10-24-07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 2007 development difficult. Schorn felt that the City was skirting the issues based on their desire for a road in this area. Schorn felt that the City will continue to extend the maximum length of cul-de-sacs until Mike Fahey can develop his property. Schorn felt that there was no hardship present to justify granting a Variance. He also noted that if there is a conflict in the City Code relative to cul-de-sac length, the City is obligated to apply the most restrictive of the clauses. Schorn noted, however, that the City wants the street developed and will cram it down the neighborhood's throats just to give Mike Fahey what he wants. Schorn also noted that when Bill Richie subdivided his property, the City required a covenant be signed by Mr. Richie that there would be no further development of his land. However, the City did not follow through and put the covenant in place. The City Administrator reviewed the history of the property divisions of the Richie property. He noted that a property division was approved in February, 2000 and lapsed because Mr. Richie did not finalize the property division recording. That property division was reconsidered and approved in May of 2001. A covenant was drafted, but not executed because, again, Mr. Richie did not finalize the recording of the property division. In September of 2001, Mr. Schorn approached the City regarding subdivision of another lot from the Richie property. The covenant was discussed at that time and a motion was passed "Approving the concept of eliminating covenant agreement for Richie property based on Mr. Bill Schorn's interest in subdividing a lot on the east end of this property..." The reason that the covenant was no longer deemed necessary is the determination had recently been made not to adopt a thoroughfare plan for the area. Bill Schorn could not recall these specifics, and the City Administrator indicated that Mr. Schorn should contact him and the documentation would be provided to him. Schorn stated that the law is the law and noted that he has always had to abide by the City Code. Schorn felt that a Variance should not be approved for the Richie Place cul-de-sac as there is no hardship present. He suggested that some compromise be worked out on this development. Schorn noted that one of the concepts presented by the developer had a 500 foot cul-de-sac. It was only after the City indicated the need for road connections to the east and west and the cul- de-sac length was proposed at 1,050 feet. Schorn noted that this cul-de- sac length does not meet City Ordinance requirements. Schorn felt that approval of the Variance will put the City at risk for litigation and that the developer would be named in that litigation. Tom Roycraft, Arcade Street, indicated that he agrees with the comments of Mr. Gores and Mr. Schorn. He noted that the neighborhood did not have an issue with the concept that proposed a 500 foot cul-de-sac, and noted that it was the City that then expanded the development. Roycraft IS