Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES May 22, 2017 The Russellville Board of Adjustment met in its Regular Meeting, Monday, May 22, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. in the Russellville, Arkansas City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Acting Chairman – Lannis Nicholson Vice-Chair Wendell Miller Secretary Peggy Stratton Mike Wilkins - Vacant Members Absent Visitors Present: City Planner Walden, City Engineer Kurt Jones, Fire Marshall Setian, Building Official Holstein, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, and Dave Garza/Barrett and Associates. Welcome Visitors The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the minutes of the April 24, 2017 meeting. Member Miller made the motion to accept the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Member Stratton and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a public hearing requesting a variance from Article 3.21.1 (C) requiring sidewalks for commercial development, for property at the corner of West Second Court & South Inglewood and Skyline. Submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Rolling River, LLC. (BOA.17.05.3631) Planner Walden said this request is for a variance from Article 3.21.1C to eliminate requirement to construct sidewalks on South Inglewood Avenue and West 2nd Court. The Planning Comments: 1) Article 3.21.1 C requires that all new commercial structures construct sidewalks on all public street frontages. A fee-in-lieu of construction may be allowed at the discretion of the Public Works Director. 2) Most of West 2nd Court is developed without sidewalks. A trail was recently constructed along the east side of Inglewood Avenue. The Consistency with Variance Standards: 1) Do special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land which are not applicable to other lands in the area? No. The lot has similar topographical and utility conditions as other sites in the vicinity. They are some underground utilities. 2) Would literal interpretation of the code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the area? No. Construction of the sidewalk would not limit use of site. Such improvements would be constructed in the right-of-way. 3) Are there special conditions that exist that are not the result of the actions by the applicant? The applicant has stated there are underground utilities that could be impacted by the sidewalks. 4) Will granting the variance confer on the applicant special privileges denied to others in the area? Yes. While most of the area is already developed without sidewalks, most if not all, of the properties developed prior to the city making its sidewalks standards more stringent. The Recommendation for Action is denial. The application does not appear to meet the spirit or intention of the zoning code or demonstrate that constructing sidewalks would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant by way of consistency with variance standards. If underground utilities do interfere with the placement of sidewalks at the site, a payment of fee-in-lieu of sidewalk construction would be appropriate. It hasn’t been demonstrated that there are considerations that are unique to this property that are topographical or anything. It appears in this particular instance that the considerations are financial rather than actual site conditions. Commissioner Stratton said for the record what was the date for this new commercial sidewalk brought into regulation. Commissioner Nicholson said it was April 21, 2016. City Engineer Jones said it was revised in 2016. We had a sidewalk ordinance prior to that. Dava Garza on behalf of Chip Blanchard said we feel like on South Inglewood we should be granted that variance. We are asking even the code this and the planner is recommending this, I want you to decide based on the whole thing. We would like to amend our request. In looking at West Second Court there is an existing sidewalk. It starts over on Skyline and it come down the north side. So what makes the most sense for a sidewalk on West Second Court is to continue on north side? With that in mind the developer is willing to give in-lieu contributions for the sidewalk that would have been required on the south side to then be place and used for the north side when it is needed. There is nothing developed on the lot, but everything to west has been developed so the money could be used all that developed area. It makes more sense to put the sidewalks on the north side because there are no utilities at all. We are requesting the variance be granted just on the Inglewood side. The members all agreed that contractors did not need to spend money to put in a sidewalk that leads to nowhere. This is something that we need to address. City Engineer Jones said there is a Comprehensive Plan to put sidewalks on both sides of every street. It is going to take some time and it is obviously never going to happen if we don’t start somewhere for the sidewalk that leads to nowhere. Member Nicholson said he agreed. Engineer Jones said we are aggressively going out right now and constructing sidewalks in areas and filling in gaps where we only have sidewalk on one side of the street. If we don’t put the sidewalk in here on this project it will be our responsibility to go and build it along his property when we decide to do it. Member Nicholson asked what plan is that a part of? Engineer Jones said that is part of the ordinance. The ordinance requirement is that they be sidewalks built on both side of the street. The ordinance says that the developer construct sidewalks on his side of the street. Member Stratton made the motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Member Miller and passed unanimously. Adjourned. __________________________ Chairman Lannis Nicholson