10-04-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. Hall told the Commission it has not been determined what will go in the building but said he does intend to lease out the building. He explained it was cost prohibitive to have the Perkins site as part of the development. The reason behind the downsizing is the lending institution set a lending limit and with the larger hotel he was over the limit. He also told the Commission he did not believe the TIF requirements were affected at all and said he was $700,000 over what is needed to demonstrate the need for TIF. Commissioner Thomas referred to the site plan and noted there did not appear to be handicapped parking spots located near all entrances. She then inquired if the applicant intended to have handicapped parking spaces at each entrance. Mr. Hall told the Commission the plan for parking was simply a layout to show proof of ample parking and that there will definitely be handicapped parking spaces at each entrance. Commissioner Thomas referred to the site plan and noted there appeared to be room for only one delivery truck to dock at a time. She then inquired if the applicant intended to expand the loading dock to accommodate more than one truck at a time. Mr. Hall said he intended to leave the loading dock area as it is stating it works well for his purposes. He indicated 90% of his deliveries come off the side of the truck and not the back so he did not feel there was a need to have a truck ramp like at a truck terminal. He stated most of the delivery trucks have a 12-foot ramp that they extend and roll the inventory in. He also commented on the fact that the revised plan provides for no parking near the loading dock which would be more convenient for the delivery drivers. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to why the pool was downsized. Mr. Hall indicated the pool was downsized because the hotel was downsized. He said it is standard to design the pool size to accommodate the number of rooms the hotel has. He indicated the lending institution provides a maximum amount to be spent per room for the pool and he is bound by that figure. Mr. Hall then assured the Planning Commission that the plan he presented is the plan they will stick with and there should not be further changes to it. Commissioner Johnson noted the hotel is larger than other AmericInns he has seen. The Architect on the project indicated it is one of the larger AmericInns but not the largest. He indicated a typical prototype AmericInn has 64 units and the one on the Mermaid site is proposed to have 70 units. He told the Commission the materials would be of a high quality as is the standard with AmericInn. He also pointed out the building will be “L” shaped allowing for larger interior corner and exterior corner rooms that will be very nice. Chairperson Peterson inquired if they intended to charge more for the corner rooms. The Architect indicated the price per room was a decision for Mr. Hall to make but said it would make sense to charge more for a nicer or larger room.