2006 01-17 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

n!If,'I , Telephone: ( 651 ) 426 - 6443 CITY OF GEM LAKE Office of the City Clerk 1369 County Road "E" East Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 Email: gemlakecity@aol.com Memo to: Mayor Emeott From: Jack Hoeschler, Planning Commission Chair Date: January 11, 2006 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of January 10, 2006 Facsimile: ( 651) 426 - 6444 The Gem Lake Planning Commission held its January meeting at 7 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 at Tousley Ford. All members were present along with Paul Emeott, as co -zoning administrator. 1. Linden Groth. The first item of business was an informal request by Linden Groth for permission to operate a used car lot in the retail zone. He is a recent renter in the Waldoch building. His proposal met with no real enthusiasm because (i) the use is not allowed in the retail area; (ii) the comprehensive plan discourages more outdoor sales lots, even in the GB area; (iii) it would require a rezoning. We urged him to speak with Bryan Hansen re possible lease of his yard on Scheunemun Road. 2. Hillary Farm. The main item of the evening concerned our effort to work out a new methodology regarding the site review process called for in the Developer's Agreement regarding designs at Hillary Farm. Our proposal has been that Craig Rafferty and Paul Emeott act as our staff in this regard. Craig ran through his slides of the three structures already built showing how he would have reacted to those initial designs and the changes he would have suggested to avoid the "mistakes" that were made on two of the three structures. Now that they are built, he stressed the need for substantially more robust screening by mature trees. He stressed the need for screening from the lake and between Lots 6 and 7 in lieu of a grass only easement area. Bryan Harges responded with drawings showing enhanced plantings on the east side of the model but little or nothing in the area of the scenic easement between Lots 6 and 7 or between the lake and Lot 7. The reaction from various audience members focused on the lack of screening from the lake of Lot 7 and the need for clear 35-foot limits on all facades. The sense of the meeting was that the McNulty team should propose language to reflect rules for the site review procedure in order to make it real. McNulty does not want the Planning Commission to review the results of the procedure — they want the Rafferty/Emeott decisions to be final. The real question is whether the Rafferty/Emeott review will have veto power. Without that, will it amount to much of anything? The sense of the meeting was that we would allow the Site Review process to proceed to see whether it will be better able to resolve the problems with the model and Lot 7 or whether more robust rules need to be enacted.