HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 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