Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held on Thursday, May 22, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Clint Hutchins, Clayton Powell, Ed Connell. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Dick Shaw, James Crownover, John Kehn. OTHERS PRESENT: Harold Johnson, Mrs. Margie Pierce, Joe Talley. The first item for discussion was the proposed Pipeline Construction, from Kelly Valve to Greenland, Submitted by Arkansas Western Gas Co. ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION GREENLAND TO KELLY VALVE 1. John Kehn (Arkansas Western Gas Co.): Stated that the gas line that Arkansas Western Gas Co.is proposing will be a 6 in. (high pressure) line It will begin at the end of Short Road, at that point it will run West to approximately the middle of Section 6. Mr. Kehn stated that the gas line will not encroach upon the Airport right-of-way, nor any part of Highway 71. Mr. Kehn hoped that this would eliminate some of the questions involved as far as access into the Airport area. Mr. Kehn asked for specific questions. Bobbie Jones interjected that the project will all be on the West side of Highway 71. Bobbie Jones also stated that she believed that the project would be completely outside the Fayetteville City Limits. 2. Clayton Powell (City Street Superintendent): Stated that if the Gas Company anticipated any construction near McCollum Ave., that the City would like the gas lines to be 2 ft. deep. Mr. Kehn stated that they did not anticipate doing any construction in that area at this time. But that there is an existing gas line that borders to the north and into the Airport. 3. Clint Hutchins (City Police Department): No comments. 4. Ed Connell (City Water $ Sewer Dept.): Stated that there were no water or sewer utilities in that area, and that the Department had no intentions of putting any in. 5. Dick Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. ): Said that the only thing the phone company would request was that on Highway Company when they get ready to dig as the area. 265, the Gas Company notify the Phone Phone Company had buried cables in the 6. James Crownover (Ozards Electric): No comment. 7. Bobbie Jones (City Planning Administrator): No comment. Plat Review Committee Meeting May 22, 1980 • Page 2 • • The next and final item for consideration ALLEY CLOSING was the proposal to vacate alleys in Sunset Addition FAIR PARK ADDITION and Fair Park Addition between Razorback Road $ SUNSET ADDITION and Lewis Avenue. BETWEEN LEWIS $ RAZORBACK 1. Ed Connell (City Water & Sewer Dept.): Stated that the Highway Department has required additional right-of-way in the amount of 10 to 12 ft. off of the properties to the North and South of Highway 62 West, plus some additional utility right-of-way outside of the Highway right-of- way. Some of the lots were rather short in the first place, and the additional right-of-way has reduced their depth even further. The City feels that, since the alleys are not used, that the property owners should have this land back, to more or less off -set the loss of the land that the Highway Department and utilities have required for the widening of Highway 62 West. 2. Larry Winkler (SWEPCO): Submitted his comments by phone May 22, 1980. He stated that SWEPCO had no objection to the vacation of the alley, but that SWEPCO requested that the alleys be retained as utility easements. 3. Joe Talley (University of Arkansas): Stated that the University had a few concerns. Mr. Talley said that there was a conflict in the location of existing fences with regard to property boundaries and the alley. He said that the discrepancy was roughly 20 ft. between two 'purveys prepared by the same surveyor. Also, a question exists of who will locate the centerline of the alley assuming the alley is vacated and the property reverts back to the property owners. Bobbie Jones stated that the location of the new property line would be between the new owners. She felt that the City's position in vacating the alley would be that the City was giving the land back to the property owners, and that any resolving of new property lines would be the responsibility of the new owners. Mrs. Jones stated that there was a State Statute, that stated that the line be moved to the center of the vacated alley, unless the property owners agree otherwise. Ed Connell asked if the fence was built by the County. Joe Talley said that the fence in question had not been moved or relocated since the University has owned the property. Mr. Talley stated that another concern of the University was that on the Plat, which came with the notice of intention to vacate the alley, it shows one of the alleys to be vacated going across the space between Lot 7, Block 13, & Lot 13, Block 14. Bobbie Jones said that was probably an error on the part of the Planning Office. She stated that there was a Street Stub existing between Lot 7, Block 13, and Lot 13, Block 14. Mr. Talley said that it was his understanding that that was included specifically in the University's description of the property that the University -bought from the Washington County Fair Association, and that according to the plat on record in the Court House, no dedication of that street had ever been made. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Talley may want to pursue with the City Attorney the possibility of having that taken off the City's books or records as a Street Stub. (Having the City Board vacate the street right-of-way.) Mr. Talley said that it was critical for the University to maintain access through that street. Bobbie Jones said that access could be maintained under either circumstance. She said that Clayton Powell might want to require the University to improve the street to minimum street standards if it remains shown as a street right-of-way. If it was taken off as street right-of-way and returned to the private property owners (the University being considered private), a driveway could be maintained. A i • • Plat Review Committee Meeting May 22, 1980 Page 3 Ms. Jones said that it would be of some benefit to the owners of Lot 7 and 13 in that their setbacks are presently figured from the street right-of-way and this requires from 25 to 50 ft. setback. Therefore, if it was taken off as a right-of-way, the setbacks might be reduced to as much as zero setback. Mr. Talley said that Mr. Johnson had said, that he had acquired title to the West half of the street, and that the neighbor on Lot 7 had acquired title to the East half, and that the University also had title to a right of access. Mr. Talley said that presumably, the University would relinquish title to that strip of land between Lots 7 & 13, but retain the right of access. Ms. Jones suggested that the three persons claiming title to the land pursue their questions further with the City Attorney, Jim McCord. At this time Mr. Harold Johnson stated that the City maps show it as a street, but that it was never dedicated. Mr. Talley stated that Mr. Johnson's statement was correct. Bobbie Jones stated that this would have to be researched further. 4. Clayton Powell (City Street Superintendent): Mr. Powell stated that there had long been controversy over the property lines in this area. He said that there were legal descriptions outlining more footage, in the amount of 20 ft., than actually exists on the ground. Mr. Powell stated that he had no objection to the vacation of these alleys. He also stated that the policy is that when an alley is vacated, and reverts back to public ownership, the City does not take any responsibility for going out and performing a survey to determine individual property lines; that was entirely the property owner's responsibility. He stated that Washington County has a policy that, rather than adjust tax records for property ownership, they prefer deeds written giving road easements rather than right-of-ways, ordinarily, the property owner of a tract of land also owns the road that goes across the edge of it. However, a public easement takes precedence over a private property owner's deed, therefore, it does exist for public use. Mr. Powell said that he could not comment on the 55 ft. right-of-way that the University claims it needs, that he had never maintained it as a public right-of-way. S. Clint Hutchins (City Police Department): No comment. 6. John Kehn (Arkansas Western Gas Co.): Stated that there was an existing gas line in the 55 ft. strip shown as a street stub, and that the Gas Company would need an easement if it is vacated. This line also is in the alley in back of Block 13. He said that he was not absolutely sure as to where the gas line lay. Mr. Harold Johnson stated that the property owners had made a provision that they would never fence this property and that access would always be available Mr. Kehn said that the existing line goes in the alley and turns West into the alley behind Lots 12 and 13, and perhaps lot 11. Mr. Kehn said that at this time, he would like the alley in back of Block 14, Lots 7 thru 13, retained as a utility easement. Mr. Johnson asked if he would be able to build over the gas line. Bobbie Jones stated that he would not be able to build over it, but that the setbacks would be decreased by the vacation of the alley, even if the alley was retained as a. utility easement. 7. Dick Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.): Requested that the vacated alleys be kept as a utility easement. He stated that as far as the alleys being vacated, he had no objection. Mr. Shaw stated that due to the widening of Highway 62 West, it was conceivable that the phone company would have to relocate their lines. Plat Review Committee Meeting May 22, 1980 Page 4 If so, then they would bring their lines in so that they could service these lots from the rear. Mr. Shaw said that existing service is presently on the South side of Highway 62, the overhead drop would be too long to service the lots North of Highway 62 from that point. Ed Connell asked what the setback was on the back of these lots. Bobbie Jones said that in the C-2 Zone, the setback is 20 ft., however, some of the lots may be zoned R-2, in that case, the setback will be 25 ft. from the rear property line. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any way to get the setback requirements waived. Bobbie Jones said that he could file an appeal before the Board of Adjust- ment. They are authorized to reduce the setbacks in cases where there is "undue hardship" that is related to the lay of the land, and not created by the applicant himself. Mrs. Jones said that the Board would look at whether or not a reasonable use can be made of the property without granting a variance. Bobbie said that reasonable did not necessarily have any monetary implications. Bobbie Jones asked if there were any further comments. There were none. Mrs. Jones stated that this matter would be before the Planning Commission, Monday, June 9, 1980 at 5:00 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 A.M.