CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Transcription

1 CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, June 26, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration of minutes for the regular meeting on. 3. New Business Sign Variance Request a. Application S by Mr. Trevor Sledge, for Sledgecraft, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 25¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 1133 Samsonite Boulevard. Variance Request b. Application Z by Ms. Margot Damiano, is requesting a 7.5 variance from the minimum required 20 rear building setback for principal structures, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, for property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 3323 Wycheck Lane. Special Use Permit Request c. Application Z by Mr. Joe Swanson, Jr. of Swanson Developments, LP, for Victory Christian Center of Murfreesboro, Inc., is requesting the extension of a special use permit that was granted on August 12, 1998 for property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone at 1503 Sulphur Springs Road. The 1998 special use permit allowed for the expansion of an institutional group assembly use (a church) by the placement of four (4) portable classroom buildings on the subject property. The applicant is requesting that the three (3) existing portable classroom buildings located on the subject property be allowed to remain onsite for an additional three (3) years. 4. Staff Reports and Other Business 5. Adjourn

2 Minutes of the Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals 1:00 P.M. City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT John Rodgers, Chair Davis Young, Vice-Chair Julie R.P. King Ken Halliburton MEMBERS ABSENT Frances Mosby STAFF PRESENT Matthew Blomeley, Principal Planner Amelia Kerr, Sign Administrator David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Robert Lewis, Planner Chairman Rodgers called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The minutes for the April 24, 2013 regular meeting were approved as submitted. New Business Sign Variance Request Application Z by Mr. Montgomery G. Turner, Sr., is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 4412 Manchester Pike. Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Turner was present to answer any questions. Vice-Chairman Young abstained from the discussion and vote. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing.

3 Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor with one abstention (Vice Chairman Young). Variance Request Application Z by Mr. Jim Lukens of Lukens Engineering Consultants, for TT of Toy Murfreesboro Property, LLC, is making the following requests for property located at the northeast corner of Fortress Boulevard and Bill Smith Drive (Tax Map 079, Parcel 05801) in the Commercial Highway (CH) and Gateway Design Overlay District (GDO-1) zones: A 10 variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[3] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that the minimum space between buildings and parking shall be 10 on lots of 1.5 acres or more; and A 7 variance from Section 24, Article III (F)(3)(d)[1] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that the width of the required front landscaping yard adjacent to Interstate 24 shall be 25. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Lukens was present to answer any questions. Chairman Rodgers asked if there was ever any intent in the GDO regulations to exclude uses altogether that would require a variance to the minimum separation between buildings and parking (a car lot or fast food business). Mr. Blomeley said that many of these types of uses are not prohibited. The regulation is in place to soften the appearance of the building by adding greenery around the building and not have asphalt going right up to the building. Mr. Blomeley said this is a legitimate case for a variance because of the use of the property, which is allowed by right. Chairman Rodgers asked what kind of use would be inappropriate for the Gateway. Mr. Blomeley said that, for the property at hand, any use that is permitted in the CH zone and not specifically prohibited by the GDO regulations is allowed to be developed. It is a matter of applying the standards in the GDO regulations to the design of the permitted use. Certain uses warrant direct access immediately adjacent to the building. It is understandable when someone requests a variance because of the functionality of a use that is already permitted by right on the property. Mr. Blomeley said that is a good example of why we have the variance process in place. 2

4 Chairman Rodgers is concerned that the BZA has only addressed fast food places with a drive-thru where the requirement has been waived. He said this is the first time the BZA has considered anything other than that. Now the BZA is being asked to consider cars pulling into bays, which seems like a dramatic expansion of uses. Mr. Blomeley referred to a couple of other types of examples: 1) a loading dock for Polaris Hospital located on North Thompson Lane. Delivery vehicles needed to come directly adjacent to the building on this site so a variance was granted. 2) Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, Phase II had a similar situation where delivery vehicles needed to access the building. Mr. Blomeley said the restaurants and banks were the first but there have been other instances that needed variances. Mr. Ives also mentioned that NTB on Robert Rose Drive had a very similar request. Mr. Lukens stated that the GDO regulations exclude outdoor sales except for automobile sales. He said that automobile sales is allowed in that area. Mr. Blomeley agreed and said that automobile sales is a permitted use in the Gateway. Chairman Rodgers said that when the GDO regulations were being drafted, they had to consider the fact there would be places on an automobile sales lots where there would be no landscaping between the building and parking. Mr. Blomeley stated that the variance process was put in place so that relief could be granted if there was a legitimate reason. Mr. Blomeley said it should be noted that the Planning Staff and Planning Commission are vigilant to make sure the design is of high quality. Chairman Rodgers expressed concern as this area is the Gateway and is supposed to be a special place in Murfreesboro with heightened aesthetics. He does not want the BZA to routinely pass these applications and make it look like any other area. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Ms. Elaine Gipple, 2709 Spaulding Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton said he serves on the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission makes sure the applicants abide by the rules of the Gateway. In this case, when there is a 7-foot variance request, the front planting yard butts up to the interstate. There are hundreds of feet between I-24 and the front of this building. This area is 3

5 actually greater than what you would imagine a 25-foot front landscape yard might be in most instances. That is one area of consideration. Mr. Halliburton said this is a very nice development and that the site will be something Murfreesboro will be proud of because of the look of this dealership and the way these cars will be displayed at this site. Mr. Halliburton feels the variances should be granted. Chairman Rodgers asked how this Toyota dealership is different from the one on Church Street. Mr. Halliburton said there is a car dealership in Knoxville similar to this application that is located off the interstate. The dealership will have 2-tiers of cars in an open parking garage displayed above the dealership as you are coming off the interstate. It has a great look to it and there is nothing like it in the Murfreesboro or Nashville area. Mr. Blomeley showed the landscape plan. He added there would be car inventory in the parking structure as well as the open parking garage. Chairman Rodgers said his concern is that car dealerships tend to congregate and line up on one street. If other dealerships come to this area, the Gateway and Medical Center Parkway would not look as intended. He is in favor of the new dealership and more commerce coming to Murfreesboro but he is not sure we are sticking with the original intent of the Gateway when this property was purchased and what was envisioned to be on that property. Vice-Chairman Young asked if it was zoned Commercial Highway and would we be able to deny them this use. Mr. Halliburton said it is zoned Commercial Highway and no we would not be able to deny them this use. Mr. Halliburton said when the GDO regulations were originally drafted, this use could have been prohibited but it was not. Chairman Rodgers asked if this was a specific use authorized by the Gateway Design Overlay District. Mr. Ives said there are some specific uses that are disallowed in the Gateway Design Overlay District regardless of the underlying zoning. He said new auto sales is not one of them. It is a permitted use in the CH zone and it is not a prohibited use in the GDO zoning regulations. Mr. Blomeley referred to an earlier comment made by Mr. Lukens that said the outdoor display or sale of merchandise in the Gateway, other than motor vehicles, is prohibited. There is no specific prohibition of motor vehicle sales. The base zoning, Commercial Highway, sets the uses that are allowed in that zoning district. Then the Gateway Design 4

6 Overlay District says regardless of what the base zoning district, there are certain uses that are prohibited but motor vehicle sales is not one of those uses that are prohibited. It is permitted by right in the Commercial Highway and Gateway Design Overlay zones. Chairman Rodgers said in order to have a car dealership, you have got to have direct access into the building. Mr. Blomeley agreed. Vice-Chairman Young asked if the 10-foot variance was a GDO requirement. Mr. Blomeley said both the requests are Gateway Design Overlay District requirements. The 25-foot planting yard is much greater than what we would normally see in areas that are not in the GDO. Normally it would be a 10-foot wide planting yard on a site that is not in the GDO. So will still be much wider than on a non Gateway Design Overlay lot. Vice-Chairman Young asked if there were other examples of what the applicants had to different because it is in the Gateway Design Overlay versus being somewhere else in town. Mr. Blomeley said in the GDO there are many additional minimum requirements, above and beyond the general zoning regulations, to make the site more aesthetically pleasing. There are minimum open space requirements and minimum landscaping requirements that go above and beyond. The planting yards around the site are much larger. The building materials that are required are much greater than what would be required outside the GDO. Chairman Rodgers commented that he does not like this and that this is not what he thought the Gateway Design Overlay District was designed to accommodate. He said he recognizes at the same time that the ordinance drafted allows for this as a matter of right, which supersedes his feelings regarding the use. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve a 10 variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[3] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that the minimum space between buildings and parking shall be 10-foot on lots of 1.5 acres or more. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve a 7 variance from Section 24, Article III (F)(3)(d)[1] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that the width of the required front landscaping yard adjacent to Interstate 24 shall be 25. 5

7 The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Special Use Permit Requests Application Z by Ms. Christine Ivey, is requesting a special use permit in order to conduct a home occupation (hair salon) at her residence located at 414 Falcon Drive. The property is located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit application, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) All client visits shall be by appointment only, and there shall be no more than seven (7) appointments per business day. 2) All appointments shall begin no earlier than 9:00 AM and shall end no later than 6:00 PM on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and 2:00 PM on Saturdays. Mr. Blomeley stated that he received correspondence regarding this request from the following people: Tinna Galloway 1149 Lakes Edge Drive Debbie and Cary Morton 314 Eventide Drive Scott T. Handy 406 Derby Court Bettye Johnson 326 Derby Court Stanford B. Golden 310 Falcon Drive Jim Bellamy 1718 Herald Lane Ken Hays 318 Falcon Drive Robert Dryden 1707 Herald Lane Ann Barrett 402 Derby Court Jennifer Handy 406 Derby Court Hard copies of all correspondence have been furnished to the Board members for their review. Ms. Ivey was present to answer questions. Ms. Ivey explained her reasons for wanting the hair salon in her home. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Lewis, 411 Falcon Drive, spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Betts Nixon, who owns 407 Falcon Drive, spoke in opposition of the application. 6

8 Mr. Stanford Golden, 310 Falcon Drive, spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Ken Hays, 318 Falcon Drive, spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Anne B. Kittrell, 1703 Herald Lane, spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Dan Kittrell, 1703 Herald Lane, spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Scott T. Handy, 406 Derby Court, spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Elaine Gipple, 2709 Spaulding Court, spoke in favor of the application. Ms. Jennifer Handy, 406 Derby Court, spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Lane Golden, 310 Falcon Drive, spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Ivey came back to the podium and addressed some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors. There being no one else to speak for or against this request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton said he has thought about this application quite a bit prior to today s meeting especially with the number of s and phone calls he received. He said this application has resulted in more s and phone calls than any application he has ever received with respect to a home-based business. As part of the rules the Board of Zoning Appeals members go by, the first rule reads The proposed use will not have a substantial or undue adverse affect upon adjacent property or character of the neighborhood. He said he has to respect the opinion of the individuals that are already part of this neighborhood and their opinion being that it would have an adverse affect on the neighbors that are already there. Mr. Halliburton asked the other Board members to give their opinions. Vice-Chairman Young said he is thinking along the same lines as Mr. Halliburton. He said the Board has approved some of these but that each neighborhood is different. The neighbors in this neighborhood feel like this will produce a change. Vice-Chairman Young said he is leaning to not approving this application. Ms. King said what is special about special use permits is that the Board has five standards that all have to be met. That one thing, the character of the neighborhood is a very important matter. Because of everyone s heightened concern, she feels the same as Mr. Halliburton and Vice-Chairman Young. 7

9 Chairman Rodgers said that there has been overwhelming proof that the proposed use there would have some sort of substantial or undue adverse effect on the adjacent property. The proposed use has to be operated, compatible with the immediate vicinity. It sounds like this neighborhood is wholly residential with no commercial business going on there. He told Ms. Ivey she is facing a real difficult task today. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z by Dr. Mike Norris, for Franklin Road Baptist Church, is requesting a special use permit for two (2) temporary events with an unlimited number of temporary non-commercial flag signs for property located at 3148 Franklin Road in the equivalent of a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit application, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) The flag poles should be installed into the ground no deeper than 12-inches, so as not to conflict with the existing CUD water line. Dr. Mike Norris was present to answer questions. Dr. Norris said that Patriotic Sunday has been going on for close to 20 years. When the church came into the city as an outside the City sewer customer, they have to appear before the BZA. He said that this event is open to the entire community. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against this request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve the request with the following condition: 1) The flag poles should be installed into the ground no deeper than 12-inches, so as not to conflict with the existing CUD water line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z by Mr. Jake Loyd, for Mid America Distributors, Inc., is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (seasonal fireworks retailer) in a Commercial Fringe (CF) zone for property located at 2061 Lascassas Pike. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit application, Staff recommends the following conditions: 8

10 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) All signage is to comply with the City s Sign Ordinance. 6) The site must pass an electrical safety inspection prior to opening for business. An electrical permit must be purchased from the Building and Codes Department in order to obtain this inspection. 7) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CF zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. Mr. Loyd was present to answer any questions. Mr. Halliburton verified that the 250 distance is from places that are licensed to serve alcohol as opposed to placed that sell packaged alcohol. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. The distance is from establishments that serve beer or alcohol for consumption on premises. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Ms. King made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) All signage is to comply with the City s Sign Ordinance. 6) The site must pass an electrical safety inspection prior to opening for business. An electrical permit must be purchased from the Building and Codes Department in order to obtain this inspection. 7) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CF zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z by Ms. Kathy Biter, for B&B Fireworks, LLC, is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (seasonal fireworks retailer) in a Commercial Highway (CH) zone for property located at the southeast corner of South Church Street and Southeast Broad Street (Tax Map 102C, Group F, Parcels and 02500). 9

11 Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit application, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) All signage is to comply with the City s Sign Ordinance. 6) The site must pass an electrical safety inspection prior to opening for business. An electrical permit must be purchased from the Building and Codes Department in order to obtain this inspection. 7) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. 8) A licensed surveyor must assist the tent company in the placement of the tent. The licensed surveyor must provide written verification that the tent has been placed as shown on the site plan and that there is no encroachment of any part of the tent into any utility or drainage easements. 9) All grass and weeds growing up through the existing gravel must be removed and/or killed, as no grass surfaces are allowed for the placement of the tent and for vehicular travel/parking. In addition, the applicant should add gravel to the site and/or smooth out the existing gravel surface. 10) The sodded area should be barricaded, as shown on the site plan, in order to prohibit vehicular travel over it. 11) The two northernmost ramps onto South Church Street must be barricaded, as shown on the site plan, during the selling season. The only access from South Church Street will be the southernmost access drive, which is the driveway that is shared with McDonald s. Ms. Biter was present to answer any questions. Ms. Biter stated they B&B has been at this location for many years and will comply with all the rules. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Young made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 10

12 5) All signage is to comply with the City s Sign Ordinance. 6) The site must pass an electrical safety inspection prior to opening for business. An electrical permit must be purchased from the Building and Codes Department in order to obtain this inspection. 7) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. 8) A licensed surveyor must assist the tent company in the placement of the tent. The licensed surveyor must provide written verification that the tent has been placed as shown on the site plan and that there is no encroachment of any part of the tent into any utility or drainage easements. 9) All grass and weeds growing up through the existing gravel must be removed and/or killed, as no grass surfaces are allowed for the placement of the tent and for vehicular travel/parking. In addition, the applicant should add gravel to the site and/or smooth out the existing gravel surface. 10) The sodded area should be barricaded, as shown on the site plan, in order to prohibit vehicular travel over it. 11) The two northernmost ramps onto South Church Street must be barricaded, as shown on the site plan, during the selling season. The only access from South Church Street will be the southernmost access drive, which is the driveway that is shared with McDonald s. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Chairman Rodgers called for a 5-minute recess at 2:45 PM. Chairman Rodgers reconvened the meeting at 2:50 PM. Special Use Permit / Height Variance Request Application Z by Mr. Kevin Guenther of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Christian Life Church, is making the following requests for property located at 745 Cason Lane in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone: A special use permit in order to expand an existing institutional group assembly use (a church); and A 7-foot variance of the 35-foot maximum permitted building height, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a 42-foot-tall structure. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 11

13 1) All existing trees immediately adjacent to the property line shall remain undisturbed. 2) The double row of evergreen trees that the applicant proposes along the property lines shall meet minimum requirements for a Type C Buffer. 3) Metal siding will not be allowed as an exterior building material for the new sanctuary building. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley to explain what the BZA members are being asked to approve specifically today. Mr. Blomeley said the church is looking to master plan for the entire remainder of the property. The applicants do not want to come to the BZA piecemeal. The church was receptive to that idea of master planning and has put together this plan for the balance of the property. Even though Phase IV is not proposed to be built until five or seven years from now, they wanted to go ahead and present Phase III which is the parking expansion to the east of the existing sanctuary building and Phase IV which would be the build-out of the balance of the property. Chairman Rodgers verified the Board of Zoning Appeals is being asked to approve all that today. Mr. Blomeley said yes, in one special use permit. Mr. Blomeley added the height variance for the building also needs to be reviewed by the Board today. Chairman Rodgers asked if the height variance was for the new sanctuary. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Mr. Blomeley said the existing building is compliant with the 35 maximum building height. Mr. Halliburton asked about the next steps in the review process if these requests are approved by the BZA. Mr. Blomeley said Phase III may not require Planning Commission approval, depending on the exact size but Phase IV is of a size and scope that would require Planning Commission site plan approval. At that time the Planning Commission will review the more refined architectural elevations. Mr. Blomeley said the architectural elevations submitted are meant more to convey what the church has in mind for the building and are not final architectural plans. Mr. Blomeley said in reference to coming back to the BZA, unless the Board specifically required something to come back to the BZA the approval the applicants are requesting right now would not warrant them coming back to the BZA. 12

14 Chairman Rodgers verified Phase III included parking behind the main building and Phase IV includes a new sanctuary, a playground, a storage structure, and all the parking toward the back of the property. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Chairman Rodgers asked if the BZA approves this today, then the applicants could build all that without ever coming back to the BZA. Mr. Blomeley said yes, that is correct and that the special use permit gives the applicant a land use entitlement for the proposed use. The church would still have to come back to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff for site plan approval, demonstrating it meets technical criteria. Chairman Rodgers asked if it would be possible to only consider and vote on Phase III and hold off on Phase IV. He asked if that could only be done by the consent of the applicant. He said approving all of this is very overwhelming. Vice-Chairman Young asked what the size of the current sanctuary is. Mr. Blomeley said the current sanctuary seats 367. Mr. Guenther said that the church wants to show its vision for what it truly believes is the master plan for the property. At the neighborhood meeting there were a few things that came to light. One of those is certainly, anytime you have a use like this that is occurring in a residential area, one of the issues is distance. The applicant has really tried to be sensitive by placing the building in the center of the site and arranging the parking around that and distributing throughout the site. This has allowed the applicant to have a very large green space buffer and leave a lot of landscaping around the perimeter of the site. One of the primary issues that came up at the neighborhood meeting was noise. What happens with the new sanctuary is that they have an opportunity to move most of the activities to the site to the center of 12 acres. It also allows the church to build the new building with better acoustics. Mr. Guenther said the new building would not have metal siding, nor will it be the same type of building. The applicant is committed to a certain type of exterior materials. The building that is there is going to stay there as it is going to be part of the church s program. The church has committed to having its main events in the new building. There are not any outdoor activities proposed with amplified sound. The applicant has also looked at opportunities with the existing building. The applicant would like to add an additional acoustic buffer on the building on the north side of the interior of the building. Mr. Halliburton asked at what point in this process is the church committing for that to happen. 13

15 Mr. Guenther said he would have to refer that question to the applicant. Chairman Rodgers asked what the existing building will be used for. Mr. Guenther said the existing building would primarily be used for the youth group. The main services held on Sunday will be held in the main sanctuary. Mr. Guenther said traffic was another concern brought up at the neighborhood meeting. He pointed out that Cason Lane is a main street built knowing that growth would occur in this area. He also pointed out that the peak time for church traffic is typically not in conflict with peak times of other uses in the surrounding areas. There are two egress points on-site and both have left and right turn lanes that are already in place. The church is open to placing a traffic guard or traffic control during its services. The applicant sees that as advantageous to both the neighborhood and the church itself. Mr. Guenther said that another issue that came up at the neighborhood meeting was drainage. The applicant has spent some time with City staff on this matter. The church realized the 12-acre paved site would increase the drainage flow. The existing retention pond located on the southwest side of the property was installed as part of the original development. As a result, it has improved some of the drainage that has occurred to the south. Mr. Guenther said they want to collect, control, and direct the drainage much better than it is now. There is also an existing drainage easement in place the church can tie into. Mr. Guenther said that the church is also looking at the drainage that comes off the existing building and feeds into a drainage ditch on the north side of the property. The church would like to redirect the drainage into the new drainage area included the Phase III plan. In regards to landscaping, Mr. Guenther said the church is in complete agreement for a Type C landscape buffer. Mr. Guenther said the best type of buffer is layers and distance and the Type C buffer promotes both of those. Existing trees will be layer one, a privacy fence will be layer two, and the Type C buffer will be in addition to those. Pastor Kairdolf said this is overwhelming to look at but the church continues to grow and instead of coming back to the BZA for little changes they decided to master plan. He said that he has spoken with neighbors who had concerns about the bass sound on Sunday mornings and about the water runoff. Pastor Ron said they have already talked to a contractor regarding the drainage and have a couple of options to change the drainage flow off the north side of the building. The drainage will be changed during Phase III when the parking lot is rebuilt. They hope to make the drainage changes before the end of the year. Pastor Ron talked about a type of drywall called Quiet Rock they are proposing to install on the north side of the existing building for noise control. He said instead of the church being limited in the existing building, another building would help. 14

16 The existing building will be used for the elementary through high school youth program. The main worship that is in the existing building now will be in the proposed building in the middle of the property. Mr. Halliburton asked with respect to the parking lot proposed in Phase III is the distance of that parking lot the same distance from the northern property line as the playground that was approved with the 2011 special use permit. Mr. Blomeley referred to the old file stating the parking lot was 114 off the property line. The parking was to the south of the proposed pavilion. The playground and pavilion were proposed to be 50 off of the northern property line. Mr. Guenther said that the Dumpster is proposed to be placed 38 from that property line. The church is very open to any recommendations about going back to the 50. They have three (3) layers of buffer now but are willing to add another 12 of distance. Mr. Halliburton said he understood the Dumpster but asked if the new proposed parking lot was 75-feet. Mr. Guenther said the new proposed parking lot is very close to where the gravel parking lot is now. Mr. Halliburton s concern is that the BZA approved a buffer and a distance in the last application and that he would hate go back and allow something closer than what was approved in the previous application. Mr. Blomeley said that in the 2011 approval the playground and pavilion were 50 from that northern property line. What they are proposing now scales out between 35 and 38 from the northern property line. Mr. Guenther said they are willing to add the 12 back in. Mr. Halliburton said he is hard-pressed to decrease it when we compromised on that during the previous application. Pastor Kairdolf said the concern at the last hearing was that there would be noise generated by a gathering of people at the playground and pavilion. He understands what Mr. Halliburton is saying, though, because that distance was already established. Mr. Guenther reminded everyone that a fence has been added in the new proposed plans. He said they can add distance as well if that is the Board s preference. 15

17 Mr. Halliburton commented that he is glad the church is going to address the sound and that anything that can be done to keep any future development away from the northern property line is in the best interest of being neighborly. Chairman Rodgers said he has been a member on the BZA for the past 14 years and this application has been his biggest regret. He said he does not know how this got by to be built 10-feet from the property line. He said this is going to get a lot of extra scrutiny from him, at least the sound and drainage, if he can t get the existing structure itself off the neighbors. Chairman Rodgers asked whether or not, when the new building is built, there won t be any sound amplification at all inside the old building. Pastor Kairdolf said it would be difficult to conduct a service in the old building without any amplification because the building is large. A lesser volume will be needed, however, because the building will be modified in such a way that it won t be just one great big open room because they want to bring the children s ministry into small groups. He said their intention is that the elementary children will stay downstairs. The teenagers will meet in upstairs. The 2 nd floor on the north side of the building has been treated with the Quiet Rock. They have enough funding now and can do the treatment downstairs as well. He said that he would be disappointed if they are not approved for the new building because they would be stuck in the existing building trying to deal with the sound. Another building would help accomplish what everybody wants. Chairman Rodgers said the proposed building is really where he thought the old building was going and should have been built there to begin with. Pastor Kairdolf agreed and said if he had it to do over, it would be built there. He said some people on their team suggested building a multi-purpose building on the north side and then where the house is, build a larger building and connect the two. He said he never drove down Spaulding Court when making that decision. He said that a fair market offer was made to Mr. Patterson for his property two (2) years ago. Pastor Kairdolf said that he is still open to negotiations to help alleviate that problem. He said they could use his house as a Staff house. Chairman Rodgers asked where the proposed Dumpster will be located. Mr. Blomeley said the Dumpster will remain in its current location behind the existing church office building (the old house) during Phase III. In Phase IV because the new sanctuary building is going to be built where the existing Dumpster is located, it necessitates the relocation of the Dumpster. The new location would be directly to the east of the existing sanctuary building and adjacent to the north side of the site. 16

18 Chairman Rodgers said the proposed Dumpster on the northern side of the property is located about 38-feet off the boundary. He asked how far the proposed parking lot will be from the southern property line. Mr. Blomeley said the building is 120-feet away from the southern lot line, so the parking lot would be about 90-feet. Chairman Rodgers asked if there was any downside to moving the Dumpster to the south side of the parking lot. Mr. Guenther said they are open to moving the Dumpster. Chairman Rodgers asked for clarification on the proposed drainage. Mr. Guenther said the existing building has down spouts. There is a drainage swale on the north side of the property. Right now the building feeds into that drainage swale. Chairman Rodgers asked if the drainage swale runs towards the back or the front of the property. Mr. Guenther said it splits and runs both ways. He said Pastor Kairdolf said he wasn t aware that was a problem until recently. They will alleviate that problem by taking the runoff from the existing building, redirecting it into the new parking lot. Chairman Rodgers asked if the general grade of the property would be toward the southeast to the proposed storm water detention area. Mr. Guenther said yes, most of the water flows to the southeast. That area is where they have the largest amount of room for detention facilities and is capable of holding a lot of water. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. Dale Patterson, 2717 Spaulding Circle, spoke against the application. Ms. Elaine Gipple, 2709 Spaulding Circle, spoke against the application. Ms. Connie Gaessler, 2606 Cason Court, spoke against the application. Mr. John Gaessler, 2606 Cason Court, spoke against the application. Mr. Gary Pratt, 714 Penn Court, spoke against the application. 17

19 Mr. Jim Murry, 5868 Longview Avenue, spoke in favor of the application. Mr. James Brown, Jr., 1961 Stoney Meadow Drive, spoke in favor of the application. There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Ms. King announced she would abstain from discussion and vote on the application because she works with Mr. Pratt s wife. Mr. Halliburton said the site plan with some tweaks would be an acceptable site plan. He would like to have the noise issues and water drainage issues on the front end of this project remedied before proceeding to Phase III. He would recommend the BZA defer the application today so the applicants could address those issues. Vice-Chairman Young said he is hypersensitive to development toward that northern property line as well. If there is a way to alleviate what is happening now before much else proceeds, that would help everybody involved. Chairman Rodgers said, at this point, he couldn t support this application. He said he thinks that some of the solutions presented might work. He is concerned, however, about what happens if they don t. Chairman Rodgers said if he were going to vote to approve an expansion of this church use, it would have to be done by consent of the neighborhood. He would want to hear the neighbors say they are fine with it. He said that requirement is unusual and he has not requested this with any other application. He feels that the existing development has a substantial or undue adverse effect on the adjacent property and he wants to make sure that any proposed expansions do not and that it will be operated in a way to be compatible with the immediate vicinity. Chairman Rodgers said that he has got to be comfortable with the way the expansion is done and that it is done respectfully of other people s property rights. Mr. Halliburton asked Mr. Guenther if there is a way to try to solve some of these issues that have been brought up before any further construction. Mr. Guenther asked for approval of Phase III with the condition of putting the Quiet Rock up on the existing sanctuary and diverting the water from the existing building. He asked to defer Phase IV, giving them the opportunity to remedy those problems first. He said that adding the Phase III parking is very important to the church at this time. Vice-Chairman Young asked if the Phase III parking would be include the off the northern property line. 18

20 Mr. Guenther said the church would add the additional 12-feet to the distance for parking, will commit to a remedy regarding the existing building runoff, the Dumpster location, and the sound in the existing building. After these things are done, they would respectfully like to come back to the BZA to move forward with Phase IV. Mr. Halliburton said his biggest concern is trying to remedy the issues of today. Mr. Blomeley added that there is an existing gravel parking lot on-site that is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. One way or the other that area will have to come into compliance. If Phase III were approved, that would address that violation because the new parking lot will be constructed over the gravel parking lot. If not, then the gravel will have to be removed and remediated. Vice-Chairman Young asked if there was any buffer in Phase III. Mr. Blomeley said there is a proposed 6-foot fence along the entire depth of Phase III, and a double row of evergreen trees north of the proposed parking lot. That would be in addition to the existing vegetation along the property line. Vice Chairman Young asked if the sound has ever been measured at this location. Mr. Blomeley said he has heard testimony from people that police have been out there on several occasions in response to complaints. He is not aware of any noise violations, however. Pastor Kairdolf said the police came out a couple of times when they first built but there were no violations. He said he has no problem fixing the existing drainage issues but the church can t fix them if they don t have Phase III, because there is no way for them to control the water without a curb system on the north side. He said they would tie the downspout into a pipe, route it around the edge and let the water flow onto the hard top, and then move it toward the southeast. Mr. Halliburton asked if the proposed storm water detention area is part of Phase III. Mr. Guenther said they would have to make sure any additional asphalt put into place on Phase III is handled under City Ordinances as far as storm water control. He said they are not going to need near as much area as they would for Phase IV. He said they will have to treat that water and make sure they are addressing it from both storm water quality and quantity standpoints. Vice-Chairman Young asked if the proposed storm water detention area would begin with Phase III. 19

21 Mr. Guenther said that the church will have to do something to handle the storm water. He is not sure what the calculations are so he can t say how big it will be. It will have to go through site plan review. Mr. Halliburton said there is not a reason to do that in the southeast corner now. Mr. Guenther said if they do a treatment of the small parking area, it is going to require much less storm drainage work. If they do a storm water drainage that has to handle the new building and all the additional parking, then it s going to be a significant feature. Mr. Halliburton said that he is afraid there may be the same water issues that are going to occur in the future. Mr. Guenther said they would need a detention area. It is logically down in the southeast corner. How big it is, how far it extends along that property line, he couldn t say without doing the calculations. It will improve the situation in the sense that it can collect the water off the parking lot they want to add, it can collect some of the water that is currently running off of the field. They will want to design it to leave the possibility for the project to expand. That southeast corner is the logical place to solve both Phase III and Phase IV drainage issues. Vice-Chairman Young asked if the calculation is based on the amount of square feet they are paving. Mr. Guenther said it is based on amount of pavement they add and the amount of building they add, making sure they meet water quality requirements and that they don t increase any volume. He said that he thinks the drainage improvements will only improve the existing drainage issues because they are going to provide a facility to collect the water. Vice-Chairman Young said the detention area will help but may not eliminate all of the drainage issues in the corner. Mr. Guenther said he was under the impression that City Engineering came out and said they couldn t do anything. The issue was that right now you just have overland flow and open grass and that wasn t something the City could just come out and change. Now the applicant can change it by shaping a berm, building a detention pond, and at least collecting some of the water, even in Phase III. Mr. Halliburton asked why wouldn t you go ahead and make the improvements with the drainage in Phase III instead of waiting to Phase IV. Mr. Guenther said it is a commitment to infrastructure, a cost to the property owner. 20

22 Mr. Halliburton said that is what he needed to hear and asked if the cost was considerable. Pastor Kairdolf said he does not know how considerable the cost is. He said he does not want all of the church s water going onto the neighbor s properties. He didn t know there was an easement, but now they know there is an easement that they can access. He said they would have to raise the money as it is going to be costly. They planned to do this in phases as the church continued to grow. He said it is hard for him to say they will build a detention area and control the water at the same level they would do it in Phase IV. They don t have the money prepared to do all of what is shown in Phase IV but they do have the money to do Phase III right now. He said they will price it out and if this is what the Board requires, they will take a step of faith and will try to act in love. He said he does not want all the people angry with him; he wants them to be happy. He said they would do everything that they can. Mr. Ives addressed Mr. Halliburton saying that Phase III proposes to add asphalt to the parking spaces. That would create some run-off as that is a nice chunk of asphalt. However, Phase IV has a 38,000 square-foot roof plus parking for another 186 cars that will be a substantial storm water management situation. Mr. Ives is not sure if it would be reasonable to require the applicant to build that storm water facility when we don t know what is going to happen in five (5) years. To make them have expenditure for something they haven t built yet might be a little overreaching. Requiring they address storm water issues that they create by this 70-car parking lot is certainly required and again said it would be a part of site plan approval. Mr. Blomeley said when Staff met with Mr. Guenther and Mr. Bill Huddleston, a member of the City Engineering Staff attended the meeting. Mr. Blomeley said his understanding of the outcome of the meeting was that an acceptable drainage plan for this site could be designed. Mr. Guenther said the applicant s goal is to make it work for the church and improve drainage for the community at large. How much they can afford to do in a phase-byphase approach, he does not know. The difference between the Phase III and Phase IV drainage improvements, however, are significant. Vice-Chairman Young asked if the first portion was taking Phase III and deferring Phase IV. Chairman Rodgers said that is option they have. Right now the request includes both Phase III and Phase IV. 21

23 Mr. Halliburton asked if the Board has to vote on these two or can they come up with their own motion. Mr. Blomeley said the Board has to vote on what was advertised but if the Board is leaning toward approving Phase III with certain conditions that were discussed, the motion can be to approve Phase III and defer Phase IV indefinitely if that is acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Blomeley said the height variance being a component of Phase IV would also need to be deferred indefinitely. If that is the case, we would need to get verbal confirmation from the applicant that indefinite deferral on Phase IV and the height variance would be acceptable. Mr. Guenther said the applicant is in agreement with that type of motion. Mr. Halliburton asked if he put together that type of motion and Phase IV is deferred, will there be another public hearing when Phase IV comes back to the BZA? Mr. Blomeley said if there were substantial changes, it would require another public hearing. If not, it would be brought up under Old Business without another public hearing. Mr. Halliburton asked if the Board could make it a contingency to hold another public hearing on Phase IV when it is brought back up. Mr. Blomeley referred to Mr. Ives. Mr. Ives said he thinks the Board can do that or it can simply deny the application of Phase IV. That would preclude them from coming back for at least 18 months. He also suggested that the applicant could withdraw Phase IV. If it is withdrawn, then another public hearing will be required when it comes back to the BZA. Mr. Blomeley read the section of the BZA Rules of Procedure dealing with withdrawal. He asked Mr. Ives for confirmation that the applicant could withdraw only a portion of the application. Mr. Ives said that he does not see any problem approving only part of the application and having part of the application withdrawn. Mr. Guenther asked if the applicant withdraws Phase IV, whether or not it can be brought back to the BZA within 18 months? Mr. Blomeley said yes, it could be brought back up within 18 months. 22

24 Mr. Guenther said the applicant would like to leave Phase III for the Board s consideration today and would like to withdraw the Phase IV portion of the special use permit. Mr. Blomeley asked if the withdrawal includes the height variance. Mr. Guenther said yes. Chairman Rodgers said there are still some conditions that need to be included in the motion. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve Phase III with a couple of changes (1) the parking lot will be located 50-feet from the property line vs. 35-feet; (2) install noise mitigation measures in the existing structure; (3) make drainage improvements pertaining to the existing building and provide an acceptable drainage plan for Phase III. (Additional discussion regarding the conditions continues below.) Mr. Halliburton said that he wants to make sure that the drainage improvements pertaining to the existing building are completed as a part of Phase III. Mr. Blomeley verified the condition regarding drainage is to drain the existing building to the proposed parking lot in the manner that has been described via a piping system and that there also be a drainage plan submitted for Phase III that has no negative impact on any of the surrounding property owners. Mr. Halliburton said that is correct. Mr. Ives said that a compliant drainage plan is an appropriate condition and also a requirement of site plan approval. This will convey to the Planning Commission and Planning Department the concern about the drainage. Mr. Blomeley said in looking at the three recommended conditions that were on the original Staff comments, it looks like number 3 would be a moot point, so it can be removed from the motion. He thinks conditions 1 and 2 are still applicable, though. Mr. Halliburton agreed. Mr. Blomeley said there will be a total of five conditions: one with regards to the drainage; one with regards to noise mitigation; one with regard to the parking area being no closer than 50-feet from the northern property line; and the first and second condition listed in the Staff comments. 23

25 Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve the Phase III special use permit request with the following conditions: 1) All existing trees immediately adjacent to the property line shall remain undisturbed. 2) The double row of evergreen trees proposed along the north property line shall meet minimum requirements for a Type C Buffer. 3) The Phase 3 parking lot expansion shall be located no closer than 50 from the north property line. 4) Noise mitigation measures for the existing sanctuary building shall be implemented in conjunction with Phase 3. 5) Measures to route drainage associated with the existing sanctuary building away from the north property line shall be implemented in conjunction with Phase 3. In addition, the Phase 3 drainage plan must demonstrate no negative impact on adjacent properties as a result of the construction of Phase 3. The second was made by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor with one abstention (Ms. King). Chairman Rodgers told the applicant that he will have to come back to the BZA if the church decides to proceed with Phase IV. Staff Reports & Other Business Public Chapter 862 Update (Required Continuing Education for BZA members for 2013) Mr. Lewis handed out the summary of credit hours each BZA member has obtained as of this date. He encouraged the members to call him if there are any questions or discrepancies. Application Z by Mr. Alan Gauger, for K&G Fireworks, LLC, is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (seasonal fireworks retailer) in a Heavy-Industrial (H-I) zone for property located at 1945 Northwest Broad Street. Mr. Blomeley said Mr. Gauger was on the agenda last month and approved to sell fireworks on the corner of Broad Street and Thompson. Mr. Gauger is requesting that one of his conditions of approval be modified. Mr. Blomeley and Mr. Ives determined that this was something the board could review and determine whether or not it felt the alternative condition was appropriate. Mr. Blomeley handed out a letter from Mr. Gauger, which included an from Mr. Ram Balachandran, Traffic Engineer. 24

26 Mr. Blomeley said the specific condition was that two Type-3 barricades must be in place for the duration of the selling season along the Northwest Broad Street frontage of the subject property near the intersection of North Thompson Lane. Mr. Blomeley pointed out on the overhead the areas where the applicant was going to place two Type-3 barricades, which could have been two 4-foot barricades or two 8-foot barricades, as either one would have been acceptable. The applicant is proposing to install one 8-foot Type-3 barricade with 3-foot cones on both sides of the barricade. He is afraid of liability issues if someone makes the turn into the parking lot and clips one of those barricades. He still wants to maintain that separation from the intersection but to do so with a combination of Type 3 barricades and cones. The attached from Mr. Balachandran indicates that he feels comfortable with this alternative solution. If the Board sees fit to replace that condition with this alternative, both the Planning Legal Departments feel that this can be done without an additional public hearing. Chairman Rodgers asked if there was any discussion or a motion. Ms. King made a motion to approve the request to install one (1) 8 Type-3 barricade with 3 cones on both sides of the barricade. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 25

27 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS JUNE 26, 2013 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: S Samsonite Boulevard Mr. Trevor Sledge, for Sledgecraft, Inc. Heavy-Industrial (H-I) A variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement The applicant, Trevor Sledge representing Sledgecraft, Inc. is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a foundation or sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement without consent of the easement holder and Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The sign location proposed at 1133 Samsonite Blvd is within an H-I Zone. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one (1) non-illuminated freestanding wall sign with 12 sq.ft. display area and an overall height of 9 4. The sign will be located

28 within a 20 Sanitary Sewer Easement. The Agreement for a Sign in a City of Murfreesboro Easement has been signed by the Director of Building & Codes and the Murfreesboro Water and Sewer Department with the stipulation that the footing for the sign be no closer than 7 from the sewer main line within the easement and this location must be field located by a Tennessee registered engineer or surveyor with a sign placement certification completed and signed by said party. The applicant will comply with all other setbacks and regulations. Mr. Sledge will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.

29 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS JUNE 26, 2013 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z Wycheck Lane Ms. Margot Damiano Residential Single-Family (RS-8) A 7.5 variance from the minimum required 20 rear building setback for principal structures, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance The subject property, 3323 Wycheck Lane, is located within the Villages at Savannah Ridge subdivision, which is east of Shelbyville Pike and north of Joe B Jackson Parkway. The subject property is zoned RS-8, and there is an existing single-family home there. The applicant has plans to construct an addition to the rear of the existing residence. The addition is proposed to encroach into the rear setback by 7 ; therefore, the applicants are

30 seeking a rear setback variance. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant, as well as a plot plan depicting the addition. Photographs of the existing conditions and the surrounding neighborhood have been included by Staff for the Board s reference. The applicant has including several additional photographs as well. The subject property abuts single-family residential uses on the north, south, and east sides. The lots to the west across Wycheck Lane were platted as part of the Villages at Savannah Ridge Subdivision but were later rezoned from RS-8 to PCD, as part of a Planned Commercial Development fronting on Shelbyville Pike that was never developed. The proposed addition will be to the rear of the house just to the north of the existing concrete patio. In the RS-8 zone, there is a 20 rear building setback required for principal structures. Even though the plot plan indicates that at its closest point, the proposed sunroom will be 7 from the rear property line (requiring a 13 variance), the applicant has requested a 7.5 variance in order to provide a little extra flexibility during the construction process. The applicant states that the addition, which is 234 square-feet in area, will consist of a bedroom, a half-bathroom, and an expansion of the existing breakfast room. She indicates that the addition will help her to accommodate numerous family members who visit on a regular basis. The house is single-level, which is one of the primary reasons she purchased it. Because of medical and practical considerations, she and her husband did not want a home with stairs and a second level. The house has a front-entry garage that protrudes about from the main plane of the home. Because of the location and design of the front-entry garage, the non-garage portion of the home is pushed back behind the front setback line. In addition, the rear of the house almost directly abuts the rear setback line. Mrs. Damiano has looked at options for expansion other than adding on to the rear. Building a second-story addition would defeat the purpose of having the house all on one level, and building at the front of the house next to the garage would alter the front façade of the house. Instead, she has opted for the proposed addition at the rear of the house. She has indicated that the proposed addition will match the existing home in appearance and materials. Ms. Damiano will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.

31 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS JUNE 26, 2013 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z Sulphur Springs Road Mr. Joe Swanson, Jr. of Swanson Developments, LP, for Victory Christian Center of Murfreesboro, Inc. Residential Single-Family (RS-10) The extension of a special use permit that was granted on August 12, The 1998 special use permit allowed for the expansion of an institutional group assembly use (a church) by the placement of four (4) portable classroom buildings on the subject property. The applicant is requesting that the three (3) existing portable classroom buildings located on the subject property be allowed to remain on-site for an additional three (3) years.