7.6.
CC Regular Session
- Meeting Date:
- 02/24/2015
- By:
- Tim Gladhill, Community Development
Information
Title
Approve New Model for Ramsey Town Center 8th and 10th Additions; Case of Purmort Homes
Purpose/Background:
The purpose of this case is to grant approval of a new floor plan for a single-family home in Ramsey Town Center 10th Addition not currently utilized within the subdivision. Development within The COR (formerly Ramsey Town Center) is subject to a Design Framework that contains additional architectural requirements not found in other subdivisions within the community.
Notification:
Notification is not required.
Observations/Alternatives:
As it relates to single-family developments, the Design Framework contains several key design components:
Ordinarily, Staff would require that this plan be redesigned to create a front porch instead of a simple covered entryway, de-emphasize the garage, and add additional window openings to the front facade. All of these are elements that are mentioned in the Design Framework. Again, a point to emphasize is that this design review is unique to The COR, and not a requirement of our traditional design requirement or process. The Design Framework provides the City Council with the discretionary authority to approve something that deviates from these standards in favor of an approach that still meets the design intent but takes into account unique physical factors and newer building technologies.
The Property is the only parcel in Ramsey Town Center 8th & 10th Additions that directly abuts Bunker Lake Boulevard. The Property is also encumbered by a fifteen (15) foot Slope Easement that was required by the City to protect the pedestrian trail along Bunker Lake Boulevard. The Easement was in place when the Property was subdivided, and was not a situation in which the easement was added after the Builder purchased the Property. This is a loss of ten (10) feet of buildable area when compared to similar parcels within the development. It is this factor alone that Staff is bringing this request to the City Council for authorization. By accepting this approval, the Builder must agree that the Floor Plan is not authorized to be built on other parcels within the development.
Alternatives
Alternative #1: Approve the plan as presented. While the plan is deficient is several of the quantifiable standards of the Design Framework, the Property is encumbered by a fifteen (15) foot easement not ordinarily seen on other parcels in the development.
Alternative #2: Modify the plan as presented. The Builder could amend to a two (2) stall garage, thus increasing the size of the covered entryway to a full front porch with sufficient usable area not obstructed by the entry itself. In this alternative, Staff would approve the floor plan without the need for specific City Council approval. This would not only create a better viewshed of the front facade from the street, it would also enhance the interior entryway of the home itself. The Builder objects to this alternative, stating that a three-stall garage is necessary for the marketing of this home. This home is being built on speculation at this point, without a buyer identified for the home.
Staff did pose this question to the Builder, whom then requested that this case be brought forward to the City Council in order to approve Alternative #1.
Alternative #3: Deny the plan. This plan is very similar to plans rejected by the City Council in the past, whereby the area the Builder considers a Front Porch is truly just a covered entry with a major emphasis on the garage. However, many of those previous models were split-entries with sufficient width in the lot to modify the plan to create a full front porch.
Alternative #4: Direct Staff to review the requirements of the Design Framework to ensure that the document still meets the policies of the City. Of note, this policy question was addressed by the City in 2011. At that time, the policy of higher-quality architectural standards was upheld by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff would not recommend significantly revising this document again at this time. Staff will, however, be discussing with the Planning Commission at their March meeting a better defined approach to the design review within The COR for these situations, as well as architectural review for new developments within The COR.
- Requirement for front porch
- Minimum roof pitch
- De-emphasis of garage, especially full 'garage forward' design
Ordinarily, Staff would require that this plan be redesigned to create a front porch instead of a simple covered entryway, de-emphasize the garage, and add additional window openings to the front facade. All of these are elements that are mentioned in the Design Framework. Again, a point to emphasize is that this design review is unique to The COR, and not a requirement of our traditional design requirement or process. The Design Framework provides the City Council with the discretionary authority to approve something that deviates from these standards in favor of an approach that still meets the design intent but takes into account unique physical factors and newer building technologies.
The Property is the only parcel in Ramsey Town Center 8th & 10th Additions that directly abuts Bunker Lake Boulevard. The Property is also encumbered by a fifteen (15) foot Slope Easement that was required by the City to protect the pedestrian trail along Bunker Lake Boulevard. The Easement was in place when the Property was subdivided, and was not a situation in which the easement was added after the Builder purchased the Property. This is a loss of ten (10) feet of buildable area when compared to similar parcels within the development. It is this factor alone that Staff is bringing this request to the City Council for authorization. By accepting this approval, the Builder must agree that the Floor Plan is not authorized to be built on other parcels within the development.
Alternatives
Alternative #1: Approve the plan as presented. While the plan is deficient is several of the quantifiable standards of the Design Framework, the Property is encumbered by a fifteen (15) foot easement not ordinarily seen on other parcels in the development.
Alternative #2: Modify the plan as presented. The Builder could amend to a two (2) stall garage, thus increasing the size of the covered entryway to a full front porch with sufficient usable area not obstructed by the entry itself. In this alternative, Staff would approve the floor plan without the need for specific City Council approval. This would not only create a better viewshed of the front facade from the street, it would also enhance the interior entryway of the home itself. The Builder objects to this alternative, stating that a three-stall garage is necessary for the marketing of this home. This home is being built on speculation at this point, without a buyer identified for the home.
Staff did pose this question to the Builder, whom then requested that this case be brought forward to the City Council in order to approve Alternative #1.
Alternative #3: Deny the plan. This plan is very similar to plans rejected by the City Council in the past, whereby the area the Builder considers a Front Porch is truly just a covered entry with a major emphasis on the garage. However, many of those previous models were split-entries with sufficient width in the lot to modify the plan to create a full front porch.
Alternative #4: Direct Staff to review the requirements of the Design Framework to ensure that the document still meets the policies of the City. Of note, this policy question was addressed by the City in 2011. At that time, the policy of higher-quality architectural standards was upheld by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff would not recommend significantly revising this document again at this time. Staff will, however, be discussing with the Planning Commission at their March meeting a better defined approach to the design review within The COR for these situations, as well as architectural review for new developments within The COR.
Funding Source:
Processing this request is being handled as part of normal Staff duties.
Recommendation:
While Staff would prefer Alternative #2, knowing that there is a design alternative that would allow for administrative approval that better meets the intent of the Design Framework, Staff would accept Alternative #1 with City Council approval given the unique nature of this specific Property.
Action:
Motion to approve floor plan for Ramsey Town Center 10th Addition as presented for Lot 1, Block 2, Ramsey Town Center 10th Addition only.
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Kurt Ulrich | Kurt Ulrich | 02/19/2015 08:33 AM |
- Form Started By:
- Tim Gladhill
- Started On:
- 02/03/2015 11:46 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 02/19/2015