The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 4704 ORDINANCE NO.4704 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 05-1453 SUBMITTED BY STEVE CLARK FOR TWO ALLEYS AND AN UNCONSTRUCTED STREET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ROCK STREET AND WILLOW STREET AS DESCRIBED ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under A.C.A. § 14-54- 104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes, and i WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following described alleys and street are not required for corporate purposes, and WHEREAS, after due notice as required by law, the council, has, at the time and place mentioned in the notice, heard all persons desiring to be heard on the question and has ascertained that the rights-of-way, hereinbefore described, has heretofore been dedicated to the public us as a street and alley herein described; has not been actually used by the public generally for a period of at least five (5) years subsequent to the filing of the plat; that all the owners of the property abutting upon the portion of the street and alleys to be vacated have filed with the council their written consent to the abandonment; and that public interest and welfare will not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the street and alleys. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas releases, vacates, and abandons all its rights, together with the rights of the public generally, in and to the street (or alley) designated as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That a copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk along with the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit `B" shall be filed in the office of the Recorder of the County and recorded in the Deed Records of the County. Section 3 : That this Vacation approval is subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation as described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED and .�F,R*OVED this 17'" day of May, 2005. " . lARKIT ease , S.,,,' APPROVED: • '\SY Of•Gp ; FAYETTEVILLE ' _ By: •9 K `�pr' � ` DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: ''�.;NGTON � 1 J By: �;.�` 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111 Doc SO RA SMITH, City Clerk Recorded : 06/20/200513 tT02 : 35 : 24 PM Fee Amt : $44 . 00 Pepe 1 of 13 Mashlnoton County . AR Bette stamps circuit Clerk F11e2005-00026493 EXHIBIT "A" VAC 05-1453 STREET COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 1 OF HILL' S ADDITION N88006'54"E 318.47 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N88°06'54"E 40.03 FEET; THENCE S00012'22"W 391 .23 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CHORD RUNS S44054'52"E 48. 18 FEET, WITH A RADIUS OF 34.00 FEET AND LENGTH OF 53.55 FEET, THENCE N89057154"E 112.56 FEET; THENCE S00058' 10"E 40.01 FEET; THENCE S89057'54"W 113 .21 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WHOSE CHORD RUNS N44054'52"W 104.87 FEET, WITH A RADIUS OF 74.00 FEET AND A LENGTH OF 116.55 FEET; THENCE N00012'22"E 389.77 FEET BACK TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 23,537 SQUARE FEET, MORE OF LESS. ALLEY 1 COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 1 OF HILL' S ADDITION S00028'25"W 202.27 FEET; THENCE S89°36'34"E 149.22 FEET; THENCE S00°12'22"W 370.05 FEET; THENCE S73°21 '20"E 16.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N68018' 15 "E 336.86 FEET; THENCE N89°57'54"E 29. 17 FEET; THENCE S00°58' 10"E 10.22 FEET; THENCE S68°57'23 "W 339.56 FEET; THENCE N73021 '20"W 26.53 FEET BACK TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6,326 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. ALLEY 2 COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 1 OF HILL'S ADDITION N88006'54"E 138.37 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N88°06'54"E 20.01 FEET; THENCE S00012'22"W 140.20 FEET; THENCE S89045'43 "E 159.98 FEET; THENCE S00012'22"W 20.00 FEET; THENCE N89°45'43"W 159.98 FEET; THENCE S00°12'22"W 421 .32 FEET; THENCE N73°21 '20"W 20.85 FEET; THENCE N00°12'22"E 574.89 FEET BACK TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14,762 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. fXHl"OtT AdIlL 1 1 1 2 1 s l s l s I s l r t I I I ,050,1 yn P ew cn ra ' I I IN E 1 g( -- - -- S- ---- -- -- A. 1 I 12 I 1 I 10 - - Z q U 10 1 I II � Y >� .4 - - 116 1 ° � Alley 2 o be V cated " s p N 14 4 12 1 ar aoan aq. ono � ST. JAMES M N f BAPTIST CHURCH �—I �be I ° 15 �p 6 purl 13 Q F U II Imo—_ 1s 12 t — I 7 17 7 Rs ✓ (A I ( 16 1s I � I / is I� - - RS / 1 6 a . G a aw . osaae I20 21 - , s = See 10 R-2 Is e '0 ER QOAD — � - - Street ANs7 1 AWRY 2 Canmmchq at the NW crrnor Of sold &.a J of Ccvnmenchg at Me NW anrr of sot/ 6/act I o/ Commanchq of Me NW comer o/ ao/d 6/ack J 1 1 oddiNm N6611651T J1547 Net to POW of N2/'e oddiltn S0076750W 20227 fret thence of /!qh odd't/07 AWV5'61 T 1J9J7 fort to 6phnhqV them N8811651 C 4aaS Prot thrice 11W147" 149.22 Net Mance 5007272-W Pohl of 6eghn17¢ Mnrce N83V5*51T 2001 50072'220W J91.23 Prot the,ce ab,g o ams to J7aa5 feat thorns S7371701E 16.46 foot to Ms feet theem 5007272'W 140.20 Net Mein Ms NN chose chard rune S445132T 4616 fest Paht Of Beghnhgr Manor N6875.15-E J 85 569451JT 159.96 Net' Mena S007772'W ,.100 o mows of 3100 Net ord o /e+gM If =55 Net Mince N695Y54T 29. J7 Net Mena 2000 foot Mm" AW5YJ'W 159.96 Net Nat th n N895Y51 F 11256 fast Meats SWW'101C 1021 Net Mrce S66577J'W thence 500727YW 421.J2 feet Mnce S0056'10T 1001 Prot M, .S6957'S1'W 11.121 .539.56 feet thmm N1J7170M 2657 Net host N7J717O'11' 2065 feet ehe co N007271 C Nat thence olarg o arra .haus chard rrrrs to the Pohl of Bsghnilg antahhq 6,J26 a4uon 571.69 Net bock to the Pohl of Baghnirg, NN 5152W 104.67 fro& r/M o rsdha of 71.00 foot mon r /esx corrtahhg 11.752 poo re feat mars or fort and o IwWdr of 116.55 fest MenmN007222T W77 fret troa4 b the Poht If 8*014101 a 10*47g 2.x557 sprom foot mon of /sax SCALE: V - 100' DATE REVISED: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: lark DATE: 10/14/04 04/25/05 JSC BWS onsulting CIVIL ! ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING St. James Baptist Church 3715 Business Drive, Suite 202 Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479)444-8171 Street & Alley Vacation tel` ►11 I+ I�II Planning Commission • • April 25, 2005 Page 27 VAC 05-1453 : (ST.3AMES MISSIONARY BAPTIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at SE CORNER OF ROCK AND WILLOW. The property is zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.20 acres. The request is to approve the vacation of two alleys and an unconstructed street. Ostner: The next item on our agenda is VAC 05- 1453 for St. James Missionary Baptist Church submitted by Steve Clark for property located at the southeast corner of Rock and Willow. If we could have the staff report please? Pate: This property is located at the southeast corner of Rock and Willow. The Planning Commission did visit this site on Thursday at their agenda tour. It is zoned currently RMF-24 for multi-family use, 24 units per acre maximum and contains approximately 5.20 acres. The St. James Missionary Baptist Church has submitted a Conditional Use request and Large Scale Development plans for construction of a new 26,500 sq. ft. church on the subject property. Staff has been meeting with their applicant and their representative, this project goes to Technical Plat Review on Wednesday. The site plans have not been reviewed for compliance but a Conditional Use is required. The property was originally platted as part of Hill 's Addition in 1905 with many small residential lots. The majority of which you can see on your maps that we have provided for you, have not developed, along with the lots, there were platted alleys and a 40' wide street on the property which is called Southern Avenue that has also not developed in the 100 years that it has been in existence. The applicant is proposing to vacate the streets and alleys on the property in order to facilitate continued review for the proposed Large Scale Development plans and Conditional Use request. As it is, development of the property would require construction of on site streets and alleys as well as the required setbacks from these rights of ways which can not be accommodated in the site design of the church. It was staffs recommendation to forward this Vacation request to you and the City Council should the Planning Commission recommend for approval in order for this applicant and his client to understand if proceeding with the project would be unfeasible should the alleys and streets not be vacated the project, as shown, could not be processed any further. Southern Avenue, as 1 mentioned, is a platted 40' right of way that runs north and south and then it turns eastward and is proposed to eventually connect with Walker Road. There is also a portion of right of way along the south property which is described as Alley 1 that is proposed to be vacated. Additionally, Alley 2 is an east/west and north/south alley, a 20' wide access running north and south. None of these have been constructed at this time in the 100 years that they have been in existence as city property. As I mentioned, the city is requesting the city to vacate and abandon a portion of the city right of way approximately the north 1 /3 of this alley is Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 28 to be vacated for the entire 20' as you can see on your site plan. Staff has recommended a couple of conditions that hopefully will alleviate some hanging on right of way out there on another piece of property. Staff finds that the public interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the streets and alleys on the property. The property has been platted in this manor for the past century and never been utilized for its original purpose. The applicant has succeeded in assembling all of the parcels within the subject property, all of which are platted separate, for a common development which would be best served in a different configuration than that which currently exists. While the lots could be combined for development if a street were built in this area, currently could not be developed as they are platted as 50' wide lots. A variance or some sort of waiver would have to be processed for each one of those to develop. Staff is recommending approval of this proposed Vacation with four conditions. Item number one, which was discussed in the agenda session as a concern, many lots platted on the property do depend upon the platted right of way of Southern Avenue as their only future means of access if they were developed as platted. With the approval of an ordinance by the City Council vacating the rights of way on the property all lots shall be considered one lot under common ownership and shall not be sold or developed individually. That is an ordinance requirement regardless of this condition. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. If there is any portion of the lot that does not meet bulk and area requirements or lot frontage and it is under common ownership with another adjacent then that is required by ordinance to be considered one lot under common ownership. I just felt it was important to include that as a condition. Also, item number two, utilities to each of the lots were not provided when Hill 's Addition was created, development of the area shall conform to city requirements for adequate and legal water and sewer service as well as required extensions of easements, provisions for flow through, there is a memo attached to the Water and Wastewater Division and will be made part of the official ordinance should this pass on to the City Council. A formal petition to Vacate shall be completed and submitted for this request to continue to the City Council . There is a template attached to this staff report for the applicant to utilize. A portion of that was filled out but we do need a formal petition to vacate by ordinance. As I mentioned, item number four, the additional 10' of north/south alley on Alley 2 shall be added to the legal description to be vacated so as to not leave a portion of unusable alley adjacent to this property. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Clark, S. : My name is Steve Clark with Clark Consulting representing St. James Missionary Baptist Church. They purchased this piece of property a few Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 29 years ago and are in the process of trying to develop it as the site of their new church. They are wanting to expand the building that they are in, provide adequate off street parking for their congregation and this is the current piece of property that they have ownership to. There will be many challenges associated with trying to get that approved, we recognize that. Our first step is to obtain the Vacation of the existing streets and alleys and that is why we are here tonight. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Clark. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to the issue of VAC 05- 1453 for St. James Missionary Baptist Church? Feinstein: My name is Andy Feinstein, I 'm a neighbor to this property, my wife and I own the property immediately to the east of this subject parcel . We have no objection to the interior alley ways and rights of way being vacated. It is just a necessity for them to do what they want to do. 1 do want to talk about our common alleyway. We met earlier and Mr. Clark was gracious enough to let me review his site plan some time ago and I noticed that his first proposal was to suggest a Vacation of our common alleyway. We have a 20' alley separating our tracts of land. I suggested it would be better for us if we didn't go that route but to maintain that alleyway, his setback would start from there and we could look at this as a buffer. 1 think we have a fantastic opportunity here to use this alleyway as a buffer between the different uses. We are going to have an institutional use right next to our residential use. I understand this may not be the correct time to present my concerns, I know 1 will have the opportunity at Large Scale. 1 want to invite you all to look at this area and see what is going on. It is a heavily wooded alleyway, I think it would benefit our property if we could maintain this as an undisturbed buffer. That is my point. I would like to suggest a fifth condition that the designers and the staff look at this perhaps as a suitable place to have a buffer of woods and that it be undisturbed. I'm specific here in that I know that we are looking at some walls probably close to this and 1 would like to suggest that the designers incorporate their construction zone to accomplish these wall constructions to not disturb that 20' buffer way. There are some good size trees along that area and once we get a dozer in there to do the wall construction and backfill, it is disturbed and we have lost the benefit of any sizable trees. When you do your review I invite you to come onto our property. The dogs won' t bite. You will get a better view of what I' m talking about. Our barn, which is situated in the middle of our lot, is about 5 ' from the property line. That will help you eyeball what we are talking about in there. Fie has some survey stakes in there, 1 think that he staked the center of that alleyway so you might need some help figuring out exactly what you are seeing, but look at the 20' right behind my barn and you will sort of see what I 'm suggesting there. That is really all I have to say. I look • i Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 30 forward to having them as a neighbor. I 'm sure it is going to take the prayers of all the congregation to get this one approved. Ostner: Is there further public comment on this Vacation request, VAC 05- 1453? Seeing none, I will close it to the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Myres: Even though 1 can see some true challenges in the future in terms of actually developing this land because of the topography, it is going to be totally unusable unless we approve this Vacation and I 'm all in favor of St. James having a place to build a new church so I will support this. Anthes: I guess I would like to hear some more discussion because I don' t concur that it is total unusable property without the Vacation. I also want to state that the staff in the report, and in tonight's reading of that report, indicated that the Anthes: I guess 1 would like to hear some more discussion because 1 don't concur that it is total unusable property without the Vacation. I also want to state that the staff in the report, and in tonight's reading of that report, indicated that the rights of way in question have been platted and available for use but not used in 100 years. I don't necessarily think that that is a good reason to let it go. There have not been development pressures in the city of Fayetteville in the last 100 years as there are now and I think that we are going to be seeing more of these instances where previously platted roads and alleyways will come into being that may have been sitting for a long time. Ostner: I was going to raise that point myself. There are on page 11 . 10, which is a good drawing that shows what is currently platted and it shows the outline I f the current property. I understand the property along Willow and facing Rock have their frontage. There are 12 tiny lots that only have frontage along Southern Avenue and what people in the neighborhood have been doing is building on two lots. When we drove out there that is what has happened, because you have to. It is difficult to build on such a narrow lot on a hillside. If you build on two lots, that' s interior lots that won't have frontage and can't be bought or sold with these Vacations. I believe hillside development on a 50' wide lot is probably inappropriate because you can't do it very well. But I 'm also wondering if hillside development with an area this big is appropriate. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes that losing this frontage is a loss to the community and the neighborhood. It is not a big, flat area that we normally see for a single Vacation request like this. The big difference between this Vacation request and the two that we just approved, the nature is that so much frontage will be lost and the nature of hillside development is so different from what we saw on both sides of Hill Avenue just a few minutes ago. I am concerned about this. That' s all that 1 have. Planning Commission • • April 25, 2005 Page 31 Allen: I wonder how much we factor in the Large Scale Development that isn't before us, nor is the hillside ordinance. Ostner: We are not supposed to consider the development plans that have been included in our packet. We are strictly looking at this as a land issue. Even though I'm saying hillside, I 'm not referring to a hillside ordinance, I'm simply referring to this piece of land. These Vacation requests are similar to rezonings. They are land use issues. They are not development issues. We are not looking at Large Scale Development, we are not even considering conditions. You can' t do a conditional Vacation. We either keep it in the city or let it go so this is different I suppose. Anthes: I guess to follow that up, 1 can't look at any specific development plan here but in my mind I can look at ways that the parcel can be developed for different uses and for a church and it seems to me that you have options on this site for this congregation to build a church without providing these Vacations. Allen: What would they be? Anthes: We can't discuss those at this point. That is the problem. Ostner: We can talk with the issues that are in front of us like lot sizes, frontage and those are the issues that make a difference. If a 3,000 sq.ft. church were in the discussion in front of us, these right of ways wouldn 't necessarily need to be vacated. Williams: There are a couple of statutes that govern vacations of streets and alleys. One of the statutes, which we rarely use, especially for streets, talks about if it has not been used for five years. We have 100 or more years on this where it hasn't been used. You are going to make a recommendation to the City Council but if this is an issue for the City Council, I will do some more research on that statute. 1 really think that since these have never been used I would think that probably the applicant might actually have a right to have these vacated. 1 don't know that for a fact but there are two different statutes. One says "no longer needed for corporate purposes." The second one talks about "not being used for five years." Go ahead and make your recommendation to the City Council but since these have never been used since they have been platted, it might very well be that the petitioner has an absolute right to have them vacated. Anthes: I would be interested to know how that comes out. Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 32 Williams: I will do a memo to you on that. I didn't realize that this was going to be an issue and so I did not research that for tonight but I will send you a copy of that. Anthes: That is interesting to me because of course, cities were platted long before things were developed and we are entering an enormous growth pattern in Northwest Arkansas with a lot of development pressure and 1 would hate to see that all of the work that had been done with the previous plats that hold true today, are given away because of 95 years of not having the need to have built things. Williams: I will get that statute to you and to all of the Commissioners here. I apologize for not realizing that this was going to be an issue tonight or I would have already done that for you. Lack: I would like to explore an idea and maybe get some clarification for myself on what it is in the public good that we look at with the Vacations of right of way or holding this right of way in that the property is wholly owned by one owner and what I would see would be presentations of the public good that we would be protecting or an idea of what should be, an idea of streets in residential neighborhoods or connectivity and not isolating something through this Vacation. I guess my presentation is that the connectivity and not directly isolating something with this Vacation would be what 1 feel an omen to protect, as opposed to an idea of what should be there in the residential development. I would welcome comments as to whether 1 am bound to that. Ostner. When you mention connectivity I guess I 'm not quite sure what you mean. Lack: I guess 1 mean that through Vacation of an easement we should never strand a piece of land, we should never cut off access to a piece of land, we should never damage that connectivity or that connection to a piece of land. In that this property is pretty much fully looped by another road that we traveled on before, I 'm not sure that we would be doing that with the Vacation of this right of way. Ostner: For me, 1 would see it differently, that we are stranding pieces of land which current interior small lots would be absorbed, would have to be in this large lot and would have to front either Rock or Willow where they have street frontage. Mr. Pate and the staff on the first condition, second sentence, with the approval of an ordinance vacating the rights of way on the subject property, all lots shall be considered one lot under common ownership and shall not be sold or developed individually. That is a policy decision. How is this area going to grow? Is it going to grow with large lots or small lots? We cannot force a developer to give us right of way or frontage through his property if this were open and not before us Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 33 tonight, we don't force developers to say give us a right of way through there, we want you to develop small lots. That is not the way the system works. That would be my response. Policy decision on how this area is supposed to be platted or how are lots supposed to look in this area? Myres: This is currently zoned RMF-24, 24 units per acre so it is multi-family. 1 don't necessarily see that regardless of who owns this property or how much right of way that we need to vacate that single family homes are going to be an option here. Ostner: RMF-24 is a maximum. Myres: You can develop lower than that? Pate: That is correct. The RMF-24 zoning district does allow single family, two family, three family and multi-family types of development. I would mention, in following your line of thought Chairman Ostner, as you mentioned on item number one, all of the lots would be seen as one. Currently we have to see them as one because these lots do not have any constructed frontage. They have a right of way platted but it has never been built so it is not an improved public street. Until Southern Avenue is constructed we have to see these properties as one because otherwise, they have no frontage onto an approved public street. I just mentioned that for you to keep in your mind as well. It doesn't necessarily mean that these lot lines go away because Southern Avenue could be developed some day. It has not in the past 100 years and that is one of the basis for our recommendation, that it has not occurred. It was platted before zoning was applied to the property. This was platted before zoning was even around in the State. That is something that we definitely took into consideration and we do with every Vacation request, whether the particular public good would be served by keeping these properties in tact and the rights of way in tact. 1 think the question obviously, you have to answer for yourself is does this limit the property developed as a single family residential neighborhood or a multi-family with construction of Southern Avenue? Essentially, that is what it does. There is potential for development but the setbacks and inhibitions for development of a church on this property are greatly increased by the existing rights of way. Anthes: Earlier tonight we saw. a Vacation request that came through after we had already seen the development plans, which gave us more comfort in doing so. When you are going through a standard Large Scale Development process is that an option? Or is it because that was a PZD that we saw that? Pate: It is a little of both. With the PZD there is an option to create your own setbacks so you can have a zero setback and build right up to the right of Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 34 way line if you wish. This project is not going through that process so a development has to set back 25' off of Southern Avenue. That is the only reason that I included the site plan that you have to show this is why I, as Planning Director, have recommended that the Vacation process come forward. The applicants and their engineers and their architects would likely spend a whole lot of money to get it to the Planning Commission without full knowledge if they could even develop the project. If the Planning Commission recommends against the Vacation request and it goes to City Council I do not feel we would have done a good service to this applicant. That is why I recommended that this Vacation precede that so they would at least have some idea of what they were looking at and if they should even proceed with the project. That was a decision that I made. Mr. Williams can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that there is an ordinance requirement that says that you have to do one before the other. We do often Vacate things as a condition of approval . You've seen a couple of those tonight. That is the line of thought that I was following because this is a contentious project because of it's area and the actual situation with the tree canopy and hillside. We have spoken with the applicant several times and I want to give them the due process that they deserve as well. I understand completely your concern about being able to see the development and how it works in relationship with the Vacation. Honestly, we should look at those separately. It is very difficult to separate those in your mind. Anthes: Is a church a use by right in this zoning district? Pate: It is not. Anthes: Therefore, we don't even know that a church is going to be allowed on this property and therefore, making decisions on the probability of this project, relating this project to this land use is difficult because right now we have an RMF-24 zoning and we have to judge the Vacation request on this property per that zoning district and what is allowed in that zoning district. 1 don't see the need for it in this zoning district under the current zoning and without seeing the Conditional Use request for the church or seeing a Large Scale Development on this site 1 have to assume that it is RMF-24 zoned piece of property on a hillside with right of way platted through it. 1 look at it and I can see how it could be reconfigured in other ways and the city could have access to this site in one place rather than two and it would still provide the same kind of connectivity and maybe a lot block arrangement that would make sense but again, that is not something that we can consider either. Looking at the current zoning and not being able to see a development plan with it, I can not find a reason that we need to give up the right of way. Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 35 Williams: I think the test normally for all Vacation is, is that right of way or easement needed for corporate purposes? That is what the City Council will be looking at. Although, 1 think that there is the other statute with streets not being used for five years. Even if you disregard that, the issue before you is, are these streets that are just lines on paper, needed for corporate purposes? MOTION : Allen: 1 am going to plunge in here and see if we can get going with this. I move for approval of VAC 05- 1453. 1 think the development will be very difficult but I favor the Vacations. 1 motion with those four conditions that we forward this to the City Council for approval. Lack: 1 will second. Ostner: 1 think'Commissioner Anthes brought up a good point, if I were looking at this piece of land exactly where it is with this zoning and did not know what development plans the owner had I would be weary to make one large lot. That decision does not have anything to do with development, it has to do with land and lot sizes and frontage and that is where 1 will not be voting for this issue. Graves: In light of what the City Attorney told us, and I believe it is a policy decision of sorts, I can't support a policy where there is a common owner to support frontage for interior lots along a street that doesn 't even exist yet. We have a common owner here. We may not have the actual development plans in front of us or what they intend to do but in light of this particular situation where you have got a single owner, you have got the frontage that they are requesting to be vacated in an area where there is not actually a street there, it is a policy choice. The policy choice ought to be, in light of what our City Attorney has told us, that there is not a justifiable corporate use for it right now. If there was it would have been developed and we would be using it. 1 am going to support the motion. Ostner: On that point, the method of development has changed drastically in 100 years. We have seen developments on hillsides in this town that never would have been dreamed of 100 years ago or even 20 years ago. The ability that engineers have to develop on hillsides is astounding. As technology changes the pattern of development changes. That is across the board. That is not just engineering and concrete footing. That is building our cities, our streets, our cars, our homes, everything. As technology changes it changes completely. 1 don't think the argument of it has never been used and it needs to go really holds water. In my mind, that side steps the policy decision that we are charged with, that the Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 36 Council has requested that we scrutinize and give our recommendation on. If the law is going to overwhelm us it will overwhelm whatever our policy decision is. I don't think that our lack of that brief in front of means that we don't look at a policy decision. Graves: 1 respectfully disagree that taking the issue that I have is side stepping any issue. I believe it is addressing this situation head on. I believe we have a common owner in an area where the frontage is not there. The street has never been built, the frontage is not there and you have one owner that owns all of these lots and under those particular circumstances, I believe that the policy choice to me is clear and that is that there is not a legitimate corporate purpose. I don't even care about looking back 100 years. Look back five years. We have definitely had developmental pressures in town over the last five years and no one has gone in there to build a street. In my view, the policy choice is that there is not a legitimate corporate purpose. Ostner: There is a pretty good street under development 300 yards or 400 yards north of this. It is a similar hillside development, it is steep. We saw a Large Scale Development here for that, so just because this particular piece of property has not been developed up until now, I disagree that it won't ever be. Anthes: I would like to call the question. Ostner: Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of VAC 05-1453 was approved by a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Clark and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. I 10 Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 0612012005 02:35:24 PM and recorded in Real Estate File 'Number 2005-00026493 Cl A Bette Stamps - C'rcu by J . a2D / • City Council biting of May 17, 2005 5117105 Agenda Item Number Woo CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO V)e b5'10 To: Mayor and City Council q. �p A-5 Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations P tk o/pftlo From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning)` Date: April 28, 2005 Subject: Right-of-way and Alley Vacation for St. James Missionary Baptist Church (VAC 05-1453) Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance vacating existing rights -of -way for two platted yet unconstructed alleys and a street on the subject property, as described and depicted herein. BACKGROUND Background: The St. James Missionary Baptist Church has submitted a Conditional Use request and Large Scale Development plans for construction of a new 26,500 SF church on the subject 5.2 acres, which is zoned RMF-24. Staff has been meeting with the applicant and their representatives to bring forward a project that would meet the needs of the church and benefit the community while meeting city ordinances. The site. plans submitted do not allow for the construction of this structure with the existence of platted rights -of -way, which have existed for 100 years. The property was originally platted as'part of Hill's Addition in 1905 with many small residential lots, but has not since been developed or used as such. Along with the lots are a system of platted alleys and a 40 -foot wide street (Southern Avenue) that has also not developed. Proposal: The applicant proposes to vacate the streets and alleys on the property in order to facilitate continued review for the proposed Large Scale Development plans and Conditional Use request. As it is, development of the property would require construction of the on -site streets and alleys, as well as the required setbacks from these rights -of -way, which can not be accommodated in the site design of the church. The east alley is a 20' wide access, running north and south. There is also a 20' alley that runs east and west between the previously mentioned alley and Southern Avenue, which is a "paper street." Southern Avenue is a platted 40' wide right-of-way that runs north and south, and then turns eastward and was proposed to eventually connect with Walker Road through property which has been assembled by one or two property owners. There is also a portion of a right-of-way along the south property that is proposed to be vacated (Alley 1). • City Council Fling of May 17, 2005 Agenda Item Number Request: The applicant requests the city to vacate and abandon a portion of existing city rights -of -way for two alleys and a 40 -foot wide street, citing the fact that the rights -of - way in question have been platted and available for use but not utilized by the public for a period of 100 years. Regardless of the use proposed on the property, the existing right- of-way does not serve a corporate purpose and has not been utilized for a period of 100 years. DISCUSSION Notification was provided to all appropriate utility representatives and adjoining property owners. No objections were submitted. Public comment was received from one adjacent property owner to the east, who was desirous of retaining the mature vegetation to the east of the property in the existing alley as a buffer. Conditions as requested and pertinent to the subject request are included as conditions of approval. The Planning Commission voted 5-3-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the vacation request at the regular meeting of April 25, 2005. Commissioners Anthes, Clark, and Ostner voted against this item. BUDGETIMPACT None. • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 05-1453 SUBMITTED BY STEVE CLARK FOR TWO ALLEYS AND AN UNCONSTRUCTED STREET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ROCK STREET AND WILLOW STREET AS DESCRIBED ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION. �_� WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corpora WHEREAS, the City Council has deter street are not required for corporate purposes, and WHEREAS, after due notice as required by law, the c mentioned in the notice, heard all persons desiring to be heard<o that the rights -of -way, hereinbefore described, has heretofore,bi street and alley herein described; has not been actually used by t at least five (5) years subsequent to the filing�ofthe the that all t upon the portion of the street and alleys to be.v ca ated have fi iQ consent to the abandonment; and that public interest.and welfare the abandonment of the streeee and-allevs. 104 to vacate public alleys and mcil, has, at the,time and place the question and has ascertained n dedicated to the public us as a public generally for a period of �gwners of the property abutting dwith the council their written will not be adversely affected by NOW, THEREFORE,,BE IT ORDAINED BY\TH CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section-I-�he CityNof*Fayetteville; Arkansas releases, vacates, and abandons all its rights, togethef with the rights of the public generally, in and to the street (or ` alley) designated as/ follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2.\ MTh ja copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk along with the �rnap attached hereto and labeled Exhibit "B" shall be filed in the office of ,,th'e Recorder of the County and recorded in the Deed Records of the County. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Section 4. That this Vacation approval is subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation as described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 2005. APPROVED: By Dan Coody, Mayor ATTEST: By Sondra Smith, City Clerk JY Y: f.e". a RL: 9.G l T„ tt4 x EXHIBIT "A" VAC 05-1453 STREET COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 1 OF HILL'S ADDITION N88"06'54"E 318.47 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N8.8°06'54"E 40.03 FEET; THENCE S00°12'22"W 391.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE`TO THE LEFT WHOSE CHORD RUNS S44°54'52"E 48.18 FEET, WITH A RADIUS Of 34.00 FEET AND LENGTH OF 53.55 FEET, THENCE N89°57'54"E 112.56 FEET; THENCE'S00°58'10"E 40.01 FEET; THENCE S89°57'54"W 113.21 FEET; THENCE ALONG A`CURVE=WHOSE CHORD RUNS N44°54'52"W 104.87 FEET, WITH A RADIUS OF 74:0O"FEET AND A;IENGTH OF 116.55 FEET; THENCE N00°12'22"E 389.77 FEET BACK' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 23,537 SQUARE FEET, MORE OjLESS. ALLEY 1 ' r COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID BEO:C�K 1 OF HILL'S ADDITION S00°28'25"W 202.27 FEET; THENCE "S89?:36.'-34"E 149.22�FtEE ;oPTHENCE S00°12'22"W 370.05 FEET; THENCE S73°21'20"E 16.46,FE�TQST.HE POINOF BEGINNING; THENCE N68°18'15"E 336.86 FEET; THENCE N89°5754"E'29`FjEE,T;®RTHENCE SOO°58'1O"E 10.22 FEET; THENCE $68°57'23W 339.56 FEET;THENCE N7°21'20"W 26.53 FEET BACK TO j THE POINT OF BEGINNING, @®NTAINING'6,326 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. ALLEY 2 COMMENCING AT THE , CORNER bF SAID BLOCK 1 OF HILL'S ADDITION V., N88°06'54t 138.37 FEET TO'POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N88°06'54"E 20.01 FEET; THENCE S00°12'22"W:','140.20 TEET•,;> THENCE S89°45'43"E 159.98 FEET; THENCE S00°12'22"W 20.00 FEET; THEN C& N89°45'43"W 159.98 FEET; THENCE S00°12'22"W 421.32 FEET; THENCE N73°2'1'20"W 20.85 FEET; THENCE N00°12'22"E 574.89 FEET BACK TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 14,762 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. 0 �%l%A%gtT pGu Taye' Ile ARKANSAS PC Meeting of April 25, 2005 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: April 19, 2005 VAC 05-1453: (ST.JAMES MISSIONARY BAPTIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at SE CORNER OF ROCK AND WILLOW. The property is zoned RMF- 24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.20 acres. The request is to approve the vacation of two alleys and an unconstructed street. Property Owner: ST. JAMES CHURCH Planner: JEREMY PATE FINDINGS: Background: The St. James Missionary Baptist Church has submitted a Conditional Use request and Large Scale Development plans for construction of a new 26,500 SF church on the subject 5.2 acres, which is zoned RMF-24 (see attached preliminary site plan). Staff has been meeting with the applicant and their representatives to bring forward a project that would meet the needs of the church and benefit the community while meeting city ordinances. The site plans currently have not been fully reviewed for compliance, though a conditional use is required. The property was originally platted as part of Hill's Addition in 1905 with many small residential lots, but has not since developed. Along with the lots are a system of platted alleys and a 40 -foot wide street (Southern Avenue) that has also not developed. Proposal: The applicant proposes to vacate the streets and alleys on the property in order to facilitate continued review for the proposed Large Scale Development plans and Conditional Use request. As it is, development of the property would require construction of the on -site streets and alleys, as well as the required setbacks from these rights -of -way, which can not be accommodated in the site design of the church. The east alley is a 20' wide -access, running north and south. There is also a 20' alley that runs east and west between the previously mentioned alley and Southern Avenue, an unimproved road. Southern Avenue is a platted 40' wide right- of-way that runs north and south, and then turns eastward and was proposed to eventually connect with Walker Road. There is also a portion of a right-of-way along the south property that is proposed to be vacated (Alley 1). Request: The applicant requests the city to vacate and abandon a portion of existing city rights - of -way for two alleys and a 40 -foot wide street, citing the fact that the rights -of -way in question have been platted and available for use but not utilized by the public for a period of 100 years. Approximately the north one third of the east alley (Alley 2) is to be vacated for the entire 20'. The remaining south portion (Alley 2) is proposed to have the east half, adjacent to the subject property, vacated. Staff is recommending the remaining portion of this alley be added to the K:Weports\2005\PC Reports\04-25-05\VAC 05-1453 (St. James Church) REV.doc vacation request, in order to not have an unusable portion of right-of-way existing in this area. The portion of Southern Avenue within the property is proposed to be vacated entirely. The indicated portion of a right-of-way along the south property that is proposed to be vacated (Alley 1) is also an existing alley that is not functioning as such at this time. The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and to the City. The results are as follows: UTILITIES Ozarks Electric Cox Communications AEP/SWEPCO Arkansas Western Gas SW Bell CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: Water/Sewer Transportation Solid Waste Engineering No response No Objections No Objections No Objections No Objections RESPONSE No Objections. Legal and adequate water and sewer service must be maintained on all lots. No Objections No Objections No Objections Public Comment: The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the adjacent property owners. Adjacent property owners had no objections to the proposed vacation, Recommendation: Staff finds that the public interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the portion of the above described streets and alleys on the property. The property has been platted in this manner for the past century and never been utilized by the public for its original purpose. The applicant has succeeded in assembling all of the parcels within the subject property for a common development, which would best be served in a different configuration than that which currently exists. Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation VAC 05-1453, with the following conditions: 1. Many lots platted on the property depend upon the platted right-of-way of Southern Avenue as their only future means of access, if developed as platted. With the approval of an ordinance vacating the rights -of -way on the property, all lots shall be considered one KAReports\2005\PC Reports\04-25-05\VAC 05.1453 (St. lames Church) REV.doc lot under common ownership and shall not be sold or developed individually. 2. Utilities to each of the lots were not provided when the Hill's Addition was created. Development of the area shall conform to city requirements for adequate and legal water and sewer service, as well as required extensions, easements, and provision for flow - through. The memo from the Water/Wastewater Division attached hereto and made a part hereof shall be considered part of the official conditions of approval for the vacation request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Date: April 25, 2005 Comments: es Required Approved Denied The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", as stated in this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date CITY COUNCIL ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: KAReports\2005V'C Repons\04-25-05\VAC 05-1453 (St. James Church) REV.doc FA \ J s ~ ° TTI�ILLE� .: THHCTTYOF FAxcnuvn.14 ARKANSAS WATBRAND SEWER NAINT04U DMSION DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Gary Coover, Engineering Brent O'Neal, Engineering Greg Boettcher, Water/Wastewater I 'rector Jan Gambill, Planning From: David Jurgens, Water/Sewer Date: 2 November 2004 Subject: Easement/Right of Way Vacation Request, Hill's Addition, Rock & Willow The area involved in this easement/right of way vacation request represents a gap in both water and sewer coverage. When originally platted, utilities were not provided to each lot. These easement and right of way vacation requests cannot be evaluated without the related development being evaluated at the same time. Any development in the area must meet several objectives (preliminary list, may not be an all-inclusive); - Provide legal and adequate water and sewer service for the lots being developed. - Provide immediate or provide for future extensions for water and sewer mains to lots upstream and/or downstream from those being developed. - Provide for adequate flow -through as required. - Ensure all easements for existing, newly constructed and future lines are adequate and meet all current size requirements. Please call me at 575-8386 with questions or discussion. Rock-Wdlow Easud Vu Request Nov 04-0I.doc PETITION TO VACATE AN ALLEY, EASEMENT, RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED IN LOTS _1-4, 11-21` BLOCK I and LOTS 1-8� BLOCK 2 SUBDIVISION HILL'S ADDITION CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and The Fayetteville City Council We, the undersigned, being all the owners of the real estate abutting the alley and right-of-way hereinafter sought to be abandoned and vacated, lying in Lots I -4, 11- 21 Block I ,and Lots II=8 Block 2 Subdivision HILL'S ADDITION , City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, petition to vacate an alley and right-of-way which is described as follows: See Attachment "A" That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the alley and right-of-way are: Lots 1-21 Block l Subdivision Hill's Addition City of Fayetteville Lots 1-8 Block 2 Subdivision Hill's Addition City of Fayetteville used by the public for a period of many years, and that the public interest and welfare wold not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the portion of the above described alley and right-of-way. The petitioners pray that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real estate, subject, however, to the existing utility easements and sewer easements as required, and that the above described real estate be used for their respective benefit and purpose as now approved by law. The petitioners further pray that the above described real estate be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law. WHEREFORE, the undersigned petitioners respectfully pray that the governing body of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real estate, subject to said utility and sewer easements and that title to said real estate sought to be abandoned be vested in the abutting property owners as provided by law, and as to that particular land the owners be free from the easements of the public for the use of said alley. Dated this Ll day of Qt2� 200,5 J. kA2oN, 1ia�L401uS S2 printed name ed_ 1 l�►6 s ature printed name signature • The St. James Missionary Baptist Church is in the process of obtaining City of Fayetteville approval of construction plans for a new church building. As part of the approval process the Church needs to vacate some of the old original streets, alleys and utility easements within our property The land where we are trying to construct the church building was platted into smaller lots with streets interior to the land. There are also a couple of alleys and easements that conflict with the proposed improvements. These streets and alleys were never built and will not have a negative impact on the surrounding property. This Vacation will NOT effect Rock Street, Willow Street, or Walker Street. These streets will remain open and will continue to be public streets Thank you for your time and consideration. • 0 April 11, 2005 St. James Missionary Baptist Church owns the 5.2 acre property located on the southeast corner of Rock and Willow streets in Fayetteville. They currently own and operate a historically significant sanctuary located at 101 S. Willow street but their ministry and outreach programs are growing to such an extent that they need a larger sanctuary to service the humanitarian needs of the community. They are proposing to build a new church building at the Rock and Willow location. The main sanctuary will be approximately 26,500 square feet in size, will have seating for 600. There will be 199 parking spaces available on site. 4 .,./,ei t .1 rl A VI+'iJe/ry un 1i( µ•O ro. lw5 qV-ll�• P, ROC/( I If J•' is f /i /f • • Y • 1 F J • r /r /f /fe — to H J / N C 2 of' Jr V• a • Y I( • \ • j It a n Y' p s PLAT Of / hIL43 ADD1IIOI✓ To fAYfUfVIlLC, AH/( uul J•'•/. Tiq ., • ro.w,v/w ,. Br I[n / se Bra, 1 w Mr. Aee/n•w )/ MI /. rII w //I/I,Ir/L,- fp ,//. f,♦ u+ /. NI w JWJ- as 9J /••f i•los VAC05-1453 Close UP View 1320 �4 Overview 1I r ST. JAMES CHURCH m� Legend ® VAC05-1453 m00� eA"O"0"1 e>_ PM1upel A11tf191 — FLoODwA — SOp YEAR W S PLm MENNEN rMlMi �tgp YEAR ---LAST OF STUDY Y Snw1Plan m m COCeuor — — - Bma4nepm ® Fmeway4:� 0000 Linaroto, O Fayetteville (EED OSBiae Mry f_� RMFY4 SUBJECT PROPERTY RMF-24 0? 0 75 150 300 450 600 F City of Fayetteville • Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items or Contracts 17 -May -05 City Council Meeting Date Jeremy Pat e Planning Operations Submitted By Division Department Action Required: VAC 05-1453: (ST.JAMES MISSIONARY BAPTIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at SE CORNER OF ROCK AND WILLOW. The property is zoned RMF-24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains 5.20 acres. The request is to approve the vacation of two alleys and an unconstructed street. $0.00 Cost of this reauest n/a Account Number n/a Project Number Category/Project Budget n/a Funds Used to Date n/a $ Remaining Balance nk1 Program Category / Project Name n/a Program / Project Category Name n/a Fund Name Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a Departm nt Director Date Original Contract Date: n/a Original Contract Number: n/a S- 2-oS City Attor y Received in City Cl Env e oUu c Finance and Internal Service Director Date Received in Mayor's O i 1:11 rp Mayor /' Date �i a l ' � ! i JT- •n ,may a..•rs r WWI . tw tit �..� � � - �. �_�M 'r -T•-'_ .,- ppppp ! ..� / •, . x%71.. •t '„ q . jFr • � 00 , ♦ l .. " •k O....i ..;i0op .;. �► nor IF -1 ,.�111G '�1 ply. r .i- [.y�./ ��; � �_ • RE OIFL 7L 6 PA IL r _y ., :3► c� ir !: 1� ). PISas�•7��, ' 1,� � ', iii. i Clarice Pearman - Ord. Nos. 4701 4702 47 704 4705 and 4706 Page 1 MW From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Subject: Ord. Nos. 4701, 4702, 4703, 4704, 4705 and 4706 Jeremy, Attached are copies of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, May 17, 2005. CC: Goddard, John; Jorgensen, Todd; Randall, Clyde A�Il ,lli' WvrduvestArks nr"'Mos't Wide# Read Newspaper" AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Erin Emis, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from my own personal knowledge and, reference to the files of said publication, that advertisement of: was inserted in the regular editions on PO#. " Publication Charge: $ 0 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11 day of, 2005. Shaflene D. Williams Notary Public Notary Public State of Arkansas My Commission Expires: My commission Expires October 18, 2014 " Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. DECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 CITY OF FAYETTEVILL£' CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. BOX 1607 • 212 N. EAST AVENUE 9 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 • 479-571-6470 OROINANCt 1140.4 ANORDINANCE APPRO'v1N0 VAC 05.10.53 SUBMIT. ; , 1� TED BY STEVE CIARK FOR TWO AtTEDS AND AN -. SOUTHEATRUCST STREET LOCATED AT THE Y SOlRHE4ST CORNER OF ROCK STREET AND WIL- LOW STREET AS DESCRIBED ON;THE ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPRON ` _ARKANSAS 1YNYRtAII:.lhe City COX" 11241 autfedty under A.CA § 1C-54-100 to vacate pUb[C gaunav a Partiore thereof vAkh are rot regaled for oorporata purposes, are WHEMAN the atty UOJx'te purposes. eM 1anNnedrthat Me fpoarUg d6acrloed mays aro sneer ere rot requi corma WHEREAS ahar ck* mooe as raqured by IM.. the ounCll, has. at the has eno pkOs mentioned in tle recce, hems e4 pereone daeNg n end has be heard On 010AUSSUChas ascertained that the rlgMs- nfit aoed, has heretofore 00611 dedltated to Ve PuiA W as a sal and may han, beert actually 49ad.by this Puok gaI far a period of er Istat M,a (5) years auM Sequent to the Ning of the plat that m the owners of the prop" abutting yPan the knion of the street and mays 10 Ca vacate hate Ned won the wu1dl their Mnw oonsar t.to The abano hhhahi and that p+bk interest and welfare wi0 not be edvensely anactad'ffins'eboridoi trmt of the'street end elate;.. Now. TXtRBPgptr Bt A OROAINtO BY YNtCT' COUNP PAYHT. CIL OF TIC CRY O. TMLLtr ARNANS lk _ - SaCaon 1: The City Of FayettevRe. Arkansas relagses; vacates: ivld abargore m its rights. together Wonthe dghifs b an6 Pubic genermy, h end to Me shoat (Or stay).dssl6nated as IDIOM:'. Sae Etlildt'A` attached hereto and Mda a Pert hereof. Section 2: That a Copy Of MILS Ordnance duy.CertlAod W tte City Clerk along with tie map attached hienetO and labeled EMUt'B' shall be Ned in the omca of the Recwger of the County and retarded h the Deed Reoords of That County SecLion f3: That ten approval le sub)BCI to the WrKukthe Of appreval fated h M staff report sho rg UOrrrnaelrecortvrfanoetlon w described In ExNbit -C-atechad hereto end made a part hprepl. FMM MW APPROYtO ft 17th day of May, 2005. 4PPROVED: 80NDRA BMAXr CNy ONxt I MENUE N73"21'2(M 28.53 FEET BACK SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. ;UK TO THE POI OF BEGINNING, CONTNNING .8. may W v" in the ONCO Of oe Ott Clerk