Laserfiche WebLink
Case # <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. This is the third reading of the standards by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />The following items are enclosed for your information: <br /> <br />a) Planning Commission minutes dated December 4, 2003 <br />b) Draft Planning Commission minutes dated February 5, 2004 <br />· c) Draft re-write of R-2 and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts <br /> <br />Notification: <br /> <br />A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission at their February 5, 2004 meeting. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />The Planning Commission reviewed the draft standards at their December 4, 2003 meeting and <br />recommended the following changes: <br /> [. Reduce the brick requirement from 50% to 35%. <br /> 2. Define public 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 /> minimum standards of the Section. <br /> <br />At their February 5, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission recommended the following changes: <br /> 1. Apply the 35% brick requirement to the front of the building, excluding windows and <br /> doors from the area calculation. This requirement should also apply to the sides of <br /> buildings when they face a public street. <br /> 2. Require at least three (3) colors for each development, with an approved color palette. <br /> 3. Eliminate color change requirement between units. <br /> <br />This latest draft represents a shift from earlier drafts, in that it requires certain architectural elements <br />fbr each building, rather than requiring "changes" between units in a building. It ilso more clearly <br />spells out how a developer might deviate from the 35% brick requirement2 <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff would like the Planning Commission to recommend changes to the current draft, specifically: <br /> 1. Are there additional architectural elements that should be included, both as requirements <br /> and as options for deviating from the brick requirement? <br /> 2. Does this draft establish a minimum standard for design while permitting some flexibility <br /> ~br developers? <br /> <br /> <br />