4 Design StandardsCITYOF
C HASSEN
690 City Center Drive
PO Box I47
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone
952.937.1900
General Fax
952.937.5739
Engineering Deparonent Fax
952.937.9152
Buildi,g Department Fax'
952.934.2524
Web Site
www. cl. &a, hasse,, mn. us
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director
DATE:
August 15, 2001
SUBJ:
Design Standards
The design standard item was included in your last Planning Commission
packet, and therefore I did not rerun the item. If anyone needs an additional
co_py, please contact me before the meeting. I have attached a letter from Lotus
Realty outlining their comments on the proposed standards. I have also attached
comments that I received from Commissioner Kind.
g:\planXka\destds.pc.doc
The City of Cha,hassen. A growh~g communi~, with clean lakes, ttuality schools, a charmin~ downtown, thrivine businesses, and beauti£ul parks. A ~,reat place to live, work, and play.
vlotkq
LOTUS
REALTY SERVICES
August 6, 2001
TO: Kate Aanenson
FROM: Vernelle Clayton
RE: Proposed Design Standards
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the revised proposed standards.
I will not be able to be at the Planning Commission meeting on August 7, when they will be
discussed; however, my basic concerns remain the same as I stated at the prior
meeting--although I note some changes.
As you know, whereas I have concerns regarding many of the specific standards proposed, my
basic concern is with the decision to consider design standards. The only rationale which I have
heard for this proposal is one which seems rather curious. That rationale is this: because staff,
Planning Commission and past Councils have been criticized for conditioning the City's approval
of some site plans on requirements which went beyond our Code, it was decided that then, we
should add certain requirements to the Code.
Two wrongs don't make a fight, though. This criticism has been a part of the well-known
Chanhassle image. Adding more standards, will give a strong signal that Chanhassen intends not
only to continue the "hassle", but to give it legitimacy by ordinance. Someone suggested that it
would save developer's time and frustration if they knew up front what the standards are. I
would guess, not effectively. In fact in some cases, developers and/or others thinking of
locating here may just decide not to bother with Chanhassen and go where things are a little
easier--as they sometimes claim they are doing now.
If the decision to consider design standards was made based on a more ethereal rational, then let
me make a couple of observations:
Developer friends of mine recently made the observation that design standards
tend to lead to design mediocrity.
.
From my own observation in working with different types of professionals--in
this case: architects and engineers, of varying degrees of creativity. Of those
architects with seemingly no creativity, I don't believe these standards will do
551 WEST 78TH STREET [] P.O. BOX 235 [] CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 [] (952) 934-4538 [] FAX (952) 934-5472
vlotkq
anything to assure an aesthetically pleasing structure. There is much more to
good design than a set of standards to be followed. Moreover and more
importantly, I believe there is every likelihood that a set Of standards limits the
creativity of the very good architects~
Design standards have their place within geographical areas which have been designated for a
specific look, feel, purpose, etc. Thus, they work in PUD's where the area included is intended
to have a degree of design control in order to be completed as planned. They also work well
when a community wants to retain an old-town downtown look, for example. Chanhassen
doesn't have an overall "look" or "character" that has been defined as its goal for all future
development. In fact, one of Chanhassen's charms is that it has a variety of shapes, sizes,
materials, etc.
So for the above reasons, not to mention the philosophy held by lots of folks that this type of
government intervention in the rights of property owners is not a good thing, I hope the
proposal will be tabled indefinitely. Property owners often object to staff and City intervention
in their architecture even when they have received something t~om the City in return. They
object more when there is nothing given in return. Chanhassen got into a habit of asking for
certain tweaks on buildings when the projects were either TIF-supported or a part of a PUD.
For the owner who has received none of the benefits, it is much less palatable.
Should the Planning Commission decide to approve some set of standards, then I will hope to
attend the meeting of the Council when they are discussed and/or when the policy of having
standards might be discussed.
Deb Kinds Design Standards Comments
Charlie James comment on the 75 percent rule. Staff's opinion is that this is a
slippery slope what if i~, the city's opinion the area that the applicant was
flexibility on is o~ze of the critical or sensitive design elements. I hope that as a
city we are always responsive to specific requests by developments. I believe that
at they are best ha~zdled on a case-by-case basis.
· Pg 5 the Heartland building -should pick a better picture with better
articulation staff agrees
· Should include a title for picture of ground level description staff agrees
· Page 6 glass should be listed as an acceptable material staff agrees
· Page 7 page break 20-1066 have a separate page for the pictures, 20-1068
start on new page all pictures should stay with text staff agrees
· Page 6 Site furnishing required "benches, tables and chairs should be
required on all new plans staff agrees, street funziture should be requires
whether is a pic~zic table bike rack etc.
· Page 10 Screened view for nonpublic (ROW) not just ROW should include
pedestrian views staff aggress if there is a trail around the building that the
buildi~zg should be screened
· Page 11//3 strengthen viable axes - axis means mainline of direction this term
could be further defi~zed
· Page 12 4/10 landscaping and tree removal should be consistent with section
#XXV in the city code staff aggress this will be referenced
· Page 12 #la revise to state "any lot that abuts Hwy 5" staff agrees