My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:09 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 5:07:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/24/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/24/2006
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
286
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 2 <br /> 3 <br />David Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, asked if he can request more time than the three minutes 4 <br />allowed for public comments. Mayor Marty stated the Council would allow him time to speak to 5 <br />the issue. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Mr. Slabiak gave the Council a history of himself and his wife and presented someone to speak 8 <br />on his behalf. He stated he has been a resident of Mounds View for eight years. He explained 9 <br />he has been collecting pinball machines for 20 years and is requesting the building be approved 10 <br />so he has a place to display and share his collection. He noted it would not be open to the public 11 <br />and it is a similar situation to someone who enjoys woodworking. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Mr. Slabiak stated when he began plans to construct the building, he spoke with staff at City Hall 14 <br />who informed him such buildings have been allowed. He stated he purchased his home with the 15 <br />idea of building an accessory building. He stated Staff at the front desk gave him the impression 16 <br />that such a request would likely be granted through a CUP. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Mr. Slabiak added that when he turned in the CUP, he was informed his proposed building was 19 <br />too big. He stated that when he turned in the variance he was confused, was told he had done 20 <br />everything right, and was under such an impression. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Michael Calusniak suggested Mr. Slabiak’s neighbors speak in support of the CUP for the 23 <br />garage. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Jim Bower, 8121 Long Lake Road, stated he is Mr. Slabiak’s next door neighbor and is not 26 <br />opposed to the building. He stated he believes it is a reasonable request. He added Mr. Slabiak 27 <br />is an excellent, respectful neighbor. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Patty Berglean, 8132 Long Lake Road, stated she is also a neighbor of Mr. Slabiak. She stated 30 <br />that to her knowledge, no person can see the backyard of the property. She added she has no 31 <br />problem with the large building and that she does not mind the large pole building in the property 32 <br />adjacent to her backyard. She stated that Mr. Slabiak keeps up his yard and there are many trees 33 <br />that will cover the building if the permit is granted. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Jim and Sarah Train, 8145 Long Lake Road, who are neighbors north of the parcel in question, 36 <br />stated they do not object to the proposed building. Mr. Train questioned how the City can have 37 <br />an ordinance related to accessory storage space that does not take into account the size of the 38 <br />property. He stated he has nearly half an acre of property and asked if the same restrictions that 39 <br />apply to a property 1/8 the size of his apply to his property. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated there were a few items to be clarified from the June 6th Planning 42 <br />Commission meeting. He stated Mr. Slabiak feels he did not receive a fair review of the facts 43 <br />when he was in front of the Planning Commission. He noted that the property is 2.7 times the 44 <br />minimum lot size required by the City and it is largely undeveloped. He added that the proposed 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.