Laserfiche WebLink
Case # <br /> PUBLIC HEARING <br />REVIEW ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR MEDIUM- <br /> AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS <br /> By: Amy Geisler, Associate Planner <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The City Council discussed architectural standards for multifamily development at its July 29, 2003 <br />work session. The Housing Committee has been reviewing and modifying draft standards for several <br />months, and has voted to forward the draft to the EDA and Planning Commission for their <br />consideration. ' <br /> <br />The following! items are enclosed for your information: <br /> <br />a) Draft Planning Commission minutes dated December 4, 2003 <br />b) Summary Of architectural standards used by surrounding communities <br />c) Draft re~write of'R~2 and R-3 Residential Zoning. Districts <br /> <br />Notification: : <br /> <br />The public hearing was properly advertised in the Anoka County Union. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />As the City continues to ~ow, the quality of new residential development will play an important role <br />in the durabili~ and diversity of the City's housing stock. The quality of the City's housing stock has <br />implications [or property values and the desirability-of the area to prospective residents and <br />businesses. <br /> <br />The Planning iCommission reviewed the draft standards at their December 4, 2003 meeting and <br />recommended i~he following chan~es: <br /> 1. Reduce the brick requirement from 50% to 35%. <br /> 2. Definelpublic thoroughfares as State Highways, County Highways, and MSA roads. <br /> 3. Provide an option for waiving the brick requirement if a proposed development exceeds the <br /> minimOm standards of the Section. <br /> <br />Staff would lik:~e the Planning Commission to recommend changes to the current draft, specifically: <br /> l. Should'. the 35% brick requirement apply to all sides of the building or just the front? How <br /> should ithe front be defined (e.g. main entrance, etc)? Should windows and doors be included <br /> in the ~alculation? <br /> 2. Are there additional major and minor changes that should be included in Part ii - <br /> Architectural Diversity? <br /> 3. If we a:llow ti waiver t'rom the brick requirement, how should we define the threshold where <br /> proposed development exceeds the minimum standards in the ordinance? <br /> <br />Staff will be prepared to discuss these different questions at the meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />