09-14-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2404 Otten Brothers Nursery August 20,1998 Page 2 Pertinent Code Requirements This property was created and the existing site plan approved via a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, which involved a subdivision and rezoning to B-6 (PUD-1) and which was subject to a PUD Agreement defming standards and conditions for how the property may be used. This Agreement (Exhibit 1) works in conjunction with the B-6 standards which govern the site. Review Process Zoning Code Section 10.53, Subds. 5 & 7 indicate that any change to the approved final PUD development plan that increases the 'cube ’ of a building by more than 10% must be processed as an amendment of the final development plan, pursuant to a public hearing. The final result will be a document that amends the conditions of the PUD Agreement and is signed by both the City and the property owner. The City Attorney will address how this should be formatted. Review of Proposed Greenhouse and Site Plan Please see the memo of August 14 for a detailed review of the proposed greenhouse and a general update review of the site plan. Retaining Wall / Loading Dock The wall system recently constructed vdthin Outlot C is intended to function as an open loading dock area. The wall construction is of manufactured landscaping blocks and therefore likely womd not need engineering design even though sections are 5-6 feet in height. However, this work does require a land alteration permit, and certainly requires site plan approval since it is located wtiun a road outlot. Outlot C is owned by the Otten ’s, and the City has an underlymg Road and Utility Easement subject to a restriction which limits the City's ability to develop a road until a number o conditions are met (see Exhibit I). The applicant has noted that the retaining wall systemis made of re-usable materials and could be easily disassembled at such future time that the Outlot is developed for road purposes. The PUD Agreement is mute as to uses of Outlot C, hence this retaining wall / loading dock i^t be considered as an amendment to the Agreement, as is the greenhouse const^ction. Staff isDC consiacrca cUl aiuciiuiutnv vw uiw —-------- concerned about the impact of activity here as it relates to the neighboring residential property, which would otherwise enjoy Outlot C as somewhat of a separation buffer. It also will tend to act as an additional encroachment of our access to the well house. An alternative to this location would