Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Thursday, May 28, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. Our first order of business is the approval of our minutes from last month. Does anybody on the board have any questions, comments, concerns?

I'll make a motion to approve.

I second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further comment? All right. All those in favor? Aye. All right. All those opposed? Good deal. So now I'll sign these before I forget. All right, now that we've handled that very small piece of business up here, we're gonna get rolling. We've got six tonight, so not too crazy, but we will try to be as efficient as we can and respect everybody's time. I am allowed to put a cap on the time of public input. I like to not do that, so try to respect that. If you go a little bit over what we're allowed, which is normally three minutes, We will allow it, but if you get long-winded, I'm going to have to cut you off because we've got a lot of people. And on most of these, the applications themselves the applications speak for themselves. So we've looked at all that and we have a pretty good idea of what's going on, but we will ask the applicants for any further input they would have and for any questions, comments, concerns for the board. So we are always willing to work with everybody here on input, but just keep that in mind if you choose to speak that we need to be respectful of your time and everybody else's time. um going into that when if you are in here because you are requesting a variance because something you are trying to do or something you have done is not quite in accordance with the rules provided by the udo there are avenues to get variances and that's why we're here in order for us to grant a variance all four of the steps that you see up on the boards around the room need to be met. It is not an either or kind of thing. We have to satisfy all four of those. So if you hear us using these terms while we are discussing your particular variance, it's because we're trying real hard to make it happen. But there are some situations where we cannot grant a variance. We do not like to be in that situation, but that is our job as a board, and that's what we've been tasked with by city council. I'm going to read these into the record for anybody listening online, anybody in the room, so we kind of all know what's going on. And then we will get started. So first we have extraordinary conditions. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. Second is other property that those extraordinary and exceptional conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Third is utilization that because of the extraordinary or exceptional conditions, the application of the ordinance to a particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Last is detriment that any variance that we authorize will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property or the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by the variance. So keep all those in mind as we move forward. And we will listen to what you have to say. If there's anything you can say to help us get to meeting all four of those, we are happy to hear it. So with that being said, I'm going to hand this over to staff for presentation of variance request A.

This is a variance request from the strict application of the City of Conway's UDO Article 9 landscaping and buffer requirements for the property located at 1818 Main Street. Due to the partial constraints and to meet the parking requirements for use, the applicant requests a variance to omit the 5-foot Type A landscape buffer along the southern property line where it conflicts with the proposed parking lot. The development will meet all other UDO landscaping requirements. Specific variance request. UDO Table 9.2, omission of the 5-foot landscape buffer along the southern property line restricted to the parking area only. And Clint Richardson's here to represent if you have any questions.

Welcome, sir. If you will please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

All right.

Good deal. Will you please state your name for the record and who you are here on behalf of?

1017 3rd Avenue here with Kingston Engineering on behalf of the applicants of Jordan's. It's all right. I'm going to hand out a couple site plans. Perfect. That'd be great. A little bit easier to view.

Thank you, Mr. Washington.

Are you sure you don't want me to take over? Yeah, we're good.

okay so this is on main street at the intersection of mckeithen and north main it's sort of constricted by the corner setback for mckeithen and the actual width of the property it's sort of a skinny lot it's one of those right that's right there by jordan performance and across from the little ice machine beside the new dentist's office. Like I said, it's constrained by its width, and if you actually took this plan and flipped it where the parking lot was closer to 701, it would probably work where everything worked out with the buffers, but the DOT is not allowing that due to safety purposes. If somebody's turning off of 701 north onto McKeithen, and you were pulling out of the parking lot if it was so close to 701 you could take a look left and not have a car come and look right and then by the time somebody come off the highway onto mckeithen you wouldn't you wouldn't it could happen quick enough to where by the time you look back you wouldn't know so that the dot pushed the driveway option away from 701 further down mckeithen correct first looks like about as far as possible Correct. And so they're also requesting that we eliminate that ingress egress role curve that is along 701 there to enter and changing it to stand up curve. So where that'll eliminate that sort of funky in and out there.

So they want the only dot when we say they were talking about the correct they they only want the ingress egress from Further down McKeith and Lake represented on this site plan?

Correct.

We generally don't like to run afoul of them.

But in that, we're going to do away. Right now, it's sort of a rough-looking concrete old parking lot. So that'll be done away with. And you will have full buffer on the highway, on McKeithen Street, at the back. And the place where we're missing the five-foot wide buffer, the applicant is the adjacent property owner in that regard. And they are OK with doing that to themselves.

So, and just to clarify, the parking lot is the size that it is because that is the number of spots required by the UDO. Correct. So we're kind of, we'd have to do one or the other. Yep. And this one probably makes more sense. Yep. At least it does to me. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Fisher? All right, is there anybody else here to speak for or against this particular variance request? All right, we all go with Clint. Anybody got anything?

Am I correct? You said that the applicant is also the adjacent property owner where the variance, where the landscaping would be removed? Missing, yeah. Correct. Okay. All the same.

Is it the same legal entity? Or is it all the same family? Same family, not the same. Okay.

But there is a buffer existing on the northern side of their building right beside the property line. So there is a buffer there already that's being maintained and kept up.

All right. Go ahead. I was going to close public and public.

You ask him. It wasn't a question. I'm sorry.

Everybody good? Okay. Are we sure nobody else is here for or against this particular request? All right. I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. So we got a second. All those in favor. All those opposed. All right. Public input is closed. I think we're it's a very narrow lot. I know. I know.

Oh, yeah.

And as the mayor said last week, we are all about development along this corridor. So we certainly don't want this something like this to hold that up. I think it I think we definitely meet all four criteria due to the unique shape of the lot. We have to consider what DOT wants, and I agree that's kind of a wonky little area there anyway, so I think this will help.

And without this, the parking's not going to meet requirements. It would have to go for a variance on parking. So it becomes circular. All right, anybody got any further comment? I'll make a motion to approve the variance.

And I'll second that. All right, we have a motion from Ms. Dingell, a second from Ms. Hill. Any further discussion from the board? All right, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right, good deal. You're good to go. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Appreciate it. You too.

Thank you.

All right.

Good job. We will now move on to their request B. Okay.

This is a variance request from the strict application of the City of Conway's UDO Article 9 landscaping and buffer requirements for the property located at 2776 Church Street. Due to the existing asphalt and site constraints, the applicant requests to admit the 5-foot physical buffer strip along the new shared property line except for the first 30.22 linear feet. In its place, the applicant proposes relocating 100% of the required buffer plantings across both project sites. Specific variance request, UDO Table 9.2, relief from the 5-foot physical landscape buffer width requirement along the shared property line with the exception of the first 30.22 linear feet with a condition to distribute 100% of the required planning units across both subject parcels. And Mr. David Schwert is here for this one.

Mr. Schwert, will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right, good deal. And please state your full name for the record and who you are here on behalf of. Sure.

David Schwert, Diamond Shores Survey. Here on behalf of the applicants Dutch Brothers and Express Oil and Auto Repair. What we're doing here is we're creating a new property line. In this location of 501, getting another additional access isn't something we're trying to do. So what this project is intending to do is connect where it currently connects to the existing car wash on the left-hand side and providing cross-connectivity over to the existing entrance next to the Aspen Dental. That is the location. This is the old building that was the bingo location before that was a mattress firm. We're taking the parcel and splitting it in half, demoing the existing building and redeveloping it. So on the left-hand side will be the drive-through and on the right-hand side is a low-volume express auto. All the vegetation that's in the back would remain. We are, or I am, also the owner of the property to the rear, and I have no issues with this. So I can testify as the owner of that property as well. But this particular parcel that is out front, we are not the owners of. We're just representing them. this property here the plan is to subdivide it in the two entities but there will be a shared drive that runs the middle to provide additional on-site stacking and basically keeping them off of 501 so the whole intent is to reduce the amount of traffic on 501 all the material that would normally be right on the property line is going to be on the back side of the drive aisles so if you were to see the two sites the easiest way to show it on the screen all the material would normally be right here in this red box okay it's just behind the red box the whole way up so the same amount of material is being installed it's just there'll be a dry vial up the property line down the middle and then on each side of that dry vial will be the landscaping that way both parcels have access to that dry vial thus keeping more accesses off 501 in the adjacent property so We're not asking for any relief on materials or anything to that effect. We're just asking to relocate it from the property line to the backside of the new drive aisle that would be down in the middle of the property line. Like I said, that would allow interconnectivity between the two adjacent parcels. It would allow connectivity to the entrance on the right and the entrance on the left. Neither of them connecting directly to 501, thus keeping the traffic off of 501, not changing new entrances or creating new ins and outs from 501.

And according to the request, otherwise would y'all have to move a pond?

No, the pond is there. We're not doing anything new with the pond. The pond was designed for those two parcels as well as the two parcels to the right and the entrance road that's there. So they were already designed. That was done prior to even the townhouse project that is currently under construction behind it. so by splitting that you would have to create two entrances but by doing it this way we're not yeah we're avoiding creating any new entrances the 501 we're going to access internal and there will be cross-access agreements between the two operating partners they locate those two uses locate in multiple locations across the united states together they work together well because one is a very low volume tenant versus the other thus providing additional on-site storage Typically, the cross accesses are when you go perpendicular to the property line. Those areas are exempt. It's just because we're running parallel with the line that we're having to obtain the variance for the access. And like I said, we're not asking to not have the materials. We're just putting them instead of having them in the middle on the property line. They're on each side of the drive aisle.

And his table up in the upper left hand corner shows what would have been required down that property line on both sides. but shows that he's also still providing that same material. Staff have any preference one way or another? I mean, he's providing all the landscaping, so.

Not the disrelated, but there's three buildings I see with the one existing being torn down. So walk me through what those three new buildings are going to be.

Sure. The building in the back right is the auto center that does, you know, the more auto repair, not like body work, but like, you know, Anything but the oil change. The front building on the right hand side is the oil change, the quick glue. You pull in, you get, you don't even get out of your car, you just get your oil change and then you drive on. The other one is if you had service, like you had to get your brakes done or something like that. The one on the left would be the Dutch Brothers coffee and energy drink.

And just to make sure we're, as far as every other thing, we're good. Setbacks, all that kind of stuff. We're literally just moving some bushes.

Right.

And a couple understory trees.

Because the city doesn't require foundation plannings, so he's providing a lot of foundation plannings.

And there's side issues with the high traffic area going to the, I mean, I'm almost advocating for less, potentially less landscaping. There's side issues through high volume areas, but.

In this particular area, the bushes and stuff that we chose are low growing so that like on the corners of the islands and stuff, those are all lower than the three foot so they don't block the view. We also saved all of the existing oak trees that are along Highway 501 in that area on Church Street. So all of that would be maintained. We're literally not changing that front line. The only thing we're going to do is underbrush some of the overgrowth that's there, but all the trees are going to stay on the front. Then we're leaving the heavily mature area in the back alone, and then, of course, behind it, I'm getting ready to plant a bunch of trees myself. Thank you. That's all from me.

Does anybody else have anything else for Mr. Ford?

Is there anybody else here in attendance that would like to speak for or against this particular variance request? Going once, twice. All right. I'm going to make a motion that we close public input.

Second.

We have a couple seconds. Do you need a name? Be good. All right. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right, public input is closed. I think our discussion alone kind of cleared it up. But I think we certainly meet all the prongs. I think the fact that we're not, we're avoiding an additional access point on 501 is good for the public good. There's enough of those. when you're dealing with a center lane like that, I think less of those is a great thing. And I think given the fact that the app came here prepared to provide 100% of the landscaping helps us get there. I'll make a motion that we approve the variance as requested. Also, we have a second from this hill. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor. All those opposed. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on to see

Collins Corbett on behalf of Anchor Sign.

This is a variance request from the strict application of the City of Conway's UDO section 6.5.2 gateway corridor overlay and article 11 signage for the property located at 1600 Church Street. The applicant is requesting four wall signs at this location and two is the maximum allowed and the applicant is requesting the monument signs at 13 feet and in the GCO they're only allowed to be 10 feet and also the gasoline pricing signs four inch variance to allow 16 inch digital reader board numbers instead of the 12 that's required. and just so you're aware we did this is the one at highway 501 that met the 10 foot the one at four mile right yes sir on the left and then on the right is the one um for coastal center that they're wanting to raise to 13 foot okay

Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. All right, good deal. Now, will you please state your name for the record and who you're here on behalf of?

Collins Corbett on behalf of Anchor Sign and Parker's Kitchen.

Do you have anything to add in addition to what staff has presented?

uh so she is correct in the one that we did at four mile with the the size of the sign accompanied with it the base of this one here is it's well it's the same size the overall height of the sign is still under the 10 foot it's the base of it that's brought it up because where the site is is at is being if there's some grading issues that's going it's going to grade down so measuring from the crown of the road will decrease the visibility of it, as well as the influx of traffic. We've only proposed doing the upper digits at the 16 inches. The lower two are still going to be at the 10 inches to meet the standard. So it's not all three sets, just the one up there. And then the overall size of the sign still falls within the square footage allotment. As far as the wall signs here, I drove by this area today and had to go buy a new shirt at the Marshalls because I got soaking wet. The rain came out of nowhere. So y'all did a phenomenal job on the shopping center. It looks great. But coming up that side road on 19th Avenue, it's impossible to see this site until you're almost on it. When you're coming up 16. Yes. Yeah. So the rear as well as coming down Church Street with that traffic. Even with the GPS, I had to go down into where Arby's was and turn around to make it back into the site. So traffic flow is where this is stemming from, just trying to get people in and out safely into this location.

Kim, is there the two wall signs? That is for... It does not matter if it's a corner lot or...

If it's a corner lot, that's when they can have a second wall sign on a separate facade. We did grant the other Parker's Kitchen a variance for three wall signs.

So the difference with this one is we'll have one on the back.

so the one at 501 had one on the back it did not have one on the if you're facing the building on the left hand side okay because that faced into the diesel pumps were back there this site has no diesel pumps and it's fully visible from all four sides with an entrance into all four areas uh curb cut into all four areas

And staff's concern with the monument sign is we have more businesses coming, Chipotle, Chase Bank. If we grant this variance for that tall of a monument sign, they're all going to want that tall monument sign.

Yeah, that was my only worry with that area is the other property. My only thought about that.

so right now what's allowed on the building is two because it's on a corner right and then is that the is the the canopy signs are they separate as well is that the canopy signs are a separate review okay so if we for the monument sign itself because there is grading we haven't seen the grading planes yet

if we leave the the cabinet height at overall nine feet but shrink the base down to where the bottom of the sign is that measurement is done from road grade versus just saying hey it's going to be four feet if they only wind up going a foot down and we try and get the base of the sign and we ensure the base of the sign is at the crown of the road well when do you think you'll have that

Degrading plans.

Just before construction starts. They'll have it for permitting. They have to.

Wendy, like, the timeline?

We have that now. I think...

Hold on one second. Let me... Sure. Yeah, I mean... Well, you can come up here now. But I'll just... Don't fall. I'll swear you in so we can get it all. If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. All right. Just quickly your name and who you're here on behalf of.

Daniel Ben Israel, real estate development manager with Parker's Kitchen.

Okay. So as far as the grading plans go, you have them?

We do. We do. Okay. Yeah. So I think I was just whispering in Collins' ears that I think we can – look at bringing the sign down as he suggested by lowering the base of the sign to get as close to the 10 feet maximum allowed that we can get. We'll have to reconcile it with the grading plan but I mean if you're more comfortable with that we can kind of

table that one until we well that was going to be my thing if we could just yeah let's let's make a decision when we have all the info and the numbers because like kim said one of our main criteria is other property and as you guys know that area is going crazy so anything we do we would then have a big can of worms opened and although i understand why we need to do it here if we do it we lose any control over that and next thing you know it's same argument becomes a 20-foot sign.

So if I may, I mean, if you're comfortable with it, we would be willing to withdraw that particular aspect of the application and focus on the wall signs, which we do think our property is uniquely situated to, for that variance request, given that we have the frontage on two streets, but not only that, it's not, these are not two proper streets as defined, but we have frontage on those two side access roads for the shopping center as well. Again, it's not true frontage in the traditional sense of the word, but it does provide visibility to that, as Collins mentioned, well-done shopping center redevelopment so that it's visible from all four sides.

Given the nature of the area behind it, I think that part makes sense for visibility purposes. As far as

the gasoline sizes that that sign is identical to the one at four mile the exact same with the exception of the the club regular pricers are at 16 inches on top the regular and diesel are both at 10 inches okay and overall letter height is the kim is the parker's kitchen itself is that a problem

Or is it just the... No, it was just the digital is 16. Okay. But it looks like it was approved at...

17 on the other side 17 is the height of the overall potting so the led you can see the numbers the leds are embedded into a plastic resin called potting so the 17 is the actual potting frame itself built into the sign these are so while these are 16 the potting itself is 21.

Yeah, that's what got cut off on the other side was the 12.

So on this one on the right, the regular and diesel are fine. They're in compliance as they are on there now.

Right. We're actually two inches under what's allowed. So square footage wise, if you add it up, it's all the same. because we're taking two and two away and throwing that four up top.

So tell me what's the size for the letters supposed to be? 12. 12. So we got a 16, a 10, and a 10. So what is the reason for having the 16?

to distinguish the club regular apart from everyone else. There's a lot of people that come in similar to membership. It saves you money on your fuel when you join the Parker Rewards program. So it's to distinguish that pricing. So there's it avoids confusion at the store. People pull in and say, Hey, your pump said I don't want to say 299 because God knows I don't know when we'll see that again. But 299 for club regular but regulars 317 or whatever. It avoids the confusion at the store and with pedestrian vehicular traffic.

Four mile, though, they're all 10 inch.

They're all 12 and 12 inch. Yes, sir. And they're all 12 inches at four mile. They are all 12 inches. And there has been some confusion back and forth on kind of what goes where, which is why we're trying to to meet the this is the standard size standard sign that we do at every other parkers where it's the one is larger than the other two what would what would they be at the next corner gas station the next corner gas station is the circle k which has a huge almost looks like a beach house structure built around theirs i couldn't tell how large they were i didn't bring a tape measure with me

There's not a lot of gas stations that put this kind of work into their monument signs. So I don't think for staff, the four inches on the digital is as big a deal as the height of the monument sign itself.

And we'll bring it down to the 10 feet and adjust the base to the one foot height.

So we can separate those two requests?

Yes, there are three separate variance requests.

So the height is off the table.

Alright, let's do this. Does anybody else have any questions for either of them right now? Is there anybody else here for or against this variance request? All right. I'm not going to close the public input yet, in case we got another question that pops up. Let's do this, let's start off with the four wall signs so we can get that part handled and then we can kind of figure out how to handle the monument sign. Does anybody have any further comments, questions, concerns about the wall signs? I think we've got a unique situation with it's two roads and then two more roads than our roads. So it's squared in pretty good. Yeah, I mean, if you were coming from, what is that going to be, the Walmart neighborhood market coming back up, you wouldn't... see anything all right as far as the variance request for allowing four total wall signs i'll make a motion that we approve that variance request as presented i'll second that all right so we have a second any further discussion all right all those in favor aye all those opposed did um i want to make sure i understood what you just said on the monument sign yes sir are you saying you would go essentially are you saying that you would withdraw the variance request related to the height yes we can do the other yes If staff, I think with the overall square footage is accomplishing the spirit of the variance with making the other two ten, making that a little bit bigger, and it allows you to continue your corporate policy, I guess, to differentiate that. But if we're... I think if the sign, my heartburn is with the sign being way too tall. So if you're willing to withdraw that and keep the overall height, regardless of grade level, at 10 feet, then I think that satisfies our problem with the monument sign.

And then the digital square footage is fine.

as far as the gasoline pricing size um which is the way it's presented to us here and with the 16 and then the 10 and the 10 i'll make a motion that we grant that variance as requested all right and then any further discussion all those in favor all right all those opposed okay and then I'll make a motion that we deny the height variance. It needs to be kept at 10 feet or below. All right, we have a second. Any further discussion? All right, all those in favor? All right, all those opposed? Okay, there we go. If you leave right now, you'll get a third shirt.

You might be pushing it.

Now we're moving on to variance request D. I hope this is a fence and a double front.

Oh, man.

Give back where we belong. This is a variance request from strict application of the city of Conway's UDO table 6.1 dimensional requirements for residential Zoning districts for the property located at 1001 Winding Road. Per Table 6.1 of the UDO, the minimum dimensional requirements for R1 are 20 front at Winding Road, 20 corner front at Lakeland, 20 rear, and 10 side. The existing primary structure is considered legal nonconforming. A structure is deemed legally nonconforming if it was lawfully established prior to the adoption, amendment, or changes of the current but no longer complies with the current dimensional standards. The home was constructed in 1951, predating the adoption of the current UDO in 2011. Because the existing house does not meet the current setbacks, any modern additions require variance relief if they encroach into the current setback. Specific variance requested, table 6.1, dimensional requirements for residential zoning districts, an 8-foot variance to allow for a 12-foot rear setback to accommodate the proposed open porch. And Mr. Brantley is here if you have any questions.

All right. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. All right. Will you please state your name for the record and who you are here on behalf of?

Brantley Green, representing Trademark Home Exterior, here on behalf of Scott and April Kennedy. a little bit about this project two three years ago we did a major renovation forum on this house mostly interior stuff bringing it more modern standard while we were working on the house what we had noticed was on the south side if we say the way that plans laying where the fence runs down it it was a low area not a hole but just consistently low from the street back and from the backyard back that Jason, property owner, and this property owner unfortunately always seems to share the water sitting there forever in it. We talked around, kicked it around, everybody's just ready to get in the house. Now we skip forward a little bit. There's a future plan of trying to get a pool in their backyard. and prior to doing anything with the pool they wanted to have some kind of covered area for enjoyment at a pool around it so they approached us and said hey can we do what I'll call a closed roof pergola around the side of it after looking at the extreme low slope on the roof came down that the max we could get out is 10 foot to support, 12 foot to the other side. We initially immediately knew that we had an issue with the back side because we remembered it when we had to set the generators and ACs that were pre-existing there, not generator but AC, had to get a variance previous time to set the generator to that side. And so that's what leads us here to today. Part of doing this structure, we have a twofold that we need to try to address with this is there is no guttering system on the backside of this house. So we want to take this opportunity with this structure to run a gutter and a drain system that will actually come off that south side of the pergola go towards the fence, run under, and there's a section on that we want to go back in with some perforated pipe, rock, French drain it. We are fortunate enough, there is a city catch basin just south of a very large oak tree that sits out on Lakewood Drive, Lakeland Drive, sorry, over there. that we want to get it to and get that storm water off that site and away from that house and the adjacent property owner's house um we are fortunate that that property line veers out away from that house so we're you know we're not having to ask for as much

issue the 12 feet at the very back right it doesn't meet the but it's the same it is in line with the already existing back right it will and the only reason we're not shoving it in more is there's actually an access the door you can see there that is pre-existing

if we jump back over what we would end up having is truly a I will say a four foot setback because the overhangs on this house is a two foot overhang so even like looking at the plan where it says seven foot nine it's actually only like six foot because it's two foot overhangs around so Our step back is actually getting us off of those overhangs. So it is pushing it back a little bit farther just to try to stay away from the fence line some more.

So on this picture, it'll stop right where that is. It will stop. So that's the wall.

So it'll just come out right there? Do you mind if I approach things?

Come on. I'm not a judge. Yes, sir.

So it'll come out right there? Yes, sir. It's coming out right here.

And it won't encroach any more than the house does? That's right.

Yes, ma'am.

It actually, it looks like, based off the way the house runs and the way the property line runs, it'll get better and better as it goes. It does.

If you go almost to the other side of that fence, you're in the new ordinance at 20 foot. I got you. Just keep going.

Yeah. All right.

Any further questions for him?

Is there anybody else here to speak for or against this particular variance request? All right. I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. So I would have to say, Mr. Hagan, any further discussion? All those in favor. All those opposed. Public input is now closed. I think. Being in line with the other parts of the house, it's it's not really.

no we're already non-conforming you're not encroaching any more than you already do and you really wouldn't be able to do and plus are we we're kind of a corner if that was the true back of the house would it be 10 feet or 15 or 20 20 in the rear okay it's 10 on the sides for our one okay

i feel like we meet the requirements so i would make a motion to approve we have a second we have a motion in a second any further discussion all right all those in favor all right all right all right

This is a variance request from the strict application of the City of Conway's UDO section 6.3.1 non-residential architectural design standards for the property located at 2393 Church Street. The applicant has applied for a building permit proposing the construction of a 7,000 square foot metal building to use as an automotive repair shop. not open to the public. The UDO does not allow any portion of a building to be constructed of sheet metal, exposed metal, or manufactured panelized metal wall systems. The applicant cited existing existing metal buildings on site. However, these structures sit within unincorporated or a county's jurisdiction, not the city of Conway. Building two is a metal structure classified as illegal, nonconforming. Um, and recent developments of the property, specifically the commercial vehicle center and the new front facade of building one fully comply with the current city of Conway's architectural design standards. The specific variance requested, section 6.3.1, non-residential design standards, a variance to permit an external metal wall system for a proposed 7,000 square foot structure departing from the standard non-residential building material and design requirements. And Ms. Yvette is here if you have any questions.

All right. Fire away. Stengel, you get to take this one. I just realized. I have a conflict. Oh, okay. I'm going to let her take it. I am accusing myself from this particular request.

Okay. Would you please state your name? My name is Yvette Boyd.

And can you raise your right hand? Oh, I'm sorry.

You promised to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

My name is Yvette Boyd and I'm representing F&J and Conway Ford and we're asking for this variance request basically to keep with the historical structures that we currently have there now even though they're with Conway and this is with the city we would like it to keep uniform in nature as historically been done. Having that being said, the owner doesn't have a problem with it. The next-door neighbor, incidentally, is also the owner, doesn't have a problem with it. It's not being seen from 501, which we were told half the reason why 6.3.1 was implemented is to beautify the corridor, which is obvious. You can see from the pictures, and if you drive by there, he has taken a lot of time, energy, and effort to make sure that each building he does looks good and stands the test of time and you know that's been there for a while and it still looks good and stands the test of time so um we're it's it's not affecting anybody else surrounding the area it is not open to the public as previously stated so it is going to be a repair shop so there wouldn't be any body accidentally coming back there if you change the facade of that and put another let's just say some sort of a different kind of sighting on it you know it can cause confusion to the public of where they should be or not be when everything else is showing a kind of industrial in nature compared to the sales shop, if that makes any sense. So it's more times than that. If you have to change the plans of it, it's gonna cause them, you know, it's basically a lot more money to put one thing over to another and they've already got the bids for this and pretty much of the It's under, you know, trying to be underway. They've been trying to get things done since what, was it February?

March, I think.

Yeah, okay. So we're asking for the variance for the building to be able to use the metal siding on it as historically been provided in the buildings before that. Interestingly enough, the business next door is kind of doing the same thing, so it kind of makes everything in the back look good. 501, this building, you cannot see if you looked at the previous number. You'll see number five. That's the building. That's my beautiful artwork of the sticky note thing. So you don't see that at all. From anywhere from 501. So it's just kind of hidden back in the back. When you say the building next door is doing the same thing, they have a metal building that was given a variance? No, no, no. Not during this time, but I think they have... Where's my picture? I do better when I'm looking at my stuff. So you have building... building uh um the new building number eight excuse me so the you know the other buildings around it if you look and you drove by you'll see that that metal being used which she had mentioned has historically been done so it's going to look exactly that's what they're trying to do is make it look uniform in nature as historically been done and i you know i understand that one's from the county and one's from the city as far as that goes. So now you're button heads with the city and county to keep the beautification going. And he's put a lot of time, energy and effort and thought into his business prior to that. So you've got, you know, and it is not seen and it's an industrial for repair shop.

Well, it's zoned highway commercial. It's not zoned industrial.

Exactly. OK, I understand. It just gives a better look and feel of this is more not open to the public rather than . And nobody's going to see it unless they have to drive by there. And the only people that have to go back there are the employees.

so kim the the red box that we're looking at and it says every county not city of conway right is is that considered county or is it yeah that's unincorporated okay so new building eight is this what we're correcting correct

Building two is legal non-conforming. Building one put on a new facade. And those are considered city. Building seven, there's no record of a permit on. And the commercial, the smaller building to the left of building one is the commercial truck building.

show house that came into compliance with the video and those are all city city of company right seven and eight are cities right will be and eight will be part of the city so i'm sorry to make you repeat yourself one is in compliance building one the one to the left that's not numbered came into compliance what did you say about number two

number two is has been there since as far back as 2008 so it's legally non-conforming and number seven i could not find a permit for it all is it a record it is a metal building but if building two wanted any kind of

anything done to it, it would have to come into compliance. And I'm going to tell you where I'm struggling because we do have to meet the requirements, the four that Paul read into the record is I don't see an extraordinary or exceptional condition that doesn't apply to other property in the area because any other property around you would be the same if it's in the city, it would have to meet the same architectural requirements. And it wouldn't be preventing any utilization of the property. It would just be a more expensive project, but it doesn't mean that the property couldn't be used for what you want it to be used for. So that's where I'm getting my heart burned.

Also, the UDO doesn't state just from the public right-of-ways. It states from the public right-of-ways or from adjoining properties which are eligible for future development.

And so that goes back to then what we do, setting a precedent of giving a variance completely away from what's required. Okay.

Well, what would a compromise be to that? Would it be changing the front face of 501 to a different facade like you did back in August for the storage facility that sets on 501. It was back in August of 2025. And it came, I've got it right here, it was on some minutes. And they had requested the same thing. And the compromise was the part that faces 501 would be like a brick veneer or something like that. And then basically you got three walls of metal and then the brick veneer in the front that would be facing the facade.

And if there is some middle ground that the staff is willing to consider, I mean, that would be a different, that would be a different request. Am I understanding that correctly? I mean, I appreciate the willingness to compromise and consider something else. I'm not familiar with that.

Oh, would you like a copy of it? mean it's it's already been done and the person is already I did not have the particulars on that I was just reading the minutes of it to see you know if there was anything kind of like this that was that had been requested because there's not tons of minutes and request to go after 6.3.1. So when I look, that board of zoning, okay, that appeals was on 8-28-25. It was in the minutes. And it was Tyler Thompson. He was a general construction agent for Cepitelli Storage Solutions. So, and that was at 1065 Pitch Landing Road. So the compromise was a variance to allow use of metal building panels within the mini storage facility with the sides of the building facing the highway being covered with brick facade. So that was what the variance that was requested.

That's for Warden Station on the corner of Pitch Landing and 701. I remember that.

Would the zoning be the same out there?

That is zoned PD and the PD allows for industrial uses on that parcel. So I think that's the reason that variance. But I didn't research that.

So I hate to say one way or the other. Yeah. So I just I'm not sure if we were comparing apples to apples is all without one.

Well, that being said, the property owner of both sides are the same, one and the same. I don't see where you're looking to do any type of, you know, it's all one large business. So I'm trying to figure out where you guys, where it's just stating that the question comes up of splitting the lots for something. So I don't really understand that.

It's also right by the high school sports complex. I mean, so if you do some type of facade facing 501, you're still going to have a metal facing softball and football and baseball.

Well, that's not the question. The question is why I beautified 501. And the question was whether or not you guys, that was part of the beautification of 501 is to make sure During the course of time, anything that went up there was going to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye when you drive in. And we all understand that. But if you look, the tree line that comes all the way down, you can't see the ball field. The ball field can't see that building.

But that's why the UDO specifically says, or from adjoining properties which are eligible for future development.

because if there was future development this huge metal building is still going to be sitting there and so would every other building that's currently in its place so is it that You're wondering that in the future that somebody builds something next to something that's already been built? That's development.

Well, the city has no control over Horry County, so they can permit metal buildings in Horry County. So if they wanted to move it to the Horry County parcel, that would have nothing to do with the city of Conway.

So because it's behind 501 and you've got a piece of property that's sitting on Horry County land, and this is sitting in the city, which is sitting behind Horry County land, the board has a problem with using existing structures that has been used with the county with the city. Well, I'm trying to understand that.

We're not talking about existing structures. We're talking about a brand new 7,000 square foot metal building that doesn't... meet the udo and i i mean frankly i don't and we we want to work with everybody we do but i just we have to go by those four criteria it's just my opinion we have a whole board that can can disagree but i just i don't feel like we meet i i am struggling with number two and number three i don't see the extraordinary or exceptional condition and i we're not restricting the utilization of it and i i don't know that we can't say it wouldn't be to the detriment of surrounding properties

either and that's number four so well the next like i said the tree line as far as i'm concerned that's what i would feel that the tree line would basically that's not something the high school would ever see so and one of our and if you request that we get a letter from the school saying they don't have a problem with it then i can probably make that happen

I just with our criteria and number two even the extraordinary exceptional conditions do not apply generally to other property and it does I mean the same any property in the vicinity would have the very same requirement so there isn't anything that we would be telling you you can or cannot do that we wouldn't be telling somebody in that same vicinity is the way I look at it even though that's not being seen at all from 501 Well, that's not one of the criterias that it can't be seen from major highways.

The other part of that is potentially developed properties, right? Yes. So that's what – it's not the 501 piece necessarily. It is available from other potentially developed properties. That's the way I understand that.

I have one more question. Sure, go ahead. Is the reason you're wanting to keep it, do a med lily, is to keep it like the rest of... Exactly, the historically... It'll stick out kind of like a sore thumb, it won't kind of go with the whole aesthetic of the... That's what the plan was, is to keep the aesthetics of all the buildings that are being used.

Right, so it looks like that business. It looks like, you know, that's the reason why. Okay. That makes sense. So, you know, there is about, you know, well, just on the drop, it would be, you know, somewhere between $70,000 and $100,000 to change the facade. You know, that's as far as a financial burden, you know, on the property owner. But at the same time, it was more of keeping everything historically aesthetically pleasing. Right.

Gotcha.

Is there anybody else that's here on this particular item?

And should that Horry County property parcels have to be annexed at some point, that all of those buildings would be legal non-conforming and would not be able to expand or change except in compliance with the UDO?

and that would be hypothetical correct if it became I mean is there plans to annex there possibly could be but there's no plans to annex at this point right okay but we're annexing property all the time and that would be up to would it be up to the property owner to say whether or not that they wanted to be annexed in

No, it's when they're contiguous and when they're owned city utilities. Why this parcel is still in Horry County's jurisdiction, I'm not sure.

I have a question. So if this whole property has to have, going down the road, you're going to have to keep it up to have it look nice. So, Kim, my understanding is, as it is right now, let's not even talk about building a new building. Let's talk about what's sitting there existing. If they have to do anything to make it look bad or to keep up the property, so whatever they do, if they change anything or do anything, they'll have to get rid of the middle buildings eventually. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Okay.

I just want to be sure I was clear on that. that's the reason for the commercial vehicle center being built the way it was and the front facade change on the main building. That's what I thought. I was just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

And with any of that being said, are you trying to say that basically if this had a hurricane blew away all the siding that you would have to turn around and be compliant, that's, pretty much under you would have to, you know, if it receives, what is it, 51% damage, then you have to go back with current building codes, correct? I mean, it's the same all the way around, okay.

So that's, again, it's... In other words, you'd have to have, like she just said, you'd have to do away with the metal anyway. So that's why I was just trying to make sure I was clear on that.

Understood. And I think the property owner knows that because that's natural in nature that, you know, it's 51%. You'd have to be compliant in a different path. But right now... As we sit, that's not happening yet, and so we have metal buildings that are there and trying to keep everything historically pleasing to the eye when you're driving in and you see that these buildings belong to this business. There's no question.

I think we have to remember and come back to focus on the four prongs of what we have to meet. And we have to meet all four of them and not just one. And when we look at what you're trying to do, and I totally understand, but what we have to do is to consider not only what you're doing, but what everybody else is. all over the city is trying to do and to keep that uniform with everybody and we have to in granted a variance look at the the hardships of that property and to see that all four of those not just one but all four of them are met and it can't be based on just your particular property and the cost involved in it or the future of it or the past or whatever. But all four of those things and the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to that particular piece of property, just that property, and not the others in the area. And that means that it's just indicative to your property, not all the property in that area.

And I've heard that this evening. Right. And I'm trying to, there's a few questions on that.

So for the extraordinary measures. Right. And in other words, sometimes we look at property that has two front yards. And so that doesn't apply to everybody. So it makes it different than someone else's. But it doesn't generally apply to other properties. Your property doesn't have something that is unique that other properties don't have when we look at that. And that the utilization of it is you can't use it unless you do this to it. You see what I'm saying? So it has to meet all four of those criteria. And that's what Miss Dingle is saying. She doesn't see where, and the rest of us are saying it, Doug, we don't see where it meets all four of those avenues. And that in not being able to do this would be to the detriment of your property if you didn't get to do this. You see what I'm saying?

So basically, in a nutshell, you're trying to tell me that we could put another siding on it, spend another $100,000, and you guys would be totally fine with that?

The cost of what you're doing is not...

It's not a criteria for you to... Right. I understand. But it's a financial burden nonetheless. Nonetheless. However, I understand what you're saying. You're saying that it's...

So someone else could come in and say, I want to build a metal building because that's less expensive for me, because that would be a financial burden. And then we would say, well, we can't grant that. And they'd say, well, you did it for this one down the road.

Well, the compromise that I was asking is the the the they came to you guys to ask for a variance for the one side to be a different material. And I'm being told and I'm trying to figure out how that was a hardship when the compromise was that back in 2025.

Well, and that's what Kim was saying, and that's a different zoning. If that was something, a different area with a different zoning. Okay. All right. And we have to look at that to see what it was. But if it's a different zoning, then that might have been something that was allowed to be different there. I don't know. I don't remember that request.

And they likely and I don't specifically remember it either, but had a plan that showed what it would look like with a compromise. And I don't know. I mean, if that's something you all want to consider, that would come before us again with a different request. But today, what is in front of us is the 7,000 square foot metal building. And in my opinion, we don't meet the criteria. And I think nobody else has anything to say. I'd make a motion to close public input.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. I'm gonna make a motion that we deny the variance request. Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Okay, this is a variance request from the strict application of the City of Conway's UDO Table 6.1, Dimensional Requirements for Residential Zoning District for the property located at Little Bay Drive that will be Rivertown Road North Phase 2. In January 26, the applicant and the property owners of Rivertown Road North Phase 1 jointly requested a variance to eliminate the required perimeter landscape buffer which would otherwise encumber the rear yards of individual parcels. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variance for Phase 1 because those homes were already constructed and sold. However, the variance was not granted for Phase 2 as that phase had not yet been subdivided. The R2 Zoning District mandates a minimum lock depth of 120 feet to prevent the Phase 1 buffer issue from reoccurring. The applicant seeks a lot depth reduction specifically for lots 105 through 120 on the western boundary of phase two. This variance would allow the required 10 foot landscape buffer to be plotted as a separate open space area owned and maintained by the homeowners association rather than encroaching into private rear yards. Currently, the shallowest proposed lock depth in this section is 122.32 feet. Excluding the 10-foot buffer area from the private lock boundaries reduces the platted lock depth to 112.32 feet, requiring a variance of 7.68 feet from the 120 feet stated by the UDO. Specific variance requests, table 6.1, dimensional requirements for residential zoning district's lock depth of areas to reduce the minimum required lock depth from 120 feet to 112.32 a 7.68 foot reduction for lots 105 through 120 only and Scott and Forrest are back there if you have any questions hey good evening

If you'll raise your right hand for me. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

All right. Please state your name for the record.

Horace Beverly. I'm with Beverly Homes.

Is there anything you'd like to add in addition to what staff has presented?

I think it's one of those situations we've been ongoing with this project and originally the buffer was allowed to be platted inside the lots. Obviously we went through the variance and that was denied so we're kind of in that situation now. Roads are in, they're paved. Obviously the plat is not recorded. This is a contention on getting the plat recorded. The lots are actually wider than the minimum for that particular zoning. So it's not like we're having this little small, tiny, supposed lot and we're already shrinking it down. It already meets the square footage, more meets the square footage, and it's over the width. So we're losing a little bit of depth on the back. They're still good, nice, biddable lots. And I just think at this point this is the best route for us to go to still have the buffer and still have lots that we can move forward. I'm not exactly sure how many lots are in that phase, but it's a small percentage, probably about a third of the lots that are actually being affected or less.

So for the lots highlighted... Correct. The... It's kind of, it's essentially, what's been presented is to fix the issues we faced that we had to kind of try to backwardsly fix in phase one. And the reason we denied the original variance for phase two. And so that green, the picture to the top right is a zoomed in version of the top left of the left picture. But it's highlighted where that would be under HOA control. So then we don't have the issue of the property owners Having property outside their fence that they can't use. Exactly. All right. Cool.

Yeah. All right.

And they get more usable space, right? Because the original, you uncovered 25 foot from the property. Right.

In phase one, it was the old village four-door overlay requirement of the 25 foot, which was platted within the lots. So this will solve that problem completely.

Okay. Does anybody have any further questions right now for Mr. Beverly? All right. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this variance request? And speaking can also be asking us questions. This is time for public input. We're happy to answer what we can if anybody wants to come over. I do need you to come up here and swear in and tell me who you are and how you're related to the property address or whatever.

Good evening. My name is Edna Eraso.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right.

I am a resident owner of a lot 16 on phase one. I'm facing right to that construction site. My interest is to know how much more it will affect my property with this kind of distribution or... All they're doing as far as

As far as your property is concerned, whether we, I'm going to take a little bit of liberty here, but whether we approve or deny this, it will look exactly the same from your house. Almost identical. Their fence might move a little bit. Who's in control of having to mow the grass? The HOA will be in charge of that area, so I would assume that it would stay better maintained than if it was behind somebody's fence that it couldn't really get to. Those would probably be questions directed towards the developers in terms of what it will actually look like, but as far as what we're looking at, it won't change the overall project much at all, and this is actually really a revised variance request for us to make it better for everybody involved. I think that's why they're back, because they came before we told them no. So they uh they were nice enough to come back with a plan that i think works for everybody um including current property owners in phase one um this is will be minimally invasive if anything if invasive at all towards your piece of property i do have another question though that i saw that uh picture over there i don't know if it's for me or for mr

Are you guys going to build a fence, a privacy fence like that for that part of the project?

I think there's going to be some sections in that part that will have a privacy fence. It's mirrored to the, or similar to the fence, it's already a long culture road. So that'll be in that phase where that buffer is.

So overall, as far as the very tailored thing we're here to either approve or deny, as far as it impacts your property, I would... Everything impacts everything a little bit, but I would say that it is extremely, extremely minute the amount that's going to impact you. It's going to look the same either way from an outsider's perspective. This is all really about setbacks and where stuff can go. And I think In my opinion, this is a pretty solid solution to an issue that arose because the UDO kind of changed between the construction of phase one and the development of phase two. We fixed the phase one issues best we could, given what we had. This is a, I don't want to really use the word compromise, this is a new proposal that I think helps everybody around. Future property owners, the developer, and current property owners. So to answer the question of how it will impact you, I would think not at all. I mean, and that's not, they're gonna be able to build on these lots at some juncture regardless. I mean, and phase two is happening. This isn't really that. This variance request is not that in-depth. moving some lines around about who has control so they can be as compliant with the UDO as possible.

Not a problem. That was my concern. Thank you for your time.

Yes, ma'am. And thank you for being here. The worst thing we can face is when we approve something and then a whole bunch of people show up mad afterwards. Does anybody else want to speak for or against this variance request? I know we've got a few other people, and I'm assuming are adjacent property owners of some nature. Is everybody Hopefully what I said will because I know sometimes when you see the big red sign, you're like, well, what's going on now? But this is a pretty minor deal to kind of bring everybody in compliance and make it as smooth as possible for the city, the residents and for the developer. So is everybody good on input? OK, I'm going to make a motion that we close public input. All right. We have a second. All those in favor. All those opposed. um i think considering the previous denial um that what we're all we're left with is a less than eight foot request um is a i i take it as a big win for for everybody um especially staff yeah um so and i think we can meet all the criteria i will make a motion that would grant the variance all right we have a second all those in favor all those opposed all right anybody want to make the last motion

I don't have anything prepared in the sense of photos and things. All I want to do is... We can't go back and change it now, but... No, no, this is something separate.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I want to buy a shed and put it in my backyard. I went to the HOA and they said, you've got to fill out some forms. Is that it?

Do I have to write forms? Oh, he's just asking us.

That'll be... Am I in the wrong place? No, that's a question for staff. This slit right here. You're in the right place, wrong person.