The proposed development involves remodeling the existing hotel structure into 136 residential apartments, with 92 units targeted for individuals earning 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 44 units for those earning 80% AMI. This initiative aims to address the affordable housing gap in the Twin Cities Metro area. Despite its affordability focus, the project does not require tax increment financing (TIF) from the city.

A critical aspect of the proposal is the request for a variance to allow zero enclosed parking stalls, as the property lacks the required parking infrastructure due to its original design as a hotel. The existing 185 surface parking stalls exceed the 170 needed for residential use, but the absence of covered parking raised concerns about security and weather exposure for residents’ vehicles. The commission explored the potential impact of the variance on both affordability and community safety, with some noting that requiring a parking ramp could escalate costs and affect the project’s affordability.

Discussions also highlighted the developers’ plans to enhance the building’s amenities, such as converting spaces into co-working areas and adding bike racks. However, safety in the shared parking lot with Edinborough Park was a concern. Suggestions were made to issue parking tags to prevent towing during park events, and while security cameras exist inside the building, the parking lot lacks surveillance, prompting calls for improved security measures.

Public comments further underscored the community’s divided stance. Some residents supported the conversion for its affordability and strategic location near public transport, while others opposed it, arguing that rental apartments do not offer the financial stability of ownership. Calls were made for more family-oriented units and heightened security measures, particularly for adjacent senior living and children’s facilities.

The discourse also delved into the nature of investment groups involved, with concerns about the permanence of affordable housing commitments if a variance is granted without guarantees. The potential overdevelopment of parking spaces was seen as inconsistent with broader land use goals, leading to suggestions for community benefit contributions instead of additional parking infrastructure.

The Planning Commission considered these multifaceted issues, weighing the benefits of adaptive reuse against the challenges of maintaining long-term affordability. Discussions on establishing an affordability period as a condition for project approval were prominent.