CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, August 24, 2011, 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 special meeting on July 13, 2011 and for the regular meeting on July 27, 2011. 3. New Business Variance Requests a. Application Z-11-043 by Mr. Chuck Smith of The Plantation Room, for Mr. and Mrs. Earl and Linda Yake, is requesting a 5- foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures in a Residential Single-Family (RS-12) zone for property located at 3029 Silver Springs Court. b. Application Z-11-044 by Mr. Stephen A. Steele of Huddleston- Steele Engineering, Inc., for Southeastern Building Corporation and Barfield Investment Partners, is making the following requests for properties in a Residential Single-Family (RS-12) zone along both the north and south sides of Audubon Lane, which is west of Barfield Road. The subject properties are further identified as Lots 1-9 and Lots 58-73 in the River Oaks West Subdivision. A 10-foot variance of the minimum required 35-foot front setback for principal structures; A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 10-foot side setback for principal structures; and A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures. c. Application Z-11-045 by Mr. and Mrs. Greg and Toni Yasger, are requesting a 2.8-foot variance of the minimum required 5-foot side setback for an existing accessory structure in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone for property located at 2142 Ravenwood Drive. Regarding the same property, the applicants are also requesting a 0.4-foot variance of the minimum required 12.5- foot side setback for the existing principal structure.
d. Application Z-11-046 by Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Elizabeth Bray, is requesting a 0.4-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25-percent lot coverage for property located at 521 East Main Street in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone. Regarding the same property, the applicant is also requesting a 19- percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard. e. Application Z-11-047 by Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. Greg Waldron, is making the following requests for property located at 148 Cherry Lane in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone: A 6.7-foot variance of the minimum required 10-foot side setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5- feet from the principal structure; A 22.5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5- feet from the principal structure; A 4.3-percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard; A 0.8-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25-percent lot coverage; and A 2.4-foot variance of the minimum required 35-foot front setback for principal structures. Special Use Permit Amendment Request f. Application Z-11-048 by Ms. Reanna Sarieh, for Bambini Village Montessori Pre-School and the Church of the Holy Cross, is requesting an amendment to a special use permit originally approved on August 27, 2008 allowing childcare (a Montessori preschool) as a permitted accessory use to the existing institutional group assembly use (a church) located at 1140 Cason Lane. The subject property is located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10, RS-12, and RS-15) zone. The applicant wishes to amend the special use permit in order to modify several aspects of the childcare operation.
g. Application S-11-049 by Mr. Ron Gilbert of Lee Neon Signs, Inc., for Valvoline Instant Oil Change, 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 1730 South Rutherford Boulevard. h. Application S-11-050 by Mr. Buddy Follis of Signmasters Co., for The Agnihotri Group, 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 1624 New Salem Highway. 4. Staff Reports and Other Business 5. Adjourn
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z-11-043 3029 Silver Springs Court Mr. Chuck Smith of The Plantation Room, for Mr. and Mrs. Earl and Linda Yake Residential Single-Family (RS-12) A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures The subject property, 3029 Silver Springs Court, is located within the Belle Rive Subdivision, which is south of New Salem Highway and west of Saint Andrews Drive. There is a single-family home on the subject property. The applicants have plans to construct a sunroom addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence. The
proposed sunroom will encroach into the rear setback by 5-feet; therefore, the applicants are seeking a rear setback variance. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicants and their contractor, 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. Board members will note that on the letter from the applicants, an 8-foot variance was requested. This would not only have encroached into the rear setback, but it would also have encroached into the 20-foot utility easement that is located at the rear of the property. Staff counseled the applicants that the BZA did not have the authority to grant variances to easements and that the request could be for no more than a 5-foot encroachment, so as to stay clear of the 20-foot utility easement. In order to do so, the applicants submitted a revised plot plan showing a sunroom addition that did not encroach into the 20-foot utility easement. The subject property abuts single-family residential uses on all sides. In between the subject lot and the subdivision to the west, however, is a driveway that leads back from New Salem Highway to a large residential lot. The proposed addition will be to the rear of the house partially over the existing concrete patio. Based on the survey, the existing concrete patio encroaches into the utility easement by several feet. The owner needs to be aware that the concrete patio does extend into this utility easement and that if utility work needs to be done in the easement, the City will not be responsible for damage to the patio nor will it be responsible for replacing or repairing it. The applicants state that the primary reason for the request is the shape of the lot and its lack of depth. There is very little room for an addition on the rear. There is a 25-foot rear setback in the RS-12 zone and the existing house is approximately 30-feet off of the rear property line, leaving only about 5-feet for expansion to the rear. The proposed sunroom addition is 10.25 x 24.6 (252.15 square-feet) and is proposed to be situated so that it stops right at the 20-utility easement. The applicants have also indicated that one of them is in poor health and that a sunroom will allow him easy access to an area where he can enjoy the outdoors. If the Board approves this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) A surveyor will be required to help lay out the footing of the building and a surveyor s certification must be provided that the building addition is no closer than 20-feet from the rear property line. 2) Per the City s Legal Department, the owners must acknowledge that the existing concrete patio extends into the 20-foot utility easement and that if utility work needs to be done in the easement, the City will not be responsible for damage to the patio, nor will it be responsible for replacing or repairing it. Mr. Smith, the applicants contractor, will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Location: Applicant: Zoning: Requests: Z-11-044 Along both the north and south sides of Audubon Lane, which is west of Barfield Road (Lots 1-9 and Lots 58-73 in the River Oaks West Subdivision) Mr. Stephen A. Steele of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Southeastern Building Corporation and Barfield Investment Partners Residential Single-Family (RS-12) A 10-foot variance of the minimum required 35- foot front setback for principal structures; A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 10-foot side setback for principal structures; and A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures.
The subject properties are located along both the north and south sides of Audubon Lane in the River Oaks West Subdivision, which is just west of Barfield Road. The request consists of twenty-five (25) existing single-family residential lots (Lots 1-9 and Lots 58-73). The subject lots are currently zoned as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The River Oaks West PRD is adjacent to several other PRDs (Rivers Edge and River Downs Annex) that were being developed by one developer, Clair Vanderschaaf. During the course of the last several years, these developments have changed hands and are no longer being developed by Mr. Vanderschaaf. In fact, there are multiple property owners/developers now, whereas before there was only one. Earlier this year, the Planning Staff met with the current owners and their legal representation to discuss rezoning the properties from the various PRD zones to RS-10 and RS-12. Because ownership is now fragmented and no longer under one vision, it made sense to rezone the various subdivisions to traditional bulk zoning classifications. In addition, the common area amenities proposed in the original PRD will no longer be required under the traditional bulk zoning. The rezoning has passed second reading at the City Council level and is awaiting third and final reading. After third and final reading, there is a 15-day period before the rezoning will become effective. An exhibit of the rezoning request has been included for the Board s reference.
The original PRD zone for River Oaks West requires a 25-foot front setback, 5-foot side setbacks, and a 20-foot rear setback. The proposed RS-12 zone requires a 35-foot front setback, 10-foot side setbacks, and a 25-foot rear setback. The applicant wishes to use the same setbacks for the twenty-five (25) recorded River Oaks West lots that were in place with the original PRD zoning. In order to do so, he has requested a 10-foot front setback variance, a 5-foot side setback variance, and a 5-foot rear setback variance. This would apply only to the twenty-five (25) platted residential lots in River Oaks West Section 1, Phase 1. It would not apply to any future sections of this subdivision. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant detailing the variance request as well as several exhibits, including the recorded plat and a sample plot plan with the proposed reduced setbacks. Photographs depicting the subject lots and surrounding area have also been included by staff for the Board s review. Most of the lots are approximately 12,000 square-feet. Average dimensions are roughly 105-feet wide by 115-feet deep (although some of the lots are larger and deeper). The lots for Section 1, Phase 1 have all been platted and the infrastructure is substantially complete. The applicant makes the case that the lot sizes and dimensions were designed with the original PRD setbacks in mind. The front, side, and rear setbacks will all be increased with a rezoning to RS-12. The applicant further states that the subject lots are not as deep as a typical RS-12 lot and that being able to push the house closer to the street will allow for a more substantial backyard. The sample plot plan that the applicant has submitted shows a side-entry garage, and the applicant is committing to only using sideentry garages (including plaza or courtyard style) and rear-entry garages for the principal structures on the subject lots. One of the reasons that he is requesting the side setback variances is to facilitate the construction of side-entry garages. The Board should note that there is an existing mature tree row along the north side of the subject lots abutting the existing Summer Place Subdivision to the north. The recorded River Oaks West plat shows a 10-foot Tree and Landscape Conservation Easement along this northern property line. The applicant has indicated that this easement will remain in place. If the Board approves this variance request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The rezoning to RS-12 must pass third and final reading by the City Council and must go into effect. 2) Front-entry garages will not be allowed for the principal structures. Mr. Steele will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the three (3) variance requests will need to be taken in separate motions.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicants: Zoning: Requests: Z-11-045 2142 Ravenwood Drive Mr. and Mrs. Greg and Toni Yasger Residential Single-Family (RS-15) A 2.8-foot variance of the minimum required 5-foot side setback for an existing accessory structure. The applicants are also requesting a 0.4-foot variance of the minimum required 12.5-foot side setback for the existing principal structure. The subject property is located along the east side of Ravenwood Drive east of Sulphur Springs Road and south of Irongate Boulevard. It is zoned Residential Single-Family
(RS-15). The subject property, 2142 Ravenwood Drive, is developed with a singlefamily residence and is located within the Ravenwood single-family residential subdivision. A detached accessory structure to house pool equipment was erected sometime around 2007. The survey submitted shows this detached accessory structure is only 2.2-feet from the north side property line, which is a violation of the minimum required 5-foot side setback for detached accessory structures in residential zones. The building in question was erected prior to the applicants purchase of the property in June 2008. This violation was brought to the attention of the Planning Department, and Mr. Robert Lewis, Staff Planner, notified the applicants of the violation. After receiving the notice and reviewing their options, the applicants decided to apply for a setback variance in lieu of relocating the accessory building to a compliant location on the property. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicants addressing Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as a survey of the property depicting the storage building in question. Staff has also included photographs of the property as well as a copy of the violation letter that was sent to the applicant. It should be noted that in the applicants letter, they referenced a 4-foot side setback variance request. This letter was composed before the survey of their property was completed. Staff has discussed with them that since the existing building is 2.2-feet off of the side property line, they only need a 2.8-foot variance in order for it to remain in the same location. They have verbally indicated to staff that they have no desire to move it any closer to the side property line and that the 2.8-foot variance request is sufficient. As an aside, the Board will note that the violation notice is also signed by the Director of the Building and Codes Department, as the accessory structure is also in violation of a codes requirement that the structure must maintain 5-feet of separation from the property line. While a building permit is not required for a structure this small, it still must comply with applicable codes. In order for this structure to remain in its current location, the applicant must also be granted relief from the 5-foot Building and Codes setback by the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The applicants have been in contact with the Building and Codes Staff and intends on filing the aforementioned application. The applicants provide justification for the variance in their letter. They state that the current location of the building is the most logical location for it, since its purpose is to house the pool equipment, such as the filtration system. According to the applicants, the pipes go from the building under the concrete decking to the pool and that to relocate the building and equipment would be a significant undertaking. In addition, they indicate that this violation was already in existence when they bought the property in 2008. If the request is approved, the accessory structure will be allowed to remain in its present location. If the request is denied, however, then the structure must either be removed from the property or relocated to a location on the property that is compliant with all setbacks. On a side note, the survey submitted with the application indicates that the principal structure is only 12.1-feet off of the north side property line. The side setback requirement for principal structures in the RS-15 zoning district is 12.5-feet. This requirement was the same in 1985 when the house was built. This means that the
existing house encroaches into the side setback by 0.4-feet and is technically in violation. Despite the fact that the encroachment of the principal structure into the side setback is minimal, staff also advertised for this variance as well as somewhat of a housekeeping matter. If this variance is approved, it could help to avoid potential problems in the future when the property is sold or refinanced. If the Board approves the setback variance regarding the accessory structure, staff recommends the following condition: 1) The applicant must obtain approval from the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals and comply with all applicable building codes. Mr. and Mrs. Yasger will be in attendance to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the two (2) variances requests will need to be taken in separate motions.
Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Z-11-046 521 East Main Street Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Elizabeth Bray Residential Single-Family (RS-10) and Historic District (H-1) Requests: A 0.4-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25- percent lot coverage. The applicant is also requesting a 19-percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard.
The subject property is located along the north side of East Main Street west of North University Street and east of North Highland Avenue. The subject property is zoned RS- 10 (Residential Single-Family) and H-1 (Historic Zoning Overlay District). The homeowner would like to tear down the existing detached carport and construct a new two-story detached garage in its place. There is a 25% maximum lot coverage requirement in the RS-10 zoning district, meaning that the footprint of all buildings combined cannot exceed more than 25% of the total area of the lot. The applicant has requested a variance to this provision. In addition, the applicant has also requested a variance to the requirement that no more than 25% of the required rear yard can be occupied by accessory structures or uses. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant addressing Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as a site plan depicting the subject property and a rendering of the proposed garage. Staff has also included photographs of the subject property for the Board s reference. The total area of the subject lot is 16,115 square-feet, according to the applicant. The maximum lot coverage in the RS-10 zone is 25%, and according to the applicant the existing structures occupy 23.6% of the lot. The existing structures include the existing house, the existing carport, an existing greenhouse, and an existing chicken coop. The existing garage, which is proposed to be demolished, is 708 square-feet. The homeowner
would like to replace the existing carport with a garage with a footprint of 1,000 squarefeet. Combining the square-footage of the proposed garage with the square-footage of the existing house and porch equals 25.4% lot coverage, exceeding the maximum lot coverage allowed by 0.4%. This is an increase of 1.8% over the existing lot coverage. The existing carport does not meet the 5-foot required side setback, according to the applicant. The proposed garage, as shown on the survey, however, will be constructed to be compliant with the minimum 5-foot side setback. The Zoning Ordinance states that accessory structures cannot occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard (also known as the required rear setback). In this case, since the property is zoned RS-10, there is a minimum required 25-foot rear setback. With the lot being 72-feet wide, the total area of the required rear yard is 1,800 square-feet. On this property, accessory structures can take up no more than 450 square-feet (which is equal to 25% of the required rear yard). According to the applicant, the square-footage of all of the existing accessory structures (including a portion of the existing carport) in the required rear yard is approximately 648 square-feet (or 36%). Replacing the existing carport with the proposed garage increases this number to 792 square-feet (or 44%), requiring a 19% variance. The applicant s primary justification for this variance is the narrowness of the lot, which only leaves a small amount of square-footage that can be devoted to accessory structures in the required rear yard. As has been mentioned previously, there is a roofed chicken coop in the required rear yard. The survey shows it to be directly adjacent to the rear property line, not meeting the 5-foot required rear setback for detached accessory structures. Staff was unable to view it in person prior to the publication of the agenda and staff comments, but photographs of it were provided to staff by the applicant. This accessory structure appears fairly new in the photographs and staff cannot find record of a building permit ever being issued for it. In addition to the apparent setback violation, this structure also appears to violate the 5-foot setback off of the rear property line required by the Building and Codes Department. The applicant needs to provide staff some additional information regarding the chicken coop prior to the BZA meeting, especially since it is contributing to the need for both of the proposed variances. The applicant will need to provide information on when the chicken coop was constructed. Also, if staff is mistaken and a building permit was actually obtained from the Building and Codes Department, please provide a copy of the building permit. In addition, the City s codes limit the number of fowl one can keep on a residential lot. The property owner will need to contact Matthew Blomeley on the Planning Staff to discuss the chicken coop and to schedule an inspection with the Planning and Codes Departments to inspect the structure prior the BZA meeting and to verify that the number of fowl being kept on the lot does not exceed the maximum number. Staff expects to have additional comments on this matter at the BZA meeting and may recommend deferral of the variance requests if the issues related to the chicken coop are not resolved.
If the Board approves this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The project will be subject to the review and approval of the Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission. 2) A surveyor will be required to help lay out the footing of the building and a surveyor s certification must be provided that the building meets all setback requirements and is compliant with the actions of the Board with respect to lot coverage and coverage of the required rear yard. Mr. James will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the two (2) variances will need to be taken in separate motions.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Requests: Z-11-047 148 Cherry Lane Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. Greg Waldron Residential Single-Family (RS-10) and Historic District (H-1) A 6.7-foot variance of the minimum required 10- foot side setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5-feet from the principal structure; A 22.5-foot variance of the minimum required 25- foot rear setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5-feet from the principal structure; A 4.3-percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard; A 0.8-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25-percent lot coverage; and A 2.4-foot variance of the minimum required 35- foot front setback for principal structures.
The subject property is located along the east side of Cherry Lane north of East Main Street and south of East Lytle Street. The subject property is zoned RS-10 (Residential Single-Family) and H-1 (Historic Zoning Overlay District). There is an existing accessory structure, and the property owners would like to build a new detached accessory structure in its place. At this point, they are uncertain whether or not they will be able to use the existing accessory structure in the construction or whether they will have to demolish it completely and start from scratch. In order to follow through with the proposed plans with regards to the detached accessory structure, a number of variances are needed (as well as a front setback variance related to covering the front stoop of the principal structure). Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant addressing Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as a site plan depicting the proposed accessory structure and a rendering of the existing house and the proposed accessory structure. Photographs of the subject property have also been included by Staff for the Board s reference. The total area of the subject lot is 7,350 square-feet and 75-feet (wide) by 98-feet (deep), according to a survey provided by the applicant. The lot does not meet the minimum 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size in the RS-10 zone. The existing carport does not meet minimum side and rear setback requirements. According to the applicant, it is 2.5-
feet from the rear property line and 3.3-feet off of the south side property line. The applicant seeks to locate the proposed accessory structure at the same distances off of the south side and rear property lines. The first floor of the proposed accessory structure will be used for hobby purposes and storage, and the second floor will be used for storage. In addition, a covered patio is proposed on the north side of the accessory structure. Side Setback Variance for Accessory Structure The accessory structure is proposed to be located only 4-feet from the principal structure. The Zoning Ordinance dictates that detached accessory structures that are located less than 5-feet from the principal structures shall be treated as attached structures for setback purposes, whether physically attached or not. With regards to the proposed accessory structure, this means that it is required to meet the minimum 10-foot side setback requirement, instead of the 5-foot side setback requirement, which is what would be required if it was at least 5-feet from the principal structure. As mentioned previously, the existing structure is located 3.3-feet off of the south side property line, and the applicants propose to construct the new building at the same distance to the south side property line. Thus, a 6.7-foot side setback variance is required in order to be able to do this. Rear Setback Variance for Accessory Structure As mentioned previously, the accessory structure is proposed to be located only 4-feet from the principal structure. The Zoning Ordinance dictates that detached accessory structures that are located less than 5-feet from the principal structures shall be treated as attached structures for setback purposes, whether physically attached or not. With regards to the proposed accessory structure, this means that it is required to meet the minimum 25-foot rear setback requirement, instead of the 5-foot rear setback requirement, which is what would be required if it was at least 5-feet from the principal structure. As mentioned previously, the existing structure is located 2.5-feet off of the rear property line, and the applicants propose to construct the new building at the same distance to the rear property line. Thus, a 22.5-foot rear setback variance is required in order to be able to do this. Variance to Maximum 25% Allowed Rear Yard Coverage The Zoning Ordinance states that accessory structures cannot occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard (also known as the required rear setback). In this case, since the property is zoned RS-10, there is a minimum required 25-foot rear setback. With the lot being 75-feet wide, the total lot area of the required rear yard is 1,875 square-feet. On this property, accessory structures can take up no more than 468.75 square-feet. According to the applicant, the portion of the proposed structure in the required rear yard is 550 square-feet, which is 29.3% of the required rear yard, requiring a variance of 4.3%.
Variance to Maximum 25% Allowed Lot Coverage The Zoning Ordinance sets the maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS-10 zone as 25%. The lot size is 7,350 square-feet, and accessory structures can take up no more than 1,837.5 square-feet. The footprint of the existing house combined with the proposed accessory structure is 1,895.59 (or 25.8%), requiring a 0.8% variance. The Board should note that these figures vary slightly from the figures provided by the applicant, as Staff noticed a discrepancy in the applicant s calculations. Front Setback Variance for Principal Structure There is an existing uncovered front stoop/porch at the front of the principal structure. The applicants propose a cover for it, as depicted in the rendering. The Zoning Ordinance allows porches to encroach into a setback as long as the porch does not extend more than forty-two (42) inches from an exterior wall. The proposed covered stoop/porch extends 45.6-inches from the front wall of the house, meaning that it is not exempt from the 35-foot front setback. It is proposed to encroach 2.4-feet into the front setback. The applicant provides his justification for the variances in his letter. The existing house was built in 1947. As mentioned previously, the lot is almost 3,000 square-feet less than the minimum lot size in the RS-10 zone in which it is located -- yet it still is required to meet the current zoning requirements for the RS-10 zone. The existing accessory structure already encroaches into side and rear setbacks, and he does not propose to build the proposed structure any closer to the side and rear property lines. The proposed garage, however, will be required to meet the requirements of the Historic Zoning District and must receive approval from the Historic Zoning Commission. In addition, the proposed accessory structure is also required to maintain 5-feet of separation from the property lines. In order for this structure to be constructed in the proposed location, the applicant must also be granted relief from the 5-foot Building and Codes setback by the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The applicant has been in contact with the Building and Codes Staff and intends on filing the aforementioned application. Staff has been made aware that there are utilities along the rear property line. Staff has also been made aware that there is an underground vault near the rear property line. The applicant needs to provide confirmation of whether or not there is some type of utility easement along the rear property line. In addition, the applicant needs to research whether or not the proposed construction conflicts with any existing utility lines or vaults near the rear property line. After researching this further, the applicant will need to contact the Planning Staff in advance of the meeting to discuss.
If the Board approves the requests, staff recommends that they all be subject to the following conditions: 1) The project will be subject to the review and approval of the Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission. 2) A surveyor will be required to help lay out the footing of the building and a surveyor s certification must be provided that all construction is compliant with the actions of the Board (with regards to both setbacks and lot coverage). If the Board approves the requests regarding the side and rear setbacks for the accessory structure, staff recommends the following condition: 1) The applicant must obtain approval from the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals and comply with all applicable building codes. Mr. James will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the five (5) variances will need to be taken in separate motions.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z-11-048 1140 Cason Lane Ms. Reanna Sarieh, for Bambini Village Montessori Pre-School and the Church of the Holy Cross Residential Single-Family (RS-10, RS-12, and RS-15) An amendment to a special use permit originally approved on August 27, 2008 allowing childcare (a Montessori pre-school) as a permitted accessory use to the existing institutional group assembly use (a church) located at 1140 Cason Lane. The applicant wishes to amend the special use permit in order to modify several aspects of the childcare operation.
The subject property is located at 1140 Cason Lane, along the west side of Cason Lane north of Windemere Drive and south of Wellington Place. The subject property is zoned RS-10, RS-12, and RS-15 and is developed as the Holy Cross Episcopal Church, although the majority of the site is still undeveloped. The church was originally approved for a special use permit in order to establish a church use on this property on October 8, 2003. There are two structures on the subject property, an older single-family home, which houses the church offices and parish hall, and the actual church sanctuary building itself. The subject property borders single-family residential subdivisions on all sides. When this special use permit was originally approved, the applicant at the time stated in his application that there would be no childcare facilities associated with the church. In August 2008, the BZA approved an amendment to the original special use permit allowing childcare (a Montessori pre-school) as a permitted accessory use to the church. This amendment called for the pre-school to be operated out of the sanctuary building. It also specified that there would be two (2) sessions per weekday with a maximum of twelve (12) children per session. In addition, the applicant in 2008 offered two (2) options for an outdoor fenced play area. The first was a 45 x31 area directly to the rear of the church office/parish hall building. The second was a 37.5 x56 area further to the
west across the driveway. The Board approved the application and okayed the either of the two options, at the discretion of the church. Although there is an existing children s play area, in the vicinity of the second area, it was never fenced. Attached is a letter from the applicant, who is the pre-school director, describing the proposed changes for the pre-school and addressing the standards for special use permits. Photographs of the site, taken by staff, have also been included for the Board s reference. The changes that the applicant proposes to the original special use permit are as follows. First, the Montessori pre-school, which is currently conducted out of the church building, is proposed to move to the church office/parish hall building. (In turn, the church offices would move to the back of the church building.) Second, the applicant is requesting that the maximum number of children attending the pre-school be increased from twelve (12) per three-hour session to thirty (30) overall. The age of the children attending, which is 3-6, will not change from what was stated in the 2008 application. The applicant is also looking to clarify for the record the hours of operation, which will be from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. In her write-up, the applicant indicated that traffic will flow from Cason Lane to Windemere during pick-up and drop-off times. After discussing this with the applicant, however, both staff and the applicant agreed that it makes more sense to have traffic circulate from Windemere to Cason instead. She is also looking to amend the plan for the outdoor fenced play area. She has two (2) new options, which differ from the previously approved options. In both options, she is proposing vinyl-coated chain-link fencing. The 2008 application stated that the side of the fence adjacent to the residential lots to the south would be a privacy fence. The current application does not make this provision. Staff has included photographs of the existing vegetation for the Board s review. The Board may wish to discuss the existing screening and whether or not it is adequate. The applicant would like for the Board to approve both options, as she is not certain which option the church and pre-school will ultimately choose. Option #1 (not in order of preference) would be located in in front of the current church office/parish hall building. The site plan attached shows its approximate proposed location. The City Traffic Engineer has recommended that the fenced-in area set back a minimum of 30-feet behind the curb of Cason Lane. In addition, he wished to make the applicant aware that extra safety precautions may be needed along the front of this play area, if Option #1 is the desired option. Also, there is a 20-foot public utility and drainage easement along the frontage of the subject property. If the fence is to encroach into this easement, then the applicant will need to obtain permission from the easement holders for the fence to encroach into the easement. Option #2 would be located to the rear of the church office/parish hall building across the existing driveway -- essentially the same area depicted as the second option from 2008. At 87 x87, however, it is proposed to be larger than what was approved at that time. If Option #2 is approved and ends up being the desired option by the applicant, then a pedestrian way from the rear of the building to the play area, including a painted crosswalk across the driveway, should be constructed. As a point of clarification, no additional outdoor lighting is proposed for either play area, as they will only be used during the daytime. As a result, staff has not required that a photometric lighting plan be submitted.
If the Board approves this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The Planning Commission (or the Planning Staff, at the discretion of the Planning Director) must grant site plan approval for the proposed development. 2) If Option #1 is proposed to be implemented for the outdoor fenced play area, it must be located a minimum of 30-feet from the curb of Cason Lane. In addition, if the fence is proposed to be located in the 20-foot public utility and drainage easement, then permission from the easement holders must be obtained. 3) If Option #2 is proposed to be implemented for the outdoor fenced play area, then a pedestrian way from the rear of the building to the play area, including a painted crosswalk across the driveway, must be constructed. These improvements must be shown on the site plan. Ms. Sarieh will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: S-11-049 1730 South Rutherford Boulevard Mr. Ron Gilbert of Lee Neon Signs, Inc., for Valvoline Instant Oil Change Commercial Highway (CH) 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, Ron Gilbert representing Valvoline Instant Oil Change is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a foundation or signs 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 1730 S. Rutherford Blvd is within a (CH) Zone. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one (1) internally illuminated ground sign with 90 sq. ft. and an overall height of 16. The sign will be located within a 25 Water and Sewer Easement. The Agreement for a Sign in a City of Murfreesboro Easement has been signed by the Murfreesboro Water and Sewer Department and the Director of Building and Codes. The applicant will comply with all other setbacks and regulations. Mr. Gilbert will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: S-11-050 1624 New Salem Highway Mr. Buddy Follis of Signmasters Co., for The Agnihotri Group Light-Industrial (L-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, Pradeep Agnihotri representing the Agnihotri Group is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a foundation or signs 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 1624 New Salem Hwy is within a Light Industrial (LI) zone. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one (1) internally illuminated ground sign with 120 sq. ft. display area and an overall height of 25. The sign will be located within a 20 Public Utility Easement. The Agreement for a Sign in a City of Murfreesboro Easement has been signed by the Murfreesboro Water and Sewer Department, the Director of Building and Codes and Murfreesboro Electric Department (MED). Additionally, MED is requiring a 12ft vertical and 12ft horizontal clearance from its overhead electric facilities as a condition of approval. An agreement for a sign in an easement letter has also been submitted from Atmos energy, and a letter from Bell South has also been received. The applicant will comply with all other setbacks and regulations. If the Board approves this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Per MED s approval, a 12-ft vertical and 12-ft horizontal clearance from its overhead electric facilities is required. Mr. Follis and Mr. Agnihotri will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.