Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-01 RESOLUTIONa RESOLUTION NO. 34-01 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LESSER DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY AS REQUIRED BY MASTER STREET PLAN FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby authorizes a lesser dedication of right of way than required by the Master Street Plan for Large Scale Development (LS) 01-4.00 Lot Split by the Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2282 S. School Street. The lesser dedication is necessary because the existing building encroaches upon what would be the required dedication of right of way which shall be adjusted so that the building does not encroach upon the city's right of way. F 4Yt,, PASSED AND APPROVED this Pe day of March, 2001. APPROVED: By: L2a/4 AT EST: By:,t, S'>r/? eather Woodruff, City Clerk DAN COODY, May NAME OF FILE: Resolution No. 34-01 CROSS REFERENCE: 03/20/01 Resolution No. 34-01 02/26/01 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 3-10) 02/06/01 Blew & Associates (Surveyors) (survey sheet) 02/22/01 Planning Division Correspondence 02/20/01 Departmental Memo to Planning Commission from Chuck Rutherford regarding Sidewalk Requirement 02/22/01 Letter to Sara Edwards, Planning Division, from David E. Lashley 03/20/01 Staff Review Form 04/03/01 Departmental Memo from City Clerk NOTES: • RECrEIVED MAR 2 9 2001• • DAVID E. LASHLEY, TRUSTEE MARY PAULINE REED TRUST 111 N. CHURECH AVE. FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Ms. Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Fayetteville City Council 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, Ar 72701 Re: Mary Pauline Reed Trust Lot Split -2283 S. School (LS 01-4.00) Dear Ms. Woodruff: I was told that I should write to you regardiiSg a matter for the Council to consider. I am very naive about this matter but having met with the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Com- mission, each time learning a little more about my dilemna. When Mary Pauline Reed died August 8, 2000, as Trustee I assumed the responsibility of managing and disposing of her property. The leasee of the shop builing was interested in buying the building he was leasing, but he didn't want to purchase all of the property which included two houses on an adjoining 2.5 acres. The advice I received was that I needed to apply for a lot split, which required that I survey the property to make the divison. I met with the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission. I was totally uninformed about the requirements of the ordinances applicable to this matter. I learned a lot from the meeting with the committee, but I was still not completely sure of what was to be done. I then met with the Planning Commission, and by the time I presented my request for waivers of the right-of-way dedication and the sidewalk requirements as well, I think the conclusion based on staff recommendations and interpretaion of the ordinances was already determined. c -/az .3V-01 After that meeting, I conluded that the only option I had was to appeal to the City Council for waivers from the right-of-way dedication and sidewalk requirements. I planned to appear on March the 20th at the Council Meeting, but I had a family emer- gency and needed to leave town. I found out when talking with Vice -Mayor, Bob Davis, and Tim Conklin that the only item to be considered was the right-of-way waiver, nothing on the sidewalk matter. I was also advised that the time for appealing the action of the Planning Commission had expired. I had no idea that there was this requirement. I am still somewhat confused about what exact- ly the sidewalk requirements will be. My understanding is that when I file deeds for transfer, I will then learn what �.r��l�opw I will have to pay. I need to know before that. pp Iv C U {BAR CIT L JrFEVILLE CIN CLERKS OFFICE • . .. • • • • • The reason I am at this point is because I wish to dispose of the property to someone who wants it, will keep it in repair, and use it. The buyer interested in the garage building and one-half of an acre(less the right -of way dedication) has left me with the need to seek a "lot split" in order to sell him the one-half acre. Now comes the City and requires a deed for approximately fifteen feet off the front of the property. In addition, a sidewalk has to be built, and an extension to a culvert or bridge. But this requires a waiver because the fifteen feet would take part of the building and the sidewalk would also go through the building. The irony of the whole matter is that this is not necessary, if I do nothing or if I sell the property in total. That means to me that I am being penalized for trying to make the property use- able, even though no change in the improvements on the propety are anticipated except for maintenance and repairs. A building permit would be required, if changes were to be made. As I understand the recommendation of the Planning Commission/Staff is that I will have to provide a sidewalk ac - cross the front of both parcels if split, deed the fifteen feet off the front, and provide a sewer easement. If I do nothing and leave the property as is, this is not required. In fact, if I sell the whole piece_ of property, it is not required. If you were in my place, would you accept these requirements? You may be asking at this point, what do you want us to do? Well, at the very least, relief from requiring construction of a sidewalk or contribution of cash until the 2.5 acre lot is sold, and that the City build the culvert for drainage as well as make the determination of sewer requirements. It seems inappropriate to build a sidewalk for 245 feet when there is no other sidewalk along this street/highway. It also seems inappropriate that the taking is not compensated for by the City. Whatever you do, I will need to reconsider my options and hope that my decision is responsible in discharging my position of trust. Yours very truly, David E. Lashl Trustee, Mary Paul- ine Reed Trust • • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 3 New Business: LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) was submitted by David E. Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0.51 acres. Odom: That brings us to new business tonight and the first item that we have under new business is a Lot Split. This was submitted by David E Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0.51 acres. Staff's recommendation is for approval subject to six conditions of approval. Staff, do we have a signed Condition of Approval? Conklin: No, we do not. Odom: Do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no additional conditions. Odom: I'll ask the applicant to please come forward. Lashly: Chairman Odom and Commissioners, I think you have a copy of my letter of request. I think you have anything that I would want to say about this. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Okay. As far as that goes, let's do public comment and then we'll bring it back for questions and so forth. I'd ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this lot split request, please come forward at this time. Please state your name for the record and then your comments. Reynolds: My name is Ray Reynolds, I'm an attomey here in Fayetteville. I represent John and Cindy Meares There may be something attached to your information that came from the Subdivision Committee down below. I don't know if there is or not. I'm not here to speak in opposition of the lot split. My clients basically will be in favor of doing the lot split. They just want to go on record saying there is a discrepancy between the north and south lines of the boundaries as far as the Meares property is concerned and Phu, • • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 4 what the trust property owns. I realize this is not the proper forum to do anything about it but I just want to go on the record simply as I talked to Conrad before so if I didn't come here, somebody wouldn't say you should have gone to the Planning Commission and had them look at it before you went on. This is more or less " cover yourself up" kind of stuff to make sure we've done what we were supposed to do. We do not oppose the lot split in any way, shape or form, my clients don't. They just want to alert you, it may well be a result that there may be some kind of lot line adjustment that may have to be done later on. So, I just want to go on record as letting you all know that's out there for whatever it's worth. I will answer any questions that you have. I don't expect that there will be any but that's my only purpose in being here. Odom: Staff, do you have any comment with regard to that issue, we see that occasionally. Conklin: With regard to when there is a dispute between property lines based on surveys, that's something that is a civil matter that the two landowners have to work out between them or through the courts. Odom. That's is something that his client can be protected later on, there is nothing that we need to do to address that tonight. Conklin: That is correct. Odom: There is no reason that we can't hear the lot split because of that issue? Conklin: The property is zoned C-2 with regard to minimum lot area and frontage requirements, there are none so even if there has to be a property line adjustment it should not impact this lot split request tonight. Odom: Thank you Ray. Reynolds: Thank you. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Would any other member of the audience like to address us on this lot split request? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant. Mr. Lashly, come on back up here for questions and comment. The first question I have is, whether or not you've had the opportunity to review the six conditions of approval and whether or not you are in agreement with those? • • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 5 Lashly: I have reviewed the conditions and I have requested a waiver from the setback requirements and some exception because of the small tract that will be affected, the half acre. It Just wouldn't be appropnate to try to build a sidewalk there. I thought the staff had looked at that and I thought we were going to get more information on that. That's the only thing I have. Odom. You don't agree with the sidewalk and you are asking for a waiver of that provision? Lashly: Yes. I understand where you are coming from. My only purpose is to try to get the property in somebody's hands that can use it or develop it or do something. Right now it's being occupied by people who are passing through and it's difficult to keep them out of there. Somebody needs to protect the property. Odom. Staff do you want to comment on the sidewalk requirement? Conklin: Sure. We do have Chuck Rutherford here, our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. On page 1.4 he did send us a memo with a recommendation on that. It basically states, "Sidewalk and Trails Division is currently moving forward with an ordinance that will allow the City to collect money instead of a required sidewalk. The money would be used to construct a sidewalk where it would function better for the citizens of Fayetteville. At present, at this location, one of the existing buildings will be in the new right-of-way. Because of the present conditions at the location of this lot split I recommend collecting the money instead of requiring the sidewalk to be built. If this ordinance does not receive City Council approval, then this lot split will need to come back to the Subdivision Committee." Basically, what we are saying tonight is we do have an ordinance in the works to allow a person splitting property to contribute money in lieu of actually constructing that sidewalk and that's our recommendation. If the City Council doesn't pass that ordinance, we'll bring this issue back to Subdivision Committee to deal with this issue. Odom: What kind of money are we talking about? Conklin: I'll let Chuck Rutherford answer that question. Odom. Chuck, do you want to come up to the podium please? Rutherford: The cost will be figured out at the time that the ordinance is passed and if they want to go through with this lot split, it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 per square foot, six foot sidewalk for the length of the two properties. Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 6 Odom: Rutherford: Odom: Lashly: MOTION: Hoffman: • • Do you not already have that calculation? I didn't prepare a calculation tonight. I was under the assumption that this was agreeable by the clients. That's not what we were hearing just a second ago. David, can you comment on that or are your clients agreeable to paying the sidewalk fee as opposed to building the sidewalk, without even knowing what it is? The buyer that I have for the half acre lot says he will do that. On the other property, I don't have a buyer so I don't know. The estate is very limited in funds so the property would have to be disposed of before any money could be put up. I'm kind of in a quandary to where I go from here. If it was $3 per square foot, I think the frontage was 175 square feet, times six, times three, whatever that is would be the cost. That probably would figure out about $3,000. That's where I am. I realize, from talking with the Subcommittee, that you have to do what you have to do but I need to protect my deceased client as much as I can on the property. I'll just leave it in your hands unless you have a question for the surveyor that's here or the buyer that's here, who wants the half acre lot with the building on it, where the sidewalk would have to go, if it had to be built. At Subdivision Committee and later at agenda session we did tour the property and Mr. Rutherford explained to us how this ordinance would possibly work, should it be passed. It's my understanding that regardless of if you sell this lot, by splitting the lots, if you sell the lot normally you would have to provide a sidewalk now and this is a way, a compromise, to defray that cost onto the buyer. The plat can't be finalized until the City passes that ordinance anyway. There is a little bit of lead time there for you. I don't think that it's advisable for the Planning Commission to be waiving sidewalk requirements on major thoroughfares but, it's quite obvious that at the commercial building that's existing there, it would be infeasible to put a sidewalk in front of it because there is already a concrete paved area there anyway. When you do get a buyer and they develop the property, that would a requirement that they would have to follow anyway. So, I think I would like to move for approval of this item based on all staff comments and just making sure that you understand that this contribution in lieu of putting the sidewalk in is not an immediate requirement and you do have the right to come back and have it reheard should the ordinance not pass. So, I'll just go ahead and move for approval • • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 7 Odom: Sure. Come on up. You are the buyer, is that right? Dramis: Yes. I'm John Dramis and I've been in the commercial building for about six years. We don't, as a buyer, don't have a problem with putting the money in the fund for the ordinance but I think David's problem he is running into is the property next door. He doesn't have anybody to buy that at this time. Is it possible for us to get the lot split with the understanding that we'll put in the money to the fund from our part and then the future buyer on the other property put it up later. Will it hold up the split, this money put in funds for the residence, the other half. Odom. I don't think the split is going to be held up. I think the split is going to authorized and if there is a problem, you can come back. Dramis: Does money need to be in for both properties before the split is authorized? Odom: I think you can go ahead and grant the lot split. I don't know of a way for us to require that the lot split... Tim, help me out here. There is no definite ordinance. Conklin: There isn't. What we were suggesting is, if they would like to see if that ordinance will pass that they be given an opportunity to put the money up. Our Staff Engineer here has done the calculations, it's about $5,000 for the entire tract. Typically for a lot split, as these properties are subdivided, we get the sidewalk built now. In the past we've had some developers, Commissioners concerned about building sidewalks where there isn't a lot of pedestrian activity and that it might be better to look at ways of collecting the money and using the money in areas that would benefit areas where there would be more pedestrian activity. I look at it as either/or. You build the sidewalk or you put the money up to the City, not waiving that requirement. I think your options here tonight are, if you don't want to see if that ordinance is going to work, require the sidewalk be built within the right-of-way along School Street and have that coordinated with our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. If you want to see if that will work, pass it with this condition and if for some reason we can't work that ordinance out at City Council, have him come back to Subdivision Committee and let Subdivision Committee deal with that issue. I'm very hesitant of waiving the requirement for a sidewalk. Odom. You know there is certainly some uncertainty but the uncertainty is really out of our hands because we are passing this contingent upon the City Council taking some action. Dramis: We will get a conditional lot split as long as we are willing to put the money into the fund if that was approved') Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 8 Odom: If that's approved, yes Conklin: If that's approved, we'll set up an escrow account here at the City that will be interest bearing. Dramis: My question is, would money for both properties at one time have to be put in or could the one part be put in and wait for a buyer on the other piece of property, when it's sold, to put his or her money into that other piece? Conklin: We would need to have the money for both tracts. When you do create the deed, transferring ownership of that property to you, that will leave the remainder as a parcel already. Therefore, we need both to make sure that we don't let that fall through the cracks. We'll go on to condition number two when you are ready. Bunch: Tim, is there any way to defer payment on the larger of the two lots contingent on the sale and that it would be paid at that time, it would be part of the transaction? Conklin: We have no way of tracking land sales, property sales in Fayetteville. Property is sold every day here in Fayetteville and it does not come through the Planning office. When I talk about existing property that hasn't had a lot split on it or subdivision, it's impossible to track that. Odom: Staff, did you want to comment on item number two? Conklin: Yes, condition number two, there will be a waiver of right-of-way dedication along School Street. That is classified as a principal arterial, it requires 55 feet from centerline. As we already stated, there is an existing building that would be encroached by this right-of-way. That will also have to go to the City Council and City Council will have to accept a lesser dedication of right-of-way. Staff is in support of that waiver. Hoffman: My motion is to include the waiver because if the building is tom down and a new building permit is applied for, at that time the right-of-way will be required. Odom: We have a motion. Do we have a second for the motion? Shackelford: I'll second. Bunch: I have a question for Ron Petrie on the sewer. We have a letter from David Lashly saying the sewer has been connected but it doesn't resolve the question of whether the Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 9 sewer was connected across 71 or whether it went across the back lot and acquired an easement. Has that been clarified to your satisfaction? Petrie: No sir. That's one thing that will still have to be worked out before Planning can sign that lot split. Cantrell: I was there when they checked it. I'm Pam Cantrell, the business manager at Dramis. There is a lot behind this subdivision and it's connected back there on two separate lines basically where we want the lot split Petrie: Cantrell: Petrie: Okay. That's basic information. We knew it went into the sewer station. We just know if the one house to the north went directly into it or whether it connected to these other houses. No, they aren't connected. There should be a letter there from the City. Right but it did not strictly verify that. I can get with Paul Mitchell, that's who it came from. Cantrell: Yes, I was there when they did it. Petrie: That will just need to be verified before Planning will stamp this split. Bunch: The question I have is, do we have an easement on this if it crosses the property that is being split off, are we required to have an easement and should we have that entered into the record or would it be part of the standard conditions to take care of that? Petrie: It is mentioned in the conditions and I believe they do show a private easement. It's shown about midway on the northern boundary, there is a small private easement that goes over to the northern tract. That has been added. The one thing I would like added to the final plat that's filed is them showing the separate service line going to the northern tract. Just to insure that it is in that private easement that's shown. Odom: Ron, are you able to do that as a part of condition number six? Petrie: Yes sir. Hoffman: I was under the impression that this item number four covered that. Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 10 Marr: Question for Commissioner Hoffman, who made the motion, exactly what is the motion as related to condition number one. Is it taking money in lieu or is it requiring the sidewalk? Hoffman: It's either/or. It's up to the applicant whether or not they would like to construct a sidewalk. I would imagine, to take it one step further, that the applicant with the commercial building could put up money in lieu if that's an option available to him and that the unsold lot, if need be, could actually construct a sidewalk and meet our ordinances should that pass City Council. There is going to be a period of time that they will have to wait before the plat can be filed if they choose to exercise the money in lieu of option. Man: But the requirement itself is that either money or sidewalk goes? It's not a waiver? Hoffman: No. The only waiver I'm intending on is number two with that right-of-way dedication. Marr: Thank you. Odom. Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LS 01-4.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. FOUND IRON 133.78' S89. 399'09"W IT %--X J 1,—X `NW CORNER LOT .5 ♦ FOUND / IRON 1 I FOUND IRON % NE CORNER l/ LOT •5 41 0.50' AW & ASSOCIATE. SURVEYORS FRANK W. BLEW, JR., R.L.S. W 01-11 SCALE:1"-40' X 241.78, 6porch grovel drive ALEN REID IRON N24. 41'20"E 5.20' CO r h N89.31'09"W 146.7 SW CORNER LOT •6 1488' 4'6'15"E""" DASHED LINE — N89* 50154"E 248.66' SURVEYED FOR: John & Cindy Meares EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 7.74' = cr'ld 411 DATE: February`" -6; 200i" 6./404lt/,r at a—L-1_4464e 4/0* )C)( y . Part of the Northwest Quarter (NW}) of the Northeast Quarter (NEI) of Section Twenty Eight (28), Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty (30) West, described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 1 rod South'and 12 rods East of the Northwest corner of said 40 acre tract, and running thence South 15 degrees West 403 1/4 feet for a'place of beginning, and running thence South 15 degrees West 149.67 feet,'t}`ence East 258 feet, thence North 14 degrees East parallel with and 30 feet equi-distant from the centerline of U.S. Highway No. 71, 89.61 feet, thence North 77 degrees West 253 feet to the place of beginning. RECOMMENDATION: A NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ACTUAL PROPERTY SHOULD BE PREPARED. ? Ls01-2.shp Streets Master Street Classifications / \ / COLLECTOR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY • ,•• MINOR ARTERIAL N PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL N HISTORIC COLLECTOR 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Miles 02/22/20e1_09 _39 5014428731 DAVID -E LASHLEY 010 .--PAGE 01 DAVID E.-LASHLEY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT I 1 1 NORTH CHURCH AVENUE ILLI. ARKANSAS 72701 TELEPHONE A/3.0731 February -22,-2001 - Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator City of Fayetteville Planning Division -113 W.=Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 --Re: Lot --Split 01-4.')O (Reed Trust) RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2001 PLANNING DIV. Dear Ms. Edwards In. response._toyouur_r-equest-of--February-2dst----I-am-herewith--articulating my understanding of the considerations and results contemplated in the Subdivision Committee meeting. Further, I will express my concern regard- ing the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee. We were asked to confirm that the property is connected to the city's sewer system. By a_letter_received._from-paul_Mitchell-attached herewith, -we -have verified that the sewer is connected. The singular purpose for requesting a lot split is to sell -part of the property _to_an interested -buyer, John=Dr-amus,-who-has-been-renting the garage building. -As-Trustee, I am -comma -ted to to conclude-theraffairs of the late -Mary -Pauline Reed Estate. Thin property and a small bank account are the remaining assets in the Estate. I wxpressed my-cooter--to`the-Subdivision_Committee__that L.::thought-the require- •ments for a ten.foot=greenspace-and-the:construction of -a -six-foot sidewalk as well as the additional dedication of fifteen feet of right of way on School __Stre.et,_were_excessa.ve_.for.the half -acre -lot -with --the building -within four- teen feet from the -street —The property-islocated--in-a-depressed market area of the City_and-there is limited marketability. Therefore, I am seeking relief from those specific_ requirementa_in-_asking for an.exception or.:waiver from -the -right of -way -dedication. --Because of the Thcetion-of-the bu11ding-and. the potential sidewalk location, and the lack of connecting sidewalks on either end of the property, it seems inappropriate ---------- .._to--construct.a-.s.tdewaik at=this---.time--and--I-am=also-requesting a -waiver of -this requirement. I plan to be at the Planning Commission on February 26th. It would be very .helpful to me to ha“ : an agenda and time frame for my appearance at the meet- ing. Oe -very -truly, Davi E. Lashley ',eyed g rust ose Up L 1-1 n JJ i_ r 1 r ` r 1 i l J W� an' tit- r /i R-1 _ a s .!a,: r .r. LJ Li L 1 `j R-1 Cr Li t L• I i r ti L!' Li _r R -i / R-1 �r 7 MW kkkkX \`\\.\\\v\\;: \\\ h alp 1 i� 3f et •-r (C C-2 R-1 T iii Subject Property C-2 R-1 7 LJ Ls01-2.shp "V Streets Q Zoning Districts va$iP.i :j[feta[ ,_,$$ i+ alioii$ A/ COLLECTOR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY • MINOR ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Ci r : I ;V tiit Feet 7 .,_-5► eAtar L FAYETTEVIrLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIIIE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Planning Commission From: Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator Date: February 20, 2001 Subject: Sidewalk Requirement ( Lot Split @ 2283 S. School Ave. ) The Sidewalk & Trails Division is currently moving forward with an ordinance that would allow the City to collect money instead of a required sidewalk. The money would be used to construct sidewalk where it would function better for the citizens of Fayetteville at the present. At this location one of the existing buildings will be in the new right-of-way. Because of the present conditions at the location of this lot split I recommend collecting the money instead of requiring the sidewalk to be built. If this ordinance does not receive City Council approval then this lot split will need to come back to the Subdivision Committee. giP FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 LS 01-4.00 Page I PC Meeting of 26 Feb 01 Reed Trust Lot Split TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner FROM: Sara Edwards, Ron Petrie P.E. DATE: February 22, 2001 Project: LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) was submitted by David E Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0.51 acres. Findings: This property is located approximately 500 feet south of the Cato Springs Road and School Avenue intersection. Due to the current C-2 zoning there are no minimum frontage requirements. Currently, three structures exist on the property. One on the northern proposed lot and two on the southern proposed lot Recommendation: Approval subject to the six (6) conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk with a ten foot greenspace prior to stamping and filing lot split. The applicant is requesting to contribute money in lieu of the required sidewalk. (See recommendation from Chuck Rutherford) 2. Pursuant to the Master Street Plan, 55 feet of right-of-way from Centerline is required to be dedicated on School Street. The applicant is unable to dedicate the 55 feet along the entire tract due to location of a structure. Lesser dedications of the Master Street Plan are required to obtain City Council approval. 3. Dedication of right of way along School Avenue shall be by warranty deed. 4. All existing structures on both tracts shall be connected to the public system prior to lot split approval. In addition, the existing structure on the northern tract must connect directly into the public sewer system and the service line contained entirely on the northern tract or a private easement provided on the southem tract. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the PAO Ai ✓i CoR 11. applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) LS 01-4.00 Page 2 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Background: The proposed Lot Split was reviewed at the January 31, 2001 Technical Plat review and the February 15, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included right of way dedication requirements, sidewalk improvements, and the sewer service situation. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Lot Split to the full Planning Commission "subject to the four staff conditions for the full Planning Commission to consider the lesser dedication of right-of-way on the Master Street Plan and to also consider making a plat notation that should the money in lieu of sidewalk ordinance be passed by the City Council and become an ordinance that be an option available to this applicant." INFRASTRUCTURE: a) Water is existing along School Avenue. b) Sanitary sewer is available. c) Streets. Not applicable. d) Grading and Drainage. Not applicable. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required Approved Denied Date: Comments: ea LS 01-4.00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Yes Required Approved Denied Date: / / The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. by title date Page 3