Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-13 - Agendas - Final CITY OF Fay -y� l'I'l� AGENDA ARKNSAS Final Agenda Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 2017 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner City Attorney: Kit Williams Call to Order Roll Call Consent 1. Approval of the minutes from the January 23, 2017 meeting. Old Business No Items New Business 2. VAR 17-5721: Variance (NORTHWEST OF MAINE STREET AND CROSS AVE./HENSON DUPLEXES, 520): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for property located at the NORTHWEST CORNER OF MAINE STREET AND CROSS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF-18, Residential Multi-Family 18 Units per Acre and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is for a variance of the Urban Residential Design Standards for construction of five new duplexes. Planner: Andrew Garner 3. CCP 17-5699: Concurrent Plat (1705 W. NETTLESHIP DR./NETTLESHIP DEVELOPMENT, 520): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 1705 W. NETTLESHIP DR. The properties are zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 3.74 acres. The request is to re-plat 24 existing multi-family lots into 15 lots. Planner: Andrew Garner Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav Fayetteville, AR 72701 4. CUP 16-5696: Conditional Use (1540 W. MARKHAM RD./MARKHAM COURT, 482): Submitted by ROBERT SHARP for properties located at 1540 W. MARKHAM RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNIT PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.61 acres. The request is for construction of a cluster housing development with 12 single family dwellings. Planner: Quin Thompson 5. ADM 17-5707: Administrative Item (UDC Chapter 160.02/UDC Amendment Official Zoning Map): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to UDC Chapter 160.02 to adopt a digital format for the official zoning map and simplify existing codes. Planner: Harry Davis The followinq items have been approved administratively by staff • FPL 16-5522: Final Plat (S. END OF MARK'S MILL LN./SUMMIT PLACE PH. II, 329): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at the SOUTH END OF MARK'S MILL LN. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 19.51 acres. The request is for final plat approval of a residential subdivision with 45 lots. Planner: Andrew Garner • LSP/PLA 16-5702: Lot Split-Property Line Adjustment (3220 N. OAKLAND ZION RD./OZTURK, 218): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 3220 N. OAKLAND ZION RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain approximately 3.01, 5.00 and 4.21 acres. The request is to split and adjust the parcels into 4 lots containing approximately 4.21, 3.79, 2.62 and 1.59 acres. Planner: Quin Thompson • LSP 16-5701: Lot Split (SE OF BROYLES AVE. & PERSIMMON ST./SLOANBROOKE PH. II, 477): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located SE OF BROYLES AVE. & PERSIMMON ST. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 88.03 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 58.49 and 29.54 acres. Planner: Harry Davis Announcements • Nominating Committee for election of Planning Commission Officers 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 2 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. 3 CITY OF Fa Y i'1'1� MINUTES ARKANSAS Planning Commission January 23, 2017 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, and Leslie Belden Absent: Allison Thurmond Quinlan, and Ryan Noble City Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the January 9, 2017 meeting. 2. VAC 16-5687: Vacation (2790 N. SIGNET PLACE/BOWERS, 295): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located 2790 N. SIGNET PLACE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a general utility easement. 3. VAC 16-5688: Vacation (3300 W. GROVE DR./PLANET FITNESS, 440): Submitted by MORRISON-SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 3300 W. GROVE DR. The property is zoned CPZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 9.81 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a general utility easement. 4. CCP 16-5694: Concurrent Plat (4712 & 4744 W. OLDHAM DR./SLOANBROOKE PH. I — LOTS 97 &98, 477): Submitted by JORGENSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 4712 & 4744 W. OLDHAM DR. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 0.50 acres. The request is for 2 single family lots. Motion: Commissioner Selby 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.fayettevilTeruary 13,2017 Fayetteville, AR 72701 ,2017 lnuttern 1 Y Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 1 of 7 Old Business: 5. RZN 16-5667: Rezone (1918 S. GARLAND AVEJANDERSON, 600): Submitted by SKIP ANDERSON for property at 1918 S. GARLAND AVE. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Skip Anderson, Applicant: Has nothing to add to the report and is comfortable with staff's assessment and recommendation. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Questions staff the number of units that could be developed on the property. Curth: Two are allowed, with either two single-family dwellings or one duplex. Tom Brown, Commissioner: In a prepared statement, outlines the guiding principles of the Fayette Junction Master Plan as follows: "TLB Statement on RZN 16 5667 The parcel under consideration for the proposed rezoning is located in the Fayette Junction Neighborhood Plan area. The Fayette Junction Neighborhood Plan identifies three Guiding Principles: 1. Integrate the built and natural environments 2. Create a clean tech cluster 3. Support the establishment of a Multi-modal transit system As part of the Multi-Modal Transit Principle, the Plan calls for the establishment of a Transit Hub at the center of the neighborhood or what is referred to as the Fayette Junction area. The Illustrative Neighborhood Plan combines the concept of a passenger rail stop parallel to the existing railroad line with the transit-oriented development needed to support an urban transit hub. The Illustrative Neighborhood Plan utilizes the concept of a half-mile radius around the envisioned transit stop that supports significant pedestrian traffic by creating a destination urban hub complete with retail, offices and high-density housing options. The Illustrative Neighborhood Plan recognizes that an appropriate density for supporting a rail stop needs to approach 15-20 units per acre, which is the density suggested in the Illustrative Plan. The Fayette Junction Neighborhood Plan suggests designating the area around the Fayette Junction as an Urban Center Area. This Future Land Use Classification allows for a more intense and dense pattern of land use, encouraging a diverse mix of residential, commercial and office uses within the Fayette Junction Area. The parcel being considered for rezoning is less than 1500 feet from the envisioned rail transit stop and well with in the '/2 mile transit-shed for the proposed transit oriented district. Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agen�a Item 1 Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 2 of 7 We need to support the implementation of the Fayette Junction Neighborhood Plan. The proposed zoning falls short of allowing for the necessary residential densities and mixed-use development opportunities that what the Neighborhood Plan calls for. Therefore, I cannot support the proposed RSF8 zoning, but I can support the consideration of the use of one of our mixed use, higher density, form based zoning classifications like: • Downtown General — DG • Main Street Center— MSC" Hoffman: Notes that Commissioner Brown addresses some of the same concerns that we brought up at the Agenda Session meeting. Requests from staff information about the extent of the Fayette Junction Master Plan rezoning. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Responds that it was centered on areas with greater development pressure, and areas where property owners wanted to be re-zoned. The Red Arrow neighborhood wanted to be down-zoned and several areas on Razorback Road were rezoned. The areas of the proposed transit stop that the Plan identified were to remain largely industrial in zoning until the time of prospective development. Clarifies that the Fayette Junction Illustrative Plan was just a plan, and vision, and not what must occur. Part of staff's recommendation was based on the Illustrative Plan showing the subject property as single- family. Hoffman: Looking at the illustrative plan, he struggles to envision the 15 units per acre of required density for a transit oriented development. Understands that this is a "chicken or the egg?" situation about whether transit-related zoning or a development proposal comes first. Does not feel that enough was done in the Fayette Junction plan to create a critical mass for transit that Commissioner Brown has described. Suspects that if it were developed as a TOD it would require a large-scale land acquisition and development. In terms of an urban transect, there would be a hard transition between a new TOD development, and the existing low-density current development. Although generally an advocate of form-based zoning districts, he is not seeing the critical mass that would typically be seen to invoke his preference accordingly. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Asks the applicant if he is interested in a higher density zoning. Anderson: Responds that he is not looking for something higher density, and that RSF-8 remains his preference. Brown: Agrees that a critical mass is needed to enact the Fayette Junction Plan. A land use plan needs to be carried forth from today that can support a transit stop in the future. Although he does not see this request as spot zoning, because there is a neighborhood plan, he feels that creating the circumstances to support of prospective TOD, regardless of whether a property is exactly within a designated area that would need higher density. What bothers him is not that this property is not in the middle of the proposed TOD, but that the Plan notes that staff was going to look into zoning this area as an urban center. He would like the Planning staff to look at this area to develop a City-initiated rezoning. If the Commission takes the action tonight with regards to this rezoning, it can be the impetus to further implement this plan. He has not issue with the RSF-8 zoning district, but as applied on the subject property, it may prevent reaching the critical mass needed for the Fayette Junction Plan's objective. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Moves to forward the request with a recommendation of approval. Planning Commission FebruaryJ13,2017 Agenda Item 1 Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 3 of 7 Curth: Clarifies on his earlier comment about the potential density of the property, noting that it may have two duplexes, with four total units on the site possible by conditional use permit. Ron Autry: Understands the premise behind not supporting this rezoning due to a preference to see a critical mass for an area rezoning, but does not support preventing this rezoning in the meantime. Nobody knows what the timeframe is for transit at this location, and feels it is not appropriate to prevent development of the property in the meantime. Hoffman: Appreciates Commissioner Autry's comments and is ready to vote. Brown: Also understands the comments of other Commissioners, but does not necessarily agree that the applicant cannot build what they want to develop under the DG or MSC zoning districts. Garner: Responds that form-based district options were discussed with the applicant, but it does not meet the applicant's goals to located homes further back from the street. Under DG and MSC the homes would have to be built up to the existing street edge. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Notes that the comments about this being spot zoning is accurate. This meets the definition of spot zoning with the request for a zoning district on a property that is less than 1/3 rd of an acre and that is considerably different from all surrounding zoning districts. Brown: Disagrees that a rezoning on this property would be spot zoning, as it could be in accordance with the Plan. Re-states that TOD development is a "chicken or egg" dilemma. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5667 recommending approval. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted `no'. Planning Commission February413,2017 Agenda Item 1 Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 4 of 7 New Business: 6. LSD 16-5690: Large Scale Development (676 W. ASH ST./THE TRAILS ON ASH, 366): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 676 W. ASH ST. The properties are zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and contain approximately 2.22 acres. The request is for 7 commercial buildings consisting of 17,025 square feet and associated parking. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Jason Young, Applicant: Agree with staff and nothing further to add. Kit Williams, Commissioner: Asked the applicant if the project team understands and accepts the conditions of approval. Young: Yes we do. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said he agreed with relative importance of building design in relation to their location. He asked if the sidewalk proposed to cross the existing drive would be delineated in any special way. Young: Said that had not been considered. Jonathan Ely, Staff Engineer: Said that the new sidewalk would be configured to meet City sidewalk standards for width and slope. Hoffman: Said he was concerned about a visually impaired pedestrian losing their way across such a long curb cut. Williams: Asked about the use of stamped concrete to differentiate the sidewalk from drive. He said that Hoffman had a good point, and thought that because a variance was being requested, it would be appropriate to find a way to solve this problem. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said that this improvement would change grades on both sides of the sidewalk significantly enough to be a clear indication of the location of the public sidewalk. Ely: Said that he agreed that the sidewalk would be well defined. Hoskins: Spoke about the Subdivision Committee concerns about landscape and the proposed condition of approval. Hoffman: Said that he agreed about elevation defining the sidewalk, but added that he felt it would be important that truck drivers have a visual cue that the sidewalk was public, and said that he felt the sidewalk should be stained. Hoskins: Asked Hoffman if the apron should also be stained. Planning Commission February)3,2017 Agenda Item 1 Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 5 of 7 Hoffman: Said that his intention was to create an obvious delineation between apron and sidewalk. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Said he felt that the sidewalk should be stained red and the remainder should be natural concrete. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 16-5690 modifying condition #2 to add 2.f. that "The sidewalk through the large existing driveway shall be red stained concrete." Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission Februaryd 3,2017 Agenda Item 1 Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 6 of 7 The following items have been approved administratively by staff • LSP 16-5692: Lot Split(3695 E. HUNTSVILLE RD./SEIBERT, 529): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3695 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 0.12 and 0.14 acres. • LSP 16-5657: Lot Split (763 N. STARR RD./WILLIAMS, 451): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 763 N. STARR RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 19.87 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 4 lots containing approximately 11.22, 5.60, 1.52 and 1.53 acres. • LSP 16-5673: Lot Split (2525 N. QUICK FOX RD./FRANKS, 279): Submitted by BATES &ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 2525 N. QUICK FOX RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 12.45 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 8.88 and 3.57 acres. • LSP 16-5693: Lot Split (1335 W. DEANE ST./BLEW, 365): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1335 E. DEANE ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.53 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 3 lots containing approximately 0.53, 0.50 and 0.50 acres. Reports: None Announcements: None Adjournment Time: 6:23 PM Submitted by: City Planning Division Planning Commission February)3,2017 Agenda Item 1 Jan 23,2017 Minutes Page 7 of 7 CITY OF Tay • L�l a PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director MEETING DATE: February 13, 2017 SUBJECT: VAR 17-5721: Variance (NORTHWEST OF MAINE STREET AND CROSS AVE.IHENSON DUPLEXES, 524): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for property located at the NORTHWEST CORNER OF MAINE STREET AND CROSS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF-18, Residential Multi-Family 18 Units per Acre and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The request is for a variance of the Urban Residential Design Standards for construction of five new duplexes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the findings herein. BACKGROUND: The property is located at the northwest corner of Maine Street and Cross Avenue, contains approximately 0.80 acres and is zoned RMF-18, Residential Multi-family 18 Units per Acre. The property contains five legal lots of record that were created with the West End Addition plat filed in 1912 and re-platted in 1957. The site is steep with a significant rise in terrain from the street level of Maine Street to the northern boundary of the site. The northwest portion of the property is within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District(HHO❑). The HHOD requires, among other elements, that a minimum of 20% of the site remain undisturbed by grading and 20% of the site remain in tree canopy. The surrounding zoning and land use is listed in Table I. Table 1 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction from Land Use Zoning Site North Undeveloped hillside RMF-18, Residential Multi-Family 18 Units per Acre South Single-family Residential RMF-18, Residential Multi-Family 18 Units per Acre East Undeveloped multi-family#ots RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family 24 Units per Acre West Two-family residential RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family 24 Units per Acre DISCUSSION: Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct five new two-family dwellings on the subject property. UDC 166.23(C)(2) requires that when constructing two-family dwellings, the visual impact of parking areas should be minimized by locating parking behind buildings and internal to the site. Due to the steep terrain and tree canopy, the applicant does not feel that constructing Mailing Address: Planning Commission 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevFlfpruayr�J�,2017 Fayetteville,AR 72701 Ager a Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 1 of 35 parking and access to the rear or side is feasible and proposes parking and access in front of the buildings and adjacent to the street. Request: The applicant requests a variance of the City's Urban Residential Design Standards UDC 186.23(C)(2) to allow visually prominent parking areas in front of the buildings, instead of locating parking behind the buildings and internal to the site. The applicant has submitted a letter, site plan, and architectural drawings of the proposed structures (attached). Findings This is an unusual site with a significant change in terrain of approximately 42 feet from the southeast to northwest of the site. The southeast corner of the site is at an elevation of 1,338 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the northwest corner of the site is approximately 1,380 feet AMSL, an average slope of 15%. The site is also heavily wooded. The applicant proposes to develop the site with access and parking areas on the downhill side of the property between the buildings and Maine Street. This would minimize disturbance and grading required to provide parking either to the side or rear of the units. Staff evaluated the feasibility of moving the duplexes closer to the street and constructing a shared drive to the rear of the units. This alternative would require much more grading and tree removal and a retaining wall of approximately 10 feet tall. Under this alternative it would be difficult to comply with the requirements of the HHQD on the western lots where a minimum of 20% of the site is required to remain undisturbed and within tree preservation area. Staff agrees with the applicant's rationale that the terrain and tree cover create a hardship to a design that would strictly comply with the code, while still building a duplex on each existing lot. In order to offset the impact of front loading several duplexes in a row, the applicant has incorporated shared driveways and several intentional design features. The garages are tucked under the units and do not protrude forward from the principal fagade. The garage doors are well articulated and set behind a large pedestrian stairway in the middle of the duplexes that would connect to front doors above the garages. Prominent front doors, stoops, and windows on the fagade over the garage provide visibility and interaction between the dwellings and the street. While the proposed design does not meet the code, the design features described above mitigate the impacts of the variance and help meet the purpose and intent of the code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the findings herein, that the steep terrain and tree cover create a hardship to complying with the code, and the proposed design mitigates views of parking and garage doors at the street. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of a variance of UDC Section 166.23(C)(2)(a) to allow front-loaded duplexes with parking between the dwellings and the street as proposed. Staff recommends in favor of the variance based on the findings discussed above. 2. The two-family dwellings shaII be developed generally consistent with the proposed elevations and plans presented by the applicant in this packet, especially including the architectural details to minimize the appearance of garages doors and parking areas from the street. Planning Commission February 13,2017 G:lETC\Development Services Review120171Development Review117-5721 VAR NW eF Maine St.&Cross Ave.(Henson Duplexes) Agenda Item 2 520103 Planning Commission102-13-20171Comments and Redlines 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 2 of 35 3. The overall development site shall maintain 20% of the site undisturbed by grading, and 20% of the site shall be dedicated in Tree Preservation Area prior to building permit. 4. The driveways shall be relocated as needed to provide the minimum 50-foot separation required by UDC 166.08(F)(2). The western driveway is currently 40 feet from the adjacent driveway to the east. S. The sidewalk shall be relocated to the Master Street Plan right-of-way line and shall include the standard ADA crossing ramp at the southeast corner of the site. 6. Approval is limited to the variance described herein, all other aspects of the development shall meet code. Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied Meeting Date: February 13, 2017 Motion: Second: Vote: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None. Attachments: • UDC Sections 156.03 Variance ;166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards; ■ Request letter • Existing survey • Site plan • Home plans/elevations • Alternative design (staff) ■ Existing Topography ■ Existing Land Uses • Close up map ■ One mile map Planning Commission February 13,2017 G:\ETC1Development Services Review120170evelopment Review117-5721 VAR NW of Maine St.&Cross Ave.(Henson Duplexes) Agenda Item 2 520103 Planning Comm ission102-13-20171Comments and Redlines 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 3 of 35 Fayetteville Unified Development Code 156.03 Development, Parking and Loading Certain variances of the development, parking and loading regulations may be applied as follows: (C) Consideration by the Planning Commission. (1) Design standards. (a) undue hardship. If the provisions of these standards are shown by the developer to cause undue hardship as they apply to his proposed development,the city Planning Commission may grant a variance to the developer from such provisions, so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured; provided that the variation will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of development regulations. (b) Conditions. In granting variances, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure substantially the objective of the standards or requirements so varied. 166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards (A) Purposes. (1) To protect and enhance Fayetteville's appearance, identity, and natural and economic vitality. (2) To create appealing street scenes so that development enhances the image of the City and provides safe, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood environments. (3) To minimize service and parking impacts in order to preserve surrounding property values and scenic resources that contribute to the City's economic development. (4) To compose attractive residential facades that enhance the economic viability of and provide compatibility with surrounding property. (B) Applicability. All references to urban residential design standards shall include the following uses as permitted by right or conditional use in all zoning districts: (1) 2-F, Two-family dwellings (2) 3-F, Three-family dwellings (3) MF, Multi-family dwellings (C) Site Development Standards. The following site development standards shall apply for all urban residential development. (1) Intent.The intent of these site development standards is to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. (2) Vehicular Access 1 Circulation i Parking. (a) Site access and internal circulation should promote pedestrian safety, efficiency, and convenience and minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Continuous circulation shall be provided throughout the site to the greatest extent possible creating a complete, compact, and connected transportation network both within the development and to the Planning Commission February 13,2017 G:IETC1Development Services Review1201 nDevelopment Review117-5721 VAR NW of Maine St.&Cross Ave.(Henson Duplexes) Agenda Item 2 520103 Planning Comm ission102-13-201nComments and Redlines 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 4 of 35 surrounding neighborhood.The visual impact of parking areas should be minimized by locating parking behind buildings and internal to the site. (i) Garage entries and carports shall not protrude forward from the principal facade. Driveways shall extend at least 18' into the property from the Master Street Plan right-of- way to allow parking to occur without encroaching into the right-of-way. (ii) Parking areas should be accessed by mid-block alleys whenever possible. Developments should minimize multiple driveways and should utilize a shared access to reduce the number of vehicle conflicts at the street. (iii) On-street parallel parking may be provided on at least one side of the street in front of all multi-family buildings where feasible. Each on-street parking space provided along the project frontage shall count toward the total required spaces for the development. (4) Pedestrian Circulation. (a) Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a public street shall have a primary pedestrian entry that is visible from the street. This entry shall connect to the public sidewalk where sidewalk exists. The entry may be shared, but must occur at a spacing of no fewer than one entrance for every two street level dwellings. The pedestrian connection to the street may run from the door along the facade of the building parallel to the street for a maximum of 12 feet from the door before connecting directly to the public sidewalk. (b) Urban residential projects should incorporate pedestrian connections to adjacent residential and commercial properties where sidewalks and/or trails exist and can be extended in the future. Planning Commission February 13,2017 G:lETC\Development Services Review120171Development Review117-5721 VAR NW of Maine St.&Cross Ave.(Henson Duplexes) Agenda Item 2 520103 Planning Commission\02-13-20171Comments and Redlines 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 5 of 35 ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. 1207 S.Old Missouri Rd.• P.O. Box 282 ■ Springdale,Arkansas 72765-0282 Ph:479-751-8733• Fax:479-751-8746 February 3, 2417 Andy Harrison Planning Coordinator 125 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72741 RE: Henson Hill Duplexes Variance Request Fayetteville, AR Mr. Harrison, We are submitting application materials for a variance regarding the Henson Hill Duplexes to be located along at the northwest corner of Maine St. and Cross Ave. in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The following is a description of the variances request: We are requesting a variance of UDC 166.23, Urban Residential Design Standards, for the requirements on parking areas behind buildings, and internal to the site. While the design standards for the City of Fayetteville were considered for this project, it was evident that a variance would be required for the project to be possible. Several factors contributed to the design of this site, namely, the severity of the site topography, limited buildable area due to HHOD requirements, and no rear access available to rear load the units. Because of the severe grade distances in the buildable area of these lots, the duplexes have been designed so that the basement/garage level can be built into the hillside with 2 stories on top. All five of the proposed lots currently have drastic grade differences from the north and south boundaries ranging anywhere from 14'-24'. Furthermore, placing the duplexes close to the existing streettand or having rear access to these sites would necessitate a large retaining wall running the full northern boundary of these lots. Three of the proposed lots are limited in buildable area by Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District Boundary requirements. The proposed layouts have preserved all trees within the HHOD and have obtained Urban Forester Approval. These lots affected by HHOD are very limited in buildable area, eliminating other potential designs if the entire lot were to be available for grading. Brian J.Moore,P.E. Tim J.Mays,P.E. I Jerry W.Martin,P.F. 1=SJ Presidem Vice President.'Scaftiy-Trcasurcr Chairman orthe Burd ENGINEERING SErAACEs INC. Engineers'F Consulting , • •rs www.engineering-service-S mm� om mission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 6 of 35 ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. 1207 S.Old Missouri Rd. ■ P.O.Box 282 ■ Springdale,Arkansas 72765-0282 Ph-479-751-8733■ Fax:479-751-8746 Fayetteville Planning Department February 3, 2017 Page 2 Attached please find the following items for the Variance submittal: ■ Completed Variance Application ■ Replat wl Legal Description of the property ■ Variance Exhibits 1 CD with the following: ■ Replat wl Legal Description ■ Application • Submittal Letter ■ Variance Exhibits $25.00 Variance Application Fee Please contact me if you have any questions, or need additional information. Sincerely, Taylor Meharg Enclosures I Brian J.Moore,P.E- I Tim 3.Mays,P.E. I Terry W.Martin,P.E. President Vice President.:Secretary-Imsurer Chairman of the Bcwrd r �tNtr4�sE:rnncEs INC- nnin ommission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 7 of 35 m 0 ED 13 0 a 'Ile — x-�- z - m Q Ld a Qg 0M LU nLU a g e L" P mm Ld 3 �t 57 Y�3i � $ cy na' Qi W Zrc [ a3j ow W Wm •i YYY s- F-9—AY 0Ul �� a��$ � nn' lr vs[ aras.rvs k •�i �o$��s � p V s�W� it � 3Yr � 5 Q ; Q '4 P 1[ 1. aS NitY��$� ��y� EB Yg v ° sc- s.�d°� R � - - _ �l � �� �� f•»»-� is n —- •.cry- � � 'y� � ���� '" �4 - g g a Wi2JAL f fyyyc ; K -i jLL a J �tI 9 16 r xa 6 �•°`_ -' S SR d i�P a nin9 mmission ¢a: �:ebrua y 13,2017 Ag nda Item 2 Duplexes Page 8 of 35 W tiq �+ Ol� O ti {j [2D Or acn 22Uj U) v � v~Ws � U2a � QCS LUQ EY W ❑ 2 0 v Q W a Q W w ti W Z W fl Qch ¢ ❑ QC `� yl � 0[ � � 2 ~ x W y W W q .`A- D vti LLJG y 4 U 2fl2p Wm � R � Re V, q CL D Rro ti W D a W D 2 D y D ry 2 D m W m a r D R W zt , 2 0 2 2 2 x y W ? W h W V� t� � rrW Z 4F2p0j ; Q"; 1 +T. R [RW � � y aCmaa� w cDa � 4 ° Q 'NQ ZZ Ex CC iE f1 I I �a a rx-inn tUNOZ case NY 391N7111LV, 4 y cdG1%Qg Od 4 ]l1P{31idQl+aM136 diMS31LL3ti COa^6[(l[-S9� SS ZOE'•Al.OZZS ZO 9 1 4`.Z9! I m d w 4 a J s n� v ONU8G h 0 J =qq LU Ra O IL II } q 3NP-7 13 M V d E f J N $ ry 4 h 11 J N tt Q j^ 0 v W C]Wq F. y !3 f Z W ❑ W m Z ~xti.J.1 J iM h o q y y l 7 24:W W o s d p 2 7 I Asx ❑ [ PP 4 $Yyr LU x ZCF a LO1Z1 b16'3 7 7111 31 1 3.5 f» G1 I m i W M 2x+ 0Z311nS77Hdtr3]V1LZ Zit .777 Hd �. OOO Z66LL S91 ON ❑ c� tZffl 3.LL,E6ZQN Uj a g9 Jp as IQ- 13 I I` J I — Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 x 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Q Page 9 of 35 21V lanUaLL3AM I_� Samdau TnH NOSMRK .pd ONIGV710 TMaAO --------------------- 4 r 19 of 2 M 41 jv 7 u R I' it It mom-0 Sz .......... 4.k ID T- 20 O'D L Ar k z ren In L� MF o F pp Mv, .9d ci w DD -�j di?E U 15 ji gg 11 la la ng Commission w bruary 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 10 of 35 I ygy�Tw Oma' =g qG I Gi a�a �$ a� I I 1 1 I � I y I I � I I � L�7H ® ,j o r ElmI I I 17 I I I I L�I ,� �I i✓ Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 11 of 35 § 2 - » § EMU k ° !� w. §� � !§ §# }�§ ■, )� Q � lip � \}\ C 7 %} �qk 2k � 131313 \\ gAq— _ :!! > � W � \ Z R ■!£ O ILL §|| LL J §k !} |! ,K .| Planning Commission February 13,209 Agenda 6m2 1>5721Henson Duplexes Page 2ya § \ z - \ \ \ \ lid q % 7 { 9R §/ § 22 \ « � � )\ -� ;a ;# !i |i f�§ !|| ❑ /§| 27. El is ------ ------------------- ---- . ❑ - .. ||| 2� /} / /| b , ». 9; ) ! � Z §$k R ` < §f■ |§/ Ld Ui w )§\ 2 N 2020 ■| �§ |k P� mimCommission February 13,2017 Agenda%m2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page q¥a ' o D @ � ix JIX Xj FR LL ILL � CL Ln Planning Commission February 13.2O17 Agenda Item u 17-5721 Henson Duplexes U Page 14ofoo § 6 , ¥ l5d ` ) . g » in !! )/ )� !} � 2)§ . . , - -- )f 2� ------ -- ----- ------ - --- $ \ � ° ■ )�{ e|! |!\ .!� |\§_ ! \�k ;| § (t « � |» 4 |§ U ■| P� mimCommission February 13,2017 Agenda%m2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 3¥a ®1 I I I I N ® - MI�® MEOWI I � I 4®I® ® ®iffl 0 NEI w lU11 U1111100.Ili 141. I I I I � I �I LLI di cl �i g I Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 16 of 35 4 0 :I 'a w 1 a p s� �a {' uLlu a MHAH M(7Hee ��I fM-M ar ! � At P88 • �uuu A � 5o,©©. F— ❑ W j =fix w w Z ❑ IL cr w LL J s= a� Yr rM Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 17 of 35 e �+ n F o =-� 2 � ❑ Ir �a�a 0 � � ewe 4 [] L m 0 a m �a �g 5� 1g� ❑ = - ¢ W � W W a� k� Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 18 of 35 Z 0 U La 8 L ............... Xj, X11 AMC t T I JIX X JIX JIX lot Z Oil Sig qw d i , z cl J LL V L z w In Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 19 of 35 a I I zz Lek�l a9}t ti n a FFF 13 w - $ $ II N W J Q o in I$� b.$ 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 ! I I I ! &.8 I t J 1 ! ! I I I I 1 1 i I J I I I ^ I �8Y I _ It I r�S jiga xC� 41 W w� lie Q v Planning Commission February 13,2017 Agenda Item 2 17-5721 Henson Duplexes Page 20 of 35