HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-00048-W Staff AnalysisApril 12, 1983
STJBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - File No. 48-T
NAME:
Lot A, Piedmont Subdivision
LOCATION: Highway 10, Approximately 1,600'
East of Sam Peck Road
REQUEST:
To modify an approved preliminary.
STAFF REPORT
This is a request by,the applicant to deviate on the final
plat from what was originally approved on the preliminary by
not constructing Lakeview Court, a proposed 60'
right-of-way. The applicant has stated that construction of
the street at this time is unnecessary because it wouldn't
provide access for them since the drainage ditch bars access
to Lakeview Court. He also feels that this plan is better
overall because:
(1) The property to the east of Lot A is owned by the
developer (Sam Peck and Associates).
(2) The residents to the east of Lakeview Court does not
exist.
(3) The property to the west of Lot A is the purchaser.
(4) Construction of the street will serve no purpose at
this time.
(5) The Developer will construct all of Lakeview Court in
the future when access to Lots 1, 2 or 3 (currently
unplatted) is needed.
(6) Sale of Lot A to any other party would constitute a
fragmented land use due to its small building area.
(7) The intended use of Lot A is for parking.
(8) The purchaser will improve the drainage ditch.
April 12, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
Staff is not favorable to the request. First of all, the
request is premature since it has to have a variance from
the Board of Adjustment. Since there is a drainage problem,
there is a question as to the utility of the lot itself.
The plan, as submitted, is deficient in that it does not
include all the property in the original preliminary plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present. His proposal was clarified as
being a request to: (a) modify an approved preliminary; and
(b) not construct improvements required for Lakeview Court
at this time. Staff felt that the request was premature,
since the question of land use should be resolved first.
This would require him to go to the Board of Adjustment and
get a variance to use this for parking since it is now zoned
for single family. Also,, a question was raised as to the
enforcement of a condition placed on the previous approval,
to build improvements on Highway 10 when this portion of the
plat is developed.
.The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without
recommendation, subject to: (1) improvement of Highway 10,
(2) solution of drainage problem, and (3) Board of
Adjustment consideration. The Committee specifically
indicated that this recommendation was not an endorsement of
the use of the lot for parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There were no objectors present. The application was
represented by Mr. Wordsmith of the Independent Air
Conditioning Company and Mr. Bob Peck, the owner of the
property. A lengthy discussion was held on this matter
discussing the various points raised by staff in its report.
The Planning Commission after much deliberation determined
by a unanimous vote to approve the formation of the new lot
and revise the preliminary plat of Piedmont Subdivision.
This approval is subject to: (1) Highway 10 improvements
are to remain with the same commitment provided on the
original preliminary plat; (2) drainage problems on the
newly created lot are to be solved to the satisfaction of
the Engineering Department; (3) that the Board of Adjustment
be advised that this action of the Commission in no way
endorses the use of the lot as a parking lot or a
nonresidential use. The vote on the motion - 9 ayes,
0 nays. Jones abstained.