Board of Public Safety

d setback. He asked how much farther would that pool have to be moved back to get 25 feet. He stated that they are looking at a setback of 38 feet on the drawing. Mrs. Parker stated that the edge of the pool is 38 feet, and right now it shows the fence at 6 feet from the edge of the pool, but they wanted a little wiggle room because they are building a short retaining wall. She stated that she doesn't know where that is going to taper off and that's the reason they wanted to see if they could bring it a little closer to the road, but they would stay within that 25 feet. Member Cummings asked Mrs. Parker if the fence would meet the setback. She replied yes. Member Cummings asked Mrs. Parker if the variance request for the fence was on the height. Mrs. Parker confirmed that it was on the height. Mr. Parker asked Planner I Marchant if the setback was from the center of the road or the curb. Planner I Marchant stated that it was from the property line which would be a little bit behind the curb. Member Miller stated that where the lot is sitting he does not think that should apply here simply because of how that lot is set. He stated that it is something that you do not see very often. Member Jacimore made a motion to deny until they get more clarification of what exactly is going to be allowed and what they design is because they do not really know how far that fence is going to because of that retaining wall and there's a lot of unknowns. Chairperson Tarpley asked Member Jacimore if he was going to make a motion to deny the variance or to table it. Member Jacimore made a motion to table the variance. Member Jacimore stated that there was too much information unknown for him. He stated that he has owned pools and he owns a pool and there are always trees and leaves going to get in the way and his neighbors trees blow in it and that is just part of owning a pool. He stated that he is not big on cutting trees down but in order to make it closer to the setbacks he wants to know where they are with the variance before he approves it. Mrs. Parker asked if she could take the fence portion out of the variance. Chairperson Tarpley responded that the fence could only be three feet. Member Cothren stated that they can not have a six foot fence in the front yard. Chairperson Tarpley stated that they are asking for a variance for the fence as well because it is in the front yard. Mrs. Parker stated that the planning department is willing to approve the six foot fence at fifteen feet from the edge, that is how they understood it. She stated that they are really only asking for 10 or 15 more feet than what they already said they will allow in their recommendation. Chairperson Tarpley stated that they are in this spot that Burton has put them in a precarious situation. Member Miller stated that he thinks they need clarification too. He stated that their address is 2614 W 2nd Ln, but looking at a map, W 2nd Ln, it is in the front yard but the way it is laid out it is actually closer to the back. He stated that the way it is laid out, the corner lot is making it kind of difficult. Member Jacimore’s motion was seconded by Member Miller and passed unanimously. The Sixth Order of Business is a variance from Article 3.6.1 allowing an 18’ fence, located at 615 Tyler Road. Submitted by Barrett & Associates on behalf of BlockOps Mining 1 LLC. Planner I Marchant stated that this is a variance from the fence height requirement at 615 Tyler Road. She stated that existing conditions are that located in the Airport Industrial District, this property is adjacent to the Entergy substation along East 6th directly south of a residential subdivision. Planner I Marchant stated the existing property is vacant and lower than the adjacent street. She stated that property to the north is zoned R2 and all other surrounding properties are zoned R-1. Planner I Marchant stated that this application is to allow an 18’ sound barrier fence to surround a proposed Cryptocurrency Bitcoin Mining Operation. She stated that the Planning Commision saw this in Marchand April of this year. She stated the height of the fence is due to the decibel levels that will be produced from the site. Planner I Marchant stated that a sound study was conducted by the application and reviewed by an acoustical engineer as part of their Special Use Permit. She stated that something she did note in her review comments was that the applicant did submit a new site plan with their variance request, different than the one submitted with their Special Use Permit, and staff did want to note that any changes to the site plan that was approved as part of the Special Use Permit will have to go back through Special Use Permit approval or they would have to back to their old site plan submitted with the Special Use Permit. Planner I Marchant stated that in review of the applicant’s Special Use Permit a sound study was completed and reviewed by an acoustical consultant. In their original proposal, the applicant requested a 13’ fence. She stated that the city working in conjunction with their acoustical consultant, reviewed their application and found that the 13’ wall would not be sufficient to keep levels below a 50 dBA which are levels consistent with noise exposure limits that do not affect the health and welfare of citizens. Planner I Marchant stated that the EPA recommends average nighttime levels for the outdoors to be below 50 dBA. She stated that the City has taken daytime measurements at the site that range from 57.6 to 60.2 during the daytime. At 8PM at night the readings range from 53.9 to 54.8. Planner I Marchant stated that given that the nighttime readings are lower and that the recommendation from the acoustical consultant is that they construct an 18 foot sound barrier wall to offset and protect the residents to the north, staff will defer to the consultants recommendations. Staff recommends approval of this variance based on the findings below: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that special conditions exist; and 2. The applicant has met all of the other variance requirements. Chairperson Tarpley asked Planner I Marchant what happens when the facility goes away. He asked if the variance stays in effect for the property. City Planner Jondahl stated that they can add a condition that if the business was to leave they would have to tear the fence down. Chairperson Tarpley stated that he did not realize that those facilities generated so much noise. Planner I Marchant stated that she did not either until she heard words like acoustical consultant. Chairperson Tarpley asked Planner I Marchant if they were going to have to come back with additional permitting from the Planning Commission. Planner I Marchant stated that they submitted one Special Use Permit that was approved and they submitted a new one for this variance that is slightly different. She stated that those changes would constitute them needing to go back for a redo of that Special Use Permit, so if they wanted to revert back to the original site plan it is up to them right now. Planner I Marchant stated that potentially they may have to go back before the Planning Commission. Chairperson Tarpley asked if that either way they needed to act on this variance. Planner I Marchant confirmed that that was the request. Member Cummings motioned to approve the variance with the stipulation that when the business ceases operation the fence has to be removed. The motion was seconded by Member Miller and passed unanimously. The Seventh Order of Business is consideration to change the December 2023 meeting to November 28, 2023. Chairperson Tarpley stated that he assumed this was due to the Christmas Parade. Planner I Marchant confirmed that this would probably be a conflict every year. Member Jacimore made a motion to approve. The motion was seconded by Member Cummings and passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned _____________________________