Laserfiche WebLink
Associate Planner Dalnes stated that the:site plan conforms to all setbacks, architectural <br />standards, and lot coverage requirements. She stated that a revised site plan was requested to <br />indicate acceptable future expansions so that a realistic gading, drainage, and parking plan could <br />be reviewed. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes advised that Staff is recommending approval of sketch plan and site <br />plan. review. <br /> <br />Commission Input <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if it would be possible to move forward with the site plan as Proposed if <br />it was a PUD. He stated there is a case later tonight for Ramsey Town Center that has similar <br />issue, where the first building of a three building development that would be allowed under a <br />PUD. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes stated it would be allowed, however there is' no access to the future <br />building, so he would have to gain access from the loading area of the first proposed area, so that <br />was problematic as well. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer wondered if with the L shaped lot, if they are leaving commercial property <br />undevelopabIe. He stated he is worried that they have property that no one can.develop. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes indicated that the only access to that property would be from Sunfish <br />Boulevard, and the County discourages access off of Sunfish Lake Blvd.. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that in terms of approving the site plan, are we .approving the <br />future building at this time. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaNes, stated that it would be for one building..She indicated that from the <br />purpose of the drainage and gading plan it is nice to know what is proposed for the future. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if there is not a way to configure the lot for better access. He indicated <br />they will have to deal with this at some point. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated in looking at it, he questioned why they have the parking and the <br />road on the Sunfish side, rather than the other side, which would then give them access to the <br />other lot. ' <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes stated the concern there was having the front of the' building face the <br />same road. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the applicant had considered re-configuring the site so that they could <br />allow a variance for a second building on the site by allowing access to the rear of the site. He <br />stated that if the applicant wants to have an aesthetic approach they may have to window-dress <br />the east elevation, but it would provide access to the eastern portion of the lot. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 6, 2005 <br /> Page 6 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />