09-21-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 (#2403 TERRY CLARK. Continued) to approve an addition in the 0-75' setback. Chair Smith staled the impact to the lake and bluff areas are both high priorities of the Planning Commission, and suggested the Applicant look at reducing and moving the addition to lessen the impact on the 0-75’ setback. Stoddard stated he agreed with Chair Smith. The Applicant's contractor stated that what the Applicant was proposing was reasonable, noting the current residence has no basement. Chair Smith stated this was a very special property, and recommended tabling the matter to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. Stoddard commented it probably wouldn't pass as currently proposed. The Applicant ’s contractor requested the matter be tabled. Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2403,1575 Long Lake Boulevard, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) 2404 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY, 2350 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEWA/ARIANCES, 9:07 p.m. - 9:33 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Rod Johnson, representative of Otten Brothers, was present. Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting approval of a commercial site plan for construction of a 132’ X 144 ’ greenhouse addition at the east end of the main building and will be utilized for virtually the same retail sales function as currently exists in the main building but will provide for a more controlled environment. Gaffron commented there currently is no standard in the B-6 zoning district for structural coverage. (Charles Schroeder returns at 9:12 p.m ). Gaffron stated the proposed greenhouse addition meets the height and setback requirements, and will have low impact to drainage. This addition will not require additional parking or signage and the proposed design of the greenhouse is compatible with the existing structure. Gaffron stated a retaining wall was erected to serve as a loading dock in Outlet C, and cited concerns this retaining wall/loading dock would have on the neighboring residential property. City Staff recommends that the retaining wall/loading dock be moved back. Gaffron stated the present zoning code requires that any change to the approved final PUD development plan be processed as an amendment of the final development plan followed by a resolution that amends the conditions of the PUD agreement. Gaffron remarked Staff has received a letter from an adjoining properly owner who has expressed concerns about the current landscaping at the rear of the property. Currently there is a berm located Page 13