Agenda Packets - 2005/04/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 14, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mayor Marty stated that that could take a month or more. 1 2 Director Ericson stated that it could take many months, and there would be a public hearing. He 3 stated that they are recognizing that there may be a problem with the Code, and he thought 4 asking the Planning Commission to review them and make an amendment is the right approach. 5 He stated that this would resolve some safety issues and resolve the deficiency in surface 6 parking. He stated from a strict interpretation of the Code, the hardship isn’t there. He stated 7 that by directing the Planning Commission to look at those requirements makes the statement 8 that the Code needs to be changed. 9 10 Mayor Marty stated if a hardship existed, he wouldn’t have a problem granting the variance, but 11 if they granted a variance in this situation, they would be setting a precedent that anyone else in 12 the city could come back and demand the same or take legal action against the City, so they 13 would be basically rewriting the whole thing right here if they grant the variance by going 14 against the Code. 15 16 Director Ericson suggested that they had approved variances for this in the past, and every 17 variance the City approves has to stand on its own merit. He stated this is a unique situation. He 18 said that there are a number of multi-family properties that have no garages whatsoever. He 19 stated that the applicant wants to make some improvements to the property, but it doesn’t fit 20 within the strict interpretation of the Code, but this would not put the Council in the position of 21 having to make a similar ruling the next time this came up. 22 23 Mayor Marty stated that the Planning Commission had determined that no hardship exists. He 24 stated if a hardship existed, he wouldn’t have a problem with granting a variance. 25 26 Council Member Thomas stated that perhaps if this were a two-phase project, with 100 garages 27 in phase one, and 25 garages in phase two, they wouldn’t be talking about the same 28 variance/hardship issue. She stated that people who manage these properties are holding 29 onto every renter they can, so if he doesn’t have garages filled, he doesn’t have them filled. 30 She stated that this is the issue. She reiterated that if they could talk about this as a two-phase 31 construction project and have the plans for the 25 additional stalls, that is the way they could 32 present it. She stated that that does not actually require a variance; just a delayed 33 construction issue. 34 35 Council Member Stigney stated that those suggestions are nice for the Planning Commission 36 to look at. He stated that right now this is a legal Code they have to follow. He stated what 37 is being asked for is an overruling of the Planning Commission’s decision that no hardship 38 was created, and now they are saying a hardship is created. 39 40 Mr. Menning stated the hardship is that he can’t rent 125 garages. 41 42 Director Ericson suggested upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of the variance request, 43 and that the applicant could then come back with a plan in the future to build 100 garages, and 44 if those all became rented out, to build another 25, and that plan could be brought forward to the 45