Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES December 28th, 2020 @ 5:00 p.m. The Board of Adjustment held a virtual meeting on Monday December 28th, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Members Present Chairman Wendell Miller Secretary Justin Cothren Don Jacimore Members Absent Vice Chairman Scott Sanders John Choate Visitors Present: Mayor Richard Harris, City Planner Sara Jondahl, Planner I Victoria Marchant, Flood Manager Ben Gray, City Engineering Tech Armando Diaz, Permitting Clerk Kelsey Dinkel, Building Official Richard Setian, Jim Lynch of City Corporation, Zane Bryson of City Corp, Nathan Barber, Gregg Long, Susan Peterson, Dana Warren, Amanda Farmer, Shonda Gadberry, Birttany Baker, Amy Miller, Bourke Milligan, David Garza, Kyle Hood Welcome Visitors The First Order of Business is a request to review and approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment November 23rd, 2020 meeting. Member Cothern made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Member Jacimore and passed unanimously. The Second order of business is a REQUEST TO TABLE: Notification deadline not met. Variance from Article 3.6.1 allowing a 14’ fence despite the 6’ height limit, located at 1102 McKenzie Drive. Submitted by Alejandro Fuentes. (VARI-1220-000018) Member Jacimore made the motion to table the item. The motion was seconded by Member Cothern and tabled unanimously. The Third order of business is an addition to a non-conforming structure to repair fire damage, located at 314 S Waco. Submitted by Fabricio Duran. (VARI-1220-000019). Planner I Marchant stated that this is an application is to allow repairs to a non-conforming structure. This is located in the Inglewood Neighborhood, this is an existing single-family home. It is an R-1 zoned property surrounded by other single-family homes. Planner I Marchant continued to explain that in Article 9.3.2 the Board of Adjustment has been given specific guidelines in order to grant a variance. 1. Applicant demonstrates that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands. Staff has found that the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist due to the fact that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others by not allowing the applicant to make necessary repairs to their home. 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. 2. Non-conforming uses in the area shall not be considered grounds for granting a variance. No other non-conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. 3. The application demonstrates reasons that justify a variance and the variance is the minimum to make reasonable use of the land. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. 4. Make a finding that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. 5. The board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. There are no additional safeguards required. 6. The Board of Adjustment may not grant a variance to allow a use not permissible in the zone code. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant concluded that staff recommends approval of this application based on the findings below: 1. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others; and 2. The applicant has met all other variance guidelines. Member Jacimore made the motion to approve the item as written. The motion was seconded by Member Cothern and passed unanimously. The Fourth order of business is a Variance from Article 3.6.1 allowing a 5’ fence and 6’ gate in the front yard despite the 3.5’ height limit, located at 269 S Inglewood Ave. Submitted by Jay Corons on behalf of Kyle Hood. (VARI-1220-000020) Planner I Marchant stated that this application is to allow a 5’ fence and a 6’ gate in the front yard despite the 3.5’ height limit in the front yard. Located in the Inglewood Neighborhood, this is an existing single-family home. It is an R-1 zoned property surrounded by other single-family homes and a cemetery. Planner I Marchant added that In Article 9.3.2 the Board of Adjustment has been given specific guidelines in order to grant a variance. 1. Applicant demonstrates that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands.  Staff has found that the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist as the properties to the north and south both have fences that run along Inglewood. The property to the north is a single-family home whose back-property line faces Inglewood. This home has a wooden privacy fence running along Inglewood. The property to the north is a cemetery which has a chain link fence facing Inglewood. The applicant's proposed fence will be a wrought iron fence which is must less obtrusive than the privacy fence to the north. 2. Non-conforming uses in the area shall not be considered grounds for granting a variance. No other non-conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. 3. The application demonstrates reasons that justify a variance and the variance is the minimum to make reasonable use of the land. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. 4. Make a finding that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. 5. The board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. There are no additional safeguards required. 6. The Board of Adjustment may not grant a variance to allow a use not permissible in the zone code. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant concluded that staff recommends approval of this application as a result of the findings below: 1. There are fences running along Inglewood to the north and south of this property; and 2. The proposed fence is not very obtrusive; and 3. The applicant has met all other variance guidelines. Member Jacimore made the motion to approve the item as written. The motion was seconded by Member Cothern and passed unanimously. The Fifth order of business is a Variance from Article 12 allowing a 15.9’ rear yard setback despite the 25’ requirement in an M-1, located at 300 S Elmira Ave. Submitted by Barrett & Associates on behalf of Americold. (VARI-1220-000024) Planner I Marchant stated that this is an application to allow a 15.9’ rear yard setback where the requirement is 25’ in an M1. Located in the Airport Industrial District, this is an existing Cold Storage Facility. This is an M-1 zoned property surrounded by other industrial uses. Planner I Marchant continued to state that in Article 9.3.2 the Board of Adjustment has been given specific guidelines in order to grant a variance.  1. Applicant demonstrates that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands. Staff has found that the applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist because the back property line is abutting a railroad line, so it will not be encroaching on another property. Although the applicant will not be utilizing the railroad for this building, there is a provision in the zoning code in Article 12.1 (G) which states that Industrial structures may be built to the side or rear property line where railroad siding facilities are utilized. The property directly adjacent to the proposed building is also an industrial use and zone. 2. Non-conforming uses in the area shall not be considered grounds for granting a variance. No other non-conforming uses in the area were considered as grounds for granting this variance. 3. The application demonstrates reasons that justify a variance and the variance is the minimum to make reasonable use of the land. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance allowing reasonable use of land. 4. Make a finding that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. 5. The board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards. There are no additional safeguards required. 6. The Board of Adjustment may not grant a variance to allow a use not permissible in the zone code. The proposed use is in conformance with the Table of Permitted Uses. Planner I Marchant concluded that staff recommends approval of this application as a result of the findings below: 1. The back property line is abutting a railroad line; and 2. The property directly adjacent to the proposed building is also and industrial use and zone; and 3. The applicant has met all other variance guidelines. Member Jacimore made the motion to approve the item as written. The motion was seconded by Member Cothern and passed unanimously. The Sixth 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, October, and November meetings. Member Jacimore made the motion to table the item. The motion was seconded by Member Cothern and tabled unanimously. Meeting adjourned. _________________________ Chairman Wendell Miller