HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4767 EXHIBIT A
VAC 05-1689
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 24 AND LOT 259 OF CANDLEWOOD
SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AND
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
COMMENCING AT TEHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24 THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.96 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 14
SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 25; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF
180.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25 ; THENCE SOUTH 87
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 46 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.03 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, AND CONTAINING 0.21 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
12/08/2005 02:07:48 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Numb 2005-00054543
Bette St Circuit Clerk
by
t� 7G7
• City of Fayetteville •
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
4-Oct-05
City Council Meeting Date
Jeremy Pate Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
VAC 05- 1689: (JDM INVESTMENTS, 294): Submitted by Roger Trotter for property located between 2716 and 2728 North
Candlewood Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. The request is to vacate a right
of way at the subject property.
$0.00 n/a n/a
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
n/a n/a n/a
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name
n/a n/a n/a
$
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Vs
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a
Department birecto Date Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
9 6 of
City Attorney
Received in City Clerk's Office
Finance and Internal Service Director Date
Received in Mayor's Office
ENTERED
Mayor Date
Comments:
City Council Meeting of October 4, 2005
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru : Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: September 13 , 2005
Subject: Right-of-Way Vacation for JDM Investments (VAC 05- 1689)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends approval of an ordinance vacating an existing right-
of-way stub-out on the subject property, as depicted herein. Planning Staff originally
recommended denial of the right-of-way vacation as depicted in the enclosed staff report.
BACKGROUND
The final plat for the Candlewood Subdivision was approved by the City in 1999
requiring a 50' right-of-way stub-out/utility easement extending north from Candlewood
Drive approximately 180' . Since that time, the property owners adjacent to this right-of-
way stub-out have constructed driveways and installed landscaping and other
improvements in the city-owned area. There are public utilities in this right-of-way.
Both houses on either side of the existing right-of-way were originally built to conform to
the 25 ' setback off of the right-of-way, and was reflected and required when the houses
were constructed, in anticipation of a future street connection. The applicant processed a
Conceptual Plat through the Planning Commission on September 12, 2005 for a proposed
subdivision with 11 single-family lots on approximately six acres directly north of the
Candlewood Subdivision and the subject right-of-way. The applicant' s request is to
vacate the 50' right-of-way between 2716 and 2728 Candlewood Drive.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on September 12, 2005. The
Planning Commission voted 5-2-0 to recommend in favor of this vacation request to the
City Council . Notification was provided to all appropriate utility representatives and
adjoining property owners. No objections were submitted with the condition that the area
be maintained as a utility easement. The Candlewood Subdivision had a large tum-out in
favor of this request at the Planning Commission meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
Alk
0 WF
IFAY E77 EVEID LIE
THE CITY OF FAYfTTEVILIE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: City Council .
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE : September 16, 2005
RE : VAC 05-1689
Vacation of unbuilt "stub out street"
The City of Fayetteville is often asked to vacate a platted, but not built
street or alley or an unused utility easement. The City Council has the
power "to vacate . . . such portions thereof as may not . . . be required for
corporate purposes . . . ." A.C .A. § 14-54- 104 (emphasis added).
There is another more specific statute for vacating streets and alleys
that have been dedicated to the City by platting a subdivision, if such street
or alley has not "been actually used by the public as a street or alley for a
period of five (5) years . . . ." A.C.A. § 14-301 -301 (b).
Neither of these statutory powers to vacate are mandatory upon the
City Council, but only give the City Council that "power to vacate and
abandon" streets, alleys, easements, etc.
The power to vacate is limited to the extent that abutting owners
object to their loss of "right of ingress or egress across the property being
vacated . . . ." Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420, 47 S .W. 3`d 851 ,
856 (2001 ).
"We have held that the owner of property abutting
upon a street has an easement in such street for the
purpose of ingress and egress which attaches to his
0 0
property and in which he has a right of property as
fully as in the lot itself. We have also noted that
this property right is not diminished merely because
the property owner has alternative means of ingress
and egress." Id. at 857 (citations omitted).
Thus, we need to ensure that each abutting property owner has
consented to the street vacation. I believe our Planning Division ensures
such consent has been obtained before submitting any vacation request to
you. You will find that the abutting property owners in this case have
requested that the unbuilt stub out street be vacated.
Once all abutting owners have consented, the issues for the City
Council are whether the platted street has been actually used by the public
during the last five years and whether this stub out "from the standpoint of
public interest and welfare, the street . . . should be vacated . . . ." A.C.A. 14-
301 -303 ; or whether the street, alley, or easement is "required for corporate
purposes . . . ." A.C .A. § 14-54- 104.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 05- 1689 SUBMITTED BY
ROGER TROTTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 2716
AND 2728 NORTH CANDLEWOOD DRIVE, VACATING A
RIGHT OF WAY AS INDICATED 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
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following described right of way is not
required for corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has additional authority pursuant to A.C.A. § 14-301 -304 to
vacate a street upon petition of all abutting owners if the street has not been used by the public for the
last five years and the City Council determines after a public hearing from the standpoint of public
interest and welfare, the street should be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this unbuilt stub out has not been used by the public and
that the petition of all abutting owners to vacate this street subject to reservation of a public utility
easement should, from the standpoint of public interest and welfare, be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates and abandons all its rights,
together with the rights of the public general, in and to the right of way designated as followed:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That a copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk 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 condition that the subject area be
maintained as a utility easement.
PASSED and APPROVED this 20's day of September, 2005 .
APPROVED:
,F
By: pRp
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
VAC 05-1689
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 24 AND LOT 255 OF CANDLEWOOD
SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AND
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT TEHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24 THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.96 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 14
SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 25; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF
180.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25 ; THENCE SOUTH 87
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 46 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.03 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, AND CONTAINING 0.21 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
ayeVVIe PC Meeting of September 12 , 2005
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE . ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Garner, Planner
Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer
THRU : Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: ^ • •�• •���n �nnc September 14, 2005
VAC 05-1689: Vacation (JDM Investments, pp 294) Submitted by ROGER
TROTTER for property located at BETWEEN 2716 AND 2728 N CANDLEWOOD
DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE. The
request is to vacate a right of way on the subject property.
Planner: ANDREW GARNER
List of Report Appendices:
Appendix A Maps of the Project Area
Appendix B Applicant's Request
Appendix C Utility Companies and City Responses
Appendix D Public Comment and Petition
Appendix D- I Photo No. 1 : Aerial Photo of Subject Right-of-Way
Appendix D-2 Photo No. 2 : View Looking North from Candlewood Drive
Appendix D-3 Photo No. 3 : Close-up View of Subject Right-of-Way
Appendix E Candlewood Subdivision Planning Commission and Subdivision
Committee Meeting Minutes - 1999
Findings :
Property Description and Background: The subject property is located east of State
Highway 265 (Crossover Road) in the Candlewood Subdivision and is a 50' right-of-way
and utility easement located between 2716 and 2728 North Candlewood Drive (see maps
provided in Appendix A). The final plat for the Candlewood Subdivision was approved
by the City in 1999 requiring the future street stub-out and this 50' right-of-way stub-
out/utility easement was included on the final plat. Since that time, the property owners
adjacent to this right-of-way stub-out have constructed driveways and installed
landscaping and other improvements in the city-owned area. There are public utilities in
this right-of-way. Both houses on either side of the existing right-of-way were originally
built to conform to the 25 ' setback off of the right-of-way, and was reflected and required
when the houses were constructed, in anticipation of a future street connection.
K:\Repons\2005\PC Rcpons\09-12-05WAC 05-1689 (JDM Investments).doc
0 0
The applicant is processing a Conceptual Plat for a proposed subdivision with 1 I single-
family lots on approximately six acres directly north of the Candlewood Subdivision and
the subject area. The area proposed to be vacated is intended to provide a potential street
connection between these two residential neighborhoods.
Request: The applicant' s request (see Appendix B) is to vacate a 50' right-of-way in
order to avoid a potential street connection between Candlewood Subdivision and the
applicant's conceptual development immediately north.
The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and
to the City. The results are summarized below and detailed responses are attached as
Appendix C:
UTILITIES RESPONSE
Ozarks Electric No Objections
Cox Communications No Objections
Southwestern Electric Power Company No Objections
Arkansas Western Gas No Objections
Southwestern Bell Telephone No Objections
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: RESPONSE
Water/Sewer No Objections.
Transportation No Objections
Solid Waste No Objections
Engineering 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. Further, these property owners and the Candlewood Subdivision Property
Owner's Association strongly encourage the abandonment of this right-of-way citing that
a street connection through the subject area would reduce property values, result in safety
concerns, and increase traffic to nearby schools. Extensive responses from the adjacent
property owners in response to the notification forms and petition are included in
Appendix D, and include photos attached as Appendices D- I through D-3.
Recommendation: Staff finds that vacating the right-of-way in the subject easement
would not adversely affect the provision of utilities to the property or any other
KAteports\2005\PC Reports\09-12-05\VAC 05-1689 (IDM Investmen(s).do
properties. However, staff finds that vacating the right-of-way would be inconsistent
with City of Fayetteville policy to encourage street connectivity. City of Fayetteville
Guiding Policy 9. 19d states:
Discourage perimeter walls and guard houses around the perimeter of new
residential developments and promote "connectivity " to increase accessibility
and provide more livable neighborhoods. t
This policy was created with the intent to provide street connectivity which allows
drivers and pedestrians more than one choice into and out of a subdivision or
development and more choices when driving or walking through the City. Street
connectivity allows for smoother traffic flow and reduces congestion at intersections and
on road segments, which ultimately results in safer conditions for drivers and pedestrians.
Vacating the subject 50' right-of-way stub-out would not only isolate the property to the
north of the stub-out, but would also fail to provide a third connection for Candlewood
Subdivision that was found to be necessary after a substantial amount of discussion and
analysis in 1999 (see Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee minutes in
Appendix E). The property to the north of the subject 50' right-of-way is being processed
in the City as a Conceptual Plat for an I1 -lot residential subdivision. Vehicles and
pedestrians from this property would be funneled directly onto Crossover Road, with no
other options. Further, vehicles and pedestrians on Candlewood Drive would be left with
only one option of access onto Crossover Road. The Candlewood Subdivision currently
has 59 lots and two points of connectivity: ( 1 ) Candlewood Drive/Crossover Road; and
(2) Candlewood Drive/Township Street. The subject stub-out was designed to provide an
eventual third point of connectivity from Candlewood Drive to the north. This
connection was designed to help improve traffic flow into and out of the Candlewood
Subdivision for residents, emergency and other public service vehicles, and to provide
another option for drivers in the City of Fayetteville to connect local traffic, pedestrians,
and emergency access between Township Street and Crossover Road. The rationale that
originally led to the creation of this right-of-way stub-out is still valid and the right-of-
way is still needed. The desires of the developer of the adjacent property and of existing
home owners are certainly taken into consideration; however, the long-term effects of not
providing street connectivity are far-reaching, beyond this development and existing
property owners.
Based on these findings, staff recommends denial of the proposed right-of-way vacation
VAC 05-1689.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SUBJECT
AREA BE MAINTAINED AS A UTILITY EASEMENT.
Fayetteville, City of. General Plan 2020. 2001 Revision
K9ReMz1s\2005\PC Repons\09-12-05\VAC 05-1689 (JDM InvL$tnlents).dne
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required
Recommendation to be: X Approved Denied
Date: September 12, 2005 T� uM6aj Clark a"d 5- a-O
Comments:
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", as stated in this report, are accepted in total
without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
KdRepons1200SPC Repons\09-12-05\VAC 05-1689 (JDM Inve tments).dm
APPENDIX A
MAPS OF THE PROJECT AREA
•
• .>
If:
m
N
nYu
np•l
nIR1�
nPI_
i. 1. .. ..
r.
"cut .4..T') In <)i�{'t!
C.
ay 40'i
m
\`
w•
tw l
n _
`
e
.
;
'°
t
e
M
f
3 i
m
�=
A
a:
p
m2 mE
3
�'�
pr_Ly6
10
2
V3
gft
F
I`N Q0
Y
\
\
111
L
)
i
/
_ •.
MOp�iOVH5
3A F ry
;
i n
3
NIW Myf/
.`
vY
p %!
t
v T
q m Y m n
!E
v E v c
T
s
j
t i 9
I
..
C
s CI
t
•nn
r
a
�
C a
pylna
om
♦i L
I
1
�
a
iI!`f. Safr�
3
i
d.fL
rI
e
a
f
_
' 2UN
IH!
O♦ fl} P`, L\ YLl: 'e- 1. O i
NS
'I ♦ d w n I
4
c
q
F V SS
;'tf
^ \
e^
n \ ... '.\,\ •1''
N', t
yi\
L Z
Li0
1
O
S a
p
r
I
Uo-WG
2 nc
= I 1
�iE �,, R -'% ZI. ..•
.�. j
tan
_
...
c Ef\EtDy
'
,
nwrn .---I:
n 1!•l
nq1��
nPl
1
;Vt ._. VYVV •••V••• Y•- •V•V•• VV V•••• ••V VYV VV •Y ••• _VV•
ij
765-13261.000 O
i
O 765
[
1p [765-19E
r �
765-13297-000
cS
3• #65-191
S
61
5U6JQCtp rgei.`r -V 765-19
I�
�) 765.19
765-21 0 ®765-21516 00
1-17-29 765- 516-d0
765.11
765-21 15-000 765-21519-000
v+ 765.21520-00
Off/
1 / =765-2154 000 765-21 6-000
�J V
765-21521-000 76 -1
765-0 570-000 765-21544- 00
765.2151d 000 i 765-21 7-00
[ [ i
765-21522-000
[
765-21543
i 765-21513- 00 [
765-03 94-000 765-21 8-0
765-21523-000
I a
a
765.21512 0� 4 765-2154 765-215 9-00
765-03 95-000 -$
O
a
3 765-21524-000
765-21511 003 765-21541
1 .W 765-21 50-0
N
1
APPENDIX B
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
•
•)
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF VACATION REQUEST
REQUEST FOR VACATING 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6.34 ACRES — HWY 265
Date: June 2005
We are submitting a vacation application of a 50' right of way that was platted and was
intended to be a connection to this property from Candlewood Drive. This connection
was platted, however; was not constructed. It is our understanding that there was not any
money set aside in lieu for this road.
We feel this connection is not necessary in that it would only serve to put unwarranted
and unnecessary traffic into the Candlewood subdivision. As shown on our concept plat
we are proposing an entrance off Highway 265 to a less than 500' cul-de-sac. This will
create very deep lots at the end of the cul-de-sac with level home sites near the road and a
deep, very wooded, and greater than 20% sloped backyard. This vacation would not give
up any needed connectivity to future development because this is the last piece to
subdivide and it could only be used to serve this 6.34 acre parcel. This option is both
unwanted by the owner and by the Candlewood Property owners.
APPENDIX C
UTILITY COMPANIES AND CITY RESPONSES
S
FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALLEY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
DATE: S
UTILITY COMPANY: /G/1/y�IISy}S &%J'- J tAS
REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check alt that apply):
• Utility Easement
• • Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility casements located within the vacated right- of- way.
• Alley
• Street right-of-way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows:
General location / Address:
(Include legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated)
UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS:
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described casements are retained.
(State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.)
February 2004
Page S
FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
DATE: 6 -!b-05
UTILITY COMPANY: O 2 '%2 k S £ /T //L .'c_
REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check- all that apply):
• ' Utility Easement
• Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way.
Alley
• • Street right-of-way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows:
General location / Address: 'Co P Ii.. rtni mod./L)LS uie...., a..a n
(include legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated)
UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS:
• ' No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained
(State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.)
O £CG weed S 4o R[ n : a 2 0 r IEa(e, e k t v ✓: trr
Ew 5 f JA) f a i d > A)o tt_ %I Set,) Lc.
RoJ eas e t c J�e
Signature of Utility Company Representative
St P+ ;�� SctnelL[Ji5o2.
I itle
February 2004
Page 5
FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALLEY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
DATE: to - fl0 " °
UTILITY COMPANY: Spt.Jflt1->42.c,./ &e44 1'C kp iico
REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check all that apply):
• • Utility Easement
• • Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way.
Alley
• • Street right-of-way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows:
General location / Address:
(Include legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated)
UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS:
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained.
(State the to iota. e negoW, and purpose below.)
gn�ature of Uui it y Corn pant' Representative
Title
February 2004
Page 5
07/10/2005 22:09
4798720174 COX CONSTRUCTION
• i
PAt E 02/02
FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALLRY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
DATE: e -a7o aS
UTILITY COMPANY: Cisk (tr9MNnt Gal, on 5
REQUESTED VACATION (applicant nazil ebeck df thar apply):
* Utility Easement
aX Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way.
• Alley
Street rightof--way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, earenamR right-of-way), described as follows:
General location / Address:
IJIILI Y COMPANY COMMENTS:
No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
waoo
No objections io the vacation(s) described above, provided following described casements me retained.
(State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.)
t
Signore u�of Utility epresrnmtive
✓Tanner
Title
Fcbrwry 2004
vales
.07/12/2005 15:50 FAX 4794443490
• )
DATE:
UTILITY COMPANY:
COF TRANSPORTATION DIVIS
�J 001
I ?r im
AXt 57 - 948
pa a 21/b
FOR RIGHT- OF - WAY, ALLEY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
REQUESTED VACATION (eppf cant nrau that df that apply):
Utility Easement
Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility casements located within the vacated right- of- way.
• • Alley
• • Street right-of-way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley. emeavat, right-otwcr), described as follows:
Gerael location / Address: $Q' R /G/ 4 eyC /t -c * is t[,/ :.0 y S z4 4 2 r
!.. s - c•aa r, I
(Inelade fegd desafpdoa _d graphic rWraeafafiaa of what is bdag naoate4)
UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS:
•/rte No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described casements are retained.
(State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.)
Signal,, Uta;ry Co ny Rep�escntativq
T, f 2j/dam,
6TCO�LLf�
Ftb.Mo,y2001
575 -8227 Poses
FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
DATE: 7- g
UTILITY COMPANY: G LC7 S AM to -n fill
REQUESTED VACATION (applicant must check all that apply):
• • Utility Easement
• • Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easements located within the vacated right- of- way.
• Alley
• • Street right-of-way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easement, right-of-way), described as follows:
General location / Address: SO Q/ (4 $.g,Lt_r &t&' &' 1..4s' -s 21- 9 £r
C A./Ota L,ra.7o ScvsOrtl,>,)J
(Include legal description and graphic representation of what is being vacated)
UTILITY COMPANY COMMENTS:
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained.
(State the location, dimensions, and purpose below.)
2.
Signature of Utility Company Representative nn
Co�uvr_✓ct'a� 5ollr1 L,t.)as-1r /g2.
Title
February 2004
Page 5
08/02/2005 TUE 21:45 FAX 478 575 5Zst cloy 01 rayettevlue
C .,.... .....
5e7 R ft4
4 2z-0794-
FOR RIGHT- OF- WAY, ALLEY, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIors
DATE: 7 _ 8 ` o
IIIILITYCOMPANY: C 11 WAf G 4 Sf JCE Dca f'1,
REQUESTED VACATION (applicant nvfl cheat aff that ap(p):
• • Utility Easement
• • Right-of-way for alley or streets and all utility easanents located within the vacated right- of- way.
• Alley
• • Street right-of-way
I have been notified of the petition to vacate the following (alley, easemeni right -of -w'). described as follows:
Geaeral locaion /Address: SJIC/id d fi,r Ae t S 2'/ c ZC c w
S..t3a.0. sm.�t
UTILflY COMPANY COMMENTS:
• • No objections to the vacation(s) described above.
YNo objections to the vacation(s) described above, provided following described easements are retained.
(Stale the location, dimensions, and purpose below.)
Febwry2004
Pogo 3
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PETITION
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FORM
FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALLEY AND
EASEMENT VACATION REQUESTS
Address / location of vacation: Part of Lots 24 & 25 of Candlewood Subdivision
Adjacent property address: Lots 24 & 25. Candlewood Subdivision
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
REQUESTED VACATION:
I have been notified of the petition to vacate
the following
(alley,
easement, right-of-way), described as
follows:
SEE ATTACHED
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS:
• i do not object to the requested vacation because:
PLEASE SEE An — The undersigned and the Candlewood Subdivision (POA) strongly
encourage the abandonment to avoid very serious losses to the undersigned's lots (see attached
concerns if no abandonment and photos): the undersigned would lose the vast majority of the
homes driveway, along with ornamental metal and wood fences, and significant brickwork
improvements which existed since purchasing the homes, the POA wishes to have the easement
abandoned to avoid significant reduction in value to Candlewood Subdivision Properties related
to safety concerns, and the increased traffic to nearby schools.
PATBROWS(EQ5'i oc 5�t \W�
JAY TOLLEY(Wesf -, of SOS ?lW)
Signature
BROOKS(W tS l
Signature
•
SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION
We, Jay Tolley, Evelyn Brooks and Pat Brown, are adjoining landowners to an easement
which JDM Investments, LLC has sought to have vacated.
For a variety of reasons, we not only consent but strongly encourage and seek to petition
the City to vacate this easement.
Jay Tolley and Evelyn Brooks purchased their home from an individual and were
unaware of the easement. If this easement were ever implemented and used by the City,
and a "roadway" was placed in the easement area, it would do significant, serious damage
to their property and significant loss in not only the value of the home, but the loss of
improvements. In similar fashion, Pat Brown, without knowledge of the easement, had
constructed, long ago, the improvements on what has now been determined to be an
easement held by the City. Had the developer provided a "stub out" for this
easement/road, this problem would not exist and the easement would have been obvious
and already invoked. Through not fault of Pat Brown, Jay Tolley or Evelyn Brooks, this
was not done and they would have had to have physically gone to review the actual plat
that was filed, examine it and then satisfy themselves that the "easement" was not a mere
utility easement or otherwise, but was an actual road. Few purchasers, if any, go through
ibis process. This is one of the reasons the city now requires developers to "stub out"
streets. In order to give potential property owners fair "notice" that there is a street there
and it could potentially go somewhere at some point in the future.
In addition, this easement has not been used for an excess of five years, one of the criteria
used under Arkansas Code Ann. § 14-301-301 to give the City authority to vacate.
One other criteria typically considered before "vacating" an easement, is whether the
easement, alley or road is "required for corporate purpose", pursuant to Arkansas Code
Ann. § 14-54-104. These property owners, along with the entire Candlewood subdivision,
maintain that not only is it not "required" for corporate purpose, but it would be a very
real disservice to the public if it were opened. The traffic alone will have an adverse
effect on properties in the Candlewood neighborhood. Any other claim that it is
"required for a corporate purpose" would not only be wrong, but would be pure
speculation. The neighbors and the homeowners association both wish to support efforts
to vacate this road roadway, fully understanding that a utility easement of some smaller
size would remain. -
The traffic, which would be funneled into this new subdivision, would have extremely
negative impact on property values and would pose safety concerns for the children in the
neighborhood. This, when compared to any type of"benefit", would be enough to
convince those reviewing the situation to vacate the easement.
There will be a very significant and severe hardship on the abutting property owners, if
this easement were ever actually improved. Attached, you will find the driveways and
the various improvements over which this easement lies. Both driveways would have to
be completely removed, along with the different brickwork and wrought iron fencing,
Cedar fencing, extensive valuable landscape. There would be left, a very short
"driveway" into the garage, changing in great fashion, the looks and the appeal of the
home.
It can be argued that after five years, upon the request of the property owners and the
"non-use", the easement must be vacated. Even assuming for the moment there is no
legal requirement that it be vacated, there is no significant "common good" this could
provide the City when causing so much damage and loss to an entire neighborhood and
significant damage to the above landowners who now request that this easement be
vacated.
The petitioners maintain there is no reasonable corporate purpose sufficient to justify the
negative impact on the neighborhood and on Pat Brown, Jay Tolley and Evelyn Brooks in
not allowing vacation of this easement.
The petitioners understand that any corporate purpose would result in "funneling" more
traffic through a small neighborhood with many children. The petitioners understand the
development would then only have one access which, while not ideal for emergency
vehicles, is also not unconunon(see Jackson Place), especially considering the low
density of that particular development. If the city ever chose to improve or develop the
"easement", the bad would far outweigh any potential good.
Other landowners similarly situated have been able to obtain "a vacation" of an
alleyway. In addition, developments similar to the one proposed have been able to have
one entrance from Highway 265. It would be very unfair to treat these adjoining
landowners with the easement at issue differently when considering the very real damage
this could cause to them.
•
05038
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION FOR RIG&IT OF WAY ABANOONNENT
A tract of land located between Lot 24 and Lot 25, of candlewood Subdivision, a
subdivisiont to the city ofFayetteville,
Arkansas, and said tract being mor particularly described as follows:
Conwwncing at the southeast corner of said Lot 24
thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 180.96 feet to the
northeast corner of said Lot 24;
thence North 88 degrees 47 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet to the
northwest corner of said Lot 25;
thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 180.08 feet to the
southwest corner of said Lot 25
thence South 87 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds west a distance of 50.03 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING, and containging 0.21 acres, more or less.
And being subject to any easements, rights of ways, covenants and restrictions of
record.
p
PETITION
PETITION TO VACATE AN EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOTS 24 & 25 OF CANDLE WOOD
SUBDIVISION, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TO: The Fayetteville City Planning Commission and
The Fayetteville City Council
1, the undersigned, being one of the owners of the real estate abutting, the easement hereinafter sought to
be abandoned and vacated, lying in Lots 24 & 25 of Candlewood Subdivision, Fayetteville, Arkansas, a
municipal corporation, petition to vacate an easement which is described as follows:
A tract of land located between Lot 24 and Lot 25, of Candlewood Subdivision, a subdivision to the City
of Fayetteville, Arkansas; and said tract being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 24 thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East
a distance of 180.96 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 24; thence North 88 degrees 47 minutes 14
seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 25; thence South 00 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 180.08 feet to the southwest corner os said Lot 25; thence South 87
degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds west a distance of 50.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and
containing 0.21 acres, more of less. And being subject to any easements, rights of ways; covenants and
restrictions or record.
That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the easement is 2806 Crossover, Addition:
31-17-29 Fayetteville Outlets, City of Fayetteville; the easement has not been used since the development
of the Candlewood subdivision by the public for a period in excess of five (5) years, and that the public
interest and welfare would not be adversely affected by the abandonment of the portion of the above
described easement.
The petitioner prays that the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, abandon and vacate the above described real
estate, subject, however; to the existing utility easements and sewer easement 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 petitioner respectfully prays 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 _G�___ day of �G, l� 2005.
Investments, LLC by Jay Mc
-J l
PETITION
PETITION TO VACATE AN EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOTS 24 & 25 OF CANDLEWOOD
SUBDIVISION, 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 easement hereinafter sought to be
abandoned and vacated, lying in Lots 24 & 25 of Candlewood Subdivision, Fayetteville, Arkansas, a
municipal corporation, petition to vacate an easement which is described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION
That the abutting real estate affected by said abandonment of the easement are Lots 24 & 25, Candlewood
Subdivision, City of Fayetteville; the easement has not been used since the development of the subdivision
by the public for a period in excess of five (5) years, and that the public interest and welfare would not be
adversely affected by the abandonment of the portion of the above described easement. The citizens of the
City of Fayetteville would greatly benefit from the abandonment of said easement and the Candlewood
Subdivision would be harmed if this easement would ever by utilized. The adjoining property owners
would incur a devastating loss if the City developed this easement. The development would result in
destruction of significant attached improvements, seriously reducing property values and changing the
value of the homes adjoining and nearby. Attached, see a photo of the area which would be lost if the
easement were developed.
The petitioners further pray that the above describe 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 the particular land the owners be free from the easements of the
public for the use of said alley.
Dated this Q ( day of "? , 2005.
PAT BROWN
JAY TOLLEY
Signature
Signature
I
•,
SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION
We, Jay Tolley, Evelyn Brooks and Pat Brown, are adjoining landowners to an easement
which JDM Investments, LLC has sought to have vacated.
For a variety of reasons, we not only consent but strongly encourage and seek to petition
the City to vacate this easement.
Jay Tolley and Evelyn Brooks purchased their home from an individual and were
unaware of the easement. If this easement were ever implemented and used by the City,
and a "roadway" was placed in the easement area, it would do significant, serious damage
to their property and significant loss in not only the value of the home, but the loss of
improvements. In similar fashion, Pat Brown, without knowledge of the easement, had
constructed, long ago, the improvements on what has now been determined to be an
easement held by the City. Had the developer provided a "stub out" for this
easement/road, this problem would not exist and the easement would have been obvious
and already invoked. Through not fault of Pat Brown, Jay Tolley or Evelyn Brooks, this
was not done and they would have had to have physically gone to review the actual plat
that was filed, examine it and then satisfy themselves that the "easement" was not a mere
utility easement or otherwise, but was an actual road. Few purchasers, if any, go through
this process. This is one of the reasons the city now requires developers to "stub out"
streets. In order to give potential property owners fair "notice" that there is a street there
and it could potentially go somewhere at some point in the future.
In addition, this easement has not been used for an excess of five years, one of the criteria
used under Arkansas Code Ann. § 14-301-301 to give the City authority to vacate.
One other criteria typically considered before "vacating" an easement, is whether the
easement, alley or road is "required for corporate purpose", pursuant to Arkansas Code
Ann. § 14-54-104. These property owners, along with the entire Candlewood subdivision,
maintain that not only is it not "required" for corporate purpose, but it would be a very
real disservice to the public if it were opened. The traffic alone will have an adverse
effect on properties in the Candlewood neighborhood. Any other claim that it is
"required for a corporate purpose" would not only be wrong, but would be pure
speculation. The neighbors and the homeowners association both wish to support efforts
to vacate this road roadway, fully understanding that a.utility easement of some smaller
size would remain.
The traffic, which would be funneled into this new subdivision, would have extremely
negative impact on property values and would pose safety concerns for the children in the
neighborhood. This, when compared to any type of "benefit", would be enough to
convince those reviewing the situation to vacate the easement.
There will be a very significant and severe hardship on the abutting property owners, if
this easement were ever actually improved. Attached, you will find the driveways and
the various improvements over which this easement lies. Both driveways would have to
be completely removed, along with the different brickwork and wrought iron fencing,
Cedar fencing, extensive valuable landscape. There would be left, a very short
"driveway" into the garage, changing in great fashion, the looks and the appeal of the
home.
It can be argued that after five years, upon the request of the property owners and the
"non-use", the easement must be vacated. Even assuming for the moment there is no
legal requirement that it be vacated, there is no significant "common good" this could
provide the City when causing so much damage and loss to an entire neighborhood and
significant damage to the above landowners who now request that this easement be
vacated.
The petitioners maintain there is no reasonable corporate purpose sufficient to justify the
negative impact on the neighborhood and on Pat Brown, Jay Tolley and Evelyn Brooks in
not allowing vacation of this easement.
The petitioners understand that any corporate purpose would result in "funneling" more
traffic through a small neighborhood with many children. The petitioners understand the
development would then only have one access which, while not ideal for emergency
vehicles, is also not uncommon(see Jackson Place), especially considering the low
density of that particular development. If the city ever chose to improve or develop the
"easement", the bad would far outweigh any potential good.
Other landowners similarly situated have been able to obtain "a vacation" of an
alleyway. In addition, developments similar to the one proposed have been able to have
one entrance from Highway 265. It would be very unfair to treat these adjoining
landowners with the easement at issue differently when considering the very real damage
this could cause to them.
05038
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION FOR RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT
A tract of land located between Lot 24 and Lot 25, of Candlewood Subdivision, a
subdivisions to the city of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and said tract being mor particularly described as follows:
co miencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 24
thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 180.96 feet to the
northeast corner of said Lot 24;
thence North 88 degrees 47 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet to the
northwest corner of said Lot 25:
thence south 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 180.08 feet to the
southwest corner of said Lot 25
thence south 87 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds west a distance of 50.03 feet to the
Poxwr OF BEGINNING, and containging 0.21 acres, more or less.
And being subject to any easements, rights of ways, covenants and restrictions of
record.
.y H,fiILIUA.— : 1 I V 1 1'
• I: y t i 5 :,yry, , Y a' I ..I ' f1 11•. 1 Y 1 ' 1: D{r 1. ISIS' •4 i,t y'N I. �11J 1:° 1 !Iq
,.J .. ,SIN 6C 1 \ I 1_ 14:•I ,�.
Lr a=;ate :LEGEND .
.I �y y t �o_)CONCRETE BOUNDARY MARKE0.J s' -` i
LL y.f. t� �•'\®. - ZQ �'a A 1 e 0, SETIRON PIN < r t 1 , r `s l
+ L J m MANHOLE
Z \ ^ f t Ro fen x• ' EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT �, t, , H �( FIRE HYDDRAW I ' ,. 1
It ' N
tAy 1,1 .ySan i .• t .: SPROPOS STREET LICHT:"� <„ <1 +��t
—'— '1 11 <Y _f 4 t 1. t l',A lal /. a/ Llal '1•V L as IA J . L.
1 : j .\
I < r e' r'Is' <.I I: A4CEWERLINEMARKLK I. : ' \ ,I. " I L" "
t �'�®' 29 I SIDEWALK -
1 STREET CENTERLINE
II a/ 14
1� / l �•YE Ia UTILITY EASFMEM
I
\ alu. /.. ;1 t'1.: .loo,D N1 ,. "-
1. t[7r1 p. � - I I.r o J,.: / 1 " WATE If .r
♦ r �'i'V • ,141.1 \ f/L.. ' 't I f].1: YM 'tofu t fl Aft^ NE V I y0„lyl
r � c W
�® ' . \\ ' I 1 r AiNRARY SEWE0. SFI; }'� ,".w`r.♦ :.:
4/g-.;.
.•. I . FORCE MAIN..•1l: _•-,. 1,.
�CCtZ
m. 26 I P "` FLOWING WATER
\,II+{��XI•.�'1^][i. ':I m l(l oq~' I l�• 1'` ,frllfrr ): 1'II rIlYY1'�11 �. i1 ~'y'I�If•
i \ `.!• y, • ,I, ••181 to ( \lam la' rt 1.
•
• • �]�f 1IL\'.\i��,lr.♦'l�i 1 a�� ._ 'I r(�
1 \ F!/:4'�J I ' 1 r • Jr;w �?', t+
M \
1I 1I r/1 —'.Y will"\
I
' : 1<Qr
• �L+TTT�[ %ISI�I�/� + 'I )�Y.IQ�IY= J\\�' l..l �i• '(r�� l I tl ..1:."
�!aX4'gLX� r=•vr,�i „ � 4�xt�'lR�,�J.'�"L `y,^•:_�•'WV`.•f l'A`IEII�I' }�''�PI
7�•n'
I c nNKA+•t<IP.„
N0335'OaW 1
,,.. 1N �•....-` • NIL h0 = i
.. a ppL LA t,Ot 1�' •ti L1
1<�'f • ��YIJ M,.L'1i aaH :c;. .
HHHInw•t .. Q ..
1 •i i. ] s• r gyp;. a 1 aYt
r••'a'1 ✓ Ia•W� i < . .. :. I J 1 . ' y I 1 !I `1't 1• i IN
I AI 1' 4n NNI,,,•,L. Uwv III N •.1rq• 4•{na•1 Ylax . 1 �" ` � '�T� l+ 1
V n•14/N1 ••Y'n1�M• •1 UI•. Y M•lan• L1•MJ v W Y Nlalltl 11 WI :,(..,',, ki.i1 e r 'kA ^119pq•�ya N NM}11 otl W GlY M iW11•NIH 1j .r1 1y1
. l /! 9 ) (/L /? GY fT
oex �pn rJewLin O'.
L...n T[M Munro �
1 Ia M� uNVY Ila W MIaY tyM r
M.0. fAY •1 Iyl•,p•• �d 5YMfl A1•Ild F W ..M IMM1 Iwt ,Mr•sl•• ^
^____________
�Ft N fIL 1 �f 11 1 I 1
��ilp%Y4
..11i. H•l Iv •a pTW VpMY i M u. smwx1 L.+1... a1u 11.. L=i I� lJII<ry.4•::
•N^MJY x�L Is pY W rrti41 /MW1 1 '1/L11
Lprull
J'-z-0q o 0
yL 11''Ip yIYEHIMiij
I•RL.TI M..I4,.,
11 XY Y4 i WtlIV 1•It PIv�Mn •1wn m W IIY s• 1, vurL... 4th w w.11. kl _ O .'�
ry ` p 1
J ,..
' (Le➢pGILC x•sI1WGtJLRA[rpt1AA'.. � m
APPENDIX D-1
PHOTO NO. 1
Aerial Photo of Subject Right -of -Way
.. ..T Y ♦
<a jt J
l a LaM1• 1
4iµ • J R` �;:,� « it }Oz p
v$¢ - x M1 r A , l 1
rr 9F I
C r .Zry _ c. 1tV ^J (LT: ^t+i u ;" -c, ♦•nv rz.- Ma ra i-'��(( 1,
{_ . • �il s {=r A ` f. fir y Ar.ra MSF T.
i d r.
-ft v�p d'i+5'++N11..rria 't ��((
a_ Jx jvr+v,�y:'. S .1✓hY S ♦ 1 "_ 't f ) �� Yx � t
\ 1 I F y�-iti.�yl�r••i•r qq�
�
la 1 ,✓�N,r�p 43 ,a[ 1 .-A.- �' •b�ertL Iy}i
ii I y ('. j♦ i 1 1 Mf / i 11A�ii 1.1 t'?y)'1 Is l{,
C A \YJ
I V 1 Kc'a'tiY 11 �. \ \ 1
i 1 • 1 •e _rte. -r ��
•1J
a ry Yz t) T i1�b� Ti�a aln •1 Y( � � 1.
Iaaa ��V+af.Yl aT+i it+� i C' µYiv \
T^_.' r i jl_f �i�y u�id� ai.Y �a} j�i14 a{
r�i • S "�:`�:�) �'lT 4VifYntl"' as 1:
'• bk\- < £ P V
S - v! 44 C1
k f ._ � .( As A f r
r IY� a V - y • t!�
i r: N
ei'
jIl�\
'F r�a rT ]. F s .. y y r, vt i2v 'I C•1Y� i�JL"n1 c '. • n 7
t ' $ -, vl T a "nii
� S J t YY��
Y I♦ �
P
eras. kL\ ( G sN. -• �� w • l<Sa�l` • 'i, ��•y}k � "^` rl'� .it � 1 t4.ry [`� � a Y1T bL \\\W ^• ( i ^ j�qi�' 1 11 t `t^ tJw. S� £T x� Ei . t. Pi a•�� (t � }} �� �5rv+T' r 1�v IIIC44 �t .'4z R vnV _i[ .'�xt 1i •111 xf.. R 4py��a �'r}bM1♦�M:Yril �. YIFy?' n f\ Yom.l< T« FA« 1C v Lf. ry 1. } ya1 �l:.�v~ t� ,i i ��l� Cu.,i q� v Y� �j, \Y� � �:{ O ` I�j'i.v W � � ^ l' e \ y e r. Y 'o% r J }4�s } Y Y i nrJ t }S ,\•' iii r'ti,��Y� L L•-��1 r �• u l�,�'T� I� �i\tli fi�vv" � � Y P± � 3`,• \� � �y�« ry,J �.. ,��1 L nu\ A... �..+,=4 1 r �M1fr `T1 1Y ZiTH l k « ♦ a'^!. i yCj a�i v/� A ctI y` _l,:O{ r a` +"r -I J"Y%'ai ty Y ✓Y3-� fl z � I� " j �' � 'Tz t X(if r1� .r r .�
MDR ,r�� �5L(♦f vir �( .1,` r.i
S^ y !i\i" y ✓.V.FN r k.Ya.a '�`� U„- s Ir,.. •v y I^ry"C � n
�
• r� 6 1E �, 1♦_._ 1 1 ( lre.l ti\A
a�a .@1 v` ` r 'S ,0 r
e..+L�1 v9"(4t a lY "y~ 1.' ^I,�• \ ((2
_ 4 TI
^ mti (` '
rlt {.. I4 r.'a L4']r2 11• �.:t S 3111�,a ali.
' 1 . 111 i rL' a e, .z .x �
cc {{��
�.yTa ti�i L.r^�I YYGli�/rJ•. 'r r/�i r _��.ldi•._ iiY^ ]bl�?. r✓�"." 4
APPENDIX D-2
PHOTO NO. 2
View Looking North from Candlewood Drive
tie .A
m, �I
)
-:-,.`,
• n { Sv > • ci
r
..x �shzC ;._..
�`{�td
.� �•
r , �
r � �
J'1 a Jn..• f .lil '� { ♦ ' a �T.a 1 1l
e
"
` 1!'f} j: r r ti it r 3
1
4
_• , yr, Y� •
�4�0�N' r°5a
, w a • iC 4I p. a fY'
Y _ rL 14n
t l" I yt y C. a i I F V I •.
n'r ♦ ;YYYY. ♦O�tl I:12 t.i r1 1 _ •\
'`4 fi :'�
ter rG.i1i. t I 1
t 1 rlre II
r °, �tP �r4A '�� •t
R,r�
n u It 1 'rl n1 5 r' .{�
jr' .Y.
• 4((�� )�f • •. ♦ 1 ' t ,. Mil ) '} , [d)1n 1 F'f �!"4� L,
• t• . v 1 '• ` { �' 4f I b ,I µ4,t1 ..4 F •.'
w > ij`1{1 % k.LI 5•r��)ri{ •{ aA--Yb e
-It , ii J L.4 ni'vi. j T3'tti �' ! r1'SYL l,..{M1
e �' ♦ Y ♦ Al"..E„'C
c.. r (. 5 1 t r I, f. •4 4t{ jf�{=Y i k • fnpJ`r1 •f1'
in K.\ r', YI , r ).,rJSj:Y w .V { ,} r - f
r 7r^{dn v:•%.. ry 1. !F
[ iy \— I� , s. -'J.t, l r�'YY„ 4 i� i�l• Y�
r n •.r..
llr�x/♦_�rS
1 ♦ I �} r Y4r{�y6v (� b. 1f 91v ,Y 'l �• 1 / � 1i , i-]tn r .E, , Lti'i^ L ai r r `l J".I• �Y agr!•"�e !t ♦r� a • r .r
i\Z•YSFK','�' Ii h I' I
5icti —9f �1♦J•)' ! t,. • '$° ' ,
I Aa It IT 3 btL 5 ,{ i
lilt ! S..
• t • y, f r—{'?.YC'�V4�`ifi G31 'a ., �F' C y I�fl
^' w `�3`� ,-`riJ� i.e♦r11 �[ 1
'.. r. ..A 4 9.Y ��•• rr'.1 rY rya) I� iI '+t ,� py
Tn)!I
\. n 1, T. !r ,rli; V'r • h •}
♦ 1r R 1 f Nf '
�
)�' y 1-jY'.r't �t 4t jt �_..3..-
'• r w • j �M1 S1M {,`)r '.✓''2'lt v ' r�' !]�nr y`l �\ �'l l' ) .4 •".,
f t ,-J 7• i4) f+7, 'ISY.!.9, •��+• '. L)/ • T'1[ J '((���r1I -.•y
'�r .a` lit Y u7\aj"li yl, Jr it { 1• ,i Y iiG{a i.r�„ %at �I ... +y ` r ii:
✓ Y' .f r[i"L' L aj� s Yty ZiJ 4{ `�'�3:� :Ma' r
•v i/ t ` t a vY Y ,,,rrr���'''
1 sA r 34" r �{'W+ct xt: k• it t,y.
\,r LlJl l�k; rr �',�1=\ •Yyy
,� 1 N.
i C IC, .agflL Xfl 1L J e.� V ��liitjM1b'L'IL r
APPENDIX D-3
PHOTO NO. 3
Close-up View of Subject Right -of -Way
• A ♦ S ! IIYJN-J....
+ V
APPENDIX E
CANDLE WOOD SUBDIVISION
1999 MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
SUBDIVISON COMMITTEE
FAYETTEVI PLE
-
THE'CITY OF WETTEVILLE; ARKANSAS
February 25, 1999
_y. ..,_ .... .__ _.
David Chapman
P.O. Box 263
Springdale, AR 72765
Jorgensen & Associates
2013 Green Acres Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 22,
1999. This is your official notification that your preliminary plat was approved by the Planning
Commission.
Congratulations and Good Luck,
Ja4ykohns
Sr. Secretary
Planning Department.
113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501-521-7700
FAX 501-575-8257
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 22, 1999
Page 20
PP99-1: PRELIMINARY PLAT
CANDLEWOOD SUBDIVISION, pp294
The next item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David
Chapman for property located north of Township and east of Highwy 265. The property is zoned
R -1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 45.60 acres with 60 (amended to 59)
lots proposed.
Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission determination of stub out(s) for future street connections. The
Subdivision Committee recommended that right of way be dedicated for future
connections to the north and south of this development without constructing the street.
The applicant has revised the plans to reflect this recommendation.
2. Planning Commission determination of any additional improvements or assessments for
future improvements to Hwy 265 (Crossover Rd.) (The Planning Commission is not
requesting any assessments at this time.
3. Prior to the submittal of construction plans, a retaining wall shall be designed along
Candlewood Dr. on Lot 10 for the preservation of the double oak tree that is existing.
4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500 (60 lots @ $375 = $22,500.) Based on
the fact that.there are only 59 lots the revised amount of park fees is $22,125 (59 lots @
$375 = $22,125.)
5. The existing 25 feet utility easement
to be
vacated
must be processed as a separate
application prior to the approval of a
final
plat for
this development.
6. Dedication of right of way along Highway 265 (Crossover Road) shall be by warranty
deed.
Plat Review and Subdivision comments.
Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading,
drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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 the City's current requirements.
Dave Jorgensen, Tom 1-lennelly, and David Chapman were present on behalf of the project.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 22, 1999
Page 21
Commission Discussion
Jorgensen: I am representing the owners on this project and you mentioned it is a preliminary
plat for Candlewood Subdivision. We need to correct one thing. It says 60 lots and there are
actually 59. We have to take out another lot because in the process of getting this approved, we
were asked to provide an easement to the north and also to the south and this rearranged the lot
lines such that we had to eliminate one lot. It is true that we have 45.6 acres. Approximately 4.5
acres was added to the original farm tract to allow for a connection on the south end of Township
so that it lined up with the street that leads to Vandergriff School. The original layout was
somewhat to the east of that. It caused a problem with that alignment. We now have 2 ways of
ingress and egress on this project. We have access to the south on Township and we have access
on Highway 265. As I mentioned, we were asked to provide an access to the north and we
provided a dedicated right of way to the north. Also, we provided the dedicated right of way to
the south by the Runnels property. I'm not sure if these are terribly beneficial but it was worked
out in the Subdivision Committee meeting. We do have the owner here to answer questions.
Public Comment
None.
Further Commission Discussion
Estes:
We have a letter in
our packet from
Dr. Runnels that in the early stages of this
project
that the density was going
to be l home on
4 acres. Is that true?
Jorgensen:
I don't know how
that came up. I haven't
had a discussion with him and I'm not
sure that the
owners have either.
At this particular point,
as you can see, we have almost 46 acres
with 59 lots
which is not I home
per 4 acres but it does have very large lots in the subdivision.
Tucker: Does the property span Mud Creek?
Jorgensen: No. It's just down the center line.
Little: Only at Lot 45.
Jorgensen: You'll notice on Lot 45, because of the original layout of the property, Mud Creek
has a tributary that comes in from two different directions and Lot 45 is kind of like an island
with frontage along Township.
Tucker: The reason I'm curious is that a couple of meetings ago, we had a presentation
dealing with Mud Creek in the CMN area and the idea there was the opportunity to do some
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 22, 1999
Page 22
preservation and
keep that as
a riparian corridor. Would you
be amenable to some type of
special treatment
to preserve
the Mud Creek boundary on Lot
45?
Jorgensen: I would imagine that it would remain as is. Lot 45 is very large and we're in the
process of installing a box culvert from another project which is located in the southwest corner
of Lot 45. There are some improvements immediately downstream from the box culvert but for
the most part it will remain as is. The building area of Lot 45 is going to be on that portion that
faces Township. As far as improvements to Mud Creek all the way north, as you can see, all of
those lots are so deep that the likelihood of any construction in that area --well, there just won't
be anything happening because of the flood plain and the easements and the fact that the houses
are going to be located along the street.
Tucker: Between Old Wire and 45, this is a significant opportunity. It appears as if Mud
Creek is unspoiled. Do we have any properties?
Little: We have Easton Park and it will now be called Covington.
Odom: Brookbury Subdivision backs up to the other side of the creek.
Little: Yes. We did receive some park land along the creek in the Brookbury plat.
Regarding the access to the trail, I see that from our preliminary plat or from our plat review plat
for the one that went to Subdivision Committee and now, that the 12 feet wide sewer access drive
is noted as City Access - Not Parks. The Council specifically requested at the rezoning that there
would be an access.to the area that had been designated for trail in Brookbury. I understand that
the Parks Department may not want to maintain that area but I need to make sure that it's real
clear that is the access back to that other particular piece of property. Is that what that is intended
to be?
Jorgensen: Yes.
Little: Just so I have it on the record in case we need it.
Jorgensen: That is what it is and they --
Little: That's between Lots 26 and 27.
Jorgensen: They just wanted to make sure that it wasn't dedicated as a Park's trail for some
reason.
Little: I wanted to make sure that it was on there for access to that other property. I am
satisfied.
-•,
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 22, 1999
Page 23
Jorgensen: That's one of the purposes, to access the sewer line.
Little: Thank you.
Hoffman: Did you ever decide if it was going to be asphalted?
Hennelly: We were proposing SB2 with sod on top. That is still up in the air.
Hoffman: But you are making plans for the trucks to be able to access the manholes.
Jorgensen: Tom Hennelly is from our office and has been working on this. I think he has had
the latest discussions with the engineering staff on this. We're still not sure whether it should be
a based with a sod on top or,possibly some pavers. We weren't sure whether to make it asphalt.
We do have to make it acceptable and it was also made clear to us that we needed to mark this so
that everyone realizes that it is a pedestrian pathway for access down to the creek.
MOTION
Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve PP99-1 subject to all staff comments.
Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion.
Further Discussion
Odom: Condition 4 indicates the park fees were based on 60 lots and I'm assuming this
will be worked out with the applicant since that affects 59 lots.
Johnson: On condition 2, 1 assume that was encompassed in the motion which deals with
improvements to Highway 265 and I believe at Subdivision, the staff was going to confirm that
the Highway Department does not plan any improvement to that particular section of 265.
Petrie: That is correct.
Johnson: Then it seems to me that probably condition 2 should be deleted or that we should
say the Planning Commission does not request assessments at this time.
Hoffman: I'll say that at this time.
Shackelford: I'll amend my second.
Roll Call
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 22, 1999
Page 24
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February11, 1999
Page 2
PP99-1: PRELIMINARY PLAT
CANDLEWOOD SUBDIVISION
This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David
Chapman for property located north of Township and east of Highway 265. The property is
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 45.60
Conditions to Address/Discuss
1. Street connections - the applicant has requested only one connection to the north and staff
originally recommended connections to the north, west and east. The most reasonable
option for a connection to the east would be between lots 39 and 40.
2. Planning Commission determination of appropriate contribution towards future
improvements to Hwy 265 (Crossover Road.)
3. Prior to the submittal of construction plans, a retaining wall shall be designed along
Candlewood Dr. on Lot 10 for the preservation of the double oak tree that is existing.
4. (Not Applicable) The short street between lots 24 and 25 needs to be named. Contact Jim
Johnson for approval of street name.
Plat Review and Subdivision comments.
.6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading,
drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree
preservation. The information submitted to plat review was reviewed for general concept
only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All
improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements.
7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500 (60 lots @ $375 each.)
8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 feet sidewalk
with a minimum 6 feet sidewalk on both sides of Candlewood Dr., Silverton Dr., and
Waxwood Dr. and 6 feet sidewalk with a minimum 10 feet green space along Township
Rd. and Crossover Rd.
9. Easement to be vacated must be processed as a separate application prior to the approval
of a final plat for this development.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 3
10. Dedication of right of way along Highway 265 (Crossover Rd.) shall be by warranty
deed.
11. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year.
Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the applicant.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with
recommendation of approval contingent upon conditions.
Little: There are four items that we will need to discuss this morning. Staff had
originally talked to the applicant about connections to the north, west, and east. At this time, the
applicant is proposing a connection to the north only and they do request that no other
connection be required. They have a letter in the packet on page 4 (a copy of which is on file in
the Planning Division.) Also relating to streets, there is frontage on Highway 265 and our
engineering staff had said that the applicant needed to get with the Highway Department to
determine how much the contribution should be or what AHTD would have in mind for that. We
don't have any information for you on that at this time. We need to discuss the retaining wall on
Lot 10. Normally that would be an engineering item but in this case, the retaining wall was to
protect a double oak tree that already exists. We need another street name between Lots 24 and
25 adding the name to the stub out street. Those are the major items. The rest of the items are
fairly standard. We are waiting for a representative from engineering.
Public Discussion
None.
Committee Discussion
Johnson:
We have no
other staff comments except
for engineering. We will discuss the
four items
which Planning
has laid out for us. The first
is the street connections.
Jorgensen: I am representing Dave Chapman, the owner. We have a resubmittal from our last
meeting and if you will notice on the vicinity map, it shows the surrounding area better than what
we had last time and hopefully we can tell where the other streets are at with respect to our
project. You'll notice our project is the shaded area. Immediately to the northeast is Brookbury
Woods Subdivision. You'll notice that the street, well, it's not labeled, but the street that extends
through Brookbury running north and south is Brookbury Crossing. It ends at the south end of
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 4
Brookbury with the intention to extend it eventually to the south to Township Street which is the
street that is the on the south end of our project. Township is presently under construction which
will tie into what is known right now as Easton Park Subdivision.
Warrick: The name of that has changed to Covington.
Jorgensen: The intention was to extend Brookbury Crossing to the south to Township
extension. Immediately to the east of Brookbury is Savannah Estates. You can see there are no
streets that are stubbed out or extend to the south out of Savannah. However, on the northeast
comer of Easton, you can see a stubbed out street to the north which, hopefully, will extend from
there north up to Skillern when that property is developed.
Johnson: This north south street that is stubbed out. What is the line on the map? Is that a
stream or a street that it intersects?
Little: A stream.
Jorgensen: That is a tributary of Mud Creek.
Johnson: The vicinity map depicts the stub out street crossing the tributary?
Jorgensen: That is correct except the tributary at that point is fairly small.
Johnson: What kind of crossing is that? Is it a bridge or a low water?
Jorgensen: It would be just a culvert. It's not much.
Johnson: Nothing to concern ourselves with?
Jorgensen: Are you talking about what future crossing it might be?
Johnson: I mean what exists now?
Jorgensen: There is nothing there now. There is a private drive that goes through some
property there.
Little: I don't believe there are any structure there. It is two separate pieces of property.
Johnson:
This
stub out
street that stops in
Easton Park --
it looks as if it's built just north of
Easton Park.
What
happens
from the north end
of that?
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 5
Little:
It is leading
into, vacant property but it is leading into
vacant property with one
owner
on one side and one
on the other in case either of them decide
to develop, they would have
access.
Johnson: This looks like there is some kind of a road way. It doesn't presently get there.
Little: It's a lot deep.
Johnson: But it doesn't presently get to the street through there.
Little: It's a stub out. It is one lot deep. It would require a crossing.
Jorgensen:
To the south of our project,
Candlewood, naturally, that
heavy lane that goes
through Crossover Park, that leads over to
Vandergriff School. It's not
a designated city street
but it does
connect to Vandergriff and it goes out to Highway 45.
Johnson: Is there any restriction on the public using that street at any time?
Jorgensen: I have tried to go through there during the day and they have it blocked off at the
school.
Little: They do block it off during playtime. Other than that, I think you can go through
there.
Johnson: Did we know that when we allowed that it would be blocked off?
Little: No.
Forney: Is it a public street or a private street?
Little: Private.
Jorgensen: Immediately to the west of our project, is an area that is partially owned by
Runnels and then our property abuts Highway 265 on the north end and then we have been asked
to provide a connection to the north which we don't necessarily agree with but we understand the
City's need for connectivity although in this situation, we're not sure that it is that beneficial
because it only serves Ms. Tu's property and a small parcel immediately north of that for a total
of 5 or 6 acres?
Chapman: She has 6. I think the other property belongs to the church and it's 2 or 3 acres.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 6
Jorgensen: Along our entire east boundary line is the tributary to the Mud Creek and as Alett
mentioned, I have a letter in the packet that addresses connectivity and in this particular interest,
we felt that the tributary to the Mud Creek represented such a geographic obstacle that we didn't
feel it would be advantageous to go directly to the east right there. That is the reason we don't
have a stub out. Concerning the Highway Department, I did contact them and they said that this
stretch of Highway 265 was recently overlaid and they have no plans in the foreseeable future for
any improvements there and they are not asking for any donation. The way he put it to me is
they didn't want to get in the habit of writing a letter addressing this. The only thing I can do is
to write a letter to the Planning Division and state that I had this conversation with them and that
they didn't want any money.
Little: They would rather have the general taxpayer pay for this improvement.
Jorgensen: I guess that is what it was. That was all I could get out of them.
Johnson: The State Highway Department says this part of 265 which is north of the 45
intersection which they have three lanes already that this section has no future plan at any time in
their existing plan to do anymore improvement.
Jorgensen: Right.
Johnson: So, they would have no basis to request a contribution.
Jorgensen: Right.
Johnson: And they won't write a letter to that effect.
Jorgensen: That is correct.
Johnson: Are we in a position of that individual developers make this contact and then
when the higher governmental level says they would rather not write a letter then that leaves us
in the position of relying on the hear say report from the developer? Or since we've learned that
the State won't provide any kind of letter on it, is there a reason that staff should follow up?
Little: Engineering was the one that asked them to make that contact with the State in
order to determine what improvements were planned in order that we could determine what their
fair share of those improvements would be. We need to talk to Engineering about that particular
issue. I don't think it's a good idea that if we know the Highway Department is not going to
respond to us with definitive information in writing that they probably have that responsibility to
make that contact.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 7
Johnson: I suggest that staff go ahead and check with the Highway Department and confirm
that their policy is that they really don't have the willingness to write us a letter and once you've
confirmed that then we're going to have to always ask that they follow up on that. Anything else
that you have for us Dave?
Jorgensen: I think this covers the issues that we got to at our last meeting.
Little: Did you receive a copy of a letter from Dr. Runnels?
Jorgensen: No.
Chapman: I haven't.
Little: Let me read:
"I'm writing you to voice my objection to the Subdivision plan for the land adjacent to
my property on two sides. As you know, some 60 lots are planned to be built on 40
acres. I was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting due to having to see
patients in my office at the time of the meeting but I think this density of housing is
another example of what people are now calling `urban sprawl.' Mr. Terminella told us
that when he was first developing this and talked to several of our neighbors that he was
going to put 1 house on 4 acres which we feel would be quite a good idea and it would
improve the property value of our land next to him. I think having this density of homes
.is just further taxing our already overburden sewer system and should berejected and that
they should come back with a plan that would have lot sizes of at least 3 to 4 acres. I
think to do otherwise is just going to contribute to the urban sprawl that is becoming
Fayetteville.
Sincerely,
Vincent B. Runnels, M.D."
We'll put this in the file packet of information that everybody gets.
Johnson:
Kim,
do you have
anything on this? Do you want to
postpone further discussion
of this until
we have
Engineering
with us since many of these issues
are Engineering?
Forney: We did have Engineering here last time. Hopefully, we would get Engineering
involved before we have a motion. I think we can address street connections.
•
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 8
Little: Mr. Beavers was ill yesterday and I know that Mr. Petrie has been at a seminar.
Conklin: Mr. Petrie is still at a seminar.
Little: Are we likely to have anyone from Engineering today? Can you find that out for
us?
Johnson: The reason for my suggestion that we might wait, I thought all of these
connections are very much driven by Engineering.
Little: They are driven by grade.
Forney: The one thing that the new vicinity map allows me to see a little bit better is the
southerly connection of Brookbury Crossing to Township. It's going to have to happen in a
fairly narrow condition between a tight curve and the existing creek. I just want to get some
assurance that there can, in fact, be a connection made there.
Little: Here is Township. It would probably come down.
Forney: We probably would have visibility problems there.
Little: Dave, you're the engineer on all of those so could you advise us on that a little
bit?
Johnson: Is this part of Township built?
Jorgensen: It's under construction now.
Johnson: You know exactly where it will be.
Jorgensen: Right. Of course, this map is 1 inch equals 2,000. The scale is small but in reality
when you get out there and go around that curve, there is a long stretch between the creek and
where it starts to curve in there that the visibility is not going to be a problem. The biggest
problem is the fact that at this particular time, the people who own that property are not
interested in that extension as you can imagine. It will be several years before that happens. The
problem is overcoming the fact that the people don't want the street there. I think that might be
taken care of over a period of time.
Forney:
If we can be
assured that is
a possible
connection or if it's not
a possible
connection,
that would lead
me to wonder
if we need
a connection out of this
subdivision to the
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 9
east.
Johnson: And if you think that connection can't happen in the foreseeable future, then how
does that affect your position on a connection here to the east? A much less reason to do it?
Forney: I guess the question is whether this will be done anytime soon. It could be 20
years. It could be 40 years. So, I'm hard pressed to make a judgment about what kind of time
frame we need.
Johnson: My question is do you feel like a connection out of this property is more
important to the east if Brookbury Crossing does get built in the future.
Forney: I feel like an eastern connection is very important at Brookbury Crossing to the
extent that if we are not able to connect to Township. If it is able to connect to Township in a
reasonable time frame and in a safe way in conjunction with the curve and looks to me like grade
associated with the stream bed. I would feel that we are not so hard pressed in need of that
eastern connection because we would have access on Skillern and Township on the east side of
the creek. I would hate to have that block of land developing further without two connections
out. That is what I'm concerned about.
Jorgensen: May I suggest that even if Engineering was here right now, they couldn't answer
that question without --
Little: It is my understanding he is on a phone call and he is trying to get off and get up
here.
Jorgensen: What you might want to do is wait for their decision on this and let them report on
it at Planning Commission stage.
Little: I think the Planning Commission has to be able to look at it at Planning
Commission stage what they are approving and if additional stuff is to be included then I think
now is the time to get those so you can get them on the plat. Otherwise, we go to Planning
Commission and you have to come back to Planning Commission.
Jorgensen: X that suggestion, then.
Johnson: What other comments?
Little: Kim, would you go over the tree that's on Lot 10 for us?
-I)
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 10
Hesse: There is the tree that comes to the street and when they grade the street, it could
affect it. It's a nice looking tree and they have agreed to build a retaining wall all the way around
it. They have done a great job on saving a lot of the trees that are out there.
Little: So you'll be looking for that retaining wall as the construction drawings are
completed and as it's constructed.
Forney: The other question I have is on Lot 30 through 27, the shape of the area will allow
building area?
Jorgensen: Yes. It is there.
Forney: What is that?
Jorgensen:
We are required to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet
of building area on each
lot if lots are
affected by the 100 year flood plain.
We put that on there
as the visual so you
could get an
idea of what 6,000 square feet looks
like.
Forney: But on every one of those lots, you could build to the flood plain.
Jorgensen: Yes.
Forney: You.have plenty of building area there.
Little: In fact, some of those.that steep are beside the road, it's going to be better to back
it up a little bit more than likely.
Forney: What is this range of acreages?
Jorgensen: That is the range of the size of the lots.
Forney: To the issue of density, they have 60 lots on 45 acres but there could be 220 lots
in R-1. What is the smallest of your lots?
Chapman: 4/I Oths.
Little: We might talk about what sprawl really is. Sprawl is large lots. It's the opposite
of this.
Forney: These are not small lots.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page II
Little: If they were 4 acre lots then that definitely would be sprawl. We would still be
running the same amount of waterline to be repaired and the same number of garbage truck miles
to go through.
Jorgensen: How many lots can we put on R-1?
Little: 4 per acre.
Terminella: Almost 250. I'm sensitive to the issue of connectivity. Originally when we
approached Dave to engineer this, we had one in and one out on Highway 265. We went to the
expense of buying out a farm which basically encompassed Lot l through 5 which was a 4 acre
tract from a lady in California. We paid substantially above market value to address the issue of
multi access for subdivisions. We thought that we had the street to the south which was existing
to service the school. That was a part of this original farm.
Ward: My thoughts on connectivity for the street connecting to the north, I'm not sure
that will do any good. It's connecting such a little bit of property. 2 acres at a maximum. If
there's a better place to put connecting streets, that would be great. But, I'm not sure that does
much either. I don't want to be in a situation like we have in Park Place or Brookbury Crossing
or some of those where there is one way in and one way out and there is no connectivity right
now. If those people like that and they may buy it because they like security and there are
numerous reasons why they are there. Connectivity because it sounds good going to the north,
I'm not sure we gain anything from that.
Chapman: You're looking here at Ms. Tu's property from Crossover to the creek and she has
6 acres. Immediately north of Ms. Tu, is Lake Hills Baptist Church and that is 2 or 3 acres.
These other places are residences other than the dance studio and whatever is next to it. I think
along with what John was saying earlier, if there is only going to be 2 units and that is Ms. Tu's
plan -- she is concerned that 20 to 30 years in the future, if she wants to develop -- from the last
meeting she was lead to believe that she would not be able to develop if she only had this one
way in and out. She thought you would not let her develop if there was no other way in or out.
Johnson: What is the distance between your intersection with Crossover at Ferguson
Avenue? What is the distance between Ferguson Avenue to the north to whatever that other east
west streets?
Little: That's Old Wire. It's 6,000 feet.
Johnson: You could say 2/5th of a mile, give or take. I'm not very persuaded by arguments
of what is on the land now. That is always a temptation to think that we know what the adjacent
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 12
land owners are going to do and that the dance studio will be there in perpetuity. Actually, we
don't know what these folks will do in the future. The connectivity issues we have to deal with
as if all the existing land could be developed to the maximum, I think, because it's so close in.
The fact that we don't know whether that will happen in 2010 or 2090. We are not in the
business of shutting connectivity doors.
Chapman: We also need to look at what the possible zonings might be and when you get up
closer to that intersection, this is more of a commercial type than residential and I don't know if
you would want to connect the commercial to the residential.
Little: We have already addressed that.
Chapman: We do know that for at least a minimum of 10 years, there are going to be 2 new
houses built on Ms. Tu's property. That's all. Maybe they might develop it in 30 years. I have
to guess whether or not they are going to.
Johnson: What is the zoning around the Old Wire and Crossover Road intersection?
Little: I believe it's
A -I
at most. It is Old Wire
on I side and Skillern on the other. We
have had a rezoning for C -1
and
it was rejected; for C-2
it was rejected; for R -O it was rejected;
and, for R-2 it was rejected.
So,
it's going to be R-1 more than likely.
Terminella: The.topography
property
of this ground that lies north as you
can tell by
the lines on the
map it is severe at best. As far
as the portion of the ground that would be able
to be developed
out of the flood plain is minimal out of what Ms. Tu owns. Maybe
60% of her would
even be useable.
MOTION
Ms. Johnson made a motion to postpone further discussion of this project until such time in the
meeting when the Engineering staff is present so we can direct those engineering questions to
them.
Further Discussion
Johnson: The primary issue we are talking about now is the issue of connectivity. We
wanted to have Engineering and Traffic with us. The applicant does not want to do the
connection that he has shown to the north. We have been discussing potential connection to the
east and really haven't yet discussed additional connection other than the one we have to the
west. In the vicinity map, we have now been given the additional platted streets in 2 or 3
,_•
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 13
subdivisions over to the east and northeast of this preliminary plat. We've talked about whether
or not Brookbury Crossing in Brookbury Place, if there is any reason that we know of now that
the street would never be extended south to Township. That's one thing we've looked at. We've
also concerned ourselves with the wisdom and the possibility of some sort of connection out of
this subdivision over to the east which means it would have to cross the tributary of Mud Creek.
Now, we've had discussion as to whether the connection on the north end of this property is
needed and sensible and whether there are any engineering problems with it. We understand that
the one question that we asked was what the distance was between Ferguson Avenue which
matches up with their connection with Skillern to the north. We're told that is about 2,000 feet.
Beavers
The extension of Brookbury to the south has no physical reason that can't occur
but that will be solely dependent upon those property owners.
Johnson: No physical barriers particularly.
Beavers: Connecting to the east over the creek if required would be solely at the
developer's expense and I don't know that is required because of the extension of Township
which is now under construction. Township will act as the main street through there. I cannot
recommend from the engineering perspective but there may be planning issues I am not aware of
but I do not see the connection across Mud Creek being required.
Johnson: Do you have any engineering considerations for us on this connection to the north
that is drawn but that the applicant is really opposing. Lee has said that he is not persuaded that
is needed either. Any engineering considerations for that or is that just connectivity
considerations?
Beavers: I'm not familiar enough with that property to say there are any barriers that you
could or couldn't. I think that's a connectivity issue. I've heard that the topography falls off to
the point that you could not build a street very far back into there. Dave could answer that
question better than I could.
Jorgensen: That's true. By looking at the vicinity map, you can see the creeks where they
diverge the two tributaries to go to Mud Creek converge right there at the northwest comer of
Brookbury and you can imagine, it would be difficult to extend a street to the north to Old Wire
and Skillern. The other things that could, happen would be to loop back out to Highway 265
some how.
Johnson:
It's
still the same issue. Do we feel
like for a 2/5th
of a
mile stretch that the
property
that could
develop in the future will need
a connection to
this
property.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 14
Little: For planning considerations, for the 6 acres there and I do know that their plans
are for 2 houses right now or that is what we have been told. That equals 6 acres. There are
another 4 acres and it has 5 on it. There would be that many. We could eliminate possibly,
depending on what our traffic situation is on Highway 265, we could eliminate another cut to 265
if there were only a few homes, they could just come out this way and not interrupt the traffic
flow on a larger highway. That is one thing. The other thing is there is less land to the north.
Johnson:
You were implying that
without this
connection, the next development is probably
looking at
two connections to Highway
265.
Little: Looking at lease at one and more than likely two.
Johnson: Whereas, if we have this then they would just be looking at this as one of those
connections that ultimately would get them to 265 and one other intersection with the main
highway.
Little: Right.. Then if you are going to compare areas and amounts, there is less to the
north than there is to the east. The connection to the east is much more difficult but if a
connection was made to the east then there would be another way for these people to get to 265
as opposed to having to go down to Township. There is no specific plan for there. If in the
future, one is needed, there could be a street through there. Then we also talked about one to the
south of this area which is to the north of Dr. Runnel's property. Dr. Runnel's owns about 10
acres which could also develop and that would be another way out for his subdivision as opposed
to have on exit to Township. Those are relatively long term considerations. None of those are
tomorrow type considerations.
Forney:
I'm
not sure
what
we could ask of this
developer for that eastern connection.
certainly
makes no
sense to
build
half a bridge.
Little: I disagree that it would have to be 100% at the developer's expense. We haven't
done that in the past. We have Brook Haven where we stubbed out and we took money for just
the portions he didn't build and we didn't require any contribution for the bridge. In commercial
subdivision, we're contributing to the bridge so I think it is not necessarily a given that it would
have to be at this developer's expense. In fact, that is your decision.
Beavers: That is the City Council's decision.
Little: Whether it is at developer's expense is the Planning Commission decision.
Forney: We're getting a connection about a mile apart maybe a little less than a mile from
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 15
Township to Skillern. That is the spacing between connections across Mud Creek. If that is
adequate? Do we need one within a half mile of another? The pattern that we are setting up
there are relatively large lots. They could be larger. I'm not sure we need that connection across
that creek. Given the reality that we could get it, we're going to have to spend money to get that
thing built it sounds like.
Little:
That is not exact true. This developer down
here is building Easton
and the entire
road.
Forney: That is a terrific thing and I'm very pleased about that. Obviously that on one
level makes this less pressing.
Little: It made this possible.
Jorgensen: One thing that came out in the last meeting that Planning brought up is the fact
that the prevailing travel patterns are in a north south direction because it is obviously that the
school is to the south and you have the people in Brookbury wanting to travel to the south and so
it's a north south corridor that people will want to travel. I'm not saying they don't want to
travel east west but people are going to and•from the school.
Johnson: You may also be aware that the people up there don't have much opportunity to
travel east west. There are some other things that makes that difficult to go through unless you
go to the two majo; highways.
Forney: If you're trying to go west of 265, you're going to end up on Township or Old
Wire which is Skillem or Township. I'm not convinced that we need that connection across the
creek. The north south connections, however, I am convienced that we at least need the north
and I'm not sure we don't need one at the south. I understand there are some grade problems
with both directions. If we don't make those connections, we're saying we're going to pick up
the garbage for the 2 or 3 or 5 lots to the north and go out to 265 and turn, then go 200 feet and
make another turn. That to me is a bad idea. People tell me that 265 is a heavily traveled road
and will be more so in the future. It will force people, through bad planning decisions, to go
back out therefor a short distance and this to me seems short sighted.
Little: There is a connection to Ferguson. There is a loop street and this is the main
street that goes to Township and comes out to 265. When Brookbury is extended it will come
down and this is the only other thing that would make much sense to the east unless you want to
utilize the low water crossings down there.
Johnson: You haven't shown the connection to the north.
_0 ,-.
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 16
Little: Right. I didn't show the connection to the north.
Forney:
We
have no
belief that we can
connect
further to the
east at all.
Is that right?
Little:
Not
through
this subdivision.
We don't
have a stub
there.
Forney: Township is the only thing we can get through over there. So that property line
condition between Easton and Savannah --
Little:
I really
thought we got
a connection there but obviously we
didn't.
If we had
gotten
that connection
there we
could
have access with this project but. we
missed
that.
Jorgensen: No. We've got the capability of going to the east.
Forney: This connection is only going to serve a small amount of territory. Which to me
is a limited amount of territory for a lot of bridge.
Johnson: My sense is that there is not a new subdivision really to think seriously about the
connection to the east for all the reasons that we have discussed. We can put that to rest unless
anybody wants •tp spend more time on it. Is there any more discussion on giving up the drawn
connection to the north?
Forney: I'm avondering whether we don't want to make a connection between 12 and 13 to
the south. I understand there is a grade issue_I see about 16 feet of change in grade over about_____
160 feet of property. So, I would like for Mr. Beavers to give us some sense whether that's
acceptably steep.
Beavers: No. Physically you could put the street through there.
Chapman: At the last meeting, we discussed that all the Runnel's property and all the other
houses put together would have plenty of ins and outs if somebody put that property together
without another street from ours.
Johnson: If that property is developed and We don't yet know what connections would exist
at all.
Ward: The only thing I don't want to get involved in is taking property and giving stub
outs that cost a lot of money, that are there forever and are not connected. That doesn't make
sense.
.J
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 17
Little: This is the extra piece that they got to add to their subdivision so they had access
to Township. This is Runnels and then there are three other tracts that do already have frontage
to Crossover.
Johnson: Tell me again how much total property we are dealing with.
Little: This is about 10. Those are about 2 each, so, 18 acres.
Ward: There are houses all through there already.
Little: • This one has a house and the other two don't, but I'm sure about that.
Terminella:
Jerry Jones and
Mr. Murphy live there. Vincent lives on the larger tract. Mr.
Jones owns
the property to the
north. Then there is the Brown's
property and they own two
small rental
properties in that area.
That triangular shaped is the
Ferguson's which is unusable.
Little:
So in terms of developing
vacant land that is left to be
developed, there is Ms.
Tu's 6
acres plus 2 acres from the church
making 8 acres to the north.
And there is 10 to the
south.
Ward: To the north I see Mud Creek and it's not going to be developed.
Forney: I don't see an enormous problem with having a connection to Township and then
theie-ewn-eonneetion-out-here-bufrof-eeurse i€-you're-with-sanitation
Little: They don't have a way to get there necessarily. You presume he will go through
one of those or this one.
Forney: In the best case scenario, you could get a connection there but that means if you
are with sanitation, you pull out on this street, you go up on 265 and you make a right back into
that subdivision when we could have done it without that. In theory, this could be 40 homes.
Little: We couldn't say no.
Johnson: On the 10 acres.
Forney: That's not to say they would get one of these other properties.
Johnson: Runnels doesn't touch this subdivision?
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 18
Little: He does right here.
Forney: To the north there are how many acres of land?
Little: There is 6 in one ownership and 2 in another. This begins the R -O zoned property
which is Williams Dance and Gymnastics.
Forney: So that is 8 acres which could potentially be 30 lots.
Chapman: We know what will happen immediately. We don't know what will happen 30 or
40 years from now.
Johnson: Is either Commissioner going to try and persuade us to close the connection to the
north?
Ward: The only thing I would say if there is a better connection somewhere else to the
south then I would give up the north one. But if there is not, then we want connectivity. There is
no doubt about that. It's just I don't want connectivity that is not going to be connected to
anything. It will just be there forever and ever at a lot of cost and taking of land for no reason.
Johnson: Am I correct to read between the lines that you probably would favor either the
existing connection to the north or a new connection to the south. But, you probably could not
favor both.
Ward: That's right.
Forney:
I'm not yet convinced that
giving a connection to both the north and the south
wouldn't
be a good idea. I'm wondering
if there might be some sense in just getting
the
easement
and not doing the actual paving
because I do think Lee is right. We aren't
going to see
this done
soon and it looks a little strange
to have a little piece of pavement like that.
That would
then burden
the developer to the north or south to make that connection. At least we
made it
possible for them to do that.
Ward:
I can see doing that.
I just don't think we ought to be taking the land and it never
being used.
That doesn't make sense.
That's not good
business.
Little: The only thing it does and the example is Brookbury because it looks like a dul de
sac, they think it is never going to be extended and we heard on Amber the realtors told them it
would never be extended. So when it came time to use the right of way that had been granted to
the City, there was a major neighborhood upheaval related to that. Perry has helped us out. He
1
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 19
is in the process of putting out signs at the end of streets that have right of way that say this is
future street right of way. Then they know that and there are no mistakes about that.
Ward: I don't think it's a bad idea to label it on the maps as well.
Little: Another one that we had that wasn't paved was Megan Drive when we did
Horseshoe. Those people really thought it was their property.
Chapman: I wouldn't object too much if we just had the north exit out of there and it was an
easement rather than a road.
Johnson: If we just required the easements and we required no construction, then, John, I
think, said that if the property to the north developed, then that developer would pay this cost?
Little: Yes.
Johnson: So that developer would pay the cost on his property for building this part of the
street.
Little: It becomes City property at that point.
Ward: But the main thing it does is it doesn't pass something forever. We don't want to
get into the situation we've had at Brookbury Crossing or Park Place where we have one way in
and one -way-out. -A-lot of -people like that but -in this -subdivision we have two distinct ways in- - - - - -. -
and two ways out. I think we can go totally overboard.
Johnson: I like the thought of having both the easements to allow for potential connections
to the north and to the south. It looks like a way to have our cake and eat it, too. We save the
developer the cost of building this little street that is one lot long on the north end and we've
protected ourselves for the future if we have development to the south so we need this. It looks
to me like the City comes out ahead and the developer may well save some money. Now, he has
to do some work down here at 12 and 13 but that may affect 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and the
•way they are configured. But that really seems like a win win situation to me for the City. Now
what problems other than the developer doesn't want to give the two easements. What other
problems are there with that?
Little: Nothing I'm aware of. '
Terminella: Is there not a grade issue to the south of there due to the tremendous amount of
fall in that area?
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 20
Jorgensen: It makes it more difficult to do. As Jim said, there are other places that are worse.
We may have to request a waiver for the intersection grade but it's a problem in dedicating a
right of way for future use in that that causes your houses to have to be built and you have to
abide by setbacks as if the street was actually going to be constructed. So you have a house that
is really kind of a corner lot that you have to plan for. I was just thinking about the problem that
poses for future construction and potential buyers are going to be posed with the problem of
building a house on a comer lot that might be not really a comer lot for 10 to 15 years. How do
you situate your house? We've dealt with that in the past. That has happened a lot in the City in
the past.
Johnson:
Do
you prefer to have that
problem at two spots to the north and south or do you
prefer to build
the
street to the north?
Jorgensen: My preference would be as the plat is presented before you. Right here what
we're looking at. I know the developer may not agree with me but I think that I like this layout
better than I would if there was an easement or right of way dedicated through lot 12 and 13 and
a right of way dedicated to the north without the street being built in either situation. I have to
agree that there is merit to having the right of way north and south that gives you the capability
of making that connection. I'm just saying it is a little bit of a draw back in the fact that if you
don't build that street, you have somebody that has to build a house on a comer lot that may not
be a comer lot for 10 years. I have to defer to the developer.
Chapmen: I have to prefer the easement.
Jorgensen:
What they
are talking about
is two easements. An easement to the north and an
easement to
the south and
a rearrangement
of lots.
Chapmen: You're trying to get them to make me pave it. We're trying to do something that
may or may not happen for 20 or 30 years down the road or never. I have to get back to the
money part of it but there is aesthetics involved in the situation, too. It's not totally money, but it
is.
Forney: That's why I prefer the easement.
Chapmen: That's why I prefer the easement to the road.
Jorgensen: He prefers the easement and that's fine with me.
Chapman:
I
prefer one easement to the north and
nothing
to the south referring to the last
comments
made
two weeks about ago but if we have
changed
our minds on that.
•
• 1
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 21
Forney: We're all in the business of trying to predict an uncertain future. I don't see how
we can get away from that one.
Johnson: The idea that we're looking 20 years in the future, we not looking 20 years in the
future, we're looking as far in the future of the existence of the City of Fayetteville and as it has
streets because it will never be easer to condemn houses and destroy houses. We don't have the
luxury of thinking 20 years. We must think 100 years.
Little: I have a question for engineering. We've heard about the problems it would cause
for the home owner to have to deal with a right of way. I would be interested in hearing the
problems that the City would deal with in trying to put the street in particularly in an area where
there is a grade and the homes are already there.
Johnson: You mean on either side.
Little: How does that work and how does that happen?
Beavers: With retaining walls usually.
Little: So the cost has gone up by what factor?
Beavers: 10% is a guess. Retaining walls would probably add $10,000 which would be
more than 10%.
Johnson: At each location?
Beavers:
If there were
any
cuts. If there were fill, we would probably grade it out into
people's
yards but if we cut,
we
would have to have a retaining wall.
Little: If you graded into people's yards, you have to have a construction easement to do
that?
Beavers: Yes. You have to purchase an easement to reshape their yard.
Ward: Let's say for instance, to the south if that area did develop and there really wasn't
a need for a connection there, the owners of the homes could come back and petition to vacate
that road right of way or easement or whatever it's going to be called? We do that quite often,
too.
Johnson: When the future gets here and it's apparent what we should do, then we can
Minutes of a meeting of the
Subdivision Committee
February 11, 1999
Page 22
vacate at that time. I certainly favor the idea of the two easements neither of which is built and
that the right of way of the easement is dedicated and we would require a warranty deed. That
make sense to me.
MOTION
Mr. Forney made a motion to forward this project to the full Commission with the plat revised to
show those two east ents without"vement on either one, also the City staff needs to confirm
with the State Highway Department on what, if anything, will be required on Highway 265 and
subject to applicable staff recommendations.
Mr. Ward seconded the motion.
Ms. Johnson concurred.
From: Sondra Smith
To: Pate, Jeremy
Subject: Ordinances 4767
Hello Jeremy!
4772, 4773, 4774, 4775 and 4776
Attached are the ordinances that were passed at the City Council meeting on October 4, 2005.
Have a great day!
"Nortkwest Avkati sa' Most Widely 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: $ /d/ (/
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
/.91
/ day of O!&CJ , 2005.
.Notary .Public Sharlene D. Williams
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: State of Arkansas
My Commission Expires
October 18, 2014
" Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent.
P.O. BOX 1607 • 212 N. EAST AVENUE • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 • 479-571 6470
• • TED BY ROGER AN OROINANCEAppRpylNG VAC -1689 Sun--
ED ED ON ry 2ACA NND 2J28 NOR RTH YC LAT.
(���
WOOD DRIVE, VACATING A 228 OF NORTH
AS MDb N,
CATED ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
ARKANSAS
_
the y shl not requreo f& corpp�latg anpIW oses.1 -10a to vacate puppy gritor
ar pot.
for a_por de City
es; en0 Coun� hasoatemtlrletl that the fclbm,B tlesoibetl right a v�Y b not requyotl authoilaid the C4y, of S a Kte ''t 9ro t used by the PtE1c for the toastreet
Urn stew shaaibe vacated; and �8 from the standpoyfto/ Wb1c Interest �ygl
City Cam to this urlOrrOtout hasnot been by the
Hg should. Iron, tha standP�It of ORDAIN I entl wafaw. be Brant cat t Street Subject to tlon of a puopc alai easnneent
action yb1 AINao BY TNa cm COUNCIL oP TNB CITY MYa OP T-
TIWESec6on 1: That the City of FayatteWtla Mcansss herebybvacates and abIhOohO a rights, together
with the rights of the public 9enerel, h aroto the right i way desigmteo as lob sO:
See E9tt A attached IKrsto antl made a part hereof. 2: ( Recaaoq the t rBoajed In the Sac 3: TtieCounty andDeed RamUs of he Coerk alu/ be aeo h UN of116s a Ms
a utk oasemenL Versfbn apprn'a a subject Co the coroelon that the st jat,T area be menasined as
APPROVE
Dand •PPNOYBp this 4th day of October, 2005.
DAN COODY—
ATTEST
BONORA Sys{N� � —
EXHIBR A
VAC 051668
TRACT OF LAND SUBON1SION TO THE OF ATED IVAEEN LOT
E24 AND LOT 25, OF CANDLEµ1 BE SUB G MORE R A
•CCIXMLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: `" AND SAID TRACT BEING MORE R4R.
LOCOMMEN00 AT TIE SOUTryFAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24 THENCE NORTH W DEGREES W
T 0 DS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.96 FEET TO
TIlE E OF 50C) FEET
TO THE NORTHWrogT CORNER OF RTH $8 3417 47 MINLOUTES
14 SECONNCE EASTA DISTANEA COOFER OF SAID
THENCE SECOND$ EAST A DISTANCE OF 160.06 FEET TO THE S UTH 00 DEGREESOF MD LOT W
THE Form- BEGINNINR87 EEryp MINIT{ES 46 SECONDSWEST A DISTApq OFWh1TAST CORNER OF SD
AND p SECT TO ANY EASEM ITS RIG COWThJNING 0.21
j{TS ONES, MORE OR LESS, $D. LOT 25;
BSNQ03 FEE TO
WAYS, COVE NANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
I . .
ORDINANCE NO. 4767
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 05-1689 SUBMITTED BY
ROGER TROTTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 2716
AND 2728 NORTH CANDLEWOOD DRIVE, VACATING A
RIGHT OF WAY AS INDICATED 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
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following described right of way is not
required for corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has additional authority pursuant to A.C.A. §14-301-304 to
vacate a street upon petition of all abutting owners if the street has not been used by the public for the
last five years and the City Council determines after a public hearing from the standpoint of public
interest and welfare, the street should be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this unbuilt stub out has not been used by the public and
that the petition of all abutting owners to vacate this street subject to reservation of a public utility
easement should, from the standpoint of public interest and welfare, be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates and abandons all its rights,
together with the rights of the public general, in and to the right of way designated as followed:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That a copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk 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 condition that the subject area be
maintained as a utility easement.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4's day of October, 2005.
By:
ATTEST: "
By: UNat.ry
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
VAC 05-1689
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 24 AND LOT 25, OF CANDLEWOOD
SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AND
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT TEHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24 THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.96 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 14
SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 25; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF
180.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25; THENCE SOUTH 87
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 46 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.03 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, AND CONTAINING 0.21 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
0
ro. de ,,.,!
ND Ltta.L 6
thoMy �ndar A.C.A. 514-54-10410 vacate P,WIc grWnds
w oorpo to PUFo5es� bgd dot weY 8 rot requ
'..w that trio laaw t2 ..r
wxawp...y ,,&W i arJVtIXIH 1p rv�^'a;, fIX tl9 y�u.a7— 59v aa...n1 tbO ed�W 1PLOO Worawaflu -
to ,�^,. ,Va DM na '%fhd aua..� 01P
:yo•�•: Ca d deer a i 'F� been used W the C and trial to
eesemIX•t
the street eha+ld tboG ` y iU.l finds"urbuln s W s em to reservan°h of e.�ptssk uunY
Petl�° 1 yarlaa to Int 1 tare. be granted
Cm or v�r6r-
fier0 theoP It
sroud, M R OPDYMlY Clrr
uyr 1St .. Handeb.dan a% Its dins. toge"'
THrL .. e+ea Arkeraas PareLYY wY tea sa toayed: d made with SeCtn 1: That fh Coy of FeYett n ad to the d t of
h Vatlghis of a PUIX e4•see ExhibIt A. attached h roto the CeY pan boresectbe Ned In V.e etnce al the
C& sMIgecoraOr of the Catty w , Qrded I "D� Rids of m mss Wt yea be Telntelned y
d,n ceNfied or
sec 2'.That awVYGreW I s ell to to mrdiyitloh
Se01dn 3: TstfNs�aca>b"aPPf°�
a utlYty eesenle^t' 01 0 OW' 2005.
OV" Vas 4th daY
.. • • LOT 24 AND LOT 25.OF
_. Ir Ae DBETWEEN AMV4 lAND
IINt OF BC{31NNIN6�Ep$EMEN75. FIGHTS lX v�^' ••• __ " `Y :.. ••.
•ARD.
—
"Nonkwest Arksutsas' Most Wider 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
.p.ublished .in Lowell, Arkansas, and that _fro.m _my own personal .knowledge
and reference to the files of said publication, that advertisement of:
ll/l f1/; /1(�was inserted in the regular editions on
PO#
** Publication Charge: $ 1LoU • vl�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
I9'D day of If ,Ul* V , 2005.
wal & i ilaa/, )
Notary.Public Shariene D. Williams
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.
P.O. BOX 1607 • 212 N. EAST AVENUE • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 • 479-571-6470
• D D: 009410190002 TvDe: REL
Recorded: 12/06/2005 at 02:07:46 PM
Fee Amt: $11.00 Page 1,of 2
Washington County. AR
Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk
Fi1e2005-000.54543
ORDINANCE NO. 4767
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VAC 05-1689 SUBMITTED BY
ROGER TROTTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 2716
AND 2728 NORTH CANDLEWOOD DRIVE, VACATING A
RIGHT OF WAY AS INDICATED 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
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following described right of way is not
required for corporate purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has additional authority pursuant to A.C.A. §14-301-304 to
vacate a street upon petition of all abutting owners if the street has not been used by the public for the
last five years and the City Council determines after a public hearing from the standpoint of public
interest and welfare, the street should be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this unbuilt stub out has not been used by the public and
that the petition of all abutting owners to vacate this street subject to reservation of a public utility
easement should, from the standpoint of public interest and welfare, be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section I: That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates and abandons all its rights,
together with the rights of the public general, in and to the right of way designated as followed:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That a copy of this Ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk 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 condition that the subject area be
maintained as a utility easement.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4`s day of October, 2005.
By:
ATTEST:
By: dYt�c.A%
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk