2.1.
Special Planning Commission
- Meeting Date:
- 03/14/2013
- By:
- Tim Gladhill, Community Development
Information
Title:
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: Receive Presentation by Mary T., Inc. on Potential Housing Development on Outlot A, RAMSEY TOWN CENTER 13TH ADDITION
Background:
City Staff has received a request from Mary T., Inc. and PSD, LLC to review a land use proposal on Outlot A, RAMSEY TOWN CENTER 13TH ADDITION for a housing development. The site is currently owned by PSD, LLC. Mary T., Inc. is currently based in Coon Rapids, MN and provides a variety of housing options in a number of locations. There are a number of land use and zoning items to consider. As such, the potential Applicant desires to review the proposal with the Planning Commission prior to preparing detailed design documents for official City review.
Notification:
No notification is required at this time.
Observations/Alternatives:
The potential Applicant desires to provide a mix of housing types including apartment and detached, or villa-style, townhomes. From a non-site specific standpoint, the proposal brings merit as it relates to many of the City's future land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would further diversify the housing stock and provide additional services to the community. The following comments are intended to chart a path to permit the proposed use for a site-specific request, if the Planning Commission agrees to the change to the Development Plan on a policy level. This would entail starting at the foundation of land use planning (the Comprehensive Plan) and working the process up. The attached "Pyramid of Discetion" is a common land use tool to illustrate this process.
The first consideration for the Planning Commission is the proposal's compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. This site is located within The COR District; however, the underlying land use is Employment/Industrial. Furthermore, the site is located within the COR-3 subdistrict, which allows for office and employment related uses, but does not currently permit residential uses. This area was left with the land use of Employment, as it was envisioned as the office or medical office component of the Development Plan.
When considering whether a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is appropriate, it would also be important to take into account transit-oriented development design principles, which the Development Plan is based on. As it relates to the current proposal, the proposal could technically build on positive design principles in the fact that additional households within a one-half mile radius of the rail station, which is an important component of any TOD design. In addition, the proposal does have a degree of medical use in the fact that a component of assisted living would be included. However, that would need to be balanced with compatibility of the surrounding uses and desired Development Plan.
The next layer of review is compliance with the Zoning Code, the City's official controls for land use. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Zoning Code would also be required. An analysis of options is listed below in the alternatives section.
Staff is not able to review architectural and design standards on the proposal at this stage. Staff notes that any proposal would need to be compliant with The COR Design Framework. Staff would further note limitations on vinyl siding and use of higher quality materials. This is critical as it relates to previous approval of surrounding users.
Alternatives
If moving forward, there are three (3) options to consider. In either case, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required. The first option is to prepare a Zoning Amendment to amend the Sub-District. The likely sub-district would be COR-1. The concern with compatibility with the COR-1 as it relates to the proposal would be minimum density and minimum floor area ratio. The COR-1 sub-district is the highest density within the community. The detached, single-level villas would likely not meet these minimum thresholds.
The second option would be to amend the Zoning Code to permit assisted living and memory care as either a permitted or conditional use. The proposal does include a medical use component, which is currently permitted in the underlying sub-district. The minimum density and minimum floor area ratio may not be a concern at that point.
The third option would be to direct Staff to work with the potential Applicant to identify suitable locations within The COR, or other areas of the community, that would not require a Zoning Amendment. The COR-4 sub-district would be the acceptable sub-district for compliance with the Development Plan. Staff would not recommend approving a Zoning Amendment to amend Outlot A, RAMSEY TOWN CENTER 13TH ADDITION to COR-4 for concerns with spot-zoning.
The first consideration for the Planning Commission is the proposal's compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. This site is located within The COR District; however, the underlying land use is Employment/Industrial. Furthermore, the site is located within the COR-3 subdistrict, which allows for office and employment related uses, but does not currently permit residential uses. This area was left with the land use of Employment, as it was envisioned as the office or medical office component of the Development Plan.
When considering whether a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is appropriate, it would also be important to take into account transit-oriented development design principles, which the Development Plan is based on. As it relates to the current proposal, the proposal could technically build on positive design principles in the fact that additional households within a one-half mile radius of the rail station, which is an important component of any TOD design. In addition, the proposal does have a degree of medical use in the fact that a component of assisted living would be included. However, that would need to be balanced with compatibility of the surrounding uses and desired Development Plan.
The next layer of review is compliance with the Zoning Code, the City's official controls for land use. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Zoning Code would also be required. An analysis of options is listed below in the alternatives section.
Staff is not able to review architectural and design standards on the proposal at this stage. Staff notes that any proposal would need to be compliant with The COR Design Framework. Staff would further note limitations on vinyl siding and use of higher quality materials. This is critical as it relates to previous approval of surrounding users.
Alternatives
If moving forward, there are three (3) options to consider. In either case, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required. The first option is to prepare a Zoning Amendment to amend the Sub-District. The likely sub-district would be COR-1. The concern with compatibility with the COR-1 as it relates to the proposal would be minimum density and minimum floor area ratio. The COR-1 sub-district is the highest density within the community. The detached, single-level villas would likely not meet these minimum thresholds.
The second option would be to amend the Zoning Code to permit assisted living and memory care as either a permitted or conditional use. The proposal does include a medical use component, which is currently permitted in the underlying sub-district. The minimum density and minimum floor area ratio may not be a concern at that point.
The third option would be to direct Staff to work with the potential Applicant to identify suitable locations within The COR, or other areas of the community, that would not require a Zoning Amendment. The COR-4 sub-district would be the acceptable sub-district for compliance with the Development Plan. Staff would not recommend approving a Zoning Amendment to amend Outlot A, RAMSEY TOWN CENTER 13TH ADDITION to COR-4 for concerns with spot-zoning.
Funding Source:
Preparation of the current case is being handled as part of regular Staff duties. If an Application is submitted, all costs associated with processing the Application would be the responsibility of the Applicant.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on discussion.
Action:
No action is requested. This case is for discussion only.
Attachments
Form Review
- Form Started By:
- Tim Gladhill
- Started On:
- 03/08/2013
- Final Approval Date:
- 03/08/2013