Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 23, 2000 <br />access on an improved public street. Fahey pointed out that in order to <br />grant a variance, a hardship must be present that is unique to the land and <br />that hardship cannot be through the applicant's own doing. <br />Fahey pointed out that the O'Neil's have not yet built the new home, and <br />suggested that they redesign it so that while it is handicapped accessible, <br />its access is via Keller Parkway. <br />O'Neil pointed out that the City Code limits driveways to a 10% grade, <br />and based on that, she would need a variance since the property is at an <br />11.8% grade. <br />Fahey stated that he would not have a problem allowing the grade to be at <br />11.8% and felt that was a more reasonable variance request than the one <br />before the Council this evening. <br />Morelan stated that he was unaware of a Code requirement limiting <br />driveway grades. <br />O'Neil pointed out that an elevator would be required to get her husband <br />from the garage into the house. However, if there is a power outage, her <br />husband would be trapped in the house. <br />Fahey suggested in that case that the O'Neil either needed to redesign their <br />house or look for another lot. <br />O'Neil stated that they are building a rambler now pointing out that the <br />house cannot be redesigned to be any lower. She felt that a variance was <br />needed so that they can get in and out of their home safely. O'Neil <br />pointed out that she and her husband own the property and they should be <br />allowed to use it. <br />Morelan asked if having the primary access to the house on Keller <br />Parkway with a secondary access via LaBore Road would require a <br />variance. The Planner replied that it would. <br />Scalze apologized to the O'Neil's and the neighbors for the direction they <br />received to try to work out a solution among them. She pointed out that <br />the basis for granting variances is on whether or not a hardship exists, and <br />not if there was a mutually acceptable arrangement that could be worked <br />out. Therefore, suggesting that the O'Neil's and the neighbors work out a <br />solution for a variance request was not the proper approach to take. <br />Scalze pointed out that when a variance is granted, it infers more rights to <br />a property owner than what other property owners have. Scalze pointed <br />to <br />