Laserfiche WebLink
:. <br />January i5, l�sa <br />TG: City Council <br />FROrI: Jim Andr <br />�u����T= ROSEFOINT ; apA�Tl�IENTS-- � <br />DECORAlIVE WaLL <br />� <br />a v'_ .LJ CL � � � <br />As the attached correspondenc� explains, the p <br />and rounc�l approved the Rosepointe Apartment aanning CcmmiSsion <br />oz�e of the conditions requiring tn� decor3tive raal <br />brick. PPlicati�,� W�th <br />1 to be made of <br />Ti1e intent of tne action was t� have a brick m <br />presumably to match the u ade of cla� <br />When th� plans were submitted exterior of the apar�ment comple . <br />decorative block (the same thattis Yonr�he�fouf�r a concrete <br />apartment building) with brick to ndation of ttle <br />not caught in the reviec� Pping °f� the wa11. <br />process, This was <br />The deve.�Qper is maintaining he follo�,�ed <br />is, in fact, similar or ;:cm la.mentar prOcedure and th� c. <br />The on�y differer�ce is thatPon the ay to the apartment buildings. <br />i; dom�.nant, and on the wall the Dre�kr�ff nt bu��-ding the brick <br />I� is the s�taff's opin�.on �na� t block is dominant. <br />condition has neen me+- � he Coun�^+1 should det� <br />definition of i�rick, i f'�ut instruct the staff to rmine the <br />such deiinitions Possible �present codes dopnotide a <br />building materials needtto b,�nmo �' COnditions relatingpto vide <br />indtzstry dif��rences in Wna� is aede�initeo because there are <br />A���n, n of bric�c, <br />