Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies variance request to omit sidewalk at County Road 58 parcel
Summary
After hearing from planning staff and the property owner, the council voted 0–7 to deny a subdivision-variance request that would have allowed a commercial plat to record without a sidewalk, citing future development expectations and safety/precedent concerns.
Council heard the subdivision-variance request for a commercial property on County Road 58 during the regular meeting after staff summarized the files and PD&Z’s unfavorable recommendation. Planning staff explained the applicant had pursued county permits and started construction without submitting city plans and that site constraints—drainage ditch, power poles and a monument sign—make placement of a sidewalk challenging.
Owner Gary Momin spoke to council and said the project had been through county review and that site constraints and a drainage easement limit the location for a sidewalk. "We really have a constraint, and then we have a sign, in the middle that we cannot go," Momin told the council and asked that the city allow recording the plat without the sidewalk.
Council members debated precedent and future development in the corridor. Some members noted the area is poised for commercial growth and favored requiring sidewalk connectivity; others raised enforceability concerns about a delayed sidewalk requirement. After discussion the maker and seconder of the motion to grant the variance were asked questions and the council voted. The motion failed: "Motion fails in a 0 2 7 vote," the mayor announced. The council thanked the applicant for appearing.
The vote leaves the city's sidewalk ordinance in effect for that parcel; the applicant may pursue other remedies or revise the submittal for compliance.
