HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 10-12 PC MINUTESThe 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
boundary, substantial screening of the south face of the pole barn,
location of trees within the parking area between the pole barn and
the display area to break up the expanse of asphalt, and a
significant effort to save the very large elm near the west side
of the dairy.
2. Satisfactory treatment of the exterior of the pole barn to make
it visually compatible with the environment. (We are also very
concerned as to its ultimate use).
3. Satisfactory lighting plan.
Respectfully submitted,
David K. Gardner
DAVID K. GARDNER
1399 EAST COUNTY ROAD E
GEM LAKE, MINNESOTA 55110
October 5, 1992
Mr. Bryan Hansen
Fox Plaza
1410 Neotomas Ave.
Santa Rosa, California 95405
Dear Bryan:
Thank you for copying me on your letter to Mr. Bemis dated
September 15, 1992, and for sharing your concerns regarding the
Tousley expansion.
Generally, the Tousley plan is consistent with current zoning and,
therefore, does not require a public hearing. The Gem Lake zoning
administrator, our engineer, Ramsey County, and the White Bear Lake
fire department have all been involved in reviewing the site plan
to ensure that any changes are in compliance. As it develops, they
are applying for a variance which will bring them before the
planning commission next Monday evening, 7:30 p.m., October 12.
As they will likely review the plan at that time, you may wish to
be represented. The variance they are requesting is to allow the
required 20' boulevard to begin at the curb, as opposed to the
street right-of-way, as the curb is within (by 91) the county
right-of-way. Although important, it is not critical to their
plan.
The primary entrance and exit for the business will be centrally
located, roughly between the dairy and the new warehouse. At this
time, there are at least six entrances (curb cutouts) along E,
which will be reduced to three. The roadway along the west edge
of their property will continue to function as access to their
employee parking lot and will undoubtedly pick up some traffic from
the lot, probably westbound. That roadway sits the required 10'
back from your property, which is not adequate for any major
landscaping, but they have indicated that they intend to construct
a fence to screen the sales lot from your property.
Drainage is reviewed by the city engineer, and in this plan flows
generally southward to County E. He has requested that they add
an asphalt curb along the parking lot road to ensure that runoff
flows to the sewer in E and does not enter your property.
Ultimately, Tousley intends to construct a new service department
behind the (parts) warehouse, and drainage to Gem Lake will be
reviewed again at that time.
The subject of noise pollution has been discussed endlessly, and
suffice it to say that there will be no extension of outdoor paging
to the new facilities and that, in my opinion, Tousley has made a
significant, and largely successful, effort to reduce the use of
their outdoor loudspeakers. They claim that most of their people
now use pagers or phones, and we neighbors feel that our primary
problem is Barnett, not Tousley.
Again, Bryan, we appreciate your interest in the project and
encourage you to participate in the meeting next Monday.
Sincerely,
g�yd/ K. Gardner
Chairman, Planning commission