Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mr. Calusniak commented that there have been cases in the past where applicants have had 1 similar circumstances that were not determined to have been created by the applicant. He stated 2 if the variance is not approved, he and Mr. Slabiak will have to consider other alternatives, 3 including a less-desirable two-story building. He also suggested the Council reexamine current 4 codes. 5 6 Councilmember Flaherty stated that Mr. Slabiak is, by all accounts, an excellent neighbor. He 7 stated the Council attempts to accommodate residents, but must also consider the codes. He 8 stated he would be okay with a smaller variance, but he is not okay with such a size request. He 9 added that the Planning Commission has never approved a variance over 1,800 feet. He stated it 10 puts the City in a difficult position because if such a large variance is granted, it could lead to 11 even larger variance requests. 12 13 Mr. Calusniak stated he understands the concerns of the Council and pointed out that other cities 14 have larger accessory building codes, which should also be considered. 15 16 Mr. Slabiak asked the Council to appreciate his situation and the difficulty he had obtaining the 17 correct information from City Hall when he first moved to his current property. He stated it 18 would be difficult to sell his home in this market and purchase another property where he could 19 have a large enough accessory square footage. 20 21 Councilmember Thomas stated that none of the parties at the table believes the property owner’s 22 knowledge of the situation before he purchased the home should be factored into the decision. 23 She stated the Council needs to limit the scope of the question before them and cannot address 24 the issue of making the accessory building square footage number larger, even if they wanted to. 25 26 Councilmember Thomas stated that the City should not consider other questions while answering 27 the one presented. She stated the City has a limit to accessory buildings and she believes the 28 applicant could come back with a 668 square foot smaller building that would work. 29 30 Mr. Calusniak noted that the pinball machines require a buffer zone and needs the extra 668 31 square feet. Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to see a demonstrated need for such a 32 large building, which she does not see with the proposed plan. 33 34 Councilmember Gunn stated she thought a good point was brought up regarding lot sizes when 35 variances are discussed. She explained that she has been following Planning Commission 36 discussions and part of the future of the City is to make its neighborhoods better looking. She 37 noted that there are pole buildings in back yards and that she finds such structures more 38 aesthetically unpleasing than the proposed building. She added there is no way the building will 39 be seen from the road and that the Council should take into consideration lot size when 40 approving or denying such requests. 41 42 Director Ericson stated one of the reasons the code was amended was to increase square footage 43 in recognition that there are larger lots, which can support larger accessory buildings. He stated 44 there has been some backlash from residents regarding accessory buildings. He explained he 45