Title
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A PLANNING REVIEW WITH CONDITIONS FOR A 15-ROOM ADDITION AT 1033 MINNESOTA AVENUE.
Body
CITY PROPOSAL:
RESOLVED, that the city council finds as follows:
(a) On September 20, 2018, Park Point Marina Inn and Suites LLC submitted an application (Planning Commission File No. “PL 18-122”, staff report attached as Attachment A) for a mixed-use waterfront (MU-W) planning review to allow a 15-room, 3-story, 6,100 square foot addition to an existing hotel at 1033 Minnesota Avenue;
(b) Council finds that Mr. Anderson has submitted five applications and application revisions for substantially the same project or related projects on the same site since 2015 and has not followed through on any of them.
(c) Applicant has not demonstrated that the addition will meet the minimum 40% transparency along the waterfront façade as required by Section 50-15.6 E of the Duluth City Code, 1959, as amended; the sketch of the addition appears to match the existing building, which does not have 40% transparency;
(d) The addition of hotel rooms will increase parking demand while removing on-site parking. The applicant fails to demonstrate that nearby properties provide supplemental on-street or off-street parking;
(e) Planning commission reviewed the application to ensure that health, safety, and welfare of the community will be protected;
(f) The planning commission considered the application at its October 9, 2018, and November 13, 2018 regular meetings. Planning Commission determined that the proposal generally met the purpose and requirements of the MU-W zone district and approved the MU-W planning review;
(g) Due to concerns about the project’s ability to meet the specifics of transparency and parking requirements, as well as a desire to support Park Point development that is appropriate within a given context, the Planning Commission added conditions regarding development timing, parking, and building elevations to minimize land use conflicts. The Action Letter dated November 14, 2018, is attached as Attachment B;
(h) On November 20, 2018, the city received an appeal from Mr. Terry Anderson of Park Point Marina Inn and Suites, LLC (“Applicant”), a copy of which is attached as Attachment C, requesting the city council remove certain conditions of planning commission’s approval;
(i) The city council first heard the appeal at its January 14, 2019 meeting;
(j) Also at the January 14, 2019 meeting, the city council heard an appeal from third parties of the planning commission’s approval of the underlying application to expand;
(k) At the January 14, 2019 meeting, the city council reversed the planning commission’s approval of the underlying application to expand, and returned the resolutions regarding Applicant’s appeal of the conditions to administration;
(l) Applicant sought St. Louis County District Court review of the City Council’s January 14, 2019 actions in Court File No. 69DU-CV-19-1706;
(m) On November 13, 2020, the District Court issued an order reinstating the planning commission’s approval of the underlying application to expand, and requiring the city council to consider Applicant’s appeal of conditions on that approval;
(n.) Action by the city council on Applicant’s appeal of the conditions appealed from shall result in a project approval effective date as of the date of city council resolution approval.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the decision of the planning commission to approve the planning review with conditions is affirmed on the grounds that the conditions are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community for the reasons set forth below:
1. “Condition 1: Applicant must apply for a building permit within 180 days of Planning Commission approval. No administrative extensions shall be granted.” Condition 1 is affirmed because the Council finds that the health, safety and welfare of the Minnesota Point neighborhood requires certainty regarding the site and its development to allow for future planning for surrounding infrastructure needs on Minnesota Point. However, in recognition changes to project timing, this condition shall be amended to state:
Condition 1: Applicant must apply for a building permit within 180 days of City Council approval of any resolutions arising from appeals to the original project approval.
2. “Condition 2: To protect the viability of the current Planning Review and its basis in establishing parameters to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community, any further applications submitted within 180 days of Planning Commission approval by Applicant for further Planning Commission review related to Subject Property shall nullify the current action of the Planning Commission.” Condition 2 is affirmed because the Council finds that the health, safety and welfare of the community requires in finality of applications, so that development can proceed consistent with comprehensive planning goals and finds that the Applicant has submitted five applications and application revisions for versions of the project since 2015 without completing any of the variants of the project. The city has an interest in finality of applications, so that development can proceed in this area of the city consistent with comprehensive planning goals. The Planning Commission added conditions related to project timing because the Applicant’s history raises concerns that the project might not otherwise proceed within a timeframe consistent with meeting other planning needs, including infrastructure planning for Minnesota Point, and resilience planning for prevention of erosion and mitigation of flooding along Minnesota Point.
4. “Condition 4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide an additional 13 parking spaces on or immediately adjacent to the site, or demonstrate that supplemental parking is available within 500 feet of the site with off-street pedestrian access using a trail or sidewalk connecting to the hotel’s primary entrance.” Condition 4 is affirmed because the Council finds that the parking on the site does not meet the requirements of Section 50-24 of the UDC and that additional parking is necessary to provide for adequate access to the site by hotel guests and employees. There is not sufficient parking on the site, and due to ownership by separate entities of adjacent parking areas under control of the Applicant, additional validation of supplemental parking remains necessary to prevent a parking shortage for guests and employees, and to prevent parking by hotel guests and employees within the adjacent neighborhood.
Statement of Purpose
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The resolution affirms the planning commission’s decision to attach five conditions to its approval of a Planning Review for a 15-room addition to the existing hotel at 1033 Minnesota Avenue. Applicant has appealed three of those conditions: Condition 1, Condition 2, and Condition 4.
The existing hotel received approvals in 2012 and contains 68 rooms. The addition would be placed in an existing parking lot, removing 11 parking spaces while adding 15 hotel rooms. To meet the minimum zoning requirements, approval of this addition requires an additional 13 parking spaces, which would bring the total parking to a ratio of 0.95 spaces per hotel room. Applicant has requested to reduce the required amount by 30% due to proximity to a transit line; however, the UDC states this is available only in areas not adjacent to a Residential district and where “the applicant can demonstrate that nearby properties provide supplemental on-street or off-street parking.” Neither of these applies to this application.
Applicant has not submitted detailed building elevations with measurements that allows for confirmation that the building will meet the 40% transparency requirement along the façade facing the water.
If Applicant can accommodate the transparency and parking requirements, this project meets the intent of the MU-W district, which is the basis for the planning commission approval. Based on the history and nature of development in this area, planning commission conditioned its approval with a timeframe for development to ensure timely progress of development on the site.
The city council reversed the planning commission’s approval of this project in January 2019 in response to an appeal by an unrelated third party (Resolution 19-0021R). No action was taken by the city council on Applicant’s appeal, because the project was denied. Since that time, actions in Minnesota District Court have resulted in the necessity of city council consideration of Applicant’s appeal. The basis for timing of this consideration by the city council is established by those Minnesota District Court actions.
Original City Council Appeal Received: November 20, 2018
Original Complete Application Received: September 20, 2018
Original Action Deadline for Application: January 18, 2019