HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0024-WW-1 Staff AnalysisOctober 6, 1992
ITEM NO.• C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3.237=A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
Mr. Kelton Brown was in attendance and represented his plat. There
were no objectors. Staff reported there was one letter in the file
from the property owners association expressing concerns about the
Bill of Assurance on the Subdivision. These concerns did not
directly effect the Planning Commission's authority to act on the
matter. Richard Wood of staff reported that the notice on this
application was improper because it had been mailed only a few days
before this public hearing and Mr. Brown had been allowed to enter
the agenda at the Subdivision Committee on September 3, which
allowed sufficient time.
Mr. Brown offered several comments in defense of his actions and
the notice as provided. Staff pointed out that there no issues of
significance on the plat, with the exception of the inclusion of a
small lot left out on the southeast corner. Staff noted that it
could be accomplished without problem. A discussion followed
involving the City Attorney and various commissioners as to the
appropriateness of accepting this notice delivered by Mr. Brown,
approximately one week later than that required by the Bylaws.
Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's office strongly cautioned the
Commission against moving to freely and setting their Bylaws aside.
Staff reported that this plat is actual a follow-up to a previously
approved preliminary plat. All the adjacent properties are
developed as single family and that is the development format for
Mr. Brown's property.
After additional conversation, the Commission voted on a motion to
waive the Bylaw requirement pertaining to the 15 day notice. This
motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 5 nays and 2 absent. As a
result of this action, the Commission acted on a motion to defer
the application to October 6 Planning Commission meeting. This
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 6, 1992)
The applicant, Mr. Pat McGetrick, was present and represented
Mr. Brown. Staff reported that there were no continuing issues and
the plat was recommended for approval subject to the completion of
the preliminary plat filing in a revised form. The Commission
briefly discussed the proposal.
A motion was then made to place this item on the Consent Agenda
for approval. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent.
3