Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003

Home

Associate plan~er Geisler further advised Staff has been researching architectural standards and their implemett4;ation and offers the following observations: Location of standards: Architectural standards can reside in City Code, the Compr ~ehensive Plan, or both. Methodioflmplementation: Architectural standards are typically implemented one of two waJYs; through specific standards spelled out in City Code, or through a less formalized Design Review process. In the first option, City Staff would evaluate development plans for compliance with specific architectural requirements established in City COde. In the second option, an appointed Review Board would review plans according to less specific requirements. Such a board typically contains members with specific;~, architectural expertise. Cities may also choose to pursue a combination approach. The Housing Committee has recommended a Code-based approach rather than a Desigfl Review Board. Implications of architectural standards: Architectural standards may drive up the cost of housing - to builders and ultimately to consumers. Builders are less able to use standardized, corporate designs, and materials may have a higher initial cost. On the other h ~.~d, architectural standards have the potential to produce housing that is of higher quality and design, resulting in a more durable, diverse housing stock. Associate plarmer Geisler noted Staff would like the Planning Commission to specifically address one seotion of the proposed code, under the General Standards section. She indicated the section is on page 55 of the packet, General standards; sections 1, 2 and 3. She stated the question is on the 50% brick requirement. Commissioner johnson indicated this reminds him of the development they had recently where the units were ii larger than they would normally allow, but the developer was going to add underground garage space, which the Planning Commission thought was a good idea. He stated the thought WaS if they were going to build a higher quality product, the City could allow some things they would not otherwise allow. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated Commissioner Johnson is proposing some: type of incentive based standards. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated they have some arbitrary limits on the size of buildings and number of Cnits. He feels they could look at that, and for instance, give some leeway if they are proposing 3000 square foot townhomes or significant upgrades to the units. Associate Planner Geisler stated on page 55, the Housing Committee was firm on the 50% brick, whereas Staff thought it could maybe be less. She noted that the Ryland Homes Rivenwick development would not meet that requirement. Chairperson Nixt asked where they came up with these requirements. Planning Commission/December 4, 2003 Page 17of 20