Laserfiche WebLink
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Levine, Brauer, Van Scoy, and <br />Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnso~ and Shepherd. <br /> <br />Case #4: <br /> <br />Request for Sketch Plan Review of Minks Business Park; Case of Minks <br />Custom Homes, Inc. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes indicated Case Nos. 4 and 5 will be discussed together. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes advised that Minks Custom Homes, LLC submitted a site plan for the <br />development of a 20,048 square foot multi-tenant office/warehouse facility located generally at <br />the southeast corner of Sunfish.Lake Boulevard NW and Sunfish Lake Court. Ben Minks is <br />proposing to construct a 20,048 square foot multi-tenant facility by combining two lots through a <br />minor plat to create one, buildable lot. The property is zoned E-1 Employment. O~ce and <br />warehousing uses are permitted within this district. Limited retail is also permitted, but is limited <br />to 20% of the square footage of any proposed building. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes explained, that the proposed structure will be a multi-tenant building <br />with eight bays for office/warehousing uses. One bay will be occupied by the offices of Minks <br />Custom Homes. The site plan conforms to all setbacks, architectural standards, and lot coverage <br />requirements. There are some minor issues with the landscaping plan and grading plan, as <br />outlined in the Staff Review Letter, and a tree preservation plan is also requested. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes reviewed that the Planning Commission heard this case on October 6, <br />2005, and tabled both the site plan review and the sketch plan review of the plat so the applicant <br />could submit a revised site plan that indicated the requested .changes concerning the future <br />addition. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes noted the submitted revisions indicate the relocation of some parking <br />to the north side of the building, allowing the buildirtg to be shifted west and'providing more <br />space for maneuvering in the rear of the building. The future addition is a possible' configuration <br />of an expansion or addition. Developing a separate building on this site is also a possibility, <br />although not preferable to the applicant or staff at this time. <br /> <br />· Chairperson Nixt questioned if the-new configuration will work for the applicant. <br /> <br />Mrs Minks replied he is satisfied with the configuration of the site plan. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the applicant has reviewed the Staff Review Letter. <br /> <br />Mr. Minks resPonded in the affirmative. He' indicated he is willing to include the additional trees <br />and shrubs requested by staff. A plan will-be submitted including the additional landscaping. <br /> <br />P34 <br /> <br />Planning CommiSsion/November 3, 2005 <br /> Page 4 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />