03-21-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Dzurik clarified that MIPH is not asking for a variance in this instance and is doing better than the PUD requirement of thirty feet. Mr. Winiecki stated he could come up with an economic reason for a lot of things and stated he did not think an economic reason was justification to move the building forward. Christine Winiecki stated that currently if a person is sitting at the intersection of Silver Lake Road and County Highway 10 her building is visible. If the proposed building is allowed to be built her building won’t be visible until you are almost to it. She then clarified that she had no problem with the structure itself but did not want it built forward of her building. She further stated she felt like the “big guy was stepping on the little guy” in this instance and she does not think that is fair. Director Ericson reiterated that this is not a request for a variance and that in terms of economic hardship if the applicant is incurring any extra costs it may be reason enough to request the building be located where it is. Director Ericson stated visibility is important and should be taken into consideration but noted if a person stands at the intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road with the building setback with Mr. Winiecki’s building there would be a loss of visibility whether the building were setback 50 feet or 75 feet. Commissioner Johnson commented on the sight line scenarios noting he agreed partially with both the developer and Mr. Winiecki. He then stated he has seen situations happen that involve buildings losing visibility that are then unable to rent their space. Commissioner Kaden agreed that Mr. Winiecki’s building was a beautiful building but noted the former owner set the building back that far from County Highway 10 and if the City requires that another building be setback that far it severely limits the development potential for that property. He then agreed with the line of sight scenarios as explained by Director Ericson and noted that he felt the City would be taking away something from the owner of the property to require a building be setback farther than City standards. Mr. Winiecki stated he felt money should not be an issue if it is a minimal amount to move the building back. Mr. Dzurik stated it would cost at a minimum $20,000 for the retaining wall that would be required. Commissioner Kaden asked if there were costs involved to move the building back the twenty feet. Mr. Dzurik explained MIPH incurred an additional $4,000 to $8,000 to move the building back the additional twenty feet.