PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

August 4, 2008

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. –  7:10 p.m.   

CALL TO ORDER

The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Don Meyer.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.  The procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.  This meeting is being recorded.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 781  Rosalie Wolff  W5445 County Road F Unit 57  La Crosse WI 54601, acting on behalf of Rosalie B. Schams  W5445 County Road F Unit 39  La Crosse WI 54601, and RJS Mobile Modular Transports  W5994 County Road F  La Crosse WI  54601.  Petition to operate an after-the-fact mobile home transport business, storage of mobile home park equipment, storage trailer, boom truck, dumpster, flatbed trailers, four tractor-trailers, two pick-ups and parking for employees, on 0.45 acres zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as:  Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 49, Volume 5.  Town of Medary.

Appearing in Favor: 

Rosalie Wolff, W5445 County Road F Unit 57, La Crosse WI  54601.  As stated my father has been operating a manufactured housing transportation company off this site; was when I purchased the property in 1998 and has been for many years.  Recently it was brought to our attention that we were operating illegally because of the zoning and that’s what brought me here today.  As for the history of the shop the original building was built in 1974 and the addition was built in the early 80’s.  He originally ran Russ’s Mobile Home Service out of that shop and in 1997 he changed his company to transportation of the manufactured houses and now this building is where he houses the toters, maintains the vehicles and stores some supplies, equipment.  Due to the fact that the business is ran out of a different location this is pretty much just the dispatch area.  This doesn’t cause any traffic on County Road F there, all we have are two sub-contracted drivers and two general laborers, you can see there is plenty of off-street parking there.  Plenty of lighting to keep the property well lit in the evening and to my knowledge there have never been any complaints related to the operation of a business at this property.  Besides RJS Transports, the mobile home park that is adjacent to our land also uses our spot there to house some of their snow removal equipment, tree-trimming equipment and things like that.  Recently there was an inspection of the location and there were a few things brought up about some of the materials around the property.  It’s my understanding that my father Russell Schams and Chad (VandenLangenberg) came up with an October deadline for clean-up.  My father told me the reason for that was because right now is the busiest time for his company and some of the items that need to be removed have to be dismantled on the property and then be disposed of. 

Question BINA:  So some of the equipment you have up there, we were up there the other day to take a look, some of the equipment you had on the back lot belonged to the mobile home park?

Answer WOLFF:  If you have the picture, there’s a truck and a generator….

Question BINA:  We didn’t count the number but some of this stuff isn’t yours then?

Answer WOLFF:  Right, some of it belongs to the mobile home park, which is the property of my brother.

Question BINA:  So it’s all in the family.

Answer WOLFF:  Yes.

Question PEDRETTI:  You said there was parking for ten people off street, could you show us where?

Answer WOLFF:  Right along here (indicating on aerial photo on overhead).  This old semi is now gone, that’s where my brother was storing his stuff, you can park all along that front area there, it’s just gravel.

Question PEDRETTI:  So the stuff that was there when we were on tour is not there anymore?

Question WOLFF:  What stuff was there?  I know there was a semi-truck there that was waiting to be charged up to be moved, that usually is in the shop.

Answer BINA:  Two other heavy towing, transport trucks there.

Answer WOLFF:  The toters were there, the other truck may have been one that belongs to my brother, but I guess I’m not sure what was sitting there when you guys were there.  Most of the time there’s a dumpster there and then whoever is working would park there.

Question PEDRETTI:  There were quite a few tires, some without rims.

Answer WOLFF:  The reason they were under a tarp is that they’ve been going through them, getting rid of the ones that can’t be repaired and repairing the ones that can be – that’s why they had a tarp on them.

Remarks MANTHEI:  Last Friday we were there and there was no tarp over them.

Question WOLFF:  Were you there during they day, because I know they have been working on that.

Answer MANTHEI:  It was about 9 in the morning. 

Question WOLFF:  I know they’ve been having someone work on those, are those the ones you’re talking about?
Answer MANTHEI:  They were up against the building.

Question WOLFF:  Oh, you’re talking oh, my father and I went over that too, those are ones we take back down to the factory.  Sometimes when you are on a transport you will blow a tire, so then when we go back down to the factory we put those tires on the truck, take them back and trade them out so there might have been five or six?

Answer MANTHEI:  No.

Answer PEDRETTI:  No.

Answer MEYER:  Five or six piles.

Answer RAUK:  Huge pile of tires, at least half without rims, clearly collecting water and being mosquito breeding grounds.

Further discussion by committee and Wolff on amount and location of tires on the site.

Question PEDRETTI:  One other question on what else was on that list from Chad, there were some refrigerators; I’m assuming all these other things were on that list.

Answer WOLFF:  Those refrigerators, we’re trying to find out or figure out how we can stop people from just leaving them back there, seem to be every spring and fall four or five appliances that pop up back there, don’t know if people think that’s an easy way to get rid of them, we have no idea where some of those come from.  We usually store them in my father’s garage, which is in the mobile home park also, but those are all planned to be disposed of.  I know there is a truck on here too that they say is junk, it is one of the service trucks.

Question BLUSKE:  The big semi in the back, with the smashed window, that’s not operable?

Answer WOLFF:  No, I told him he’s going to have to find a way to store that in the shed, he wants to keep it for the parts.  The reason the window is smashed out is that it was in an accident.  I told him that’s going to have to go in the shop to utilize the parts; it can’t sit out there with the weeds growing up through it. 

Question BLUSKE:  Can you explain what else is in the shop, besides servicing the vehicles what else is in the shop?  Good size.

Answer WOLFF:  Well, the trucks are kept in there, good size work bench, supply cabinets, air compressors, tools, in the back part a lot of mobile home supplies, furnaces, things like that.  Not sure, but my brother may store his backhoe in there.  Like I said it’s my property but my father runs it, but yes, there is a lot of stuff in that building.

Remarks BLUSKE:  Seriousness of running a business at a level playing field with everybody else that does that, that has to abide by their commercial district, and this happens to be a request for a conditional use permit.  It has to be taken very seriously, very seriously.

Question BLUSKE:  What’s the other mobile home being used for in the back?
Answer WOLFF:  That was being used for more supplies like windows and doors and stuff.  We’re going to clean that out, put that in part of the shop and that’s the item I talked about that needs to be dismantled there and removed because it’s just not safe to pull it right now, it’s been there for so long.

Remark BLUSKE:  There’s not a permit to have it there.

Reply WOLFF:  I was told that too.

Question BLUSKE:  Materials being stored not related to the transport – what percentage of materials stored are related to transport?

Answer WOLFF:  Eighty percent of stuff stored there is my father’s, he did run Russ’s Mobile Home Sales.  About twenty percent belongs to my brother’s mobile home park.

Question BLUSKE:  Front entrance to building, RJS drives over Dennis Schams’s property to get to the back of the building and to get trucks into service doors?

Answer WOLFF:  Have contacted my uncle (Dennis) to take care of that issue.  Not able to reach him yet.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:  None.

Staff Recommendation:  Defer to September 2^nd meeting.  Pay additional fee, access issues, soil stabilization issues, salvage/junk storage of materials, require office in shop, issue with hazardous materials, waste oil on ground.  Do not support conditional use permit when outstanding violation – recommend compliance by August 27, 2008.

Question BINA:  Seems the warehouse jointly used – could both names be on this in the future if they bring this in again?

Answer BLUSKE:  Could withdraw tonight and bring in new proposal or amend to include mobile home park storage on this site also. 

Question RAUK:  Recommending deferral for one month.  Staff has recommended two months.  Are these a little incompatible.

Remarks RAUK:  To include names of others who should be included.

Remarks WOLFF:  We will need time to clean this up.

Remarks BLUSKE:  Set for September 29, 2008 meeting date?

Question RAUK:  Difference between withdrawal and deferral?

Answer BLUSKE:  Deadline of September 5^th to re-file if withdrawn.

Question RAUI:  Is that your request?
Answer WOLFF:  Yes.

Motion Rauk/Keil to accept request for Wolff to withdraw. 

6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused Mach).

ZONING PETITION NO. 1786  Edward D. and Mattie L. Schrock  N4760 County Road J  Rockland WI  54653.  Petition to reduce the acreage from Zoning Petition No. 1729 rezone from the Agricultural District “A” with conditions for school-house only on 5.13 acres to Agricultural District “A” for Parcel ‘A’, a 1.0-acre parcel for the existing school-house and the remaining Parcel ‘C’ for 4.13 acres to revert back to its original Conditional Zoning for one single-family residence with no further subdividing and be combined with an adjacent 7.48-acre parcel to make an 11.61-acre parcel for the existing single-family residence, on lands described as:  Parcel ‘A’ being part of the SW-NE of Section 1, T 16 N, R 5 W; Commencing at the N¼ Corner of Section 1; thence S00°51’15”W along the West line of the NE¼, 1812.85’; thence S89°15’50”E 32.77’ to the SW Corner of Parcel ‘B’ of a Plat of Survey, dtd 7/8/99 and the point of beginning.  Thence N00°52’26”E along the West line of said Parcel ‘B’, 313.82’; thence S89°07’48”E 138.88’; thence S00°52’26”W 313.49’ to the South line of said Parcel ‘B’; thence N89°15’50”W along the South line of said Parcel ‘B’, 138.88’ to the point of beginning; and, Parcel ‘C’ being part of the SW-NE of Section 1, T 16 N, R 5 W.  Commencing at the N¼ Corner of Section 1; thence N89°45’12”E 1320.92’ to the northeast corner; thence S00°46’57”W 1835.19’; thence N89°15’46”W 644.98’ to the point of beginning:  Thence continue N89°15’46”W 506.1’; thence N00°52’26”E 313.49’; thence N89°07’48”E 138.88’ to the east right-of-way of County Road J; thence N00°51’15”E along said right-of-way 33’; thence S89°08’45”E 644.98’; thence Southerly to the point of beginning.  Town of Bangor.

Appearing in Favor:  Larry Wuensch, Town of Bangor Supervisor, representing Mr. Schrock.  Five acres originally done so wouldn’t need a survey.  Now wants to build a shed - needs ten acres, so he’s now done a survey for the new parcel.

Appearing in Favor:  Edward Schrock  N4760 County Road J  Rockland WI  54653.  The new shed is not for school use.  It will be a barn for hay storage and horses. 

Remark WUENSCH:  Town Board will consider in two weeks.

Opposition:  None.

Remarks JUNG:  Certified survey map for school parcel has been completed and is approved.  Waiting for results of rezone application.

Department Recommendation:  Approval Ag “A” for one-acre lot for school only.  Conditional Zoning on 4.95 acres as Ag “A”, no subdivision.

Motion Bina/Manthei to approve conditional zoning as recommended.

6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Mach).

ZONING PETITION NO. 1787  Kristopher J. and Julie A. Fassler  N5742 Big Creek Rd  Sparta WI 54656.  Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Residential District “A”, an approximately 9-acre parcel for three single-family residential sites on land described as:  Part of the SE-SE of Section 24, T 17 N, R 5 W, described as follows:  Beginning at the intersection of the North line of said SE-SE and the Easterly right-of-way line of Big Creek Road; thence southerly, along said East right-of-way line, to the north line of the parcel with Tax Parcel No. 3-496-0; thence easterly along said north line, to the Northeast corner of said parcel; thence continuing along the extension of said north line, 50 feet; thence Northerly, parallel with the east line of said SE-SE, to the North line of said SE-SE; thence Westerly along said North line, to the point of beginning.  Also:  Portion for ingress/egress easement:  All that part of said SE-SE lying West of a line which is parallel with and 650’ west of the east line of said SE-SE, and East of the above described parcel and East of Tax Parcel Number 3-496-0; AND the South 40’ of that part of said SE-SE lying East of said Tax Parcel No. 3-496-0; AND the East 40’ of that part of the NE-NE of Section 25, T 17 N, R 5 W, which lies North of Highway 16.   Town of Burns. 

Appearing in Favor:  Kristopher Fassler  N5742 Big Creek Rd  Sparta WI 54656.  I’ve been working, trying to figure out ways to purchase the next parcel, section of property above (north) of mine, which is another about 40 acres.  Been trying to work with Zoning and the Town of Burns to figure out, the poor quality of the land where my current house is, parcel two, it’s never been farmed, creek bed most of it, hoping to break that off so I could apply that to buying that top part (40 acres) from Charlie Evans, which is already in the works with a land agreement between me and him to purchase that, starting in April making payments on that.  I’ve looked at cluster developments and discussed them with the Town of Burns.  They so far have been in favor of what I’ve been working at, the type of land that I’ve used, keeping the rest of it in farming, because I’d like to farm it all, along with the new planning designs the County is looking at, to keep farm land  exclusive.  I’m not trying to break any of that off.  Trying to keep it in farming instead of breaking it into 35 acre lots to build houses.  I haven’t disturbed any trees, I’ve worked real hard where my house is now to keep the trees, haven’t cut any of the big ones that are there.  I think I’ve looked at this many different ways, talked to many people, including Zoning.  When I first bought the land I talked with Mike Weibel and I think I’ve been looking at this in the right direction to keep it the way it’s supposed to be along with the plans for subdividing it for quality soil types. 

Question BINA:  We couldn’t very well drive back to that back end behind the creek and the woods, I assume where you have this star (on the map) is where you intend to build the house?

Answer FASSLER:  For the farmland, yes.

Question BINA:  Is that on higher ground, it’s not in the floodplain or anything like that?

Answer FASSLER:  Yes it is.

Question BINA:  You say you’re talking about buying forty acres from Charlie Evans, how much of that is work land?

Answer FASSLER:  I think it’s right around 30 acres up there.  The rest is all creek bottom there.

Question BINA:  So you would be considered a farmer there then?

Answer FASSLER:  Yes, I’d have, I think all three parcels would be around sixty acres tillable, which Charlie Evans is doing right now, we have an agreement to farm the land that I own.

Question BINA:  So you are already farming it.

Answer FASSLER:  Yes.

Question RAUK:  The lower parcel down towards the highway, you will still be farming that parcel?
Answer FASSLER:  Yes.

Question RAUK:  And having the ingress easement for both yourself and for parcel one dividing that from parcel 4, are you going to have trouble getting across the road and back and forth when they work the land?

Answer FASSLER:  No, right now the easement that goes east and west is Old Highway 16.  It’s paved yet, it’s been there, they’ve been farming around it, that’s why it’s cutting (easement) across there.  The other reason I have the easement going out to the Highway 16, because that is their farm access already.

Question RAUK:  No issues with Department of Transportation because there’s an access there already?

Answer FASSLER:  Right.

Question BLUSKE:  I’m going to put this soils map on the overhead.  At our 3:30 meeting today after that had adjourned, Mary Jo Webster from our Land Conservation Department approached me, indicated that this is a number three trout stream and wanted to point out that from the maps that she’s got it indicates that a portion of this soil here (indicates on map) is wetland soils.  Have you had any perc tests or anything done.  In that area, both of these stars in wetland soils area?

Answer FASSLER:  Haven’t had anything done on parcel one, and on that farther one I can go up higher to be out of the wetland, so that wouldn’t be a problem.  On parcel one it does slope up fairly high so they could have a building site.  Paragon did the survey of flood elevations two years ago.  They did three shots there across the creek and they did this project here finding enough space out of the wetlands and above flood elevation to have at least one or two building sites there is what their thoughts were on that.

Question BLUSKE:  It appears the Town of Burns had a meeting on this back on June 24^th.  Did they make a recommendation?  We’ve haven’t gotten anything from them.

Answer FASSLER:  I’ve talked to the Town, I’ve been on their docket a couple of times.  All three of them are looking at this as being a good idea, they haven’t given me anything in writing, as designed for using low quality soils as part of their design for future land usage.

Question BLUSKE:  When do they meet again?

Answer FASSLER:  I think they’ve pushed me back to the 24^th of August now. 

Remarks HANDY:  The Town has adopted a resolution giving them 30 days to respond after our public hearing.

Opposition:  None.

Department Recommendation:  Recommend Denial:  This application for rezoning is not consistent with the future land use classification adopted in the Future Land Use Map of the La Crosse County Comprehensive Plan.  The Land Use Classification is:  Agricultural and Rural.  The purpose of this district is to preserve agricultural land for food and fiber production; protect productive farming by preventing conflicts between incompatible uses; maintain a viable agricultural base to support agricultural processing and service industries; reduce costs of providing services to scattered non-farm uses.  The Fasslers have done a good job of identifying the areas for non-productive soils for rural residential development, however, this proposal is not consistent with the Adopted Plan.

Now internally we did take a look and you have that map in front of you where I believe it says that 72 percent of the soils on these three parcels are Class 5 or worse.  But there is nothing in the current town plan that indicates that marginal lands should be used for a non-farm use.  So the staff has to stay consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

Question BINA:  So are you saying that parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are going to be developed? 

Answer BLUSKE:  Only parcels 1, 2 and 3.  Parcel 4 is not up for rezone.

Question BINA:  But the majority of 1, 2 and 3 have Big Creek running right through the middle of it and I didn’t really go down to see how much work land there was in those three parcels, and they are about how many acres total?
Answer BLUSKE:  About nine.

Question BINA:  How many acres tillable?

Question BLUSKE:  About twenty percent.

Question BINA:  So twenty percent of nine acres, so about 1.8 acres?

Answer BLUSKE:  Well on our land class we show forty-five percent of lands being cropped.

Question BINA:  Of this particular parcel?
Answer BLUSKE:  Yes, of this particular parcel and that includes the easement too.  There is actually about 14.9 acres because of the size of the easement.  It is taking quite a bit of land off that production there too.

Question MEYER:   You said it doesn’t match the County Comprehensive Plan but the Town of Burns?

Answer BLUSKE:  The Town of Burns does have a current plan but still calls for Exclusive Ag in this area.

Remarks HANDY:  In the Town of Burns plan there is a narrative portion and then there is the map, just like ours.  The map shows this area as Exclusive Ag, in the narrative portion they do say that areas of poor agricultural soils, they would recommend development to gravitate to those areas.  Similar to the situation we were in at the Town of Hamilton a few years ago, there is some, if you want to call it, inconsistencies between the map and the verbiage.  So it would be potentially beneficial to Mr. Fassler to recommend that they update their plan (Town of Burns) to remove those.

Question RAUK:  Charlie, we in the planning process have verbiage and maps ourselves and we’ve on purpose made it that the county maps are really large scale broad areas and very generic nouns in describing the use of the lands.  We’ve deferred to the towns for greater precision and accuracy in declaring how they and their constituents want to operate that.  In my mind, and I participated in that process, have a little bit of trouble picturing a town having a map, would have to be a multiple page map that would be so precise as to define down to parcels 1, 2 and 3 different soil types in this particular area, and different land uses down to this level, even when the town gets through revising their plan as good as ours or better, I don’t picture them addressing his situation in this detail, do you?

Answer HANDY:  We always encourage private landowners to discuss their parcels specifically with the towns, and so we’ve seen it go both ways.  If you look at the level of detail in the plans that have been adopted they do go to the detail of parcel lines, now these parcels don’t exist yet so you’re probably right with that statement.  But if he gets proper input as they are adopting it they can go to that level of detail. 

Question RAUK:  They can choose to if they want?

Answer HANDY:  Yes.

Question BINA:  What is the reason for the 150-ft easement to get back to where he wants to build his house?
Answer BLUSKE:  I had discussed that with Kris and the original map that he’d sent in, the original easement sort of meandered through there like a snake and I asked him if he had a legal description, which would be a centerline description and for these purposes if it’s kind of unknown it would have been very expensive to survey that easement and pay for something, but they decided to make it 150-ft wide and then meander the driveway through there.  Now one of the interesting concepts with that is Residential ‘A’ does not allow agricultural uses on it, it’s just single family residential use.

Question RAUK:  I can understand the petitioner’s interest in minimizing the expense to survey several compound curves, that’s a lengthy process.  On the other hand you’re not going to throw gravel down 150 feet on that whole piece either.  But whoops we just got told if we rezone this into this category you gotta follow that straight east line for your plow line and you can’t come over here, can’t do that for agriculture.  So how do we resolve that, we’re getting too close to grinding this guy up in our rules?  Not sure I want to do that.

Answer BLUSKE:  Well, because the Town of Burns has a standing resolution on file with us, as does the Town of Onalaska and I think the Town of Campbell; that indicates if they cannot respond by meeting within the 10-day requirement that by statute they have an automatic 30 days attached to that.  If we do not hear from them by next Friday, which is the end of the 10 days, this does not go on to the County Board for a report.  Now I had indicated to Mr. Kitzmann, the Town Chairman, that if they did meet within the 10 days and we did receive it, I would still put it on the County Board agenda and if the two did not concur, denial-denial or approval-denial, whatever the case, then I would have to pull that and the Committee would have to see that at our September 2 meeting and make this decision all over again.  So this Committee has the option of deferring this until the business portion of the meeting until we hear from the Town or taking denial at this time, those are the 2 options.

Question BINA:  One last question, is Mr. Fassler a farmer right now?

Answer BLUSKE:  He is farming.

Question BINA:  He is farming?
Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Remarks BINA:  He has enough acreage for farming.  Needless to say he hasn’t purchased the land to build his house; probably building that house depends on what happens here tonight.  So that isn’t a done deal either the way it looks. 

Reply BLUSKE:  Well, Mr. Bina, the acreage he has right now is everything within that dark line on your map, that’s what allowed him to build his current home on 35 acres.

Remarks BINA:  I would agree, so he has more than enough acres to be considered a farm.  Okay, I get it.

Question RAUK:  What’s the impact if we defer to our business meeting, could you go over that please?

Answer BLUSKE:  If you defer you will have the Town’s recommendation to consider, with all the other evidence presented.

Question RAUK:  The staff recommendation will remain the same recommendation to deny for those reasons.  Boy I’m torn, I agree with everything in the staff recommendation on what we and the County have said in our plan in that this is not doing all those things to bring development in closer to services etc., etc.  Looking at the map, number one he’s done his homework on non-productive soils, he will continue to be productive on the productive soils he has and will acquire and interestingly it just happens that all four parcels including the one he intends to occupy in the future are fairly close and fairly quick easy access to meaningful paved surfaces, it’s not like we’re throwing development way out at the end, like Mr. O’Malley says where we gotta maintain a whole lot more county roads, it’s already there.  My inclination, frankly, is to move for approval.  So for discussion, I will move for approval.  (Seconded by Bina.)

Remarks BINA:  I guess the reason why I would disagree with Jeff and staff is that on the deal where he’s got the 3 parcels, there is 1.88 acres of workable land according to your statistics.  If I remember one other farmer we had in here he said, “I can’t even turn my combine around on that.”  I don’t know where that 1.88 acres is but if it’s along his easement he may be able to farm that if that wandering easement goes up through there and he could farm everything within 150 feet of that easement, except where the road is and the road goes through there to his prospective house.  I would strongly recommend that we, this is an ideal location except for the 1.88 acres.  If that’s all we’re losing I haven’t got that big of a problem, he’s continuing to farm this except for the area in the creek bottom, lower area and the higher ground.

Vote on motion to approve the rezone.  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Mach).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 782  Corinne G. and Steven J. Severson, W1600 County Road A, Mindoro WI 54644.  Petition to operate several out-of-the home businesses including massage, healing therapies in a shop and specialized sewing in their basement on 14.74 acres  zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as:  The East 495’ of the W½-NW of Section 9, T 18 N, R 5 W lying North of County Road A, EXCEPT the West 25’ thereof.  Town of Farmington.        

Appearing in Favor:  Corinne Severson, W1600 County Road A, Mindoro WI 54644.  I am a licensed massage therapist, presently working part-time here in La Crosse at Herbal Healings, however many of the modalities that I do are conducive to healing but I would love to do it in a rural setting where it is quiet and peaceful, so this is the reason for the application for this building.  I also do custom sewing work and that we have a room in the basement where I could to that, both businesses.  I’m not looking to run a spa, I’m not looking to run big time anything, I just want to do some business at home.  As far as the sewing goes  - deliveries, I occasionally have a UPS delivery but it is not frequent and so that would be the only thing.  As far as the massage I would order supplies but that would be infrequent also.

Question BLUSKE:  When we were there on our tour on Friday morning it looked like a tank was being delivered for gas, there was a pick-up truck just up the hill, where would your customers park?

Answer SEVERSON:  There is parking available either directly in front of the shop, right on our driveway, or if they went to the north of the building they can turn around and park up in there or on the grass right next to the building, or there is a little area directly across from the shop.  I would only have one customer at a time.

Question BLUSKE:  I noticed on your impact statement that you have 5 sewing machines, different sizes; could you explain, would not have 5 people working down there?

Answer SEVERSON:  No, it’s all me.  I have a Surger, an industrial machine, I have a couple regular size sewing machines.  Sometimes, the reason I have two is I’m working with different color threads, so for efficiency sake I have a different color in each machine.

Opposition:  None.

Department Recommendation:  Approval with 8 conditions:
           

1.      This permit grants the use of the basement for a sewing business and the 18-ft x 24-ft shop for use as a massage and healing business at W1600 County Road A.

2.      Hours of operation for the massage business are Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 9 am to 8 pm (8 pm at the latest).  No hours set for sewing business.

3.      Approximately 6 to 12 customers per week.

4.      Off-street parking – one stall shall be maintained and marked for massage business.

5.      Approximately 1 to 2 deliveries per month – sewing supplies and shipping.

6.      One unlighted sign is allowed with the proper zoning permit from this department.

7.      This permit is non-transferable. 

8.      All personal property related to business shall be reported to the local assessor every year.

Motion Manthei/Keil to approve with conditions.  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Mach).

Motion Manthei/Rauk to adjourn.  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Mach).

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.

Mike Weibel, Recorder