Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />example of how a developer might want to lay out residential products types among the different <br />neighborhoods. Option 2 represents only one way in which the site could be developed, and <br />hundreds of other layouts are possible. Each developer will want to insert their own creativity <br />and market knowledge into the process. <br /> <br />The Fit Test revealed that while it is possible to develop the site with strict adherence to the draft <br />TRC, the result is a lower overall unit count than allowed under maximum density, and limited <br />flexibility for developers to respond to market trends. The City Council should decide to what <br />degree, if any, the draft TRC should be revised to allow additional developer flexibility. <br /> <br />Market Feedback <br />Ramsey County, Kimley-Horn, and Ehlers consulted with Mary Bujold, Maxfield Research, <br />regarding residential market trends. A memo from Ms. Bujold with her feedback is attached. <br />Her comments are summarized below: <br /> Twin homes have been very popular with empty nesters and independent seniors. Rice <br />Creek Commons/TCAAP is expected to be popular with this demographic. <br /> Homes are staying the same size, but the sizes of lots are decreasing. The most popular <br />lot width for national builders is 65 to 75 feet. Ms. Bujold recommends that most single- <br />family lots be within this range. <br /> Ms. Bujold recommends approximately 25 larger single family lots in the Creek <br />Neighborhood, which she defines as having widths of 85 to 90 feet. As a comparison, <br />under Fit Test Option 1, the Creek Neighborhood had 51 lots with widths of <br />approximately 110 feet. Also by way of comparison, the Valentine Bluff subdivision <br />being built by Hansen Builders includes 7 lots with widths of 85 feet. <br /> <br />Lessons Learned <br />City staff approached the Fit Test as an opportunity to learn how the TRC would function in a <br />“real-world” situation. Through the input of Kimley-Horn, Maxfield Research, and Ehlers, City <br />staff has concluded the following: <br /> The draft TRC is fundamentally a solid planning and zoning document. The City <br />Council should be proud of having assembled the document. <br /> When a density range is established, it is not practically possible to achieve the highest <br />density in the range due to irregularly shaped parcels and the needs of roads, parks, and <br />storm water infrastructure. <br /> Multi-family housing should be focused along the Spine Road and pedestrian corridor. <br /> The green space along the pedestrian corridor should be expanded to allow for clear <br />views from the Spine Road to the park areas on the east side of the site, and to allow for <br />more regularly shaped development parcels. <br /> The retail areas in the Town Center should be enlarged slightly to allow enough parking <br />to accommodate two-story commercial mixed-use buildings. <br /> Larger block sizes should be allowed to minimize road infrastructure, but better <br />language requiring mid-block pedestrian connections should be inserted to maintain <br />walkability in all neighborhoods. <br /> The density ranges in the NT-1 (6-9 units/acre) and NT-2 (9-12 units/acre) subdistricts <br />are problematic because they are so narrow, and few products are being built that fit into <br />the density range proscribed in the NT-2 subdistrict.