Review Concept Plan for Parkview East, a Future High Density Residential Development to be Located at the Intersection of Rhinestone Street and East Ramsey Parkway; Case of PSD, LLC

PSD, LLC has entered into a purchase agreement with the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a nine (9) acre parcel to construct a phased apartment development. Prior to closing on the purchase, PSD has requested feedback from the Planning Commission as it relates to compliance with Zoning Code. Staff is also forwarding this as a discussion item for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) as property owner. The site is located in the COR-1 Sub-District and is subject to the Development Plan and Development Framework for The COR.

PSD, LLC desires feedback on the following:
 

1. Use of pitched roof versus flat roof
2. Parking requirements and capacity
3. Relation to the Development Plan and Design Framework (Zoning Code)

Notification is not required.

As it relates to the nine (9) acre parcel, the proposed development would provide 180 units over two (2) phases for a net density of 20 units per acre. From the perspective of the minimum density for this Sub-District, this density is acceptable.

Please note that this parcel is subject to the Design Plan and Design Framework for The COR. The Development Plan lays out a preferred layout and development pattern as was used to illustrate a development pattern that would sustain transit for the Northstar Commuter Rail - Ramsey Station. The Development Plan forecasted 435 units within these nine (9) acres and planned for a future, shared parking structure to address the parking needs of not only this parcel, but the overall block as well.

The proposed development would likely eliminate the ability for the future structured parking facility to be constructed as planned, which would have an effect on the development pattern for the remainder of the block. In the event a parking structure is constructed, Staff has verified with the HRA attorney that by proceeding forward with approval of this development and purchase agreement, the City does not obligate itself financially to a parking structure. In other words, the City has the flexibility to approve a development pattern that does not include a structured parking facility with appropriate amendments to the Development Plan.

The City is able to adjust the Development Plan to respond to the market. It is possible that the changes to the Development Plan to match the proposed development and still meet the goals of the overall development. It is also possible to amend the Development Plan and make adjustments elsewhere within the development to account for the changes. The Development Plan was not intended to lock in a specific site plan approval, but to illustrate a means in which the City could achieve its land use goals for the development. Staff will have a more detailed analysis on this factor as the project and design progresses.

Staff cannot give a full analysis of the project at this time as only information on this parcel, not the overall block is available. Additionally, Staff does not have final details on the exterior design of the structure yet either. PSD has noted that they will comply with the Design Framework as it relates to the architectural design of the building. The intent of this case is for PSD to present the overall concept of the proposed development and for the Planning Commission to provide early feedback in the design process. Comments regarding this case should not be construed as providing preliminary approval on the project. Staff still needs detailed, final plans to complete development review.

An amendment to the Development Plan is required when the change is major enough to deviate from the minimum standards spelled out in code (Floor Area Ratio, maximum parking, significant changes to planned infrastructure). Minor changes do not require an amendment to the Development Plan (layout, etc.). Due to the changes in households at the block level, the reduction in FAR from 0.75 to 0.54, and the removal of the shared, structured parking ramp, the change is a significant enough change to warrant a change to the Development Plan.
 
An official amendment to the Development Plan requires Planning Commission review with a Public Hearing as well as City Council approval. It is likely that the amendment is minor enough that it does not require Metropolitan Council approval for the amendment (the Master Plan/Development Plan is adopted as part of our Comprehensive Plan). We would need to publish a Public Hearing Notification on September 17^th by 10:00 a.m. If a change to the Development Plan is required, the tentative schedule is as follows:
 
 

1. October 9 – Planning Commission holds Public Hearing
2. October 23 – City Council considers amendment

  
The analysis is based on the following:
 

1. We will still be able to achieve a net density of 10 units per acre or more over the entire 322 acre master planned area (note: minimum density in the COR-1 Sub-District [1/4 radius surrounding station] is at least 15 units per acre).
2. We will not change number households at the forecast level over the entire 322 acre master planned area (we can change the plan without changing the forecasts)

   
PSD originally noted they would have no issue with meeting the 0.75 FAR. The most recent version indicates an FAR of 0.54, which will require a Zoning Amendment of some capacity. The total number of units has changed from 230 units to 180, which was already a drop from what we had planned. The Zoning Amendment process will put us into November.
 
Here are our options before us today:
 

1. Support the project as presented and amend the Development Plan and Zoning (November approvals at the earliest)
2. Require that the project be amended to meet the minimum zoning standards of the COR-1 Sub-District (timing depends on submittal by Developer; 45 days?)
3. Support the project in the COR-4 sub-district that allows FAR of 0.25 or higher and does not call for a shared, structured parking ramp (October approvals at the earliest)

This case is being handled as part of normal Staff duties.

Staff recommends feedback on the following:
 

1. Use of pitched roof versus flat roof
2. Parking requirements and capacity (specifically the use of tuck under garages, surface stalls, and detached garages in lieu of shared parking structure)
3. Changes to the Development Plan

Updated Friday, September 5, 2014

The Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan at the September 4, 2014 meeting. While no formal motion was made, there was some level of support to continue to review and consider this project as it is currently proposed. It is noted, however, that there was not full consensus amongst the Planning Commission in support of amending the Development Plan.

The Planning Commission did request additional information be provided with any future review that would provide market data that would support the findings of:
 

1. The proposed project is market-rate for the community and surrounding area
2. Structured parking adds a level of cost per unit that would price the project out of the market
3. The current Development Plan for The COR is too aggressive in terms of density and number of households.

Although there was not full consensus in supporting an amendment to the Development Plan amongst the Planning Commission, multiple members expressed that it might be appropriate at this time to amend the Development Plan to support the proposed project, provided that it was supported by relevant market analysis. It was also noted that the Planning Commission desired to analyze how this relates to the City's retail goals to ensure that the planned development pattern for future residential would still support the level of retail planned in the area.

The Planning Commission also expressed a desire for additional information that clearly illustrates what exactly will change from the Development Plan if this project moves forward. Staff has more detailed information available to us at this time that was not yet available at the time the Planning Commission Agenda was published (total units, floor area ratio).

Additionally, it is suggested that market analysis of the current development plan could include return on investment information regarding the added costs of structured parking.

Provide feedback on the following:
 

1. Use of pitched roof versus flat roof
2. Parking requirements and capacity
3. Changes to the Development Plan

Please note that this should not be construed as preliminary approval, but conceptual feedback only to assist the Developer in the preparation of an official Application.