HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 10-15 PC MinutesGem Lake Planning Commission
David K. Gardner, Chairman
1399 E. County Road "E"
Gem Lake, Mn 55110-5231
(612)429-9288 FAX 429-5034
October 15, 1996
Paul R. Emeott, Mayor
3960 Scheuneman Rd.
Gem Lake, Mn 55110
Dear Paul:
The Gem Lake Planning Commission held a public hearing at 7:00 PM,
Monday, October 14, at Tousley Ford. The purpose of the hearing was to
discuss the proposed rezoning of certain lands in the City. Notice of
the hearing was duly published in the White Bear Press on Wednesday,
October 2, and notices were mailed to all landowners within 350 feet of
the effected properties as required by our ordinance. Present were
Gardner, new member John Hannaford, Nielsen, Turner, Emeott, and
Magnuson. City residents in attendance were Bill John, Judy John, Mike
Gerner, Gayle McMahon, Clare Nielsen, Patrick Igo, and Walter Bender.
Also present were Tony Carlson (Gem Lake Hills Golf Course) and Carrie
Schesel of Mahtomedi.
The hearing commenced at 7:05 PM with an introduction of the
members of the Commission and City officials present. Mr. Gardner then
described the lands in question by displaying the City's plat and
zoning maps. Specifically, the proposal is to rezone to R-1 (three
acre) all of the property owned by Judson and Barbara Bemis currently
zoned R-3 and lying westerly of Scheuneman Road, and all of the Gem
Lake Hills Golf Course, which is variously zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4.
Mr. Gardner explained that the rationale for the proposal is the
residents' strong interest in maintaining a low -density environment
with ample open space, and, specifically, maintaining the Golf Course
as an operating course. This sentiment was evidenced by 97W of the
respondents to the 1995 Community Survey. Also, were these lands to be
developed in the current zoning format (largely 36,000 sf), it would
force the issue of extending sewer and water down Scheuneman Road,
putting an enormous financial burden on the existing landowners, and,
again, would be contrary to the view of two-thirds of the respondents
to the Survey. Mr. Gardner noted that a current investigation of
extending water into the Hoffman Corners area has an estimated cost of
almost $180 per foot. He explained that the City approached Judson
Bemis and Neil Wilson with this proposal and they agreed to support it,
provided the change was concurrent for both properties. Mr. Gardner
then read a letter from Mr. Bemis describing his support of the
proposal (attached). Further, it was explained that the plan is to
create a "recreational,, zoning district for the Golf Course, and that
this is an interim step in that process.
Gem Lake Hills has requested that a small portion of their
property lying northerly of Goose Lake Road, and at the eastern edge of
that portion of their property, be excluded from the rezoning. Mr.
Carlson explained that this piece is 1 or 2 acres in size, heavily
wooded, and is not actively used in the course. Mr. Gardner proposed
that there be a provision for a minor subdivison of that property to
remain R-2, provided it meets the standards of the ordinance.
The hearing was then opened for public comment or questions, of
which there was none. Mr. Carlson then asked what other events might
drive the extension of sewer into this area. Mr. Gardner indicated
that a majority of the landowners could request sewer extension, or
that there could be some government mandate. However, the concept of
reducing density to avoid sewer extension was presented to the
Metropolitan Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan review process
and they found it acceptable. Mr. Magnuson testified that
contamination is also an issue, but that we have not had that type of
problem. Mr. Gardner further suggested that future development would
be a factor, but that there is little open land to develop in the area,
other than the two properties in question. Mr. Emeott indicated that
the William Kahl property (6+ acres of potentially developable land on
Scheuneman Road) could be serviced by the sewer interceptor lying
easterly of the City along the railroad tracks. He also said that the
sewer line in the south end of Scheuneman Road cannot be extended
northward, without pumping stations, as the slope is negative (down).
Mr. Nielsen then motioned adjournment of the hearing, seconded by
Hannaford, and unanimously approved (7:25 PM).
Mr. Gardner then called the Planning Commission meeting to order
and explained that, since Colombus Day is a state -recognized holiday,
there is a remote possibility that some interested party might have
been unable to be heard on these issues due to the holiday. Therefore,
upon advice of council, and subject to the Mayors approval, there will
be another public hearing, with appropriate publication and notice
served, on Monday, November 18, at the regular City Council meeting.
He suggested that it would be appropriate for the Commission to make a
recommendation to the Council based upon this hearing, and the Council
may vote based upon that recommendation and whatever comment may occur
in the next hearing.
Mr. Nielsen moved that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council amend the districting may of the City by re -zoning all of the
property owned by Judson and Barbara Bemis lying westerly of Scheuneman
Road and currents zoned R 3 (36,000 sf) to the category R-1 (three
acre) and concurrently re zoning all of the property in the City owned
by Gem Lake Hills Inc variously zoned R-2 (one acre) R-3 (36,000
sf) and R 4 (24,000 sf) to the category R-1 (three acre) with the
exception of a small parcel lying north of Goose Lake Road and at the
east edge of that section of their property which may, through the
process of minor subdivision and provided it meets the standards of
the zoning ordinance remain zoned R-2 Mr. Turner seconded, and the
motion was passed unanimously.
Michael Gerner presented a solution to the parking issue which has
prevented his development at 3642 Scheuneman Road (north of his home)
in the form of a 10-year, 10-year-extendable, lease of 12 parking
spaces from Barnett, Inc., immediately across Scheuneman Road from the
subject property (attached). Mr. Gerner presented a new site plan,
dated September 23, 1996, showing a 10-foot delivery entrance to the
north side of the building, and a few other minor changes/discrepancies
to the July 31 plan. Discussion focused on the reduced landscaping
from 12 trees to 6, drainage, and general physical appearance of the
project. Mr. Gardner suggested that the 20-foot spacing of six spruce
trees was appropriate, but requested some additional landscaping along
the fence on the south side of the property. Mr. Nielsen questioned
the drainage, and impact on neighboring properties, and was assured by
Mr. Gerner that the marked drainage areas would be swaled to control
runoff. Mr. Magnuson indicated that these minor issues would be
covered in the form of a developer's agreement.
Mr. Turner then made a motion that the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a variance from the setback provision
of the zoning ordinance (19.5) to allow Michael Gerner to construct a
building at 3642 Scheuneman Road at a setback of three feet from the
easterly lot line and further, to recommend approval of the revised
site plan for that location dated September 23 1996 provided that
(1) twelve additional parking spaces be provided adjacent to the
property through a lease with Barnett Inc (2) there be no retail
sales activity at this site (3) the parking and driveways be black -
topped (4) additional landscaping (shrubs) be provided along the south
property line (5) the six spruce trees are to be a minimum of five
feet in height and (6) the exterior design of the building facade be
consistent with that of the current development at 3630 Scheuneman.
Mr. Hannaford seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Council action is required.
Discussion then focused on the Comprehensive Plan, with Mr.
Gardner reporting that SEH queried the Met Council regarding the
housing policy and were advised that the City will not be expected to
provide total diversity of housing, due to the size and physical limits
of the City. The Met Council would like us to participate with
surrounding communities, and possibly the Ramsey County HRA, in
encouraging the goals of affordable and life -cycle housing envisioned
in the Livable Commuities Act. SEH has devised language which they
feel will satisfy both parties_ Mr. Gardner encouraged everyone to pay
articular attention to that section of the October draft when it
arrives to be certain that the language is satisfactory.
Note: Roger Bromander is no longer employed by SEH, as the
planning business did not develop to the extent they had hoped. Randy
Thoreson has reassumed responsibility for our Plan.
Rob Hansen has strongly objected to the 60% open space provision
of the Plan relative to the LDB district. SEH was charged with
examining that provision relative to other cities and developments and
they have reported that they would not be able to support that
position. Consequently, they have recommended that that number be
reduced to the existing ordinance level of 45%, and also some revision
of the "special uses" paragraph (see attached). They also intend to
attach an appendix excerpting data from the Corridor Study to satisfy
comments from the Met Council staff regarding our transportion plan.
All of these changes were affirmed by the Commission members, as well
as an authorization of SEH to send the Plan document to Vadnais
Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township, the School District, and
both Watershed Districts for review. Pending positive comments from
our three neighboring communities, the City could hold a public hearing
for approval of the Plan.
Mr. Turner raised the issue of "parks dedication" (the statutory
requirement of developers to provide open space for parks in the form
of land or monetary equivalent). Mr. Gardner noted that this issue had
been raised in the past (4-5 years ago?) but had been shelved,
primarily due to the lack of a satisfactory potential park location.
However, he noted, today there is the real possibility of a park being
developed in the City adjacent to the proposed bike trail along the
railroad right-of-way on the eastern edge of the City. Mr. Emeott and
Mr. Magnuson both commented on this being a real possibility, and that
the realignment of County Road F and Otter Lake Road could result in
such land becoming available in the near future. The Commission agreed
that the City should review such a provision, and suggested that it be
added to the Comprehensive Plan under the General Land Development
Policies and/or wherever the planners (SEH) feel is appropriate.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM.
RespectfullyAubmitted,
Davao ,t. Gardner, Chairman
G m J/ake Planning Commmission
cc: Planning Commission
Magnuson
Judson Bemis
4900 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Tel. 612-376-3152
October 9, 1996
Mr. David K. Gardner, Chairman
Gem Lake Planning Commission
1399 County Road "E" East
Gem Lake, Minnesota 55110
Dear Dave:
As I indicated on the phone the other e-vening, Barbara
and I will be unable to attend the -Public Hearing the
Planning Commission is conducting the evening of October
14th on the proposal to rezone a portion of our City
property from R-3 to R-1.
Our youngest daughter is coming from Colorado for a long
weekend visit and our eldest daughter is assembling the
local family for dinner that evening. We feel especially
badly not to be present at the meeting which is to dis-
cuss a matter which is so important to us. However, we
understand that the Planning Commission is recommending
this action and we are in total support of same.
It will probably surprise no one to learn that generally
speaking we favor lesser rather than more intense
residential density. We are uncertain what the effect
the proposed zoning will have on values but we favor it
in any case.
We both are pleased that the owners of the Gem Lake Hills
Golf Course feel likewise. That facility is certainly a
great asset to the City and we're happy to join with them
in supporting this move.
Sincerely,
l
Judson Bemis
JB:gt
GEM LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
DAVID K. GARDNER, CHM.
1399 E. COUNTY ROAD "E"
GEM LAKE, MN 55110-5231
(612)429-9288 FAX 429-5034
OCTOBER 15, 1996
TO: RANDY THORESON, SEH
490-2150
HI RANDY!
THE PLANNING COMMISSION NET LAST EVENING AND AGREED WITH YOUR
SUGGESTIONS. PLEASE REVISE THE AUGUST DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AS FOLLOWS:
5.3.4, B: REVISE THE SECOND SENTENCE TO READ, "ANY USES FOR ANY
PART OF THIS PLANNING DISTRICT WILL REQUIRE DETAILED PLANS AND REVIEW
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SITE LAYOUT, EFFECT ON ADJACENT LAND
AREAS, DRAINAGE, AND TRAFFIC."
5.3.4, D: CHANGE THE NUMBER IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH FROM 60W TO
45%(FORTY-FIVE).
5.2, H: ADD "THE CITY WILL CONSIDER A PARKS DEDICATION REQUIREMENT
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY." THIS SHOULD BE ADDED TO ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE PLAN AT YOUR DISCRETION.
THE COMMISSION ALSO UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE
YOU TO DISTRIBUTE THE OCTOBER DRAFT TO VADNAIS HEIGHTS, WHITE BEAR
LAKE, WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND BOTH WATERSHED
DISTRICTS.
AS I WILL BE AWAY FOR A FEW DAYS, COULD YOU PLEASE SEE THAT COPIES
OF THE OCTOBER DRAFT ALSO ARE SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I HAVE
ATTACHED THE LIST.
rY 4
LEASE AGREEMENT N
OT
This Lease Agreement is entered effective October 1, 1996, by and etween Barnett
Chrysler Plymouth, 3610 Highway 61, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, 55110 (hereinafter
"Landlord"), and Michael R. Gerner, 3636 Scheuneman Rd., Gem Lake, Minnesota, 55110
(hereinafter "Lessee").
RECITALS
A. Landlord is the owner of premises consisting of an open, paved lot suitable for use for
parking motor vehicles thereupon- said premises being located immediately adjacent to
and westerly of premises hereinafter described owned by the Lessee.
B. Lessee will own, operate, manage and/or lease a portion of his premises located at
3736 Scheuneman Rd. (Old 'Cook' property) wherein the course thereof it is
desirable and may be necessary to have additional parking i.e. and overflow parking
availability.
C. The parties desire to enter into a lease agreement to define the rights of each pertinent
to a lease of a portion of the premises owned by the Landlord to be used by the
Lessee for additional parking of motor vehicles.
AGREEMENT
1. Premises. Landlord leases to Lessee a portion of its premises located immediately
adjacent to and westerly of Lessee's property, said portion thereof to be in size sufficient
for the parking of twelve (12) motor vehicles thereupon.
2. Permitted Use. Lessee shall use the premises for the specific purpose of parking of
additional motor vehicles thereupon for employees, customers and invitees
of Lessee's or its sublessee's business establishment situated immediately easterly of
and adjacent to said premises. It is understood this will be utilized as overflow parking
facility, and shall not be used for any other purpose, or any unlawful purpose.
3. Term and Rent. Lessee shall have use and possession of the premises for a term of
ten (10) years, commencing October 1, 1996, and terminating on September 30,
2005. Lessee shall pay rent to Landlord in the amount of One ($1.00) Dollar, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.
4. Option to Extend. Landlord grants Lessee the option to renew and extend this Lease
for one additional term of ten (10) years, to be exercised by Lessee providing to the
Landlord notice of intent to do so prior to expiration of the initial lease term.
5. Alterations, Additions. Lessee may make no alter.:tions or improvements to the
premises without first obtaining Landlord's consent, whrh consent may he withheld in
Landlord's absolute discretion.
6. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Landlord harmless
from and against any and all claims arising from the use of the premises of Lessee or any
of the Lessee's or its sublessee's employees, customers or invitees.
7. Entire Agreement. This constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. Any
prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Lease
Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent
incorporated herein.
8. Modification. Any modification or additions to this Lease shall be binding
if evidenced by a writing signed by either party or an authorized representa
9. Counterparts. This Lease Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement effective as of the
date first written above.
LANDLORD:
BARNETT CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH
By: t <. %.
J , Mayfen, Ge eral Manager
LESSEE:
Michael R. Gemer
Ito
/a
EAST PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CABINET SHOP
8,640 S.F.
FLOOR ELEV. 100.0'
c
SIDEWALK
DRAINAGE
99.d* '
994
98.E
w
.--REC. HALLS
NEST PROPERTY LINE - 115.0'
_�_=
•� DRAINAGE DITCH
aLir
D'
DELIVERY ENTRANCE
S C H E U N E M A N
PROPOSED BUILDING FOR MIKE GERNER
3642 SCHEUNEMAN ROAD
WHITE BEAR LAKE , MN
R 0 A D
SITE PLAN
/s'
1 Rom' cnI
'ALL
I
SPRUCE TREES (6)
I twvby carufy that U" plan..p VAadot4 or
SCALE:
noon w Pn paw by ma or WKW my drew
I � = 2 D '
sup, rvu Ion and &at I wn a duly R�twW
Profiasional Enplr»w tatdw dM I M d dM
Stall of MImOp00�—z
DATE:9-23-96
D.t. 123-96 Rep. No. 370t
D.V. SELFE, P.E.
DRAWING NO.
1755 EAST CO. RD. H2
WHITE BEAR LAKE, HN 55110
I OF I
PHONR NO. (612)-429-1649
W
'o
, 96
.0' LVI - 3MIIl AlHaaOldd HIaOS
•
I - , Z,z
o
a
I '-4 H ti A
A � Q
I..I O
a � �
VNIV
I�
II 4
x(l
I�
` S
O O O LU
o - cni FA
as 0
LU
.10
oa W � vFi A x
_ m �o � � i c••�
r � j•
N
v� 39vNIvua
'+ A
3!)vxlvHa
3[ l x d0ud Blum RON33 AOVAIUd HDIH 19
o �
9
a
on o
sLi fsa O
pq
q �O ra
W 00 PiW
• a ,a
IT
N
A
N
A _
a
a
.J
tom.
LU
H
o lC
N Q1
I �
II M
N LL
c�
x
,wa F
N A A
°� o o
Ln
m LMz al
�+ of
as 7E
N L)
on rn
I
Mp g M > FQz
C"i In
O rn A^ H
N C
F3C �
Q.
a1cc
rY
LU
tY
LU
cm
LU
he
I"
E
0
U-
LD
Z
A
J
O
A
A
LU
ti
O
t1
O
C—
v
GEC. L.=1 i,c AAA1- rs� io
GEC L/►q /�trLL G C•
Am IK
wriI -
'/ A L��/e
Cc'&,e
r
l c--V\6z --x�-