CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, November 20, 2014, 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 Variance Requests a. Application Z-14-063 by Mr. Thomas Steffen, for D.R. Horton, Inc., is making the following requests for property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone at 5122 General Eisenhower Drive (also known as Lot 206 of the Liberty Valley Subdivision): A 10 variance from the minimum required 40 front 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; and A 17 variance from the minimum required 30 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. b. Application Z-14-064 by Mr. Lanson Hudson, is requesting a 6 variance from the minimum required 25 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-10) zone at 2630 Mission Ridge Drive. c. Application Z-14-065 by Mr. Matt Taylor of SEC, Inc., and Mr. Russ Hatke of New Ground, for AEDC (Ascend) Federal Credit Union, are requesting a 27 variance from the minimum required 42 front 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 Commercial Local (CL) zone along the south side of East Main Street east of Dill Lane. More specifically, the subject property is located at 2302 and 2308 East Main Street, 103 and 111 Dill Lane, and 106 Nesbitt Drive. The variance pertains to the front building setback along East Main Street. 4. Staff Reports and Other Business 5. Adjourn
Minutes of the Murfreesboro BZA 1:00 P.M. City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT John Rodgers, Chair Davis Young, Vice-Chair Julie R.P. King Frances Mosby Ken Halliburton MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Matthew Blomeley, Principal Planner David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Chairman Rodgers called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Consideration of minutes: The minutes for the September 24, 2014 regular meeting were approved as submitted. New Business: Variance Requests Application Z-14-057 by Mr. Tyler Thomason, for Harmony Homes of TN, LLC, is requesting a 10.8 variance from the minimum required 25 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-12) zone at 2715 United Drive. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Thomason was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Thomason said he plans to plant the Leyland Cypress trees right up against the covered patio. He said there is no intention to enclose the patio or make it heated space. He also said the homeowner wants to eventually build a fence. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried in favor by a vote of 4-1 (Chairman Rodgers voted against the motion). (The following discussion took place after the motion was seconded but before the vote.) Chairman Rodgers said he does not know where the practical difficulties lie and if this was an isolated situation, he wouldn t have as much concern. However, Mr. Blomeley mentioned the four lots to the south possibly needing variances. Chairman Rodgers said that he understands the shallowness of the properties is being used to justify the requirement that there be a practical difficulty that is unusual compared to other properties in the same zoning district. He said this subdivision was laid out, platted, and approved by the Planning Commission. This is a shallow lot and the reason it was built in the setback is not because it is a shallow lot but because the builders forgot or didn t know that this attached overhang was going to be in violation of the setback. Chairman Rodgers said the applicant has not proven any one of the three requirements for a variance and that concern is magnified by the fact there are four more lots with possible variance requests because of something that everybody knew on the front end. Mr. Blomeley said the situation on the four lots to the south is a little different as they have a 25 drainage easement instead of a 10 drainage easement along the rear of the property lines. The entire rear setback for those lots is in a drainage easement. When he was discussing those four lots with the other builder, his concern was that you open up the back door and immediately there is a drop-off into that ditch. The other builder was looking at the possibility of shifting the houses forward a little bit on those lots so the back door wouldn t be opening up right into the ditch. Mr. Blomeley said the lot in question today only has a 10 drainage easement and does not have that same substantial ditch as the four lots to the south. Chairman Rodgers said that means the practical difficulties may conceivably apply to those four lots but further indicates there is less practical difficulty with this lot. Chairman Rodgers said the concern is that, whether the drainage easement is 10 or 25, it is a platted subdivision, approved by the Planning Commission, purchased by the builder, and then the customer. He said it is all a matter of clear public record when they go in and buy these properties. He said in this case he does not think there are grounds for a variance. 2
Application Z-14-058 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Hearthstone Group, LLC, is making the following requests for property located in the Commercial Highway (CH), Heavy-Industrial (H-I), and Gateway Design Overlay District (GDO-4) zones along the south side of Hanson Court (identified as Tax Map 091G, Group C, Parcels 01801, 01803, and 01804) and at 906 Dashiel Street: A 10 variance from Section 24, Article III (F)(3)(d)[1] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum 15 -wide front landscape yard along local streets; A 6 variance from Section 27(J) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum 8 -wide side planting yard where the site is more than two (2) acres and less than five (5) acres; A 3 variance from Section 24, Article III (F)(7) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum 5 -wide landscape strip along the base of the building; A 12 variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[4] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 15 between parking and/or access drives and adjacent property on lots of 1.5 acres or more; and A 3 variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[3] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 10 between buildings and parking and/or access drives on lots of 1.5 acres or more. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the requests, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the four lots into one lot of record must be recorded. Mr. Rountree and Mr. Scott Graby of the Hearthstone Group were present to answer questions. Ms. King asked about the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Blomeley said for office uses it is one space for every 300 square feet of floor area. The event area on the roof will not be coincident with the office use of the property, as it will be used primarily in the evening time when the offices are closed. Ms. King asked if they exceed or meet those parking spaces. Mr. Blomeley said he thinks they have two or three surplus parking spaces. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley to point out the three lots on Hanson Court again. 3
Mr. Blomeley pointed out the three lots on an aerial photo. Mr. Ives said these lots are remnants from land that was acquired for the construction of Medical Center Parkway. Chairman Rodgers asked if these variance requests pertain to these three lots. Mr. Blomeley said the only variance that is not in the area of these three lots is the side landscape yard, which is the 2 nd variance request. He said that is being requested for the building addition which would still be on the 906 Dashiel Street property. Chairman Rodgers verified the existing building under renovation is being renovated in its current footprint. Mr. Blomeley said yes, but they did demolish a small portion of the building. Chairman Rodgers said it appears to be only 2 off the west side property line. Mr. Blomeley said the building is about 10 off that lot line and there may be a sidewalk behind the building. Chairman Rodgers said the proposed building is going to line-up with the back of the existing one. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct, they are looking to line the building addition up with the existing building. Ms. King asked if this is resubdivided to become one lot, will the requirements of the GDO apply to the 906 Dashiel property. Mr. Blomeley said the GDO standards do not apply to the 906 Dashiel property but that it is his understanding that the developer is attempting to voluntarily replicate many of the GDO standards on this portion of the property as well. Mr. Blomeley said Mr. Rountree or Mr. Graby may be able to speak better to some of those specifics. Ms. King verified the resubdividing of the property would not require any more requests for variances. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. He said if it were not resubdivided, there would be the need for additional variances because the plan they have assumes the resubdivision will take place and is based on the lot lines as they are proposed as opposed to the lot lines as they are right now. 4
Ms. King verified there would not be any more variance requests needed if the parcels are resubdivided. Mr. Blomeley said no, not to his knowledge. He said the zoning would stay the same and the property would remain split-zoned. A portion of the property would be zoned H-I and a portion would be zoned CH and GDO-4. Mr. Halliburton asked if it was a good idea to for a property to be split-zoned. Mr. Blomeley said that it is appropriate, as long as the use is permitted in both zones. Chairman Rodgers asked if these variances have to do with the need to squeeze parking on to the property and get the required number of spaces. He said if they are two or three over what they need and they eliminated those additional parking spaces would it eliminate the need for any or all of these variance requests. Mr. Blomeley said it depends on how they reoriented the parking lot. He said in the northwest appendage they would likely still need some variances. It may reduce the number of variances or the number of locations where variances are needed. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Parker, 1119 Hanson Court, said he was speaking for Mr. Don Bruce. Mr. Parker said that lot on Hanson Court hasn t been for sale for 14 years and asked why is it being sold now. Mr. Parker said Mr. Bruce has been trying to buy that lot for 14 years. He said they need parking for their building. He asked the Board to not grant that variance because if the new owners build a parking lot there, his customers are going to park in that parking lot, and he does not want his customers to get towed. Chairman Rodgers said the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot answer the question about the property sale. Chairman Rodgers asked if Mr. Parker has viewed the plans. Mr. Parker said yes. Chairman Rodgers said the applicants can legally put the parking lot within 15 of the property line and they want to put it within 3 of the property line. He asked Mr. Parker if he thinks moving it back 12 would solve his concern. Mr. Parker said Mr. Bruce has his right to his property line as well as somebody else has their right for their property line. Mr. Halliburton asked Mr. Parker where the customers are currently parking. 5
Mr. Parker said currently the parking is tight and they are having to park in the grass and out in front of the buildings. Mr. Ives said they are illegally parking on the City owned property. They have been given notice but the City has not taken any enforcement action. Mr. Parker said he does not know about any notices. He said if there is an issue there, they might need the lot for their parking. Chairman Rodgers said that Mr. Parker might want to talk with Mr. Graby and Mr. Rountree about working something out with regards to parking. Mr. Parker said the property is City property. Mr. Ives said that is not a subject for this Board. Mr. Don Bruce, 1119 Hanson Court, said he owns the property next door. Mr. Bruce said he has tried to buy that property for 14 years and Mr. Rob Lyons, the City Manager, told him that property was never for sale. Mr. Bruce is against granting a 12 variance because 3 from the property line puts the parking lot 7 from his building. When the applicants asked to buy this property, it was his understanding that they agreed to adhere to all the GDO standards. He said if they are going to buy the property, they need to adhere to everything they said they would do. Mr. Rountree said, in response to Mr. Bruce s concern, that the applicant, Mr. Graby, has volunteered to take that pressure point off by eliminating that one parking space along that edge. Mr. Rountree said it is the client s desire to meet all the Gateway Standards the best way possible. He said they could provide a dense landscaping buffer there as well to make sure it is not a logical place for people to park in order to get to the adjacent property. With those concessions in mind, they would rather not give up any more parking if possible. Mr. Graby is making a significant improvement in the area, and the building is going to be a nice signature element for the Gateway. Ms. King asked Mr. Rountree to clarify the spaces he referred to earlier. Mr. Rountree said that there is one extra space along the Medical Center Parkway side they could eliminate. They could still keep the hammerhead in place. If you look on the other side, there are 8.5 parking spaces for compact cars. He said they could take the two 9 out and make those compact as well. Mr. Rountree said it is not a lot but it is something that would help them get a little bit more distance between the property and the corner of the parking lot. 6
Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley if he has a way to show what Mr. Rountree is proposing. Vice-Chairman Young asked if that would alleviate the 12 variance in that section or just lessen the impact. He sees on the exhibit there are 106 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Rountree said it would lessen the impact on Mr. Bruce s property. He said they can add landscaping there to make it a more definitive line. Mr. Blomeley said the tightest pinch point is not where those 5 parking spaces are but where the bump-out in the parking lot is. He asked Mr. Rountree if you got rid of those two parking spaces, would you not still need a 12 variance. Mr. Rountree said he was not sure. Mr. Ives asked additional questions about which parking spaces Mr. Rountree was referring to. Mr. Blomeley expressed concern that Mr. Rountree was exceeding the amount of parking spaces for the office use but according to the calculations, there is no surplus parking provided for the event center use. Mr. Blomeley asked if that would put the applicant under the minimum parking requirements. Mr. Rountree said he was not sure and would have to evaluate that. Mr. Rountree said Mr. Graby is willing to remove the two end parking spaces to take pressure off the property line. Mr. Rountree said they would have to research adding parking to other locations. Mr. Blomeley said he asked that question because there needs to be surplus parking to give before they start removing parking spaces. Mr. Rountree said it would be their preference not to remove any parking spaces but it is a concession Mr. Graby is willing to make along with landscape buffering along the west property line. Chairman Rodgers said he would like a definitive answer to whether or not there is surplus parking before the Board considers whether parking spaces can be removed. Mr. Blomeley said, according to the calculations that have been provided on the plan, 107 spaces are required for the event center use. Mr. Blomeley said he would like to check the formula that was used on the plan with the applicable formula in the zoning ordinance. 7
Mr. Ives said he wonders if they are already one space short now. Mr. Ives said you have 106 parking spaces and 107 spaces are required. Ms. King asked if the 107 parking spaces include the handicap parking. Mr. Blomeley said no. Ms. King said if she is reading it correctly, it looks like they have 120 parking spaces (106 regular and 4 handicap). Mr. Halliburton said that adds up to 110 parking spaces. Mr. Blomeley said the parking requirements are exclusive of the handicap parking spaces. Chairman Rodgers asked if it would be better to defer this and have the applicant take a closer look at Mr. Bruce s concerns and then consider this at a later date. Mr. Rountree said deferring the request would be problematic. He said the reason they are in this situation is because of the parking requirement and the strange geometry of the site. He said they would not be able to lose much more parking without seeking a variance regarding meeting minimum parking requirements. Chairman Rodgers said he loves this project and thinks this is the kind of thing variances are intended to address. He said, however, that the Board could approve this as is and still find out there are not enough parking spaces. Mr. Graby said they are willing to work with the neighbors as far as joint parking. He said they want to be good neighbors and don t intend to cramp them at all and will work with them any way they can. He thinks this project will improve property values. Mr. Blomeley pointed out that this has been to the Planning Commission for initial design review and he feels certain the Planning Commission would not have approved something that did not meet minimum parking requirements. He feels certain the site meets the parking requirements, regardless of what the plan says. However, he does not know if there are any surplus parking spaces that could be removed. Chairman Rodgers asked what might happen if the Board approved this subject to the deletion of one parking space to move the parking lot further from Mr. Bruce s property and then it was discovered that the site did not meet minimum parking requirements. Mr. Blomeley said the applicant could file a separate request for a parking variance. 8
Chairman Rodgers asked if they could deal with a parking variance today. Mr. Blomeley said no, as it would have to be advertised. Mr. Ives said Mr. Bruce commented that this is somehow damaging his property and commenting the City has refused to sell him the property. Mr. Ives said Mr. Bruce applied and went through the process of the Gateway Commission. Mr. Ives said there were three proposals for the property and the Gateway Commission selected Mr. Graby s proposal. Unfortunately for Mr. Bruce, he has had parking problems since the day he opened those buildings and wanted the City to solve his problem by selling him some more property. The City has not elected to do that and does not think the City would ever be required to do that. Mr. Ives said Staff feels very strongly that this is a good proposal and a great use for this property. He said the fact that the parking lot is proposed to be several feet from the property line is not a claim of damage to Mr. Bruce s property. He said it is not that unusual to have relatively close commercial office buildings. In terms of satisfying the Gateway standards, they can be adjusted with variances. He said it is not unusual at all for projects in the Gateway to come to the BZA seeking a variance for these regulations. Mr. Ives said Staff is supportive of the variances being granted as requested and allowing this project to proceed. Chairman Rodgers said he agrees with everything Mr. Ives said but feels that Mr. Bruce has an expectation that the ordinances will be adhered to. This is going to move this parking lot within three feet of his property line which is twelve feet off of what he could expect by ordinance. Chairman Rodgers said they have an opportunity by trimming one parking space, because they are two over what they need. Mr. Graby said since the greatest parking demand will probably be in the evenings when they use the event venue as opposed to daytime hours, perhaps they can designate those end two spaces to the adjacent businesses. In the evenings the event venue would have those two spaces for its use. Mr. Halliburton said he thinks that is a great idea. Mr. Graby said that gives the adjacent businesses two spaces they would not otherwise have. Mr. Halliburton agreed. Mr. Halliburton said he would rather allow him to keep the spaces on the plan as long as Mr. Graby is in agreement to allow them to utilize at least two of those spaces. Ms. King expressed concern that is something the City does not have any business doing, as that is a contract between two private individuals. She said it would be difficult for the BZA to place as a condition of approval. 9
Mr. Graby understood her concern. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Rountree to come to his desk so he could show them what his concerns were. Mr. Blomeley said that the Planning Department received correspondence from a neighboring property owner, Mr. Guy Dotson. Mr. Blomeley put that correspondence in front of each Board Member. There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve a 10 variance from Section 24, Article III (F)(3)(d)[1], which requires a minimum 15 -wide front landscape yard along local streets, with the following condition: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the four lots into one lot of record must be recorded. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Chairman Rodgers asked if the variances labeled on the plan as variances #2 and #4 correspond with the bullets listed in the legal notice. Mr. Blomeley said yes. He added that variance #2 pertains to the pinch point in the northwest appendage as well as along the back side of the proposed building addition. Chairman Rodgers said this is the one he would ask the Board to consider making an approval conditioned on the elimination of the one parking space in the northwest corner. Mr. Blomeley said he thinks that condition may be more appropriate with variance #4. Vice-Chairman Young verified they would vote on variance #2 as it is and not deal with that parking space yet. Mr. Blomeley agreed stating they will still need the full 6 variance along the backside of the building which he believes the Board has not expressed any displeasure with. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve a 6 variance from Section 27(J), which requires a minimum 8 -wide side planting yard where the site is more than two (2) acres and less than five (5) acres, with the following condition: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the four lots into one lot of record must be recorded. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. 10
Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve a 3 variance from Section 24, Article III (F)(7), which requires a minimum 5 -wide landscape strip along the base of the building, with the following condition: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the four lots into one lot of record must be recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Vice-Chairman Young asked if a parking space is removed, will the site still meet minimum parking requirements. Mr. Blomeley said he can t say for certain. He said that if the Board wishes to eliminate a space, he would like to see if Mr. Rountree could figure out what the distance to the property line would be if that spot is eliminated. Chairman Rodgers asked if Mr. Blomeley would like Mr. Rountree to figure that now. Mr. Blomeley said yes, if possible. Then, after looking at the exhibit, Mr. Blomeley said the full 12 variance will still be needed even if approval was conditioned upon that space being eliminated, due to another area that will still need the 12 variance. Chairman Rodgers said Mr. Rountree does not need to do the calculation. Mr. Blomeley agreed. Vice-Chairman Young asked for specifics regarding which parking space will be removed. Mr. Blomeley said if the Board decided to condition the approval upon the elimination of that space, the amount of variance approved would essentially be determined by the remaining distance. He said it was advertised at a 12 variance and that 12 variance would still be required because there is an area that isn t adjacent to Mr. Bruce s property where they still need that 12 variance. Mr. Blomeley said he would be happy to show the area in question to Vice-Chairman Young. Vice-Chairman Young said he sees where Mr. Blomeley is talking about. Chairman Rodgers said if you eliminate that one parking space, you eliminate the need for a variance at that point. Mr. Blomeley said the dotted line along Mr. Bruce s property is showing the 8 planting yard. It is not showing the 15 so even if they get to that 8 planting yard, it may still be in that 15 separation area. 11
Chairman Rodgers said he thought that was a setback line. Mr. Blomeley said there are a lot of moving parts with this particular plan. Vice-Chairman Young stated they are still allowing the 12 but are they creating a parking difficulty? Chairman Rodgers said if this creates a parking deficit, he will come back to the BZA and request a parking variance. Mr. Blomeley said he could request a variance or adjust the building size. It may be that he does have that space to give, we just don t know at this point. Mr. Blomeley said if it were purely office he would have two surplus spaces based on the calculations, but with the calculations for the event center he would have to research the correct formula. Vice-Chairman Young said if they approve the bullet point as it is written, his understanding is that one spot is going away or they will come back for a parking variance. Mr. Halliburton said that would have to be part of their motion. Mr. Blomeley agreed. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve a 12 variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[4], which requires a minimum of 15 between parking and/or access drives and adjacent property on lots of 1.5 acres or more, with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the four lots into one lot of record must be recorded. 2) The westernmost parking space in the front row of parking spaces just south of Hanson Court must be eliminated from the plan. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Mr. Halliburton said if this gets approved today both parties can work out somewhat of a gentleman s agreement regarding the use of the parking lot. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve a 3 variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[3], which requires a minimum of 10 between buildings and parking and/or access drives on lots of 1.5 acres or more, with the following condition: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the four lots into one lot of record must be recorded. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. 12
Special Use Permit Requests Application Z-14-059 by Ms. Brandy Herman, is requesting a special use permit in order to conduct a home occupation (a hair salon) at her residence located at 1112 Peachtree Street. The property is located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) All client visits are to be by appointment only, there shall be no overlapping appointments, and there shall be a maximum of 6 appointments per business day. 2) Hours of operation shall not exceed the hours of operation contained in the application, and all appointments shall end no later than 6 PM. 3) Any signage approved for this home-based business by the Board of Zoning Appeals shall also conform to the City Sign Ordinance. Ms. Herman and her husband Jonathan were present to answer any questions. Mr. Herman said their intention to open the hair salon is not to hurt the neighborhood, as he realized there were people present to object to the application. Mr. Herman said he obtained 60 signatures of neighbors in support of the application. He said they tried to go out of their way to make it look like there wasn t a garage previously there. Mr. Herman said he is out of work as he drove a school bus and had to quit. He said their son was diagnosed with leukemia last October and they lost him in May. Ms. Herman was previously working at a place where they can t afford the monthly rent for a booth. Ms. Herman said they have a 10 month old child and she wants to be close to him and not miss a minute of his life. She said this is just a way for her to continue to work and be with her son. Mr. Herman said the people that were present to object live in the cul-de-sac of Lucille Lane. He volunteered to tell clients not to drive in that area. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. Preston Larry Wilkerson, 1738 Lucille Lane, said his property is three houses from the subject property. He said they were very careful to select this particular subdivision to build their house because of the proximity to City services and because of the existing RS-10 zoning. He said once the integrity of a subdivision or neighborhood is compromised, it is very difficult to deny any other request that is made and thus the downward spiral begins. Mr. Wilkerson said their primary concern is for the safety and welfare of the children and citizens. He said there are over 50 residential properties within this subdivision but there are access points, with one being at Peachtree and 13
Lucille and the other at Clifford and Battleground Drive. He expressed concerns about on-street parking. Mr. Wilkerson expressed concerns about previous activity on the subject property, including multiple yard sales. He said there was one occasion he estimates that there were 15 18 vehicles in the driveway, on the yard, and parked on Peachtree and Lucille Lane. Mr. Wilkerson said he could not say for sure what that particular situation was but he was told it was some type of business demonstration. He said it was very difficult to navigate through the area. Until this request for a zoning change was put in the yard, it was not uncommon for the neighbors to see 1-8 vehicles in the yard, driveway, or street. There have been some cases that trucks parked in the driveway, extended into the street past the gutters on Lucille Lane. He said he does not know what is taking place and was told they were selling used cars there. He said he was concerned with all that has already taken place, as well as what will take place when a special use permit is issued. He expressed concerns about impact of this business on the safety of pedestrians, as well as the ability of emergency service providers to access the neighborhood during an emergency. As a retired real estate appraiser, he said property values could be impacted. Mr. Wilkerson said they purchased in this neighborhood because it was single-family residential in nature. He asked the Board to not approve this request and sacrifice the safety, rights, and benefits of many of the neighbors for the benefit of one. Ms. King asked Mr. Wilkerson if the previous garage sales he mentioned were at the subject property. Mr. Wilkerson said yes, there have been multiple garage sales by the applicant on that property. Ms. King also asked if the applicants were the ones parking 8 cars in the street. Mr. Wilkerson said people at the garage sale would park in the streets because the garage sale was set-up in the driveway. Ms. King asked about another time Mr. Wilkerson referred to them parking on the street. Mr. Wilkerson said there was one additional situation that occurred but he did not recall the exact date. He was told there was some type of business demonstration that was being held at the subject property. He does not know what it was but he knows they were parked on both sides of the street on Peachtree as well as Lucille Lane and it was very difficult to get in and out. Ms. King said she couldn t tell in his previous statement whether he meant that was another location hosting garage sales and other events. 14
Mr. Wilkerson said he was speaking of the subject property having multiple garage sales over the year. Ms. King thanked Mr. Wilkerson for his clarification. Ms. Karen Lawter, 1730 Lucille Lane, said that she lives next door to this property and is also concerned about property values. She said this neighborhood has narrow streets and she is concerned about traffic. She said appointments are not always kept and people would be running into each other with overlapping schedules. Ms. Nicole Cutlip, 1746 Lucille Lane, said that she is located four houses down from the subject property. Ms. Cutlip said she was upset because the applicants had their grand opening before the zoning signs were put in their yard. She thought the zoning signs should be up prior to even building the beauty shop. Ms. Cutlip said they do not want a beauty shop in the neighborhood. The parking is horrendous. She said she is concerned about the narrow streets and vehicles parking on the streets. She also expressed concern about how the additional traffic would impact the children that play on the street. She also expressed concerns about property values. Ms. Andrea Williams, 1742 Lucille Lane, said that she wanted to go on record that she was not in favor of this application for the same reasons that have been previously stated. Ms. Williams said that is very sympathetic to Ms. Herman wanting to work from home and went on to say that she works from home as well. She said that she is concerned about property values and maintaining the integrity of the residential neighborhood. Mr. Gary Mizar, 1758 Lucille Lane, said he has no objection to the applicants working in their home. He has known them for about 1 ½ years and they are good people. Mr. Mizar said he could understand people not wanting to have a business in that area. He also said he knew of several homes that have cars parked on Lucille Lane and asked why there wasn t anyone complaining about that. He said there was a gentleman down the street that died recently and would have parties until 2:00 in the morning with 12-15 cars on that street and nobody complained. He asked why there wasn t anything being done about the speeding in that area and expressed concern. He said if people want to live and work from their home that should be their privilege. Mr. Ray Gilley, 1206 Peachtree Street, said he has lived at this location for approximately 2 years. He said John and Brandy Herman have one of the sharpest landscaped, neat homes on Peachtree. Mr. Gilley spoke in favor of the application and he said he hoped the Board would pass this. There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. 15
Mr. Herman said that he wanted to let everyone know that he cares about the children in the neighborhood and what the neighbors haven t seen is how many times he has stepped out in the middle of the road to stop somebody that is speeding. He said he tries to keep speeding down and tells people at the stop sign to slow down in his neighborhood. Chairman Rodgers said the Board Members are interested in some of the concerns that were brought up by the speakers. Mr. Herman referred to the garage sales that were mentioned and said he has had a garage sale in the past. He said he did not have garage sales on a frequent basis, though. Chairman Rodgers asked about the business activity that had been mentioned. Mr. Herman said after the construction of the salon was complete a few of Ms. Herman s friends came by and took a look at the salon. Ms. Herman gave the visitors some muffins when they stopped by. He said there was no business demonstration. Chairman Rodgers asked if he ever sold used cars from this property. Mr. Herman said he has sold one of his cars. Mr. Halliburton said this was one of the more difficult applications they have had when it comes to a beauty salon or hair salon. He said, speaking for himself, the Board has routinely approved these type of special use permits in the past based upon the lack of opposition from the neighbors because the Board does not want there to be a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Halliburton said before he heard the public comments, he was going to make the statement that this is probably the longest list of people that he has seen in support of a home-based business. There are several neighbors here that have some specific concerns with respects to the operation of the hair salon itself. He would never want to vote for anything that would have a negative impact in any neighborhood whether it was his neighborhood or their neighborhood. He said that is a matter of opinion as to whether it would or wouldn t and only time will tell. He said other homebased hair salons the Board have operated without complaint. Mr. Halliburton said he is on the fence with this because this is something that comes before the Board on a regular basis, but at the same time they don t usually have much neighbor opposition. Ms. Mosby stated the applicants made a good decision to have one customer at a time and they have two extra spaces for parking. She referred to the hours of operation and the last appointment being complete no later than 6:00 P.M. would be good. Ms. Mosby said it is outstanding to have 60 people who support the application. Vice-Chairman Young said the proposed business had reasonable operating parameters (time of operation, where they are going to park cars, how many appointments at a time, 16
no other employees, and open only 4 days a week) and this is as little of an impact compared to others they have reviewed. Vice-Chairman Young said this is a tough decision. Ms. King said when they set these conditions, if the Board approves this application, those conditions go into effect and limit the number of vehicles and customers, which is enforceable by the City. Ms. King said the Planning Staff visits sites where special use permits have been granted to make sure they are in compliance with the conditions of approval. It is the responsibility on the business owner to make sure they keep everything compliant. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley if he knew of any other home occupations that the Board has approved in this neighborhood in the last few years. He said he couldn t think of anything. Mr. Blomeley said there was a home-based daycare that was approved on Shelley Street just to the south of the subject property around 2008. He doesn t think it is in operation there anymore. Mr. Blomeley said family and group daycare homes are subject to a different set of criteria but they are still home-based businesses. Chairman Rodgers asked if there were any administratively-approved home-based businesses approved in this area. Mr. Blomeley said he feels certain there are. He said the Planning Department administratively approves multiple home-based businesses each day. Chairman Rodgers asked why this application was not allowed to be approved administratively and why it had to come to the BZA. Mr. Blomeley said because of the traffic and signage that is associated with the application. He said the administrative home-based business guidelines are there to make sure they are inconspicuous. He said if there is something that goes above and beyond what Staff can approve administratively such as there being traffic to and from the residence or any type of signage then a special use permit is required. Chairman Rodgers said the recommended conditions of approval reiterate many of the commitments made by the applicant in her application. Chairman Rodgers said the applicant has indicated she won t have any outside employees but that wasn t a recommended condition. Mr. Blomeley said yes, that is because outside employees are already strictly prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. 17
Chairman Rodgers asked if that goes without saying. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Chairman Rodgers asked about no on-street parking and asked if that would be appropriate to include if the application were approved. Mr. Blomeley said that would probably be an appropriate condition although it would be hard to enforce. Mr. Ives agreed with Mr. Blomeley stating unless the parking spaces are marked by City Staff as no parking, it is legal to park on all city streets subject to various requirements. Mr. Ives said he would not recommend that because of problems with enforcement. Chairman Rodgers referred to the pictures of the driveway stating there are two vehicles in the driveway and he is not sure if you could get another vehicle in there. Mr. Blomeley said he was able to park in the driveway. He added that the two vehicles shown in the picture were not pulled all the way up to the house. After some thought, Mr. Blomeley said he could not remember for certain whether he had parked in the driveway on one of his visits to the site. Chairman Rodgers mentioned in previous applications like this the Board has included a provision that the special use permit lapse upon the sale of the property. Chairman Rodgers then said the Board looks at whether the proposed use will have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property. He said he understands it may increase traffic a bit in the neighborhood but it has been said earlier that the proposed use here is one of the least intense home-based salons the Board has seen with regards to the hours of operation, one client at a time, and no employees. He said that he struggled to find how there would be a substantial or undue adverse effect on the adjacent property in this situation. Mr. Blomeley pointed out that he counselled the applicants to make sure they pull their vehicles as close to the garage as possible, so that there is ample room behind those vehicles for customers to park. Vice-Chairman Young asked if there is a business sign proposed and if it would be sized to be no bigger than the minimum that the State requires. Mr. Blomeley said yes, whatever the minimum size requirement is in order to meet State licensure requirements is what the applicants are proposing. He also reminded the Board that it must be attached to the house and that it cannot be freestanding. 18
Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) All client visits are to be by appointment only, there shall be no overlapping appointments, and there shall be a maximum of 6 appointments per business day. 2) Hours of operation shall not exceed the hours of operation contained in the application, and all appointments shall end no later than 6 PM. 3) Any signage approved for this home-based business by the Board of Zoning Appeals shall also conform to the City Sign Ordinance. 4) The special use permit shall lapse upon the sale of the property. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Chairman Rodgers called for a recess at 3:00 PM. Chairman Rodgers called the meeting back to order at 3:05 PM. Application Z-14-060 by Mr. Mike Jones, for the North Boulevard Church of Christ Men s Ministry, is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (Christmas tree sales) in a Commercial Highway (CH) zone for property located at 1266 Northwest Broad Street. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) All temporary structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district. Mr. Jones was not present. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) All temporary structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. 19
Application Z-14-061 by Mr. Dan Onkst, for Boy Scout Troop 197 of Fellowship United Methodist Church, is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (Christmas tree sales) at an institutional group assembly use (a church) in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone for property located at 2511 New Salem Highway. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) All temporary structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements for the RS-15 zoning district. Mr. Onkst was present to answer any questions. 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) 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. 2) All temporary structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements for the RS-15 zoning district. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-14-062 by Mr. Dan Onkst, for Boy Scout Troop 197 of Fellowship United Methodist Church, is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (Christmas tree sales) in a Commercial Highway (CH) zone for property located at 1807 Memorial Boulevard. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) All temporary structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district. 20
Mr. Onkst was present to answer any question. Mr. Onkst said they would put a portable building at the site instead of the trailer that is shown on the site plan. He said the trailer is too big to move at the end of each business day. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) All temporary structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. (The following discussion took place after the motion was made.) Mr. Halliburton verified that if the trailer is brought to the site, it would need to be moved every night. Mr. Blomeley said yes, that is the requirement per the Zoning Ordinance. However, if he has a stationary structure, like at the church and like Mr. Jones has at K-Mart, that could be placed there and stay there for the duration of the selling season. Ms. King asked if there was any need for an additional condition to be placed on the approval. Mr. Blomeley said no. If the Board is ok with either of those two options, he can work that out with Mr. Onkst before he sets up. Staff Reports and Other Business Mr. Blomeley announced that all of the Board Members have met their continuing education requirements for calendar year 2014. 21
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 22
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 20, 2014 Application: Z-14-063 Address: 5122 General Eisenhower Drive (also known as Lot 206 of the Liberty Valley Subdivision) Applicant: Mr. Thomas Steffen, for D.R. Horton, Inc. Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS-15) Requests: A 10 variance from the minimum required 40 front 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; and A 17 variance from the minimum required 30 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 is located in the Liberty Valley Subdivision, which is west of Central Valley Road. The request pertains to Lot 206 (5122 General Eisenhower Drive), which is located near the intersection of General Eisenhower Drive and Bastogne Way just south of George Washington Boulevard. The subject lot is zoned RS-15 (Residential Single-Family). The applicant would like to construct a single-family residence on the subject property. He proposes to reduce the front setback from 40 to 30 and the rear setback from 30 to 13. In order to do so, he has requested a 10 front setback variance and a 17 rear setback variance, respectively. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant detailing the variance request as well as a plot plan with the layout of a sample house. Photographs depicting the subject lot and surrounding area have also been included by Staff for the Board s review. The subject lot is surrounded by single-family zoning and single-family uses. There is an existing single-family residence to the south of the subject property. To the northwest is a vacant single-family lot. The property borders George Washington Boulevard on its north side. To the rear of the subject property is a single-family residence. The subject lot is 15,073 square-feet in area. It is located in the elbow of the intersection of General Eisenhower and Bastogne. This elbow somewhat resembles the bulb of a cul-de-sac. The specific house to be built on this lot has not yet been chosen. The house shown on the plot plan is one of the houses offered by the applicant s company. With these variance requests, the applicant is attempting to establish parameters to work with when a specific house plan is chosen. Staff believes that the subject lot is a good candidate for variances. After reviewing the lot to determine which property line was the rear lot line, Staff concluded that the east lot line was the rear lot line, leaving the lot with a very shallow building envelope once the setbacks were applied. At its shallowest point, the depth of the building envelope adjacent to the curve of the elbow is approximately 30, severely limiting the ability to build on this lot. The applicant purchased this lot from the developer in 2013 and is trying to move forward in constructing a house there. The Liberty Valley Section 3 subdivision plat was recorded in 2007, and it does not appear that the developer, the design engineer, or the Planning Staff realized the extent of the limitations on this lot prior to its recording. It should be noted that the lots to the south are zoned RS-10, which has lesser setbacks than the RS-15 zone. Because the lots to the south are not encumbered by the elbow and because they are zoned RS-10, their building envelopes are approximately 65 deep, much more generous than the 30 depth of the building envelope on the subject lot. The primary reason the applicant feels a variance is justified in this instance is the shallowness of the lot due to the elbow of the intersection. He also indicates that the size and shape of the lot were created by others and were present at the time his company purchased it. He also points to the drainage and sanitary sewer easements on the lot as additional limiting factors in the placement of the house. The front setback variance will allow the proposed house to not be located so far behind the adjacent house(s) to the south. If the front setback variance is granted, however, Staff recommends that a front entry garage not be allowed, so that there can be a driveway of adequate depth and
parking capacity provided. With regard to the rear setback, the applicant proposes to angle the house so that only one corner will need the full 17 variance. If the Board approves the front setback variance request, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) A front-entry garage will not be allowed for the proposed house. Mr. Steffen will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 20, 2014 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z-14-064 2630 Mission Ridge Drive Mr. Lanson Hudson Residential Single-Family (RS-10) A 6 variance from the minimum required 25 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, 2630 Mission Ridge Drive, is located within the Huntington Place subdivision, which is north of Dejarnette Lane. The subject property is zoned RS-10, and there is an existing single-family home there. The applicant has plans to construct a sunroom addition to the rear of the existing residence. The addition is proposed to encroach into the rear setback by approximately 6 ; therefore, the applicant is seeking a rear setback variance. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant,
as well as a survey of the property. The applicant has also submitted letters of support from the adjacent neighbors to the north, south, and east. Photographs of the subject property and the surrounding properties have also been included by Staff for the Board s reference. The subject property abuts single-family residential uses on all sides. The proposed sunroom addition will be to the rear of the house on the same footprint as the existing uncovered 10 x 14 wooden deck. Included in the agenda materials are several photographs depicting sunrooms that are similar to what the applicant proposes. In the RS-10 zone, there is a 25 rear building setback required for principal structures. The existing deck, which is uncovered, is 20.38 from the rear property line. Uncovered decks are not required to comply with the same setback requirements as the principal structure, so the deck is compliant as it exists right now. Even though the existing deck only protrudes into the setback by 4.62, the applicant has requested a 6 variance for the proposed sunroom. If approved, this will allow some additional flexibility in the construction of the sunroom. The applicant states that one of the owners has health issues which are exacerbated by elevated body temperatures. Because of this, the times of day and year that he can enjoy the back yard are limited. The sunroom will allow him to enjoy the back yard without having exposure to the higher temperatures and direct sun light. The applicant also indicates that, according to the survey, the house was constructed 6.26 behind the 35 front setback line. Had the house been constructed right on the front setback line, the applicant would be able to build the proposed sunroom addition without seeking a rear setback variance. In addition, the house has a front-entry garage that protrudes about 14 from the main plane of the home. Because of the location and design of the front-entry garage, the main plane of the home is approximately 20 behind the front setback line. Were a different house plan chosen for this lot, with the bulk of the house pushed closer to the front setback line, the applicant would likely have a deeper back yard and more room to build without encroaching into the rear setback. The applicant also believes that the impact of the reduced rear setback will be mitigated by the privacy fence around his back yard and a dense row of evergreen trees on the neighboring property to the rear. As an aside, the Board may notice that there is an existing accessory structure depicted on the survey. This structure was in violation of the minimum 5 rear setback requirement for accessory structures at the time the survey was performed. The applicant has relocated this structure on his property, and it is now in compliance. Mr. Hudson will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS NOVEMBER 20, 2014 Application: Location: Applicants: Zoning: Request: Z-14-065 Along the south side of East Main Street east of Dill Lane (More specifically, the subject property is located at 2302 and 2308 East Main Street, 103 and 111 Dill Lane, and 106 Nesbitt Drive.) Mr. Matt Taylor of SEC, Inc., and Mr. Russ Hatke of New Ground, for AEDC (Ascend) Federal Credit Union Commercial Local (CL) A 27 variance from the minimum required 42 front 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 variance pertains to the front building setback along East Main Street.)
The subject property is located at the southeast corner of East Main Street and Dill Lane. It is zoned Commercial Local (CL) and presently consists of four (4) separate parcels. The parcels are developed with three single-family residences, a quadruplex, and a furniture store. The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses, including singlefamily residential, multi-family residential, institutional, and commercial. The subject property also borders Nesbitt Drive, a private drive, on its east side. The applicants propose to combine the four (4) parcels into one (1) lot of record and redevelop the properties with a new AEDC (Ascend) Federal Credit Union. The applicant has submitted a site plan depicting the proposed redevelopment of the site. The proposed 10,026 square-foot building will be situated in the northeast corner of the property. The drive-thru teller lanes will be on the far west side of the property adjacent to Dill Lane. There is also a solid waste enclosure shown in the front setback on the Dill Lane side of the property. The applicant plans on removing it from the front setback, so that it will be in compliance with minimum setback requirements. The parking lot will be in the middle of the property. There will be an event plaza on the far south side of the property, where the credit union will hold occasional events. The site will have driveway access from both East Main Street and Dill Lane. There will be no driveway access to Nesbitt Drive. (The Board will note that the east side lot line along Nesbitt Drive is not considered a front lot line and therefore, no front setback is required along this property line.) The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the credit union building to encroach by 26.6 into the 42 required front setback along East Main Street. (Staff has rounded up and advertised the request as a 27 variance.) Included with the agenda materials is a site plan, a landscape plan, architectural elevations, and a letter from the