Laserfiche WebLink
Mary Jo Olson asked the Committee if the objective was to encourage more durable <br />buildings or to create a sense of cc~mmunity. Associate Planner Geisler asked the <br />Committee whether they wanted to recommend a Design Review Board or implement <br />design standards through City Code. Consensus of the Committee was to recommend <br />increasing the level of existing plan review, rather than establishing a formal Review <br />Board. <br /> <br />Michelle Osterhus suggested the Committee create a mission statement for the new <br />standards. Associate Planner Geisler suggested the "Intent" portion of the revised zoning <br />code be used to describe the purpose of the new standards. <br /> <br />Chair Kiefer suggested the Committee look at offering incentives for improved design, <br />maybe an additional unit for a higher percentage of brick, for example. Suzanne Dvorak <br />said an incentive program would have to make sure open space was not compromised. <br />Vice Chair Anderson said that by the time a proposed development gets to the Council, <br />many of the design decisions are already made. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Committee was to compare existing code with a draft proposed code at <br />the next meeting, with the following considerations: <br /> <br />No front-facing garages on major street frontages <br />Some differentiation in roof lines <br />Diversity in building colors <br />Diversity in building styles <br />Minimum masonry requirements <br />Required gathering space/community space <br />Prohibit EIFS <br />Others to be determined at the next meeting <br /> <br />Motion by Mary Jo Olson to adjourn the meeting, Dick Kruger seconded, motion passed. <br /> <br />Meeting adjourned. <br /> <br /> <br />