HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-30 Minutes• A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Friday,
August 30, 1985 at 3:45 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building,
113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins,
Don Mills, Jerry Allred and Gerald Boyd
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Becker
The meeting was called to order by Chairman House and the minutes
of the August 20th meeting were considered.
MINOTES
There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved
unanimously as distributed upon a motion by Tompkins and a second
by Mills.
APPEAL 85-23 JOHN LEONARD
WARWICK AT OAr BAILEY — SETBACK VARIANCE
The second item on the agenda was a request to vary building setbacks
submitted by John Leonard for property located at the southwest corner
• of Warwick Drive and Oak Bailey Road.
Leonard said he was requesting relief from the setback requirement
from a City street, He said although Warwick is a dirt road, it is
a City street and there is not enough room to build his house in a
north/south direction as he would like to do. He said the 30' road
easement in addition to a 10' street and utility easement are all
on his property. Leonard said he did not know that the entire street
easement was on his property.
House asked Jones for clarification and she replied that there was
an ordinance passed 1968 accepting 30 r/w dedication from the Cartons
and the Boyds. She was unsure if the deed was ever recorded. She
continued that, when two lot splits were approved by the Planning
Commission in 1980, an additional 10' r/w for street and utility purposes
was dedicated (immediately adjacent on the south of the 30' r/w) in
order to meet the Master Street Plan requirement. Jones noted that
Leonard's description reads across both the 30' and 10' easements.
She said that, if the deed from the Cartons and the Boyds had been
filed, the 30' should not have been reflected in Leonard's description.
•
M
• Board of Adjustment
August 30, 1985
Page 2
Leonard confirmed that the easement is in his description and noted
that an attempt was made to find out whether it had been recorded.
He said that, originally, the abstract company told him they could
find no listing of the recording, but later said they had found it.
Leonard explained that Warwick Drive is used by two families, as a
private drive. He also advised that there are two houses on the north
side of Warwick whose drives exit onto Warwick, although it had been
his understanding that those drives were to face Katherine. He said
he was seeking relief from the 25' setback requirement on Warwick
because after including the setback on the south side of the lot,
he would be left with a 33' lot. Leonard said he would landscape
the north part of his lot (along Warwick) and would leave as many
trees as is possible.
Allred said he understood that the covenants of the subdivision to
the north restricted its residents from drives exiting onto Warwick.
Waldren asked when the property was purchased and Leonard replied
that when he bought the property in July, he knew it was on Warwick
but was unaware that Warwick was a public street and was unaware of
the 25' building setback. Waldren pointed out that the ordinance
is
refers to a quit claim deed for street r/w.
In answer to Tompkins question, Jones replied that Warwick is classified
as a local street. She said that the street plan does not show any
proposed streets planned for accessing the area west of this location.
Jones explained the lot split as consisting of a parcel 170' east/west
by 266' north/south but she thought the 266 included the 30' r/w.
Tompkins said he thought there appeared to be possible access points
from the north of this area. Tompkins asked if Leonard had made any
attempt to close Warwick and Leonard replied that he has approached
the Board of Directors with this request and the Board referred him
to this Board.
Mills asked for clarification on the issue of drives not being allowed
onto Warwick for Huntingdon residents and Jones advised that there
is a notation on the plat that should have been applied when the permits
for subject houses were issued but were not. She explained that the
reason that no drives were to be allowed onto Warwick was because
the developer of Huntingdon, Milby Pickel, did not wish to dedicate
the additional 10of r/w or to make any improvements to it.
Tompkins asked if Warwick could be re -dedicated to an alley status
and Jones replied that Leonard would still need approval from the
Planning Commission as a house must have frontage on an improved public
• street, or approved as a tandem lot by the Planning Commission.
Board of Adjustment
• August 30, 1985
Page 3
Waldren inquired into the petitioner of the lot splits executed in
1980 and Jones replied that it was Helen Edmiston.
Tompkins asked if there were utilities in the 10' easement and House
replied that there are gas and water lines. Waldren said he thought
the electric service was probably on the north side of Warwick.
Tompkins inquired as to ownership of the lots adjacent to the south
and Leonard noted that the lot immediately adjacent on the south is
vacant and there is an existing house on the lot adjacent to that.
Mills confirmed with Jones that the lot split was not executed as
it was approved but was made 5' smaller.
The possibility of replatting the three lots was discussed and Jones
said she believed the lot furthest to the south had been sold. Allred
asked if the party who has sold this lot to Leonard could be made
to give up a portion of the adjacent lot to bring it into conformance.
This possibility was discussed and it was determined that it would
probably take a lawsuit to secure additional footage.
Tompkins asked if Leonard has considered building a long narrow house
• and Leonard replied that it would greatly detract form the value of
the property, as would facing the house on Oak Bailey instead of Warwick.
Waldren said he thought that Warwick would never be developed as a
street and Mills disagreed, noting that it would probably develop
along with the area to the west.
Waldren asked if Leonard has been back to discuss this matter with
the seller of the property and Leonard said that he had and had been
told that it would work out satisfactorily to build the house he wishes
on the lot in question.
Allred asked if Leonard could exchange this lot for another owned
by the same party and Leonard replied that he could, but that this
was the lot that he wanted, especially because of the trees.
Leonard said he
walked all the way
back along Warwick and had trouble
visualizing where it
could possibly
go to as it didn't seem
like there
was much area
to be
developed in
that direction. Allred
noted that
there were many
prime
acres in that area
that would someday be
developed,
probably in the
next
ten years.
Boyd asked if the r/w would be 50' if the street were developed to
current standards and Jones replied that that would be minimum. In
answer to his next question, Jones advised that 31' of the r/w is
• used for street purposes with the remainder for utilities and sidewalk.
Boyd noted that, if Warwick were developed, Leonard's house would
be sitting right on the r/w.
• Board of Adjustment
August 30, 1985
Page 4
Tompkins asked Leonard if he was advised of these encumbrances when
he purchased the property and Leonard replied that he was not. Boyd
asked if it were the setbacks Leonard was not advised of, or the physical
location of Warwick. Leonard said there stakes but that he did not
know it was a public street although he acknowledged that the dirt
street was not within the stakes. Boyd asked if there were a street
sign and Leonard said that there was.
Waldren inquired into referring this to the Planning Commission for
change in status from street to alley and Jones replied that it would
be unlikely as it has been used as a street for more than seven years
prohibiting it from being vacated.
Mills said she felt that this is one of those issues that has no solution.
Tompkins agreed, with the exception of gaining additional footage
from the lot to the south. Mills pointed out that this would leave
the lot in the middle with a 55' frontage.
Mills said her feeling was that Warwick would eventually be used as
access to the lots to the west and that, although the problems that
exist now are not of Leonard's doing, she not not think a variance
would be of help. She said that people who are developing and working
• with land should be aware of what the problems are.
Allred said he thought that this Board was being asked to solve a
problem for the seller of the property who should have been responsible
for making Leonard aware of the various restrictions when the property
was sold. Mills agreed.
MOTION
Waldren moved that this appeal be tabled until Leonard is able to
secure a legal opinion on his rights and at that time, reconsider.
The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION
Mills moved to deny the appeal, citing legal recourse as appropriate
action; seconded by Tompkins, the motion to deny passed 6-0-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
•
l.�q