2016-02-08 PC Agenda Packet
PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING
Tuesday,February 9, 2016
7:00 PM
1.CALL TO ORDER -ROLL CALL –ADOPT AGENDA
2.MINUTES
December 8, 2015Planning CommissionMeeting (pages 1-2)
3.PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.Dolphin Fast Food Inc. –Burger King Parking Count Variance for property located
at 6495 LaBeaux Avenue (pages 3-16)
4.OTHER BUSINESS
a.Select meeting dates for August andNovember 2016 (see attached development
reviewschedule)
5.ADJOURNMENT
ALBERTVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2015
DRAFTMINUTES
ALBERTVILLE CITY HALL 7:00 PM
1.CALL TO ORDER –ROLL CALL –ADOPT AGENDA
Chair Klecker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Becker conducted roll call.
Present:
Chair Klecker and Commissioners Edgren, Barthel and Lindberg.
Absent:
CommissionerDominick
Others Present:
City Planner Alan Brixius,Building Permit Technician Maeghan Becker, and
resident Bob Zagorski.
Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Lindberg, to approve the agenda as presented. Ayes:
Klecker, Edgren, Barthel and Lindberg. Nays: None. Absent: Dominick. MOTION
DELARED CARRIED.
2.MINUTES
Motioned by Edgren, seconded by Barthel, to approve the November 10, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting minutes.Ayes:Klecker, Edgren, Barthel and Lindberg. Nays: None.
Absent:Dominick.MOTION DECLARED CARRIED.
3.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.Special Sign Standards
Brixius went over the elements of topic for the Sign Code that are being modified. They are as
follows:
1.The Format
2.The Purpose Statement
3.The Definition Section
4.Non-Conforming Signs
5.Prohibited Signs
1
6.General Provisions
7.District Regulations
8.Special Sign Standards
9.Permit Requirements
10.Violations; Penalties
Commissioner Barthel had a concern on the Permit Requirements, on page 35(section 10-7-8).
He brought to attention that the owner of a sign should not have to get a permit to do routine
maintenance such as painting their sign. You do need to pull a permit if you are changing the
face of the sign and/or the structure. Brixius will be changing the language to adhere to Barthel’s
concern.
Motioned by Klecker, seconded by Lindberg to close the Public Hearing. Ayes: Klecker,
Edgren, Barthel and Lindberg. Nays: None. Absent: Dominick. MOTIONED DECLARED
CARRIED.
Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Lindberg to recommend approval to Council. Ayes: Klecker,
Edgren, Barthel, Lindberg. Nays: None. Absent: Dominick. MOTIONED DECLARED
CARRIED.
4.OTHER BUSINESS
A.None
5.ADJOURNMENT
Motioned by Edgren, seconded by Klecker, to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Ayes:Klecker,
Edgren, Bartheland Lindberg. Nays: None. Absent: Dominick. MOTION DECLARED
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
Maeghan M. Becker,Building Permit Technician
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting of December 8, 2015
2
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:Adam Nafstad
FROM:Alan Brixius
DATE:February 3, 2016
RE:Albertville –Burger King Parking Standards Variance
FILE NO:163.06 –16.01
BACKGROUND
Dolphin Real Estate has filed application requesting a variance from the City’s required
amount of parking for their site located at 6495 LaBeaux Avenue. The applicants wish
to remove an indoor play structure and convert this area to seating. The site is fully
developed and does not offer area for additional parking for the expanded seating. The
property owner is requesting a variance from the number of parking stalls due to the
significant amount of walk-in customers from the Outlet Mall.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:Applicant Letter
Exhibit B:Burger King Pedestrian Traffic Detail
Exhibit C:Site Plan
Exhibit D:Floor Plan Seating Layout
Exhibit E:Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Review
Exhibit F:Outlet Mall Email Correspondence
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Original Approvals.
Burger King’s original site and building plan was approved in
2000. The building plan included the play system which was deducted from the dining
room for the parking calculation. The table below shows the parking calculation for the
original floor plan.
3
RequiredProposed
Dining and Service Area4243
Kitchen and Storage1111
Drive Through Service Lane22
TOTAL5556
The approved site plan included 56 parking stalls, meeting the City ordinance.
Play Equipment.
The play equipment occupies approximately 180 square feet of floor
area in the northern portion of the building. With the building renovation, the applicant
proposes to convert this area to accommodate up to 20 additional seats. By ordinance,
the 180 square feet of additional dining area would require five parking stalls, for a total
site parking count of 60.
Parking Stalls.
The site plan shows a parking arrangement of 56 stalls, resulting in a
shortage of four parking stalls.
Variance.
In meeting with Burger King representatives, they identified their proposed
renovations and City staff directed them to pursue a variance to accommodate the
reduced parking count. Section 500.1.B of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance outlines the
following criteria for granting a variance:
1.Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding.The site is zoned PUD/B-3whichallows for restaurant uses as a
permitted use. The Burger King site and building plan was approved as part of
the larger Albertville Outlet Mall PUD, which was designed to promote
complementary business uses and business interchange between the Burger
King site and the larger shopping center.
The restaurant renovations proposeto remove the play structure and expand
dining room seating in response to their customer type and demand. They have
indicated that this is due to its proximity to the Outlet Mall and has significantly
higher incidences of pedestrian traffic than their other 19 Burger Kings. In light of
the site zoning, its approval was part of a larger PUD and its operational
characteristics of the reduced parking count is consistent with the general
purpose of the City Code and approved PUD.
The variance will allow further renovation on an existing business, which is
consistent with the goals and policiesof the City’s Vision Study. The Vision
Study promotes the expansion and growth of Albertville businesses in areas
guided for commercial. The study also promoteshigh design in building
architectural and site design.
4
2.Variances may only be permitted when the applicant establishes that there are
non-economic practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance,
meaning the property owner proposes to use the lot or parcel in a reasonable
manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding.The non-economic practical difficulties that are applicable to the site in
support of the variance include:
a.The site is part of a larger PUD and provides an ancillary food service for
the larger Outlet Mall.
b.The site’s proximity to the Outlet Mall results in a higher incidence of
pedestrian customer traffic patronizing this restaurantthan typical
restaurants. Customers parkatthe shopping center and walkto Burger
King.This is documented by the applicant’straffic study and verified by
the Outlet Mall. Based on this information, the four additional stalls are
not needed.
c.The building’s footprint is not being expanded. All floor area modifications
are designed within the existing building.
d.The site layout will not physically allow the addition of four stalls without
being a detriment to the current site design.
In light of the current site’s operation and the practical difficulties associated with
the site, the variance will allow the dining room to expand andoperate in a
reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the ZoningOrdinance.
3.The plight of the property owner must be due to circumstances that are unique to
the lot or parcel and is not created by the property owner.
Finding.The uniqueness of this lot is location and proximity to the Albertville
Outlet Mall. No other lot in the community shares these characteristics. The
physical characteristic generates a higher volume of pedestrian business
interchange between the restaurant and the shopping center, resulting in a
demand for more restaurant seating without the greater demand for on-site
parking.
4.The variance must not alter the essential character of the locality including all
zoning district and overlay district provisions.
Finding.The variance will not change the character of the locality. Currently,
Burger King and the Outlet Mall are exploring the means to improve pedestrian
safety between the two sites. The building renovation will bring an updated
image to the restaurant and provide additional seating for the convenience of its
customers.
5
5.The request is not a use variance.
Finding.The existing restaurant is a permitted use in the base B-3 zoning and
approved within the Albertville Outlet Mall PUD. This is not a use variance.
6.The variance requested is the minimumvariance necessaryto accomplish the
use of the property in a reasonable manner.
Finding.There is no exterior expansion of the building. The conversion of the
180 square feet of play area to dining requires five parking stalls, resulting in an
on-site parking shortageof four parking stalls. This is the minimum variance
possible for the site.
RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
Dolphin Fast Food Inc. is looking to reinvest in its Burger King restaurant in Albertville.
Theproposed renovation will refresh the exterior appearance of the building and
proposes to expand the interior seating by up to 20 seats to meet its customer demand.
The expanded seating by ordinance requires five additional parking stalls, which cannot
physically be accommodated on the lot. The property owner is requesting a variance
from these additional parking stalls citing the site’s current characteristics and
operations as the basis for the variance. Based on our review of the application, we
recommend approval of the variance based on the findings outlined in this report.
c.
Kim Olson
Maeghan Becker
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Stacy Nealy, Dolphin Fast Food Inc.
6
7
EXHIBIT A
8
EXHIBIT B
9
EXHIBIT C
10
EXHIBIT D
11
EXHIBIT E
12
EXHIBIT E
13
EXHIBIT E
14
EXHIBIT E
15
EXHIBIT E
From:Laurie.Summerland@simon.com [mailto:Laurie.Summerland@simon.com]
Sent:Monday, February 01, 2016 10:11 AM
To:Alan Brixius
MQuinn@simon.com; AnneSmith@simon.com
Cc:
Subject:Re: Albertville Burger King
Alan,
I have reviewed the attachment and find it to be acceptable to our requirements.
The one exception that I would like to point out (and it works as a mutual plus) is that
our posted speed isactually 15mph vs the 30mph that is shown in the proposal for the
crosswalk.We should be good to go.
If there are any other questions or issues that are required, please do not hesitate to
let me know.
Laurie Summerland
General Manager
Albertville Premium Outlets
6415 Labeaux Avenue Northeast Suite A 109
Albertville, MN 55301 USA
T 763.497.9713F 763.497.0778
Laurie.Summer@simon.com
16
EXHIBIT F
2016 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCHEDULE
(Updated 1/28/2016)
PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIRED PROJECT PLANS PLANNING STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE
PRE-INFORMATION COMMISSION APPLICANT MEETING
APPLICATION DUE MEETING MEETING
strd
1 & 3 Monday each
ND
DUE to City for
2 Tues. each month
STAFF MEETING * A 60-day Notice will
BEFORE
4 weeks month**
publication be distributed to the
10:00 AM 7:00 PM
Planning Commission
7:00 PM
applicant at this time.
Thursdays 12:00
Tuesday following a (*exception holidays)
meeting date (note
Revised plans will be (**exception holidays)
p.m..
City Council meeting
*
below)
due to Staff two weeks
(exception holidays)
(exception holidays)
from this date.
February 1, 2016
November 16, 2015
January 12, 2016
December 15, 2015 December 23, 2015 January 19, 2016
or **February 16, 2016
December 7, 2015
March 7, 2016
December 21, 2015
February 9, 2016
January 12, 2016 January 21, 2016 February 16, 2016
or March 21, 2016
January 5, 2016
April 4, 2016
January 19, 2016*
March 8, 2016
February 9, 2016 February 18, 2016 March 22, 2016
or April 18, 2016
February 2, 2016
May 2, 2016
February 16, 2016*
April 12, 2016
March 15, 2016 March 24, 2016 April 19, 2016
or May 16, 2016
March 3, 2016
June 6, 2016
March 22, 2016
May 10, 2016
April 12, 2016 April 21, 2016 May 17, 2016
or June 20, 2016
April 5, 2016
**July 5, 2016
April 19, 2015
June 14, 2016
May 17, 2016 May 26, 2016 June 21, 2016
or July 18, 2016
May 3, 2016
August 3, 2016
May 19, 2016
July 12, 2016
June 14, 2016 June 23, 2016 July 19, 2016
or August 17, 2016
June 7, 2016
* Note:This schedule will be followed without exception. If meeting dates or project due dates are missed, this will result in the Planning Commission review of the request
being delayed at least one month. The Applicant is responsible to provide one complete copy of the application and the required plans for each of the City Planner, City
Engineer, City Attorney, and City Clerk. The City Planner will review the application materials for completeness and submit a letter to the applicant, within 15 days of
receipt of the application packet, indicating whether the application is deemed complete or listing materials that are required prior to initiating the formal review process.
** Observed holiday, indicates a change in regular meeting date.
M:\Public Data\Planning Commission & Zoning\Development Review Schedules\2016 Development Review Schedule.doc last update: 1/28/2016
2016 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCHEDULE
(Updated 1/28/2016)
PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIRED PROJECT PLANS PLANNING STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE
PRE-INFORMATION COMMISSION APPLICANT MEETING
APPLICATION DUE MEETING MEETING
strd
1 & 3 Monday each
ND
DUE to City for
2 Tues. each month
STAFF MEETING * A 60-day Notice will
BEFORE
4 weeks month**
publication be distributed to the
10:00 a.m. 7:00 PM
Planning & Zoning
7:00 PM
applicant at this time.
Thursdays 12:00
Tuesday following a (*exception holidays)
Commission meeting
Revised plans will be (**exception holidays)
p.m..
City Council meeting
*
date (note below)
due to Staff two weeks
(*exception holidays)
(*exception holidays)
from this date.
**September 6, 2016
June 21, 2016
August TBD, 2016
July 12, 2016 July 21, 2016 August 16, 2016
(Primary Election)
or September 19, 2016
July 5, 2016*
October 3, 2016
July 18, 2016
September 13, 2016
August 16, 2016 August 25, 2016 September 20, 2016
or October 17, 2016
August 15, 2016
November 7, 2016
August 15, 2016
October 11, 2016
September 13, 2016 September 22, 2016 October 18, 2016
or November 21, 2016
September 6, 2016*
December 5, 2016
September 19, 2016
November TBD, 2016
October 11, 2016 October 20, 2016 November 22, 2016
(General Election)
or December 19, 2016
October 3, 2016
January 2, 2017
October 17, 2016
November 22, 2016*
December 13, 2016
November 15, 2016 December 20, 2016
November TBD,
(TUES., Holiday Week)
or **January 17, 2017
2016
February 6, 2017
November 22, 2016
January 10, 2017
December 13, 2016 December 22, 2016 January 17, 2017
or **February 21, 2017
December 6, 2016
* Note:This schedule will be followed without exception. If meeting dates or project due dates are missed, this will result in the Planning Commission review of the request
being delayed at least one month. The Applicant is responsible to provide one complete copy of the application and the required plans for each of the City Planner, City
Engineer, City Attorney, and City Clerk. The City Planner will review the application materials for completeness and submit a letter to the applicant, within 15 days of
receipt of the application packet, indicating whether the application is deemed complete or listing materials that are required prior to initiating the formal review process.
** Observed holiday, indicates a change in regular meeting date.
M:\Public Data\Planning Commission & Zoning\Development Review Schedules\2016 Development Review Schedule.doc last update: 1/28/2016