06-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, addressed the Planning Commission and gave a quick background on their family. He explained they out grew their current space because of a growing family and his hobby of collecting pinball machines. Mr. Slabiak would like to enjoy his personal collection of pinball machines rather than pack them away. He is not planning to run a business from this garage; this is for relaxation only. At this time Mr. Slabiak deferred to his friend Michael Kaluziak. Acting Chair Miller asked about the supplemental information and Mr. Slabiak referred her to Mr. Kaluziak. Mr. Kaluziak presented justification to the Planning Commission for granting a Minor Area Variance. In determining the hardship criteria, Mr. Kaluziak and Mr. Slabiak use the definition of “undue hardship” as “requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” Mr. Kaluziak made reference to Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorehead, 445 N. W. 2nd 917 (Minn. Ct. App., 1989). This interpretation of hardship definition was affirmed in Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W. 2d488 (Minn. Ct. App., 1995) and Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W. 2d 697 (Minn. Ct. Appl., 2000). Mr. Kaluziak restated that Mr. Slabiak collects, owns and maintains a substantial collection of electronic amusement devices, primarily pinball machines and video games that are a historical display of Americana. This activity is a permitted use according to local ordinances. Mr. Slabiak is an avid collector but does not engage in commercial activities beyond trading of his own collection. The proposed building is necessary to protect the collection from the elements, theft or vandalism. Mr. Kaluziak maintained that to authorize the variance is not contrary to the public interest and because of the special conditions of the property; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. By granting the proposed variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. It is Mr. Slabiak’s belief that unnecessary hardship exists in part because the ordinance interferes with his right to use the property as he see fit. The extraordinary or exceptional conditions of their residence include an oversized lot, a private setting and a lack of neighbors to the east. According to Mr. Kaluziak’s and Mr. Slabiak’s research, the application of the existing zoning ordinance would unreasonably prevent the Slabiak’s from using the property for a permitted purpose and would render conformity with the existing ordinances unnecessarily burdensome. For example, the Slabiaks could propose the construction of this accessory structure using conforming foundations with a second story or basement and still meet the existing requirements. However, this would increase hazards in terms of fires, personal safety, building expense and inconvenience. In addition, underground storage of electrical components would be in an environment with higher relative humidity, which decreases usable life. These adverse effects are serious practical difficulties that pose more than a mere inconvenience. Approval of this variance would not confer additional rights on others owing to the exceptional, if not unique, conditions of this property.