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