Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 23, 2000 <br />out that the rights she is referring to are not personal handicapped <br />accessibility rights, but rather rights under the Zoning Code, i.e. property <br />rights. Scalze pointed out that this is a hilly lot and a difficult one to build <br />on. She suggested that perhaps the lot will not accommodate what the <br />O'Neil's are trying to do. <br />O'Neil pointed out that she and her husband own the two lots. They were <br />mislead by their first builder about the feasibility of access to the new lot <br />via Keller Parkway. They have since found out that this access is <br />impractical. <br />Fahey pointed out that another option would be to destroy the existing <br />house and construct a new house on the lot that has access to LaBore <br />Road. Fahey pointed out that basing the variance on the issue of <br />handicapped accessibility does not meet the hardship criteria in the City's <br />ordinance. <br />O'Neil reported that they would appeal any denial of the variance request. <br />Tom Leonzal, College City Homes, described the terrain of the lot as well <br />as the amount of trees. Leonzal asked if a driveway could be cut in from <br />Keller Parkway crossing the O'Neil's developed lot to the new lot. <br />Fahey pointed out that the property division was approved contingent <br />upon access being via Keller Parkway. Fahey suggested that if a home <br />that would address the O'Neil's needs cannot be designed to fit this new <br />lot, then perhaps the O'Neil's need to look for another lot. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that access to the new lot needs to be <br />maintained on the new lot. <br />O'Neil suggested that an option might be to dig out all the trees on the hill. <br />The Administrator noted that the City has a tree preservation ordinance, <br />and removal of trees for the construction of a home would require <br />replacement. <br />O'Neil suggested that she would take legal action if the City tried to stop <br />her from utilizing her property. She felt this was a violation of her civil <br />rights. O'Neil pointed out that the property division has been approved. <br />The City Administrator noted that the property division has not been . <br />recorded with Ramsey County, and cannot be recorded until the property <br />drainage and utility easements have been dedicated by the O'Neil's. <br />11 <br />