My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/10/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2004
>
Agenda - Council - 02/10/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 2:21:26 PM
Creation date
2/6/2004 3:13:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/10/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Associate Planner Geisler further advised Staff has been researching architectural standards and <br />their implementation and offers the following observations: <br /> <br />Location of standards: Architectural standards can reside in City Code, the <br />Comprehensive Plan, or both. <br /> <br />Method of Implementation: Architectural standards are typically implemented one of <br />two ways; through specific standards spelled out in City Code, or through a less <br />formalized Design Review process. In the first option, City Staff would evaluate <br />development plans for compliance with specific architectural requirements established in <br />City Code. In the second option, an appointed Review Board would review plans <br />according to less specific requirements. Such a board typically contains members with <br />specific architectural expertise. Cities may also choose to pursue a combination <br />approach. The Housing Committee has recommended a Code-based approach rather than <br />a Design Review Board. <br /> <br />Implications of architectural standards: Architectural standards may drive up the cost <br />of housing - to builders and ultimately to consumers. Builders are less able to use <br />standardized, corporate designs, and materials may have a higher initial cost. On the <br />other hand, architectural standards have the potential to produce housing that is of higher <br />quality and design, resulting in a more durable, diverse housing stock. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler noted Staff would like the Planning Commission to specifically <br />address one seotion of the proposed code, under the General Standards section. She indicated the <br />section is on page 55 of the packet, General standards; sections 1, 2 and 3. She stated the <br />question is on the 50% brick requirement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated this reminds him of the development they had recently where <br />the units were. larger than they would normally allow, but the developer was going to add <br />underground gar. age space, which the Planning Commission thought was a good idea. He stated <br />the thought was if they were going to build a higher quality product, the City could allow some <br />things they would not otherwise allow. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated Commissioner Johnson is <br />proposing some type of incentive based standards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated they have some arbitrary limits on the size of buildings <br />and number of units. He feels they could look at that, and for instance, give some leeway if they <br />are proposing 3000 square foot townhomes or significant upgrades to the units. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler stated on page 55, the Housing Committee was firm on the 50% brick, <br />whereas Staff thought it could maybe be less. She noted that the Ryland Homes Rivenwick <br />development would not meet that requirement. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked where they came up with these requirements. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December 4, 2003 <br /> Page 17of20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.