Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Miller Road Sidewalk Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds denial of Miller Road sidewalk waiver after resident objections
Summary
The Springdale City Council left intact a planning commission denial of a waiver request for sidewalk and right-of-way requirements on West Miller Road after hearing neighborhood concerns about sight lines and pedestrian safety and noting the property owner was not present.
Springdale City Council on Tuesday left in place a planning commission denial of a request to waive sidewalk and right-of-way requirements for a lot on West Miller Road, returning the matter to the status quo and requiring the property owner to pursue other remedies if he wishes to proceed.
Why it matters: A developer or property owner seeking to split a lot at 8781 West Miller Road had asked for a waiver of sidewalks and for relief from a dedication-of-right-of-way requirement. Planning staff and the planning commission recommended denial. Neighbors told the council the narrow road, steep dip in grade and limited sight lines make sidewalks — not waivers — the safer outcome.
Gary Goodman, who said he lives at 8825 Crest Lane and is an adjacent landowner, submitted photographs showing the steep dip and limited sight lines on Miller Road and told the council residents walk, run and bike on the road. “I’m against waiving sidewalks and road development there,” Goodman said, citing safety and growing neighborhood traffic as reasons to require sidewalks now rather than later.
Planning staff explained the procedural posture: the variance appeal tied to right-of-way dedication had not been perfected because the city did not receive an affidavit notifying adjacent property owners of the appeal, and the property owner, identified in staff materials as Hunter Hart, was not present at the council hearing. Staff noted a “bill of assurance” (a recorded obligation) can be used in some cases to defer improvements for a set period, but that requires agreement and documentation from the property owner.
Council discussion included whether to approve a waiver, grant a bill of assurance, or require the owner to proceed with the standard improvements. A motion to table the item failed to produce a final change; ultimately the planning commission’s denial of the variance stood and no sidewalk waiver was granted.
Ending: Staff told council members that if the owner wants to pursue the same variance later, the ordinance requires a 12-month wait unless facts warrant reconsideration and the owner completes the required procedural filings.
