08-24-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2404 Otten Brothers Nursery August 20, 1998 Page 3 be to construct a free-standing 3-sided loading dock within Lot 2. Required loading docks are regulated in the Special Provisions section of the Zoning Code (Section 10.61 Subds. 11-17). Loading docks are not allowed in required yards, so it can be argued that the proposed dock must be set back as much as 35* from Outlot C (B-6 required setback for an accessory structure). Although staffs initial reaction upon viewing the loading dock under construction was that it is in a logical location, further consideration and discussions in-house have resulted in staff concluding that this is not be an appropriate location. Planning Commission agreed. Neighbor Comments At the August 17 public hearing. Planning Commission received a letter from Patrick Pugh of 725 Dickey Lake Drive (north side of Dickey Lake Drive directly across from Otten ’s) and received comments from Joel Walvatne of 710 Dickey Lake Drive (adjacent to Otten's). Both focused on screening issues. Pugh noted visual and noise concerns. Walvatne noted that he is unsatisfied with the screening that was accepted by the City when the site was initially developed. He commented that the trees and berm do not provide the visual screen that he anticipated. Staff agrees that the area of the site visible from Dickey Lake Drive, especially near the truck parking lot and north of the rock bins, needs attention in order to provide effective screening. The areas of Lot 2 to the east which are generally also used for storing landscape materials, are less visible from the north and fairly well screened from Highway 12. Planning Commission Recommendation Plannin Commission generally indicated acceptance of the greenhouse addition as appropriate and in character with the architecture and use of the property. Planning Commission agreed with staff th.'it the loading dock should not be placed within Outlot C, since the outlot was intended for future read purposes and not as an extension of the working area of the commercial site. Planning Commission sympathized with the concerns of the neighboring property owners but was unable to gain a clear understanding from Walvatne of any specific changes he would suggest for the screening. Planning Commission suggested that Otten's take the initiative in meeting with Pugh and Walvatne to come up with a screening enhancement plan that will address the neighbor's concerns. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval per the staff recommendation (Items 1-5 below) with an added condition that applicant meet with the homeowners to resolve the screening issue.