TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Heather Eckhardt, CZO - Planner II
DATE: June 11, 2024
RE:
Title
A24-25. Variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback at 1921 Skibo Road (REID 0417090398000) and being the property of Skibo Square LLC.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
9 - Deno Hondros
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 2.1: To ensure a diverse City tax base
• Objective 2.4: To sustain a favorable development climate to encourage business growth
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 3 feet to 0 feet to accommodate a new drive through canopy.
30.2.C.14 Variance:
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numeric standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner's control (such as exceptional topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), the literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
Variances are to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances or under exceptional circumstances to relieve undue and unique hardships to the landowner. No change in permitted uses or applicable conditions of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
Owner: Skibo Square LLC
Applicant: Bohler Engineering
Requested Action: Reduce minimum side yard setback from 3 feet to 0 feet
Zoning District: Community Commercial (CC)
Property Address: 1921 Skibo Road
Size: 1.19 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Drive through restaurant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: CC - Car wash (USA Express)
• South: CC - Drive through restaurant (Taco Bell)
• East: CC - Large retail establishment (Lowe’s)
• West: CC - Retail (David’s Bridal, 2nd & Charles)
Letters Mailed: 15
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property is the location of a freestanding Chick-Fil-A restaurant. The original Chick-Fil-A was constructed between 1994 and 1995. The site was redeveloped in 2014. The current building was built next to the original to allow the business to remain open and serve customers. This resulted in the current building being located closer to the side yard setback than the original. The original structure was located closer to Campground Church Road.
The surrounding area is an existing retail shopping center located along one of Fayetteville’s major corridors, Skibo Road. The property immediately adjacent to the proposed canopy is an existing Taco Bell restaurant.
Due to an increased demand for drive through service, many Chick-Fil-A sites are being updated to accommodate a double drive through with a canopy. The subject property currently has a double drive through that converges into a single drive through under a single canopy. A variance to reduce the side yard setback to 0 feet is needed to accommodate the double drive through and larger canopy that has become standard for Chick-Fil-A.
The requested variance would only reduce the required setback and would not change any landscaping or buffering requirements outlined by the Unified Development Ordinance.
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following does not constitute grounds for a Variance:
1. The siting of other nonconforming or conforming uses of land or structures in the same or other districts;
2. The request for a particular use expressly, or by inference, prohibited in the district; or
3. Economic hardship or the fact that property may be utilized more profitably with a Variance.
Subsequent Development
The applicant is requesting to reduce the side yard setback to 0 feet to allow a larger double canopy to be constructed. This larger canopy will cover the planned drive through expansion.
The following findings are based on the responses submitted in the application by the applicant and the best available information about the proposal without the benefit of testimony provided at the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “This parcel has a setback restriction that would create an unnecessary hardship as the building canopy would not be able to cover the second drive through lane.”
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “This parcel has a setback restriction that would prohibit the building canopy from covering the proposed second lane. With this variance, the parcel would conform to the design standards of surrounding lots.”
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “Proposed canopy is minimum width that would be required to cover both proposed pick up lanes at the meal delivery window.”
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “Proposed two lane pick up point with dual-lane canopy is proposed to better enhance traffic flow through the site and minimize traffic queuing/back up into adjacent parcels.”
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “With reducing queuing in the drive through that will be allowed by the dual lane pick up window, safer traffic flow will occur throughout the shopping center.”
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
The Board’s Authority: The board has the authority to approve or deny the request and must base its decision on the answers to the following five required findings of fact:
If a member believes that the evidence presented is substantial, competent, and sufficient to meet the required findings of fact then the member may make a motion to approve the variance and the members must state all of the following five findings of fact along with the evidence that was presented to satisfy each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under all five findings of fact, the members must consider a motion of denial. A motion of denial should indicate which of the five (5) of the findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on any variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance they should make a brief statement that recaps the evidence showing each of the five findings of fact. Any discussion by the Board following a motion may include a recap of the evidence supporting each of the five (5) factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve a variance to reduce the required side yard setback to 0 feet.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_____________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
Motion to approve the variance(s) as requested but with added conditions
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request with added conditions:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
Motion to deny the variance as requested.
Findings of Fact Statements Required to Deny this Request:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
________________________________________________________________
2. There is not sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
3. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
4. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
5. There is not sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________.
Recommended Action:
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan