Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br />building will not take up a large amount of the land. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated Mr. Slabiak’s existing collection will require 1,500 additional square feet 3 <br />and several options were considered, such as knocking down part of the garage or building a 2-4 <br />story structure. He stated in both cases, the negative impacts were far greater than that of the 5 <br />proposed building. He stated there is not a single negative impact except for the integrity of the 6 <br />current zoning codes. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is very reasonable and identified seven hardship criteria, 9 <br />including the property owner’s right to use the property as they see fit. He stated such a hardship 10 <br />has been held up in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He stated the practical difficulties of 11 <br />constructing a building that meets the CUP creates an undue hardship for the property owner and 12 <br />the collection itself warrants such a building. He mentioned the lack of opposition from 13 <br />neighbors and cited several instances in the past where hardship has been granted to several 14 <br />applicants based on similar criteria. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Mr. Calusniak went through the exceptional circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, 17 <br />which state that “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not 18 <br />apply generally to other properties in the same zone.” 19 <br /> 20 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated that a lot 2.7 times the size of the minimum required is an exceptional 21 <br />circumstance and the codes which are applicable to normal properties should be compromised for 22 <br />such a large lot. He stated other compromises have been made for small lot sizes and he is 23 <br />seeking uniform application of the codes. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated he has identified several other cases in which pre-existing conditions, such 26 <br />as trees, have been considered. He brought up several cases the Planning Commission has 27 <br />approved and that Mr. Slabiak is seeking a uniform application of the codes. He again stated he 28 <br />fails to see direct negative impacts. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated he and Mr. Slabiak are not asking for revisions or changes to the 31 <br />ordinances, but stated it is within the rights of the Council to grant variances. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated the proposal is not unreasonable, it is not inconsistent with the 34 <br />neighborhood, and it does not create hardship for the neighbors. He stated Mr. Slabiak has 35 <br />amassed a significant cultural asset, he is not collecting for profit, and the collection is an asset to 36 <br />the City. He added that Mr. Slabiak is an excellent neighbor and resident. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Mr. Calusniak explained that the code is not compromised. He stated there are other issues 39 <br />facing the area and it would be appropriate when considering this request to consider those other 40 <br />issues. He also stated, regarding the hardship criteria, that he has a difficult time understanding a 41 <br />clear precedent and applications approved by the Planning Commission in previous cases have 42 <br />been approved under similar conditions. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Mr. Calusniak stated he does not believe Mr. Slabiak created the hardship. He reminded the 45