| | | | | | | | 
Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
July 5, 2018
|
| | | | | | | | | FROM: | Mark Noble, Senior Planner | | TO: | Board of Adjustment and Appeals |
|
| | | | | | | | Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit for Hotel in the Major Recreation Zone |
| | | | | | | | Policy/Action Requested:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. PC2018-009, a resolution approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Hotel, subject to the conditions noted in the draft resolution, and move its adoption. |
| | | | | | | | Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Hotel, subject to the conditions noted in the draft resolution. |
| | | | | | | | Discussion:
Site Information
Applicant: Grant Tjernagel, Pro Commercial
Property Owner: Haren and Bharti Shroff
Location: Part of Lot 1, Block 3, Canterbury Park 5th Addition (12th Avenue)
Current Zoning: Major Recreation (MR) Zone
Lot Size: 1.41 Acres
Introduction
Grant Tjernagel, Pro Commercial, applicant, and Haren and Bharti Shroff, property owners, have made application for a conditional use permit for a hotel in the Major Recreation (MR) Zone.
The proposed project would consist of a 63-unit hotel located west of McDonalds and east of SandalWood Studios and Suites on 12th Avenue. There are 70 parking spaces (city code requires 1 space per guest room, plus 1 space per 2 employees) proposed for this project, with access from 12th Avenue and Secretariat Drive. 12th Avenue access will be revised within the next year, possibly with a right-in/right-out access proposed for this site and the two previously mentioned adjacent uses. Full access to Secretariat will remain. The site is part of a PUD with established reduced setbacks (40 feet for 1 front yard, 20 feet for the second/south front yard, and 20-foot side yard setbacks).
Hotels are listed conditional uses in the MR Zone [Section 151.044 (C) (3)], with specific conditions of approval, as follows [Section 151.013 (B) (24)]:
(a) Shall be screened from any adjacent residential zone;
(b) The structure shall be of an architectural style which is compatible with neighboring structures;
(c) Shall not increase traffic congestion on streets; and
(d) Shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street as identified in the comprehensive plan.
The proposed structure appears to comply with these specific conditions of approval. Compliance with all design, performance and engineering requirements of the City Code will be reviewed at time of building permit, should this CUP be approved.
Planning staff did receive comments from several reviewing agencies, and have incorporated those comments as conditions of the draft resolution.
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
Criteria #1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity;
Finding #1: The Board has not received any evidence that the use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, if conducted in accordance with proposed conditions.
Criteria #2 The amendment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area;
Finding #2: The Board finds that the conditional use permit for a hotel will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, if conducted in accordance with proposed conditions.
Criteria #3 Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided;
Finding #3: The Board finds that adequate utilities, access, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided for the site. There exists an ingress and egress easement along the north side of the property that provides access to the two adjacent businesses.
Criteria #4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and
Finding #4 The Board finds that this use is consistent with the purposes of the MR Major Recreation Zone.
Criteria #5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding #5 The Board finds that the use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
|
|