06-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ -Ten foot property boundary setbacks on all sides of the building to lessen any visual impact to the surrounding area. - Exterior of this accessory building will closely match the existing primary residence. - The accessory building will not be connected by a driveway, ensuring no vehicle maintenance will be performed. -No impact upon existing trees and additional landscaping will be done. - No windows other than those required for safety and will be insulated to abate noise from the facility. -Building will be accessible to emergency and public safety vehicles. -Construction will include any necessary grading or drainage modification necessary. -This structure will be shielded from view by existing vegetation. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that while he appreciates the nostalgia of the collection, this is not what the variance is for; it is for accessory building space. The Commission must also consider the future and long-term impacts of their decision. When looking at a variance, some hardship based on the property or the area in which this is located must be evident. If the property is sold, what happens then? When a variance is approved, it is forever. Mr. Kaluziak is asking the Commission to look at the reasonableness of the request. The Commission must consider the reasonableness; 1,800 is reasonable but 2400 is excessive. Commissioner Hegland asked how one can defend that this does not grant him a special privilege that no one else has. Mr. Kaluziak stated they did consider future impacts. He showed a diagram of the footprint on the lot. Similar properties were also pointed out. They do not believe this is a special right, that they do have precedence by this Commission that hardship is created by the smallness of a lot size, and the reverse should also be considered. They are consistent with existing guidelines within the Minnesota Planning Act, to allow different designations within districts themselves. In summary Mr. Slabiak’s application is for a permitted use and is not unreasonable. He believes the variance process exists for a reason and the remedy is more compliant with the planning ordinance than a two-story structure or alternatives would be. He also restated that there is a question as to whether the seven criteria within 1125 are legally sufficient tests to look at hardship. Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if Minnesota statues require the Planning Commission to review a specified set of criteria; are the criteria in 1125 something the City determined or are they based on State of Minnesota statues. Director Ericson believes it is the language the City adopted and it is consistent with Minnesota statutes. There has not been a case, to his knowledge, where these have been challenged. There are opportunities to find hardship and the Planning Commission has done so on numerous occasions. There are numerous justifiable variances and hardship justifications. He does not, nor does City Attorney, believe that the criteria the City of Mounds View has, is in any way stricter or not conducive in finding fair and reasonable review of applications.