Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held on Thursday, March 22, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, City Attorney Jim McCord, Don Bunn, Wally Brt and Clayton Powell. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Kenneth Wagner, L. 0. Ferguson and Nick Nance. OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Crafton. The only item for discussion was a problem relating to the previously approved preliminary plat of Heritage East subdivision, property lo- cated North of the Industrial Park and East of Curtis Avenue; Charm Homes, Inc., owner and develo- per. Mr. Bob Crafton, engineer, was present to represent. Mr. Crafton stated that the preliminary plat of this subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission approximately one year ago. He stated that the property had been purchased by Charm Homes, Inc. (Wade Bishop, President) from Youth Bridge, a non-profit corporation. He stated that Frank Blew had made a boundary survey of the property for a Mr. McBroom in February of 1976 and that as a result of this boundary survey it was found that the City of Fayetteville owned a 50 ft. right-of-way between the McBroom property and the Bishop property. Mr. McBroom then asked Mr. Blew to revise the survey and leave out this right-of-way. He stated that Mr. Bishop's abstract for his property had been made using the description which did not con- tain the 50 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Crafton continued, stating that the City was indeed found to have a deed for a 50 ft. right-of-way all the way across the length between the properties. However, the legal description of this deed started at a point 10 ft. north of the fenced -off strip between the properties (this fenced -off strip had always been considered to be the 50 ft. right-of-way owned by the City). Mr. Crafton stated that the person who had deeded the 50 ft. right-of-way to the City had probably not owned the entire strip at the time he deeded it. He stated that there was a good possibly that the person had not owned a full 50 ft. strip run- ning from the NE corner of the Bishop property east to Hwy. 16, but only 40 ft., and therefore the City probably does not have the full right-of-way necessary for the proposed Fairlane Street to be constructed clear through to Highway 16. Mr. Crafton stated that his firm had made a survey of the area and had found the fenced -off strip between the McBroom and Bishop properties to be only 40 ft. since that was the amount stated in the street deed. As a result of the surveys, Mr. Crafton stated, there is a 10 ft. discrepancy between the dedicated right-of- way for Fairlane Street and the Bishop property. Therefore, Mr. Bishop cannot construct "through streets" (the proposed Emily, Nelson and Sherman Streets) that will intersect with the proposed Fairlane Street. As a result the subdivision will only have the one entrance from Curtis Avenue. HERITAGE EAST Problem Concerning Right -of -Way of Fairlane Street Plat Review Committee Meeting • March 22, 1979 Page 2 • • In order to further complicate the situation, Mr. Crafton stated, a deed was filed last November (1978) from a Mrs. Dovie McBroom giving a 14' wide strip between the property dedicated to the City for Fairlane Street and the property owned by Mr. Bishop to her son Homer McBroom. He stated that Mrs. McBroom died about two, weeks ago. He said that Homer McBroom had been told by Mr. Blew that his property was within "a long 40" (quarter -section) and that the "40" was actually 4 feet longer than normal (therefore making the strip 14' wide instead of 10' as it actually lays). In order to correct the lack of access from the Bishop property to Fairlane Street Mr. Crafton proposed three alternative remedies, i.e.: (1) The City could try to obtain a correction deed from Mr. McBroom mov- ing its right-of-way 10 feet further south in order that the street right-of- way would abut the Bishop property. (The City's right-of-way, according to the deed description, includes 10 ft. north of the fenced -off property --that 10 ft. being a part ofthe property which Mr. McBroom claims to be his own property.) Mr. Crafton stated that as an incentive for Mr. McBroom to relocate the City's right-of-way 10 ft. further south, the City could agree to revert this 10 ft. north of the fence back to Mr. McBroom. (City Attorney Jim McCord commented that if Mr. McBroom did not want to trade the property south of the fenced -off section for the property lying north of the fence, the City might just tell him that they would keep the property north of the fence and then condemn the property south of the fence /the 10 ft. "no man's land" in dispute/, thereby giving the City a 60 ft. right-of-way.) (2) The City could allow the subdivider (Mr. Bishop) to put temporary cul-de-sacs at the north ends of the three streets with 50 ft. right-of-way dedicated to intersect with Fairlane Street and leave them there until the prob- lem with the 10 ft. in dispute could be worked out. He stated that the Subdi- vider could build Heritage East in phases and leave this northern section of the subdivision as the last in hopes that the problems could be resolved by the time they were ready for that phase Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent, stated that he would not want to see any "incremental or piece meal" construction of the subdivision until the whole matter is resolved since he had never had much cooperation from this developer in the past and felt that the subdivision would probably never be completed if allowed to develop in phases, the subdivision becoming a "thorn in the City's flesh" for years to come. (3) The Subdivider could forget trying to get the three north -south streets to intersect with Fairlane and simply redesign the street pattern in the subdi- vision in order to create an east -west street running one lot deep south of the north line of the subdivision. Jim McCord stated that if the City could not obtain a Correction Deed relo- cating the street right-of-way, and if the developer then wanted to try to get the 10 ft. of land north of his subdivision condemned, that the City Board would probably agree to condemn the property if the developer would agree to pay the costs of condemnation. Mr. McCord stated that he would compute the probable costs of such a condemnation suit and let Mr. Crafton know how much money they would be talking about. Bobbie Jones questioned Mr. Crafton regarding how much of Fairlane Street Mr. Bishop would be constructing. Mr. Crafton stated that he would be building from Highway 16 through to the intersection of Fairlane with Emily Drive. He Plat Review Committee Meeting 411 March 22, 1979 Page 3 • • stated that there were plans for drainage facilities all along the north prop- erty line, however. Mrs. Jones questioned Mr. Powell whether the 40 ft. which is actually all that is available for the right-of-way would be sufficient to build a 31 ft. back-to-back street. Mr. Powell stated that it could be built, but that he would not want to tear out any of the drop inlets and other related drainage construc- tion which is already in place near the intersection of Fairlane and Highway 16. Jim McCord noted that the Planning Commission could approve the 40 ft: if 50 ft. cannot be acquired. Mr. McCord stated that he would write a letter to Mr. McBroom explaining the situation and asking him to execute a Correction Deed to the City regarding the right-of-way for Fairlane Street. He stated that if the Correction Deed cannot be obtained that he would request the City Board to begin condemnation proceedings to obtain the 10 ft. strip necessary to give this subdivision access to Fairlane. He again stated that he would want the developer to agree to pay the costs of condemnation before he would request the City Board to institute the proceedings. Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent, and Kenneth Wagner of Arkansas Western Gas stated that there were some changes which would be needed regarding easements and Mr. Crafton assured them that all utility, street and drainage easements would be worked out to satisfaction at the time the Final Plat is brought in for approval. Bobbie Jones noted that she would put this subdivision on the next Planning Commission agenda in order that the Commission might consider waving the street right-of-way required for a 31 ft. back-to-back street in order that the 40 ft. could be used if the additional 10 ft. cannot be obtained between the NE corner of the Subdivision and Highway 16. There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 9:45 o'clock A.M.