TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer C. Baptiste - Development Ombudsman/Special Project Coordinator
DATE: August 12, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-38. Variance request to increase the height of a structure in the Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) zoning district from 75’ to 140’, located at 700 Blue Street (REID# 0437283505000), containing 2.10 acres ± and being the property of City of Fayetteville, represented by Brandon Moore of The Site Group.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2026
Goals 2026
Goal 2: Responsive city government supporting a diverse & viable economy
• Objective 2.2 - To invest in community places to ensure revitalization and increase quality of life.
Goal 4: Desirable place to live, work, & recreate
• Objective 4.2 - To enhance diverse recreation, leisure and cultural opportunities.
• Objective 4.4: To provide a clean and beautiful community with increased green spaces.
Executive Summary:
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: City of Fayetteville
Applicant: Brandon Moore of The Site Group
Requested Action: Request to increase the height allowed for a structure from 75’ to 140’.
Zoning District: Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5)
Property Address: 700 Blue Street
Size: 2.10 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residential Home
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: MR-5 - Undeveloped
• South: MR-5 - Community Center/Park
• East: MR-5 - Undeveloped
• West: MR-5 - Undeveloped
Letters Mailed: 10
Issues/Analysis:
The property is 2.10 acres ± and is addressed as 700 Blue Street. The site is an undeveloped site located at the corner of Blue and Washington Street and is north of the former Blue Street Senior Center.
The current Unified Development Ordinance was adopted in 2011. According to the UDO, the structural height in the Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) zoning district is 75’. The applicant is seeking to install a monument structure with a height of 140’ on the site to as a companion piece to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Park site.
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 maximum height for structures in the MR-5 zoning district is 75’. The applicant is requesting to exceed this height by 65’ for a total heigh to 140’. The applicant states that the intent of ordinance was to limit residential development to six stories or 75 feet. Since this structure is not for a large residential structure, but rather a monument intended to be viewed at a distance from different points within the City, it should be allowed.
The following findings are based on the responses submitted in the application by the applicant and best available information of 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:
1. The MLK Jr. Park is an established park use within the neighborhood and City. Parks frequently maintain monumental structures of varying heights that bring attention to a person or idea, the structure itself, and the park. Limiting the height of the structure to what was clearly intended to be a residential standard of 75’ would pose an unnecessary hardship on a park use.
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:
According to the application, this is a unique circumstance in that a memorial park use is very uncommon within the City. The ordinance does not include every possible situation or use, and this is a unique situation that is not addressed by the code. The park resides in the MR-5 district, and the code is primarily written to address residential uses, not other existing uses, such as a park.
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:
According to the applicant, this structure has been in planning for well over 30 years. The funding is now available to proceed with the construction of the spire. The 140’ of the spire is tall enough for viewing from a distance and will allow the spire to be monumental in its purpose. A spire limited to the base 75’ would not allow a reasonable monument.
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:
According to the applicant, the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance because the height standard is largely based on a 75’ residential building. Monumental spire projects are rare enough that a specific code section or zoning district doesn’t exist for the use. The spire is unique and while the existing ordinance is geared towards residential use, it also doesn’t specifically prohibit the construction of a spire. The height variance is applicable to the spire only and would not apply to any other construction on the property.
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:
According to the applicant, if the variance is granted the public welfare and safety will have been assured through professional engineers, landscape architects, architects and City staff. All of which will have designed, reviewed and approved construction plans for the spire. Substantial justice will be done by allowing the spire to be placed in MLK Jr. Park as this has been a long time intent for the park.
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
yThe 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 increase the height limitation from 75’ to 140’ for a structure in a Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) zoning district.
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 to increase the height limitation from 75 feet to 140 feet for a structure in a Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) zoning district.
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(s) allowing the increase in the height limitation of 75 feet to 140 feet for a structure in a Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) zoning district.
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
8. Spire Rendering