Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br />Mr. Calusniak commented that there have been cases in the past where applicants have had <br />similar circumstances that were not determined to have been created by the applicant. He stated <br />if the variance is not approved, he and Mr. Slabiak will have to consider other alternatives, <br />including ales-desirable two-story building. He also suggested the Council reexamine current <br />codes. <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated that Mr. Slabiak is, by all accounts, an excellent neighbor. He <br />stated the Council attempts to accommodate residents, but must also consider the codes. He <br />stated he would be okay with a smaller variance, but he is not okay with such a size request. He <br />added that the Planning Commission has never approved a variance over 1,800 feet. He stated it <br />puts the City in a difficult position because if such a large variance is granted, it could lead to <br />even larger variance requests. <br />Mr. Calusniak stated he understands the concerns of the Council and pointed out that other cities <br />have larger accessory building codes, which should also be considered. <br />Mr. Slabiak asked the Council to appreciate his situation and the difficulty he had obtaining the <br />correct information from City Hall when he first moved to his current property. He stated it <br />would be difficult to sell his home in this market and purchase another property where he could <br />have a large enough accessory square footage. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that none of the parties at the table believes the property owner's <br />knowledge of the situation before he purchased the home should be factored into the decision. <br />She stated the Council needs to limit the scope of the question before them and cannot address <br />the issue of making the accessory building square footage number larger, even if they wanted to. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that the City should not consider other questions while answering <br />the one presented. She stated the City has a limit to accessory buildings and she believes the <br />applicant could come back with a 668 square foot smaller building that would work. <br />Mr. Calusniak noted that the pinball machines require a buffer zone and needs the extra 668 <br />square feet. Councilmember Thomas stated she wants to see a demonstrated need for such a <br />large building, which she does not see with the proposed plan. <br />Councilmember Gunn stated she thought a good point was brought up regarding lot sizes when <br />variances are discussed. She explained that she has been following Planning Commission <br />discussions and part of the future of the City is to make its neighborhoods better looking. She <br />noted that there are pole buildings in back yards and that she finds such structures more <br />aesthetically unpleasing than the proposed building. She added there is no way the building will <br />be seen from the road and that the Council should take into consideration lot size when <br />approving or denying such requests. <br />Director Ericson stated one of the reasons the code was amended was to increase square footage <br />in recognition that there are larger lots, which can support larger accessory buildings. He stated <br />there has been some backlash from residents regarding accessory buildings. He explained he <br />