our attorney to address the issues that you ' brought up. Roger Knutson: The Statute 462.357 Subd 3 and it states that no zoning ordinance amendment thereto shall be ' adopted until public hearing has been held on by the Planning Commission or by the governing body. Or. It doesn't require both. You already had the hearing before the Planning Commission back in January. The notice is of a public meeting. This is certainly a public meeting. The public hearing... In addition, this is the fast reading of the ordinance. You have the right to come back in 2 weeks... First and second reading is not required ' by State law. By your own general procedures. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Chris Dietz: Roger, I agree with the reading which should, of the ordinance. Or of the statute. I'm not aware of whether there was proper notice given of the January 23rd public hearing or what that was. All I know is that we received a document which says this is a notice of public hearing and gave the date and indicated that , there were going to be four topics that were going to be discussed. We didn't find out until this afternoon that staff's interpretation and I would add the staff was very cooperative. Staff said it's our understanding that only one of those four was going to be discussed. It puts us in a very difficult position and that's why now we think ' that once the City Council adopted it as an agenda item, this was a public hearing. It needs to be a public hearing and it needs to meet the statutory requirements. ' Roger Knutson: ...notice, if you read, said a public meeting. Chris Dietz: I understand that. The agenda that we were given says public hearing. The agenda that this Council adopted said public hearing. ' Roger Knutson: ...the argument. Chris Dietz: Roger, I'm sorry Mr. Mayor. I don't mean to belabor this point. All I want is an opportunity in a public hearing to present my client's views on these issues which are important to them ... the City Council acts on the overlay ordinance. If the Council is not going to vote on the ordinance tonight, then that's helpful. We'll be back in 2 weeks but as a matter of procedure I think I have to make, state our position clearly so that it's ' understood. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You'll have the opportunity within 2 weeks to come back. Hopefully that will give ` you enough time to review your concerns and bring them back to Council at that time. Chris Dietz: Thank you Mr. Mayor. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Jim Paulette: Honorable Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Paulette. I represent DataSery at ' 19011 Lake Drive East. After reviewing the Highway corridor overlay zone ordinance. I had a meeting with city staff. We concluded that we have a concern about the parking restrictions within the required minimum ' front yard setback. Especially, well as it relates to Highway 5 frontage but also, especially as it relates to the !7 i City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 L n G t i� 7 access road. Along Highway 5 we would like to see some front yard parking to allow better access to what probably will be the entry doors of whatever buildings are developed there. Along Lake Drive East, which will more than likely be DataServ's development site, we would like to see unlimited front yard parking if we deem that it is the most functional design for DataServ. At the very least we'd like to see at least minimal front yard parking to provide our employees. We're going to a lot of second and third shift and we would like our second and third shift employees to be able to do the parking in front of the building rather than at the end of a dark parking lot. That's one concern that we have. But also we don't want the parking restrictions to determine how we configure our buildings. We'd like our buildings to be facing the street but we don't want our parking to be on the side of the building. Have all of the parking be limited to the side of the building. These are just a few of the concerns that we have. We'd like the Council to take some of those things into consideration when voting on this ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? This is your opportunity to address the issues on the overlay district. This is a public hearing. Hearing none, I would then Roger. If we're going to be carrying this over, I don't think we close the public hearing at this time to be closed? Roger Knutson: Yeah, it's just first reading. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, first reading and the second it comes back, okay. Good. So with that then I would request a closing of public hearing. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Richard, any discussion? Councilman Wing: My only comment Mr. Mayor is just, having been on the ground floor of this and the issues discussed tonight discussed at length. In terms of design and quality and the direction we'd like to go, and then discussing the document in it's entirety, I don't have any changes or comments to make on it. I would tend to vote for fast reading. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf. It's extremely thorough and I'm happy with the level of quality that it insists on. There's a typo on page 14. Section 20 -1462, item b. It's just very, very minor. Where we spell out fifty but we put 5 in parenthesis. Other than that, I like what it does. I think we are going to probably, unfortunately, run into some conflicts with how we make it work logistically but that's the reason we're talking tonight. And this is the opportunity for any future developers to come in and state their concerns so. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael. Councilman Mason: I too was on the ground floor of just about all of this. I don't have a whole lot of questions. I do, I'm not sure if this is a fair statement for all of Council to make but on the background information, the front page it says that the only action taken by Council was a resolution supporting the southern alignment for the northern frontage road. I'm not sure that that's a done deal and I don't want people to read that and assume that that is exactly the way it will appear. I think there will be a fair amount of discussion before that comes back. This parking restriction and safety issues, I think is something that needs to be 8 G City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 addressed. I'm not sure I agree necessarily with Mr. Paulette but if there are some safety concerns, I think we at least need to take a look at that and lighting or sight lines or what not for how people and where people park. Kate, on page 7, number 1. It says each building shall contain 1 or more pitched roof elements. It won't bother me if we don't have every building in this city have a pitched roof on it. Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time discussing that. ' Councilman Mason: I know. Kate Aanenson: As you recall, we came up with the Target we had a parapet walls instead of the pitched roof. , The Byerly's has a different treatment as opposed to Market Square. So what we—basically the side of the building. Structurally we can't always put a pitched roof on so we ... pitched roof element. What we try to do is look at the different treatments and try to get that effect. So that was the intent of putting some...and ' architectural features. Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. One other quick comment on page 9, H. It talks about colors shall be , harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors, sharply contrasting colors may only be as for accent purposes. That was a tough one for me at the time and it still is. That's so dog gone subjective. Who will be the people that decides whether? I mean maybe a bright color might look nice. ' Mayor Chmiel: Bright purple? Councilman Mason: Well there were some people in town a few years ago that thought that was a pretty good I deal. I mean what. Kate Aanenson: Ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council will review the site plan... ' Councilman Mason: Okay. I don't know, I don't think we need buzzard puke green and chartreuse and this, that and the other thing but things get kind of gray all the time and I don't think there's, you know I think that's just something we all need to be aware of. I just throw that out. I'm not going to say I'm fond of this ' document but a lot of people spent a lot of time on it and I think it has the potential of making Highway 5 look pretty nice. I like it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. ' Councilman Senn: I had three specific elements that I'm still uncomfortable with. I think Michael's already hit , all 3 of them. Likewise I'm not real comfortable with the subjective element of the color components. I'm not comfortable with the parking elements. I see that as really, I'm going to say, I see that as a conflict creator in the future. Hard and fast rule that I think is going to create some conflicts because when we end up with land uses on the other sides of the service roads, especially ones that are going to be residential and if those , residential areas then come in especially before say commercial development on the other side, I think there's going to be some real conflict issues and considerations relating to the fact that this may say that parking should be on the highway side, but I think they're going to have quite the contrary opinion, and maybe not wrongfully , so. I just, the way this is worded I think it is far too definite and it's far too restrictive. I think it can be worded in a fashion that it could better serve a goal that we're trying to reach but not just simply be a hard and fast requirement which doesn't leave a whole lot of leeway. The same comment applies as it relates to the ' pitched roofs. Like Michael I believe that, I don't think every building in town has to have a pitched roof and 9 � I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 ' there are a lot of very nice architectural styles which don't have pitched elements on them. And again, the language should maybe be, may contain rather than shall. And shall again just kind of, to me seems very definite. Leaves no room for anything else and specifically those are the 3 I continue to have a problem with. From an overall standpoint. There's been something really bothering me on this overlay for some time and I honestly have to say I haven't figured out what it was until just last week and the thing that really bothers me ' about it is, is that there's a lot of really good points in this overlay. But if we think that then, I think this is a standard that we should address, set up and apply city wide. I don't think it's something that should be built just for Highway 5. And here's why. I think in effect what we're doing then, is we're as a Council basically kind of trying to legislate competition and I think that's unfair. I don't think we should be holding any business who ' locates on Highway 5 to a different standard than any other business who locates in Chanhassen. They should all be operating from an equal plane as far as I'm concerned. Through the numerous businesses I own, sometimes it becomes very convoluted in the sense that you're trying to compete with somebody but then well geez, somebody allows them to do it with cyclone fence or a metal building and you have to do it with brick and fancy fencing. Well I mean hey, I can't compete on that basis because I have to charge a lot more rent or I have to charge a lot more money for the services or the products that my business are putting out because those overhead costs are all overhead costs that come back to business. And I don't really, you know as one person ' on this Council I'm going to say I don't agree with that and I don't think that's something we should be doing. And I think when we take this and say that Highway 5, whatever's along it you have to meet this standard and everybody else in the city can operate under a different standard, I think again that's wrong and I again, if the ' concept is good, if the things we've stuck in the overlay interest design wise and stuff makes sense, then I think it should make sense city wide and should apply city wide and not just be limited to Highway 5. And I'd like to see that really receive some more consideration and discussion. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, I agree to some extent. There are certain, definitely certain parts of this ' document that I would like to see apply city wide but other ones are not necessary to be applied city wide and I think if you're located along Highway 5 you have the one upmanship over your competition just by the fact that you get increased exposure. I mean so nothing's equal in business. There are lots of factors that go into ' determining how competitive you are, including building restrictions. But I would be, so I'd like to see this document approved and I agree with you, we should also look at certain parts of it that should apply city wide. But I don't want to throw away the document saying if it doesn't apply to everyone, it shouldn't apply just to ' them. Councilman Senn: I'm not saying throw the document away, and don't get me wrong. I really don't you know even like that as an inference. I think the document also makes sense and I think there's a lot of things in it that ' do. But I think if they make sense, then we should apply them city wide and I don't agree with you on your statement that just because you're on Highway 5 you have a competitive advantage. That's not true. Especially if you look at all the land uses along Highway 5. Some admitted will be a deterrent. I mean come on. How many people would just as soon live on a residential complex on Highway 5 versus off Highway 5? So I mean it's real hard to take blanket statements and say that just because you're on Highway 5 you're going to be able to demand a higher dollar. That's not true. But at the same time we're legislating in effect rules and procedures here that are going to require substantial dollars to be spent on facilities that a couple blocks away somebody doesn't have to spend the same dollars, and I don't think that's fair. Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point I don't disagree but again, I keep going back to my statement, which I always ' say, we have one time to do this right along Highway 5. And in and adjacent to it. If we don't do it right the 1 10 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1 first time, of which some of the items contained within this document I think are going in that right direction, , we're never going to get that opportunity again. And if it's a developer who's coming in who wants to do those kinds of things, that's up to that developer. Of whether he wants to be within the community or not. I , mean that's your choice. Councilman Senn: Well Don, I can't see. , Mayor Chmiel: And I can't see lowering the standards for a developer to from what we want or what we should see. What we want envisioned for the city. Councilman Senn: Again I'm not saying lower the standard. I'm saying what we should do is we should set the standard on a city wide basis rather than simply set it for Highway 5, okay? And I'm not talking about developers. I'm talking about the ultimate person who pays and it's not the developer. The ultimate person who ' pays is the business. Or the person who lives or works there or whatever, okay? And the ultimate person who pays is also the consumer, okay. And I don't think we should create a situation where we put ourselves in effect or create an artificial marketplace and I think we can do that because if you look at these rules and apply them ' only in a specific area, they're going to create substantial costs over what are going to be applied in the other areas. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. I Councilman Mason: Yeah. Listening to what Mark is saying here and Colleen's comments, it seems to me the thing to do would be to adopt this and then take a look at the other standards of development in the city, which ' I'm all for that. I don't think that we have, and I don't think any city has the same standards for everything in the city. I mean the standards for development in medium density are different than they are in low density. Standards for PUD residential is different and I think that even the standards for the business district in downtown are different than standards elsewhere. So I see what Mark is saying and I think it's something we ' need to take a look at but I guess I would beg to different about the same standard approach. But yeah, if it means raising standards for development in the city, I guess I'm all for that. Well no. I want to take a look at it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. ' Councilman Wing: Well I think this is an early argument and I think if we wanted to talk about this, I'd want ' my position represented with Bill Morrish and Barry and Hoisington because they had talked about this and this is the corridor study. The intent was to elevate as high as possible the quality and the performance of this corridor and to do it city wide, again I would agree with Mike and I'd agree with Mark. Take this document and spread it border to border. But the focus tonight and the focus in this is the Highway 5 corridor and there's , no question that my expectations were higher quality and front line buildings and my expectations for buildings one half block away from this frontage is different than the ones that are on it. So I think we are setting a separate standard and I intend to do that from the beginning and I don't apologize for that at all. I don't think we're doing a thing to do with the competition. That's premium corners. That's like Wendy's wanting to be in the middle of a shopping center downtown. That's a premier corner. They're willing to pay to be there and they're willing to build a building they've never built before to be there. If we destroy competition, no. If ' we've got competition and we've got quality to boot so I don't, again I was part of this discussion so much earlier. I think the people that are there that can intellectually represent my position and opposition, I'd like to have speak at the next meeting if they're available. 11 1 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Seeing none, then we'll carry this back over for July 11th. In 2 weeks at our next hearing that we'll have on it at the second reading. Councilman Wing: You're going to move on a first reading this evening? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: I would move the fast reading. Councilman Mason: I will second that. Mayor Chmiel: A motion with a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the Highway 5 Overlay District Ordinance as shown in Attachment N. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: As I had said the next meeting, this will be held at the July 11th here in the Council Chambers. 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE ' CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: ' SECTION 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definitions: ' Landscape means all forms of planting and vegetation, ground forms, rock groupings, water features and patterns, and all visible construction except buildings and site , furnishings. Site Furnsshines means any structure, other than buildings, visible from any public ' way, and any street hardware located in streets and public ways and outside of buildings. Site furnishings include, but are not limited to signs, decorative paving treatments, fences, walls, railings, artwork, transformers, utility access boxes, lighting ' standards and arrays, and other visible site appurtenances. SECTION 2. Section 20 -201 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the ' following special districts: HC -1, Highway 5 Central Business Corridor District ' HC -2, Highway 5 Corridor District SECTION 3. Section 20 -106 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding , subparagraph (6) to read: (6) Within the HC districts, meet the additional purpose, intent and standards of ' the HC districts. SECTION 4. Section 20 -109 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding , subparagraph (6) to read: (6) Within the HC districts, the application shall also include: 1 t �J A. Building elevations from all directions, indicating materials, colors and landscaping at installation. B. Building and site views from Highway 5, the appropriate access boulevard (north or south of Highway 5), and any other appropriate arterial or .collector roadways. C. Site views showing the relationships of the proposed building or development to adjacent development, including buffered areas. D. Drawings of all significant or atypical site features, such as unusual landscaping, man -made water features other than retention ponds, outdoor sculpture, or other large -scale artwork, and other uncommon constructs. E. Sample building materials, upon the City's request. F. Sample paving materials, upon the City's request. SECTION 5. Section 20 -110 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (7) to read: (7) Within the HC districts, consistency with the purpose, intent, and standards of the HC districts. SECTION 6. Section 20 -116 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding ' subparagraph (e) to read: 1 it (e) Within the HC districts, the standards for the HC districts shall apply in addition to the standards specified in this division. SECTION 7. Section 20 -118 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Sec. 20 -118. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding five (5) feet in height, include state walls which cumulatively exceed five (5) feet in height, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect and in conformance with all building materials specifications and limitations set forth in this division or, if applicable, in the HC districts. SECTION 8. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article XXIX to read: 2 n it ARTICLE XXIX.HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS I DIVISION 1, HC -1 DISTRICT ' Sec. 20 -1450. Purpose. The Highway 5 Corridor and the development within it will be major factors ' influencing the visual and environmental quality of the community as a whole. Due to the intensity of land uses, the Highway 5 Corridor represents the heart of Chanhassen as well as ' its dominating image of those passing through the community. Development in the corridor must be designed with greater sensitivity to the environment and of generally higher quality than might have occurred in the absence of specific standards. The purpose of the District is I to: (a) Protect creek corridors, wetlands, and significant stands of mature trees through ' use of careful site design, protective easements, sensitive alignment and design of roadways and utilities, incorporation of natural features, landscaping and massing of trees that enhance existing natural features and views, and the practices delineated in the City's Best ' Management Practices Handbook. (b) Promote high - quality architectural and site design through improvement ' development standards within the corridor. These standards govern site planning, placement of building masses, use of materials, and the like enable the City to enhance what otherwise might result in low quality strip development. , (c) Create a unified, harmonious, and high -quality visual environment throughout the corridor, thereby identifying it as a special place with a unique identity within both the City 1 and the Twin Cities region as a whole. (d) Foster a distinctive and positive community image, for the City as a whole and ' especially for the Highway 5 Corridor, which functions as the City's main entrance. Sec. 20 -1451. Intent. The City intends that all development within the district should strive toward the highest level of quality in both design and construction. The criteria by which new development in this district shall be judged are as follows: (a) Consistency with all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time , to time; the Surface Water Protection Program; all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance not specifically overridden by the provisions of this district; and all other applicable land use regulations. 3 1 i 1 r (b) Preservation of the natural conditions found on each site to the greatest extent possible, through minimized removal of trees and other vegetation and soil, minimized site grading, and application of the practices found in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. (c) Establishment throughout the district of harmonious physical and visual relationships among existing, new, and proposed buildings, open spaces, natural terrain, and plant materials and placement with the intent of creating a unique and unified appearance for the entire corridor. (d) Use of appropriate materials, lighting, textures, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high -quality design concept for each site that is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures and functions, including but not limited to natural areas, City-owned property, and vacant land subject to future development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. (e) Creation of unified site designs, each with a sense of internal order, that ' provide desirable environments for site users and visitors and the community as a whole and that consider all site elements including: the relationship of buildings to surrounding landforms; grading; architectural design; building, parking and loading dock orientation; ' building height; use of man -made materials, including paving; site furnishings (lighting, outdoor seating, signage, etc.); landscaping (retention of natural vegetation, plant selection and placement, retention and incorporation of water features, etc.); and other visible outdoor site elements. (f) Creation of a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, ' landscaping, and view protection and the design and function of man -made features on the other. Achieving this balance shall take into account screening, buffering, size and orientation of open spaces, personal and property security, localized wind and solar effects, and protection of important public ways. (g) Provision of safe and adequate access to and from sites giving ample consideration to the location and number of access points from public streets, the safety and convenience of merging and turning movements, and traffic management and mitigation. ' (h) Provision of on -site vehicular, bicycling, and pedestrian circulation by way of interior drives, parking areas, pathways, and walkways adequate to handle anticipated needs ' and to safety buffer pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles. Ample consideration shall be given to the width of interior drives, internal traffic movement and flow, separation of pedestrian, cycling, automobile, and delivery traffic, and the safe convenient, and practical arrangement of parking spaces. (i) Adequate separation and protection of each site from adjacent properties, access ' boulevards, and Highway 5 and vice - versa, through reasonable provisions for surface water 1 4 drainage, sound and sight buffers, view protection, privacy, and other aspects of design that may not be specifically covered by these or other regulations but are found to have significant effect on any or all of the properties and roadways. Sec. 20 -1452. District Application. The "HC -1" district shall be applied and superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "HC -1" district shall be in addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of the districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Sec. 20 -1453. Building and Parldng Orientation. control: (a) For the purpose of determining front, rear, and side yards, the following shall 1. In any lot that abuts Highway 5 directly, other than a single family residential lot, the lot line abutting the highway shall be considered the front lot line. 2. In any lot that abuts either of the access boulevards parallel to Highway 5, including any existing single family residential lot, but excluding any new single family residential lot, the lot line abutting the boulevard shall be considered the front lot line. 3. In any lot that abuts both Highway 5 and one of the access boulevards, other than a single family residential lot, the lot shall be regarded as having two front lot lines. The lot line abutting the boulevard shall take design precedence. Such a lot shall be regarded as having no rear lot line or yard. 4. No new single family residential lot may have a front yard that faces Highway 5, nor a front yard that faces either of the access boulevards. No new or existing single family residential lot shall provide driveway access directly from Highway 5, nor shall any new single family residential lot provide driveway access directly from Highway 5 or either of the access boulevards. r F�oDNr LOT LINE r FRONT LOT LINE LOT A LOT D I 1 1 LOTC� 60UlEVNtD ,L E,6 LOTS W 5 FRONT LOT LINE FRONT LOT L8E FRONT LOT LINE 1 �I u L ' TMS FRONT LOT LINE SK a l ME DESK.NORECEDENCE Sec. 20 -1454. Architectural Design Standards. J (b) Parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front (primary or secondary) yard setback of any lot. A " W{LEVARD BUILDING SETBACK Standards governing architectural design shall apply to all new and renovated buildings within the district with the exception of single - family residences on individual lots. (a) Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roof -line and setback. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are prohibited. Ow�pwG S , y ,yl .WD ytiybi..G l µ /erM�••• nb I� 0 f� wtOwrw.ocov- (b) Monotony of design, both within projects and between any project and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and plant materials, sizes, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roof -line, and setback. 6 o.� N&NWAY 5 1 6 b O O �1 5 Z X WOVNOC►�G�+2TY�RD i =A=�. _� �J eut0wc suiDwc �^ NFRWYARD i 3 F7 U 1 DO TM5- N� DO MS_ AVOIDING MONOTONY ow rn5 (c) Within the district, particular attention shall be paid to architectural compatibility with the existing environment. (1) Each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. II V LJ (2) All new construction and redevelopment shall conform to the established building scale, range of building materials, pedestrian orientation, and relationship between buildings and the streetscape. (d) Building heights shall be limited to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet. Measurement of the highest point shall exclude antennas for television and radio reception, but shall include architectural details (e.g., parapet walls), transmission antennas, satellite dishes and transmission equipment, microwave - transmission equipment, and other non- structural building elements. (e) All man-made architectural, landscape, and paving materials shall reflect the highest quality possible and should be used in a manner suitable to the nature of the material, its role in the design, general durability, expected level of use or abuse, weathering characteristics, and ease and frequency of maintenance. Major exterior surfaces of all walls 7 HDT n*6 I %&DNG I 1 u shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place or pre -cast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent, as determined by the city. The following may not be used in any visible exterior application except when specifically permitted by the City in areas with limited public view: 1 Exposed cement ( "cinder ") blocks. ♦ Fabricate metal or pole construction structures, including mobile homes, sheds, ' warehouses, and industrial buildings constructed either on or off -site of corrugated metal panels. ' ♦ Exterior brick that is painted over. ♦ Experimental materials with no proven record of durability or ease of 1 maintenance in the intended application. I 'J 1 ♦ A solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as a change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways. A change in texture alone is not sufficient to meet this requirement. ♦ Materials or construction methods used for one aspect or portion of a project that are significantly lower in quality than those used for the balance of that project, such that this one aspect or portion is or rapidly becomes an eyesore or detriment to the project as a whole. ♦ A distinct and different material or combination of materials for each exposed exterior wall. No more than two (2) principal materials or two (2) principal combinations of materials should be used to construct any one building. Addition of other materials for accent use is permissible. ♦ As building element, combination of elements, or another site structure that acts as a conspicuous building emblem or signature. Examples include single garish elements (e.g., orange roofs); use of bricks, blocks, or tiles to turn a wall into an outsized sign or logo; and other attempts to use a building or wall as an advertisement. (f) Site designs and configurations that tend to catch and accumulate trash, leaves, and dirt shall be avoided. In addition, provisions for washing and cleaning buildings, other structures, and building grounds shall be considered and included in the design. 8 u (g) All building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, soffits, and parapets, shall have good proportions that relate to the facade of the building and shall relate well with one another. PROPORTIONS OF BUILDING COMPONENTS (h) Colors shall be harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes. USING COLOR (i) Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other utility hardware, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shall be screened from the public view and with materials identical to or strongly similar to building materials or by heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter or they shall be located so as not to be visible from any public way. Use of parapet walls or pitched roof elements to screen equipment is encouraged. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen. 0) Screening of service yards, refuse, and waste - removal areas, loading docks, truck parking areas, and other areas which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, dense planting, or any combination of these elements. Screening shall block views from public right -of -way and shall be equally effective in winter and summer. E C • 6CREEN FENCE OR WALL I FRU6S ►ULDIN VENTED SCREEN WALL FLATROOF ram HORIZONTAL WOOD ?BELL MECW,Nc.*,L EQUPMENT 6CREENFENCE OR WALL 51REET 1LEROOF 0 • � 1 !'? 10 Sec. 20 -1455. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings. The following standards governing design and placement of landscaping and site furnishings shall apply to all new and renovated buildings within the district, with the exception of single family residences on individual lots. (a) Where natural or existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty or utility of a development, they shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Modification to topography will be permitted where and to the extent that it contributes to good design. All topographic modifications shall adhere to the practices delineated in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. V WTW MEE6 (b) The grades of all walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall conform with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, they shall provide an inviting and stable appearance from walking. Stairs and ramps may be substituted for slanted pavement when necessary. (c) All landscape shall preserve and enhance natural features (such as wetlands, drainageways, mature stands of trees, and the like), enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. (d) Landscaping shall emphasize massing of plant materials over isolated or scattered placement of individual specimens. Reforestation as prescribed by the City's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Ordinance is encouraged. 0o TI-0- LANDSCAPE MASSING "" THS 11 PRESERVING TOPOGRAPHY I � -1 REF ETIno«a L4ATE3ZV.L6 (f) Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture and color, and ' for its ultimate growth size. Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be hardy, harmonious to the design of good appearance, and of relatively easy maintenance shall be used. WE OkMt I TREE PROTECTION (h) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees in parkways, gardens, ' or paved areas is encouraged. Trees should be clustered whenever possible, and consideration shall be given to the special needs of plants surrounded by impervious surfaces. I 00 MS.. TREE PLACEMENT NOT 1 12 (e) Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other materials, and by correlation with natural existing materials and adjacent developments where appropriate. (g) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, they shall be protected by appropriate curbs, tree guards, or similar devices. UNITY OF DESIGN t (i) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other solutions- -such as fences, walls, rock gardens, raised planters, or pavings of wood, brick stone, gravel, or cobbles - -shall be used. Carefully selected plants shall be included. WADING ZOO SCREEN FENCE OR WAk L rEDGE eRiCR GAVO4G ORNMIEN<M TREI CONCRETE wMl DRAG ALTERNATivE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ROCK GARDEN STREET TREE 0) Exterior lighting shall enhance the building design and adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent areas. Lighting shall be arranged and focused so that minimal light falls on adjacent property and no light shines directly at or into any adjacent building. Excessive brightness and glare shall be avoided. LIGHTING CONTROL (k) Site furnishings located on private property shall be designed as part of the site's architectural concept and landscape. Materials and colors shall be in harmony with buildings, surroundings, and other furnishings; scale shall be appropriate to the site and the design; and proportions shall be attractive. (1) Site furnishings and landscaping located in any public way or on other public property shall be harmonious with the design of adjacent buildings, with the appearance of the highway in the vicinity, and with the generally character of the City. (m) Lighting in connection with site furnishings (e.g., to highlight a ground sign) shall meet the criteria applicable to site, landscape, buildings, and signs. (n) All provisions of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, to the extent that they directly affect the appearance, design and utility of a particular site, and to the extent that they do no conflict directly with the standards delineated here, shall be a part of the criteria of this subsection. 13 J, 1 DIVISION 2. HC -2 DISTRICT ' Sec. 20 -1460. Purpose and Intent. ' The purpose and intent of the HC -2 district is the same as the HC -1 district with certain modifications to the district standards reflecting that the area within the HC -2 district is not part of the City's central business district. ' Sec. 20 -1461. District Application. 1 The "HC -1" district shall be applied to and super imposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "HC -1" district shall be in addition to these ' established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. I Sec. 20 -1462. Building and Parking Orientation. The building and parking orientation standards for the HC -1 district shall apply, together with the following additional requirements: (a) On building lots that abut Highway 5 directly, the minimum building setback from the highway right -of -way shall be seventy (70) feet. The maximum building setback from the highway right -of -way for all buildings except single family residences shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet. No maximum building setback shall apply to single family residences. (b) On building lots that abut either of the access boulevards parallel to Highway 5, the minimum building setback from the boulevard right -of -way shall be fifty (50) feet. The maximum building setback from the boulevard right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. Sec. 20 -1463. Architectural Design Standards. The architectural design standards for the HC -1 district shall apply, with the exception of Section 20- 1456(c) which shall not apply. Sec. 20 -1464. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings. The landscape design and site furnishings standards for the HC -1 district shall apply. SECTION 9. The boundaries of the districts established by this chapter are delineated on the zoning map; the map and all notations, references, and date shown thereon are hereby adopted and made part of this chapter and will be on permanent file for public inspection at the Chanhassen City Hall. 14 SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: , 1994, by the City Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 6/22/44 15 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY ORDINANCE The ordinance establishes an overlay district along Highway 5 from Dell Road to ' Highway 41. The intent is to preserve the natural features, create standards for architectural design and site standards as well as building materials. ' Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this _ day of , 1994. i Kathryn R. Aanenson Planning Director (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on i Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN r P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147 ' Re: Highway 5 Corridor Design Ordinance Dear Mayor Chmiel and Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Mills Fleet Farm, to set forth our comments on the City's proposed Design Overlay Ordinance for the Highway 5 Corridor. ' We will begin our comments pointing out once again that the City has not met the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, for the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance amendment. The requirements of ' that statute are intended to put property owners on notice of Zoning Ordinance amendments which affect their property. Most property owners within the proposed HC -1 and HC -2 zoning districts have never see this ordinance and are totally unaware of its proposed adoption and the substantial impacts it will have on their ability to develop and use their property. This ordinance should not be adopted until all affected property owners have at least received a copy of the ' ordinance and an opportunity to review it so that they might understand its broad impact on the use of their property. ' This leads us to our second major objection to this ordinance. The proposed ordinance, in our opinion, is so burdensome, so restrictive and so subjective that it will be totally unworkable. The City is ' setting itself up for endless arguments and disputes about what is "harmonious," "suitable," "high- quality," etc. Furthermore, no property owner can have any idea what is or isn't permitted under this ordinance, and the cost of preparing the necessary application materials to find out what will be approved will be prohibitive for l JAMES P. LARKIN LAMN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. DANIEL L. BOWLES ROBERT L. HOFFMAN TIMOTHY J. McMANUS JACK F. DALY ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIMOTHY J. KEANE D. KENNETH LINDGREN ALAN M. ANDERSON GERALD H. FRIEDELL DONNA L. ROBACK ALLAN E. MULLIGAN MICHAEL W. SCHLEY JAMES C. ERICKSON LISA A. GRAY EDWARD J. DRISCOLL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER GARY A. RENNEKE GENE N. FULLER CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL JOHN D. FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON ROBERT E. BOYLE BRUCE J. DOUGLAS FRANK L HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1194 WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. CHARLES S. MODELL G JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN TELEPHONE (612) 835 -3800 DANIEL W. VOSS JOHN R. BEATTIE FAX 896 JOHN R. HILL LINDA H. FISHER (612) -3333 PETER J. COYLE THOMAS P. STOLTMAN MICHAEL J. SMITH MICHAEL C. JACKMAN VILIS R. INDE JOHN E. DIEHL DWIGHT N. HOLMBO JON S. SWIERZEWSKI ANDREW F. PERRIN THOMAS J. FLYNN - ANN M. MEYER JAMES P. QUINN FREDERICK K. HAUSER III TODD I. FREEMAN MARY E. VOS PETER K. BECK LARRY D. MARTIN H. KAHNKE JANE E. BREMER ' JEROME GERALD L. BECK RENEE L. TOENGES JOHN B. LUNDQUIST MARCY R. KREISMAN DAYLE NOLAN' MARIEL E. PIILOLA THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. DAMON E. SCHRAMM JOHN A. COTTER* STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER PAUL B. PLUNKETT OF COUNSEL ALAN L. KILDOW WENDELL R. ANDERSON KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN JOSEPH GITIS MICHAEL B. LEBARON MARK A. RURIK GREGORY E. KORSTAD GARY A. VAN CLEVE' 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN July 11, 1994 Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN r P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147 ' Re: Highway 5 Corridor Design Ordinance Dear Mayor Chmiel and Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, Mills Fleet Farm, to set forth our comments on the City's proposed Design Overlay Ordinance for the Highway 5 Corridor. ' We will begin our comments pointing out once again that the City has not met the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, for the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance amendment. The requirements of ' that statute are intended to put property owners on notice of Zoning Ordinance amendments which affect their property. Most property owners within the proposed HC -1 and HC -2 zoning districts have never see this ordinance and are totally unaware of its proposed adoption and the substantial impacts it will have on their ability to develop and use their property. This ordinance should not be adopted until all affected property owners have at least received a copy of the ' ordinance and an opportunity to review it so that they might understand its broad impact on the use of their property. ' This leads us to our second major objection to this ordinance. The proposed ordinance, in our opinion, is so burdensome, so restrictive and so subjective that it will be totally unworkable. The City is ' setting itself up for endless arguments and disputes about what is "harmonious," "suitable," "high- quality," etc. Furthermore, no property owner can have any idea what is or isn't permitted under this ordinance, and the cost of preparing the necessary application materials to find out what will be approved will be prohibitive for l LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ' Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council July 11, 1994 Page 2 all but the largest developers. In essence, the City is setting itself up for litigation. In Chase v. City of Minneapolis 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. App. 1987), the court held that the City of Minneapolis could not deny site plan review for a Hardee's restaurant on the ' ground that the architectural appearance was unacceptable. ' Section 4 of the proposed ordinance amends the application requirements for site plan review to require "building elevations from all directions," "building and site views from Highway 5, the ' appropriate access boulevard, and any other appropriate arterial or collector roadways "site views showing the relationships of the proposed building or development to adjacent development," and so ' forth. Building elevations and site views are expensive to prepare. These requirements will be extremely burdensome for small projects, such as residential projects or small commercial buildings in the downtown; and just plain unnecessary for many other developments such ' as buildings in the industrial park. Some of this information may be appropriate for large scale developments, but to impose these requirements on all development in the corridor is the type of ' overkill that typifies this ordinance. Section 7 of the proposed ordinance amends Section 20 -118 of the zoning ordinance to require that retaining walls be constructed in ' conformance with all building materials specifications set forth in the Highway Corridor districts. Does this really mean that retaining walls have to be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, etc., as set forth ' in the HC districts? Section 20 -1451 of the proposed ordinance sets forth the "intent" of ' the HC -1 district, and states that "the criteria by which new development in this district shall be judged are as follows." There is a listing of nine "criteria." The language of the ordinance indicates that these.'!criteria" are actually standards which ' development in the HCdistricts must meet. Will building permits, conditional use permits, plats, etc., be denied if the proposed construction is not consistent with everyone of the dozens of ' requirements set forth in these "criteria "? Must every development comply with all of the "criteria" set forth in this intent section of the ordinance? If these "criteria" are in fact standards, they should be taken out of the intent section of the ordinance and put into the architectural design standards set forth in Section 20 -1454 of the ordinance. If these "criteria" are not standards for development in the district, they should be stricken from the ordinance so as not to ' tempt the City into treating these "criteria" as standards and denying development for failure to comply with them. I LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN , LTD. ' Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council July 11, 1994 ' Page 3 We recommend the latter course of action because these "criteria" are ' ridiculously broad, internally inconsistent and so subjective as to be an open invitation to improperly deny a particular project as a matter of personal taste or preference. Such terms as "harmonious physical and visual relationships," "unified, high quality design concept," ' "suitable balance," etc., defy any sort of objective measurement and leave the property owner without a clue as to what can or cannot be placed on this property. As if this wasn't enough, the "criteria" conclude by requiring that each development make "reasonable provisions for . other aspects of design that may not be specifically covered by these or other regulations but are found to ' have significant effect on any or aft of the properties and roadways." In other words, even if a property owner follows this ordinance and all other regulations to the letter, the proposed development can still be denied. The City simply does not have this kind of ' discretion in acting on land use approvals, and should not delude either itself or its residents and property owners into thinking that it does. Reasonable, objective standards set forth in the ordinance ' are permissible. Subjective, open -ended requirements disguised as "criteria" are not. ' Section 20 -1453 of the proposed ordinance provides that lots which abut both Highway 5 and one of the access boulevards have two front lot lines, and that parking areas cannot be located within the required minimum front yard setback of any lot. Section 20 -1462 ' provides that the minimum building setback for such lots is 70 feet from Highway 5 and 50 feet from the access boulevard. On a property with 1,000 feet of frontage, this ordinance would render three acres ' of land completely worthless. There is nothing inherently wrong with parking areas adjacent to a state highway. Given the width of the Highway 5 right -of -way, most properties will have a significant setback from cars on Highway 5 without the need for additional, extra ' setbacks within the property-. Parking areas can be screened from the highway with landscaping and berms without the need for an additional 70' setback. This. requirement is overly and unnecessarily ' restrictive. Section 20 -1454 sets forth the "architectural design standards" for ' the district. These design standards apply to "all new and renovated buildings within the district with the exception of single family residences on individual lots." ' The architectural design standards go far beyond the establishment of requirements for building materials, building heights, screening mechanical equipment, etc., and purport to give the City the authority ' to deny approval to build a building simply because the City does not like the design, the appearance or the color of the proposed building. Virtually all of the design "standards" are entirely subjective, and I LARHIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN LTD. ' Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council July 11, 1994 ' Page 4 many are internally inconsistent. For instance, "monotony of design" ' is prohibited. However, each building is required to contain one or more pitched roof elements and to "conform to the established building scale, range of building materials, pedestrian orientation, and relationship between [existing] buildings and the streetscape." "A ' solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as a change of materials" is prohibited. However, also prohibited, is "a distinct and different material or combination of materials for each exposed ' exterior wall." Each building is required to contain one or more pitched roof elements. However, a building element which acts as an emblem or signature is also prohibited. Hopefully, no business will come to town which has as its signature building element a pitched ' roof. The pitched roof requirement is one of the more ridiculous requirements of the proposed ordinance, and illustrates the internal inconsistencies in the ordinance and the impossibility of legislating good taste. The ordinance requires that each building contain one or ' more pitched roof elements. However, on pages 6 and 7 of the proposed ordinance there appear five examples of how to comply with the ordinance. Four of these examples show buildings with no pitched roof ' element. Fifteen years ago, mansured roofs were quite popular. Would Chanhassen be a better place today if the City Council had adopted a zoning ordinance in 1980 which required every new building in the City to contain one or more mansured roof elements? ' With respect to the building materials, it is not clear whether rock face block is permitted or not. We are also not sure why exterior ' brick cannot be painted. With respect to the landscape design standards, we question why "landscape massing" and tree "clustering" are deemed so preferable as ' to be a requirement. The ordinance also requires that "plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture and color, and for its ultimate growth size." Why can't a property owner put in ' a tree just simply because he likes that type of tree? Whey can't a property owner's landscape architect be permitted to make his own judgments as to how the property shall be landscaped? ' The building material requirements and other design standards apply to all residential development with the exception of single family homes on individual lots. These requirements are simply not reasonable for the development of such uses as twin homes and townhouses which, in fact, a significant amount of the land within the Highway 5 Corridor is zoned for. At a minimum, the ordinance has to be revised to ' accommodate these types of uses. The ordinance should also be revised so as to not to apply to renovated buildings, if the City ever wants to see another building renovated in the Highway 5 Corridor. I LARICIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. I Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council July 11, 1994 ' Page 5 This ordinance is an attempt to regulate every detail of a property ' owner's use of his land, from the color of his building to the species of tree in the front yard, on a purely subjective basis. It is unreasonable, overly restrictive, and will be a nightmare for the property owner subjected to it and the staff which must administer it. The ordinance violates the equal protection clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. Simply stated, the ordinance does V orthwestern ot operate uniformly on those properties similarly situated. College v. City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979). Other properties located next to highways are not required to ' comply with this ordinance. Accordingly, the ordinance is unconstitutional. ' More importantly, it won't make Chanhassen a better place to live. Reasonable restrictions on building size, set backs, building materials and a few other constraints are sufficient to protect the community. Going beyond that in an attempt to create an entire ' corridor in the image of whoever will be administering this ordinance unnecessarily stifles the creativity of the architects and landscape architects retained to design developments for the property owners ' within the corridor, and will result in a row of little brick buildings with jogs in the walls and "pitched roof elements." The ordinance as written is unreasonable, it will be expensive to administer and defend, and it is simply unnecessary. It should be ' rewritten with the City Attorney's assistance so that it sets reasonable, objective standards and strays within the bounds of the , City's discretion. Very truly yours, ' Christopher J. etzen, for ' LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw I cc: Mills Fleet Farm ' 030:JD5s l i.