My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-26-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
10-26-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 3:45:55 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 3:32:42 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
581
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
h <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 12, 1998 <br />PLAiNNlNG COMMISSION COMMENTS - CHARLES SCHROEDER, REPRESENTATIVE <br />None <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />None <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />(#4) #2404 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY, 2350 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD - PUD #1 <br />AMENDMENT <br />Cliff Otten was present. <br />Gaffron stated that City Council voted to approve the commercial site plan review to allow the <br />greenhouse addition, to relocate the existing canopy structure, to allow the recently constructed entrance <br />monuments to remain in their current location, and to allow^ the retaining wall/loading dock to remain <br />within Outlot C subject to an agreement that Otten Brothers Nursery would remove the retaining <br />wall/loading dock at their expense If the road is ever constructed in Outlot C. Approval was subject to <br />conditions identified by Council as to the greenhouse not having "production greenhouse" lighting, so <br />that the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods minimized and for Mr. Otten to work with City staff <br />and the neighboring property owners to determine what additional screening/buffering is necessary to <br />be provided by Otten. Gaffron stated it was unclear to staff whether Council had distinctly included in <br />the motion of approval a requirement for additional screening/buffer. Gaffron noted a letter received <br />from Patrick Pugh, an adjacent property ow ner. <br />Otten concurred with Gaffron's report. Otten felt the screening/buffer issue was not part of Kelley’s <br />original motion of September 14. Otten slated that all of the previous screening requirements had been <br />met. Otten referred to Pugh's letter regarding Pugh's statement of a promise that Mr. Otten made, <br />agreeing to provide adequate screening for the motor pool at a Planning Commission meeting in 1998. <br />Otten questioned the validity of Pugh's coneern. when from Pugh's homestead lot the subject area is <br />actually screened very w ell. Otten stated Pugh's concern w as to protect the value of the vacant lot on <br />the comer of Dickey Lake Drive and Willow' Drive North, w hich Pugh purchased in 1996. Otten feels <br />that if the propert>‘ value was depressed, it was depressed before Pugh purchased it, not after. Otten does <br />not feel the need to improve the value of Pugh's property. Otten stated he explained to Pugh that it <br />would take a 12' high fence to hide the trucks. <br />Page 2 1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.