Laserfiche WebLink
October 26,2021 Page 7 of 12 <br /> approval with the SUP.He stated the applicant was risking being in violation with the conditions which <br /> meant the garage would have to be ieiiioved.He questioned why a normal garage could not be constructed to <br /> accommodate their storage needs.Ms.Sutherland reported the Hummer would not fit into a normal sized <br /> garage.She indicated she also has a 1967 Saab that she wants to store at this property,along with a pontoon, <br /> jet ski and kayaks. <br /> Councilmember Abdulle asked if it was possible for the applicant to request a 624 square foot garage with an <br /> eight foot garage door. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported this <br /> could be reviewed and approved by staff if complimentary. <br /> Councilmember Allen inquired how staff would determine if the property was in violation with the SUP <br /> requirements.Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola discussed Condition 9 <br /> noting the applicant would have to demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that Twin Cities Construction,LLC <br /> or any other business was not being illegally run as a home occupation from 720 McCallum Road.He noted <br /> the applicant has stated the individuals living on the property have trucks and staff would need to determine if <br /> the trucks were personal or company vehicles. <br /> Councilmember Allen asked if the individuals living at 720 McCallum Road worked for Mr.Blomquist.Mr. <br /> Blomquist noted one of the individuals worked for him.He reiterated the fact that he had worked with staff <br /> and followed his recommendations on this SUP request <br /> Councilmember Allen inquired if having an employee for Twin Cities Construction living on this property <br /> would be a concern.Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola stated this was a fact <br /> staff would have to look into,along with the other eight criteria the governs home occupations. <br /> Councilmember Allen questioned if the applicants had spoken to the city of Lindstrom regarding their home <br /> occupation requirements.Mr.Blomquist reported his first step was to speak with the City of New Brighton. <br /> Councilmember Dunsworth stated she had no further questions,but had comments.She reported three years <br /> ago the City had a similar request come before the Council and it was the one decision that has bothered her <br /> the most. She explained a property owner requested an oversized garage on a property that was being rented. <br /> She commented this was a difficult situation for the neighborhood and the applicant.She indicated the <br /> Council takes this request very seriously and noted the Council has never received this much feedback from a <br /> neighborhood regarding a request. She stated she was struggling with this item and appreciated all of the <br /> people who have come forward to speak for and against the request. <br /> Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas agreed this was a complicated topic. <br /> Councilmember Abdulle thanked all of the residents that submitted their comments and concerns to the <br /> Council.He noted he has a background in planning.He wished this request didn't have to come to this level <br /> because there was no decision that would make both sides happy. He discussed how the decision that is <br /> made for this property would send a signal to others in the community.He wished there was an easier way to <br /> resolve this issue noting every residents in the community has a right to pursue the SUP process.However,he <br /> also could not ignore the 15 code violations that have occurred on this property.He anticipated it would be <br /> very difficult for the applicant to comply with the SUP requirements.He indicated he was thinking deeply <br /> about what action the Council should take on this item. <br /> Councilmember Allen reported he has heard a great deal from residents on this issue.He thanked these <br /> residents for reaching out to him and also thanked Mr.Blomquist for being at the meeting.He stated he was <br /> leaning towards denial of the SUP at this time. <br /> Councilmember Dunsworth commented personally she disagreed with the applicants.She explained she was <br /> not convinced of the truth of things or the logic behind the request.She feared there would be a violation on <br /> this property.However the logic behind the request was not the matter before the Council.In order to not be <br /> arbitrary in her decision making,she noted she was leaning towards approval,even though this was opposite <br /> of how she felt about the request personally.She indicated the Council has approved SUP's in the past where <br /> the neighbors have been vehemently opposed. She understood that the Council could not make arbitrary <br /> decisions when they are tied to code. She commented with the illegal activity that has occurred on this <br /> property over the past three years,she was still leaning towards a yes vote with the 11 conditions in place in an <br /> effort to be equitable and fair. <br /> Councilmember Abdulle stated he was leaning towards supporting the SUP because he feared the reasons for <br /> denial were not strong enough.He commented he could not speak to what would happen in the future on this <br />