GovernSmyrna.

License and Variance Board Meeting — Minutes

Open official source ↗ · Source page 3

SHA-256 2d891526c52dc185a0237ae18fc4277cf298254e710b91be58f4542d67162b41 · Captured source extract

 
March 25, 2026 
10:00 AM 
 
City of Smyrna 
License and Variance Board Meeting 
2800 King Street SE 
Council Chambers 
 
Page 3 of 8 
 
The applicant is proposing two variances to develop a vacant lot at 2881 Jonquil Drive: 
reduce the northern side setback from 15 feet to 0 feet and reduce the front setback from 
50 feet to 25 feet. Section 717.162 controls the setbacks for properties within the Spring 
Road Corridor Design District (CDD-2). 
  
The subject parcel is a 0.33-acre lot located on the east side of Jonquil Drive, just north of 
Spring Road. The subject parcel and the adjacent parcels to the north, east, and west are 
zoned GC (General Commercial) while the adjacent parcel to the south is zoned NS 
(Neighborhood Shopping). All are occupied by a variety of commercial uses, with the 
exception of the subject property and the adjacent property to the north, which are both 
vacant. 
  
The subject property is currently occupied by a billboard at the rear of the property (near 
Spring Road) and a train caboose, which was placed on the property in October 2025. 
The applicant is proposing to renovate the 400 square foot caboose structure to be used 
as an ice cream parlor. To support the proposed business, the applicant will also be 
adding a 192 square foot bathroom structure and 2,307 square foot raised deck for 
seating and access; since all will be connected, the entirety is considered one overall 
structure per Zoning Code. A designated food truck parking space and sidewalk access 
along Jonquil Drive are also proposed to enhance the site ‘s functionality. Due to the 
property’s location within 1,800 square feet of Spring Road, a redevelopment of the 
property requires that the site meet Spring Road Corridor Design District (CDD-2) overlay 
requirements as well as the current Zoning Code. 
  
The existing billboard at the rear of the property includes a 35-foot maintenance 
easement, which exceeds the required 30-foot rear setback. As a result, the proposed 
structures must be positioned closer to Jonquil Drive in order to remain outside of the 
easement area. Additionally, there are two large Water Oak trees on the property 
(measuring 68 inches and 39 inches in diameter), which are being preserved as an 
essential part of the project. To protect the trees and their associated critical root zones, 
the proposed raised deck is designed to minimize ground disturbance. The deck will 
connect to the front parking area, reducing the need for additional concrete installation 
near the tree located adjacent to the parking area. 
  
The adjacent property to the north is currently vacant but is also owned by the applicant. 
The applicant has expressed interest in potentially developing this property in the future to 
complement the proposed project, though specific plans have not yet been finalized. To 
allow for potential future connectivity, the applicant is requesting the elimination of the 
northern side setback to connect the deck walkway to the existing concrete pad on the 
adjacent property. This connection would also provide a safer pedestrian route for 
customers who may park on the vacant parcel, allowing them to avoid walking along busy 
Jonquil Drive. 
  
Community Development believes the variances requested are the minimum variances 
needed to allow for a redevelopment on the subject property. At the time of this report, 
Community Development has not received any calls in opposition to these requests. 
  
The applicant is requesting to deviate from the City’s Spring Road Corridor overlay district 
requirements. According to Section 1403 of the Zoning Ordinance, variances must be 
reviewed under the following standards: (1) Whether there are unique and special or 
extraordinary circumstances applying to the property; (2) Whether any alleged hardship is 
self-created by any person having an interest in the property; (3) Whether strict application 
of the relevant provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the 
property; and (4) Whether the variance proposed is the minimum variance needed.