Laserfiche WebLink
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2000 <br />• Overall, the changes appear to create a site that is more compatible with the surroundings <br />through the use of setbacks, landscaping and a reduction in paved surface. <br />• <br />Ms. Sherman stated staff did recommend approval of the site plan at Planning and Zoning. <br />However, a complete submittal, including drainage/grading plans are needed to make a <br />full recommendation to the City Council. <br />Staff advised the deadline for the project is March 13, 2000. Staff expressed concern <br />regarding time for the grading plan to be completed and reviewed by the deadline. Staff <br />advised that if Council is comfortable with the changes in the plan, another extension <br />could be granted to complete the plans. <br />Mr. Gary Nordness, Developer for the project, came forward and stated the applicant is <br />requesting approval subject to final engineering plans to be approved by the City <br />Engineer. He reviewed the changes in the plan noting the reduction of impervious <br />surface. He asked the City Engineer if the reduction in impervious surface allows for a <br />better plan. <br />The City Engineer advised that the reduction in impervious surface is an improvement. He <br />added that other projects have been approved subject to final grading plan revisions but not <br />to the extent that has been requested on this project. He stated the staff concern is the <br />possibility of changes to the site plan based on the grading plan. The grading plan could <br />impact the design of the project. <br />Mr. Mark Finnemann, Architect for the project, stated the original plan submitted did <br />include the grading plan. There were issues that could easily be resolved. Because the <br />revised plan is a better plan with less impact, the grading plan should not be an issue. The <br />applicant wants to determine the Council comfort with the revised plan. The plan is a good <br />plan for the site and will be a good neighbor to the athletic complex. He referred to <br />different drawings demonstrating the view of the building. <br />Mr. Nordness stated the impervious surface on Phase I is 15%. He compared the 80% <br />impervious surface of the White Bear Township Movie Theater. He advised the <br />applicant has a letter from the County regarding access. The traffic will be stacked on <br />site. <br />Staff distributed a memo from City staff regarding the applicant's request for approval of <br />the revised site plan. <br />Mayor Berge son reviewed the following Council options regarding action: <br />1. Approval with conditions. <br />2. Deny the project. The project cannot come back before Council for <br />one year. <br />