Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 4, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., October 4, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Kaden, Thomas, and Stevenson. Members Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Rick Jopke. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. PD00-002, Discussion and Consideration of 2 Resolution No. 637-00, a Resolution Reapproving the Development Stage Plans of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development Applicant: Dan Hall Staff Reports / Items of Information. 8 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports. 9 3. Citizen’s Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. August 2, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the August 2, 2000 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes – 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. PD00-002 Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 637-00, a Resolution Reaprroving the Development Stage Plans of the Mermaid Planned Unit development Applicant: Dan Hall, President Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Dan Hall is seeking City approval of revised development stage plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development to construct a 70-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a set of development stage plans date-stamped August 10, 2000. Prior to City Council review, however, the plans were amended to such a degree that reapproval by the Planning Commission was deemed necessary. The City Council is scheduled to review the revised plans on October 10, 2000, for which a public hearing has been set. There are a number of changes contemplated by the revised development stage plans from what the Planning Commission originally recommended for approval on September 6, 2000. The most noticeable change is that the hotel has been scaled back to three stories and 70 rooms from the initial four-story, 96-room plan and the Perkins site is no longer a component of the Mermaid expansion. The water park is now attached to the hotel rather than being a separate building, with parking shown in the courtyard area. The total area of the revised PUD is approximately 9.36 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business park development. The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. The Planning Commission has been provided with a set of plans date-stamped September 28, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a preliminary landscape plan, an existing conditions plan, an overall floor plan, exterior elevations, an enlarged banquet floor plan, hotel floor plans, and a revised photometric analysis of the site. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planner Ericson provided additional detail regarding the site plans, addressing specific aspects of the plans as follows: Regarding parking, the City Code would require a total of 828 parking stalls with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 832 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. If the setback requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setback configuration met with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. The building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback 50 feet. All of the setbacks satisfy the current B-3 zoning requirements. The proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System, abbreviated as EFIS. Planner Ericson presented a materials board for the Planning Commission’s review and continued with his report: Other than the relocated main entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the existing building are planned. The applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three small directional signs along County Road H. The directional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which is preferred over a pylon type of sign. The applicant proposes a total of four building signs; one for the AmericInn, one for the Mermaid Nightclub, one for the Mermaid Restaurant, and one for the Mermaid Lanes. The applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign and the site plans have been revised accordingly. A separate easement document will need to be executed by Mr. Hall and recorded with Ramsey County to make it official. Under the B-3 zoning provisions, the amount of signage that would be allowed for this development would be limited to 340 square feet for a pedestal sign and 100 square feet for each building occupant. Given the five uses within the building (hotel, bowling lanes, restaurant, Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 nightclub and banquet center) a total of 840 square feet of signage could be allowed. Adding to that total the existing 162 square foot, multi-colored, electronic changing message pedestal sign along Highway 10 would bring the total signage on the site to 1,011 square feet. Staff feels the directional monument signs to be a necessary component of the signage package yet considers the total amount of signage devoted to the Mermaid uses to be excessive and recommends the total amount of signage on the property be limited to 850 square feet. The landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicates conceptual plantings of trees in the parking lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. While any proposed landscaping is an improvement over what is currently present on the site, the PUD requirements stipulate that the landscape plan shall identify the specific types and numbers of plantings to be utilized and shall be reviewed by the City Forester. The plan indicates the planting of 25 deciduous trees and 4 coniferous trees with additional unnamed plantings in the courtyard area. Staff will seek input from the City Forester as to appropriate species from those listed and for any other suggestions to improve the landscape plan. Regarding trailways, the applicant shall be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. Such a trailway would be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right-of-way yet as close to the Mermaid property as possible. The site plan shows the trailway extending north beyond the project area in front of the Perkins site. While Perkins is no longer part of the PUD, staff would recommend the trailway remain as shown on the plan. A photometric analysis has been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The City Code requires that any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking be hooded to eliminate glare on public streets. In addition, the light shall not exceed 1.0 footcandles at the centerline of any adjoining street. It appears as though the footcandle readings comply with this requirement. The applicant intends to utilize the existing parking lot lighting where possible with the addition of new light fixtures at the southern end of the property in the vicinity of the hotel expansion. No specifications, however, were provided for the proposed new lighting. The site plan does indicate the location of six decorative lights along the Highway 10 trailway. Because the City is working with NSP to install these lights, the applicant will need to submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such payment would then be deducted from any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. The site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. The northern Highway 10 access is actually located on the Perkins property, although there is a joint-use agreement filed regarding this shared access. Staff and the City’s engineer have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed District to create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the Metro Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all parties, Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 including Rice Creek Watershed District, will approve the stormwater project. The benefits of this proposed stormwater pond would be immense, in that stormwater runoff from the Mermaid site currently drains untreated directly into Rice Creek. Planner Ericson then provided to the Planning Commission staff’s recommendation as follows: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the revised development stage plans and consider action on Resolution 637-00, a resolution reapproving the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD subject to the applicant submitting details on the light fixtures and standards proposed; a limitation of sign area to 850 square feet; the applicant executing a sign easement document dedicating to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H; the applicant executing a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development; and subject to City Forester approval of the landscape plan.. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there was room for a trailway from the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H to tie the trailway into the trailway in New Brighton. Planner Ericson indicated a trailway was not placed in that location because County Road H is scheduled to be reconstructed at some point in the near future and, depending on how it is reconfigured, the trailway may have needed to be removed for construction. Commissioner Stevenson indicated Ramsey County has proposed to construct a regional bike trail starting at the southwest corner of Highway 10 and County Road H after the completion of the reconstruction of County Road H. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether there will be signage for the vehicles coming off of Highway 10 to indicate the location of the pedestrian trailway. Planner Ericson said they have not specifically looked at plans for pedestrian trailway signage but that it will be a consideration when drafting the PUD document. He also said it is possible the Highway 10 steering committee may be able to provide input as to how the trailways should be marked. Commissioner Miller inquired as to what effect the downsizing of the project would have on TIF requirements. Community Development Director Jopke told the Commission the particular numbers are still being considered and he expects to have a clearer idea of the effect of the downsizing on TIF requirements in November. Chairperson Peterson asked if the Perkins site was owned by someone other than the applicant. Mr. Hall indicated another of his companies is the owner of the Perkins site and indicated there is a cross access easement between the two properties. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether another restaurant would go in the building. 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. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was a standard size for rooms at an AmericInn. The Architect indicated the industry standard for hotel rooms is 12 feet wide and AmericInn’s rooms are 14 feet wide. He also pointed out the rooms are separated by an eight-inch concrete wall which makes them one of the quietest rooms in the industry. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to what changes the applicant planned for the mermaid statue. Mr. Hall indicated he wanted to take it down and update it to make it more politically correct but due to a lack of funds he is unable to do much more than a fresh coat of paint at this point. He told the Commission at some point in the future it is his intent to update the statue. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether there would be a courtyard. Mr. Hall indicated it would be very nice to have the courtyard but said he was more concerned with what will give him the best return on his investment. He indicated in his opinion parking is the most important thing at this point and he wanted to show as many parking spaces as possible. He then told the Commission that especially in winter there is a problem with “creative parking” and when that happens the number of cars you can fit in the lot greatly diminishes so he would prefer to be able to use the “courtyard” as parking at this point. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether the language of the resolution needed to specify a parking requirement. Planner Ericson indicated if the City required a minimum of 808 parking spaces that would give Mr. Hall the ability to eliminate the parking in the courtyard at a later date and use it as green space and still have the required number of parking spaces. He then indicated he does not believe there would need to be specific parking space language in the resolution but said they will address the parking in the PUD document. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Berke. To approve Resolution No. 637-00, a Resolution Reapproving the Development Stage Plans of the Mermaid Planned Unit Development. Ayes – 8 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Planner Ericson indicated this matter would be considered by the Council on October 10, 2000. 11. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke reported at the October 25, 2000 meeting the Council approved Resolution 5477, a resolution approving a minor subdivision of 2468 and 2474 County Road H2 to create a buildable lot fronting on Irondale Road. Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 The Council continued the public hearing on Resolution 5476, a resolution regarding the development stage of the proposed Mermaid PUD. The Council discussed the final plat for Walgreen’s at their work session and also reviewed the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD. The development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD will be on the Council agenda for October 10, 2000. The Council authorized the purchase of 7861 Groveland Road for future redevelopment. It is the intent of the City to purchase the property and lease out the house until such time as the area is redeveloped. Community Development Director Jopke noted he received a letter from the Metropolitan Council concerning the Comprehensive Plan asking for additional information which he has since provided to them. The Metropolitan Council has 60 days to review the plan commencing on September 14, 2000. This item will be on the consent agenda at the Metropolitan Council meeting scheduled for November 1, 2000. If the Metropolitan Council approves the Comprehensive Plan there will be a public hearing before the Council to adopt the Plan. The Highway 10 study Steering Committee submitted its Phase I report to the Council and it was accepted. Council authorized the Steering Committee to proceed with Phase II. The Council passed Resolution 5474 requesting that Ramsey County look at pedestrian safety issues on Highway 10. The resolution was presented to Commissioner Bennett at the meeting. Since then, Community Development Director Jopke indicated he had received a letter from Ramsey County staff indicating their willingness to cooperate with the City on those issues. Chairperson Peterson inquired as to how the discussion on changing the name of Highway 10 was proceeding. Community Development Director Jopke indicated they are looking into the legal implications and requirements of changing the name. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the date of the next Highway 10 Steering Committee meeting. Community Development Director Jopke indicated the next meeting is October 19, 2000. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the Highway 10 Steering Committee will be working on changing the name in the Anoka County portion of the road also. Community Development Director Jopke indicated they are working on a plan for Highway 10 and will include all affected jurisdictions in the decision making process. Chairperson Peterson noted that the representation of the Planning Commission was one member short on the Highway 10 Steering Committee and inquired as to whether any of the Planning Commissioners would be interested in serving on the Committee. Commissioner Stevenson indicated his willingness to serve on the Highway 10 Steering Committee. B. Replacement Zoning Code Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 The Planning Commission was provided with a complete copy of the recently updated zoning code. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the City was doing their own updates to the Code or if it was being handled by an outside firm. Staff indicated they are attempting to locate an outside firm interested in doing the updates for the City but at the present time Staff is handling the updates. Chairperson Peterson noted it is important that all updates be provided in a timely manner regardless of whether it is being handled by Staff or an outside firm. 12. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Commissioner Miller brought to the attention of the Planning Commission a concern regarding the striping on County Road I just east of Quincy Street. She indicated there are two lanes that suddenly neck down to one and then there is a right hand turn lane to get on the freeway. She indicated the area is confusing and potentially dangerous and inquired if there was anything that could be done about it. Community Development Director Jopke indicated he would look into the situation to see if it could be improved. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Mezzenga had applied for a permit. He also asked if anything is being planned for the land behind the Super America. Planner Ericson indicated nothing will happen with the land behind Super America until Spring. Commissioner Johnson told the Commission he recently learned the City has an easement for a right turn lane on the land behind Super America that could be used in the future. Planner Ericson indicated Mr. Mezzenga was finishing up loose strings on other projects and will come back before the Commission soon. There were no other reports of the Commission. 13. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.