2024 09-17 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Gem Lake Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2024 2 | Page The applicants shared their rational for the request and identified ‘impact criteria’ in consideration of their variance request. 1. Adjacent uses – Within Gem Lake city boundaries to the east along County Rd E East and to the north along Labore Rd, the property borders two single family home properties. Both properties are screened from the school property by dense brush and tree foliage. In addition, both adjacent properties (along with other nearby properties along the roadways) also maintain accessory structures along their right-of-way frontages at approximately 30-foot setbacks. 2. Air and water quality – The project team does not consider the shed to have impacts on air and water quality. Locating the shed outside of the setback would require additional pavement and would harm water quality. 3. Traffic generation – The shed at its as-built location allows space for 2 additional parking stalls [compared to a setback-compliant location]. These two stalls decrease the number of visitors needing to park at the office center across Labore Rd from the school property. 4. Public safety and health – The garbage dumpsters and property maintenance equipment were previously housed in a dilapidated shed just to the north and east of the as-built shed. The previously existing building was in danger of collapse. The new building provides a much safer enclosure than previously provided. 5. Area aesthetics – The as-built shed is clad in materials similar in aesthetics to the school building and new addition. Existing, mature pine trees provide partial screening of the shed from the roadway. 6. Economic impact on the entire area – The project team does not consider there to be an economic impact on the area. 7. Consistency with the comprehensive plan – The project team considers the as-built shed in consistency with the surrounding neighborhood and other accessory structure setbacks at adjacent properties. Commissioner Pratt introduced a motion to close the public hearing on the matter at 7:20 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Cummings, Motion carried 3-0. The Commission discussed the information and understood that it was an oversight on the City’s part by approving the designs. Commission Chair Patrick asked City Attorney Kevin Beck’s advice on the situation and if the City has any obligation to grant this variance due to the already approved plans. Mr. Beck shared that the city does not have an obligation, and it is to be denied or granted based on if the City sees that they have endured undue hardship. Members of the Commission all saw no problems with the current location the shed was built. No changes are being suggested to an ordinance, and these situations will be taken case by case and will work to prevent this from happening in the future. City Planner Evan Monson shared that the Commission has options for next steps. If the commissioners find the request does not meet the criteria for a variance, the commission can direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the City Council to consider. If the commissioners recommend approval of the request, the commission can direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval to include conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Pratt introduced a motion to recommend approval to the City Council based on the conditions by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cummings. Motion carried 3-0. Old Business Zoning Requests – Barnett Kia (Zoning Compliance Request, Lot Line Adjustment Request, Zoning Amendment Request) City Planner Evan Monson summarized the requests. At the August 14, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, commissioners moved to table this request for additional review by the City Engineer, Building Inspector, and other contacted agencies. The city also exercised a 60-day review period extension for the request, as permitted by Minnesota Statue 15.99.