Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Planning Commission/OA 00-7 Page 3 <br />August 22, 2000 <br /> <br />The proposed standards specifically list which walls have to consist of materials <br />from the approved list. Those walls that face or are visible from streets, <br />residential districts and public facilities, including parks, have to consist of <br />approved materials. The proposed standards would eliminate the need for staff to <br />make subjective determinations about what are appropriate exterior materials. <br />The proposed standards also eliminate smooth faced concrete masonry units <br />and smooth or rake faced concrete cast in place or pre-cast panels from the list <br />of approved exterior materials as well. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Discussion <br /> <br />At the Planning Commission meeting held on August 22nd, no one spoke at the <br />public hearing regarding architectural standards. The Commission held a lengthy <br />discussion on exterior building materials. Discussed at length were the terms <br />"facing" and "visible". The Commission discussed whether Class 1 materials <br />would have to be the predominant material on walls that face a public street, <br />residential district or public facility or are visible from a public street residential <br />district or public facility. Situations will come up where a building wall might not <br />face a public street but it would still be visible from the street. The Commission <br />felt that it might be difficult to determine if a building wall is visible from a street, <br />residential district or public facility. To address this issue, the Commission <br />included both the terms "facing" and "visible". Also, it may be possible to screen <br />the wall from the street so that it is not fully visible. To address the issue of a wall <br />being visible but not facing a street, residential district or public facility, the <br />developer could use the greater percentage of Class II material provided the wall <br />is screened from view. <br /> <br />There was also some discussion regarding the lists of Class 1 and Class 2 <br />materials. The Commission discussed the possibility of allowing concrete tip-up <br />panels as a conditional use. A majority of the Commission felt that tip-up panels <br />were not an appropriate Class I material for the Business Park district. They also <br />discussed the need to require a mix of materials when using split faced block or <br />stucco. For aesthetic reasons, they did not feel a building consisting entirely of <br />spilt faced block or stucco is appropriate. They felt that stucco or rock faced block <br />should not exceed 50% of the wall. The proposed ordinance includes a sentence <br />restricting the use of stucco or rock faced block to 50% of the wall but does not <br />include allowing tip-up panels as a conditional use. <br /> <br />S:\PLANNING\SCOTT~OA0007CC.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />