Laserfiche WebLink
John Feges, Ramsey Town Center, LLC indicated D.R. Horton has retained ESG to work on this <br />project, and they are really concerned about keeping the elements in line with the urban fabric the <br />City is looking for in the Town Center. He stated they will probably see many things you would <br />not see in other products around the country. He noted that any suggestions the Planning <br />Commission has would be well received. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy indicated he is looking at the design standards and wondering how it all <br />fits. He noted this development does not meet the standards, but it looks good. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges stated there are many things besides color that they look at, such as shadows, lines, <br />etc. to make sure it does not look like just standard row-type housing. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Brauer, seconded by Chairperson Nixt to recommend approval of the <br />preliminary site plan subject to compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated January 30, <br />2004 and approval of the preliminary plat for Ramsey Town Center 2nd Addition. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Brauer, Jeffrey, Shepherd, Van <br />Scoy and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Case #9 <br /> <br />Review Architectural Standards for Medium and High Density Residential <br />Districts <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler noted this is the second time they are bringing this to the Planning <br />Commission. She advised as the City continues to grow, the quality of new residential <br />development will play an important role in the durability and diversity of the City's housing <br />stock. She stated the quality of the City's housing stock has implications for property values and <br />the desirability of the area to prospective residents and businesses. She indicated the Planning <br />Commission reviewed the draft standards at their December 4, 2003 meeting and recommended <br />the following changes: <br /> 1. Reduce the brick requirement from 50% to 35%. <br /> 2. Define public thoroughfares as State Highways, County Highways, and MSA <br /> roads. <br /> 3. Provide an option for waiving the brick requirement if a proposed development <br /> exceeds the minimum standards of the Section. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler indicated Staff would like the Planning Commission to recommend <br />changes to the current draft, specifically: <br /> 1. Should the 35% brick requirement apply to all sides of the bUilding or just the <br /> front? How should the front be defined (e.g. main entrance)? Should windows <br /> and doors be included in the calculation? <br /> 2. Are there additional major and minor changes that should be included in Part ii - <br /> Architectural Diversity? <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 5, 2004 <br /> Page 14 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />