Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY OF 11/20/00 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br /> RPUD ORDINANCE <br /> Most comments were in regards to the issue of building height, primarily in regards to attached <br /> dwellings: should there be a height limit, and what should it be; if no height limit, should there <br /> be guidelines or criteria for determining an appropriate height, or should it be entirely at <br /> discretion of Council based on the individual proposal. <br /> Individual Comments: <br /> ❑ Should be standards,but in terms of stories <br /> ❑ Perhaps should be a limit on number of stories rather than on height in feet <br /> ❑ Limit the# of stories on lakeshore single family residential <br /> ❑ Don't rule out taller commercial <br /> ❑ Aesthetics need to be considered in determining appropriate height <br /> ❑ Taller is maybe OK with mitigation such as greater setbacks, etc <br /> ❑ Should be finite limits, clear standards <br /> ❑ Limit to treetop height <br /> ❑ Standards needed, with flexibility <br /> ❑ Need to review guidelines; we need guidelines, developers need guidelines if not <br /> a defined limit <br /> ❑ There should be no restrictions, let Council decide on a case-by-case basis <br /> ❑ We perhaps should consider whether current SFR height standard is appropriate <br /> ❑ Possible limits could be based on: <br /> - Proximity to single family homes <br /> - Topography <br /> - Comparison to adjacent uses <br /> - Proximity to lakeshore <br /> Clearly, there is not a strong concensus on whether or how to limit the height of attached <br /> dwellings in the RPUD district, nor on whether we should have guidelines for determining an <br /> appropriate height if we have no limit. <br /> Further discussion was tabled to a future works session to be held in Nov or Dec. Tabled, 6-0. <br /> Also tabled #2638 and #2639 to work session, 6-0. <br />