Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: February 2, 2005 and February 16, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Special Order of Business: Oath of Office for New Appointment 6. Planning Case CU05-001 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an oversized garage at 5343 Clifton Drive Applicant: David and Leanne Siercks 7. Planning Case DE05-001 Consideration of a Concept Plan for a Hotel Expansion at The Mermaid located at 2200 County Road 10 APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: April 6, 2005 9. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: March 2, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. Land Use Planning Workshops 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 2, 2005 Mounds View City H2ll 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. March 2, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Planning Associate Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case IU05-001. Consideration of an Interim Use Permit 2 for a Temporary Structure (Tent) at The Mermaid Located at 2200 County Road 10. Review Applications for the Vacant Planning Commission Seat 4 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case IU05-001. Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Structure (Tent) at The Mermaid Located at 2200 County Road 10. Planning Associate Prososki stated that in 2004 the City adopted new provisions for temporary outdoor structures in commercial districts. She reiterated the eleven specific requirements of the approval process as listed in the Staff Report. She stated that since Provision No. 10 states that the IUP can be reviewed at any time by the City if problems arise, Staff is comfortable with the permit approval remaining in force indefinitely. Commissioner Zwirn asked why the applicant would want to have this indefinitely when it’s up for an annual review and it can also be reviewed at any time. Planning Associate Prososki explained that it is up for an annual review as far as a fire and zoning permit, but if the Commission and the Council were to determine this could be indefinite, it wouldn’t be necessary to come back for an interim use permit every year. Commissioner Zwirn stated that some Council members have expressed concern with regard to this temporary structure and have indicated a desire for a permanent structure there. He stated that there is a feeling this is an attempt to avoid additional taxes. Director Ericson suggested putting a definite time period in the last whereas clause, such as five years, if the Planning Commission felt strongly that a definite period of time would be more appropriate. Commissioner Zwirn asked if this was an attempt to reduce the burden of having to bring this before the Commission every year. Director Ericson answered that was part of the reason. Commissioner Miller asked if Mr. Hall is planning at some time to make this a permanent structure. Mr. Dan Hall from the Mermaid answered that they are not planning to make the Tent a permanent structure, and that the tent is used temporarily during the wedding season. He stated it would be difficult to build within that confine, and it would also be difficult to fill that space 52 weeks out of the year. Commissioner Miller stated she was impressed with the tent at a wedding she attended. Mr. Hall advised he had purchased a new tent for $100,000, and he explained it’s carpeted inside and has candelabras and chandeliers, and there is a certain group of people that prefer the tent. Director Ericson read the conditions for the interim use permit for an outdoor temporary membrane structure, listed in the Resolution of Approval. Mounds View Planning Commission March 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked if they had any means of being notified if the property changes hands. Director Ericson replied that ordinarily the City does not know when a property changes hands, however in this case, there are a number of licenses the city has to issue, so they would become aware of it. Chair Stevenson asked if there was a time allowance in Ordinance 735 as far as a five-year review. Director Ericson replied that the Ordinance does allow for the City to impose a time limitation on this. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the “in force indefinitely” language had been run by the City Attorney. Director Ericson indicated that the Resolution has not been reviewed by the City Attorney, but that the City Attorney had been involved in the review of the original Ordinance, which did contemplate the fact that it could be open-ended. Commissioner Scotch stated she would feel more comfortable if it came back before them every two years rather than never. Commissioner Zwirn agreed, although he thought it should be every three years. Chair Stevenson said he would be more comfortable with every five years. Commissioner Scotch asked what the life expectancy of the tent is. Mr. Hall replied that it would depend on the weather, but at a minimum five plus years. He said he could replace the membrane for $7,000. He advised they like to keep it looking nice; otherwise, people wouldn’t rent it. He stated he didn’t have a preference whether the Commission approved this with a time limit on it or whether it was open-ended. Chair Stevenson asked what length of time the Commissioners felt should be in the Resolution. Commissioners Zwirn and Scotch stated they would like it to be for three years. Commissioners Miller, Hegland and Chair Stevenson stated they would like it to be for five years. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Stevenson. To approve Resolution 787-05 as amended to be for a period of five years, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Interim Use Permit for a Temporary Outdoor Membrane Structure at the Mermaid Located at 2200 County Road 10; Planning Case No. IU05-001. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Review Applications for the Vacant Planning Commission Seat. Director Ericson indicated that there is an open seat on the Planning Commission and that two applications had been received. He indicated both applicants were present and available for questions. Candidate Al Hull informed the Commission he has worked in the community for eight years and moved into Mounds View in April of 2004. He stated he is intending to join a church in the community and would like to help the City in some way. He indicated he had run for mayor and a City Council seat unsuccessfully. He feels that being on the Planning Commission would be a good way to learn the nuts and bolts of city government. Chair Stevenson asked whether he had any particular issues or concerns he was promoting. Mr. Hull stated that there had been some issues with the store at which he was the assistant manager that had come before the Planning Commission, but if those would arise in the future, he would abstain. Canidate Michael Marrone, 5045 Brighton Lane, stated he had run for City Council also. He stated he and his wife had moved to Mounds View 15 years ago because of the good schools, and they have raised four boys here. He stated he began watching City Council meetings on TV, and he is interested in city government. He would like to be on the Planning Commission to put something back into the community. Commissioner Zwirn asked both candidates if they had any problem with the time commitment. Mr. Maroney indicated he works during the day, so he had nothing to interfere with the time commitment in the evening. Mr. Hull indicated he works in the evenings, but his schedule is very flexible. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To pass both candidates for consideration by the City Council. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: March 16, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission March 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Sheree Theobald TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5 Meeting Date: March 2, 2005 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Concept Plan Review for a Hotel Expansion Associated with the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center Introduction: Applicant and property owner Dan Hall is requesting concept plan review of a proposed maximum 105-room, four-story hotel addition that would be connected to the existing hotel at the south end by a skywalk system. The draft plans indicate 81 rooms with a possible 24 additional rooms to the west. The applicant desires general concept plan consideration before going to the time and expense of preparing full-scale engineered site plans Discussion: The Mermaid property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) with allowed uses that include Hotel, Restaurant, Bowling, Office, Nightclub, Convention and Banquet area. While the expanded hotel would not in itself necessitate a PUD amendment, because there would be a reduction in parking spaces and a reduced setback, the PUD would require amendment for the project to proceed. Parking. There are presently 825 parking stalls on the site to serve the various uses associated with the Mermaid. The hotel expansion would eliminate 50 parking stalls. When the original hotel was approved in 2000, there was some concern about the actual parking demands given the number of overlapping uses. The PUD process provided some flexibility in determining what the actual count should be, yet staff was reluctant to stray too far form the strict application of the parking codes. In the end, a reduction of 20 stalls was approved, recognizing that there would be some overlap in parking demands. After the hotel was constructed and the banquet area completed, it became clear that there was more than adequate parking on site during all times of day and night. Last year, the nightclub (an intense night use) was closed and converted into additional conference/banquet space. This eliminated the highest nighttime demand for parking, shifting usage to the dayside where there had previously been and remains excess parking available. Mr. Hall currently leases part of the parking lot to Metro Transit as an overflow for the Park and Ride lot on County Road H. This arrangement would be terminated upon construction of the hotel addition. According to the City’s parking code requirements, a hotel would be required to provide parking according to the following schedule: one space per room plus one space per ten rooms and a space for each employee on the busiest shift. At maximum expansion, this would result in the need to provide an additional 120 parking stalls. That assumes, however, no reduction for complementary usage which for this development is quite extensive. While staff is confident that the site can support the hotel expansion without further expansion of the parking lot, it would be beneficial to have a parking consultant conduct an assessment for confirmation prior to formal development review plan adoption. Mermaid Hotel Report March 16, 2005 Page 2 Setbacks. The PUD for the Mermaid site allows for a principle structure setback of 50 feet. This setback exceeds what would normally be allowed in a commercial district and was imposed recognizing that the existing buildings more than satisfied that requirement. It was not anticipated at the time the PUD was drafted that an expansion to the south of the existing building would be contemplated. Ordinarily, the setback would be 30 feet. The concept plans submitted by Mr. Hall indicate a building setback that ranges from 12 feet to 30 feet. The distance from the property line to the County Road H roadway is another 15 to 20 feet. Upon first review of the plans, staff felt approval of such a setback reduction would be highly unlikely, however after subsequent review and consideration, such a reduction may not be undesirable. County Road H is not a highly traveled roadway and during the evening hours (when most guests would be sleeping) the road sees very limited traffic. Trends in land use planning are shifting away from standard inefficient suburban type requirements toward more traditional development patterns with reduced setbacks, bringing buildings closer to the front line of the lot and tucking parking behind the uses. While we are not recommending a comprehensive overhaul of our zoning requirements to satisfy the Mermaid’s request, it certainly may be worthwhile to examine zoning standards within the corridor and make changes to promote a more efficient use of the land. In the meantime, because the PUD does offer flexibility in what can be allowed, staff would not be opposed to the proposed reduced building setback. Summary: Dan Hall is requesting concept plan approval to construct a four story, 105-room addition to his AmericInn Hotel at 2200 County Road 10. Such an expansion would bring additional tax base to the community and would potentially bring in hundreds of additional guests on a daily basis who would then consume other goods and services in our community. The availability of the additional rooms would allow Mr. Hall to market his facility to a greater target audience for even larger banquet, reception and convention events. Recommendation: Review and consider the attached resolution which recommends approval of the concept plan submitted by Mr. Hall that contemplates a 105-room addition to the existing hotel. The resolution stipulates that if Mr. Hall proceeds with development stage plans, a land use consultant would need to assess the available parking to determine if it would be sufficient to accommodate the hotel expansion. If the Commission is comfortable with the plan submitted and with the assumptions presented in this report, the resolution may be acted upon as presented. If the Commission has questions or would like additional information prior to making a decision on the request, a tabling action would be in order. If the Commission opposes the expansion plan, staff would draft a new resolution for action at the Commission’s next meeting which articulates the basis for your opposition. If you should have any questions relating to the request, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Mermaid Hotel Report March 16, 2005 Page 3 _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Photo taken October 31, 2002 Footprint of proposed hotel expansion Zoning Map THE MERMAID The Mermaid Site Plan Membrane Structure Proposed Hotel Expansion C O U N T Y R O A D H MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 789-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR A 105-ROOM ADDITION TO THE MERMAID AMERICINN HOTEL FACILITY LOCATED AT 2200 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE NO. DE05-001 WHEREAS, Dan Hall has applied for concept plan approval for a 105-room addition to the existing AmericInn Hotel located at 2200 County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, the concept plan, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, contemplates 81 guest rooms on four levels with the ability to add 6 additional rooms per floor, for a maximum potential guest room addition of 105 rooms; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planned unit Development, and has a Comprehensive Plan future Land Use Map designation of Regional Commercial PUD; and, WHEREAS, the PUD allows for specific uses on the Mermaid site including Hotel, Restaurant, Banquet and Convention, Office, Nightclub, Bowling and Office; and, WHEREAS, the proposed concept plan for a hotel addition would be consistent with the land uses allowed by the PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission generally supports the proposed hotel expansion concept plan and recommends approval by the City Council, subject to the following conditions and stipulations: 1. In conjunction with the development stage plan review, the applicant shall consent to a parking needs analysis of the site conducted by a third-party land use consultant at the expense of the applicant. 2. In conjunction with the development stage plan review, the applicant shall apply for a PUD amendment to revise the parking, setback and building height allowances. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this general concept plan does not constitute approval nor obligate approval of the subsequent development stage plan review for the hotel expansion. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Resolution 789-05 Page 2 Adopted this 16th day of March, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) EXHIBIT 1. Site Plan Item No: 6 Meeting Date: March 16, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5343 Clifton Drive; Planning Case No. CU2005-001 Introduction: The applicants, David and Leann Siercks, are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing detached garage at 5343 Clifton Drive. The applicants indicate that they would construct a 456 square foot addition onto the existing 576 square foot garage. The proposed addition would then create a garage that has an area of 1,032 square feet. Requirements: Section 1106.03, Subd. 1: This part of the Code limits the height of an accessory building, the number of accessory buildings and the backyard coverage ratio of accessory buildings. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for garages exceeding 952 square feet. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6: This part of the Code enumerates the conditions for garage exceeding 952 square feet, which are that the garage be permanent, be uniform in appearance with the home, not exceed 35 feet in width, and not exceed 1,800 square feet of total accessory building area on the lot. Section 1125.01, Subd. 1: The Planning Commission is required to review the possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. Discussion: The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the 1,032 square foot garage satisfies the requirements as stated in Section 1106.03 and 1106.04, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The applicants are planning to construct an addition to the back of the existing detached garage. The proposed garage addition would be setback five (5) feet from the side (south) property line and seven (7) feet from the rear (west) property line. Section 1104.01 requires a five (5) foot setback, which the proposed garage satisfies. In addition to the proposed garage, there is an existing 8 X 10 shed on the property. The proposed garage and the existing shed would have a combined area of 1,112 square feet, which would make up 19.8% of the rear yard area. This satisfies the Code, as the Code allows the combined square footage of accessory structures to be up to 20% of the rear yard area. Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 5343 Clifton Drive, as low-density residential. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code 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 addressed on the following page. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 5343 Clifton Drive is designated as low-density residential and the proposed garage expansion would not be inconsistent with the Comp Plan. The Geographical Area Involved. The applicants’ home is located on Clifton Drive. The proposed garage expansion would not be out of place for this area and the size of the applicant’s lot would accommodate the expanded garage. Depreciation. The garage expansion would benefit the subject property both in a practical sense by providing additional on site, indoor parking and storage area and in an economic sense, as the addition would increase the “value” of the property. Increased property values are of course a benefit to everyone. The Character of the Surrounding Area. This part of the City is strictly residential; strictly single family dwellings. Most of the homes were constructed during the 1950’s. Many of the properties in the area have completed garage expansions to allow for additional storage. The expanded garage would not be out of character in this area. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. The applicants have found that a larger garage is necessary for their storage needs, specifically for storing racecars. The added garage space would be a substantial improvement for the applicants and would have a positive impact on the neighborhood, as the additional cars could be stored in the garage. Code Consistency Subdivision 6 of Section 1106.04 lists the conditions under which a conditional use permit can be issued. These are as follows: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet. c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 3 d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35'). e. The building shall be a permanent structure. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Code. Section 1103.06 refers to the location of accessory buildings in side and rear yards. The proposed garage satisfies this requirement. Section 1106.03 refers to specific standards such as height, area, setbacks, coverage ratios, use requirements, total number of accessory buildings allowed and exterior siding requirements, all of which are satisfied with this request. Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Resolution 788-05 is attached if the Commission selects this option. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting on April 6, 2005. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 788-05 Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 4 Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 5 Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 6 Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 7 Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 8 Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 9 Photographic Documentation Aerial Photograph of 5343 Clifton Drive Photograph of Existing Home and Garage Area of Proposed Expansion *Not to Scale Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 10 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 788-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,032 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 5343 CLIFTON DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO CU2005-001 WHEREAS, property owners David and Leanne Siercks have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,032 square foot garage; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 5343 Clifton Drive, is zoned R-1, Single Family residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 13, Pinewood Terrace No. 4 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed expanded garage would be 1,032 square feet, thus necessitating application of a conditional use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan e. Photographic Documentation f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the conditional use permit request on Wednesday, March 16, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: Siercks CUP Report 5343 Clifton Drive March 14, 2005 Page 11 1. The proposed oversized 1,032 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the 1,032 square foot garage, with conditions as follows: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted; the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The garage expansion shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the existing house. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of March, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL)