Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 4, 2024 @ 5:00 p.m. The Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Thursday April 4, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. Members Present Wendell Miller, Chairman Don Jacimore, Vice Chairman Justin Cothren, Secretary Wayne Cummings Josh Stroud Members Absent None Visitors Present: City Planner Sara Jondahl, Planner I Victoria Marchant, Planning Assistant Caden Lemley, John Choate, Hunter Mays and David Garza. Welcome Visitors The First Order of Business is a request to review and approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment January 4, 2024. Member Cothren made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Member Stroud and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business is an Election of Officers for 2024. Member Jacimore made a motion to reelect the officers from 2023 to their current positions. The motion was seconded by Member Cummings and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business is a Variance from Articles 3.14.1 and 3.22.5 (2) of the Zoning Code to allow roll up doors facing the Right-of-Way and to allow relief from the wall articulation requirements located at 50 Joyce Layne. Submitted by Barrett & Associates on behalf of Meza International. (VARI-0324-000492) City Planner Jondahl stated that this is a vacant parcel of land along Joyce Lane. She stated that surrounding property include Waste Management, Other Diesel Mechanic Shops, Truck Washes, Flying J, and some smaller commercial offices. She stated that all surrounding properties are zoned C2 Highway. City Planner Jondahl stated that the 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. She stated that the initial request for a variance pertains to Article 3.14.1(2), specifically concerning roll-up doors facing the Right-of-Way (ROW). She stated that the applicant provided evidence illustrating the challenges posed by the substantial turning radius of Semi Trucks, which complicates maneuvering in and out of a parallel building with side-facing roll-up doors. She stated that while it remains technically feasible, accommodating this requirement would necessitate the addition of an extra driveway and extensive site modification. City Planner Jondahl stated that the second variance request concerns the Wall Articulation requirement that specifies “No uninterrupted length of a facade may exceed 50 feet in length”. She stated that the applicant modified the building design from a flat front to include articulation. She stated that the proposed building dimensions are 150 by 130 feet. She stated that the sides of the building meet the requirement, however, for the street-facing sides, each “bay” is 25 feet wide, resulting in one section spanning 75 feet. She stated that given the operational constraints of the business, although not strictly adhering to the regulations, the added articulation demonstrates a clear effort to fulfill the spirit of this provision. Member Cummings made a motion to approve the variance request. The motion was seconded by Member Jacimore and passed unanimously. The Fourth Orde of Business is a Variance from Article 4.1 of the Zoning Code to allow a 6’ high security fence in the front yard location at 615 Tyler Road. Submitted by Barrett & Associates on behalf of BlockOps Mining LLC. (VARI-0324-000498) Planning Assistant Lemley stated that this property is the Bitcoin data center on Tyler Road. He stated that the property is located adjacent to Tyson to the west, an Entergy substation to the east, residential properties to the north, and JW Aluminum to the south. He stated that this property is zoned M-1 Light Industrial with properties to the south, east, and west also zoned M-1, the residential subdivision to the north is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. Planning Assistant Lemley stated that the application is to build a 6’ chain link fence with barbed wire in the front yard of the property, which would surround the existing parking lot. He stated that staff has found that the applicant has not demonstrated that special conditions exist. He stated that the applicant has cited nearby existing fences as a reason to approve the variance; however, this is not grounds for approving a variance per Article 9.3.2 “Non-conforming uses in the area shall not be considered grounds for granting a variance.” He stated that the granting of this variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. He stated that it is not the intent of the code to allow 6’ fences within the front yard setback. He stated that the applicant has met all other Variance requirements. Planning Assistant Lemley stated that if staff were to consider surrounding properties sas ground to approve a variance, staff has found that this request is not consistent with the surrounding properties. He stated that in the applicant’s letter, they mentioned four fences along Tyler Road: Tyson, JW Aluminum, Van Horn Construction, and the Entergy Substation. He stated that 3 of the 4 fences the applicant mentioned conform to the current fence height requirement as they are not in the front yard setback, and JW ALuminum’s fence, the only nonconforming fence mentioned as it is in the front yard setback, is not identical to the proposed fence as it does not have barbed wire on top. He stated that if approved, this fence with barbed wire in the front yard setback along this stretch of Tyler Road. It is staff’s recommendation that the Board of Adjustment deny this variance request based on the findings below: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that special conditions exist; and 2. The granting of this variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. Member Jacimore asked why this application was before them since the construction for the Data Center was already approved. Planning Assistant Lemley stated that this fence was not a part of the original application. Planning Assistant Lemley clarified that the Zoning Code does not allow fences taller than 3.5 feet in the front setback. Membe Stroud asked Planning Assistant Lemley if 3.5 feet is normal in a M1 zone. He stated that it was not typical. Member Jacimore asked if the fence was moved back out of the setback, if it could be six feet tall. Planning Assistant Lemley stated that that was correct. Member Cothren asked if it would be screened. Planning Assistant Lemley stated that he did not see any plans to screen the fence. Dave Garza, Barrett and Associates, stated that the purpose of the zoning code among other things is to promote safety. He stated that while other facilities have their fences farther back, they did so voluntarily before it was required. He also stated that JW Alluminum’s fence is actually 8 feet tall. He stated that before the new Zoning Code in 2023, the old code excluded Industrial and Commercial zones. He stated that this is a warehouse full of electronic equipment that unauthorized personnel should not have access to. He stated that this would only surround the parking lot which blocks access to the entrance of the facility. He stated that the section of the Zoning Code on fences also contradicts the section on obtaining a variance, and he believes that in this case, since there are special instructions regarding a variance for a fence, the criteria for a variance listed in the variance section should not apply. He stated that the intent of the code is not to make the industrial area pretty but to make it safe which is why the old code made an exception for industrial areas. He stated that this is to protect the kids in the neighborhood from breaking in and getting themselves injured. Member Jacimore asked Mr. Garza if there were space for a truck to turn in and out. Mr. Garza confirmed that there was. Member Cothren asked Mr. Garza why this was not addressed originally. Mr. Garza stated that he believed it was an afterthought that the owner realized after the original application. Mr. Garza stated that if the barbed wire is an issue, they will be ok with a condition to remove it. City Planner Jondahl stated that the applicant did not mention the safety issue regarding the electrical in their application. She stated that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide this information to staff. Mr. Garza stated that he did not feel like it was necessary since he believed that this was already known by staff. Member Cummings made a motion to approve the variance. Member Stroud asked why the code mandated an industrial zone not have a fence taller than 3.5 feet tall in the front setback. Planning Assistant Lemley stated that it was because there is no distinction in the Zoning Code between a fence in an industrial zone and a residential code in this case. City Planner Jondahl stated that there is not a distinction because they want to protect the viewing area in the street to be more inviting. Member Cummings motion to approve was seconded by Member Jacimore and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned _______________________ Chairperson