Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES November 23rd, 2020 @ 5:00 p.m. The Board of Adjustment held a virtual meeting on Monday November 23rd, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Members Present Chairman Wendell Miller Vice Chairman Scott Sanders Secretary Justin Cothren Don Jacimore John Choate Members Absent Visitors Present: City Planner Sara Jondahl, Planner I Victoria Marchant, Flood Manager Ben Gray, City Engineering Tech Armando Diaz, Permitting Clerk Kelsey Dinkel, Jim Lynch of City Corporation, Deputy Building Official Bill Clark, Mayor Richard Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Nathan Barber, Justin Cothren, Cody Black, Justin Keller, James Linker, Alan Arrington, Donna Hendrix, Andy Rotenstreich, David Garza, Danny C, Evalyn Anderson, Mary, Amy Pruitt, Sarah Hann, Jason Hann Welcome Visitors The First Order of Business is a request to review and approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment October 26th, 2020 meeting. Member Cothren made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Member Choate and passed unanimously. The Second order of business is a variance from Article 12 allowing an accessory structure 3 feet from the property line despite the 6-foot requirement, located at 306 East C Street. Submitted by Alan Arrington. Planner I Marchant stated that this is an application to allow a side yard setback variance of 2 feet for a new carport. Located in the Detroit District, this is an existing single family home. It is a C4 zoned property surrounded by a variety of residential and commercial uses, such as single family homes, and a hair salon. The application is to allow a 3’ side yard setback despite the 5’ minimum on a lot of record to accommodate for a new carport the applicant intends to install. In Article 9.3.2 the Board of Adjustment has been given specific guidelines in order to grant a variance. 1. Staff did not find that the applicant demonstrates that special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands. 2. No other non-conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. 3. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. 4. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. 5. There are not additional safeguards required. 6. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant added it is staff’s recommendation that the Board of Adjustment deny this variance request based on the findings below: 1. The applicant did show that special conditions exist. Alan Arrington stated that he needs this car port to house his vehicles. He explained that he needed a taller carport to accommodate his vehicles and allow access to his home. Member Cothren made a motion to approve against staff recommendation. Member Choate seconded the motion to approve and it was passed unanimously. The Third order of business is a request to Table - Variance from Article 12 allowing a front yard setback of 19 feet despite the 25-foot requirement, located at 2011 E Parkway Drive. Submitted by Max Lawton. Item was TABLED by applicant at the September and October meetings. Member Choate made a motion to table. Member Cothren seconded the motion to table and it was passed unanimously. The Fourth order of business is a variance from Article 3.18.3 1) B allowing a 125’ Cell Tower with a 5’ lightening rod in an R1 zone where a 100’ maximum height is permitted, located east of the intersection of Meadow View Drive and Quail Creek Drive. This is submitted by Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless on behalf of Russellville School District. City Planner Jondahl stated that this application is being brought to the Board of Adjustment to construct a 125’ Monopole Commercial Communication Tower with a 5’ lightening rod by Verizon Wireless where a 100’ Tower is permitted by Special Use. Vacant Property in a R2 zone adjacent to the Golf Disc Course located on Russellville School District Property. All adjacent properties are zoned R2. This is a wooded area of property owned by the Russellville School District, located directly north of Legacy height Nursing Home and east of the Golf Disc Course. City Planner Jondahl stated that staff recommends approval of this application with the following condition: 1. Variance is granted only after the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, and the City Council has approved the application. As a result of the findings below: 1. Ground elevation, nearby terrain, and signal requirements would necessitate the construction of a second tower if the strict application of the height requirement were maintained; and 2. Tower is shielded from neighboring properties and setback at least 120’ from the adjacent Right-of-Way; and 3. As a result of the findings that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others; and 4. The applicant has met all other variance guidelines. Andy Rotenstreich this is a response from the city, school district, and Verizon to try and relocate that tower to a less intrusive location. A deal has been made with the school district and the Russellville School District will get the lease. Member Choate made a motion to approve as presented and contingent to the Planning Commission vote. Member Cothren seconded the motion to approve and it was passed unanimously. The Fifth order of business is Special Exception to Article 12 area requirements allowing a reduction by 200 feet to the 7200 square foot requirement for of lots 7 and 8, Block 5, McAruthur Addition. Submitted by Barrett and Associates on behalf of Kenneth Biggs. Planner I Marchant stated that the application is to allow a variance in the area requirements for an R2 district, the applicant is requesting an approximately 200 square foot variance in the lot area requirements for two lots. Located in the Detroit District, these are currently two empty lots. It is a R2 zoned property surrounded by other residentially and commercially zoned properties which includes a variety of uses such as single family homes, restaurants, telecommunications business, hair salons, and insurance agencies. Planner I Marchant added that the applicant is proposing to build a single family home on each lot. The lots had to be re-platted due to a drainage ditch that crosses lot 8. This replat was to create two usable lots but ultimately led to the lots being 200 feet shy of the lot square foot area requirement. Because the applicant is varying from the area requirements by less than 10%, this application can be considered a special exception and therefore does not have to meet the strict requirements of a variance. In Article 9.3.2 the Board of Adjustment has been given specific guidelines in order to grant a variance. 1. This is a special exception allowing the special conditions required to be waived. 2. No other non-conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. 3. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. 4. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. 5. There are no additional safeguards required. 6. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant added that it is staff’s recommendation that the Board of Adjustment approve this special exception based on the findings below: 1. The applicant is varying from the area requirements by less than 10%; and 2. The application meets all other variance requirements. Dave Garza stated that this is going to improve the area and build these new homes in an area that has older homes. It would have been better if these were all lot of records, but there was the one ditch that cuts diagonally across lot 8. This created the shortage on the square footage. Member Choate made a motion to approve as presented. Member Cothren seconded the motion to approve and it was passed unanimously. The Sixth order of business is Non-Conforming request to remodel a structure constructed in 1959, which does not meet the front yard setback or the area requirements in an R3 zone and located at 124 and 126 East F Street. Submitted by Barrett and Associates on behalf of Charlie’s Does It All, Inc. Planner I Marchant stated that the application is to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure that does not meet the area requirements for the district. Located in the City Mall Commercial District, this is a duplex. It is a R3 zoned property surrounded by a variety of residential and commercial uses such as churches, and retail stores. Planner I Marchant added that staff was working on a building permit for the applicant and it was discovered that the home did not meet the area requirements for the R3 zone. In Article 9.3.2 the Board of Adjustment has been given specific guidelines in order to grant a variance. 1. Staff has found the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist because this home was built in 1959 before the current zoning code went into effect, therefore before the setback requirements were as they are now. 2. No other non-conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. 3. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. 4. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. 5. There are no additional safeguards required. 6. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant added that it is staff’s recommendation that the Board of Adjustment approve this variance request based on the findings below: 1. The home was built before current Zoning Code went into effect; and 2. The applicant has met all of the other variance requirements. Dave Garza stated that there are a lot of older homes in the area that do not meet the current setbacks and they are non-conforming. And that there are more homes that are being remodeled that are running in to these issues, and he hopes that the City Planner takes that into the consideration when looking at these homes that were built before the code. Member Cothren made a motion to approve as presented. Member Choate seconded the motion to approve and it was passed unanimously.  The Seventh order of business is Non-Conforming request to remodel a structure that does not meet the front yard setback located at 301 N Hartford. Submitted by Lemona Martinson on behalf of Bill Lenhart. Planner I Marchant stated that the application is to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure that does not meet the area requirements for the district. Located in the Detroit District, this is a single-family home. It is a C4 zoned property surrounded by a variety of residential and commercial uses. Staff was working on a building permit for the applicant and it was discovered that the home did not meet the area requirements for a single family home in a C4 zone. Staff has found the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist because the literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by others by not allowing the applicant to make repairs and changes to their home. In Article 7.2.1 of the Russellville Zoning Code states that a non-conforming structure may be remodeled to maintain the premises in a safe and usable condition, the granting of this variance would allow the applicant to complete changes to maintain the structure as safe and usable. No other non- conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. There are no additional safeguards required. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant added that it is staff’s recommendation that the Board of Adjustment approve this variance request based on the findings below: 1. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by others; and 2. The applicant has met all of the other variance requirements. Evelyn Anderson stated that this was built back in the 20s and it was before this set back requirement was in place and they are just trying to repair the floor joist that were damaged during a water leak. Member Choate made a motion to approve as presented. Member Cothren seconded the motion to approve and it was passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned. _________________________ Chairman Wendell Miller