My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8A, Planning Case 12-014 - Zoning Code Amendment - Multi-family Dwelling Units
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
09-24-12-R
>
8A, Planning Case 12-014 - Zoning Code Amendment - Multi-family Dwelling Units
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 1:25:34 PM
Creation date
9/20/2012 1:24:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Pagel of 3 <br /> From: Jamie J.Thelen [JJThelen @SandCompanies.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday,August 14,2012 8:25 AM <br /> To: Meagan Beekman <br /> Cc: Neil R. Fortier;John Belisle <br /> Subject: RE:Arden Hills Multi-family housing regulations <br /> Meagan, <br /> John made some great points that I agree with. Here are a couple of others: <br /> • Subd. 4—Having a parking stall "assigned"to a unit can be problematic. I know in some senior <br /> projects &some market rate projects, residents may or may not have a car. At the same time, <br /> some residents may have two. In a case like this, we wouldn't want to assign a parking space to <br /> unit that doesn't have a vehicle as we could provide it to a resident with two otherwise it could <br /> sit empty. I would suggest just requiring one enclosed parking space per unit. <br /> • Subd. 5—This section isn't very well defined, but not sure how you could do it. As a developer, <br /> it seems pretty wide open to interpretation. <br /> • Subd. 6—This is probably the most concerning part of the provision. The unit mix should be <br /> determined by the market not an ordinance. I believe allowing only 25%for senior projects is <br /> problematic. Is there a reason for limiting efficiencies? Efficiencies will actually reduce the <br /> number of residents living in a building. <br /> • Parking—Most communities are actually reducing parking requirements to allow for less <br /> impervious surface and more green space. I would suggest simply requiring two spaces per unit <br /> versus basing it on bedrooms. <br /> Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. <br /> punee 7"a <br /> Chief Executive Officer <br /> Visit ourWebsite:www.SandCompanies.com <br /> Sand Companies, Inc. <br /> 366 South Tenth Avenue I PO Box 727 <br /> Waite Park,Minnesota 56387-0727 <br /> Tel(320)202-31001 Fax(320)202-3139 <br /> From: John Belisle [mailto:belisleiohn @msn.coml <br /> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:45 PM <br /> To: Meagan Beekman; Jamie J. Thelen <br /> Cc: Neil R. Fortier <br /> Subject: Re: Arden Hills Multi-family housing regulations <br /> Meagan, <br /> A couple of things to consider: <br /> 1. Parking requirement appears a little rigid. What if the building is a senior assissted living or memory <br /> care apartment?That type of parking requirement would be unnecessary. <br /> 2. Same with unit sizes. If you have a memory care place the unit sizes will be smaller than 600 ft. <br /> Maybe need an exception for some of the senior products that are coming given the large <br /> file:///P:/Planning/Planning%20Cases/2012/12-014%20%2OZoning%2OCode%2OAmend... 8/29/2012 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.