Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 24, 2017 The Russellville Board of Adjustment met in its Regular Meeting, Monday, April 24, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in the Russellville, Arkansas City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Acting Chairman – Lannis Nicholson Vice Chair Peggy Stratton Mike Wilkins Members Absent Secretary Wendell Miller Visitors Present: Mayor Randy Horton, City Planner Walden, Fire Marshall Setian, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, and Dave Garza/Barrett and Associates. Welcome Visitors The First Order of Business (Agenda Item 2) was a request to review and approve the minutes of the November 28, 2016 meeting. Member Wilkins made the motion to accept the minutes. Member Nicholson seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business (Agenda Item 3) was a public hearing requesting approval for a variance to expand parking by 5 spaces, for property located at 814 West “B” Street. Submitted by Harold & Melinda Taylor d/b/a Professional Christian Counseling, Inc. (BOA.17.03. 3627) Planner Walden said the request is to allow a 50’ X 31” (5 parking spaces) expansion of an existing parking lot which currently backs into Independence Avenue, which is prohibited by the Zoning Code. In this area backing into the street is very common. It is indicated for commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. The recommendation is approval. Member Wilkins made the motion to approve. The motion was seconded by Member Nicholson and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business (Agenda Item 4) was a public hearing requesting approval for a Special Exception granting a 10% reduction from the lot area requirements to allow construction of duplex units, for property located on West 12th Street. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Teaff Properties. (BOA. 17.03.3628 Planner Walden said Mr. Garza was representing this applicant and they have requested that this item be pulled. The Fourth Order of Business (Agenda Item 5) was a public hearing requesting approval for a variance of .5 foot on the west side yard from the 6.0-foot side yard setback requirement, for property located at 1009 East “G” Street. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Preston Rood. (BOA.17.04.3629) Planner said the actual request is a variance from the side setback requirement on the west portion. This is zoned R-2 (single-family residential). It is surrounded by single-family uses and rest firmly within an R-2 area. The existing variance request is to allow a five-foot setback reduction on the west side yard. In reviewing, there is a special provision Article 1 Section 1.10 that deals with existing platted lots of record in which this would apply. In an effort`t to remove any doubt of future application of any of those requirements that we review this is more of a broader way. I had recommended the application and the action of the Board of Adjustment be amended to include a setback on the west side yard of 5.5’ where normally I think if you interpret it a different way it would be required 8’ and 15’ on the east side yard because that is an interior yard. So approving this with a setback reduction of 5.5’ on the west side yard and east side yard setback of 6.5’, I think there can be some different interpretations of what the code provision is so to protect the property owner granting a sort of wider variance in a situation would prevent any future misinterpretation of the code. In term of looking at this consistency with the variance standards: 1) Do special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land which are not applicable to other lands in the areas? Yes, the site is a corner lot. Due to the platting patterns in the area with narrow lot widths, development of the lot would be difficult. 1) Would literal interpretation of the code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the area? No, development already exists. 2) Are there special conditions that exist that are not the result of the actions by the applicant? No, conditions exist because city permitted the development. 3) Will granting the variance confer on the applicant special privileges denied to others in the area? No, it will allow use of property consistent with other lots in the area. This is consistent with the variance standards that would support approval of the variance. We did receive a letter from an adjacent property owner that was concerned about the west side yard. They asked for a potential condition of approval. So the recommendation of action is recommended for approval given that there would be approval granted for: 1) Approval granted for reduction of the west side yard from 8’ to 5.5’. 2) Approval granted for a reduction of the east side from 15’ to 6.5’. 3) And then the Potential Condition of approval is that any future construction along the west side yard of the property shall adhere to a 6’ setback. Member Wilkins made the motion to recommend approval based upon the recommendation of the City Planner including the potential condition of approval. Member Nicholson seconded the motion and passed unanimously. The Fifth Order of Business (Agenda Item 6) was a public hearing requesting approval for a variance of 1.4 foot from the 20-foot front yard setback requirement for property located at 1504 North Mobile Avenue. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Travis Garza. (BOA.17.04.3630) Planner Walden said this applicant is Travis Garza and the action requested was a front yard setback variance. It is zoned R-3 (single-family residential). It is surrounded by single-family residential on the north, south, west, and east sides and similar zoning on all sides. This particular instance this would actually meet the requirement for the Special Exception. In reviewing a special exception all that it requires is that the action not harm public, health, safety, and welfare. In measuring this application against that it would better to approve it as a Special Exception rather than a variance. The encroachment of the house into the setback was likely an accidental oversight. The recommendation for action on this item is approval as a Special Exception. Member Stratton made the motion to approve as a Special Exception instead of the variance. The motion was seconded by Member Nicholson and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business (Agenda Item 1) was to elect 2017 Officers: Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary. Member Wilkins made the motion to nominate Lannis Nicholson as Chairman The motion was seconded by Member Stratton and passed unanimously. Member Wilkins made the motion to nominate Wendell Miller as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Lannis Nicholson and passed unanimously. Member Nicholson made the motion to nominate Peggy Stratton as Secretary. The motion was seconded by Member Wilkins and passed unanimously. Adjourned. __________________________ Chairman Lannis Nicholson