HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-10 - Agendas - Final CITY OF
a e evl jq AGENDA
Y ARKANS
Planning Commission Meeting
November 10, 2014
5:30 PM
113 W. Mountain, Room 219
Members: Tracy Hoskins (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Ryan Noble (Secretary), Sarah Bunch,
William Chesser, Kyle Cook, Craig Honchell, Janet Selby, and Porter Winston.
City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
Call to Order
Roll Call
Consent
1. Approval of the minutes from the October 27, 2014 meeting.
2. ADM 14-4878: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (E. HUNTSVILLE RD./ QUARRY TRACE
SUBDIVISION; 571): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES for
property located on E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 35.90 acres. The request is
to amend the approved preliminary plat for Quarry Trace Subdivision to include a phasing line.
Planner: Jesse Fulcher
3. ADM 14-4880: Administrative Item (617 N. COLLEGE AVE./SIDNEY'S EMPORIUM, 445):
Submitted by SIDNEY SIMONS for property located at 617 N. COLLEGE AVE. The property is
zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.21 acres. The
request is for a Mobile Vendor Annual Permit. Planner: Andrew Garner
Old Business
4. VAR 14-4877: Variance (LOT 25, CRESCENT LAKE SUBDIVISION, 607): Submitted by
BAUMANN-CROSNO CONSTRUCTION for property located at LOT 25 IN THE CRESCENT
LAKE SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS
PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is for a variance of the
Streamside Protection Zone. Floodplain Administrator: Alan Pugh
5. RZN 14-4859: Rezone (300 & 400 BLOCK OF MILK BLVD./NIEDERMAN ENTERPRISES,
524): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 300 & 400 BLOCK OF MLK
BLVD. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain
approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to DG, DOWNTOWN
GENERAL. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville,AR 72701
New Business
6. ADM 14-4881: Administrative Item (1920 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING
BLVD./WHATABURGER, 520): Submitted by KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES for property
located at 1920 W. MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. The property is zoned C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.27 acres. The request is for an
amendment to CUP 14-4705 for additional parking. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
7. RZN 14-4864: Rezone (232 W. ASH ST./KOUTROUMBIS, 367): Submitted by PARKER &
ASSOCIATES for property located at 232 W. ASH ST. The property is zoned RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 acres.
The request is to rezone the property to RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER
ACRE. Planner: Quin Thompson
8. RZN 14-4868: Rezone (2030 S. MORNINGSIDE/PRISM EDUCATION CENTER, 603):
Submitted by MICHAEL SCHULTZ for property located at 2030 S. MORNINGSIDE. The property
is zoned 1-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 9.22 acres. The request is to
rezone the property to 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
Planner: Jesse Fulcher
9. RZN 14-4867: Rezone (2269 N. HENBEST DR./ADVENTURE SUBARU, 325): Submitted by
JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 2269 N. HENBEST RD. The property
is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 4.17 acres. The request is to
rezone the property to C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. Planner: Andrew Garner
The following items have been approved administratively by staff:
None
Adjourn
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE:
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning
Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment.
Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address.Address your comments
to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed
official, staff, 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.
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 575-8330.
As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers.
A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection
in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested
parties are invited to review the petitions.
2
CITY OF
Taye ARKeAN SAS le MINUTES
AN
Planning Commission
October 27, 2014
5:30 PM
City Administration Building in Fayetteville, AR, Room 219
Members: Tracy Hoskins - Chair, Ron Autry- Vice-Chair, Ryan Noble — Secretary, William
Chesser, Kyle Cook, Craig Honchell, Porter Winston, Janet Selby, and Sarah Bunch
City Staff: Andrew Garner— City Planning Director, Jesse Fulcher— Senior Planner, Quin
Thompson — Planner, Cory Granderson — Staff Engineer, Ken Easton — Urban Forester, and
Blake Pennington —Assistant City Attorney
1. Call to Order: 5:31 PM, Tracy Hoskins
2. In Attendance: Craig Honchell, Ryan Noble, William Chesser, Ron Autry, Tracy Hoskins,
Sarah Bunch Arrived after roll call: Kyle Cook, Porter Winston, and Janet Selby
Staff: Andrew Garner, Jesse Fulcher, Quin Thompson, Alan Pugh, Corey Granderson, and
Kit Williams
3. Approval of the minutes from the October 13, 2014 meeting.
ADM 14-4871: Administrative Item (Refund for Off-site Improvements/ Delays
Project): Submitted by City staff, requesting the Planning Commission to refund various
delayed off-site improvement contributions related to projects that have not occurred nor are
going to occur in the near term, pursuant to §158.05 of the UDC.
Motion:
Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0.
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayet ri?bRF.J&2014
Fayetteville,AR 72701 Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 1 of 8
4. Old Business:
VAR 14-4869: Variance (LOTS 18; 20-29 SPYGLASS HILL DR./STONEBRIDGE
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, 607): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for
property located at LOTS 18; 20-29 SPYGLASS HILL DR. The properties are zoned RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 5.00 acres.
The request is for a variance of the streamside protection requirements.
Alan Pugh gave the staff report.
Jim McCord, applicant, gave a presentation indicating their proposal and the hardship
because of the ordinance. He discussed that a family would not be able to have play
equipment behind the house if the 25-foot buffer recommended by staff were required. We
request that a 5-foot buffer be appropriate in this case. He discussed agreement with condition
#2, signage, disagreement with condition #3, agreement with #4, and agreement with #4. To
be able to build a house on these lots the buffer should not be 25 feet and that a reasonable
buffer be five feet.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Chesser asked Pugh if he knew the applicant would disagree with the
recommendation.
Alan Pugh stated that the applicant representative submitted a letter on Friday, after the staff
report was published.
Hoskins discussed that he considered the lake an LID feature in and of itself. He thought that
a 5-foot buffer is reasonable and fair. Their backyards will still be extremely limited.
Pugh asked Hoskins about the nature of the stream being disturbed and his opinion on future
variances in disturbed versus pristine stream areas.
Hoskins discussed that this is a unique situation and it is not setting a precedent.
Jim McCord, applicant, discussed the unique situation of this application and that it is not
setting any precedent.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the waterside zone and ambiguity in the code regarding
this situation because it is a manmade lake. The top of bank has been moved farther up
because the lake has been created. He discussed the unique situation of the subject request.
He discussed that the code is not clear in this situation. He discussed that the key thing we're
wanting to do is keep the pollution out of the lake which will happen here with this proposal.
Commissioner Hoskins discussed the complication with the lack of being able to understand
the top of bank.
Jim McCord, applicant, discussed where ESI measured the top of bank.
Commissioner Chesser discussed that the lake will act as a settlement zone for pollutants.
He asked why the buffer area is still needed in this case.
Planning Commission
November 12,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 2 of 8
Alan Pugh discussed that the buffer will reduce pollutants and provide bank stabilization. The
smaller the buffer becomes the fewer the pollutants will be removed.
Commissioner Chesser asked for the City Attorney's opinion.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that the best situation is to come to an agreement with
the landowner to ensure that there are buildable lots.
Jim McCord, applicant, discussed the problems with the ordinance in this case. We are
proposing a reasonable compromise.
Commissioner Chesser asked for clarification on the lines shown on the exhibit.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the location for measurements of the streamside zones
and the top of bank discussed in the code.
Commissioner Chesser asked about the homes being put on these lots. I am wondering if
some accommodation in the house plan could be considered. I don't agree that the 5-foot
buffer is enough given the slope.
Commissioner Honchell discussed that this is exactly the reason why he didn't vote for the
streamside ordinance. Honchell discussed that he is comfortable with following the floodplain
line. I would like to give the applicant as much leeway as possible.
Commissioner Autry discussed that if we go to the five feet buffer the applicant may still
have a difficult situation to sell these lots. This is not a precedent. I would be in support of
what the applicant is requesting.
Winston discussed that we should use the FEMA line is easier to determine where the
streamside zone is located.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve VAR 14-4869 as requested by the
applicant. Commissioner Honchell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Chesser voted `no'.
Commissioner Winston arrived during discussion of VAR 14-4869
Planning Commission
November 18,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 3 of 8
New Business:
VAR 14-4877: Variance (LOT 25, CRESCENT LAKE SUBDIVISION, 607): Submitted by
BAUMANN-CROSNO CONSTRUCTION for property located at LOT 25 IN THE CRESCENT
LAKE SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4
UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is for a variance of
the Streamside Protection Zone.
Alan Pugh, Staff Engineer, gave the staff report.
Mike Baumann, applicant, discussed that to maintain a buffer on this property will be a huge
burden on the property owners. We are asking that they not have to put up signage because
no other lots in the area have the sign. We do not want to provide any buffer. We are okay
with the BMPs, and we don't want to have to do any LID feature.
Public Comment:
Jackson Williams represents the builder and several other home owners in this subdivision.
I feel that this greatly restricts the value in this subdivision. The covenants require a 2,700 sq.
ft. home and you need some yard.
Aubrey Shepherd discussed that here is someone wants to make the most profit from a land
purchase.When you are talking about value, having the property protect the stream has some
value. If they will use red dirt and build it up they will create more run-off.This is a water quality
problem and an environmental problem. Small children will learn more if there is native grass
back there.
No more public comment was presented.
Kit Williams read from the ordinance the uses that would be permitted in the streamside
zones.
Commissioner Honchell asked the applicant about their development.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed with the applicant the implications of conditions of
approval if the variance is approved.
Mike Baumann, applicant, discussed agreement with a 5-foot buffer on this property as
measured from the top of bank.
Alan Pugh discussed that their understanding was that new lawns couldn't be created but old
lawns are grandfathered in.
Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner discussed the BMP manual and maintenance of lawns which
confirmed what Alan Pugh discussed.
Kit Williams discussed that removal of woody vegetation is something that cannot be done
unless it is an invasive species.
Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve the request as recommended by staff.
Planning Commission
November 14,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 4 of 8
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that the motion is out of order because the applicant
has not agreed to the conditions.
Winston asked why this top of bank if different.
Alan Pugh discussed that methodology behind the definition of top of bank.
Kit Williams discussed that he feels like this needs to be tabled to try and come to an
agreement between staff and the applicant and present a clear alternative.
Mike Baumann discussed agreement to try and work with the city.
Motion:
Commissioner Winston made a motion to table VAR 14-4877 until the next Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Commissioner Cook arrived during the discussion of VAR 14-4877
Planning Commission
November 15,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 5 of 8
LSD 14-4860: Large Scale Development (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JOYCE AND
STEELE BLVDS./UPTOWN APARTMENTS, 134 & 173): Submitted by THE SPECIALIZED
GROUP for property located at SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JOYCE AND STEELE BLVDS.
The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 14.01
acres. The request is for 312 multi-family units.
Quin Thompson, Current Planner, read the staff report.
No public comment was presented.
Seth Mims, Applicant, said that he would like to increase the amount of commercial square
footage in the proposed development.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director, said that this would best be accomplished with a separate
Major Modification [to an approved Large Scale Development]. He added that it could be
approved at Subdivision Committee and would not require public notification.
Porter Winston, Commissioner, said that he thought this looked like a straight forward
project and a good development, adding that he thought additional commercial space would
be a good thing.
Motion:
Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve LSD 14-4860 in favor of all conditions
recommended by staff. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Planning Commission
November 16,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 6 of 8
RZN 14-4859: Rezone(300 8r 400 BLOCK OF MILK BLVD./NIEDERMAN ENTERPRISES,
524): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 300 & 400 BLOCK OF
MLK BLVD. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and
contain approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to DG,
DOWNTOWN GENERAL.
Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, read the staff report.
Zara Niederman, applicant, presented a power point presentation and discussed the ideas
for the property.
Public comment:
Evan Niehues, neighbor, stated that the zoning change will fit in with the neighborhood and
provide a variety of housing. The property is along a major thoroughfare.
Aubry Shepard, citizen, discussed general water problems.
Sally Eubrech, neighbor, stated she was against the rezoning.
No more public comment was presented.
Commission Chesser asked staff if the recommendation was a challenge.
Fulcher stated yes.
Commissioner Chesser discussed other zoning options that will allow higher density and
that he could support some type of zoning change.
Commissioner Winston stated he feels like this is a PZD zoning opportunity. A smaller scale
plan is okay for this property.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director, discussed the conditional use process for Neighborhood
Conservation and Neighborhood Services.
Commissioner Hoskins stated that Downtown General zoning will allow some intense
buildings. Is there any other district that will work?
Niederman stated that he was not that familiar with all of the other zoning districts. The
Downtown General district seems the most logical since it's zoned that way to the west and
east. Could table the request and discuss other options with staff.
Commissioner Hoskins stated he was surprised it was Downtown General to the east and
west. Might be able to support Neighborhood Services.
Motion:
Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table RZN 14-4859 to the next Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Planning Commission
November 19,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 7 of 8
S. Reports: No reports
6. Announcements: No announcements
7. Adjournment Time: 7:28 PM
8. Submitted by: City Planning Division
Planning Commission
November 18,2014
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 10-27-14
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF
ayevi le PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
Y ARKANSAS
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
THRU: Chris Brown, City Engineer
FROM: Alan Pugh, Staff Engineer
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2014
SUBJECT: VAR 14-4877: Variance(Lot 25 CRESCENT LAKE SUBDIVISION, 607):
Submitted by Baumann Construction, LLC. for property Lot 25 in the
Crescent Lake Subdivision. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains
approximately 0.40 acres. The request is for a variance of the Streamside
Protection Zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of VAR 14-4877 as described further within this memorandum.
BACKGROUND:
The variance relates to the property at address 1552 Springlake Drive which is located on the
east side of Springlake Drive within Crescent Lake Subdivision. The plat indicates a single family
lot which is approximately 17,328 SF with approximately 7,825 SF of buildable area NOT taking
into account the streamside protection ordinance. The lot included in the variance request is
platted with a 25' front setback/utility easement and is bounded in the rear by an unnamed
tributary of the West Fork of the White River(referred to as"tributary" herein).
The subject phase of Crescent Lake was platted in 2005 in advance of the streamside protection
ordinance which was adopted in 2011. The tributary referenced is protected by the adopted
ordnance. However, it should be noted that the tributary was modified prior to the adoption of the
ordinance by placement of an in-stream dam. This has created a continuous pool of water behind
the lot rather than a natural stream condition and has been incorporated as a feature of the
Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant proposes to construct a new single family home consistent with the homes currently
constructed in the area. In order to construct a home on the lot, a variance from the streamside
protection ordinance is required as the home will encroach on both the Waterside and
Management Zones given the extent of the protected area as called for by the ordinance. The
widths of the zones are shown on the exhibit submitted with the variance application. The width
of Zone 1 is a total of 45 feet as the slopes adjacent to the tributary are greater than 15 percent
and subject to the steep slopes provision in the ordinance. The total width of Zone 2 is shown as
25 feet as provided in the ordinance for a total streamside protection width of 70 feet from the top
of bank. Given the location of the top of bank as defined by the applicant and the configuration
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-argov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 1 of 8
of the lot, this provision would make the lot unbuildable. The remaining buildable area given the
setbacks, easements and streamside protection zones would not be large enough to construct a
home as shown on the attached exhibit.
It should be noted that the applicant has defined the top of bank very near the edge of the typical
water elevation as edge of the water is very near the recreational easement shown on the exhibit.
If the top of bank were interpreted to be closer to the top of the slope behind the lot, as would be
the determination by staff in this case, the streamside protection zones would further reduce the
buildable area of the lot and further reinforce the need for this variance.
As stated previously, the lot was platted prior to adoption of the streamside protection ordinance
so the additional depth required to comply with the ordinance was not taken into account in the
original subdivision design. At present, the streets have been constructed and lots across the
street have begun to develop. Therefore,the lot in question could not be developed and maintain
compliance with the streamside ordinance by physically altering the existing or proposed
improvements.
Recommendation: Finding that streamside protection ordinance would render the lot in question
otherwise unbuildable and the tributary in question was previously altered prior to the adoption of
the ordinance staff recommends approval of ADM 14-4877 subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall enhance the waterside zone by providing a riparian buffer seven(7)feet in
width which includes no fewer than 2 trees as well as various shrubs and grasses. The
shrubs and grasses should be a substantial component but are not required for the entire
width of the rear lot. Examples of species that are suitable for planting in riparian buffers
are located within the Streamside Protection BMP Manual and should be used when
selecting the appropriate vegetation.
2. A permanent tree protection easement shall be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville and
shall be seven feet in width, directly adjacent to the recreational easement for the entire
width of the lot.
3. The current owner shall disclose to any potential buyer of the lot/home affected that the
lobhome is subject to the streamside ordinance and they will be responsible for
compliance as the owner. This disclosure shall include a description of the purpose of
any features constructed to comply with this variance request and the fact that the features
must be maintained in order for the lot to remain in compliance.
4. The developer shall propose and use best management practices (BMPs) to limit
sediment runoff during construction of the home. An erosion control plan shall be
developed and submitted to staff for approval prior to construction.
5. The developer may elect to further enhance the riparian buffer by utilizing low impact
development(LID) measures, however, at a minimum one rain barrel no smaller than 55
gallons in size and located in the SE corner of the home shall be utilized. Other
measures such as rain gardens or bioswales are encouraged but not required. If utilized
they should be designed and maintained in general accordance with the City of
Fayetteville Drainage Criteria Manual.
Planning Commission Action: ❑Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑Denied
Meeting Date: November 10, 2014
Motion:
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 2 of 8
Second:
Vote:
FINDINGS:
City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code
Section 156.03 Development Variances
Certain variances of the development regulations may be applied for as follows:
(C) Consideration by the Planning Commission
(9) Streamside Protection Zones
(a) Undue hardship. If the provisions of the Streamside Protection Ordinance are
shown by the owner or developer to cause undue hardship as strictly applied to
the owner or developer's property because of its unique characteristics, the
Planning Commission may grant a variance on a permanent or temporary basis
from such provision so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest
protected, provided that the variance will not have the effect of nullifying the intent
and purpose of the Streamside Protection regulations.
Staff agrees with the statement that the lot in question would be otherwise unbuildable due to the
defined streamside protection zones- Due to the fact the streamside protection ordinance was
approved between the time in which the lot was platted/street construction and the proposed
development of the lot,staff finds that the request is a result of undue hardship noted above and
is justified.
(b) Consideration of alternative measures. The applicant for the variance shall
establish that a reasonable rezoning by the City Council or variance request from
the Board of Adjustment will not sufficiently alleviate the claimed undue hardship
caused by the Streamside Protection regulations.
Due to the extent of the streamside protection zone on the property, a rezoning or variance
request from the board of adjustments would not address the hardship to an extent that would
otherwise make the construction of a home on the lot feasible. The applicant did research the
potential to abandon a Dortion of the utility easement in the front of the lot in order to reduce the
front setback from the platted 25 feet to the currently,_required 15 feet. However, the presence of
existing utilfties in the existing setback/utility easement prevented the footprint of the home from
being moved further from the stream.
(c) Conditions and safeguards. In granting any variance, the Planning Commission
may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to substantially secure the
objectives and purpose for the regulations so varied and to mitigate any
detrimental effects the variance may cause. The Planning Commission should
consider the Streamside Protection Best Management Practices Manual and any
mitigation recommendations from the City Engineer.
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 3 of 8
See staff conditions listed above.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
• Applicant's letter
• Proposed variance request exhibit
• Applicant provided streamside zone exhibit
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 4 of 8
Michael Crosno & Mike Baumann
Baumann & Crosno Construction
440 N College Ave
PO Box 4072
Fayetteville, Ar. 72702
October 9, 2014
Tracy Hoskins
Planning Commission Chair
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Ar. 72701
Dear Tracy Hoskins:
The variance we request for parcel: 765-24794-000; 1552 S Springlake Dr, in
Fayetteville is from the stream protection ordinance section 168.12 of the development
code and the variance justification in section 156 (page 156.6 for streamside
protection). Baumann & Crosno Construction is requesting to build a house at Crescent
Lake lot 25; 1552 S Springlake Dr. that falls into the streamside protection ordinance.
"Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to
be erected on a lot half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with
existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing items (1) through (11)
of§168.03(A) have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond half acre, the
technical justification required for issuing the variance increases"
Crescent Lake lot 25 does fall under the half acre size (.40 Acres) and there is one
house located next door to the north at 1530 S Springlake Dr. built in the same
protection zone. Crescent Lake subdivision final plat approval was stamped 11-15-2005
before the streamside protection ordinance was put in place. This ordinance if not
granted a variance makes the lot unbuildable. The home placed on this lot by Baumann
&-Crosno-Construction will be-out-of the-flood-plain-and have-the final-FFE-elevation -
certified by Bates and Associates Engineers.
Please see attached documentation that the proposed structure would be out of the
flood plain.
Please see attached documentation of the proposed structure and its location to the
streamside protection zone.
The undue hardship Baumann & Crosno Construction would face by this ordinance is a
purchased undevelopable lot of$27,500. This lot if not allowed to build would have a
drastic impact on local small business Baumann & Crosno Construction financials due
to the cost of the lot $27,500 and the missed profit $30,000 from building and selling a
well-built value added house in Fayetteville's economy.
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 5 of 8
In closing we would like to thank you for your time and consideration for our variance
into the streamside protection zone.
Sincerely,
Michael Crosno
Managing Partner
Mike Baumann
Managing Partner
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 6 of 8
m
� 9
\ :r
R
y ✓
r 4�
ill' D
n
C % r
- vi
i Rp
nOrn
mA N
zg
+
8
li I':I
� fnl
a
b
tt@$ p Z
... _ ansa la'r uu••• SOCIEIt®S,Inc.
r IcG2 SPRINGLAKF CTIA Entlnxilp{ud blmA�ilntcy+
_ 14)`E rffWLLS, ARKANSAS
I do'
N E._
h —
y
h
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 7 of 8
VAR14-4877 BAUMANN-CROSNO CONSTRUCTION
Close Up View
O
•. ^- �
I � i
SUBJECT PROPERTY
rcQS d
�e
rc
❑
J
J_
(7
1
a
h
rc
w
Y
5
z
z
rc
6
N
Legend
............. Multi-Use Trail (Existing)
USe'r'vie,Future Trails
- -- Fayetteville City Limits
Footprints 2010
- Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District
Design Overlay Di trict
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
------ Planning Area Feet
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 2
14-4877 Crescent Lake SID
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF
layevi le PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
Y ARKANSAS
TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
THRU: Andrew Garner, Planning Director
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2014
SUBJECT: RZN 14-4859: Rezone(300 &400 BLOCK OF MILK BLVD./NIEDERMAN
ENTERPRISES, 524): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property
located at 300 & 400 BLOCK OF MLK BLVD. The properties are zoned
NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 1.93
acres. The request is to rezone the properties to DG, DOWNTOWN
GENERAL.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of RZN 14-4859.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission tabled the request on October 27, 2014 to allow the applicant to
consider alternative zoning designations. The applicant meet with staff on October 21, 2014 and
it's the applicant's desire to continue with the original request to rezone the property to DG,
Downtown General.
The subject property is located on the north side of Martin Luther King Boulevard between Wood
Avenue and Willow Avenue and is within the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan boundary.
The properties are developed with single-family homes, several of which that were constructed in
the last six months. The surrounding zoning and land uses are depicted in Table 1.
Table 1 -Surroun Ing Zoning and Land Use
Direction Land Use Zoning
from Site
North
Single-family residential NC, Neighborhood Conservation
South
Single-family residential NC, Neighborhood Conservation
East
Single-family residential DG, Downtown General
West
Single-family residential DG, Downtown General
Request: The request is to rezone six (6) existing properties from NC, Neighborhood
Conservation to DG, Downtown General. The applicant has indicated that the rezoning is needed
to create opportunities for light commercial amenities as well as more housing opportunities in
close proximity to the downtown core.
Public Comment: Staff has not received any public comment.
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettMt 69 2014
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Agenda I m 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 1 of 23
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The site has access to Martin Luther King Boulevard, a collector street and Wood
Avenue, a local street. Any improvements to these streets will be determined at
the time of development.
Water: Public water is accessible to the site. There is a 2-inch water main along Martin
Luther King Boulevard and a 16-inch water main along Wood Avenue.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is a 6-inch sewer main along Martin
Luther King Boulevard and Wood Avenue.
Drainage: Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at
time of development. This property is not affected by the 100-year floodplain or
the Streamside Protection Ordinance.
Fire: This development will be protected by Engine 1 located at 303 W. Center Street.
It is 1 mile from the station with an anticipated response time of 2 minutes to the
beginning of the development. The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel
this development will affect our calls for service or our response times.
Police: The Police Department did not express any concerns with this request.
CITY PLAN 2030 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN:
City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Complete Neighborhood Plan:
Walker Park Neighborhood. A_digital copy of the adopted document has been provided
separately.
DISCUSSION:
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of RZN 14-4859.
?'LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
Date: October 27, 2014 4 Tabled O Forwarded O Denied
Motion: Chesser Second: Selby Vote: 9-0-0
Date: November 10, 2014 O Tabled O Forwarded O Denied
Motion: Second- Vote:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
Date: November 18, 2014 O Approved O Denied
Planning Commission
GAETC\Development Services Review120140evelopment Review\14-4859 RZN(Niederman)\03 Planning Commission\11-10- November 10,2014
2014\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 2 of 23
1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The Downtown General zoning district is an appropriate zoning for the
Walker Park Neighborhood and supports one of the primary goals of the
plan, which is to encourage a variety of housing types and to develop
neighborhood commercial nodes. The zoning plan that was ultimately
adopted by the City Council in 2008 supported this policy, among others, by
locating the Downtown General district at several key locations, including
Jefferson Square to the west of this project. With the exception of the
intersection of 16" Street and S. School Avenue, the remainder of the
neighborhood was zoned Neighborhood Conservation, which protects
existing and encourages new single-family residential development.
Land Use Compatibility: In staff's opinion, Downtown General is not a
compatible zoning district for this area of small, single-family homes.
Appropriately scaled two and three-family homes as well as appropriate
sized non-residential uses could be permitted on the property through a
conditional use process. This is the most appropriate way to diversify
housing options and land uses in this area of the neighborhood.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: In staff's opinion the rezoning is not justified or needed at this time. The
subject properties and surrounding properties are all currently developed
with small-scale, single-family homes. This is consistent with the uses
permitted in the Neighborhood Conservation zoning district. Rezoning the
property to Downtown General allows a variety of uses, but at a much larger
scale. The most-appropriate method to introduce new housing types or
nonresidential uses on this site is through the conditional use process and
not by rezoning the property.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: Rezoning the property to Downtown General could significantly increase
traffic congestion in the area. The Downtown General zoning district allows
multi-family development and large commercial developments by right.
Either of these uses could dramatically increase traffic and turning
movements along Martin Luther King Boulevard.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and
thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
Finding: Rezoning the property to Downtown General could allow a much denser
development pattern than the existing Neighborhood Conservation zoning.
However, it is unlikely that this increased density or intensity would have a
negative impact on public services as this site is in the core of the city and
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\20140evelopment Review\14-4859 RZN(Niederman)NO3 Planning Commission\11-10- November 10,2014
2014\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 3 of 23
has adequate access to public services. The Police and Fire Departments
have not expressed any concerns with the rezoning proposal.
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b(1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even
though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the
proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
• Unified Development Code sections 161.25 & 161.26
■ Site Plan
• Fire response letter
• Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan boundary map
• Applicant's request
• One Mile Map
• Close Up Map
• Current Land Use Map
• Future Land Use Map
Planning Commission
GAETC\Development Services Review\2014\Development Review\14-4859 RZN(Niederman)\03 Planning Commission\11-10- November 10,2014
2014\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 4 of 23
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
161.25 Downtown General (2) Lot area minimum. None.
(A) Purpose. Downtown General is a flexible zone,
and it is not limited to the concentrated mix of (E) Setback regulations.
uses found in the Downtown Core or Main Street
/ Center. Downtown General includes properties
in the neighborhood that are not categorized as
identifiable centers, yet are more intense in use Front A build-to zone that is
than Neighborhood Conservation. There is a located between the
mixture of single-family homes, rowhouses, front property line and a
apartments, and live/work units. Activities line 25 ft.from the front
include a flexible and dynamic range of uses, property line.
from public open spaces to less intense Side None
residential development and businesses. For the Rear 5 ft.
purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the
Downtown General district is a residential zone. Rear,from center line 12 ft.
(B) Uses. of an aIle
(F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 50% of lot
(1) Permitted uses. width.
Unit 1 City-wide uses by right (G) Building height regulations.
Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5 Government facilities Building Hei ht Maximum 56 ft.
Unit 8 Single-family dwellings
Unit 9 Two-family dwellin s (Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5029, 6-19-07; Ord. 5312, 4-20-
Unit 10 Three-family dwellings 10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. 5664, 2-
Unit 13 Eating laces 18-14)
Unit 15 Neighborhood hopping oods
Unit 24 Home occu ations
UnR25 Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 26
Multi-family dwellings
Unit 44
Cottage HousinDevelopment
Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted
upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall
need approval when combined with pre-approved
uses.
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2 City-wide uses by
conditional use permit
Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 14 Hotel, motel and amusement services
Unit 16 Shopping oods
Unit 17 Transportation trades and services
Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 28 Center for collecting
rec clable materials
Unit 36 I Wireless communication facilities
Unit 40 1 Sidewalk Cafes
(C) Density. None
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
(1) Lot width minimum.
Dwelling
all unit types) 18 ft.
CD161:21 Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 5 of 23
161.26 Neighborhood Conservation (F) Building height regulations.
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation zone Building Height Maximum 45 ft.
has the least activity and a lower density than the
other zones. Although Neighborhood
Conservation is the most purely residential zone, (Ord. 5128, 4-15-08; Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-
It can have some mix of uses, such as civic 11;Ord.5592,6-18-13;Ord.5664,2-18-14)
buildings. Neighborhood Conservation serves to
promote and protect neighborhood character. For
the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the
Neighborhood Conservation district is a
residential zone.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1 1 City-wide uses by right
Unit 8 1 Single-family dwellings
Unit 41 1 Accessory dwellings
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2 City-wide uses by
conditional use ermit
Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 9 Two-family dwellings
Unit 10 Three-family dwellings
Unit 12 Limited Business"
Unit 24 Home occupations
LUM25Offices, studios,and related services
Center for collecting
rec clable materials
Wireless communication facilities
Cottage Housin Develo ment
(C) Density. 10 Units Per Acre.
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
(1) Lot width minimum.
Sin le Family 40 ft.
Two Familv 80 ft.
Three Family 90 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum.4,000 Sq. Ft.
(F) Setback regulations.
Front A build-to zone that is
located between the
front property line and a
line 25 ft. from the front
property line.
Side 5 ft.
Rear 5 ft.
Rear,from center line 12 ft.
of an aIle
CD161:22 Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 6 of 23
Amomw
IV
The City of Fayetteville Fire Department
303 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR. 72701
Phone(479)575-8365 Fax(479)575-0471
To: Bates and Associates, Jesse Fulcher
From: Assistant Fire Marshal Will Beeks
Date: September 30, 2014
Re: RZN 14-4859
This development will be protected by Engine 1 located at 303 W Center St.
It is 1 mile from the station with an anticipated response time of 2 minutes to the beginning of the
development.
The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel this development will affect our calls for service or our
response times.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Captain Will Beeks
Fayetteville Fire Department
Honor,Commitment,Courage;
Our people make the difference!
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 7 of 23
I
1 Slr.d . i ti
n Il
4'`'C ARKANSAS
.y
't[J/fi p
✓ I r " Fa�t� 11u :7 SI�Ir�ev- I� �}� v �isl��p• r ``4.
,•i (�a ItI� x i y+ CDI� If r 9 � � InKw !. f Y 47 �•� E� I�' j 1
1 -tl �• !i}1r I r
I �- I ` ly � .s�-••,�- If ' II ,y � yy-- 'I f&'�Ar rr � Il . S h
�.� .�,_ �`RNs di f+ 1 ..�• .`_ C, I, � �j ti :y � �{ I 4.
f'
J �I-^
�� � �
7 e h ti r ? 'i f lIi ir
10
�75>u� 7•fr.E4 -1 �""'` ;
i'Fr I �i iV
191
-+:.
a i -- t ual ,Flw ��I moi]......4JI• f ' 2
1 I = Aal ^ty�im „
-
lob
},
3. -,�f t t�� - �j�.l 11�� i `� �; �o�t I •ss' i8..f
E IIe�"a tJCa1 C� ,, f
,�-�! i f ,,nq. �'i•• ......
............
WALKER
WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD u "
f ' '• J ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN
•• •.r..ti _� 1," i• ®I4y.wlII�IIAISF 1I
i `4.6110Fi"nn IlNldwF Yi/
`.,�.__• •,
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
SEPTEMBER 2007
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO.19-08 5
FEBRUARY 5,2008
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 8 of 23
haw-ncs
+ flsr� flill
Fw
4il-4
1 i I I I fl � r .-� �--I •,j r._ J ter` _ L__._
I oil !
1 ♦ ♦ I _ I4y��!--1lIII 'E 1�'-���I
��-
11
II--'-}1J'f�r i I
il4ji
�h
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 9 of 23
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Planning Com iission
November 10, 2014
Agenda ltn�
14-4859 Niederman
Page 10 of 23
To: City Planning Office,City Planning Commission and City Council
Re: Rezoning Request: 300-400 Block E.Martin Luther King BLVD(North Side)
To Whom It May Concern:
As representative of several property owners in the neighborhood of the North 300 and 400 Block of E. Martin Luther King
Blvd., in response to a desire for more amenities within walking distance, and within accordance of our perceived direction the
City of Fayetteville's Walker Park Master Plan, I respectfully request the City of Fayetteville to permit us to rezone our property
from Neighborhood Conservation to Downtown General.This location is 1 mile from both the University of Arkansas and 1 mile
from the Fayetteville High School. It is less than one''/:mile from the Fayetteville Downtown Square, and it is less than 2/10 of a
mile from Walker Park.This property is less than% mile to two transit stops with Ozark Regional Transit,and steps from one of
Fayetteville's bike trails.
It is our perception that as we seek to enhance this neighborhood and create a strong urban core, we need more opportunities
for light commercial amenities as well as more housing opportunities within walking or biking distance to the downtown core.
We believe that this zoning will be consistent with existing zoning, by linking the DG zoning that exists directly to the East and
West of this location, creating a long strip of DG zoning which increases the flexibility in the use of this space. While we do
expect that creating a Downtown General designation will add density, and this may be unwelcome to some,we believe that
for the long term growth and vibrancy of the city,this is a desirable outcome. Given the existing level of traffic on Martin Luther
King Blvd, and a 4-way stop at MLK and Wood Avenue,we believe that this will not impact traffic, at least not perceptibly.Any
change that may occur would likely happen as the rest of the neighborhood is built-out in accordance with the zoning and
general neighborhood plan.
While the current zoning is Neighborhood Conservation which would allow for single family residences, and this would not be
impractical, we believe that Downtown General would be the highest and best use. Given that in a sense,the corner at MLK
and S.Wood is one gateway to the growing Downtown Core, it seems reasonable that as such,this could be an opportunity to
support and highlight this growth.
Fayetteville City Plan 2030,which was adopted on July 2011 highlights 6 goals.
• Goal 1 is"We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities."
o Part D of this goal is: "Promote densest development around logical future transit stops." It states that transit is
most relevant for those within % mile of transit stops.
• Goal 3 is "We will make traditional town form the standard." This includes:
o Part A: "Require new growth that results in neighborhoods, districts and corridors that are:
1.compact-via denser housing; meaningful open spaces& preserves; small blocks;
• 2. complete -via varied housing; mixed uses; civic uses;jobs-housing mix in the neighborhoods
3. connected -via street-oriented buildings; interconnected streets; interconnected greenways&
trails."
o Part B: "densify in highly walkable areas along logical future transit routes..."
• Goal 4: We will grow a livable transportation network.
o Part D. "Transform existing corridors into great streets: tree-lined, moderate speed, multi-modal,good
addresses"
o Part H: "Plan employment in locations with access to walkable amenities and transit rather than in isolated
locations"
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 11 of 23
Actions steps to achieve these goals include:
• Identify existing properties that are vacant or prime for redevelopment and initiate rezoning discussions with property
owners. (Goal 1, 2 &3)
• Support rezoning proposals that result in increased density around logical future transit stops, rail corridors and major
transportation corridors. (Goal 4)
The Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan,which was adopted in 2008 precedes the City Plan 2030, but guided its results.
The four key goals of the Walker Park plan were:
• Encourage a balance of uses and housing
• Improve connectivity and walkability
• Key destinations
• Key linkages
• Keep Jefferson Square as neighborhood core
• Create accessible greenspace
During the Walker Park discussions, zoning districts were chosen. Downtown General was chosen for most of East MLK
between College Ave and Huntsville Road.The section between Wood and Willow was left out.This was done shortly after the
2008 Walker Plan was adopted. It seems now,with hindsight, and with the 2030 City Plan in place,this is a location that should
be rezoned to Downtown General. There are numerous reasons, but they follow from above reasons.
Goal 1 of City Plan 2030: By rezoning this area to Downtown General,we will be creating infill and revitalization, and doing
promoting densest development within% mile of transit stops. We will allow for meeting Goal 3 which seeks to promote
denser housing,varied housing and mixed-uses. We will also be moving towards densifying in highly walkable areas along
transit corridors. We will also help move towards the achievement of Goal 4, which seeks to grow a liveable transportation
network, by allowing for employment in with access to walkable amenities and transit, rather than in isolated locations. Again,
the action steps to achieve City Plan 2030 goals 1-4 include rezoning. Rezoning this area would enhance the existing Walker
Park Plan's goals of encouraging a balance of uses and housing, improved connectivity and walkability, and for keeping
Jefferson Square as a neighborhood core,and with allowing the Jefferson Sq and Huntsville Road Entry to act as neighborhood
commercial.
Kind Regards,
Zara Nuedervwaw
Zara Niederman
3VOLVE Housing, Director
Planning Commission
November 10,2014
Agenda Item 3
14-4859 Niederman
Page 12 of 23