Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Associate Planner DaInes 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 grading, drainage, and parking plan could <br />be reviewed. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes 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 POO. He stated there is a c-ase 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 />POO. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes 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 />undevelopable. He stated he is worried that they have property that no one can develop. <br /> <br />Associate Plal111er DaInes indicated that the only access to that property would be from Sunfish <br />Boulevard, and the COlmty 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 tlns time. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dahles, stated tllat it would be for one building. She indicated that from the <br />purpose of the drainage and grading 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 Slmfish side, rather tllan the other side, which would then give them access to the <br />other lot. <br /> <br />Associate Pla1l11er DaInes 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 011 tlle site by allowing access to the rear of the site. He <br />stated tllat 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 29 <br /> <br />6 <br />