Consider Appeal of Architectural Review for Single-Family Home in The COR; Case of Purmort Homes

The purpose of this case is to respond to an appeal of a Staff interpretation from Purmort Homes, Inc. on an interpretation of architectural requirements in The COR. At issue is the definition of a front porch, a required element of The COR Design Framework (the Zoning Code for The COR).

A reminder that these enhanced architectural requirements only exist in The COR Zoning District and not in all areas of the community.

Notification is not required.

As the first single-family homes were being reviewed in The COR in the mid-2000s (at the time, Ramsey Town Center), the intent was to not allow split-entry homes. The City has agreed to allow higher densities in The COR, and the expectation in return is that higher-quality architecture would be provided. The City has record of denying these floor plans. Enforcement of architectural standards at the time was more robust. A Master Developer/Master Association existing to aide in the enforcement of these architectural guidelines. Architectural review was a combination of City review and private restrictive covenants.

Following the default of the Master Association in terms of architectural review, there was not an entity to partner in architectural review. The City discovered, after being challenged by multiple builders, that the City's Zoning Code was not written strong enough to enforce the intended architectural standards.

In 2012, after responding to multiple complaints about the City not enforcing the original intent of the design requirements, the City amended its architectural requirements for The COR to bring in multiple aspects that were found in private covenants enforced by the Master Developer, that the City was not legally able to enforce. Included in that discussion was the importance of front porches as it relates to neighborhood design and active streets. There were a few homes that were approved in the interim period as the City updated its ordinances. Since only a few lots remained from the two single-family subdivisions at the time, a few models were allowed to complete per the original guidelines. Moving forward, for new subdivisions after Ramsey Town Center 8th and 10th Additions, the expectation was that the new guidelines would be used.

At issue this evening is the definition of a front porch. Staff believes the intent was an integral structure attached to the front of the home that brought activity to front yards and was an added architectural element. This also helped de-emphasize the dominance of garages on the front facade. The viewshed of the neighborhood is enhanced by this element.

Staff also believe part of the intent was for a full room on the main level as opposed to a small stairway landing at the entryway. Again, Staff is simply looking for policy direction from the Planning Commission on how to interpret this standard.

Staff does not believe the intent was to allow recessed entryways to be defined as a front porch. While these areas may be large enough to accommodate activity on the front porch, Staff needs direction as to whether this qualifies as a front porch. Based on recent discussions on this topic on The COR Development Plan Update, Staff does not feel comfortable making this decision administratively.

Staff has attached two models to aide in the review.

• Split Entry of Model in Question
• 4 level modified = model already approved

If Planning Commission feels the split entry met the intent of the design guidelines, Staff is comfortable in approval. However, Staff feels that many feel the expectation was that the amended code aimed to prohibit these types of models, and is not comfortable in approving administratively without policy direction. If approved, this will be standard in which Staff will review future acceptable models of the development.

This case is being handled as part of normal Staff duties. The Builder was required to submit a $350 Application Fee.

Staff recommends that this model not be approved until the City finishes the update to The COR Development Framework. However, if the Planning Commission feels the original intent of the guideline is met, Staff will feel comfortable in approving the model and use this as policy directive moving forward.

Motion to approve/deny request for a split-entry model in The COR.