Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 2018 The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, October 11, 2018, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 45 E. Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee. MEMBERS PRESENT: James Dial, Elwood Ervin, Jane Flatt, and Sid Gilbreath. MEMBER ABSENT: Nancy Bohannon. STAFF PRESENT: James Mills, Jayne Barns, Ken Young, and Jon Ward. STAFF ABSENT: Ken Young. OTHERS PRESENT: Joseph Palladino, Wanda Whitaker Palladino, Ben Wheeler, Sayota Knight, Linda Lee, Douglas Matthews, Jamie Holloway, James Cumby, Pat Eldridge, Doyle Choate, Garry Floeter, Aaron Bernhardt, Peggy Semmes, and Letitia Short. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. Elwood Ervin made the motion to approve the agenda as submitted. James Dial seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2018. James Dial made the motion to approve the minutes of September 13, 2018. Sid Gilbreath seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER IN A CN (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1127 NORTH WASHINGTON AVENUE. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY AARON BERNHARDT. Jon Ward stated that Mr. Aaron Bernhardt has submitted a special exception request to install an electronic message center for the Bernhardt Rentals and Construction Office located at 1127 North Washington Avenue. The subject property is identified as Parcel 001.00 on Tax Map 040K, Group L and is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of North Washington Avenue and East 12th Street. The property is zoned as CN, Neighborhood Commercial. Adjacent property is zoned CL, Local Commercial, to the west, CN, Neighborhood Commercial to the north and south, and RS10, Single-Family Residential to the east. Section 207.6D.15 of the Zoning Code provides: “In the CN District an electronic message center or changeable copy sign (reader boards) may be attached to a freestanding sign upon appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeal and subject to the following conditions.” BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 OCTOBER 11, 2018 a. The freestanding sign on which the electronic message center or reader board is to be attached is located on a street of at least minor collector status. b. The freestanding sign on which the electronic message center or reader board is to be attached shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feet from any single or two-family residential structure located on contiguous property. The distance shall be measured from the edge of the sign face closest to a wall of the residential structure. c. The total sign face area of the freestanding sign and the attached electronic message center/reader board shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet. d. Each message displayed on an electronic message center shall be static or depicted for a minimum of six (6) seconds. The continuous scrolling of messages is prohibited. e. The hours of operation for electronic message centers shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The proposed sign is to be located on North Washington Avenue, which is classified as a Major Arterial, and the proposed location of the sign will meet the fifty (50) foot distance requirement from a single or two-family structure. Submitted drawings indicate the sign will meet sign face area square footage requirements. In the opinion of the Planning Department all established conditions can be met and the property appears suitable for the proposed use. Staff recommended approval of request, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Peggy Semmes stated that she lived neighborhood and she wanted to know why the City needed another lighted sign. Ms. Semmes added that the CN & RS10 are compatible and should have less signs and that she did not see the need for an electronic message center for this type of business. James Mills replied that electronic message centers are not based on need. Mr. Mills added that the Board has to review the sign to see if it meets all of the conditions as specified in the Zoning Code. Letitia Short stated that she owns the property adjacent to this request to the north. Ms. Short was concerned that the sign would block visibility to their lot. James Mills replied that in the CN zone the size is limited to 50 sq. ft. Sid Gilbreath asked about the specific location of the sign since the petitioner did not submit a site plan with his application. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 3 OCTOBER 11, 2018 James Mills replied that the sign inspector will require the exact location of the sign on a site plan as part of the application process and that Mr. Bernhardt would be meeting the requirements as far as distance from the road and size of the sign. Elwood Ervin made the motion to approve the Special Exception, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. James Dial seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM 10’ TO 7 ½’ FOR A TOTAL VARIANCE OF 2 ½’ FOR A LINEAR DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 35’ TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 460 EAST STEVENS STREET. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY GARRY FLOETER. Jon Ward stated that Mr. Gary Bouton, with Bouton Engineering submitted a variance request on behalf of Mr. Garry M. Floeter to reduce the rear yard setback requirement to allow for the expansion of an existing nonconforming commercial building located at 460 East Stevens Street. The subject property is located at 460 East Stevens Street, and currently consists of two parcels, further identified as Parcels 019.00 and 010.01 on Tax Map 053K, Group H. A plat was recorded on August 30, 2018, combining the two (2) existing parcels into one (1) tract. The properties are zoned CG, General Commercial. Adjacent properties are zoned CG, General Commercial to the west, RS5 Single Family Residential to the north and east, and RS15 Single Family Residential and CG, General Commercial to the south. A commercial building is located on the eastern parcel which is nonconforming to the rear setback to the north by approximately one (1) foot at the eastern end of the building and approximately 2.5 feet at the western end. Mr. Floeter has requested to expand this nonconforming building to the west into an adjacent parcel he owns, where the expansion would align with the building’s existing walls. This would further the rear setback encroachment along the northern boundary by 2.5 feet for approximately 35 feet. On August 10, 1995, the BZA approved a request for an expansion of a non-conforming structure located at 460 East Stevens Street. The existing warehouse located on the property had sustained storm damage, and the damaged portion of the structure had been removed. BZA records indicate this structure was approximately five (5) feet from the rear property line and violated a required thirty (30) foot rear setback from adjacent residential property, which was a requirement in the previous zoning code. Justification for the variance was provided from the general provisions of the zoning code which allowed for the non-conforming structure to be reconstructed if damaged. On August 8, 1996, the BZA rescinded buffer requirements for screening the property from the residential property located to the north. This was approved due to a major drainage way located along the northern boundary. Records indicate that the adjacent BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 4 OCTOBER 11, 2018 property owner did not object to the request. The action was conditional on Mr. Floeter maintaining the ditch and the ditch being left open so water would flow freely. The current request being considered is to reduce the ten (10) foot rear yard setback requirement by 2.5 feet to 7.5 feet for approximately 35 feet to expand the non- conforming structure. In addition to the required rear yard setback, section 222.7F of the Zoning Code requires development in the CG District to meet screening and buffer yard requirements when adjoining a residential district or any parcel with a single-family residential structure. Previous actions approved by the BZA waived a thirty (30) foot setback and buffer requirements. BZA records mentioned that the adjacent property owner did not object to the request to waive the screening. The proposed new construction will require a Type 2 Screen/Buffer Yard from the RS5 properties to the north. This involves a buffer yard of 20 feet in width, and completely opaque screening from the ground to a height of three (3) feet, with intermittent visual obstruction above the opaque portion to a height of at least ten (10) feet. The Zoning Code does allow for reduction of the buffer yard requirement when written and notarized approval from the owners of adjacent residential property has been provided and Type 3 screening requirements can be met. A Type 3 screen is completely opaque from the ground to a height of a least eight (8) feet. Mr. Bouton has provided a plan to install a concrete foundation wall and adjust the grade of the existing ditch to accommodate installation of the required screening. The Planning Department has received calls from adjoining property owners concerned about drainage in the area. The Planning Department has consulted with the Public Works Department concerning the proposal. The addition to the structure will be subject to storm water requirements, and Public Works has indicated that all storm water will be directed to the front of the property into an appropriate storage/retention facility. The Public Works Department has also stipulated that no more fill should be placed at the lot. In the opinion of the Planning Department the setback variance request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area provided appropriate steps are taken to accommodate storm water. Staff recommended approval of the variance request, provided the adjoining property owner approves a reduction of the buffer requirements of section 222.7F of the Zoning Code, and adequate storm water facilities are approved by the Public Works Department and installed for the proposal. Linda Lee, property owner at 283 Dyer Avenue, stated when there is a heavy rain for 15 minutes her property is flooded due to the water draining from the Justice Center and she is unable to use her back yard. Ms. Lee added that Mr. Floeter covered up a natural drainage area and she was concerned about how he was going to handle the water. Jon Ward replied that Mr. Floeter had installed in a 24’ pipe when he built the first addition on the property. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 5 OCTOBER 11, 2018 Garry Floeter showed photographs where the water flooded his building across the street about once of year. Mr. Floeter stated that he has spent a lot of money to help with storm drainage and he would like to make it better. Wanda Whitaker Palladino, property owner at 449 E. Stevens Street, stated that her family has been on this property since the 1920’s and that there is a natural spring under the mound. Ms. Palladino was also concerned about additional traffic and noise in a single family area. Sayota Knight, property owner at 500 East Stevens Street was concerning about flash flooding which happens a lot in the area and environmental impacts. Mr. Knight stated that the mosquitos were bad in the area due to the way that the water travels on this property. Doug Matthews, resident at 283 Dyer Avenue, showed a video of the flooding in the area. Mr. Matthews stated that it would take a big retention pond to hold additional water from coming on their property. James Mills stated this is an opportunity to improve the area and address the problem of the storm water in the area. Sid Gilbreath asked if the BZA needed to postpone consideration for 30 days to encourage to City to look at the area. Jon Ward stated that the Planning Department has not received engineered plans for the storm water retention. Mr. Floeter stated that if the variance was not granted that he could build a stand-alone building without storm water retention. James Mills asked who dammed up the stream with shot rock. Mr. Floeter replied that he did it. James Mills stated the Mr. Bouton, Engineer for Mr. Floeter needs to design the storm water retention and let Greg Brown, Director of Public Works, review the plans. Jon Ward stated that the neighboring property owners could agree to reduce the screening and buffer yard requirements because some of the neighbors were concerned about trees being planted and then dying and not being replaced. Doyle Choate, property owner of 441 & 451 Shipley Street, stated that the tile needs to be a 4’ tile instead of a 2’ tile from Stevens Street to Lowe Avenue. Joe Palladino, property owner at 449 East Stevens Street, wanted to know how he got a variance to build over a stream. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 6 OCTOBER 11, 2018 James Mills stated that he didn’t know, but the requirements for storm water are much stricter today. Elwood Erwin made the motion to conditional approve the Variance request, provided the adjoining property owner approves a reduction of the buffer requirements of section 222.7F of the Zoning Code, and adequate storm water facilities are approved by the Public Works Department and installed for the proposal, with approval not being effective for 30 days, and waive the screening requirements provided that the adjoining property owners approve it in writing and notarized. Jane Flatt seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF VARIANCE AND BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ADJOURNMENT: 6:25 P.M. SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL SUBMITTED FOR RECORDING _____________________________ ______________________________ JAYNE BARNS CPS SID GILBREATH, CHAIRMAN PLANNING ASSISTANT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS