HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A, Planning Case 12-014 - Zoning Code Amendment - Multi-family Dwelling Units ,-A ZEEN HILLS
Request for Council Action 8A
------------------------
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman,City Planner Council Meeting Date: September 24,2012
Planning Case 12-014—Zoning Code Amendment—Multi-family Dwelling Units
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
NA NA NA
Recommendation:
1. Motion to approve Planning Case 12-014 to adopt Ordinance 12-007 entitled "Amendments to Add
Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to Amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the
Zoning Code Regarding Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City", as presented in the September 24,
2012, report to the City Council. (3/5 vote required)
2. Motion to approve publication of a summary of Ordinance 12-007. (4/5 vote required)
Supporting Documents:
1. Memo from Meagan Beekman, dated September 24, 2012
2. September 5, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Minutes
3. Ordinance 12-007 and Publication Summary
4. September 5, 2012, Report to the Planning Commission
lt
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 24, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor or City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case#12-014
Applicant: City of Arden Hills
Request: Zoning Code Amendment—Multi-family Dwellings
Requested Action
Motion to approve Planning Case 12-014 to adopt Ordinance 12-007 entitled "Amendments to
Add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to Amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd
1.J of the Zoning Code Regarding Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City", as presented in the
September 24, 2012, report to the City Council. (3/5 vote required)
Motion to approve publication of a summary of Ordinance 12-007. (4/5 vote required)
Background
At their June 25, 2012, regular meeting, the City Council approved a city-wide moratorium on
multi-family dwelling units while the City conducts a zoning study to look at possible design
standards. While the moratorium can last up to one year, the Council directed Staff to move
forward quickly and bring forward any proposed zoning code amendments as soon as possible.
At their July 11, 2012, work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the scope of work for
the design standards study and provided direction to Staff on high priority items. Based on that
discussion, recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities, and a review of other
communities' codes, Staff prepared draft regulations of design standards for multi-family
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
P:WlanningWIanning Cases12012U2-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family HousingW9-24-12-CC Memo-Multi family proposed
regulations.doc
Page 1 of 4
dwellings. The draft was then presented to the Planning Commission at their August 8, 2012,
work session. The Planning Commission provided further direction on a number of items,
including special requirements for senior housing and the participation of multi-family housing
in the City's rental registration program.
Staff then revised the draft regulations and presented them to the City Council at their August 20,
2012, work session meeting. The Council provided additional direction and revisions and
directed Staff to move forward with a public hearing and Planning Commission review. In
addition, Staff sent the draft regulations to identified stakeholders in the community, seeking
comments. Representatives of TAT Properties and Arden Village submitted comments on the
draft regulations (Attachment B).
Based on comments received by stakeholders and the City Council, Staff revised the draft
regulations and presented them to the Planning Commission at their September 5, 2012, meeting.
The Planning Commission reviewed the documents presented, held a public hearing, and voted
3-3 to approve the regulations as submitted. Because a majority vote was not made, the item
moves forward to the City Council without a recommendation. Draft minutes from the Planning
Commission's discussion is included as Attachment A.
Discussion
The proposed regulations include the following items:
• Revising the review process for multi-family housing; allowing it through a conditional
use permit process, rather than a planned unit development process
• Adding a definition for enclosed parking
• Revising the minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing
• Creating additional conditional use permit criteria for multi-family dwellings including:
o Minimum units sizes
o Submission of a security plan and lighting plan at the time of development
proposal.
o A requirement that enclosed parking be provided
o A requirement that common areas be provided
o Percentage of efficiency apartments allowed within a specific development
o Minimum bike parking requirements
o Window covering requirements
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed regulations and has no issue with the proposed
language of the regulations.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
P:WlanningWlanning Cases12012112-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family HousingW9-24-12-CC Memo-Multi family proposed
regulations.doc
Page 2 of 4
At their August 20, 2012, meeting the Council directed Staff to revise the City's rental
registration regulations to include registration requirements for multi-family dwellings, and to
add participation in the Crime Free Multi-family housing program a requirement of registration.
Staff is working on this revision and will present it to the City Council once it is complete.
Findings of Fact
Cities have broad discretion when reviewing and adopting zoning regulations; however, as a tool
to implement a city's comprehensive plan, it is necessary to understand the connection between
the two documents when reviewing zoning code amendments.
Staff offers the following findings of fact for the Council's consideration:
1. The proposed amendment advances the City's land use goals because it creates high
development standards for multi-family housing that will visually enhance development
and promote compatibility with nearby properties and neighborhood character.
2. The proposed amendment advances the City's implementation strategies identified in the
Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by developing design standards for multi-
family housing, which is a residential land use, that ensure the construction of high
quality, sustainable, and aesthetically enhanced developments.
3. The proposed amendment advances the City's housing goals because it will promote the
development of a variety of housing options by creating a framework and process for the
City to approve high-quality housing opportunities that are suitable for a mix of ages,
incomes, and household types.
4. The proposed amendment advances the City's implementation strategies identified in the
Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by establishing architectural/design
guidelines for new multi-family dwelling units.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission voted 3-3 (Hames, Holewa, Zimmerman dissenting) to approve the
regulations as presented. Because a majority of the Planning Commission did not vote to
approve or deny the item, it moves forward to the City Council without a recommendation from
the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and
1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining
to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the
Planning Commission.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family HousingW9-24-12-CC Memo-Multi family proposed
regulations.doc
Page 3 of 4
Requested Action
Motion to approve Planning Case 12-014 to adopt Ordinance 12-007 entitled "Amendments to
Add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to Amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd
1.J of the Zoning Code Regarding Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City", as presented in the
September 24, 2012, report to the City Council. (3/5 vote required)
Motion to approve publication of a summary of Ordinance 12-007. (4/5 vote required)
Attachments
A. September 5, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Minutes
B. Ordinance 12-007 and Publication Summary
C. September 5, 2012, Report to the Planning Commission
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
P:WlanningWlanning Cases12012W-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family HousingW9-24-12-CC Memo-Multi-familyproposed
regulations.doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment
September 5, 2012, Draft Planning
Commission Minutes
The Planning Commission voted 3-3 (Hames, Holewa,
immerman Dissenting) to recommended approval for Planning
Case 12-014 at their September 5, 2012, meeting.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
'It
EN HILLS
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5,2012
6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Vice Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the
regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were: Vice Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Angela Hames, Andrew
Holewa, Samuel Scott, Clayton Zimmerman and Janet Stodola (Alternate) (arrived at
6:32 p.m.)
Absent: Chair Clayton Larson
Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman; Community Development Intern Matt
Horton, Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher, Councilmember Fran
Holmes; and Recording Secretary Debbie Wolfe.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA—SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
Vice Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 8,2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Commissioner Zimmerman noted on page one of the minutes, last paragraph, first line,
the word"that" should be added between"reviewed" and "the".
Councilmember Holmes noted on page three, fourth paragraph, second sentence, add the
word"substantially"between"are" and"the same".
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve
the August 8, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting as corrected. The
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Commissioner Stodola arrived at the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—September 5, 2012 2
B. August 8,2012 -Planning Commission Work Session Meeting
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Hames, to approve the
August 8, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion
carried unanimously (6-0).
PLANNING CASES
A. Planning Case 12-014 — Zoning Code Amendment; City of Arden Hills; Multi-
family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria—Public Hearing
City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Planning Commission is requested to
consider approval of Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and
1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code
pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City.
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated at their June 25, 2012, regular meeting the City
Council approved a city-wide moratorium on multi-family dwelling units while the City
conducts a zoning study to look at possible design standards. While the moratorium can
last up to one year, the Council directed Staff to move forward quickly and bring forward
any proposed zoning code amendments as soon as possible.
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that at their July 11, 2012, work session, the
Planning Commission reviewed the scope of work for the design standards study and
provided direction to Staff on high priority items. Based on that discussion,
recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities, and a review of other
communities' codes; Staff prepared draft regulations of design standards for multi-family
dwellings. The draft was presented to the Planning Commission at their August 8, 2012,
work session. The Planning Commission provided further direction on a number of
items, including special requirements for senior housing and the participation of multi-
family housing in the City's rental registration program.
Staff then revised the draft regulations and presented them to the City Council at their
August 20, 2012, work session meeting. The Council provided additional direction and
revisions and directed Staff to move forward with a public hearing and Planning
Commission review. In addition, Staff sent the draft regulations to identified
stakeholders in the community, seeking comments. Representatives of TAT Properties
and Arden Village submitted comments on the draft regulations. These comments were
provided to the Planning Commission. Based on comments received by stakeholders and
the City Council, Staff has revised the draft regulations and is now seeking Planning
Commission review and a recommendation on the proposed ordinance amendments.
City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the proposed regulations include:
• Revising the review process for multi-family housing; allowing it through a
conditional use permit process, rather than a planned unit development process
• Adding a definition for enclosed parking
• Revising the minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—September 5, 2012 3
• Creating additional conditional use criteria for multi-family dwellings including:
o Minimum unit sizes of 600 feet
• Submission of a security plan and lighting plan at the time of development
proposal
• A requirement that enclosed parking be provided on a per unit basis
• A requirement that common areas be provided
• Percentage of efficiency apartments allowed within a specific
development
• Minimum bike parking requirements
• Window covering requirements
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed
regulations and has no issue with the proposed language of the regulations.
City Planner Meagan Beekman offered the following Findings of Fact for the Planning
Commission's consideration:
1. The proposed amendment advances the City's land use goals because it creates high
development standards for multi-family housing that will visually enhance
development and promote compatibility with nearby properties and neighborhood
character.
2. The proposed amendment advances the City's implementation strategies identified in
the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by developing design standards for
multi-family housing, which is a residential land use, that ensure the construction of
high quality, sustainable, and aesthetically enhanced developments.
3. The proposed amendment advances the City's housing goals because it will promote
the development of a variety of housing opportunities that are suitable for a mix of
ages, incomes, and household types.
4. The proposed amendment advances the City's implementation strategies identified in
the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by establishing architectural/design
guidelines for new multi-family dwelling units.
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 12-
014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and
1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the
City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. If the
Planning Commission makes a recommendation this planning case will be on the
September 24, 2012 City Council meeting agenda.
Commissioner Stodola asked for clarification whether senior housing would fall under
the zoning changes while nursing homes and assisted living would not. City Planner
Meagan Beekman confirmed she was correct.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if this would apply to new construction and City
Planner Meagan Beekman stated it would as any new construction would need to adhere
to these standards.
Vice Chair Thompson asked about the security plan. City Planner Meagan Beekman
stated the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department has a program for security of multi-
family housing. The Sheriff's Department would review the construction plans and
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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—September 5, 2012 5
Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:06pm.
Vice Chair Thompson asked City Planner Meagan Beekman about the State Building
Code comment. Ms. Beekman stated the City Attorney reviewed the letter from Mr.
Davidson and his position was that the State Building Code states a minimum of 220 sf
and a City cannot have a standard less than the State Building Code but can have a higher
standard.
Commissioner Holewa asked how the City came up with 600 sf minimum unit size. City
Planner Meagan Beekman stated staff looked at other Cities (14 in the metro area). The
range found from 450 — 650 sf minimum unit size. Commissioner Holewa stated he is
not sure he is comfortable with 600 sf. He feels there are many efficiencies less than 600
sf and they are suitable for those looking to rent an efficiency apartment.
Commissioner Stodola asked when the last apartment was built. City Planner Meagan
Beekman stated the last apartment was built in the 1980's. She stated the moratorium
process is allowed in the State. Commissioner Stodola asked if review of this Code at
this time is atypical. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated generally the surrounding
communities are surveyed and the League of Minnesota Cities is contacted for input. On
occasion the scope is broadened nation-wide.
Vice Chair Thompson stated when this first came up the Commission did not know
where to start.
Commissioner Holewa asked for an explanation of the unit mix. City Planner Meagan
Beekman stated Plymouth and Little Canada were found to have a desire for a mix of unit
types within a single building. The City Council directed staff to eliminate independent
senior housing and increase the unit mix to 15%. Commissioner Holewa stated he is
uncomfortable with the unit size and the unit mix.
Commissioner Haines stated she is also uncomfortable with this and feels the City is
dictating to developers what they can and can't do. They are willing to invest money in
the community. She stated the unit size is ridiculous and it is not the City's call to
determine unit size. She does not support the revised proposal for Code language.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated he concurs with Commissioners Holewa and Haines.
He stated the mitigating circumstances are this is an existing building. He would vote
against this.
Commissioner Haines stated whether it's new construction or re-development of a
building the City should not determine what is inside the walls.
Commissioner Stodola stated she misunderstood and thought they were voting for the
general Code not for a specific project. Commissioner Haines stated she is against telling
any business wanting to come into the City their unit size and unit mix.
Commissioner Scott stated he is very happy with staff's research and recommendation on
unit size. He considers the TAT project as new construction. He stated he agrees with
staff's recommendation.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—September 5, 2012 6
Commissioner Stodola asked if the City has minimum lot size, minimum foundation size
and minimum floor ratio.
Commissioner Hames stated the City has the right to determine lot size and building size
but what is within the building walls is not the City's concern.
Commissioner Scott asked if he had a 10 bedroom house could he rent out bedrooms to
others. Commissioner Hames stated if the Zoning Codes and density requirements were
met the renting could be done.
Vice Chair Thompson stated for the multi-family housing looking at what does the City
deem important. She stated the availability of efficiencies within the City is desired.
Commissioner Holewa stated the Commission previously agreed to let Northwestern
College using the building as housing.
Commissioner Hames stated this is a public hearing and our City is very vocal and if
residents were opposed to multi-family housing they would be here to voice their
opinion.
Commissioner Hames moved, lack of second, to not approve Planning Case 12-014
to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and
1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in
the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the Planning Commission
unless there are changes made to the Subd. Commissioner Hames withdrew the
motion.
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Stodola seconded a motion to
approve Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to
amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to
Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012,
report to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to
amend the previous motion to delete Subd. 1 the minimum unit size from the
proposed regulations. Voting in favor were Commissioners Holewa, Hames and
Zimmerman. Voting against were Commissioners Stodola, Scott and Thompson.
The motion failed (3-3).
Commissioner Holewa moved to amend the previous motion to delete Subd.4 and
Subd.6 of the proposed regulations. The motion failed due to lack of second.
The question was called on the original motion. Voting in favor were
Commissioners Stodola, Scott and Thompson. Voting against were Commissioners
Holewa,Hames, Zimmerman. The motion failed (3-3).
Vice Chair Thompson stated this matter will go forward to the City Council without a
Planning Commission recommendation.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—September 5, 2012 7
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
None
REPORTS
A. Report from the City Council
Councilmember Holmes stated the new website for the City is scheduled to go live on
December 7, 2012. She commended Jill Hutmacher on her work on this. At the August
20, 2012 Council Work Session the Council reviewed a tax increment financing policy.
The purpose of the policy is to lay out an objective process based on City priorities for
reviewing requests for TIF.
Councilmember Holmes stated at their August 27, 2012 regular meeting the Council
approved 4-0 (Holmes-absent) Planning Case 12-013 for the three variances at 1185
Benton Way.
September 15, 2012 is the "Celebrating Arden Hills" fall festival. Events will be held at
Tony Schmidt Regional Park(3500 Lake Johanna Boulevard) from 3:00pm until dusk. If
residents would be willing to volunteer they should call City Hall. There will be bus
tours of TCAAP. There is a brochure in the most recent newsletter and also on the
website. You need to sign up for the tours.
The fall community cleanup day will be held on October 6th from 8am-3pm behind the
Ramsey County Public Works Facility at 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive. For a small fee,
residents may bring items for drop off and recycling. More information about the event
can be found on the City's website.
The Council is working on budgeting to keep taxes low and give the residents the
services they need.
September 27, 2012 Taste of Northwest Youth and Family Service. Cost is $30.
B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests
Vice Chair Thompson stated volunteers are needed for the fall festival.
C. Staff Comments
None
ADJOURN
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Flames, to adiourn the
September 5, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:45 p.m. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0).
Attachment
Ordiannce 2012-007 and Publication
Summary
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
ORDINANCE 2012-007
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ORDINANCE NO.2012-007
AMENDMENTS TO ADD SECTIONS 1305.04 SUBD 70 AND 1325.045,
AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 1320.05 AND 1325.06 SUBD I.J OF THE
ZONING CODE REGARDING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY.
The Arden Hills City Council Ordains:
Section 1305-Definitions
1305.04 Definitions.
Subd. 70 Enclosed Parking. A structure used for the storage of a vehicle which must be covered and
completely enclosed by walls or doors on four sides.
Section 1320—District Provisions
1320.05 Land Use Chart.
495ing Mtricts \3 v
11s€s' k R 1 FF R R- N �3-1 B 2`8-3 -4 �1 I C' Alit MB.
egg; ikipt� C C C C C C P
..
Section 1325-General Regulations
1325.045 Multi-family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria.
Subd. 1 Minimum Unit Size. Each multi-family dwelling unit shall be a minimum of six hundred
(600) square feet plus one hundred (100) square feet for each bedroom. Garages, breezeways, common
hallways, balconies, and porch floor spaces shall not be credited in determining the required floor area of
units.
Subd.2 Security Plan Component. A complete security plan shall be submitted at the time of the
development proposal, subject to the approval of the Ramsey County Sheriff s Department
Subd.3 Lighting Plan Component. A complete photometric plan shall be submitted in compliance
with the recommendations of the Ramsey County Sheriff s Department. Compliance with this requirement
shall be in addition to any maximum lighting requirements, as described elsewhere in the City's Zoning
Code.
Subd.4 Parking. A minimum of one enclosed parking stall shall be provided per dwelling unit.
Enclosed parking structures shall be attached to at least one of the principal structures to which parking is
being provided.
Subd.5 Common Area. Common area devoted to recreation or leisure activities shall be provided.
Common area must include a combination of both indoor and outdoor space.
ORDINANCE 2012-007
Subd.6 Efficiency Apartments. The number of efficiency units in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed
fifteen(15)percent of the total number of apartments.
Subd.7 Bicycle Parking. Enclosed bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of.5 spaces for every
dwelling unit.
Subd.8 Window coverings. All windows which are visible to the outside shall be provided with
window treatments. Window treatments shall be consistent throughout each multi-family dwelling
structure or development.
1325.06 Requirements for Parking,Loading and Circulation.
Subd. 1 Off-Public Street Parking.
J. Off Street Parking Spaces Required:
[Tie Required No of Spaces
Dwelling,single and two-family 2 for each dwelling unit
Dwelling,multiple family 1.5 per efficiency and 1 bedroom dwelling units;2 for each
2+bedroom dwelling units
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective the day following its publication or on the day following the
publication of an Ordinance Summary approved by the Arden Hills City Council.
Adoption Date. Passed by the Arden Hills City Council on this 24`"day of September,2012.
DAVID GRANT,MAYOR
ATTEST:
PATRICK KLAERS,CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Publication Date: October 3 ra,2012
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2012-007
On the 24th day of September, 2012,the Arden Hills City Council adopted Ordinance No.
2012-007, and by four affirmative votes pursuant to Minn. Stat. §412.191, Subd. 4, directed that
a summary of Ordinance 2012-007 be published.
Ordinance 2012-007 is entitled"Amendments to Add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and
1325.045, and to Amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code Regarding
Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City."
A full copy of Ordinance 2012-007 is available for inspection by any person during
regular business hours at the office of the City Administrator, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden
Hills, Minnesota 55112. The Ordinance is also available online at http://www.ci.arden-
hills.mn.us.
Attachment
September 24, 2012, Report to the Planning
Commission
Available online at:
www ci arden-hills.mn.us/plannin c� ases
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for September 24, 2012
�)ENHILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 5,2012 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 412-014 Public Hearing
Applicant: City of Arden Hills
Request: Zoning Code Amendment—Multi-family Dwellings
Request
Consider approval of Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and
to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family
Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the Planning
Commission.
Background
At their June 25, 2012, regular meeting, the City Council approved a city-wide moratorium on
multi-family dwelling units while the City conducts a zoning study to look at possible design
standards. While the moratorium can last up to one year, the Council directed Staff to move
forward quickly and bring forward any proposed zoning code amendments as soon as possible.
At their July 11, 2012, work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the scope of work for
the design standards study and provided direction to Staff on high priority items. Based on that
discussion, recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities, and a review of other
communities' codes, Staff prepared draft regulations of design standards for multi-family
dwellings. The draft was then presented to the Planning Commission at their August 8, 2012,
work session. The Planning Commission provided further direction on a number of items,
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 5, 2012
P:{PlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-014-zoning Code Amendment-Multi family Housing109-05-12-PC Memo-Multi-amily proposed
regulations.doc
Page 1 of 4
f
r
including special requirements for senior housing and the participation of multi-family housing
in the City's rental registration program.
Staff then revised the draft regulations and presented them to the City Council at their August 20,
2012, work session meeting. The Council provided additional direction and revisions and
directed Staff to move forward with a public hearing and Planning Commission review. In
addition, Staff sent the draft regulations to identified stakeholders in the community, seeking
comments. Representatives of TAT Properties and Arden Village submitted comments on the
draft regulations(Attachment A).
Based on comments received by stakeholders and the City Council, Staff has revised the draft
regulations and is now seeking Planning Commission review and a recommendation on the
proposed ordinance amendments(Attachment B).
Discussion
The proposed regulations include the following items:
• Revising the review process for multi-family housing; allowing it through a conditional
use permit process,rather than a planned unit development process
• Adding a definition for enclosed parking
• Revising the minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing
• Creating additional conditional use permit criteria for multi-family dwellings including:
o Minimum units sizes
o Submission of a security plant and lighting plan at the time of development
proposal.
o A requirement that enclosed parking be provided
o A requirement that common areas be provided
o Percentage of efficiency apartments allowed within a specific development
o Minimum bike parking requirements
o Window covering requirements
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed regulations and has no issue with the proposed
language of the regulations.
At their August 20, 2012, meeting the Council directed Staff to revise the City's rental
registration regulations to include registration requirements for multi-family dwellings, and to
add participation in the Crime Free Multi-family housing program a requirement of registration.
Staff is working on this revision and will present it to the City Council once it is complete.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September S,2012
P:IPlanninglPla ming Cases12012112-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family Ilousing109-05-12-PC Memo-Multr familyproposed
regulations.doc
Page 2 of 4
Findings of Fact
Cities have broad discretion when reviewing and adopting zoning regulations; however, as a tool
to implement a city's comprehensive plan, it is necessary to understand the connection between
the two documents when reviewing zoning code amendments.
Staff offers the following findings of fact for the Planning Commission's consideration:
1. The proposed amendment advances the City's land use goals because it creates high
development standards for multi-family housing that will visually enhance development
and promote compatibility with nearby properties and neighborhood character.
2. The proposed amendment advances the City's implementation strategies identified in the
Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by developing design standards for multi-
family housing, which is a residential land use, that ensure the construction of high
quality, sustainable, and aesthetically enhanced developments.
3. The proposed amendment advances the City's housing goals because it will promote the
development of a variety of housing options by creating a framework and process for the
City to approve high-quality housing opportunities that are suitable for a mix of ages,
incomes, and household types.
4. The proposed amendment advances the City's implementation strategies identified in the
Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by establishing architectural/design
guidelines for new multi-family dwelling units.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and
1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining
to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the
Planning Commission.
Notice
Notice was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin.
Review Deadline
There is no review deadline for this item.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September S, 2012
P.IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family Housing109-05-12-PC Memo-Multi familyproposed
regulations.doc
Page 3 of 4
Attachments
A. Public Comments
B. Proposed Sections 1305.04, 1320.05, 1325.045, and 1325.06—Black-lined Version
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 5, 2012
P:IPlanninglPlanning Casest2012U2-014-Zoning Code Amendment-Multi family HousingW9-05-12-PC Memo-Multi family proposed
regulations.doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment
Public Comments
-AI�PEN IMLI
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting forSeptember S, 2012
From: Amy Died
To: Meagan Beekman:Jill Hutmacher
Subject: FW: Discussion for planning commission on 7/11 about multi-family housing
Date: Tuesday,July 10,2012 7:34:49 AM
Just sharing this email that came in...
Amy Dietl
Deputy City Clerk
Citv of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills,MN 55112-5743
651-792-7811 (P)651-634-5137(F)
amv.dietl@ci.arden- ills.m_n.us
www.ci.arden-bills.mn.us
From: Steve Gjerdingen [mailto:steven-gjerdingen @bethel.edu]
Sent: Tuesday,July 10, 2012 4:21 AM
To: AHInformation
Subject: Discussion for planning commission on 7/11 about multi-family housing
Hello,
I understand that the planning commission will be meeting on 7/11 in a worksession to
discuss multi-family housing requirements. I wish to share the following thoughts with city
staff(I assume Meagan Beekman and other staff may be involved?) and the planning
commission regarding this topic.
First off, I wish that this wasn't a worksession because then there would be an opportunity for
formal public comment well before too many ideas are developed and before this process
takes shape.
Secondly, here are my thoughts on some multi-family housing rules that could be introduced:
1) Street oriented primary entrances -
Having street oriented entrances is essential to creating livable, attractive, and accessible
multi-family developments. The former Holiday Inn property succeeded at having a street
oriented entrance. When Northwestern took this property over for 3 years, students
unfortunately were not allowed to enter at the front entrance, and much of the life
surrounding this property disappeared to the back of the property. Allowing rear entrances to
be the only primary entrance to multi-family dwellings creates an automobile oriented
property, a kind of property that would not serve the B2 district or other districts of Arden
Hills very well. Street oriented entrances encourage alternative transportation, community,
street life, and visual awareness of the activities on a property.
2) Secure bicycle parking -
Not only do I believe that this should be a requirement for multi-family dwellings, but I
believe that the type of parking should also be specified. Parking spaces should allow secure
storage of the bicycle such that the frame itself can be secured in every stall or in every
adjacent spot on a rack where a vertical pole is provided. Racks should be modern and allow
a standard U-lock to secure the frame to the rack. Cheap racks that don't allow this U-lock
method and require a flexible 'cable lock' attachment create a theft magnet as anyone with a
pair of bolt cutters can quickly steal the bicycle.
3) Automobile parking that promotes density -
a) I do not believe it is reasonable to require 1.5 parking stalls for every bedroom. Seas of
parking lots will turn any multi-family project into an eyesore. 1 stall per bedroom is a more
reasonable number. While some people may have guests overnight, others will stay
overnight at other places. Again, I think market demand will be an adequate driving force in
this situation and assure that each development has the proper number of parking stalls.
Tenants won't live somewhere if they require a car and are not guaranteed a parking spot. I
am not sure if you are aware, but Flaherty's Bowling alley has sold parking spots to Bethel
students in the past due to parking shortages at Bethel. Market forces always win in this type
of situation.
If Arden Hills experiences problems with parking,perhaps it should consider waiving it's
strict no-overnight street parking policy that is put in effect all winter long and consider
adopting a more friendly winter policy, such as the kind that the city of Roseville has. Arden
Hills should also look for more on-street parking opportunities and perhaps require
developments to put in parking bays. On-street parking is an extremely efficient use of
space, and I would like to see more of this in Arden Hills, even along major county roads.
b) New developments should be required to underground some of their parking. This is the
only way that a kind of desirable density can be created, especially that which is sought after
in the B2 district.
4) Establishing a high minimum square feet per unit standard should not be a strong focal
point -
When the council voted on the multi-family housing moratorium, and one council member
suggested that 300 square feet wasn't an appealing unit size. In other developed countries,
300 square feet units are not uncommon. While America has more space, us citizens should
be responsible for how we use that space. Seattle, WA is currently allows 300 feet studio
apartments. The city of New York allows 400 square feet units but the mayor is looking to
lower this minimum to 300 square feet to meet market demand, per the the following article:
hU://WWW.huffingtolWost.com/2012/07/09Znyc-=artment-size-bloomb
apartmentsn 1660396.html
I hope these comments are helpful and will provide some insight during your discussion!
--Steve Gjerdingen
(An Arden Hills employee but not a resident)
Pagel of 3
From: Jamie J.Thelen [JJThelen @SandCompanies.com]
Sent: Tuesday,August 14,2012 8:25 AM
To: Meagan Beekman
Cc: Neil R. Fortier;John Belisle
Subject: RE:Arden Hills Multi-family housing regulations
Meagan,
John made some great points that I agree with. Here are a couple of others:
• Subd. 4—Having a parking stall "assigned"to a unit can be problematic. I know in some senior
projects &some market rate projects, residents may or may not have a car. At the same time,
some residents may have two. In a case like this, we wouldn't want to assign a parking space to
unit that doesn't have a vehicle as we could provide it to a resident with two otherwise it could
sit empty. I would suggest just requiring one enclosed parking space per unit.
• Subd. 5—This section isn't very well defined, but not sure how you could do it. As a developer,
it seems pretty wide open to interpretation.
• Subd. 6—This is probably the most concerning part of the provision. The unit mix should be
determined by the market not an ordinance. I believe allowing only 25%for senior projects is
problematic. Is there a reason for limiting efficiencies? Efficiencies will actually reduce the
number of residents living in a building.
• Parking—Most communities are actually reducing parking requirements to allow for less
impervious surface and more green space. I would suggest simply requiring two spaces per unit
versus basing it on bedrooms.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.
punee 7"a
Chief Executive Officer
Visit ourWebsite:www.SandCompanies.com
Sand Companies, Inc.
366 South Tenth Avenue I PO Box 727
Waite Park,Minnesota 56387-0727
Tel(320)202-31001 Fax(320)202-3139
From: John Belisle [mailto:belisleiohn @msn.coml
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:45 PM
To: Meagan Beekman; Jamie J. Thelen
Cc: Neil R. Fortier
Subject: Re: Arden Hills Multi-family housing regulations
Meagan,
A couple of things to consider:
1. Parking requirement appears a little rigid. What if the building is a senior assissted living or memory
care apartment?That type of parking requirement would be unnecessary.
2. Same with unit sizes. If you have a memory care place the unit sizes will be smaller than 600 ft.
Maybe need an exception for some of the senior products that are coming given the large
file:///P:/Planning/Planning%20Cases/2012/12-014%20%2OZoning%2OCode%2OAmend... 8/29/2012
Page 2 of 3
demographic changes coming that will impact apartment building.
3. Subd. 6 has similar issues for some senior products. May need more flexibility for some of the high
care senior products. For example Mahtomedi just built a memory care apartment place and all of the
units are basically efficiencies.
4. Bicycle parking; does that mean a 100 secure spots for a 50 unit building? That would seem a little
high, but could be met with a double hanger in front of enclosed parking spots? Again, need a senior
exception? Does secure mean enclosed or inside or just a place to lockup bike outside?
5. 1325.06 Is this in addition to the enclosed parking or just a total #? If in addition,that seems
high. We generally have just one surface spot per unit in addition to our one underground parking
space per unit and our lots are never full.
Neil &Jamie may want to add or change some things as they are smarter than I am. Hope this
helps. Thanks. John
From: Meagan Beekman
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 9:30 AM
To: Jamie J. Thelen
Cc: Neil R. Fortier; 'John E. Belisle (belislejohn @msn.com)'
Subject: Arden Hills Multi-family housing regulations
Greetings,
Based on the Planning Commission's discussions on July 11th and August 8th regarding multi-family housing,
Staff has prepared draft regulations pertaining to minimum requirements for multi-family housing. While your
multi-family housing project has already been approved by the City,and would not be impacted by these
changes to the City's Code, as an interested party, and developer/owner/operator of multi-family housing
development, I am sending you a copy of the draft regulations and seek your feedback(attached).
In addition to the enclosed draft regulations,the City is also contemplating broadening the rental registration
program to include multi-family developments with greater than four units. As part of this change, it is likely
that participation in Ramsey County Sheriffs Crime Free Multi Housing program would be a requirement. This
change would likely impact your property as participation is on-going.
I am seeking your input in whatever way you would prefer to provide it. If you would like to meet in person to
discuss the draft I would be happy to do so. If you would prefer to submit written comments, or attend an
upcoming public meeting that would be fine too.
I appreciate any input that you can provide, as it will assist us as we move through this process.
Thank you for your time, and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Meagan
Meagan Beekman, AICP
City Planner,Recycling Coordinator
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills,NvIN 55112
Direct: (651)792-7828
file:///P:/Plannin2/PlanninQ%20Cases/2012/12-014%20%20Zoninjz%20Code%20Amend... 8/29/2012
t
{ IP \\iiF
MEMO
Date: August 15,2012
To: Ms. Meagan Beekman, Mayor David Grant, Council Members: Brenda Holden,
Fran Holmes, Nick Tamble, Ed Werner, Planning Commission Members: Clayton
Larson, Roberta Thompson, Angela Hames, Andy Holewa, Samuel Scott,
Clayton Zimmerman
City of Arden Hills
From: TAT Properties LLC / 1201 County Road E LLC
Rob Davidson/Stu Nolan
At the request of the City of Arden Hills the property owners of 1201 W.County Road E are
providing the following responses to the proposed zoning code changes for multi-family dwelling
units.
Based upon the proposed regulations it is obvious and clear that the regulations are targeted
and conceived substantially to prohibit and inhibit the apartment redevelopment that was
proposed to the City of Arden Hills under PC12-009. Please keep in mind that redevelopment
of an existing property is very different from that of a newly constructed property and the
suggested design changes incorporated herein make redevelopment of an existing property
impossible.
Subd. 1 Minimum unit size. 600 SF plus 100 SF for each bedroom.
e r ,
F 1E
CB
Subd. 2 Security Plan. Complete security plan submitted at time of proposal,subject to
Ramsey County Sheriffs Dept.approval.
Subd.3 Lighting Plan Component. In compliance with the recommendations of the
Ramsey County Sheriffs Dept.in addition to any maximum lighting requirements
as described elsewhere in the City's Zoning Code.
Subd.4 Parking, Minimum of one enclosed parking stall assigned to each dwelling unit.
Enclosed parking structure to be attached to at least one principal structure to
which parking is being provided,
D"
"Y
Subd. 5 Common Area. Adequate common area shall be provided.
e-
-'e", don k�
7-�_ oiL,e,
Subd. 6 Efficiency Apartments. Except for senior citizen housing,the number of
efficiency apartments in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed ten(10)percent of
the total number of apartments.
Subd.7 Bicycle Parking. A minimum of one secured storage space shall be provided for
every.5 dwelling units.
qer-7
Subd. 8 Window Coverings. All windows visible to the outside shall be provided with
window treatments. Window treatments shall be consistent through-out each
multi-family dwelling structure or development.
Conclusion,the recommendation proposed are targeted to thwart the 1201 County Road E
project but will also negatively impact the interest of any developer in building new multi-family
dwellings in Arden Hills.
Respectfully,
Rob Davidson
cc: Stuart Nolan
Timothy Keane
,G.G.W ZiOUTH SIXTH JTR.EET
1VP.INNEA.POLIE., MtMN.EsoTA. 55402 -
TELEPHOME 212-344- t I f 1
FACSIMILE 612-344- 1414
Tt omy J.KEANE
512 455-6533 DtU�
TLMXEANE@NIGMLLP.00_M
August 16,2012
Mayor David Crrant and Members of Mr.Clay Larson and Members of
the Arden Hills City Council tl Arden Hills Planning Commission
1245 Highway 96 West 1245 Highway 96 Nest
Arden Hills,MN 55112-5743 Arden Hills.,MN 55112-5743'
Re: City of Arden Hills Planning Case 12=411;Zoning{ordinance Amendment
Our Pile No.:2622.001
01
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission:
This letter is offered on behalf of our clieirt,TAT Properties,LLC and 1201 County Road
E,LLC(the"Developer")as fee owners of the property located at 1201 County Road L in the
northwest.corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue(the"Property')in the City of Arden
Hills in response to the multi-family design standards under consideration by the Arden Hill
Planning Commission and City Council. This letter is in response to the draft amendments to
Sections 1305.04, 1325.05 and 1325.06 of the Arden Hills Code(the"Amendments.7').
The Property will be the suldect to the amendments that will directly and adversely affect
the use of the Property. Certain sections of the proposed Amendments are preempted by the
:State Building Code(the International Building Code 2,006 Edition(the"IBC")incorporated into
the State Building Code). Specifically,the proposed Amendment to Arden Hills Code of
Ordinances Section 1325.45,Subd. I (minimum unit size)is specifically addressed in the State
Building Code which takes precedence over local regulations. The IBC provides for a minimum
efficiezzoy unit of 220 square feet of floor area plus closet and bathroom. IBC § 1208A.
As recently as July 23,2012,the Minnesota Court of Appeals restated and affirmed the
principle that a City may not circumvent the preemption provisions of the State Building Code.
Builders Association of Ainnesota v. City of St. Pain(Minn. Ct.App. 62-CV-11-2436,July 23,
2012). The Builders Association of Minnesota case affirmed the well-established principle that
the state may"limit the power of a city to act in a particular area,"by fully;occupying a field of
legislation and preempting local regulation in that field. City of Morris v. Sax Ines, Inc.,749
N.W.2d 1,6(Minn. 2008). The legislature's purpose in enacting the State Building Code was to
{15048&DOC- 8116rfY12}
set forth a uniform standard for the construction,reconstruction,alteration and repair of
buildings throughout the state. Mir. Stat. § 326B.101, .121,s bd. 1(a); see also: City of Morris,.
74914.W.2d at 7(recognizing the purpose of uniform,statewide building code)
Accordingly,the legislature enacted a preemption provision that limits the authority of
municipalities to enact differing building code requirements. Id. This provision states that"[a]
municipality must not by ordinance,or through development agreement,require building code
previsions regulating components or systems of any structure that are different from any
prevision of the State Building Code." Builders Association of:�inne:�ora at 13; Minn.Star.
?26B.121, subd.2(c)(2010). Moreover,the Minnesota Supreme Court has broadly defined
"building code provision"to encompass any regulation that"affects the construction and design
of buildings"if the subject of the regulation is covered by the State Building Coder !Builders
Association of Minnesota at 14;City of Morris at 8_ The State Building Code preempts the
City's attempts to impose differing requirements for minimum unit size and minimum lighting
requirements.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. There is no urgency that requires
action on these Amendments at this time. We respectfully request the City consider these
preemption limitations in considering the Amendments. ;Should you have any questions,Please
contact me at(612)455-6633:
Sincerely,
Timothy J Keane
TJKfban
cc: Jill Hutinacher,Director of Community Development
.Meagan Beeman,City Plattner
Rob Davidson,TAT Properties,LLC
Stuart Nolan, 1201 County Read E, LLC
Jerry Filla,Kelly and Lernmons,P.A.
(t50498,DOC- 8/1612GIZI
Attachment
Proposed Sections 1305.04, 1320.059
1325.045, and 1325.06 — Black-lined
Version
-�I.LS
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting forSeptember S, 2012
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1305-Definitions
1305.04 Defmitions.
Subd. 70 Enclosed Parking A structure used for the storage of a vehicle which must
be covered and completely enclosed by walls or doors on four sides
Section 1320—District Provisions
IN
C C C C C C p
Section 1325 - General Regulations
1325.45 Multi-family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Subd. 1 Minimum Unit Size. Each multi-family dwelling unit shall be a minimum
of six hundred (600) square feet plus one hundred (100) square feet for each
bedroom. Garages breezeways common hallways balconies and porch floor spaces
shall not be credited in determining the required floor area of units
Subd. 2 Security Plan Component. A complete security plan shall be submitted at
the time of the development proposal subiect to the approval of the Ramsey County
Sheriff's Department
Subd.3 Lighting Plan Component. A complete photometric plan shall be
submitted in compliance with the recommendations of the Ramsey County Sheriff's
Department. Compliance with this requirement shall be in addition to any maximum
lighting requirements as described elsewhere in the City's Zoning Code
Subd. 4 Parking. A minimum of one enclosed parking stall shall be provided per
dwelling unit. Enclosed parking structures shall be attached to at least one of the
principal structures to which parking is being provided
Subd. 5 Common Area. Common area devoted to recreation or leisure activities shall be
provided. Common area must include a combination of both indoor and outdoor space
Subd. 6 Efficiency Apartments. The number of efficiency units in a multiple dwelling
shall not exceed fifteen 0 5)percent of the total number of apartments
Section 1325—General Regulations
DRAFT—Last Revised: 07-17-12
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Subd. 7 Bicycle Parking. Enclosed bic cle parking shall be provided at a rate of.5
spaces for every dwelling unit.
Subd. 8 Window coverings. All windows which are visible to the outside shall be
provided with window treatments Window treatments shall be consistent throughout
each multi family dwelling structure or development.
1325.06 Requirements for Parking,Loading and Circulation. (Revised 04128108)
Subd. 1 Off-Public Street Parking.
J. Off Street Parking Spaces Required:
s
Dwelling, single and two-family 2 for each dwelling unit
1.5 per efficiency and 1 bedroom dwelling units;
Dwelling multiple family 2 for each 2+bedroom dwellMamts
Page 2 of 2