Resolution 2024-021 WBMS Variance Approval

Home

City of Gem Lake County of Ramsey State of Minnesota Resolution No. 2024-0021 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 1201 COUNTY ROAD E EAST, PARCEL ID 283022440006 WHEREAS, White Bear Montessori School, the owner of the property, made an application to request a variance ‘after-the-fact’ to allow for a detached accessory structure (shed) to be placed within the required 50-foot side yard setback on the property listed above; and WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows: LOT 6, BLOCK 2, RED FOX HILLS, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA TORRENS PROPERTY TORRENS CERTIFICATE NO. 500305; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 2024, and determined that the proposed request meets the criteria for a minor subdivision, and voted to recommend approval of the request with conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF GEM LAKE, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve a Variance to allow for a detached accessory structure (shed) to be placed within the required 50-foot side yard setback on 1201 County Road E East, Parcel ID 283022440006, based on the following findings: 1. Accessory structures, such as the as-built shed, are permitted under the ordinance in the Institutional Overlay zone. This criterion appears to be met. 2. Given that the building permit (which included the now as-built shed location) was already reviewed and issued for the project, and the shed has already been built, the applicant is in a unique situation of where they thought the structure was able to be built in its as-built location. This situation is unique only to this project and was not caused by the landowner. This criterion appears to be met. 3. Other detached accessory structures are located on nearby properties at setbacks from roads similar to the as-built shed. The as-built shed is also partially screened from the road (County Road E East) by existing trees and vegetation and is nearly fully screened from neighboring properties to the east. This criterion appears to be met. 4. Economic considerations, such as cost, are not mentioned in the applicant’s submittal as the reason or rationale for the request. This criterion appears to be met. 5. The shed in its as-built location does not appear to have negative impacts on neighboring uses and properties. The as-built location would not stand out in comparison to other neighboring properties. This criterion appears to be met. 6. The proposed as-built location does not appear to impact air or water quality of the property or nearby development. This criterion appears to be met.