8A, Planning Case 12-014 - Zoning Code Amendment - Multi-family Dwelling Units

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—September 5, 2012 4 suggest a security plan for the project. Vice Chair Thompson asked if the Sheriff's Department can be contacted prior to construction for guidance and City Planner Meagan Beekman stated they can. Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 6:41pm. Mr. Rob Davidson owns 1201 County Road E (former Holiday Inn) stated he is against the proposed new language. He stated the new proposed language would prevent them from converting their property into apartments. He stated Arden Hills is doing everything they can to prevent their property from being developed into apartments. Mr. Davidson stated their plan was denied. He stated the minimum unit size of 600 SF is in conflict with the Building Codes. Mr. Davidson stated this is a targeted change to prevent them from developing their property. All the units would be efficiency apartments. Due to the moratorium their property is of no use to them. Mr. Davidson requested the Commission reject the minimum unit size, and the enclosed parking requirement. Mr. Ed Von Holten, 1409 Indian Oaks Trail stated he was a member of the Economic Development Commission. He stated when Mr. Davidson proposed the redevelopment project he stated the planned unit sizes were not smaller than other apartments available. He stated if there was a smaller apartment developed for younger people, whose lifestyle would fit into smaller apartment sizes. He believes this is a targeted plan to stop Mr. Davidson's development. He requested the Commission not approve the revised language. Mr. Stu Nolan, partner of Rob Davidson. He stated he started managing and developing apartments many years ago. He has been involved in the developing of over 10,000 apartments. He has never experienced anything like what he is receiving from the City of Arden Hills. He stated he is insulted and came to the City with a proposal and someone from the City decided they were constructing a"flop house". These apartments are much safer than a hotel. They would be out of business if they had a bad reputation. In order for someone to rent an apartment, a complete application is completed. It is a very detailed process and thorough checks are run on each application. Criminal, Employment, past rental checks are done. Mr. Nolan asked if the Commission would prefer a hotel. Mr. Nolan does not have a problem with the security plan, lighting plan, registration plan, bicycle parking, window coverings. He stated there are some things in the Ordinance that do make sense. He suggested this Ordinance may be targeting all apartment developers. The City had decided on a unit size contrary to the State mandates. He is opposed to Unit Mix. He has held focus groups and had conversations with many people including the colleges. He asked what it means that common areas need to be approved by the City. He has projects going in many Cities and none of them have any requirements as to what is inside the building. They are proposing a multi- million dollar project in Edina and there is nothing concerning the inside of the building. Common areas would be constructed to fit the profile of the tenants. Mr. Nolan stated the parking area should be determined by the number of bedrooms in the building which determines the number of parking spaces. Generally 1 parking space per bedroom is the norm. The developer is normally required to have some additional parking on site. The underground or attached parking can't be added to his existing building. Mr. Nolan asked that the portions pertaining to unit size, unit mix, and parking be removed from the proposed zoning code.