BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
April 26, 2017
I.
Call to Order
II.
Approval of Minutes
III.
Old Business:
1. Freeman
401 West Central Avenue
 Fence Height & Location
Variance*
2. RCPV, LLC
Variance*
Nomad Road and SW Windmill Road (Providence Village Subdivision)
 Planned Residential Development (PRD) Structural Design Standards,
front facing garages.
IV.
V.
Other Business
Adjournment
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 12, 2017 Meeting called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Rick Rogers, Chairman Present: Joe Haynie, Jan Holland, Rick Rogers, and Sam Pearson Absent: Rustin Chrisco Staff: Beau Thompson and Jon Stanley Motion by Mr. Pearson, seconded by Mr. Haynie to approve the minutes of March 22, 2017 as written. Approved 4‐0 Old Business Item #1 RCPV, LLC, Variance request for Planned Residential Development Structural Design Standards, Nomad Road & Southwest Windmill Road (Providence Village Subdivision) Opened public hearing Public hearing held on March 22, 2017 Closed public hearing Andrew Curry, attorney for RCPV, LLC speaks to the Board of the history of the project and the hardships of the project. The applicant is asking for a variance on just the architectural break on the front‐facing garage to Planning Area One. If the variance request is granted, it allows the applicant to do what they thought was already allowed, to do what they could do if it had stayed as R‐1, and allows them to build houses that fits with the surrounding subdivisions. Stephen Lear, representative of RCPV, LLC states that they read the PRD code and thought the Structural Design Standards modified the code. Mr. Rogers asks Staff what created the PRD. Mr. Thompson stated that they went to PRD since it was not cost‐effective to relocate meter bases. Mr. Rogers‐is there any advantage gained to a PRD versus R‐1? Mr. Thompson‐yes, the narrower lots. Planning Area 1, they did not choose to modify the setbacks. Essentially, they chose the same setbacks as an R‐1 district. Jesse Fulcher, representative of RCPV, LLC, provides the Board with elevations of the house. Mr. Pearson asks how much of a variance the applicant is applying for. Mr. Curry replies that they are asking for an absolute variance. Mr. Thompson elaborates stating that there is no architectural requirement as long as they are 30 feet from the street. Steven Lear states that he does not have all of the floor plans that will show absolute numbers. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Pearson both state their uncertainty of voting without further information and dimensions. Mr. Curry requests to table the item. Motion by Mr. Pearson, seconded by Ms. Holland to table item Tabled 4‐0 April 12, 2017
Steve and Julie Freeman are in the process of remodeling 401 West Central. This remodel is
very extensive with a goal to bring the 1954 Mid Century modern home back to its original
glory. Part of this process has been to repair the original stonewall around the property and
replace the dangerous rusted fence. The proposed new see through fence will not impede the
sight and will recreate this historic element of the house.
Steve and Julie Freeman, the owners of the residence at 401 West Central, are requesting a
variance on the fence height in the front, side and back of their home. When they purchased
the home originally, there was a stone wall around the entire property, constructed in 1954,
that had a rusted iron fence with spears on top of it in the front (pictures provided) and
chicken wire on top of it in the back (pictures provided). We have already repaired and
improved the stone wall back to its original design and look, but we would like to replace the
old fence with a more modern looking, and safer version, than the original fence in both the
front and back of the home (pictures provided).
In the front of the home and down both sides, the stone wall varies from 10 inches tall to 28
inches tall. That was the original height in 1954 and that is the current height of the wall today.
The new iron fence for the top of the wall will be 27 inches tall (the original fence, that was
removed was 28 inches tall). The height of the front fence at its lowest point will be 37 inches,
and at its highest point will be 55 inches including stone wall and fence on top. The new fence
will achieve a similar look and design as the original, but it will be safer, maintenance free and
will not obstruct the view of the home. It will also not be a danger to pedestrians walking or
riding bikes on the sidewalk.
The stone wall in the back of the home is a stone wall varies in height from 2 foot tall to 4 foot
tall. That was the original (1954) height of the back wall and the current height today. The
Freeman’s would like to replace the old deteriorating fence with a new fence that will be iron,
maintenance free and safer. The total height of the stone wall and fence will vary from 6 foot
tall to 8 foot tall in some areas. Instead of stair stepping the wall and fence, it will be a better
look and design to keep the height of the fence at the same level regardless of the topo of the
ground.
In summary, on the North side of the property, the stone wall and iron fence will be at a max
height of 4’7”. On the South side of the property, the stone wall and iron fence will be at a
max foot of 8 foot tall. On the West side of the property, the back yard portion of the wall and
fence will be a max height of 8 foot tall. On the West side of the property for the front yard
portion of the wall and fence, the max height will be 4’7” tall. On the East side of the property,
back yard portion, max height will be 8 ft. tall. On the East side of the property, front yard
portion, the max height will be 3’1” tall.
We are also requesting a variance on the 5 foot easement on the North and South property
line. The fence was built in 1954 exactly where it is today. It was made with concrete footings,
6 inch stone on both sides and a concrete cap. We have not moved the fence at all, only
repaired the fence, and have not changed the location of the fence at all.
Thank you for your consideration,
Steve and Julie Freeman
BOA STAFF REPORT
17-11000008 –RCPV, LLC– PRD Structural Design Standards – Front Facing
Garages
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
BOA DATE:
Bentonville Board of Adjustment Members
Troy Galloway, AICP, Community Development Director
Jon Stanley, Planner
April 26, 2017
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Representative: Hunter Haynes
Applicant: RCPV, LLC
Location: Providence Village Subdivision (Planning Area 1, Lots 1 through 139)
Existing Zoning: PRD, Planned Residential Development
Existing Land Use: Single Family Homes
REQUEST: Variance
Front Loading Garage Recess Requirements
Article 401. Sec 401.13.D.6-h
PRD Structural Design
Standards for Front Loading
Garages
Regulation
Front loading garages in
a PRD shall be recessed a
minimum of 10’ from the
front elevation of the
house.
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Direction
North
South
East
West
Zoning
R-1, Single Family Residential
Benton County
Benton County
Benton County
Request
To allow the front
loading garages to
extend a maximum of
7’-8” past the front
façade of the home.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has submitted a variance request to the Structural Design Standards for
property located in a PRD, Planned Residential Development. The design standards
require that all front loading garages be recessed a minimum of 10’ from the front
elevation of the home. The applicant is requesting that the garage be allowed to extend a
maximum of 7’-8” past the front façade of the home towards the street for Lots 1 through
139 (Planning Area 1) of Providence Village Subdivision. The 30’ front facing garage
setback from the right-of-way will still apply.
For additional information, please reference the attached documents.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff HAS NOT received public comment regarding this request.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
If approved, the following condition(S) shall apply:
1. The approved variance shall be for the proposed footprints of the single-family
dwellings only, as provided by the applicant.
2. The garages shall extend no further than 7’-8” past the front façade of any home
within Planning Area 1 as defined by the PRD documents.
April 18, 2017
Bentonville Board of Adjustment Members
Thank you for your input at the meeting on April 10th. We have evaluated the 13 house plans that were scheduled for
this Providence Village, and based on your feedback, we have eliminated 3 plans that are least compliant with the
garage setback code. Also, as part of our evaluation, we looked at the 8 homes that have been presold to customers.
The 8 presold homes comprise 5 different models, each which will be uniquely designed by the home buyers.
The ‘Clark’ floorplan, which is one of the presold homes, has a garage that extends approximately 7 feet forward of the
porch and front façade. The ‘Ross’ floorplan extends approximately 7 feet 8 inches forward of the façade, but is not a
presold floorplan. We have chosen these house plans as the basis for our variance request, since they illustrate the
largest variance. All the remaining house plans will have garages that extend forward from the front façade less than this
distance.
Please accept this letter as a request to allow the garages within the Providence Village subdivision to extend no more
than 8-feet in front of the front façade.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Regards,
Jesse Fulcher
Rausch Coleman Homes
479-301-6639
Rausch Coleman
4058 N. College Avenue – Fayetteville, AR 72703 – Office: 479-455-9090 – Fax: 479-455-2026
www.rauschcolemanhomes.com
Garage
Even
Garage
Recessed
4'1"
Garage
Forward
3'11"
Garage
Forward
7'0"
Garage
Forward
3'0"
Garage
Even
Garage
Forward
7'8"
Garage
Forward
1'4"
Garage
Forward
5 1/2"
Providence Village
Surrounding Development Patterns