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