HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 02 13 PC MINUTESCITY OF GEM LAKE
Office of the City Clerk
136 9 Co unty R oad “E” East
Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231
Telephone: ( 651 ) 426 - 6443 Email: gemlakecity@aol.com Facsimile: ( 651 ) 426 - 6444
Fritz Magnuson, City Clerk Paul Emeott, Mayor Sarah Cobian, Treasurer
M emo to: M ayor E meo tt
Fro m: Jac k Ho eschle r, Plan ning C omm ission C hair
Date: February 16, 2006
Re: Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 2006
The Gem Lake Planning Commission held its February meeting at 7 pm on Monday, February 13, 2006 at Tousley Ford.
Messrs Lindner, Rafferty, Wippich and H oeschler were present, along with M essrs M agnu son a nd E meo tt as co-zoning
administrators. W e discussed the following:
1. Fred M acalus V ariance and Interim Use P ermit Req uest. Mr. Magnuson described a request by Fred Ma calus for a
variance and Interim Co nditional Use Per mit for 1 432 SF o f acces sory b uildings , includin g a pig eon coo p. The code
allows 1000 S F of accessory buildings. Mr. Mac alus was in Mexico, but Tom Campbell was present to represent him.
Mr. M agnu son d escrib ed ea rly issues with M r. M acalu s who mov ed in la st fall. These include tree removal, grading and
burning withou t a perm it. He also desc ribed (and M r. Raffer ty provide d a picture o f) the various accesso ry structures,
trailers, trucks and equipment currently parked on the property. It was commented that the property looked like
som ething in th e bac k woo ds of B urnett C ounty.
M r. Jim Stagerm ark, a neighbo r, raised several co ncerns:
a.W hat will happen to the v arious vehicles pa rked on the premises?
b.Should the city consider ado pting a pigeo n ordinanc e like those of surroun ding com munities?
c.Should we be concerned about avian flu issues involving pigeons as has been seen in Canada?
Another neighbor expressed her concern about the appearance of the property and the outdoor storage of numerous
vehicles. Mr. Magnuson replied that the city’s ordinances have clear limits on this and will be enforced.
It was agreed as follows:
1.The file is not complete (and the 60-day clock has not started to run) because of missing information such
as:
a.A site p lan sho wing d rivewa y and e ntry layou t;
b.Details regarding the pigeon coop including the number of birds and how they will be handled;
c.The owner’s intentions regarding how the outdoor storage problems will be addressed since all
of these vehicles cannot fit in the proposed garage.
2.The matter will be set over until our March meeting (March 14, 2006) so that Mr. Macalus may provide
additional written informa tion and ap pear to d iscuss with us his plans.
3.Fritz Magnuson will review possible pigeon ordinances and make a recom mendation;
4.Fritz M agnu son w ill prep are a d raft versio n of an interim use permit proposing certain controls and
standards for consideration by the Commission;
5.Mr. Macalus needs to clean up and solve the existing problems on the property as a precondition to review
and poss ible ap pro val of a v arianc e and interim u se pe rmit.
2. Rev ision o f Land Use Co ntrols . Mr. Hoeschler described the history of our ordinance review and the present status
of our determinations. He described two parallel paths that we are pursuing:
1.The general revision of our land use control ordinances for all districts within the city (evidenced by
Version F of Ordinance 43(G) that Fritz recently emailed to everyone.
2.The development and articulation of a special site revie w process for Hillary Farm that would be
incorporated into an amended Developer’s A greement and which would possibly supersede the general
controls.
Fritz Magnuson gave a summary overview of Version F and described how provisions in various sections were
developed. He explained that § 14 .23 re ferenc es a site review com mittee a nd sa id that he will be wo rking w ith the City
Attorney to come up with a Council resolution that will be legally adequate to create and empower such an entity if we
decide to use it. He also pointed out § 14.19 which provides for a park dedication fee and § 14.20 which forbids special
grad ing to cr eate a walko ut lot whe re the na tural terra in do es no t allow it.
We discussed the proposed park dedication requirement and whether it should apply to plats of retail or commercial
pro perty or on ly to resid ential pla ts. Th ere se eme d to b e sentim ent to restrict such a requirement to properties used for
residential purpo ses.
Jim McN ulty expressed his desire that Hillary Farm not be subject to any of these rules, eve r, and that the D evelo per’s
Agreement be the sole lan d use contro l for H illary Farm . He sa id that he would be making detailed written co mm ents
and obj ection s to the p rop osed gener al langu age. He also stated that he would send us language that they would pro pose
to add to the Deve loper’s Agre ement to d eal with the site review proce ss.
Mr. McN ulty also objected to the suggestion that there was any controversy surrounding two of the three structures he
has built and said that they were constrained by the involvement of other owners in their response to landscaping
add itions sug gested by M r. Raffer ty.
Bryan Harjes made several comments regarding various provisions of the proposed controls but said that his remarks
wou ld be ex pan ded upo n and mad e mo re spe cific in their w ritten resp onse . He w as esp ecially concerned about the
definition of grad e plan e and the pro hibition of artificial b uild-up of a wa lkout lo t. He w as also unco mfor table with any
provision that could allow the City or the site review committee to ask for additional information.
Craig Rafferty described our efforts as trying to provide the deve lope r with spe cific pro pos als so tha t they are n ot left
to guess what the City wants. Craig, however, expressed discomfort with two p arallel p roce sses. H e said th at he wo uld
not vo te for an y pro vision tha t would requ ire a flat 35 -foot limit o n hou se heigh t.
Jim Lindner expressed both exhaustion from the length of the process and a desire that no new language be added to the
proposal until we can vote on it. He would like the language to be same for two meetings in a row.
Jim Mc Nulty also objected to § 11.9.3 requirements for a Shoreland Impact Plan for each lot. He argued that once the
Hillary Farm Plat was approved, that should shut the door on such further review. Mr. Magnuso n and M r. Em eott
explained that this has always been part of our code and is necessary to deal with specific projects of individual lot
owners.
There was also discussion of the need for a pool fence requirement since the State Code has none. The propo sed
language calls for a 5-foot fence, but the McN ulty team urged a lower fence and the Co mm ission se eme d sym pathe tic
to that idea.
As the sole member of the public who was present (to the congratulations of all others present) Gretchen Swomley urged
an up or down vote on the language.
We agreed to set our March meeting for Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at which time we will review the McNulty written
objections and c omm ents (wh ich we h ope will be se nt out in a dva nce o f the me eting) an d at tha t time we will likely take
at least a preliminary vote o n the prop osed langu age of the land use controls.