Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />#2404 Otten Brothers <br />August 14, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br />require a land alteration permit, and certainly requires site plan approval since it is located within <br />a road outlot. Outlot C is owned by the Otten's, and the City has an underlying Road and Utility <br />Easement subject to a restriction which limits the City’s ability to develop a road until a number of <br />conditions are met (see Exhibit I). The applicant has noted that the retaining wall system is made <br />of re-usable materials and could be easily disassembled at such future time that the Outlot is <br />developed for road purposes. <br />The PUD Agreement is mute as to uses of Outlot C, hence this retaining wall / loading dock must <br />be considered as an amendment to the Agreement, as is the greenhouse construction. Staff is <br />concerned about the impact of activity here as it relates to the neighboring residential property, <br />which would otherwise enjoy Outlot C as somewhat of a separation buffer. It also will tend to act <br />as an additional encroachment of our access to the well house. An alternative to this location would <br />be to construct a free-standing 3-sided loading dock within Lot 2. Required loading docks are <br />regulated in the Special Provisions section of the Zoning Code (Section 10.61 Subds. 11-17). <br />Loading docks are not allowed in required yards, so it can be argued that the proposed dock must <br />be set back as much as 35' from Outlot C (B-6 required setback for an accessory structure). <br />Although staffs initial reaction upon viewing the loading dock under construction was that it is in <br />a logical location, further consideration and discussions in-house have resulted in our concluding that <br />this may not be an appropriate location. Planning Commission should consider the short- and long­ <br />term ramifications of allowing this loading dock on Outlot C. <br />Review Process <br />Zoning Code Section 10.53, Subds. 5 & 7 indicate that any change to the approved final PUD <br />development plan that increases the 'cube' of a b lining by more than 10% must be processed as an <br />amendment of the final development plan, pursuant to a public hearing. The final result will be a <br />resolution that amends the conditions of the PUD Agreement and is signed by both the City and the <br />property owner. Note that minor site revision.*" are subject to review by an established 'Development <br />Review Committee' which consists of the City Planner, the Senior Planning Coordinator, and the <br />Director of Public Services. This commi* was used for review of Otten Brothers' tenants canopy <br />signage in 1994. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.Does Planning Commission have any specific concerns with the proposed greenhouse <br />addition? <br />2. Is Planning Commission satisfied with the current state of the site's landscaping plan?