Laserfiche WebLink
LutherCadiliac Project 5tatt Report April 12,.2022 <br />Gem Lake Planning Commission Page 7 <br />Section 1.7,5.9(C) <br />ij Shall rmaintain harmony and compatibility with surrounding uses and with the architectural <br />Character and designstandards of existing uses and development;. <br />The site.is unique in that:a majority of the :.site is not within the city.limits; there are no buildings or <br />structures within the.Gem Lake side -that would add or subtract from the aesthetics of the. area. <br />Since the site is within the. gateway zone, the commission could. request additional landscaping or <br />screening if there is concerns with the parking lot being compatible with the properties to the <br />north. <br />2) Shall meet or exceed all Performance Standards contain .elsewhere in this Ordinance;. <br />The proposed use is meeting applicable zoning requirements. <br />3) Shall not generate such additional traffic associated with the use that.would overburden or <br />exceed the capabilities of streets and other public services and facilities including, but not limited <br />to, parks, schools, and utilities serving the area. <br />The proposed development would: not be generating traffic to a level that would overburden <br />streets or other public services and utilities. <br />Variance criteria <br />Practical Difficulties, per Section'I7.4.1: <br />• The property owner proposes to use: the property in a reasonablemanner not permitted by: <br />the zoning ordinance <br />The request is to have a zero foot setback, in order to permit a parking lot to extend over two <br />parcels that areunder the same. ownership. Dub to the lots being in different municipalities, <br />the two lots. are unable:to be combined. Without a variance, the.parking lot would need to <br />maintain a setback from the property line. <br />The plight of the landowner is due to.:clecumstances unique to the property not created by the <br />landowner <br />The municipal boundary, not created by the land owner, prevents the parcel from.. being <br />combined .with the. other parcels under the same ownership <br />The. variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality <br />It will be..urilikely that passersby will be aware. of the. municipal boundary in .this area, which <br />creates the need to keep the property. line and triggered the. need.for a setback. Reducing the <br />s.etback.along the south property line to zero feet for the parking lot would allow the site to <br />appear and function as one development, and does not appear to have an impact to the. <br />character of adjace nt::area9. within the :city. <br />Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties <br />The. practical .difficulty is due to the location of the municipal boundary preventing the parcels <br />from being combined; economicconsiderations are. not noted as. a. practical difficuRy.. <br />Practical: difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for <br />solar energy systems <br />N/A <br />01. <br />