Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

this year. [clears throat] Okay. All right. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Motion and second to carry over the 2025 officers to serve 2026. All those in favor by saying I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carried. All right. Now to new business. Item number two here is a variance from article 4.3 regarding screening requirements located at 21 Elliot Place submitted by Cornelius West. Do you have a staff report on that? I do.

Um, so as always Oh, showing up on my screen. Showing up correct on my screen. Is it not for you guys? Yeah, that's not what we have. Mine's my report.

All right. Well, while we're waiting on that, I can run through my first bit here, which is just reminding you guys the um uh items that we have to look at when we're looking at a variant. The first of those is that the applicant demonstrates that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved um and which are not applicable to other lands. Please hold for just a second while he uh works on our computer. I don't surprisingly and you would think and you would think after all these years. [snorts] Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I think it made us restart. Perfect. Step verify. Yes. Got it now.

No. Um, yeah, I'm logged in and it's showing Yeah, I apologize for the technical difficulties. Appreciate everyone's patience.

Yay. Okay, there we go.

All right, sweet. Thank you to our IT department and thank you everyone for your patience. Um, all right. So, um, the second item where I left off is uh that no non-conforming uses of neighboring land structures or buildings shall be considered grounds for issuance of the variance. Third, the board of adjustment shall further make a finding that the reason set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The board of of adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. Fifth, the granting of uh any variance the board of adjustment may prescribe uh appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning code. And then lastly, under no circumstance shall the board of adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this code in the district involved. All right, so moving on to our first application. Um, as stated, this is a variance at 21 Elliot Place. Existing conditions, this is within the Highway 7 interchange district. This is an existing vacant property that fronts North Arkansas Avenue and Elliot Place, which is a private road. Um, it's the future home of a small coffee shop. It is a C2 highway commercial zoned property surrounded by other C2z zoned properties to the south and east and an R4 zone property properties to the north and west. Surrounding uses include single family homes, mobile homes uh, and mobile homes to the south and west and then uh, vacant properties to the north and a car lot and vacant commercial structures to the east. So, in our review, um staff did want to note, um that we did have a few calls regarding this application. Um and we wanted to note that the variance only covers the fence shown in red um on the northern property line. The rest of the

site plan submitted by the applicant um does meet all of our other planning requirements and therefore no other applications are needed before the board of adjustment or planning commission. Um, a few comments that we got were specifically regarding the driveway location and staff would like to reiterate that this is not um, what is being discussed tonight. We're just discussing the fencing um, and the driveway location will receive approval from both the city engineer and ARDOT prior to construction. So, jumping into the application, it is to allow the applicant not to build a portion of fencing to screen their commercial usezone from the adjacent residential use to or zone to the north. Uh the applicant is proposing to screen the portion of their property that abuts the residential uses to the west um which is shown kind of in the black squiggly um on their site plan. Um, article 4.3 of the Russellville zoning code states whenever a commercial or industrial use uh or zone uh abuts a residential use or zone, a physical barrier shall be required that is 6 feet in height and may consist of wood, masonry uh or masonry fencing, rock or brick walls, bms or a combination of these methods. The applicant is requesting to not build that portion of the sight obscuring fence along the R4 zone to the north. The applicant has cited several reasons for this, including the existing buffer of trees along the northern property line, the loss of street view of their business, and a large portion of the adjacent property uh being uh in the flood plane. So, upon the site visit, uh staff did note that the trees along the property line didn't necessarily visually screen that residentially zoned property to the north during the winter. I'm sure during the summer months they do a better job. Um, and while uh again they they might provide that screening during the warmer months, it's the intent that the screening be year round. So staff does believe the intent of the screening could be met um by the planting of

additional trees and shrubs along that property line. Uh regarding the latter two special conditions cited by the applicant, although loss of v visibility may be a valid concern for the applicant, unfortunately that's not something that staff can consider. Um and then while there is flood plane on the property, there's a decent portion that does lay outside of that flood flood plane and um the portion that is within the flood plane could theoretically be developed with flood plane development permits. But staff has noted that um the special condition does exist due to the layout of the property. So um on my map a few slides ago, you'll see that their property actually includes that Elliot Place which is a private um private road there. And so although they are not developing the piece of property to to the north, it does still trigger those screening requirements. So staff does believe that this piece of land is unique in this regard and believes that with the addition of the extra landscaping to the north, Elliot Place kind of serves as a sort of buffer um by just existing as a road there. Um staff will note that if the portion to the north is ever developed at that time the applicant would be expected to meet those screening requirements. Staff is recommending that the applicant plant one large tree or two small trees and a grouping of f five shrubs between the trees labeled 20-in oak and 16inch walnut on the site plan and one large tree or two small trees to the west of the existing vegetation to assist in the screening between the two zones. Additionally, staff is recommending the condition that if the trees are removed either by the applicant or by an act of nature, the applicant shall meet the screening requirements at that time. And lastly, if the portion of the property to the north of Elliot Place is ever developed, at that time, the applicant would be expected to meet the screening requirements. So, with all of that said, it is staff's recommendation that the board of adjustment approve this variance request with the following conditions. The applicant shall plant one large tree or two small trees in a grouping of f five

shrubs between the trees labeled 20-inch oak and 16inch walnut on the site plan and one large tree or two small trees to the west. [clears throat] If the trees are removed, the applicant shall meet the screening requirements and then if any portion of the property to the north of Elliot Place is ever developed at that time, the applicant would be expected to meet the screening requirements. This is all based on the findings that the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist and the applicant has met all other variance requirements. And with that, are there any questions for staff? That trailer at the back of the property doesn't belong to that property then. That's a separate residential area.

Pardon? Behind uh I guess to the west. Yes. So they are screening that portion to the west. It does not belong to the property owner. All right. If there's no other questions, um I will say the applicant's here if you guys have any questions for him. Thank you. Thank you. We do have Jackson Jacobs. Is that is that for the

Okay. Okay. They had it down two here. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. Commissioners, got any questions?

[clears throat]

Is there anybody that wanted to comment on this application before before actions taken? Anybody else have anything to add? All minds are clear. Okay. I move we approve the variance with the conditions listed. Okay. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve this variance request as presented with the conditions. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carried. All right. All right. Item number three, variance from article 6.1.6 regarding driveway paving requirements located at 1016 DY loop submitted by Jackson and Taylor Jacobs which is who signed up to speak here today. So yes, Victoria, you got a staff report for us?

Yes. So as stated, [clears throat] this is a variance at 1016 Dowy Loop. The existing conditions, this is a location of a house that is currently under construction in the Marina Heights district. The lot on which the house is being built is a flag lot, which means it has a small 30-foot frontage along Dowy Loop and the main bulk of the lot uh is approximately 700 feet back from the road. The property and all surrounding properties are zoned R1 single family residential and all surrounding uses are single family homes. The application is to allow an existing gravel driveway to continue to be used for a property that is currently being developed. The applicant does share that gravel driveway with multiple neighbors, but the applicant is the owner of the driveway and the others utilize it via an access easement. The applicant is developing a new single family home on the property. Article 6.1.6 requires that all driveways be paved with hard surface materials. There is however an exception for single family residential driveways that are greater than 40 feet in length. Uh this exception allows the developer to just pave the first 18 feet back from the ride ofway and allows the rest of the driveway to be gravel. So the applicant is requesting to not pave that 9 ft by 18 ft portion um for their driveway. Um staff has not found that special conditions were demonstrated um or that special conditions exist. Uh the applicant has stated three reasons for the variance. The first being that the gravel drive has been in existence and been utilized by three the three neighbors before the development of this property. In their letter letter, the applicant does refer to the gravel drive as a private gravel road. Staff did want to note and clarify [clears throat] it's a um it's a drive private driveway rather than a private road um that other property owners do utilize via that access easement. The drive has been allowed to remain as is because no improvements have been made to the property until now. Now that the

property is being developed, the requirement is that the property come into compliance. Whether the gravel drive was existing or not, the requirement for the paved area would remain. The second reason the applicant has cited for the variance was that quote, "Any major construction to the private drive that requires a curing process will make the other homeowners unable to access their homes." Um, while staff does understand uh that this could cause a mild disruption in the other homeowners accessing their homes, in conversations with our public works department, they stated work like this could be completed in an afternoon. And then per the public works department, asphalt can be poured and rolled and then it can be driven on really shortly after. Um, the applicant's approved site plan for their current building permit did call out asphalt as a material for the driveway. Um and then while paving the driveway may take some coordination with the neighbors, the curing of the asphalt should not take take longer than a work or school day. The third and final reason the applicant cited for the gravel driveway is uh that is it is existing and not causing any issues with daddy loop making it unnecessary to pave at this time. While staff does understand that the gravel driveway is existing again it is the intent of the code as properties develop that they come into compliance with the code. the existing houses that utilize a driveway are not the owners of the of that driveway and therefore it's not their responsibility to pave. Um that responsibility falls upon the applicant as they are the owner of the property and are currently developing. Additionally, [clears throat] the intent of this section of the code is to help with the longevity of our streets. Providing the 18 foot paved buffer reduces the amount of gravel that makes its way onto the street. This reduction of gravel slows down the deterioration of city streets and over time helps with the longevity of these streets. With that stated, staff is unable to make a recommendation of approval based on the findings below. The applicant has not demonstrated that special conditions exist and the variance is not in line

with the purpose or intent of the zoning code. That is my staff report. Any questions for me? I will say the applicant is here and um does want to speak on it, but any questions for me at this time? Okay, thank you guys. Okay, Mr. Jacobs. Yeah. Would you like to speak? You would state your name for the record once you get up there.

My name is Jackson Jacobs. Uh I am building the house on 1016 Dowy Loop. Um, as far as the variance for uh not the the pavement um on the 18 foot, um I've talked to several of the neighbors. Um as far as a uh privacy thing, there's fear of paved frontage, showing more people uh access. Um they never had any issues back there with anything. Uh, one of the neighbors is a plumber, so even a day or half a day, he's in and out with trailers for piping and stuff. So, even a small amount of time would cause a major disruption for him. And, uh, he asked that I continue with this after I talked to him about it. Um, it's also, you know, I I didn't re get an opportunity to read through every bit of code that's changed before uh building, but it's a cost uh that I was not prepared for as well, which it is what it is. Um, but uh and then uh I mean that's that's about what I have. the driveway is already existing just because I I'm not understanding why just because something's going up on the property that the driveway is considered a new driveway. Um, and I I was planning already for a little bit of money to just make it a little nicer, but I wasn't planning on thousands of dollars. I was planning on a couple hundred dollars to redo the uh drainage pipe and add some fresh gravel and a gravel stop versus pavement. But that's all I have to say.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right, commissioners. What's your pleasure? I make a motion to deny the request of the applicant.

Okay. All right. We have a motion to hear a second. No second. Second. We have a motion and a second to deny this request at at the recommendation of the city. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I. I. All those opposed. No. No. Okay, I'll need to vote. Yeah, no more vote. No, also

item number four. Yes, ma'am. If you guys want to approve it, another motion will have to be made for approval. You're right. You're right. My bad. Thank you. Okay. All right. We got the same motion, same second. Or you guys want to redo those. Go ahead and make that motion. No, we're going to need to vote on it again since I voted. I voted to deny it. So, somebody else needs I'm talking about making the motion. We need to make the motion again and second it again to get it on the floor to vote. Well, I move that we approve the variance. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the variance against the city's recommendation. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I I no no no take count. No. Yes.

No. I mean, yes. No. Three to two. All right. We have We do have a Sorry. to clarify, would you vote yes to approve the variance? My my my vote was for no not to approve the variance. The way it was re the way it was reverb the second time was is voting to approve it and then they voted no. Okay. And so we had three nos and we had two yeses. Okay. To approve it. It failed again. It failed. It failed. It failed three to two.

All right. Any anybody got any questions on that? Is that clear as mud? Okay.

The first time the motion was made the first time was to not approve it and then we had we had three to two and then when we took the motion back and and revoted on it again, the motion was made to approve it. So we got the same vote. It was just worded different the second time. on the first motion to three. No, two. Three deni. Yeah, because the motion that was made was to deny it or to Yeah, the first one was made to deny it and then there was That's right. It is three to two. So, okay. So, Wendell, you want to deny your vote is to deny it. My vote is to deny it.

Okay. Okay. Tie broken. Tie. It broke. It broke the tie. Okay. We had two We had two of them vote against. We had two vote for I think just to follow Robert's rules, Miss Clear, if you would make your motion again, Catherine would have to second and then you would have to vote in a in affirmative with that motion, Wendle. Okay. Yes. Your your motion was to my make a motion to deny the applicants uh request. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to deny the request. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I. I. Any against? No. No. No. Two. No. Okay.

Go ahead and take take roll again or take count again. No. Yes.

We're voting to deny. Nope. So I vote against that. Okay. Yes. I think I messed that up. So, in that case, Wendle, you would have to be a yes if you were against if I'm Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. We have three. Yes. Okay. Perfect. All right. And we've got that. I know it's a little here, too. So, a little wonky. So, okay. Appreciate you guys. Thank you. Anybody need a band-aid?

Okay. All right. All right. Item number four. Um, we have a variance from article 5.10 regarding landscaping located at 120 SR 331 submitted by Barrett and Associates on behalf of KJ Development LLC. Gavin, you got a staff report for us on that? Yes, sir. We do.

Like you said, this is a variance at 120 State Route 133. Uh, this is within the East Main Commercial District. Uh it is currently a part of the larger Valley Park Center parking lot on the east side of the property in in between PDQ gas station and PetSmart. This area is currently zoned C2 Highway commercial. Surrounding uses include the Valley Park Center retail shops located northwest and south of the property and further shopping facilities east of the property across State Route 331. Larger unrelated out parcel developments are anticipated to expand at Valley Park Center in the coming months. This application is to forego the requirements laid out in article 5.10 regarding landscape perimeter buffers. Applicant has pointed out that existing trees and foliage on the south and east sides of the property will be left standing and parking lot islands with island landscape with island landscaping including trees will be installed in an effort to provide shade and mitigate the impact of the request in this variance application. Staff would like to note that RDOT does not typically allow private planting within their rideofway even when required by city ordinances. Um these are just a couple of figures to delineate the um location of the variance request as well as the current landscaping plans as they stand um uh but submitted by the applicant to the planning department. Uh staff has found that special conditions peculiar to this property do exist and that the applicant has grounds for making this request to vary from article 5.10 due to the size of this outpel development attempting to meet the parking requirements of article 6 and simultaneously meeting the landscape buffer requirements may pose an undue burden on the property owner. Applicant will preserve all existing plans on this parcel as the location of the physical work is entirely impermeable asphalt surface with no existing landscaping. Additionally, landscape parking islands

will be installed with trees per the applicant's site plans. These nine trees in addition to the existing ones will provide clear delineation of the property and add shade. During a site visit, staff noted that existing shrubs were damaged due to ongoing due to the ongoing development process. damaged shrubs should be replaced or otherwise restored. Uh therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the board of adjustment approve this variance request with the following condition. That the applicant replaces or otherwise restores shrubs damaged or removed during the development process based on the findings below. That the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions do exist and the applicant has met all other variance requirements. Are there any further questions for staff? You mentioned Art doesn't like like to have trees planted even even if it's city ordinance or whatever.

Is there I mean is there what is your response to that when they come to you with that? What's your reply? It's certainly suboptimal in a lot of in a lot of cases when we have you know development that's specifically going on on our a lot of the main arterials in Russellville are state highways. They're state jurisdiction. So it does create rub but that's that's why we have this variance process so that we can kind of hash that out. Right. Okay. All right Dave you got anything to add to that.

Okay. So with this develop Dave Gards of Barrett and Associates with this development um the ARDOT situation is null and void because we're not in the rightway. The shrubs the trees that we we planted are on private property. Woodmont is currently working on a four tenant building. Their concept is they want an open concept and when people drive through it looks like the whole thing is a mall or you know strip center. And so they requested on this development that they keep that open concept to the north and to the west. And they didn't want it separated by an island and appear to be uh an out parcel like um uh Hardies and the other developments. So they that's why we're here is for that part. We are conforming to everything else. where I put some trees in the islands. And then there is also um Chick-fil-A that's coming in and they have a portion of the same thing, an open concept on the east side where they're moving their drive-thru to the north. So you they may be coming before you when they get ready. I'm not sure they're still working with staff, but that's that's the process with Woodmont. They like to see the parking lots open uh when it can. And so that's why we're asking for the variance.

Is that Do you know if that drive behind Chick-fil-A is going to be closed? [clears throat] The the drive-thru? Yes. So, is the front of this building going to face PetSmart? Uh, the front the actual front doors actually faces the parking lot, the big parking lot. So, where are the other businesses going to be that would be in this little strip? So, that's a standalone. That's that's uh nothing but cakes. Okay. So, it's a standalone building. The front of the parking lot faces the inner parking. The four tenant building is just north of Chick-fil-A.

Okay. And it faces north to the main. So, they're all facing into the main uh open area. And then Chick-fil-A's drive-thru is not working. So, they're going to come north and make a long drive-thru, like some of their other uh stores, so they can accommodate the the amount of tra traffic that they have. They have a lot of traffic. So, that's their plan and it's it's coming in the future. Yes, sir. You guys all have any questions for Gavin or for Mr. Garza?

What is your pleasure? I'll make the motion to approve with the variance. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve this variance as presented. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carried. And if there's no other business, we are ajourned.