Council approves limited variance for Meadow Creek plat after resident opposition; revised plat required
Loading...
Summary
After resident testimony that proposed Meadow Creek lots did not meet newly adopted R‑1 standards, the City Council approved only a variance for lot depth, denied variances for lot width and area, and asked the developer to return with a revised plat and required plat notes.
The City of Mission council voted to grant a variance only for lot depth for the proposed Meadow Creek subdivision and denied requested variances for lot width and lot area, following public comment that the proposed lots did not meet recently adopted R‑1 standards.
Karen Pruitt, a resident who said she lives at 2101 Month Drive, urged the council to deny the plat approval (item 29). Pruitt presented materials showing neighboring lot sizes and said most nearby homes sit on lots larger than those proposed. She argued the proposed lots were not consistent with surrounding parcels and did not meet the R‑1 minimums the city adopted, and she highlighted street‑parking pressure in the neighborhood.
Planning staff presented maps and explained the proposed subdivision contains 21 lots. Staff said lots on the west side match adjacent development averages, while lots on the east side were smaller than the larger lots backing up to the old golf course. Staff and council members discussed a recent ordinance that set a 5,000 square‑foot minimum for R‑1 lots (adopted April 28), and several council members said they preferred that new standard be honored.
City legal counsel confirmed the council could approve a variance only for the lot depth while denying the other variances and require the applicant to return with a revised plat. Council members also requested that the plat note include a one‑story restriction that had been discussed previously and reminded the developer that new subdivisions must provide two parking spaces per the city code.
Councilmember discussion indicated support for requiring the developer to meet the 5,000‑square‑foot standard where feasible. The motion that carried approved the variance to the lot depth, denied the width and area variances, and stated the plat will be revisited after the applicant submits a revised plan; the vote was unanimous, 5–0.
Public testimony and the council’s action focused on zoning consistency, lot size standards adopted earlier this year, and neighborhood parking impacts. The council directed staff to ensure the revised plat reflects the council’s requirements before it returns for final approval.
