Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017

Home

02/02/2017 NOTES • By a 5-1 vote, the Planning Commission was in support of the project being located on this site (Site #1). The PC made a motion to move this project to the next step, which is negotiating a purchase agreement. o The PC was in support of this project being located on Site #1 for the reasons outlined below. ■ The COR-2 Zoning District allows for this use (permitted use). Site #1 is located in the COR-2 zoning district. ■ The COR Master Plan shows a childcare center in a similar location as Site #1. ■ The COR Master Plan shows site layouts similar to what is being proposed by Stone Brook. ■ The reasons Stone Brook is requesting Site #1 generally appear to be reasonable, and Site #1 appears to work for the user. ■ The PC still feels this project is ideally located elsewhere in The COR--for the reasons outlined in the 01/05/2017 meeting notes (above). However, the PC felt it would be unreasonable for the City to allow this project via our adopted Master Plan and Zoning Code, and then choose not move it forward now, because it's not the City's current #1 ideal location. o RE the four site layouts, the PC liked Master Site Layout "B" the most (attached to this case), and was the focus of their discussion. They liked Master Site Layout "B" for the following reasons: ■ Allowed for internal traffic flow, and multiple access points to Stone Brook site, which will be important during the peak drop-off and pick-up hours of this business. ■ Separation of drop-off area from parking area is likely safer with this design. ■ PC preferred site layouts that covered Sunwood Drive with buildings as much as possible (on the remnant lots). o The PC remains in favor of the road connection (Yotlie). They are open to either a public or private road, for the reasons previously stated in the 01/05/2017 PC Notes. o One PC member opposed the project. They were in support of the attached Master Site Layout "B". However, they couldn't support the Stone Brook project on Site #1, if the remaining portion of the larger parcel/ development was not guaranteed. In other words, the is nothing requiring the remaining portion of the larger site to be developed as proposed in Master Site Layout "B". And, therefore, would result in too many future development challenges. o Some PC members stated that the .5-acre remnant lot and the well issue are both moot points. They are issues created by the City that are not going to go away, and will affect any master site layout for this larger site. They are not Stone Brook issues. Also, the 3-acre remnant lot is large enough to do many things with, and lots of options still exist. o Most PC members felt this use was a destination user, and would drive traffic to The COR, which will benefit The COR overall. One PC member wanted more information on Stone -Brook's demographic model, and where specifically will Stone Brook be pulling their customer base —is this business truly going to pull users from outside of Ramsey? o One PC member made a note, that this use is technically not an academy or early childhood learning center, based how they are licensed through the State of Minnesota. Stone Brook is seeking a childcare center license (primary use). They will be providing educational services as an added benefit. Page 14 of 15