1992 10-12 PC MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Gem Lake Planning Commission met Monday evening, October 12, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Tousley Ford conference room. Lynn D. Glaser and Laura L. Studer appeared to get the Commission's view on a possible re -zoning, or special use, of the property at 3524 No. Highway 61. Ms. Glaser customizes trucks and motorcycles with creative scenes,lettering and striping. She wishes to purchase the house for living quarters and convert the two garages to a work area, including a spray -painting booth. The Commission did not seem concerned about the use, but we are concerned that this would be another auto -related business in our last retail zone. Mr. Bemis, particularly, has hoped that we would be able to diversify the business in that area. What is the opinion of the council? Bob Cory presented his building plan for review and it was deemed satisfactory, although the landscaping on Scheuneman Road requires specific identification of three deciduous trees to be planted in the setback. The Commission recommends that the council grant Mr. Cory a variance of three feet (from 10 feet to 7 feet) to the side - yard setback requirement on the south side of the property, pending satisfactory building plan review. The variance is deemed necessary to accommodate adequate parking and circulation, and the southerly neighbor has no objection. Dick Hiniker presented the request by Tousley Ford for a variance from our ordinance requiring a 20' setback and landscaped boulevard starting at the property line. As the curb on E is 9 feet inside the right-of-way, they wish to start their setback at the curb, as opposed to the property line, with the condition that they will maintain the 20' boulevard if E is ever widened. The discussion then proceeded to the site plan and engineers' report. Tousley is unwilling to close the existing entrance to the facility nearest Hwy 61, and state that they are absolutely committed to making it an enter -only access. They are also unwilling to extend the water main to their westerly boundary, on the basis of cost and only conjectural future use. Rob Hansen was in attendance and did not volunteer to share the expense. Hiniker was also unwilling to commit to any specifics regarding the landscaping of the boulevard area and the commission feels that the totality of the site plan is too vague and controversial to allow a favorable position. Tousley feels that they need to proceed immediately with improvements to the newly -leased property, specifically paving, so that they can utilize the facility for display purposes this winter. The Commission feels that the planning is totally inadequate for us to make a major commitment, particularly in light of the history of this property. Tousley has been advised that they may appear before the Council next Monday to resolve this issue, but that the Commission will not be in favor of the variance without resolution of the following issues: 1. Satisfactory landscape plan including: substantial deciduous trees in the setback on E, a 201planted area along the west