HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-06 - Agendas (2) CITY OF
Tay� LY i'I'l e� AGENDA
ARKANSAS
Board of Adjustments Meeting
June 6, 2016
3:45 PM
113 W. Mountain, Room 219
Members: Kristen Knight (chair), Catherine Baker, Porter Winston,
Scott Blacksher, Steve Clowney, and Casey Hoffman
City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Quin Thompson, Current Planner
Call to Order
Roll Call
1. Approval of the minutes from the April 4, 2016 meeting.
Old Business:
No items
New Business
2. BOA 16-5454: Board of Adjustments Item (1211 W. JAMES ST./HAVEN CAMPUS APTS.;
404): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES for properties located at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The
properties are zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND RO, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and
contain approximately 6.56 acres. The request is for a variance of the building height
requirements. Planner: Harry Davis
3. BOA 16-5455: Board of Adjustments Item (603 N. VINSON AVEJSKOCH-BURCH; 447):
Submitted by PARKCO &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 603 N. VINSON AVE. The
properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain
approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a variance of the building setback requirements.
Planner: Quin Thompson
Announcements
Adjourn
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
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
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD (Telecommunication Device for the DeaO are
available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an
interpreter, please ca11479-575-8330. Asa courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers.
2
CITY OF
Ta L MINUTES
ARKANSAS
Board of Adjustment
April 4, 2016
3:45 PM
City Administration Building in Fayetteville, AR, Room 111
Members: Kristen Knight— Chair, Porter Winston, Steve Clowney
Catherine Baker, and Casey Hoffman,
City Staff: Andrew Garner— City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth — Senior Planner,
Quin Thompson — Planner, and Blake Pennington —Assistant City Attorney
Call to Order: 3:45 PM, Kristin Knight
In Attendance: Kristin Knight, Porter Winston, Steve Clowney, Catherine Baker, and
Casey Hoffman,
Absent:
Staff: Andrew Garner, Jonathan Curth, Quin Thompson, and Blake Pennington
1. Approval of the minutes from the Mar 7, 2016 meeting.
Motion:
Board Member Winston made a motion to approve the minutes from the Mar 7, 2016
meeting. Board Member Clowney seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 5-0-0. Knight only recused on the 2nd item.
2. Old Business:
No items
3. New Business
BOA 16-5344: Board of Adjustments Item (433 &455 S. HILL AVE./BAUMANN; 522):
Submitted by MIKE BAUMANN for properties located at 433 & 434 S. HILL AVE. The
properties are zoned RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE and
contains approximately 0.56 acres. The request is for a variance of the building setback
requirements due to a proposed lot split.
Quin Thompson, Current Planner, read the staff report.
Mike Baumann, Applicant, said that he has purchased the property and that it must have
3 units to work financially. He said he felt that a hardship was present in two conditions
unique to the site. He said there is an 18' difference in grades and that the property drops
precipitously. He said the project would make good use of the property as proposed. He
Mailing Address: Board of Adjustments
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville June 6,em 1
Fayetteville, AR 72701 April 4 Minutes 1
Y April 4 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
said that the goals of ordinance 5800 were met by the design. He said it is not feasible to
go through SIP process on the lot because the cost of infrastructure improvements was
too high. He said that it is necessary to stay out of the SIP process for the project to be
successful. He said the existing structures are full of garbage and cats, and a murder had
occurred on the property recently.
Kristen Knight, Chair, said that unfortunately the Board could not legally consider how
horrible the existing property is when deciding a variance of zoning regulation.
Steve Clowney, Board Member, asked the applicant why they would not build less
`product' on the property, and meet zoning requirements.
Baumann said that the lot cost doesn't allow for fewer units.
Clowney said that if that is the case, then logic follows that the lot cost is too high, not
worth the asking price.
Knight asked staff about the arrangement of property lines and resulting lot shapes.
Thompson said that while staff prefers a regular, squared lot in general, the proposed lots
do meet code requirements.
Catherine Baker, Board Member, asked if the lots might be arranged in a way that allows
for the proposed development.
Baumann responded with explanation of site conditions that make other configurations
unfeasible, including the cost of the property.
Baker noted that the lot cost was not something the Board was allowed to consider in this
case.
Knight said that she was not hearing of a hardship other than the desire to have 3 units on
the property.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, said that the applicant had explored many options
for this property. He said that the property was clearly a unique site where hardships exist,
in staff opinion. He said that the property appeared to be suitable for one house, adding
that not all properties are suitable for maximum build-out for according to the zoning district
density limits.
Porter Winston, Board Member, asked the who would build a home on this location. He
then asked the Assistant City Attorney if he was able to find a hardship in this case.
Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney, said it was not for him to `find' the hardship,
but that the Board could certainly consider any of the conditions mentioned as a hardship.
Baumann said that his company goal was to build `nice' rental units in Fayetteville, and
that they try to do a good job of it. He said he can't understand how anyone will be able to
develop the site without a variance.
Motion:
Board of Adjustments
Jung 6,2016
Agenda Item 1
April 4 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Board Member Clowney made a motion to approve BOA 16-5344 as recommended by
staff. Board Member Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed
with a vote of 1-4-0. Commissioners Knight, Clowney, Baker, & Hoffman voted `no'.
BOA 16-5380: Board of Adjustments Item (796 N. 54th STJSILVIS; 436): Submitted by
REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 796 N. 54th ST. The properties are
zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 2.52 acres. The request is
for a variance of the building setback requirements due to a property line adjustment.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report.
Alan Reid, applicant, was present for questions.
No public comment was presented.
Motion:
Board Member Clowney made a motion to approve BOA 16-5380 as recommended by
staff. Board Member Knight seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed
with a vote of 5-0-0.
4. Reports: No reports
5. Announcements:
Blake Pennington, Assistant City Attorney, brought up the description of what
constitutes a hardship.
Board members and staff discussed the definition of hardship.
6. Adjournment Time: 4:39pm
7. Submitted by: City Planning Division
Board of Adjustments
Juni 6,2016
Agenda Item 1
April 4 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
■
7ay"
e-VIkl
L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEMO
ARKANSAS
TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment
FROM: Harry Davis, Planner
MEETING DATE: June 6, 2016
SUBJECT: BOA 16-5454: Board of Adjustment Item (1211 W. James St./Haven
Campus Apts., 404): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES for property
located at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY
SERVICES and R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately
6.79 acres. The request is for a building height variance of 13 feet above
the maximum.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of BOA 16-5454 based on the findings herein.
BACKGROUND:
Property. The subject property is zoned CS, Community Services and R-O, Residential Office,
and is bounded by W. James St., Harps Food Store, W. Wedington Dr., and the Garden Park
Apartments. This 6.79 acre site five different parcels assembled by the applicant. The site is
currently developed with a 2,262 square foot office building on James St. Surrounding land use
and zoning is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Direction Land Use Zoning
from Site
North §ingle-family Single-familyResidential RMF-24, Residential Multi-family, 24 du/acre
South Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family,4 du/acre
East Harps Food Store; Arvest Bank C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; C-1,
Nei hborhood Commercial
West Garden Park Apartments, Multi-family RMF-24, Residential Multi-family, 24 du/acre
development
Background: Planning staff in late 2015 received and processed a Large Scale Development
application for this site with a similar design as currently presented to the Board of Adjustment.
The development was tabled in Technical Plat Review. On December 14, 2015 the Planning
Commission approved a conditional use permit for multi-family dwellings on the R-O portion of
the property(CUP 15-5248).
DISCUSSION:
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a new building in the CS zoning district and
requests a building height variance of 69 feet while the zoning district only allows 56 feet.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevg�a-Ar�vdjustments
Fayetteville, AR 72701 June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 1 of 11
The site would contain 185 residential units and 652 beds, a density of 27 units per acre. The
applicant has submitted drawings and elevations showing the proposed building height and the
portions of the building that exceed the maximum. As shown in the variance location exhibit and
elevations, the portions that exceed the limit are on the northernwestern exterior edge of the site.
Public Comment: No public comment has been received at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Finding that the extent of the variance request is related to conditions created by the
applicant, staff recommends denial of BOA 16-5454.
Board of Adjustment Action ❑Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled
Meeting Date: June 6, 2016
Motion: Notes:
Second:
Vote:
FINDINGS:
City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code
Section 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS.
Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows:
(B) Requirements for variance approval.
(1) Where strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship due to
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration;
Finding: The property has significant topographical change (approximately between
15% and 9.5%, depending on location) over this site, but it is common to
have topographical change of this extent throughout the City. The building
protrudes 13 feet over the maximum height limit as measured from the
existing natural grade.
The applicant has stated in the request letter that they have attempted to
rectify problems associated with meeting Fire Access requirements, tree
preservation, and height in relation to development costs for retaining walls
and dirt removal.
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2014\Development Review\
14-4796 BOA SW corner of Hill&Center(Harvey's Hill)\01 BOA\ Board of Adjustments
09-08-2014\Comments and Redlines
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 2 of 11
Staff disagrees with the applicant's claim that the circumstances don't result
from actions by the applicant, as the development could be downscaled or
reorganized to fit within UDC requirements. Planning staff understands that
Fayetteville is full of topographically difficult sites, where staff has
recommended both approval and denial of many projects in the past, but the
applicant and client could choose to lower the density of their development,
and thereby the height. The building in question is also in a position on the
perimeter of the site, making it likely to affect neighboring parcels and
buildings.
(2) Where the applicant demonstrates that the granting of the variance will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance; and
Finding: Granting the variance will not be in keeping with the intent of the zoning
ordinance. The building height requirement is intended to cap the maximum
height in a particular zoning district to maintain compatibility amongst
surrounding developments and to maintain significant views and unique
landforms in the City. The code specifically requires the maximum building
height be measured from existing natural grade. The intent is for rooflines
and the skyline to stay below the height maximum, mimic existing natural
landforms, and for large buildings to be broken into smaller buildings on
steep sites to follow the topography. This helps preserve the shape of the
landform when viewed from a distance and reduces the building mass.
The proposed project has a larger mass than surrounding neighborhood
character and is 13 feet above the maximum height and several floors higher
than the adjacent Garden Park Apartments development. The building sits
higher than and directly adjacent to the much smaller apartments of Garden
Park Apartments. The excessive height because of the variance could result
in significant light and scale impacts to those properties, which could be
mitigated and softened by following the zoning height ordinance.
Another reason for the building height ordinance is to limit density. The
increased height as a result of the variance will result in increased density.
A variance would substantially change the density over what could be
normally expected on a site without truly unusual circumstances in
topography or other extreme site characteristics.
(C)Minimum necessary variance. The Board of Adjustment may only grant the minimum variance
necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's land, building or structure.
Finding: The applicant's variance proposal would allow the development to have
essentially another floor's-worth of height to the development, which is by
no means a minimally necessary variance to grant for such a large
development. The property could still be developed under a downscaled
scenario or with a completely different development pattern.
(D) Special Conditions. In granting a zoning regulation variance, the Board of Adjustment may
impose whatever special conditions found necessary to ensure compliance and to protect
adjacent property.
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2014\Development Review\
14-4796 BOA SW corner of Hill&Center(Harvey's Hill)\01 BOA\ Board of Adjustments
09-08-2014\Comments and Redlines June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 3 of 11
Finding: Staff has recommended that the Board deny the request for a variance. If the
Board finds this variance in favor of the applicant, staff requests that the
applicant provide a more detailed shadow impact study on the buildings'
effect upon residents and managers at Garden Park Apartments.
(E)Non-permitted Uses. The Board of Adjustment may not grant, as a variance, any use in a
zone that is not permitted under the zoning ordinance.
Finding: The CS and R-O zoning districts allow multi-family residential use.
(F) Specific Tests. The Board of Adjustment shall apply specific tests for the following variance
requests:
Height variances in all districts. In addition to meeting all other normal requirements for a
variance, an applicant seeking a height variance must establish the increased height of
the proposed structure will not adversely affect adjoining or neighboring property owners,
nor impair the beauty of Old Main, the historical churches on Dickson Street near East
Avenue, nor otherwise impair the historic beauty and character of Fayetteville.
Finding: The proposed building is larger in height and mass than the adjacent
buildings in the neighborhood. The portion of the building that exceeds the
height limit is on the site exterior and directly adjacent to surrounding multi-
family residential. The proposed project complies with the single-family
home protection requirement in UDC Section 164.11 adopted by the City
Council in December 2013. The site is not directly adjacent to single family
homes.
The site is approximately a mile from the churches on Dickson Street near
East Avenue and should not have an adverse impact on views or the
character of these churches given the separation and given that the project
site is approximately 1,320-1,389 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the
churches are at approximately 1,400 AMSL.
The site is approximately 4,000 feet to the north of Old Main. The elevation
of Old Main is approximately 1,450 feet AMSL. Given that Old Main is located
so far away and elevated approximately 60 feet above the subject property,
the proposed 69-foot tall building should not significantly impact views of
this historic structure.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
■ Site plan
■ One mile map
■ Close up map
■ Applicant's submittal materials
o Letter request
o Variance location exhibit
o Elevation
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2014\Development Review\
14-4796 BOA SW corner of Hill&Center(Harvey's Hill)\01 BOA\ Board of Adjustments
09-08-2014\Comments and Redlines June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 4 of 11
• ; o tOLZC Nb' 113A
NO NOl`iDNICJN103Aq M � z�
S1N3W18VdV NOIDNI03M vai
•� saaepossv I uIN
NOIlVDIIddV:1-MINVA
-- _ - _ ___' _i
-
I
i T ' ' ter-- -� •� ,
I.. - !
P �
IS
I
•�i
w
w
w
i
U
N
Z
� r
i
Board of Adj stments
Jun 6,2016
a Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 5 of 11
BLEW & ASSOCIATES, PA
CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
May 16,2016
City of Fayetteville
125 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville,AR 72703
SUBJECT: Haven Community Campus Apartments
Variance Application
To Whom It May Concern:
Building Size: 0.0 sf Existing/102,553 sf Proposed
Off-Street Parking Spaces: 630 Required/630 Provided
Zoning Regulation CS: 56 ft. Building Height Maximum
Variance Being Requested: 69'-0%"Building Height
That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands structures,or buildings in the same district.
We have included a cross section of the building in question that shows the impact of the existing grade in
comparison to the building height. There is an average slope of 15%North to South on the site. As can be seen in
the included cross section, the grade for the building on the South Side(right side of the page)will be right at grade
for the bottom deck of the parking garage. On the opposite side of the building are apartments that are having to
be stepped in order to come with the grade.
The issue we are running into is that the Fire Access cannot be any more than 10%per the City of Fayetteville's Fire
Marshall, which in turn means that by the time we enter using the access on the North Side and follow the drive
South,we have a significant amount of cut. If we maintain the 10%grade from North to South, the retaining walls
will be 15 ft tall.
However,to meet the Height requirements,we would have to change our grade to hit existing grade at the entrance
to the garage. As you can imagine, this creates a situation where we have 30 ft to 35 ft. tall retaining walls. This
impacts the trees on the site, this impacts the Fire Access from the South Side and impacts the overall dirt removal
from this site.
That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the some district under the terms of this ordinance.
Our Building Height issue is just in the North Side of the Garage Building. But a change in grading impacts the entire
site. The other buildings in the area are not impacted as greatly as the building on this site would be due to the
grade change frorn North to South.
That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
This site has many natural difficulties. The slope is an existing condition that makes it difficult to develop this site.
That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this
ordinance to other lands,structures,or buildings in the some district.
524 \N1. SY(:,\N,IORl? SA', SIJI'1'1? 4 1';\l'I ;TTI?VTT.I ,P', / ,\RKANSAS • 72703
P I-1 <) N L 4 7 9 - 4 4 3 4 5 (1 C 1- A t 4 7 9 - 5 8 2 - 1 8 8 3
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 6 of 11
Haven CaMpus Comm-Mitles Is not asking for any special privilege. They only ask the consideration of the board
for a variance on just one aspect of the zoning code. They have,taken many steps to Omit any additional variances
b,elng requested for this site. The Wilding Height was lowered:as much as is feasibly poss,1151%but fire,access and
gtading�is.sues are making the height in this one area a difficulty.
Sincerely,
g, uQuesne
&Associates,PA
2 Page
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 7 of 11
EOLZL NV'311IAILRAVd 0 ^
{ N❑NOl`�NI03M'M ��
�YI sa�enass ;y a y S1N3W18tldV NOlON103M vai
yrgua i;IM hl��J
NOIIV--)I'kldV ONHINVA
-------- - -----------
i
---------- - --
s�lnnresnriw.wrc.r+•'
^�I � � I � YT•—_- V - - -1
_ I
srwnvr i+wiol.rvr a.+r. s�,re��r sirr�7l�rro-.ir�I -
w
--- -- -- [[
--------------------
I' Sr
� a
I:
V'
f.
5 1
Il�r/
i
' r
/
w
w
-1 m
1 w`
I. F
I'
ti
V � I
1•
I Z
Board of Ad' stments
Jun 6,2016
,__ . -. - a Item 2
16-525,.H'aven Campus Apts.
Page 8 of 11
E m n
£OZZZ NV '3111A3113AV3 MC7=O
a = 'NG NOiDN1a3AA-M Y<0¢
o v v z t.!)<z>
S1NIWIHVdV NOIDNI03M
•I salepossV 19 ua4:)Il F
NOIIVDI]ddV 3:)NVINVA
I l
Ll
Lw
I
I I
I
I
I
P I I i I I
I
k
UJ
I
f Oul
I
f ! I
Z
Q
�. I I J
�. �I w
J —I� J _1
IL I lL LL LL� LL �-
e4, 1II `d 1, ,til 91,.•
w
r i
,P .o
J 0 Ai4 —u,, u w u, w
o
B rd of Adjustments
June 6,2016
M0 it WILL k9P-ft Imliuxti�sWN301M►O4�-�IOM�M+/YM�d i[G9i.l sl���WweIPHn�+i�]OM GO��m WAV Mew�F^.Na 'N Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 9 of 11
16-5454 HAVEN CAMPUS APTS. A&
One Mile View NORTH
0 0 225 045 0 9 Miles g-
r _ �u
z
ER LN i d
f' 1'. E.�11 •.J. ti
'.�
' tAR •:
R �`aMwrlwA_-�
A
RELA,R Oilor y
-
�S; I7-V15sr
y c r
r
A _ yid.. ,1:: iy<•EL C.1R 2
1 R F' Subject Properties
kY_ _
_
LAW-1'0"J 57 � W � IT�'4t
- N tJN'a5��{{ 51
��,, t
=' - rv,1lLY Si CEa�k ST 4Y' P-�
i
_.•z`%AL. - FfATFIELD b`r
W-51"'IMN t71Q
c "STA FRIBA[ l
yv
A DR
1EFLRy ar aw tit- u R-O ss7 J MKS)„
� J x
�ii+ 9 W o _F W r'yur37rt 5Y
. � S a _ auLer+
PROSPECTST IS'
G�a4
LdREH CIR 1�c�'E�
O �f+IZU'�IEL4lr.
y 4C Ck
•��• a�N.ir1E F�� I � � ��r 2 54V1A
RSF-; .a. z s
.......lt. i i I M LIJ•.••..... i •i 4
_ f �
CPZDSr
rQR
c� X
z r'v x UW
z
',,,� ? r
-w T
Zoning EXTRACTION
Legend RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
aResacnl�aFAgrrcuYural COMMERCIAL
Planning Area i RSF-, ■.�,
_ -r Fayetteville City Limits RSF, X03
FORM BASED DISTRICTS
Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District -
1:,FF-a �Ub.,°w"`°g
RSF-18 �L);ban Thoroug M1lare
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY =Mam sheet C°nter
••••• Shared Use Paved Trail MR12Resae°1111.—TM1ree-1=mN =Inwneral
- RMF-6 I�Cemm°nIN$iac
ri r L rl Trail(Proposed)
1j rJ R1.1 F.I9 Neghborho°tl C......lwn
-—
__ IDesign Overlay District -1 W IR F. PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
_ .W R.- ,.---roal lnEuaVm�Raa d nbal
Planning Area .-!` INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL
Building Footprint I H-qC°mme,ealana Ught im a6.1 R-,
O Fayetteville City Limits _ _�] w-z Generallnd°sinal Board of Adju tments
2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 10 of 11
16-5454 HAVEN CAMPUS APTS. A&
Close Up View NORTH
z NS
P-1 j CARTER ST
r_I t=Y ST Q �^
Z N
= < W
a >
w 4; Q
U) Or t!
T CIO
SFO �
RrRp �
CEDAR ST
Subject Properties
HOLLY ST
.• w
a
>
JAN!ES ST
J
W
Z
J
I
y is ( -a
w�a MOUNT
ANG r�N D cpM�c
C VISTA DR R RTRn
z w
to >
M Q
0 J
A W
D
NORTH ST=�
C-1
RSF-4 w HUGHES ST
LUQ
J
_ Q
4 "I
SUNSET PIL R-O w _Q i
z
Q
BERRY 5T
r
RSF-4
RMF-24
Legend 10 RMF-40
• �- - Planning Area Residential-Office
� �
- - Feet C-1
L — Fayetteville City Limits
C-2
Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 Community Services
Shared Use Paved Trail 1 inch = 300 feet Neighborhood Services
Building Footprint P-1 Board of Adju tments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5454 Haven Campus Apts.
Page 11 of 11
CITY OF
Fay •
Y BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEMO
t—Ile
ANSAS
TO: Board of Adjustment
FROM: Quin Thompson, Current Planner
THRU: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
MEETING DATE: June 6, 2016
SUBJECT: BOA 16-5455: Board of Adjustments Item (603 N. VINSON
AVE./SKOCH-BURCH; 447): Submitted by PARKCO & ASSOCIATES,
INC. for properties located at 603 N. VINSON AVE. The properties are
zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and
contain approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a variance of the
building setback requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 16-5455 based on the findings contained in this report.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is a single parcel located at 603 N. Vinson Avenue containing approximately
0.33 acres within the RSF-4 zoning district. The property is developed with a single family home,
built in 1950 and currently in poor condition. The property is long and shallow with a very steep
drop off at the rear of the parcel and contains approximately 7,366 square feet. The property
contains several large trees and is within the Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). The
property has adjacent right-of way(ROW)on the north and south boundaries, for street and alley
respectively. The street and alley have never been constructed, likely due to the steep topography
which makes connection with Vinson Avenue unfeasible.
On November 25, 2013 the Board of Adjustment (BOA) approved a 5 foot variance of the side
setback and an 11 foot variance of the front setback in order to bring the existing home into
compliance with zoning code. Once the existing home is removed, these variances will no longer
be valid. Surrounding zoning and land use is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning
Direction from Land Use Zoning
Site
North Single-family RSF-4, Residential Single-family
South Single-family RSF-4, Residential Single-family
East Single-family RSF-4, Residential Single-family
West Single-family RSF-4, Residential Single-family
board ot Adjustments
Mailing Address: June 6,2016
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevilleAd &Q item 3
Fayetteville, AR 72701 16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 1 of 12
Request: The applicant intends to remove the existing home and requests variance of front
setbacks in order to develop the parcel with a single-family home and detached garage.
Requested variances are described in Table 2.
Table 2
Variance Request
Variance Issue =Requirernent Request Variance Amount
Tract 1
Front Setback East 15 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft.
Front Setback North 15 ft. 4 ft. 11 ft.
Public Comment: Staff has not received public comment.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant wishes to remove the existing home and replace it with a new 3 bedroom, 3,150
square foot residence with a two-car garage. The structures are proposed close to the street to
avoid excessive grading/fill that would be required t place the structures outside the front building
setback. In the past, the BOA has recognized that unique conditions are present on this property
that constitute undue hardship, including the narrow lot depth, extremely steep terrain, and
existing mature trees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance requests with the following Conditions of
Approval:
1. These variances are limited to the plans for this specific home as designed and
proposed by the applicant to the BOA.
2. The single-family residence shall be submitted for permit review in compliance with
all applicable codes, other than the variances granted by the BOA.These plans have
not been reviewed for compliance with all codes, including such items as minimum
driveway length or maximum width.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: ❑Approved ❑ Denied
Date: June 6, 2016
Motion: Vote:
Second•
Note:
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
WETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5455 BOA 603 N.Vinson Ave. Agenda Item 3
(Skoch-Burch Residence)447\01 BOA\01-14-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 2 of 12
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan
designates this site as Residential Neighborhood Area.
FINDINGS:
City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code
Section 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS.
Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows:
(B) Requirements for variance approval.
(1) Where strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship due to
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration;
Finding: Staff finds that this site has unique conditions, including the including the
narrow lot depth, extremely steep terrain, `paper' ROW, and existing mature
trees. A typical RSF-4 lot is twice as deep as the subject property, and the
buildable depth is approximately 40 feet from the property line to a virtually
vertical bedrock cliff face 20 feet in height. A 40-inch pine tree and a double
24-inch oak tree cover the wide middle section of the lot. The northern
setback is 15 feet due to the ROW reserved for a future Maple Street
extension where a 5 foot side setback would be allowed if the ROW were not
present.
(2) Where the applicant demonstrates that the granting of the variance will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance; and
Finding: Approval of the variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
zoning code in this case. The 15 foot setback is intended to create a street
scape of homes with a standard alignment. In this case, there are no other
homes facing Vinson Avenue on this side of the street, so that the proposed
residence will not be out of character on the street.
(C) Minimum necessary variance. The Board of Adjustment may only grant the minimum variance
necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's land, building or structure.
Finding: The requested variances are necessary to make reasonable use of the land
in staff's opinion. The home has clearly been designed with this specific site
in mind, and makes use of the unusually long and narrow property while
avoiding significant trees.
(D) Special Conditions. In granting a zoning regulation variance, the Board of Adjustment may
impose whatever special conditions found necessary to ensure compliance and to protect
adjacent property.
Finding: Staff recommends that a condition of approval that requires that the
residence be substantially built as shown in the submittal documents.
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
G:\EMDevelopment Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5455 BOA 603 N.Vinson Ave. Agenda Item 3
(Skoch-Burch Residence)447\01 BOA\01-1 4-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 3 of 12
(E)Non-permitted Uses. The Board of Adjustment may not grant, as a variance, any use in a
zone that is not permitted under the zoning ordinance.
Finding: Single-family use is permitted by right in the RSF-4 zoning district.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
• Request Letter
• Survey
• Site Photos
• Proposed Development Plan
• One Mile Map
• Close Up Map
Board of Adjustments
G:tETDOevelopment Services Review120161Development Review116-5455 BOA 603 N.Vinson Ave. June 6,2016
(Skoch-Burch Residence)447101 BOA101-14-20161Cornments and Redlines Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 4 of 12
rL3
PARKCO
ARCHITECTS
16 May 2016
Ms. Kristen Knight
Chair, Board of Adjustments
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR
Dear Ms. Knight,
On behalf of Steve Skoch and Robin Burch, we are requesting a 10' variance for
the north setback of their property at 603 N. Vinson Avenue. In addition, we are
asking permission to maintain a previously granted variance along a portion of the
East setback.
This site consists of two lots. There is a single-family house on the southern end of
the lot facing Vinson Avenue. Mr. Skoch and Ms. Burch intend to demolish the
existing dwelling and build a new home as their primary residence on these two
lots, combining them into a single parcel. The house will be a 3,150 s.f., three
bedroom home. Primary living functions will be on the first floor with secondary
accommodations at the walk-out basement level.
Neither lot accommodates off-street parking. There is a bluff running north-south
that bisects both lots.
1 . Special conditions exist for this property:
a. There is a bluff running north-south that bisects both lots. This is a
20', nearly vertical rock outcropping that reduces the buildable area of the
lots.
b. The centerline of Vinson Avenue is not concurrent with the
centerline of the actual paved street, thereby creating a greater
encroachment to the west side of the street to the east. This further narrows
the buildable area of the property.
C. The north boundary of the property is the Rebecca Street right-of-
way. Rebecca street does not proceed through to meet Vinson Avenue. It is
undeveloped, wooded area. Any possibility of future development of
PARC COMPANY AR011TECTS PO Box T33 fa9e[reville A,72702 479 527-6465
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 5 of 12
Rebecca is impeded by the bluff as it extends north from Mr. Skoch and Ms.
Burch's property.
d. The property is in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Observing the
conventional setbacks for the property will force the home's footprint into
areas with existing large trees.
e. There is currently no off-street parking for this property. The
topography of this parcel makes accommodating off-street parking more
difficult than a less-steep property.
2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The
north property line is designated as a 'front' condition as defined by the Rebecca
Street ROW. This actual condition is more consistent with a 'side' property line,
since Rebecca cannot be developed. Our request maintains a 5' setback from the
Rebecca ROW instead of a 15' setback. Also, there are examples of houses on
Vinson Avenue that are closer to the street, within the front setback, to help
negotiate the unusually steep topography of the site. The front setback variance for
this property has been previously adjusted to accommodate the existing house,
we're requesting to maintain this adjustment for the new construction.
3. The special conditions and circumstances of this property do not result from the
actions of the applicant. Although the design of this house is the result of the
actions of Mr. Skoch and Ms. Burch, the design is an attempt to work a much as
possible within the constraints of the special conditions that are inherent to the site.
The eccentric centerline of Vinson, the Rebecca Street ROW, the bluff that bisects
the site, the steep grade, and the desire to preserve trees on the site and meet
HHOD requirements all combine to create a very challenging design circumstance.
These conditions do not result from the applicant's actions.
4. Granting this variance will not confer any special privilege to the applicant that
is denied to others in the same district. Houses in this district have 5' side setbacks
in identical conditions except for the circumstance created by the Rebecca Street
ROW. The current home has a reduced front setback that we would like to
maintain to preserve tree canopy. Other homes on Vinson Avenue, and many
others in the greater Mt. Sequoyah district have reduced front setbacks on steep
sites as a means of accommodating off-street parking. This is true for both new
homes as well as homes that predate the ordinances.
In summary, this design strives to accommodate as many of the requirements for
planning and HHOD as possible. We will provide four off-street parking spaces,
two resident and two guest spaces, on a street where on-street parking is a
persistent problem. The design accommodates the preservation of existing mature
trees on the site, in particular, a 40'o pine, a 34"o oak, and a 24" o double oak.
z
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 6 of 12
Pushing the house downslope, to the west, makes parking accommodation
practically impossible. It would also place the house directly on top of the bluff, an
unbuiIdab le condition. By allowing the house to work with the aIready approved
east setback, and allowing the house to extend an additional 10' to the north, the
design is capable of providing off-street parking and tree preservation. It allows
access to the only buildable portion of the site. It also accommodates enough
space for the narrow footprint of the home.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
;&Qv*e—
Bret Park
Park Company Architects
r
Board of Adjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 7 of 12
ID .' a
n
n
YL
I i� ti t
I
❑ 1�r ti l
+
1 34'w aRiC 58°Ic GRADE\ 1
01
J
?4 0.m PINE 1 �
I, 24"� i
3 7%GRADE nouB�-F
' OAK
o I I r
j
$ I
O 0
0 10 20 40 � � � -- _ � _-, -F 1
51TE PLAN ..� s o 'srs
r
Graphic scale
P A R K C O VARIANCE REQUEST for:
■ SKOCH-BURCH RESIDENCE
ARCHITECTS 603 N, VINSON
Ajustments
P.O.BOX 733 11 FAYETTEVILLE /I AR 72702 /I 439 527 6465 FA`r'ETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 13 Mh rc?o? �
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 8 of 12
J
0
Y
NEM9'-d'SE'fBACK 27':
AREAOFREQUESTEO " 25`0' .
57=711 •k VARJAkGE 150.
' � 571N615'-O"'FRptN'�5E7B,q� � 4
y 4
' I
1st Floor roof and deck I F
overhang perimeter I' Z
" basementWW� r
I perimeter 1 PR�OU5EE0 !�
Ul
,0
o� uI L
aI
I I I area
LOT 22 ' ng pdr•::�y
_ II �� area
LLI
LU, '� Wooden deck-
In+ Q ter
perime ^�
n 4
LU
nwo e O I hENTRY 6RIDGE x
od co strucuon W
+ __ AREA OF REQUESTED
,SETBACK VARIANGE
,(previously granted
LOT 20 LOT 21 I '�
.165-05613-000 1 ,T65-00614-000
I
• I existing house,patio,fir• i J 1 I and hardscape Features 4•
to be removed .
4' T
I PROPOSE OSE
� t GARAGE y
,
I � I
L — _ _ of
m
— — — — — ——
F-01 I 5'-O"SIDE 5E7 BACK
I
NST° 11'25"W �� "��.� �� ._r..i.'•y, • I
2O ALLEY I f
I I
J
H � V
SITE PLAN 1 (D O 10 20 40
Graphic Scale
P A R K C O VARIANCE REQUEST for:
■ SKOCH-BURCH RESIDENCE
ARCHITECTS 603 N. VINSON
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 13 MAY 214
P.O.BOX 733 // FAYETTEVILLE // AR 72702 // 479 527 6465 Boar of Adjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 9 of 12
CLO
FM7AST
MASTER
SATO GLO
MEGH
I LAUNDRY
3TA STOP I
GL I STAT Ren
I CLG I
69DFiD01i I -
I LiYiNB
I I
I ac.o I
I
I !
COVERED I pIX9,6
PATIO
I I decx
I
r..
L ENTRY
- STORAGE
l deA Lro
IL
COVERED SCREENED
AREA PORCH
I
I
7---
STUDIO
BA5EMENT FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN IN q)
SCALE:1"-20'-0" SCALE:1"-20'-O"
O 10 20 40
Graphic scale
P A R K C O VARIANCE REQUEST for:
■ SKOCH-BURCH RESIDENCE
ARCHITECTS 603 N. VINSON
P.O.BOX 733 // FAYETTEVILLE // AR 72702 // 479 527 6465 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 13 MAMAWAdjustments
June 6,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 10 of 12
16-5455 S KO C H-B U R C H A&
One Mile View NORTH
w
_ &f a �A i4'
s
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Miles
PI ST
[-1 yr
[.
d
x „ a
V tV= FDNASr ,§ 1 $ii15pN
� •is e.�yy;.Ft•- L Mul�y+rr 7•,� - � 'u
dd ..7 i m t. CAA1'e LC1t
�y
"' •r .c1 Q LFVSrIj PL
UALVIN Si y o = a .Q REVERE PL
HA^dMOND '
CAl'lyS•,,�, J o 'VICTORIA
ru DR �IRWIN sr P yS 1 LN
2
GR - MEANDERINGWS
xSr 817ae''-Sf 0Q ST LAKERIDGE DR A IfDYE SM
IA
2 np 4 #
s O Yj - YAN Cps,.7Wr� _ G
j' f.. 2 W W IPA�
41 LAKEFRONT DR •Rs�}Kyy, x� (Vp v
P�V�NGTDC1a d ❑ m
w PI �+ !.• > c 'NH1$PERWG hn:'
7 ADARIS$ �w
� N C7 g
•• O ; w a BAXTER LN 3 1 m
nlW„� w o Subject Properties 3
DRA:YST ¢ Qf a Q- a
liF'4 as AN STf <- P s ,,'i �s r� ,� w r a4•
r C1 'fiRITZ.CT 2� ❑ � 0
z PROSPECTSTOR Y Lu/t]r1VW ST
- PROO
U $s
y z f]O-DRI.
S N REBECCA ST REOLCCFa
REBECCA ST 2 A4
O: E Z I
- _ r Q Ji.;'llo NST STRVBT SIS rRVsrYr
> �,•� O R x' Y &p
v
v a _ 517 w rrtE r:4Rff3i. .s l QST
w ego RSF-4
.'�APLE S� j 4 ?'n -'� p'T•iVATE 1fi5?
a 3 z G
3 i>R1VAT5 433 } r l I
3
a
Ark
3 �: sur N sT CRpgF:Ei2r�1(EF �,D k�"x li �r ��
Vex-P�
u
Q - 1 1• •r a wg{1PP'oIxp��a`
�. - pr •C17dC } .. .. I..r W
J{ IAt y9 = � + SPINELLN00,
y .. _ •• 'z_
ROp ST e _
fj,UTHERN HEIGHTS PLS
��iI77 •g MIS
DR CFaIJSHW � -4k S,
-]•" � PRIVATE301
r 4 w
47H sT PeiVATE309
- "1 STT• - 1U;Lk iI
Zoning EXTRACTION
r- RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY =E-1
Legend ------ Revtle EaLRgriurwal COMMERCIAL
RSF-6 ReatlenEaFO6ice
RSF-1
RSF-2 C-2
Planning Area R6FA ��.,
_ RSF-7 FORM BASED DISTRICTS
L _ r Fayetteville City Limits ❑ RSF-6 �U-nTh—gi
1 e wean rnaraeaNare
Hillside-Hillto Overlay District RESIDENTIAL M ULTI-FAMILY -Main R,.e c nl.r
P Y MR_Re sitlentel-nd Tgme-hm� n.O General
RMF-6 Community Services
..... Shared Use Paved Trail
'�RMF-1B �NegM1barM1ootl Conservation
____ ___ MR F-11 PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
11111 Trail(Proposed) RMF-a6 L'Commertlal,In teal.Residen
Planning Area r
INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL
Building Footprint *m cw mental ane LqN and ao-al P_1
Fayetteville City Limits __ ] s�d, tt,,„„ Board of Adju tments
2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 11 of 12
16-5455 SKOCH-BURCH Ak
Close Up View NORTH
PECT ST
❑
O
Z �
Y
Q U
J Q
❑ O
in ROCKWOOD:TRL 3
z
O�
y�
_N W
Q
7
Vubjectroperties
CCA ST REBECCA ST
REBECCA ST
I
RSF-4
LU TRUST ST
Q TRUST ST
Z
J
J
LL
S�
�e COMPANY ST
O,P
Legend
1 Planning Area Feet RSF-4
r _ Fayetteville City Limits 0 75 150 300 450 600
Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District 1 inch = 200 feet
Building Footprint Board of Adju tments
2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5455 Skoch-Burch
Page 12 of 12