Laserfiche WebLink
January 15, lasa <br />TG: <br />FRONI : <br />SU3�ECT: <br />City Council <br />Jim Andr <br />ROSEFOINT APARTI�IENTS--DECORATIVE WALL <br />�, ,;. ',J C� i`"' � <br />: <br />As the attached correspondence explains, the Planning Commission <br />and Council approved the Rosepointe Apar'tment applicati�n with <br />one of the conditions requiring th� decorative wall to be made of <br />brick. <br />Tl1e intent of the action was to have a brick made of clay, and <br />presumably to match the upp�r exterior of the apartment complex. <br />When the plans were submitted, they provided for a concrete <br />decorative block (the same that is on the foundation of the <br />apartment building) with brick topping off the wall. This was <br />not caught in the revieti� process. <br />The developer is maintaining he follo��ed procedure and th� Taail <br />is, in fact, similar or ccmplimentary to the apartment buildings. <br />The only diffzrer�ce is that on the apartment building the brick <br />is dominant, and on the wall the break off block is dominant. <br />It is the staff's opinion that the Council should det�rmine the <br />condition h�s been met, but instruct the staff to provide a <br />definition of i�rick, if possible (present cod�s do not provide <br />such definitions). At t�le minimum, conditions relating to <br />buildin� materials need to be more �etailed because there are <br />industry diff�rences in what is a definition of brick. <br />Attch. <br />