HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0728 Staff AnalysisSeptember 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Other Matters - Subdivision Variance
This i cem is on the agenda for purposes of bringing to the
Commission the request of Mr. Dennis SM_ith,� a resident of
4005 Montgomery Road in the Taylor Loop Community.
Mr. Smith desires to request of the Commission that it
extend to him a total variance of the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance as concerns the three lots in which he
has interest. Mr. Smith's lots lie at the south end of
Montgomery Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Taylor Loop
Road. These lots are somewhat less than six acres in area
total with existing residences in place. This matter was
brought to the attention of the staff when reviewing a
request of the Water Works to extend a water main eastward
off Montgomery Road to serve the rearmost lots. The
Planning staff rejected the water main extension and advised
the Water Works and the owner that a subdivision plat was
required. Staff held meetings with Mr. Smith, the City
Manager and other involved persons in an attempt to resolve
this item without public` --hearing. We were unable to achieve
a middle ground which could produce a proper platting
action; therefore, Mr. Smith was instructed to bring his
case to the Commission and present his arguments/
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff view of this issue is that some platting
action should occur on the subject property so as to provide
permanent access for both vehicles and utilities to the
rearmost lots. We believe there is a solution to this
problem without the creation of additional streets or
excessive financial burden on the several owners. Our
recommendation is a denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
At its meeting on August 28, 1986, the Subdivision Committee
discussed this issue at length with Mr. Smith. There were
several offerings made as to resolution of the problem. The
Committee instructed Mr. Smith to review the possibility of
obtaining the services of a civil engineer for purposes of a
reviewing a potential three -lot plat. He was further
advised that if he so desired, he could come to the meeting
on September 9 and present his argument to the full
Commission.
October 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86)
The applicant was not in attendance. There were no
objectors present. After a brief discussion of the
circumstances of this request, the Commission voted on a
motion to defer the matter for a period of 30 days in order
to allow the applicant to determine his course of action.
The vote on the motion was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (10-2-86)
The staff reported on its conversations with Mr. Smith since
the last Planning Commission meeting on September 9. The
report briefly stated that the applicant and his neighbor,
Mr. Ledford, continued to pursue water meters without
involving the remedies offered by both staff and the
Subdivision Committee. Mr. Smith . has furnished a letter to
the Manager's Office through his neighbor, Mr. Ledford,
requesting that administrative relief be granted. This
action follows receipt by Mr. Smith of a letter from staff
advising him that he had the right and opportunity to appear
before the Commission again on October 14th and offer his
request for variance. The staff is discussing this issue of
enforcement, water policy and platting with the City
Attorney's Office in an attempt to gain resolution of the
problems we are experiencing.
October 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-9-86)
The applicant was not in attendance. There were no
objectors present. After a brief discussion of the
circumstances of this request, the Commission voted on a
motion to defer the matter for a period of 30 days in order
to allow the applicant to determine his course of action.
The vote on the motion was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (10-2-86)
The staff reported on its conversations with Mr. Smith since
the last Planning Commission meeting on September 9. The
report briefly stated that the applicant and his neighbor,
Mr. Ledford, continued to pursue water meters without
involving the remedies offered by both staff and the
Subdivision Committee. Mr. Smith has furnished a letter to
the Manager's Office through his neighbor, Mr. Ledford,
requesting that administrative relief be granted. This
action follows receipt by Mr. Smith of a letter from staff
advising him that he had the right and opportunity to appear
before the Commission again on October 14th and offer his
request for variance. The staff is discussing this issue of
enforcement, water policy and platting with the City
Attorney's Office in an attempt to gain resolution of the
problems we are experiencing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-14-86)
Mr. Dennis Smith, the applicant and owner of the property,
was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The
Planning staff made a brief presentation of the issue and
a history. The staff explained the expected product from
the subdivision of the property which would be a three -lot
final plat to be recorded at the County Courthouse providing
for proper title, lot numbers, easements, etc. Mr. Smith
then offered a presentation in support of his request. He
identified issues such as the mobile home lot on the north
having received water at an earlier date. He offered
additional history on his circumstance as to the lot sales
and the arrangement of the parcels. Mr. Smith restated his
October 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
request that he be allowed to have a water meter and that
Mr. Ledford, the other owner in this issue, also be provided
with water service. His request is that he not be required
to provide further platting, subdividing or even surveying
of his lot but that he simply receive extension of water
service. A general discussion of the request followed. A
motion was made to approve the waiver of the Subdivision
Ordinance requirements in order to obtain water meters. The
motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 7 noes, 4 absent.