Laserfiche WebLink
of the parking lot which adheres to the City's Zoning Code. <br />Alternatives <br />Alternative 1: Recommend approval of the requested Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Site Plan requests. The <br />proposed project appears to comply with the bulk standards of The COR Design Framework and the proposed use <br />would be an asset to the COR development as well as the City of Ramsey. Staff is supportive of this alternative <br />contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter. <br />Alternative 2: Recommend approval of the requested Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Site Plan with additional <br />modifications to the building elevations and/or other elements of the project other than what is currently outlined in <br />the Staff Review Letter. The Applicant made attempts to improve the architecture of the building while still <br />maintaining their desired look and feel of it. If the Planning Commission still feels that it is not sufficient, it should <br />provide specific direction as to what additional elements or features should be incorporated. <br />Alternative 3: Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Site Plan as currently requested. If the <br />Planning Commission desires to recommend denial it should clearly state its findings for the recommended denial <br />and direct staff to prepare a resolution outlining those findings of fact. As previously noted, the proposed project <br />appears consistent with the provisions of City Code and The COR Design Framework. Staff does not support this <br />alternative. <br />Funding Source: <br />The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this request. <br />Recommendation: <br />EDA Review: staff is requesting the EDA review the site layout and building renderings. Staff would like the EDA <br />to provide input (support, opposition, or amendments). <br />Staff recommend approval of the project, contingent on revisions outlined in the Staff Review Letter (including <br />architectural corrections). <br />The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan, contingent on further building design revisions <br />in addition to those outlined in the Staff Review Letter: <br />1. Additional window coverage on Sunwood Drive facade <br />2. Further emphasis on stone pillars between window facades on Sunwood Drive <br />3. Both design elements illustrated on Page 52 (top right image) of The COR Design Framework (included in <br />attached Staff Review Letter) <br />Final note, the Planning Commission did note that the Applicant did make significant improvement to the design <br />from the original building design package submitted for official Site Plan Review. The Planning Commission had <br />raised significant concern with the original design. <br />Action: <br />Motion to provide: <br />[support/ opposition/ amendments to] the attached proposed architectural package for Stone Brook Academy. <br />Site Location Map <br />Architectural Package <br />Staff Review Letter <br />Attachments <br />