Laserfiche WebLink
. recommendation, which would then be subject to consideration by the Planning <br /> Commission and City Council. <br /> 28. Paragraph 7 of the Restrictive Covenant states that: "The terms and conditions of <br /> this indenture may be modified, amended or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A <br /> and B may be subdivided, sole separately or reduced in part only upon application <br /> by Grantor to Grantee for approval of a "Subdivision" in accordance with the <br /> platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application." <br /> 29. Plaintiffs complied with Defendant's request and submitted a Subdivision ; <br /> Application to city staff along with their building plans. <br /> 30. Plaintiffs' application was deemed complete by Defendant on August 20,2013. <br /> 31. City staff recommended denial of Plaintiffs' Subdivision Application, based on <br /> the Restrictive Covenant on the Property that barred building or selling the Lake <br /> Parcel, among other reasons, including the fact that a city lift station was located <br /> in the public right-of-way,blocking access to the Lake Parcel. <br /> 32. A Planning Commission Meeting was held on September 16, 2013 to consider <br /> Plainiiffs' application. <br /> 33. At said Planning Commission Meeting, Defendant admitted that hut for the <br /> Restrictive Covenant, Plaintiffs would be allowed to build on the Lake Parcel and <br /> sell the Off-lake Parcel. <br /> 34. Further, at the Planning Commission Meeting, Defendant admitted that the only <br /> thing preventing Plaintiffs' from building on the Lake Parcel was the Restrictive <br /> Covenant, and that Plaintiffs' building plans met all necessary requirements. <br /> 35. On information and belief, Defendant's built a lift station in the public right-of- <br /> way that has been and is preventing reasonably convenient and suitable access to <br /> Plaintiffs' Lake Parcel. <br /> 36. Despite the fact that it was Defendant that caused the access issue to Plaintiffs' <br /> Lake Parcel, Defendant's attempt to cite to the lack of access as an issue Plaintiffs <br /> were required to resolve as part of its building plans if the city decided to allow <br /> Plaintiffs' to build on the Lake Parcel. <br /> 37. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend to the City Council denial of <br /> Plaintiffs' Subdivision Application. <br /> 4 <br />