Agenda Packets - 2005/03/28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mermaid Tent Report March 28, 2005 Page 3 Chapter 1125 Considerations: Ordinance 735 indicates that a tent IUP application be reviewed similarly to a conditional use permit as articulated in Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code. The chapter requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is listed below along with responses. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal to maintain an outdoor temporary membrane structure would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which guides this parcel as regional commercial planned unit development. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicant’s property is a nine-acre site with multiple land uses associated. The general topography of the site is gently sloping to the south with little variation. The stormwater from the site is routed to a regional stormwater pond west of the Mermaid on the north side of County Road H. Depreciation. No depreciation to the subject property or surrounding properties as a result of the tent’s existence. The Character of the Surrounding Area. The site is prominently located at the corner of County Road 10 and County Road H. The tent however is located within a courtyard area and is screened from all sides but the front by the Mermaid buildings. All of the uses in the general area are commercial or retail with the exception of the Rice Creek Corridor and County open space to the south. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicant has indicated that the need is because he is better able to serve his clientele and attract different types of events. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission considered this request at their meeting on March 2, 2005. While generally in support of the application, there was some debate regarding the appropriate duration of the term of approval. An interim use, by definition, is not a permanent approval and at some point the use for which the approval was granted would be removed. (Another example of a Mounds View interim use would be billboards.) Staff recommended that the approval be open-ended such that all conditions remained satisfied. The Commission felt more comfortable applying a date-certain to the permit, thus requiring re-approval regardless of the circumstances. The Commission’s resolution recommending approval contains a five- year review provision which is not opposed by the applicant, Dan Hall.