Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0208-B Staff AnalysisJune 26, 1997 ITEM NAME: Bristow Subdivision Replat DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Jane Bristow 14,600 Cooper Orbit Road Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 6.99 acres ZONING• R-2 LE NO.: S-208-B Pat McGetrick McGetrick Engineering 11,225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72211 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES DEFERRAL REQUESTED: Y Waiver of street improvements for Cooper Orbit Road A. PROPOSAL: To subdivide 6.99 acres into two residential lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area to be subdivided is vacant and wooded. There are scattered single family homes along Cooper Orbit Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: This item was referred to the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association. Staff has received no public comment on this preliminary plat. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline for frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1 and A-2 for this minor arterial. 2. Construct 1/ of street improvements for frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1, and A-2 to minor arterial standards including sidewalk. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION .. 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B 4. Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 5. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Section 31-403. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way be submitted for approval -prior to -start of work. 7. Cooper Orbit has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 990. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service area affected. AP&L: No Comment. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Execution of a pre -annexation agreement and approval of the City will be required prior to obtaining water service. Pro rata front footage charges of $15/foot and acreage charge of $300/acre apply in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: No response. CATA• N/A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Issues• None Planning Division: N/A Landscape: N/A G. ANALYSIS• This applicant was granted a previous 3 lot preliminary plat on this site. A waiver of boundary and street improvements was granted as part of that September 9, 1986 Planning Commission action. The applicant now seeks to replat this property and create additional residential lots. She has again requested a waiver of street improvements on Cooper Orbit Road. Public Works Department may wish to comment on this waiver request. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the replat subject to conditions in paragraphs D and E of this report. Planning Staff does not support the request to waiver boundary and street improvements. Granting of a waiver would be the second for this applicant. 2 June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997) Pat McGetrick presented the replat to the Committee. Planning Staff requested the follow changes to the exhibit: • Show footprints of all existing structures. • Name of adjacent owners and zoning • Developers' name and address on plat • Topographic information on plat may be incorrect • Addresses of existing house within plat. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the item to the Planning Commission meeting on June 26, 1997 for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997) The Chairman recognized Mr. Jones of the Staff and asked that he present this item. Mr. Jones briefly identified the request as a two lot replat out a 7+ acre parcel. He stated that the staff supports the application and recommends the plat; however, the issue here to be dealt with by the Commission is the request for waiver of street improvements and dedication which is attached to this replat. These improvements and dedication would be for Cooper Orbit Road frontage. Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the previous platting on this property stating that there were originally some exceptions made when this original holding was divided into two large parcels and that the original Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements were for collector street at that time. In the intervening years, the Master Street Plan has been modified and the street is now a minor arterial. He stated that he believed that the original waivers or exceptions were made based upon the fact that there were only two lots out of the original holding and there would possibly not be.additional subdivision of the property. However, the owner is now before the Commission asking that the property be extended to four lots. Mr. Jones closed his remarks by stating the staff recommendations of approval for the plat and denial of the waivers as requested. He then pointed out to the Commission that Mr. Pat McGetrick, engineer of record, on this project was in attendance at today's meeting and could speak to these issues. Mr. McGetrick came to the microphone and presented his client's case. He begin by stating that the issue before the Commission today as he understood it was reduced to a 7+ acre parcel being divided into two lots and that two of the ownerships were already in the hands of others and beyond the control of these applicants. He indicated as did Mr. Jones that these several lots that were on the original holding by the applicant have a significant frontage along 3 June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. McGetrick stated that the way the lots were originally divided with one lot excised from the middle of the ownership leaving a wrap around parcel. So that what they are doing here is trying to clean that up and create one lot on each side of the existing lot that has been sold which is Lot 2 of Bristow Subdivision and recorded Lots A-1 and A-2 would be created out of this larger tract. He pointed out that this plat is for single family development. The Chairman then asked if there were others present which wish to speak for the application. There was a brief discussion with one gentleman present that had not filled out a card. He was instructed to do so. The gentleman identified and came forward and offered some comments to do with access to the property the point at which access would be taken and from what road. A response"was from Cooper Orbit �l The owner then came forward and identified herself and proceeded to tell the Commission the history related to having sold a portion of this property to a gentleman that proposes to build a residence upon it. The history is related to attempting to obtain water service. She also stated that this person did not propose to buy the entire 7 acres but that he would purchase the larger portion and leaving approximately two acres that her family would build a home on. A lengthy discussion then followed involving both staff, Commission, the applicant and Mr. McGetrick attempting to identify which parcels were owned by what parties and which lots were proposed to be platted at this time. Once the Commission, applicant and staff became comfortable with exactly what had been proposed in this plat, the Chairman then asked if there were comments from the commissioners. There being none by others, Chairman Lichty asked if Mr. Maxwell is the current owner of part of the proposed plat, and the size. The owner responded to Chairman Lichty's question by stating that the lot that the gentleman is buying or has purchased for his home site is a little over 5 acres. The balance would be her homesite and to further clarify her answer. She stated that 5.2 acres has already been sold. Mr. Jones stated that the sale of the lot in the division is what caused this action. The sale was in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Chairman then asked the gentleman that identified himself as Mr. Maxwell to come forward and answer questions of the Commission. The question posed to Mr. Maxwell was would their just be one residence built upon the 5+ acres that he has apparently purchased. The response was yes there would be one. Mr. Maxwell identified the property that he is purchasing as being somewhat hilly and that the house that he proposes to build would be right on top of that land mass. Again, a lengthy discussion followed involving all of the 4 June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B parties present. The Chairman at this point recognized Commissioner Rahman. Commissioner Rahman stated that he would like to hear the comments of David Scherer, of the Public Works Department. Mr. Scherer then came forward and offered a history of the property as he understood it explaining the Public Works Department's position relative to a tradeoff. The tradeoff being that if the applicant would gain the additional right-of-way across both the lots she currently owns and the parcel she has sold, dedicate that to the city, the Public Works Department would support a conditional waiver of the street improvements required for the arterial street on all of the lots. This recommendation with the understanding that, two of the parcels fronting the road this owner no longer controls or has an ownership relationship. At this point, a discussion was had concerning a proportional relationship between the city's assessment of improvements and right-of-way on a project and the kind of improvements or value that would be assessed against. There was no specific resolution of that issue. One point of clarification offered by Mr. Scherer is that what the City is offering, is swapping the street improvement requirements for obtaining the full right-of-way for the arterial street. A lengthy discussion involving whether or not the two outlot owners had been involved properly, whether they had been instructed to what was proposed and what the City's requirements were. It produced a response from the owner saying that she was not sure that these owners understood the issue but that some contact had been made. The point made by the owner was that it was not her responsibility to go to these owners and ask that they involve themselves in dedicating right-of-way to extract her from the circumstances in which she is involved. At the end of this lengthy discussion, someone suggested perhaps a deferral might be in order. A specific time for deferral was then discussed. The deferral discussion also entered the area of discussing the appropriate value for in -lieu and how you would assess such against this property. Mr. Jones,' of the Staff, suggested that attempting to work this out with the various problems presented indicates that a deferral was perhaps in order and that staff, with all of the various parties, attempt to work something out and then bring that back to the Commission for final decision. The Chairman then directed a comment to the applicant that the Commission could at this time proceed to vote on this issue in a state of flux or that a deferral could be accomplished. A brief discussion then proceeded to determine how the issue would be handled by staff in the approach to outlots that had been sold. The appropriate materials and the persons to discuss the issue and much specifically that someone from the City should be involved in that. Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, indicated that staff would happy 5 June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont. FILE NO.: 5-208-H to participate in any discussions. A motion was then made to defer (to August 7th) this item and follow-up on the previous discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 6 August 7, ,1997 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-208-B NAME: Bristow Subdivision Replat DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Jane Bristow Pat McGetrick 14,600 Cooper Orbit Road McGetrick Engineering Little Rock, AR 72211 11,225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 6.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES/DEFERRAL REQUESTED: ■ Waiver of street improvements for Cooper Orbit Road A. PROPOSAL: To subdivide 6.99 acres into two residential lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area to be subdivided is vacant and wooded. There are scattered single family homes along Cooper Orbit Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: This item was referred to the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association. Staff has received no public comment on this preliminary plat. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline for frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1 and A-2 for this minor arterial. 2. Construct % of street improvements for frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1, and A-2 to minor arterial standards including sidewalk. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. August 7, ,1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cant.) FILE NO.: S_208-B 4. Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 5. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Section 31-403. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7.Cooper Orbit has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 990. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service area affected. AP&L: No Comment. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Execution of -a pre -annexation agreement and approval of the City will be required prior to obtaining water service. Pro rata front footage charges of $15/foot and acreage charge of $300/acre apply in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: No response. CATA• N/A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Issues• None Planning Division: N/A Landscape: N/A G. ANALYSIS: This applicant was granted a previous 3 lot preliminary plat on this site. A waiver of boundary and street improvements was granted as part of that September 9, 1986 Planning Commission action. The applicant now seeks to replat this property and create additional residential lots. She has again requested a waiver of street improvements on Cooper Orbit Road. Public Works Department may wish to comment on this waiver request. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the replat subject to conditions in paragraphs D and E of this report. Planning Staff does not support the request to waiver boundary and street improvements. Granting of a waiver would be the second for this applicant. 2 August 7, ;L997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997) Pat McGetrick presented the replat to the Committee. Planning Staff requested the follow changes to the exhibit: • Show footprints of all existing structures. • Name of adjacent owners and zoning • Developers' name and address on plat • Topographic information on plat may be incorrect • Addresses of existing house within plat. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the item to the Planning Commission meeting on June 26, 1997 for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997) The Chairman recognized Mr. Jones of the Staff and asked that he present this item. Mr. Jones briefly identified the request as a two lot replat out a 7+ acre parcel. He stated that the staff supports the application and recommends the plat; however, the issue here to be dealt with by the Commission is the request for waiver of street improvements and dedication which is attached to this replat. These improvements and dedication would be for Cooper Orbit Road frontage. Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the previous platting on this property stating that there were originally some exceptions made when this original holding was divided into two large parcels and that the original Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements were for collector street at that time. In the intervening years, the Master Street Plan has been modified and the street is now a minor arterial. He stated that he believed that the original waivers or exceptions were made based upon the fact that there were only two lots out of the original holding and there would possibly not be additional subdivision of the property. However, the owner is now before the Commission asking that the property be extended to four lots. Mr. Jones closed his remarks by stating the staff recommendations of approval for the plat and denial of the waivers as requested. He then pointed out to the Commission that Mr. Pat McGetrick, engineer of record, on this project was in attendance at today's meeting and could speak to these issues. Mr. McGetrick came to the microphone and presented his client's case. He begin by stating that the issue before the Commission today as he understood it was reduced to a 7+ acre parcel being divided into two lots and that two of the ownerships were already in the hands of others and beyond the control of these applicants. He indicated as did Mr. Jones that these several lots that were on the original holding by the applicant have a significant frontage along 3 August 7, .1997 SUBDIVISION Cont. FILE NO.: S-208-B Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. McGetrick stated that the way the lots were originally divided with one lot excised from the middle of the ownership leaving a wrap around parcel. So that what they are doing here is trying to clean that up and create one lot on each side of the existing lot that has been sold which is Lot 2 of Bristow Subdivision and recorded Lots A-1 and A-2 would be created out of this larger tract. He pointed out that this plat is for single family development. The Chairman then asked if there were others present which wish to speak for the application. There was a brief discussion with one gentleman present that had not filled out a card. He was instructed to do so. The gentleman identified and came forward and offered some comments to do with access to the property the point at which access would be taken and from what road. A response was from Cooper Orbit. The owner then came forward and identified herself and proceeded to tell the Commission the history related to having sold a portion of this property to a gentleman that proposes to build a residence upon it. The history is related to attempting to obtain water service. She also stated that this person did not propose to buy the entire 7 acres but that he would purchase the larger portion and leaving approximately two acres that her family would build a home on. A lengthy discussion then followed involving both staff, Commission, the applicant and Mr. McGetrick attempting to identify which parcels were owned by what parties and which lots were proposed to be platted at this time. Once the Commission, applicant and staff became comfortable with exactly what had been proposed in this plat, the Chairman then asked if there were comments from the commissioners. There being none by others, Chairman Lichty asked if Mr. Maxwell is the current owner of part of the proposed plat, and the size. The owner responded to Chairman Lichty's question by stating that the lot that the gentleman is buying or has purchased for his home site is a little over 5 acres. The balance would be her homesite and to further clarify her answer. She stated that 5.2 acres has already been sold. Mr. Jones stated that the sale of the lot in the division is what caused this action. The sale was in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Chairman then asked the gentleman that identified himself as Mr. Maxwell to come forward and answer questions of the Commission. The question posed to Mr. Maxwell was would their just be one residence built upon the 5+ acres that he has apparently purchased. The response was yes there would be one. Mr. Maxwell identified the property that he is purchasing as being somewhat hilly and that the house that he proposes to build would be right on top of that land mass. Again, a lengthy discussion followed involving all of the 4 August•7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208--B parties present. The Chairman at this point recognized Commissioner Rahman. Commissioner Rahman stated that he would like to hear the comments of David Scherer, of the Public Works Department. Mr. Scherer then came forward and offered a history of the property as he understood it explaining the Public Works Department's position relative to a tradeoff. The tradeoff being that if the applicant would gain the additional right-of-way across both the lots she currently owns and the parcel she has sold, dedicate that to the city, the Public Works Department would support a conditional waiver of the street improvements required for the arterial street on all of the lots. This recommendation with the understanding that, two of the parcels fronting the road this owner no longer controls or has an ownership relationship. At this point, a discussion was had concerning a proportional relationship between the city's assessment of improvements and right-of-way on a project and the kind of improvements or value that would be assessed against. There was no specific resolution of that issue. One point of clarification offered by Mr. Scherer is that what the City is offering, is swapping the street improvement requirements for obtaining the full right-of-way for the arterial street. A lengthy discussion involving whether or not the two outlot owners had been involved properly, whether they had been instructed to what was proposed and what the City's requirements were. It produced a response from the owner saying that she was not sure that these owners understood the issue but that some contact had been made. The point made by the owner was that it was not her responsibility to go to these owners and ask that they involve themselves in dedicating right-of-way to extract her from the circumstances in which she is involved. At the end of this lengthy discussion, someone suggested perhaps a deferral might be in order. A specific time for deferral was then discussed. The deferral discussion also entered the area of discussing the appropriate value for in -lieu and how you would assess such against this property. Mr. Jones, of the Staff, suggested that attempting to work this out with the various problems presented indicates that a deferral was perhaps in order and that staff, with all of the various parties, attempt to work something out and then bring that back to the Commission for final decision. The Chairman then directed a comment to the applicant that the Commission could at this time proceed to vote on this issue in a state of flux or that a deferral could be accomplished. A brief discussion then proceeded to determine how the issue would be handled by staff in the approach to outlots that had been sold. The appropriate materials and the persons to discuss the issue and much specifically that someone from the City should be involved in that. Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, indicated that staff would happy 5 August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B to participate in any discussions. A motion was then made to defer (to August 7th) this item and follow-up on the previous discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE• The Staff of the Planning Office has had one telephone contact with one of outparcel lots expected to dedicate right-of-way. This person indicated they were not interested in giving up 15 feet and were somewhat irritated at this applicant's comments on the subject. David Scherer of Public Works and Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, have had further discussions and more information is being developed. r .Augusts 7, 1997 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-208-B NAME: Bristow Subdivision Replat DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Jane Bristow Pat McGetrick 14,600 Cooper Orbit Road McGetrick Engineering Little Rock, AR 72211 11,225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 6.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES/DEFERRAL REQUESTED: ■ Waiver of street improvements for Cooper Orbit Road A. PROPOSAL: To subdivide 6.99 acres into two residential lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area to be subdivided is vacant and wooded. There are scattered single family homes along Cooper Orbit Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: This item was referred to the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association. Staff has received no public comment on this preliminary plat. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline for frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1 and A-2 for this minor arterial. 2. Construct % of street improvements for frontage of Lots 1, 2, A-1, and A-2 to minor arterial standards including sidewalk. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Aucjust+ 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B 4. Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 5. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Section 31-403. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7. Cooper Orbit has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 990. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service area affected. AP&L: No Comment. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Execution of a pre -annexation agreement and approval of the City will be required prior to obtaining water service. Pro rata front footage charges of $15/foot and acreage charge of $300/acre apply in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: No response. CATA• N/A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Issues• None Planning Division: N/A Landscape: N/A G. ANALYSIS• This applicant was granted a previous 3 lot preliminary plat on this site. A waiver of boundary and street improvements was granted as part of that September 9, 1986 Planning Commission action. The applicant now seeks to replat this property and create additional residential lots. She has again requested a waiver of street improvements on Cooper Orbit Road. Public Works Department may wish to comment on this waiver request. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the replat subject to conditions in paragraphs D and E of this report. Planning Staff does not support the request to waiver boundary and street improvements. Granting of a waiver would be the second for this applicant. August'7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997) Pat McGetrick presented the replat to the Committee. Planning Staff requested the follow changes to the exhibit: • Show footprints of all existing structures. • Name of adjacent owners and zoning • Developers' name and address on plat • Topographic information on plat may be incorrect • Addresses of existing house within plat. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the item to the Planning Commission meeting on June 26, 1997 for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997) The Chairman recognized Mr. Jones of the Staff and asked that he present this item. Mr. Jones briefly identified the request as a two lot replat out a 7+ acre parcel. He stated that the staff supports the application and recommends the plat; however, the issue here to be dealt with by the Commission is the request for waiver of street improvements and dedication which is attached to this replat. These improvements and dedication would be for Cooper Orbit Road frontage. Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the previous platting on this property stating that there were originally some exceptions made when this original holding was divided into two large parcels and that the original Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements were for collector street at that time. In the intervening years, the Master Street Plan has been modified and the street is now a minor arterial. He stated that he believed that the original waivers or exceptions were made based upon the fact that there were only two lots out of the original holding and there would possibly not be additional subdivision of the property. However, the owner is now before the Commission asking that the property be extended to four lots. Mr. Jones closed his remarks by stating the staff recommendations of approval for the plat and denial of the waivers as requested. He then pointed out to the Commission that Mr. Pat McGetrick, engineer of record, on this project was in attendance at today's meeting and could speak to these issues. Mr. McGetrick came to the microphone and presented his client's case. He begin by stating that the issue before the Commission today as he understood it was reduced to a 7+ acre parcel being divided into two lots and that two of the ownerships were already in the hands of others and beyond the control of these applicants. He indicated as did Mr. Jones that these several lots that were on the original holding by the applicant have a significant frontage along 3 August '7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. McGetrick stated that the way the lots were originally divided with one lot excised from the middle of the ownership leaving a wrap around parcel. So that what they are doing here is trying to clean that up and create one lot on each side of the existing lot that has been sold which is Lot 2 of Bristow Subdivision and recorded Lots A-1 and A-2 would be created out of this larger tract. He pointed out that this plat is for single family development. The Chairman then asked if there were others present which wish to speak for the application. There was a brief discussion with one gentleman present that had not filled out a card. He was instructed to do so. The gentleman identified and came forward and offered some comments to do with access to the property the point at which access would be taken and from what road. A response was from Cooper Orbit. The owner then came forward and identified herself and proceeded to tell the Commission the history related to having sold a portion of this property to a gentleman that proposes to build a residence upon it. The history is related to attempting to obtain water service. She also stated that this person did not propose to buy the entire 7 acres but that he would purchase the larger portion and leaving approximately two acres that her family would build a home on. A lengthy discussion then followed involving both staff, Commission, the applicant and Mr. McGetrick attempting to identify which parcels were owned by what parties and which lots were proposed to be platted at this time. Once the Commission, applicant and staff became comfortable with exactly what had been proposed in this plat, the Chairman then asked if there were comments from the commissioners. There being none by others, Chairman Lichty asked if Mr. Maxwell is the current owner of part of the proposed plat, and the size. The owner responded to Chairman Lichty's question by stating that the -lot that the gentleman is buying or has purchased for his home site is a little over 5 acres. The balance would be her homesite and to further clarify her answer. She stated that 5.2 acres has already been sold. Mr. Jones stated that the sale of the lot in the division is what caused this action. The sale was in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Chairman then asked the gentleman that identified himself as Mr. Maxwell to come forward and answer questions of the Commission. The question posed to Mr. Maxwell was would their just be one residence built upon the 5+ acres that he has apparently purchased. The response was yes there would be one. Mr. Maxwell identified the property that he is purchasing as being somewhat hilly and that the house that he proposes to build would be right on top of that land mass. Again, a lengthy discussion followed involving all of the 4 August 7, 1:997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B parties present. The Chairman at this point recognized Commissioner Rahman . Commissioner Rahman stated that he would like to hear the comments of David Scherer, of the Public Works Department. Mr. Scherer then came forward and offered a history of the property as he understood it explaining the Public Works Department's position relative to a tradeoff. The tradeoff being that if the applicant would gain the additional right-of-way across both the lots she currently owns and the parcel she has sold, dedicate that to the city, the Public Works Department would support a conditional waiver of the street improvements required for the arterial street on all of the lots. This recommendation with the understanding that, two of the parcels fronting the road this owner no longer controls or has an ownership relationship. At this point, a discussion was had concerning a proportional relationship between the city's assessment of improvements and right-of-way on a project and the kind of improvements or value that would be assessed against. There was no specific resolution of that issue. One point of clarification offered by Mr. Scherer is that what the City is offering, is swapping the street improvement requirements for obtaining the full right-of-way for the arterial street. A lengthy discussion involving whether or not the two outlot owners had been involved properly, whether they had been instructed to what was proposed and what the City's requirements were. It produced a response from the owner saying that she was not sure that these owners understood the issue but that some contact had been made. The point made by the owner was that it was not her responsibility to go to these owners and ask that they involve themselves in dedicating right-of-way to extract her from the circumstances in which she is involved. At the end of this lengthy discussion, someone suggested perhaps a deferral might be in order. A specific time for deferral was then discussed. The deferral discussion also entered the area of discussing the appropriate value for in -lieu and how you would assess such against this property. Mr. Jones, of the Staff, suggested that attempting to work this out with the various problems presented indicates that a deferral was perhaps in order and that staff, with all of the various parties, attempt to work something out and then bring that back to the Commission for final decision. The Chairman then directed a comment to the applicant that the Commission could at this time proceed to vote on this issue in a state of flux or that a deferral could be accomplished. A brief discussion then proceeded to determine how the issue would be handled by staff in the approach to outlots that had been sold. The appropriate materials and the persons to discuss the issue and much specifically that someone from the City should be involved in that. Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, indicated that staff would happy 5 August, 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B to participate in any discussions. A motion was then made to defer (to August 7th) this item and follow-up on the previous discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The Staff of the Planning Office has had one telephone contact with one of outparcel lots expected to dedicate right-of-way. This person indicated they were not interested in giving up 15 feet and were somewhat irritated at this applicant's comments on the subject. David Scherer of Public Works and Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, have had further discussions and more information is being developed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Chairman asked that staff present the case and its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, presented a brief history of the item. Wood indicated the primary reason for the deferral on the last occasion was to permit the owner and Public Works and other staff to work out the issue of roadway dedication for Cooper Orbit Road. Wood closed his comments by stating that staff recommends approval of the plat as it is in good order. The Chair then recognized Mr. David Scherer, of Public Works. He came forward at Wood's suggestion to offer what the staff deems to be equitable solution to the requirements for improvements and/or right-of-way dedication. Scherer stated that he would rather hear from the applicant what they were offering relative to the requirements rather than offer his presentation at this time. The Chair asked Mrs. Bristow to come forward and speak on the issue. Mrs. Bristow offered a lengthy commentary on what she understood was the reason for deferral at the last meeting and what she expects will be the result of meetings between the City and property owners. Mrs. Bristow then moved her comments to updating the issue by stating since the last meeting she has been successful in gaining the involvement of one of the two outparcels. Mr. Jim Alberson, the owner of the easternmost lot in the plat, committing to her that he would dedicate the required 15 feet. Mrs. Bristow stated that Mr. Alberson owns a total of 430 feet of frontage on Cooper Orbit Road. She then moved her commentary to additional history of the plat. She offered a lengthy commentary on the appraisal that she had accomplished on the various sites within this plat offering the dollar values that had been reported to her. Concluding those specific remarks, she indicated that she was in a position to offer the value of the purchase of the additional 15 feet from the non -participating 6 August 7■ 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont..) FILE NO.: 5-208-B parcel based upon the appraisals offered. Prior to concluding her remarks, Mrs. Bristow responded to a question as to Mr. Alberson's involvement. She responded by saying that he had committed to this dedication only if this plat and her request goes through the Commission and is approved. The Chair then recognized a gentleman, Mr. Chet Maxwell, who advised from the audience that he had nothing further to add. Mr. Maxwell is apparently the gentleman who has acquired the acreage from Mrs. Bristow which has created this plat circumstance. The Chair then passed discussion to the Commission and asked if there were questions. The Chair then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works. Scherer came forward with a graphic to illustrate the plat and the various circumstances attached to the plat. Scherer offered a lengthy discussion of the issue and the several possible dollar amounts and figures that Public Works was offering as potential in -lieu. This is based upon a 15% hardship in -lieu contribution. He stated that it adds up to be about $15,000. He again restated Public Works' original offer that if the applicant would provide all of the 15 foot dedication for all of the frontage, then Public Works would support a hardship waiver of the street improvements. Scherer concluded his remarks by stating that Public Works would approve a final plat with a contribution of $4,690 as in -lieu and include the dedication of right-of-way on Lot 1, Mr. Alberson's lot. Scherer stated that he believes this is quite close to what the applicant was discussing. The discussion then moved back to Mrs. Bristow. She and the Chairman briefly discussed the involvement of the owner of Lot 2. The result of that brief conversation being there is an understanding the owner of this lot does not desire to contribute to this plat effort through the dedication of property for right- of-way. She did state that in a conversation of Monday this week with this gentleman she had offered to purchase the 15 feet at the appraised amount which then would be dedicated with this plat. She stated that his response was no. Apparently, this indicates he is not willing to sell part of his property. The Chairman then asked David Scherer, of Public Works, to return to the lectern and clarify once again the Public Works' recommendation. He stated first off the dedication of right-of- way on Lot 1, the contribution of $4,690 as in -lieu contribution to Cooper Orbit Road, in -lieu of boundary street improvements. Discussion then followed between Chairman Lichty and David Scherer concerning Lots 1 and 2 and their relationship to attempting to gain right-of-way and provide improvements. Scherer again stated for the record that Public Works would have supported waiving street improvements if they had received dedication from both Lots 1 and 2 as was suggested thereby giving VA August '7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-208-B a 15 feet dedication for the entire frontage of this plat. Public Works would have supported a hardship waiver of the street improvements, thereby allowing this plat without the construction of roadway. The Chairman again addressed a question to Mr. Lawson, of the Staff, what is your recommendation? Lawson responded by stating that the contribution stated by David Scherer of $4,690 plus the dedication of right-of-way on Lot 1 as offered by the gentleman and approval of the preliminary plat. A lengthy discussion then followed involving several commissioners, David Scherer, and others. The discussion meandered from the various parcels and who owns what land and the location of the roadway to be involved. Out of this conversation, Chairman Lichty asked who is going to pay the $4,690. Scherer said the applicant would since she is the subdivider of the property and required to provide dedication and the improvements. Another lengthy discussion involving the Chairman and Mrs. Bristow resulting in her responding to his question about paying the $4,690. Mrs. Bristow stated that the money is not there. At this point, she introduced a conversation about a plat previously approved by the Commission on Kanis Road approximately an half mile or more to the east. Her point being that person was not required to dedicate or build any street improvements. Another lengthy conversation followed involving Commissioner Putnam and David Scherer. This conversation resulted in Scherer stating that, should the applicant not be forthcoming with the dedication of right-of-way on Lot 1 and a provision of the in - lieu of $4,690 for Cooper Orbit Road. Then, Public Works, recommendation is an in -lieu contribution of $15,000. At this point, a brief conversation between the Chairman and Commissioner Hawn concerned whether the vote should be first on the plat or the waiver. It was determined that a motion offered by Commissioner Hawn on the approval of the plat as filed should be voted upon first. The motion to approve the plat as submitted was the Chairman declared that motion to be approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. Another lengthy discussion followed involving the applicant and several commissioners. A question was posed to David Scherer and he responded, "if the waiver of street improvements fails, the dedication of the right-of-way from this plat plus the Master Street Plan requirements for construction of Cooper Orbit Road including curbs, gutters and sidewalks would apply." At this point, another lengthy discussion involving the applicant and David Scherer about the misunderstanding the applicant had 8 Au6rust '7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-208-B about what Public Works was going to support. Again David Scherer restated Public Works' position. At this point, the Chairman determined the Commission had spent sufficient time and had sufficient information on this issue and it needed to move along. The Chairman then recognized a motion that the Commission recommend waiver of street improvements on Cooper Orbit Road. The motion was seconded and failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 nays and 3 absent.