Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

All right, guys. All right, we are going tohead go ahead and call the uh June board of adjustment meeting to order. And uh before we before we do any of our normal business, uh Mayor Teague was want to introduce some people for us tonight. Thank you so much. I did want to introduce but also wanted to take the moment at spend uh to give thanks to uh I do want to introduce our new city planner, Gavin Wilson. He comes from Florida State with a um geography and GIS degree and he actually was working at the United States Forestry Service a few blocks down. So we he is from Russ or he's Russellville now. We're glad to keep him. Uh so welcome. But I also did want to take time to say thank you to Sarah John Dah uh who has served as city planner for six years now. Uh so Sarah Sarah is not going anywhere. She actually moved upstairs in the same building. uh she is going to be uh taking over a new department for us uh sustainability and resilience. Did I say that right? Make sure I said that right. I almost said sustainability and resistance, but that's not what we're looking for. No, but uh so I did want to say that's on record. That's on record. That is on record, but no, sustainability and resilience. I said that right. So, but no, I do want to say thank you uh for all the time that you gave to the city uh in bringing in a lot of lot of things and lots of different uh bringing us a little bit closer to where we need to be uh as a city and

seeing the growth that that is happening. So, we do want to say thank you and give you that appreciation in that time. So, and thank you for giving me this time and and I'll I'll do this at actually at the uh planning commission too if I can because there'll be different videos and different people watching. Thank you guys for giving me the time. Thank you, Mayor T. All right, we'll go ahead and get started with our normal housekeeping items. Go ahead and take a roll for us there. Wend Miller here. Don Jamar absent. Josh Strad here. Wayne Cummings absent. Justin Catherine here. We have a quorum. All right. Okay. You got the minutes from the last meeting presented for you there. Motion to approve. Okay. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from our May meeting. All those acknowledge by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing? None. The motion carried. All right. Old business. There is none. And item number one, varance from article 6.2.1.6 Six of the land subdivision development code allow five lots to be accessed from 20 foot access easement located at 3415 Riverview Road submitted by Michael May on behalf of David Brent George. Got a staff report on that? I do. I do. So just as we've kind of been doing recently just to remind you all the um the items that we're looking at when we look at a variance. So the criteria that you all look at and that we have in your staff report um item one is that the applicant demonstrates that special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building and are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same district. Uh non-conforming uses shall not be considered. You must make a finding that the application provided suffici sufficient justification to grant the variance as the minimum

possible to make uh use of the land structure or building. Make a finding that the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. Uh you may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. And then lastly um we are restricted from granting a variance that is not permissible or is prohibited under the regulations. So, as stated, this is a variance application at 3421 Riverview Road. Um, existing conditions. This again is located at 3421 Riverview Road within the Marina Heights District. This is a piece of existing vacant property that was originally subdivided in the 1990s. Um, it is an R1 single family residential zoned property surrounded by other R1 properties. Surrounding uses include single family homes. So, you all may um recognize this property as you kind of were looking at your packets. Um an application did come before the board of adjustment in 2023 um in this area to allow a landlocked property access through a 20- foot access easement and allow that access easement to serve four properties instead of the three that are allowed by the code. At that time, the application was approved with the condition that no other lots can be subdivided to get access off of that access easement unless a full road is developed and rideway is dedicated creating a city street. Um, in that staff report, the vacant area to the north was kind of noted and pointed out as the area that may develop in the future. um an applicant is coming in uh before the board of adjustment to allow a fifth lot access off of that access easement um adjacent to the property that was originally um approved for that variance. So, in our review uh for the previous variance request, just some more history, staff did find that the applicant had demonstrated that special

conditions exist due to the property being landlocked um and the 20 foot access easement being the only access that the property could um kind of gain access through. Additionally, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would have deprived that applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. uh without the granting of that variance, the applicant would uh not have been able to develop the property. And from the records, we were able to find that the property was originally subdivided in the 1990s prior to our current zoning code and land subdivision and development codes. Um the special conditions were not the result of the actions of the applicant and the reason for the three lot limit was due to city corporation requests and in that case city corporation had no objections for this new uh revised variance request. The applicant is requesting to add another lot from the existing property that is getting access off of the easement. Um when the applicant originally came in, we have had several conversations between staff and the applicant trying to find solutions other than the variance request. Um so when they came in, staff did recommend they speak with the property owner that fronts dowy loop. So it's uh in that yellow rectangle there um to see if they could get an access easement from that owner. Um the applicant did approach that owner and that owner was not amendable to allowing that access easement. Um the applicant then tried to contact the owner um that owns property that basically everyone gets access off of through the access easement. Um back in 2023 it was subdivided um and that was one of the reasons the original application had to come before us. Um as you can see that's kind of that subdivision that you see up in the upper right. Uh according to the applicant the current owner of this property it has changed hands since 2023. um intends to

construct one house with an accessory structure across both lots. So they're not utilizing um each lot to build a single family home. Um so that would allow this property to be replplatted into a single lot and then the original variance would have been able to be applied to this new lot. Um, so then there would only be four lots gaining access from that access easement. Again, putting them into compliance with the original request. Unfortunately, the applicant was unable to get in contact with that owner despite their best efforts um as they were going to go ahead and if that owner was okay with it, replat it so that they were able to again work under the the guides of that original variance request. So, with all of that background information, um staff did find that special conditions exist as the applicant has exhausted all reasonable alternatives to obtain access. Um first by requesting an easement from a neighboring property and then by attempting to initiate that replat. Um these efforts were unsuccessful, leaving a variance as the applicant's only viable option. Um, city corporation again is the reason that we have um these requirements and city corporation had no objection to this application and allowing a fifth lot to gain access there. Um, the request again is to allow only one additional dwelling beyond what was previously granted. Uh, the intent is to allow one single family home and no additional subdivision beyond that. Uh, this appears to be the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of the land. So, with all of that information, it is staff's recommendation that the board of adjustment approve this variance request with the following condition. Uh, no other lots can be subdivided to get access off of that access easement unless a full road is developed and right-of-way dedicated creating a city street and that is based on the findings that the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist. Uh, city

corporation has no objection to the request and the applicant has met all other variance requirements. I know that was a lot of information. Do we have any questions for staff? Yeah, absolutely. Let me Guys, you got any questions? I just got one question. Yeah. So, just just to clarify, where does the fifth like there was there was a lot of lots thrown in there. Yes. We went from there was four lots and then we're went There was three and we went to four. Is that right? So, yes. Um allowed off the access easement per code is three lots. In 2023, we allowed for the fourth lot and now we're requesting for the fifth lot. Um my understanding is the fifth lot is being subdivided off of the fourth lot that was granted in 2023. The Can you pull up this slide? Um, this is the lot that originally Can you see my cursor? Yeah. So, this was the lot that was given the fourth lot access. This Oh, where did my There it is. This lot is being subdivided and the lot they are purchasing will be back here and that will be the fifth lot that will have access off of this easement. It's called Riverview Road, but it is there's no dedicated rideway. It's just an access easement and because of that that's why this um is having to go through that variance but this is being subdivided per our standard platting process and they will then have access through this access easement if this variance is granted.

Okay. Thank you. No, you're fine. Any other questions? Okay. All right. Does anybody else want to Is there anybody want to speak on behalf of uh is David? He is. Okay. Do you do you want to add anything to that or are you good? Okay. Okay. All right. Y'all sitting by each other, so everything's cool. Okay. Obviously, good deal. All right, gentlemen. What's your pleasure? Motion to approve. Okay. Presented. Second. We got a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor acknowledgement saying I I and any opposed? Hear none. Motion carried. Okay. Item number two, we have variance from 7.8B 8 and 8B to allow a 190 foot sign despite a 150 regulation located at 108 Marina Road submitted by EMTT Barnes. Somebody have a staff report? Yes. Sorry about that. Uh I thought there was another application in between. So this is a variance request. Uh those of you who also sit on planning commission are probably very familiar. They did receive a special use permit for the sign for this sign last month. Um, so the existing conditions that this is located at the intersection of Marina Drive and Main Street adjacent to a duplex development. A surrounding area includes a mix of single family homes, undeveloped commercial property, cell tower, and a church. This subject

property is zoned R2, medium density residential, but is situated within an area characterized by a mix of zoning classifications. As you can see on the image, you've got R1 to the west, C4 to the east and northwest, C2 to the east, and then obviously this property is, like I said, zoned R2. It also lies just south of the Union Pacific Railroad along what really looks like a commercial corridor on Main Street, but it also additionally serves as a primary gateway into a predominantly single family residential neighborhood. Um, so our review comments again, we're following those same six guidelines for a variance application. Um, this application proposes to replace the existing billboard with a new off-remise sign that exceeds the current size allowances but is smaller than the existing billboard, therefore bringing it closer into compliance. Initially, staff believed that ARDOT regulated signage along all state highways within the city and that the applicant with that information obtained their special use permit. However, after consulting with AR DOT beautifification division, it was clarified that ARDOT only regulates signage along Highway 7, Highway 331, and Highway 124 within city limits. They do not regulate signage along Main Street. Um, and so since Main Street nor um I have the wrong 124, it's not 331. 326 326. Thank you, mayor. Uh it's 3:26 that heads out towards Marine uh the state park.

Uh so since Main Street North 326 are subject to ARDOT oversight, the applicant was able to revise their proposal and that's why they are here seeking a variance because ARDOT does not provide um a sign permit for signs on their rideway if a variance has been granted. We have two cases in Russellville where we have granted variances and ARDOT has said no and they've not been able to proceed with that and so that's why we had proceeded the way we did initially providing them their special use permit. Um special conditions and circumstances exist and literal interpretation would deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by others. This is located at the intersection of Marina and Main Street where a welcoming sign would be applicable to the context of the neighborhood. Surrounding uses are mixed and include commercial and residential uses making its context align with mixed or commercial activity, not your typical R2 residential districts. Um, additionally, the property currently contains a non-conforming billboard structure. What the applicant is proposing is to replace that with a small smaller more compliant off-remise sign reducing to 190 square feet which brings the sign closer into conformance with the current 150 square foot allowance aligning with previous variance approvals. Lastly, ARDOT would does not regulate signage at this location despite those common assumptions that they would. This gap places the city in a position of providing reasonable and practical oversight for sign permitting in this transitional corridor. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance in this case would prevent the applicable applicant from replacing an existing

sign with one that better meets today's standards and aesthetic expectations. The applicant demonstrates justification to approve a variance and that the pro proposal is in alignment with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. As stated, they are replacing an existing non-conforming billboard with a smaller off- premise sign that brings the site closer into compliance. This action reflects a good faith effort to improve the visual character and regulatory alignment of the property. Additionally, the base of the sign will have the iHeart Russellville logo, adding to the visual character of this entrance into Russellville uh while supporting this orderly and aesthetic development of key commercial corridors. The reduced sign size improves visual compatibility with the surrounding area and aligns with the codes objectives to allow reasonable use commonly enjoyed by others. So, as a result of that, uh, staff does recommend that you all approve the application. As a result of the findings, a special use permit has already been issued for the off-remise non-digital sign. The applicant reached out to ARDOT and they do not regulate this location. The applicant demonstrated that special conditions exist. The new sign would be a reduction to a nonconformity. The application meets the intent of the zoning code and there are no negative impacts to adjoining properties and the location is appropriate given the historic use of the site. Are there any questions? Thanks sir. Thank you. Talk to me gentlemen. Make the motion to approve as presented. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve this fair request as

presented. All those in favor acknowledge by saying I. I. I. And any opposed? Hear none. The motion carried. All right, let's go to item number three. Variance from article 6.1.5 from the pave surface requirement located at 295 North Elmyra. Submitted by Barrett Associates on behalf of William Thornsberry. Sarah, take it away. Thank you. Uh so this is an uh variance request at 295 North Elmmyra. It's a vacant lot in a partially developed area with off both offices, retail, and restaurants in the vicinity. It is located south of Taco Bell and north of Prairie Creek. South of the creek is Walmart and Optimum with Umami located across the street from the proposed development. There is an undeveloped property to the west where the creek flows in an otherwise developed and populated area of town. All properties in this area are zoned C2 highway commercial. Um the applicant is requesting two variances and both variances are relating to the area in the red rectangle on this image. The first is to vary from the hard surface requirement for parking/s sales lots and the second request being from the ADA sidewalk requirement for viewing purposes. So special conditions and circumstances exist and literal interpretation would deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. So the first variance request is that the parcel is small and tapers significantly toward the rear creating site development challenges. The applicant contends that requiring a paved walkway would place an undue burden on the project. That a compacted gravel surface, if properly stabilized and maintained, can meet ADA requirements. In comparable developments, paved walking paths to

facilitate safe and accessible customer access to sales inventory have been required. While ADA guidance typically discourages the use of loose gravel due to accessibility concerns, it does not explicitly prohibit gravel if all accessibility requirements can be met. The second variance request is that the site includes a row of low shrubs for visual screening but does not meet the standard six-foot requirement. This may be reasonable may reasonably be interpreted as meeting the intent of the ordinance. by providing a visual barrier between the displays storage area and adjacent properties especially due to the distance from the road. So from the main road as you can see in that image they would have to drive a little ways back to what is permitted on the front which is going to be a coffee kiosk is my understanding. So that's a permitted use at the front of this property. So the variances are just at the rear of the property. Um, and then the applicant demonstrates justification to approve a variance and that the proposal will be in alignment with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. The application demonstrates that due to the lot's unusual size and shape being both small and narrowing toward the rear, strict compliance with paving and screening requirements would create an unreasonable burden. The applicant proposes compacted, stabilized gravel as a functional and potentially ADA compliant alternative along with low shrubs for visual screening. These modifications represent the minimum variance needed to make reasonable use of the property while upholding the spirit of the code by promoting safe usability and compatibility with surrounding development. To balance the applicant's sight constraints with public interest in safety, accessibility, and visual

compatibility, the following conditions are recommended. Install a compacted gravel path that meets ADA accessibility standards to the maximum extent feasible. And this is based on the information that the applicant provided as well as ADA research that I was able to um obtain or or find that This path shall be constructed with a firm stable surface using finely crushed gravel less than 0.25 in treated with a stabilizer or binder and regularly maintained to ensure it ma remains level and does not exceed a slope of 8%. Install clear signage indicating accessible viewing paths and parking areas with notice that areas may be difficult to navigate for those with mobility limitations. Gravel path and landscape screening must be maintained on a regular basis. This city may inspect the site periodically to ensure compliance with the ADA surface stability and visual screening requirements and the applicant must provide a written acknowledgement that the gravel pathway may not meet full ADA compliance in all conditions and agrees to make future adjustments if deficiencies are identified through inspection or complaint. So as a result of that staff does recommend that the variance be approved to allow installation of gravel sales lot and gravel walkways with the following conditions. The compacted gravel path constructed of those items that I had just stated. Installation of accessibility signage ongoing maintenance and periodic inspection. Acknowledgement of accessibility limitations statement provided with the permit as a result of the findings that the applicant demonstrates compliance with the regulations within article 2.10 and article 5 of the Russellville zoning code. The applicant demonstrates

the intent to comply regarding article 3.2 the ADA provision and article six parking and screening requirements. And given the minimal use proposed in the long-term vacancy of the site, this is a use that could be in line with adjacent uses. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Dave, anything you want to add? Okay. So, concerning the gravel um RVs, this is going to be a used RV sales. They're uh ADA accessible RVs are very rare. I mean, they're they're just not that common. U but we felt like doing the uh stabilization that the highway department has, they have a surface stabilization that will make it smooth and make it stable would be better than putting concrete down because then if this changes, then we have all this concrete we have to rip up and it's easier to do the gravel and actually reuse it than, you know, wasting concrete. But it still meets the same intent and leaves a nice smooth surface. It will be maintained and we will have to uh do uh the requirements that Sarah has here which uh William says that's not not a problem. I just wanted to to just appreciate it. Make a motion to approve as presented. We have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve this variance. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing? None. The motion carried. And I would like to say Sarah, thank you on behalf of Board of Adjustments. We you you rock. We We're going to miss you. Thank you.