Laserfiche WebLink
• ft is also important to note that Mr. Benshoof stated that the addition of the traffic <br />from this development (16 lots) to LaBore Road did not pose any problem. Another <br />indication that public safety is not jeopardized by this development. <br />• Mr. Rosten also discusses that the applicant did not submit detailed written and <br />graphic material materials for explanation of the variance. Mr. Soby made application <br />for the variance on the form prescribed by the City. He has submitted extensive <br />information with his preliminary plat application in addition to the extensive <br />discussions of this matter at many Planning Commission and City Council meetings. <br />Staff believes we have received sufficient documentation of the Developer's request. <br />• Lastly, Mr. Rosten notes that the Developer did not pay the required application fee. <br />He fails to note that the Developer has a $5,000 deposit with the City for development <br />fees in addition to executing our required cost agreement. This more than covers the <br />application fee associated with the variance application. As a result, staff deemed the <br />application complete and moved it forward for processing. <br />• Mr. Schorn raises an additional issue regarding a restrictive covenant that was required <br />of Mr. Richie in February of 2000 that was associated with a lot split request he made <br />at that time. The basis for requiring this covenant was due to the same concern about <br />access for adjacent properties as is being discussed today. The primary reason for this <br />concern is the topography and existing development of the area limiting possible <br />connection points other thoroughfares. Here are the sequence of events related to this <br />matter: <br />➢ Subdivision approved in Feb of 2000 for three parcels. One was a <br />triangular piece to be added to Mr. Schorn's lot /house to the west. One <br />was a new lot (Parcel 2) that was a potential building site. The last was the <br />balance of the property (Parcel 3) that included Mr. Richie's home. <br />➢ This approval lapsed due to lack of processing and was reconsidered and <br />approved in May of 2001. <br />➢ A covenant was drafted, but not executed at that time because the <br />subdivision was not finalized. <br />➢ In September of 2001, Mr. Schorn approached the City regarding the <br />subdivision of another lot from the Richie property. The covenant was <br />discussed again at that time and a motion was passed "Approving the <br />concept of eliminating covenant agreement for the Richie property based <br />on Mr. Bill Schorn's interest in subdividing a lot on the east end of this <br />property..." The reason the covenant was no longer deemed necessary is <br />the determination had recently been made not to adopt a thorough fare plan <br />for the area, and that even if we had, a connection to LaBore Road was not <br />likely through the Richie property due to the existing house and the new lot <br />(Parcel 2) referenced above. <br />➢ In February of 2002, Mr. Schorn and Mr. Richie were granted approval of <br />a subdivision for a triangular parcel off of the east end of the Richie <br />property that Mr. Schorn purchased and constructed a house on. <br />➢ Parcel 2 referenced above was never developed and was subsequently sold <br />to Mr. Soby with the balance of the Richie property (Parcel 3) and is now <br />part of the Richie Place subdivision application. <br />3 <br />