03-22-00 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2000 when this proposal was first made a couple of months ago, the Council suggested to the applicant that the building be redesigned so that a variance is not necessary. Scalze stated that the respite home being proposed would be a good addition to the community. However, she pointed out that the Council must apply the code fairly to everyone in the City. Unless there is a hardship present, a variance cannot be granted. Otherwise this property owner would be granted rights that other property owners would not have. Schmidt pointed out the recommendation of the Planning Commission in support of the variance. Schmidt felt that the hardship that exists is the necessity to construct this home incompliance with ADA requirements. Schmidt reported that it would be very difficult to make the house smaller. Bedrooms, bathrooms, hallways, etc. have to be wheelchair accessible. Schmidt reported that the location is perfect for their needs. She again noted the Planning Commission's efforts to identify a hardship to justify the variance. Morelan indicated that he agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He noted the lengthy debate the Planning Commission had on this matter, and agreed that they came to a good and equitable solution and developed some very concrete findings to justify the variance. Morelan noted that the property is adjacent to the Water Department property pointing out that the side yard encroachment will abut property that will never be developed. Therefore, the variance impacts no one. LaValle asked if Northeast Residence had contacted the Water Department about a donation of 6 feet of land. This would negate the need for a variance. Rossez reported that the Water Department has not indicated a willingness to donate land to the respite home. Scalze stated that she understands the need for meeting ADA requirements. Scalze further indicated that the respite home would be a fine addition to the community and one that she would welcome. However, it is not the responsibility of the City Council to grant variances because ADA requirements must be met. Scalze indicated that because it would cost money to redesign the building is not reason to grant the variance. Schmidt pointed out that the Planning Commission identified the reasons for granting the variance that included the size and shape of the property as well as the ADA needs.