PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Preliminary Plat for Parkside Townhomes (Project No. 22-143)

General Project Overview
The majority of the Subject Property was originally platted as Ramsey Town Center 7th Addition.  However, due to the great recession of the mid- to late-2000s, much of it was never actually developed.  The proposed Preliminary Plat layout is very similar to the existing parcel boundaries, with just minor adjustments.  At the time of Final Plat application, the Applicant will also need to apply for an Easement Vacation to eliminate all existing drainage and utility easements on the Subject Property.  New drainage and utility easements will be dedicated with the recording of the Final Plat. 

The Applicant is proposing twelve (12) buildings, consisting of a mix of 4-, 5-, and 6-unit buildings.  The Subject Property is located in the COR-4b subdistrict, which is the medium density residential subdistrict and allows up to fifteen (15) units per acre.  The Preliminary Plat has a density of approximately 13.5 units per acre.  All units will be served by municipal sanitary sewer and water.

Revised plans have already been submitted and Staff are currently reviewing them.  It does appear that many of the initial comments have been addressed.

Streets/Access/Sidewalks
The project will be accessed from 146th Avenue on the north and Ramsey Parkway on the south, both of which are existing public roads.  All proposed interior roads will be private.  There is an existing sidewalk along Rhinestone Street.  The project is proposing to install a six (6) foot wide sidewalk along the other three (3) public roads, as well as providing an appropriately sized boulevard area.  Both of these meet the standards outlined in the Design Framework.

Landscaping
The project includes both boulevard plantings (along all four public streets) and interior plantings as well.  Additionally, each building will have foundation plantings with a mix of shrubs, perennials, and ornamental grasses.  The Environmental Policy Board reviewed the Landscape Plan and recommended approval of it.  They did note that they wanted to make sure that there would not be overcrowding of trees between the buildings and public roads.  Staff has noted that the Landscape Plan should or could be revised to eliminate the proposed plantings between the sidewalks and buildings.  This would retain the boulevard tree plantings, which is in line with what the Design Framework emphasizes.
 
Architecture
As the Planning Commission is aware, there has been much discussion regarding the architecture for this project.  Initially, in March of 2022, there was discussion about front porches versus covered patios.  When the Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan, Staff recommended enhancing the fronts and sides of units that face a public road with brick or stone elements.  The proposed building elevations do not include any stone/brick enhancements that had been recommended during Sketch Plan review.  Furthermore, the Applicant had initially proposed ornamental fencing for each building to create a bit more of a 'front yard' feel and to encourage use of the front patios.  However, after further discussion, Staff agreed that the ornamental fencing was only necessary for those buildings that faced a public road (there are three (3) buildings in the interior 'block' that face green space and/or another building).

The COR Design Framework emphasizes the importance of architecture, especially along public street frontage.  The Design Framework also states that greater emphasis should be given to architectural elements, materials, and other design features for buildings on streets that intersect with, or front on or near, parks.  Furthermore, the Design Framework also states that projects shall provide a diverse mix of materials, applied in a variety of proportions, exposures and detailing within a block, or along a street.   Based on the greater emphasis on architecture within The COR, coupled with the fact that this project also overlooks The Draw, Staff recommends enhanced architecture, such as the addition of brick and/or stone, on the fronts and sides of buildings that face public roads.

Alternatives
Alternative 1: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Preliminary Plat.  The proposed Preliminary Plat generally complies with the standards of the Design Framework.  While Staff supports the project, it seems that the architectural finishes should be enhanced for those buildings (fronts and sides) that face a public road.  Staff does not support this alternative without modifications to the architecture.

Alternative 2: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon enhancing the architectural finishes of the fronts and sides of buildings that face a public road with materials such as stone and/or brick.  Staff supports this alternative. 

Alternative 3: Motion to recommend City Council deny the Preliminary Plat.  The Preliminary Plat generally conforms with the Design Framework and City Code, with the necessary revisions noted in ProjectDox.  Staff does not support this alternative.


 

All costs associated with this application are the Applicant's responsibility.

Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, contingent upon enhancing the architectural finishes on the fronts and sides of the buildings facing a public road (alternative 2).

Motion to recommend City Council approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon compliance with Staff's review comments, including enhancing the architecture on the fronts and sides of buildings facing a public road with stone, brick or a similar material.