Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subdivision applicant tells commission he will seek variances for road‑width standards
Summary
Randy Strait presented Step‑2 subdivision plans and proposed a 44‑foot street cross section; he said he will request variances from city standards (82.5‑foot right‑of‑way) and pursue a development agreement to address dedication and maintenance.
Applicant Randy Strait told the Spring City Planning & Zoning Commission he has submitted Step‑2 engineering plans for a proposed subdivision and is seeking guidance on street‑width and dedication requirements.
Strait said the approach road from Main Street is partly within city limits for roughly the first 370 feet and partly in the county. He proposed a 44‑foot right‑of‑way ("24 feet for the actual city street, with 10‑foot easements on either side"), and indicated he intends to designate the internal road as private until the subdivision is looped and the city accepts dedication. "If the planning and zoning doesn't think they can approve it because of that 82‑foot requirement… I would proceed to request a variance," he said.
Commissioners and staff identified three potential code conflicts, including a city specification that dedicated roadways shall not be less than 82½ feet, the county standard of 66 feet for roads outside city limits, and alignment with the city's master street/gridded system. Commissioners urged the applicant to meet with the development review committee and city public‑works staff; the commission recorded no final action on the subdivision and the applicant said he will obtain any necessary variances before proceeding.
Other technical points noted in the discussion: the subdivision plans include two storm‑drain inlets; the existing water main near two homes is 2‑inch and would not be adequate for the development; city staff noted a standard bonding requirement (cited by staff as 110% of street improvements) and the need for engineering review. Several commissioners also advised the applicant to prepare a development agreement specifying dedication timing and financial responsibility for future street improvements.
No final plat approval or formal vote was recorded; the applicant requested that the commission "stop the clock" while he seeks variance relief and completes required reviews.
