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