HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-02 - Agendas •
Taeiile
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W.Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone: (479)575-8267
AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MONDAY, JULY 2, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
Room 111, City Administration Building
The following items will be considered:
1. Approval of the minutes from the June 4, 2012 meeting.
New Business:
2. ADM 12-4152: Administrative Item (629 S. BLOCK STREET/HAMAKER, 523): Submitted
by CHRIS HAMAKER for property located at 629 SOUTH BLOCK STREET. The property is zoned
NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.15 acre. The request is to
remove condition of approval 43 from the approval of BOA 11-3951 (629 S. Block/Hamaker).
Planner: Andrew Garner
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed
amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City
Planning(479-575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are
invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) are
available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an
interpreter,please call 479-575-8330.
•
Taye eel e
ARKANSAS
ORDER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item—Chairman
B. Presentation of Staff Report
C. Presentation of Request—Applicant
D. Public Comment
E. Response to Comment/Discussion and Questions by the Board
F. Action of the Board (Vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Board of Adjustment on an agenda item raise your hand when
the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after the staff and applicant
presentations. Public comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for
each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, stand and give your name and address. Address your
comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. After all public comments have
been heard, the Chairman will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed official,
staff member or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and
relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions
of the Board of Adjustment.
2012 Board of Adjustment Members
Robert Kohler (Chairman)
Jeff Hagers
Evan Niehues
Kristen Knight
Tim Stein
Matthew Hoffman
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on June 4, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. in Room
111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN
MINUTES: May 7, 2012 Approved
Page 2
New Business:
BOA 12-4131 (397 E. Dogwood Ave./Lewis,485):
Page 3 Approved
ADM 12-4133: Administrative Item(BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS):
Page 6 Approved
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Robert Kohler Kristin Knight
Jeff Hagers
Matthew Hoffman
Tim Stein
Evan Niehues
STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Garner
Quin Thompson
Jason Kelley
Board of Adjustment Chair Bob Kohler called the meeting to order at 3:45 PM.
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 1
06-04-2012 Minutes
Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Approval of the minutes from the May 7, 2012 Board of Adjustment meeting.
Motion•
Board Member Stein made a motion to approve the May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes.
Board Member Hagers seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a
vote of 4-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 1
06-04-2012 Minutes
Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6
BOA 12-4131 (397 E. Dogwood Ave./Lewis, 485): Submitted by STACEY PARK for property
located at 397 EAST DOGWOOD AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.24 acre. The request is
for a variance from setback requirements to allow for the construction of a new garage.
Staff comments were read by Quin Thompson, expressing staff finding that there is no
hardship imposed by zoning on this lot; that the desire to build a garage addition inside
setback is not in itself a hardship.
Board member Kohler commented that the applicant is requesting a 9' variance to the
setback in order to build the submitted project.
Board member Hoffman asked if the [proposed] design would conform with nearby
properties in the neighborhood.
Thompson answered that garage or covered parking a typical in the neighborhood, and
that lack of a garage or covered parking in this zone is considered a hardship, and that in
staff opinion there is adequate area within the setback to allow a garage to be built.
Brett Park summarized the nature of the request, noting that his clients hoped to make
additions to the existing home without re-tooling the entire floor plan. Due to site
constraints, it is necessary to encroach into the setback on the East in order to
accommodate the proposed addition. Mr. Park said that it is important to him to request
reasonable variances when he comes before the Board of[Adjustment]. Alan Reid
provided a survey showing a 30' Right-of-Way(R.O.W.) , the City GIS map showed a
30' R.O.W. which seems reasonable for Dogwood Ave.
Mr. Kohler asked the current with of the street.
Mr. Park replied that the street width is 18'. And continuing said that he had two
conversations with city staff in which a larger R.O.W. was never mentioned. The larger
R.O.W. was first mentioned in a phone call from Quin [Thompson] and Andrew [Garner]
last Thursday (May 31). He stated that in his opinion the hardship is that there is an
unnecessarily large R.O.W. on Dogwood Ave.
Mr. Kohler agreed that the R.O.W. seemed large given the nature of the street, asking
staff what type of street a 43' R.O.W. would typically be applied to.
Mr. Garner noted that building setbacks are always measured from the Master Street
Plan R.O.W., adding that the street is classified as a residential street, which has the
narrowest cross-section and R.O.W. requirement of 43'.
Mr. Kohler said that the cross-section and R.O.W. seemed unduly large for this
particular street, which was causing the applicant to request a 9' variance to the building
setback.
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 1
06-04-2012 Minutes
Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Hoffman asked for clarification of the site plan, which indicated a 3' variance was
needed to build the proposed project.
Mr. Park responded that until Thursday (May 31) he expected to ask for a 3' variance,
and that he was surprised to find that the R.O.W. was larger than his research suggested.
Board member Hagers asked for a description of the existing non-conformity shown on
the site plan.
Mr. Park responded that it was an existing attached carport that would be removed with
the proposed project and confirmed that the non-conforming condition would be
eliminated.
Mr. Hagers asked for a description of the space between the existing house and proposed
garage.
Mr. Park described it as expanded kitchen, stairs, laundry room, and living room area.
Mr. Hagers asked if there was a concern that the proposed addition might reduce a view
from adjacent properties given the steep angle of the street, given the height of the
proposed second story addition.
Mr. Park said he thought that there would not be a problem with obstruction of views.
Mr. Kohler asked staff if it was the case that the City [of Fayetteville] website had not
been updated to reflect the increased R.O.W. requirement imposed by the Master Street
Plan.
Mr. Kelley responded that the site is up to date, that the Master Street Plan R.O.W. is a
reference line which is intended to keep development out of the way of future expansion.
Board member Niehues asked for clarification that the submitted site plan was showing
existing R.O.W. rather than required Master Street Plan R.O.W.
Mr. Park replied that it was.
Mr. Niehues asked Mr. Park if there was room between required setback and the existing
house to construct a garage. He noted that not being able to have a garage in which to
park cars due to setback requirements is considered a hardship, but that the desire to have
a laundry room is not necessarily a hardship.
Mr. Park agreed that no person has a natural right to a laundry room, but countered that
the project was intended to increase the size of the home such that the owner's growing
family of 5 could live in a house that would accommodate their needs, and be able to park
2 cars, adding that the proposal was not unreasonable, but that the setback was
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 1
06-04-2012 Minutes
Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6
excessively large and preventing the applicant from a reasonable use of their property.
Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Park if the issue was that the Master Street Plan R.O.W.
requirement was different than he understood it to be.
Mr. Park answered that the issue was in fact that an unreasonably wide R.O.W.
requirement was preventing the home owner from executing the project design goals and
using their property in a way that would accommodate their needs.
Mr. Hoffman asked if it was appropriate for the Board [of Adjustments] to grant
variances to the Master Street Plan.
Mr. Kelley responded that the Master Street Plan is outside the jurisdiction of the Board.
Mr. Hagers asked whether or not it is common knowledge that the Master Street Plan is
used for permitting.
Mr. Garner said that it is common knowledge with developers, and that staff checks for
conformance with the Master Street Plan with every permit application.
Mr. Thompson noted that the request was for a variance to the setback, rather than an
adjustment to the Master Street Plan, which is within the power of the Board to grant.
Mr. Kelley commented that issues relating to the R.O.W. can be considered when
deciding whether to grant a variance to the setback.
Mr. Kohler stated that having visited the site, in his opinion, the R.O.W. is excessive
given the conditions at Dogwood Ave, and that the Garage would still be well out of the
R.O.W. and that the proposal is not out of character with structures in the area. He added
that for those reasons he would support granting the request.
Mr. Hagers commented that he also visited the site, and that he felt that Dogwood Ave
would not ever be made wider nor would sidewalks be constructed due to topography and
site conditions. He added that he would support the variance.
Motion:
Board Member Hagers made a motion to approve with all staff recommended
conditions. Board Member Stein seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion
passed with a vote of 5-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 1
06-04-2012 Minutes
Page 5 of 6
Board of Adjustment Meeting
June 4, 2012
Page 6 of 6
ADM 12-4133: Administrative Item (BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS): Submitted
by CITY PLANNING STAFF to amend the bylaws of the Board of Adjustment to reduce the
number of required members from seven to five.
Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.
Board Member Hagers asked about quorum in the interim until there were only five members.
Jason Kelly, Assistant City Attorney, discussed that the board might want to consider adopting
some rules in the interim. Whatever the bylaws currently state is the requirement. The bylaws will
now say three members is a quorum.
Motion:
Board Member Kohler made a motion to approve. Board Member Stein seconded the
motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-0-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM.
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 1
06-04-2012 Minutes
Page 6 of 6
P�A
a, Y BOA Meeting of July 2, 2012
ARKFlNSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479).575-8267
TO: Board of Adjustment Members
FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: June 25, 2012
ADM 12-4152 Administrative Item (629 Block Street/Hamaker,523): Submitted by CHRIS
HAMAKER for property located at 629 SOUTH BLOCK AVENUE. The property is zoned NC,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is
remove condition of approval 93 from the approval of BOA 11-3951 (629 S. Block/Hamaker)
Planner: Andrew Garner
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located within the Walker Park Neighborhood at the northwest corner of
Block Avenue and 71h Street (629 South Block Avenue). The property is zoned NC,Neighborhood
Conservation.The lot is vacant and an old home was removed from the property within the past few
years. The lot is currently undeveloped. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Use/Zoning
Direction from Site Land Use Zoning
North, East, West Single family residential NC, Neighborhood
Conservation
South Walker Park P-1, Institutional
October 3, 2011 Board ofAdjustment: On October 3,2011 the Board of Adjustment approved BOA
11-3951 to allow the applicant to split the property into two lots that were smaller than allowed
under the zoning code. The approved variances are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: AP roved Variances
Variance
Issue Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request
Tract 1
Lot Area 4,000 square feet 3,200 800 square foot variance
Tract 2
Lot Area 4,000 square feet 3,203 797 square foot variance
Proposal: The applicant requests that the Board of Adjustment remove condition of approval #3
from BOA 11-3951. The applicant's letter discussing their request along with concept sketches for
G.IETCIDevelopment Services Review120110evelopment Reviewll2-0752 BOA-ADM 629 S.Black Ave.(Hamaker)W BOA107-02-
20121Comments and Rerltines
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 1 of 30
two proposed single family homes on the property is attached.
Condition of Approval #3 for BOA 11-3951:
"In order to retain the traditional developmentpattern ofthe surrounding neighborhood,homes
on the new tracts shall be oriented with parking and garages/carports located behind the front
build-to zone. Garages/carports shall not protrude forward from the principal facade of the
structure."
Public Comment: Staff received an email from one person in the neighborhood discussing that they
are excited about the construction of two new homes in the neighborhood but opposed to the
applicant's request. A copy of this email is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request to remove condition of approval #3 be denied. As discussed
below,staff feels that this condition of approval is justified and a modest concession to offset some
of the impacts generated by the substantial variances that were granted by the Board of Adjustment.
The staff report for BOA 11-3951 discussed that this property does not have an unusual size or
shape. It was discussed that this flat,rectangular lot could be used under the literal interpretation of
the zoning regulations without any hardship being endured by the property owner. However, the
report discussed that in keeping with the overriding land use plan of the City, it was appropriate to
encourage single family infill on this property. Condition of approval#3 was recommended because
the applicant's proposal would create two lots that were noticably smaller than the immediately
surrounding single family lots.The proposed lots are approximately 3,200 SF when the immediately
surrounding lots are approximately 6,000-7,000 SF. By creating these small lots,unless the access
and parking is planned and designed appropriately, the impact of parking spaces, garage doors,
carports, and vehicles can dominate the streetscape. This development pattern would not be
compatible with the neighborhood and would not be consistent with the goals of City Plan 2030.
Goal 3 of City Plan 2030 encourages a Traditional Development Pattern that minimizes the impact of
vehicles and yields a pedestrian friendly streetscape.
Staff feels that condition of approval#3 will minimize the visual impact of garages and/or carports at
the street on these two small lots.The applicant's proposal does not utilize a shared driveway which
is common in smaller traditional lots. Rather the applicant proposes two separate driveways and two,
two-car carports with a zero-foot building setback,i.e. immediately off of the street. This will result
in parking and carports being a dominate feature of these homes along Block Street.This is exactly
the type of development pattern staff intended to prevent with condition of approval #3.
Additionally, there is not adequate room for vehicles to park between the carport and the sidewalk.
The applicant's design may encourage vehicles to park over the sidewalk which is not only against
City traffic code,but further detracts from a pedestrian friendly development pattern.There are many
options for the developer to utilize these small lots for development of two single family homes with
condition of approval #3. However, the applicant will have to modify their design to pull back the
covered parking areas from the street.
G:IEMDevelopnenl Services Review120121Development Rwdewll2-4152 BOA-ADM 629 S.Block Ave.(Hamake,)103 BOA 107-02-
20121Comments and Redlines
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 2 of 30
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends denial of ADM 12-4152 (629 S. Block/Hamaker).
Board of Adjustment Action: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied
Motion•
Second:
Vote•
Meeting Date: July 2, 2012
G:IETCIDenelopmenl Sendces Revtew120121Development Reviewll2-9152 BOA-ADM 619 S.Block Ave.(Hamakei)103 BOA107-02-
2012IConnnents and Redlines
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 3 of 30
(6/25/2012)Andrew Garner-629 South Block Condition of Approval Page 1
From: Alan Ostner<alan.ostner@yahoo.com>
To: Andrew Garner<agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/24/2012 11:20 PM
Subject: 629 South Block Condition of Approval
Hello Mr. Garner,
I live 3 blocks away from the 629 South Block property. My wife and two children and I walk by this vacant property often on our
way to Walker Park.We are thrilled new houses and neighbors might be at 629 Block one day! Our family is committed to South
Fayetteville and we cherish the diverse,traditional streetscape currently in this neighborhood.The great streetscape brings great
neighbors.And we have some great neighbors around here!
As I reviewed the requested removal of Condition#3 from the Board of Adjustment's October 2011 approval of a lot split, I must
agree with staffs recommendation to deny the request.The applicant's requested carports will not be compatible with the
neighborhood. Most folks in this neighborhood currently park a)in uncovered driveways, b)in open carports set back from the
street,or c)simply park on the street.
Best,
Alan Ostner
Professional Landscape Architect
312 South Block Ave.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
ph 479.966.9415
From:Andrew Garner<agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
To:Alan Ostner<alan.ostner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 21,2012 8:28 AM
Subject:Re: 629 South Block C of A
Hi Alan,
Here is the entire staff report for this item including our recommendation. If you have time to review I would value your opinion on
the request,not only as a designer but as a resident of the neighborhood.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew M. Garner,AICP
Senior Planner
City of Fayetteville
125 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville,Arkansas 72701
Tel.479.575.8262
Fax.479.575.8202
agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
www.accessfayetteville.org
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf:(479)521-1316
>>>Alan Ostner<alan.ostner@yahoo.com>6/20/2012 11:30 PM>>>
Hello Andrew,
Could you tell me more about the condition of approval that Chris Hamaker is requesting be removed for the 629 South Block
property?
Best,
Alan Ostner
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 4 of 30
06/11/2012
Board of Adjustments
City of Fayetteville
125 W Mountain St
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Attn: Board of Adjustments
Re:Request to modify recommendation#3 for the approved lot split on the corner of S Block Ave and E
7`h St
The Board of Adjustments approved a lot split on October 3, 2011 to allow for two separate single-
family lots located at the corner of S Block Ave and E 7th St(629 S Block Ave),just across the street from
the most northern portion of Walker Park.The lots are currently zoned NC, Neighborhood Conservation.
I am requesting the modification,or removal,of recommendation#3 by the Board of Adjustments which
reads:
"In order to retain the traditional development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood,
homes on the new tracts shall be oriented with parking and garages/carports located behind
the front build-to zone.Garages/carports shall not protrude forward from the principal facade
of the structure."
The reason for this request is that the recommendation is not consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.A vast majority of the homes in the Walker Park neighborhood have parking in the build-
to zone, on the front property line and also have street parking.There are also new homes in the
neighborhood that do not meet this recommendation. Please see the attached for examples.
I would like to be able to build two carports in front of the build-to zone(see attached plans)adjacent to
thenewhomes. This would further enhance the neighborhood by partially concealing the vehicles from
the street. The carports are architect-designed to include storage areas and are coordinated with the
homes in similar materials and form so that there is an overall unified appearance.
As the rule now stands, it would be OK to have exposed cars next to the homes, but not OK to give have
a roof over the cars.
If I were to follow the recommendation in its current form,these homes would lose their backyards to
carports,and the front yards to driveways,which would greatly reduce the private greenspace and
appeal of the homes. It would also be contrary to the pattern of the neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Chris Hamaker
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 5 of 30
U 0 o
Z 0L` U O U
p Z Ln w Z
� �
z 0Q � 0
z c' z � z z
oN ow z of � z
_ o
N U o
Z L N
r � n
II
nP PHP F
PHP PPP DfOHP— -�—IMP PPP
(D O
O 00
M _ M (a3nvd 'M/,\j ,ss) 7l?N��1 F� �I X078 I 1
6 o M C0
M M h0 I --
SS K7 M M M M M Ln
N
Co co SS SS SS SS SSSS
ccC
N h y o
w NlVM301S M N
> 31380NO 3 (D co I
,00'82 L ® ,00 b9
M„95,99,ZOS
v ,00 -�9
Z li ui Vi H p I D
X1 wm� m N w U how I >
m [ifO' gin^ .n W F Y3 Q
�n Q UN N ^ KC3 d
m Q 7 O co U v)
z +I O ^ Q
„ NN CD
N O +I O
xo �l
zx O O LO J p0
"
W O p2 3
I
I z o Ln
N^ 00
00 t ase sz 9M—as_e -S I< N z I
CD � l 8Zl
N o o00 f o ]„9S,99' ZON
o p � D w I I
O Z
I O Q Z w
U7 10 U) U m o
ON J U (� r” o
� r, Z Z o I I I
}
x z
co p
ii 0 Ln
un
O N vl
�
o I
v
� '0Z
O
0_
w
U
Z
Q w U
M z
w o 0
O U
0
zz w
z 0 — _I z LLI � Z a � w
0 0' Z X Q Q J w w
y ^ z Of w O � w w J
LLJ O } w a ( O L g j Board of Adjustment
Y Z \ Q J Z = n July 2,2012
Z w w Q � � Agenda Item 2
l U) In cn w U7 2 Z O J 1— I— ADM12-4152
X w w = Xcl� Q 0 Q w < Q Page 6 of 30
m �' i III i I II � i=ce 4i
1 CI 0 o II II �
Q IF
S
OF
li +
I �
1 3 .1
Fo
0 ZI
IIID I N® IIIA �� nO
,� II eIL'.11 I
n I I
a I I I
4
m
p'o w
�f-
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 7 of 30
}g�tlU
z d z�4 nS p
F �
1 1
n
NI
st
6
F iu If
SS q�
na
xgs a,
I
,LI I !I ! 'il�lli
IT ! -
�
i
e
I III I, I!I lI I
I II I�
I ,
=m
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12 4152
Page 8 of 30
7TH STREET
i
IN
W
r0
Y
4 6 y
' Y
2 i 4
i g
q 8
T ix 9
z tea_
—aQ €C^ofo z
U z :� o mueWN m
1 � a g`�mM y
o 'fig y m m Fbm _ �C
t $ 4 t 3 IM
9 E •6 ,F$ .�
BLOCK STREET RESIDENCES
Mgnt]
Here are some shots taken within two blocks of the Block St.site. They all have parking and/or carports
in the build-to zone, new as well as older homes. Most parking is in the street, also, most off street
parking is for only one car-we have off-street for two cars. So we are taking all cars OFF the street.
One of our proposed homes is like the new skinny tall homes where the garage is incorporated into the
home.Theirs is on bottom floor, ours is to the side, but it uses the house roof for its roof-so
house/garage is like one building
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 10 of 30
4
yam./y�Y.�,..�.\I'.•
l
i
e <_
d,
y
S ,
6. -
;nsi' . °1
Pi
wl
h
K
..s
Board ofAdjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda
a+
`I u
•race �
` Y�SY'���»l fed �. kE •pw
�a } 1 ,�p•'• IJ
Y 7\� • •;` MwP*l
y ; s
31
r i
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
AgendaItem 2
.D
t
' r
r
MMMITT
F
lRfY"!+•!�➢IRR r
f
4.
�ro
1
1
v
.3
C
rr
4 y' 9.�' y j t•r
.Y• r
-r;;w
fft
d
wtµ.
Y}
jpl
Tale
r..
Ilk
T
'
1
• :Y
M.
� v
f
y.N
• r��M JY A
« P;
T i
n �
� 1
of
a!^ r
^ ' +v
"Sm,
LA —
y
Fl
�' taw •} � {e _.. �....,. �, � \ -i"�'_-,I ' r .•
_ ... lam.+. '1N _. ♦�
'017ftft
aye"Itev1 le BOA Meeting of October 3, 2011
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267
TO: Board of Adjustment
FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: Updated October 5, 2011
BOA 11-3951 (629 S. Block Ave./Hamaker, 523): Submitted by Chris Hamaker for
property located at 629 SOUTH BLOCK AVENUE. The property is zoned NC,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.15 acre. The request
is for a variance from the lot area requirements to divide the subject property into two
tracts. Planner: Andrew Garner
BACKGROUND:
Property Description and Background: The subject property is located within the Walker
Park Neighborhood at the northwest corner of Block Avenue and 7th Street (629 South
Block Avenue) and is zoned NC, Neighborhood Conservation. The lot is vacant and an old
home was removed from the property within the past few years. The lot is currently
undeveloped.. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Use/Zoning
Direction from Site Land Use Zoning
North, East, West Single family residential NC, Neighborhood
Conservation
South Walker Park P-1, Institutional
Proposal: The applicant proposes to subdivide the lot into two lots of 3,200 and 3,203
square feet, respectively, resulting in two nonconforming lots as indicated in Table 2. The
applicant's stated intent is to build an two detached single family residences on the two
lots.
Table 2: Variance Request
Variance
Issue Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request
Tract 1
Lot Area 4,000 square feet 3,200 800 square foot variance
Tract 2
Lot Area 4,000 square feet 3,203 (797 square foot variance
Public Comment: Staff has not received public comment.
G:IETCIDevelopmenl Services Revlew1201111)evelopmenl Reviemll 1-3951 BOA 629&Block Ave(Hamakei)101 Board of
AdjustmentU0-3-20111Comments and Redlineslll-3951 BOA 629 S.Block(Hamakei).doc Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 19 of 30
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow for the proposed lot
split as indicated on the submitted survey, subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. A lot split shall be processed in accordance with the City's development codes.
2. In order to retain the detached single family development pattern and density
of the immediate surrounding neighborhood, development on each of the new
tracts shall be limited to one detached single family residence.
3. In order to retain the traditional development pattern of the surrounding
neighborhood, homes on the new tracts shall be oriented with parking and
garages/carports located behind the front build-to zone. Garages/carports shall
not protrude forward from the principal facade of the structure.
Additional Conditions/Comments:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: X Approved ❑ Denied
Date: October 3,2011 Motion: Kohler Second: KnK ieht Vote: 5-0-0
CITY PLAN 2030 GOAL 1:
"We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities."
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION:
City Neighborhood Area— Walker Park Neighbor/food Master Plan
FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE:
161.23 Neighborhood Conservation Zoning District
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation zone has the least activity and a lower density than the other
(downtown) zones. Although Neighborhood Conservation is the most purely residential zone, it can
have some mix of uses, such as civic buildings. Neighborhood Conservation serves to promote and
protect neighborhood character. For the proposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Neighborhood
Conservation district is a residential zone.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1 City-wide uses by right
Uni[8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9 Two-familydwellings
Unit 41 Accessory dwellings
G:IETCIDevelopmen(Services RevieW20110evelopment Revieu411-3951 BOA 629S.Block Ave(Hamake,)Wl Board of
Adfnsonentl 10-3-201 AComments and Redlines
Board of Adjustment
July 2,2012
Agenda Item 2
ADM12-4152
Page 20 of 30