Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 12,2012 <br /> • Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> affected by the change to City Code. City Administrator Ericson did not recall there being any <br /> garage building permits outstanding prior to 2009. He stated this was a unique case as the plans <br /> submitted were not followed. The difference in the garage height from the plans submitted was <br /> approximately two feet. He understood this was to be a small number, but again, the change in <br /> plans was not brought to the City for approval before being completed. <br /> Council Member Hull questioned how much work would be required to bring the garage to the <br /> 20 foot height which was originally submitted. Mr. Downing stated this would be much more <br /> doable than an 18 feet height. He explained he would not have added the extra two feet if the <br /> City's building the inspector at the time had commented he wouldn't get up and measure the <br /> final height. It did not occur to him that Don would retire and not be available to support his <br /> request. <br /> Mayor Flaherty agreed with Council Member Hull's suggestion to bring the garage height to 20 <br /> feet. He did not want to see the Council open the floodgates to residents requesting variances <br /> after the fact. <br /> Mr. Carlson questioned if the Council was going to pursue each homeowner within the City to <br /> ensure their garage height matched the plans submitted with the City. City Administrator <br /> Ericson stated the key difference is that if the City inspector completed the final inspection and a <br /> certificate of occupancy was granted,the City could not take action. <br /> Mr. Carlson asked why the City was applying discretion to this case and not to all garage height <br /> cases. He questioned if the City was diligent about following through with final inspections. <br /> City Administrator Ericson indicated the City did not have a large number of structural building <br /> permits outstanding. Mayor Flaherty added that this was also dependent upon the inspector at the <br /> time the project was completed. <br /> Mr. Carlson felt the Downings were being singled out and felt this wasn't fair. <br /> Mr. Downing indicated the suggestion made by Council Member Hull was more agreeable than <br /> removing the entire garage roof. <br /> Council Member Gunn stated she was on the Planning Commission when the garage height <br /> requirements were changed. She explained that part of the homeowners' responsibility with <br /> submitting plans was to follow through on the plans submitted. If the plans were changed or <br /> altered,this created new circumstances that needed to be reviewed by the City. This needed to be <br /> done before completion and not after the fact. <br /> Council Member Gunn indicated the applicant admitted he did not submit the dormer plans, as <br /> they could be rejected. The applicant knew full well that he had changed the plans without City <br /> approval. As to the garage height, if the plans were followed, this would not be an issue, but <br /> again, the applicant took it upon himself to make a change without seeking City approval. She <br /> recommended the garage height be brought down two feet to the originally approved height of <br /> • 201 feet. <br />