Laserfiche WebLink
Comment 3. The application states that other configurations were evaluated, however they are not <br />included in the application. <br />Response 3. These other configurations are provided in figures 5 and 6 as part of the complete <br />application. <br />Comment 4. Could parking requirements be shared with the business next door? This should be <br />evaluated. <br />Response 4. City ordinance requires all lots to provide off street parking. The medical center was <br />contacted to determine if they may be willing to share parking, but they declined. <br />Comment 5. Have alternative building sizes been considered that would require less parking? The <br />application states that the size of the daycare was established by the applicant; what about a smaller <br />facility? An avoidance alternative evaluating a reasonably -sized building with sufficient parking to meet <br />zoning requirements as wells are reconfigured play areas should be evaluated. <br />Response 5. The use of the site is specified in the land use plan, comp plan, and zoning. Size of the <br />building is determined by MDH. <br />Comment 6. Is the buildable area of the site large enough to accommodate the proposed business? Could <br />a different business or building be constructed on this property that would not need to fill wetland for <br />parking? <br />Response 6. Based on the 2006 and 2012 wetland delineations, development of the adjacent parcels may <br />result in similar wetland impacts with a similar design which is based on minimum requirements for play <br />areas and building size. The applicant has demonstrated the need for this type of facility based on <br />demographics and city planning. The proposed alternative satisfies the need for the designated use while <br />minimizing impacts. <br />Comment 7. Could the proposed business be reasonably modified to be smaller and completely fit on the <br />property without wetland impacts? <br />Response 7. The original conceptual plan for the site proposed a 12,800 square foot with the lot <br />completely built out. This was the smallest building proposed on the entire Frenchman Il site. This <br />development also included 85% impervious while the proposed alternative reduces impervious to 45%. <br />2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION <br />Date of Decision: 3/2/16 <br />❑ Approved ® Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ <br />Denied <br />BWSR Fomes 11-25-09 Page 2 of 4 <br />