Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, June 25, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1st Floor AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. Consideration of minutes for the regular meeting on May 28, 2014. 3. New Business Sign Variance Request a. Application S-14-038 by Mr. Kyle Fielder of Bozman Sign Company, for Murfreesboro Hotel Partnership, LLC, 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 1335 Conference Center Boulevard. Variance Request b. Application Z-14-039 by Mr. Steve Steele of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for PNB Holding Co. 2, LLC, is requesting a 15’ variance from the minimum required 35’ 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 Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone at 2703 Lockwood Court (also identified as Lot 26 of the Rivers Edge Subdivision). 4. Staff Reports and Other Business 5. Adjourn  Regular Meeting Minutes of the Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2014 – 1:00 P.M. City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT John Rodgers, Chair Davis Young, Vice-Chair Julie R.P. King Frances Mosby Ken Halliburton STAFF PRESENT Matthew Blomeley, Principal Planner David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Kane Adams, Landscape Specialist/Inspector Chairman Rodgers called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The minutes for the April 23, 2014 regular meeting were approved as submitted. New Business: Variance Requests Application Z-14-030 by Ms. Sherall Curtis, is requesting a 10’ 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 3024 Saint Andrews Drive. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves this application, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) The existing accessory building must be moved on-site to a location that is both compliant with minimum setback requirements and outside of the drainage easement. This must be done prior to final inspection of the patio cover. Ms. Curtis was present to answer questions, as was her contractor, Mr. Scott Porterfield. BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Chairman Rodgers asked if the rear setback for the property located to the west is also 25’. Mr. Blomeley said yes, the property is also zoned RS-12. Chairman Rodgers said it just looks like it is closer to the rear property line than the subject property. Mr. Blomeley said it is a little bit deceptive, because of the location of the drainage ditch. 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 condition: 1) The existing accessory building must be moved on-site to a location that is both compliant with minimum setback requirements and outside of the drainage easement. This must be done prior to final inspection of the patio cover. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-14-031 by Ms. Melanie Davenport and Ms. Judy Goldie, are making the following requests for property located in the Residential Single-Family (RS-8) zone at the southeast corner of North Maney Avenue and East Lytle Street (also identified as Tax Map 091M, Group B, Parcel 00100):  A 15’ variance from the minimum required 30’ 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. (This variance pertains to the front building setback along East Lytle Street.); and  A variance to Chart 4 (Required Off-Street Parking and Queuing Spaces by Use) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that a minimum of four (4) parking spaces are required for single-family dwellings. The applicants are requesting approval to construct two (2) parking spaces instead of the minimum required four (4). Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley if there has been a modification to this request. Mr. Blomeley said the applicants submitted an e-mail stating that if the first variance is granted, the second variance (the parking variance) would be withdrawn. 2 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the front setback variance request, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) The garage door may not be oriented to face East Lytle Street. Ms. Davenport and Ms. Goldie were both present to answer questions. Mr. Halliburton asked if there are any more variance requests with respects to the Maney Avenue Improvements. Mr. Blomeley asked Mr. Halliburton if he was referring to the dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Halliburton said yes. Mr. Blomeley said he is not aware of any but that he did not research that. Mr. Halliburton asked if that would affect the current setback request. Mr. Blomeley said it shouldn’t because the depth of the lot is not an issue for them but rather the width of the lot going from north to south. Mr. Blomeley said if right-of-way is required to be dedicated along Maney that it should not affect their ability to construct the house. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Ms. Ellie Garrison of East Northfield Boulevard said she drives up and down this street 6-8 times a day. She asked if this property is located in the Historic District. Mr. Blomeley said this property is not in the Historic Zoning District. Ms. Garrison was concerned about the type of house that would be built and asked if it would be in conformity with the general appearance of the neighborhood. Chairman Rodgers asked Ms. Garrison if that is her only concern. Ms. Garrison said yes. Chairman Rodgers asked Ms. Davenport to give some information about the proposed house. Ms. Davenport stated they are planning to build a country craftsman bungalow style house. They are excited about being a part of downtown and hope to continue to build 3 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 something that conforms to the area and hopefully improves the area and brings everybody’s property values up. Chairman Rodgers said there is a chain-link fence that currently surrounds the property and asked if it would be taken down. Ms. Davenport said they are hoping to leave the chain-link fence up during the construction but yes, it will eventually come down. 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 the 15’ variance with the following condition: 1) The garage door may not be oriented to face East Lytle Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Chairman Rodgers verified the applicants wanted to withdraw the parking variance. Ms. Davenport said yes. Application Z-14-032 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Mr. Tim Dietz, is making the following requests for property located in the Commercial Highway (CH) and Gateway Design Overlay District (GDO-1) zones along the west side of Fortress Boulevard south of Manson Pike (also identified as Tax Map 079, Parcel 09900):  An 11’ variance from Section 24, Article III (e)(4)(b)[4] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which required a minimum of 15’ between parking and/or access drives and adjacent property on lots of 1.5 acres or more. (This variance pertains to the master parcel.);  A 5’ variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[4] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 10’ between parking and/or access drives and adjacent property on lots of less than 1.5 acres. (This variance pertains to the proposed Sonic restaurant lot, which is to be subdivided off of the master parcel.); and  A 7’ variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[3] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 7’ between buildings and parking and/or access drives on lots of less than 1.5 acres. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Blomeley also mentioned for the record that he received a letter from Mr. Charlie Waite, the landowner of the master parcel, expressing his support for the request. Mr. Blomeley distributed a copy of the letter to each Board member. 4 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Rountree was available to answer any questions. Mr. Bill Huddleston, President of Huddleston-Steele Engineering said that he would be addressing this item for the applicant instead of Mr. Rountree. He said that Mr. Dietz, one of the owners of the Sonic franchise in Murfreesboro, is also present. Mr. Huddleston said the Planning Staff recommended providing a greater buffer along the south lot line to help buffer the apartment complex to the south. He said normally there would just be a 12-foot buffer there but they went ahead and increased that to 20-feet. Mr. Huddleston said that is one of the main reasons they are asking for these three variances. Because they have to provide that increase buffer, which they agree is a good thing to do, and because of that expensive utility pole to the north, it restricts how much lot width they have to work with. He said that the location of the entrance into the site has been designed at its proposed location to avoid conflict with the dual left turn lanes on Fortress Boulevard that approach the intersection with Manson Pike. 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 an 11’ 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. (This variance pertains to the master parcel.) The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. (The following discussion took place after the motion was made.) Chairman Rodgers verified the property is currently zoned Commercial Highway. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Chairman Rodgers then verified that the adjacent apartment complex is zoned PUD. Mr. Blomeley said yes, it is zoned PUD. This property that is zoned CH now was actually a part of that PUD as well. The northern part of the PUD, which was always envisioned as commercial, was rezoned to CH a few years ago. The apartments remain as part of the original PUD. Chairman Rodgers verified this area was always envisioned to be commercial. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Chairman Rodgers verified these weren’t rezoned Commercial Highway recently. 5 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley said no, that it has probably been about 2-4 years. Chairman Rodgers asked if it is anticipated that there will be commercial development from this point north. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Chairman Rodgers asked if the same held true for the other side out of Fortress as there are some condominiums or apartments on the opposite side against some vacant land. Mr. Blomeley pulled up the zoning map and pointed out the area. He said to the east across Fortress Boulevard that is zoned Commercial Highway. The Indian Creek PRD which are single-family detached and single-family townhome units are directly adjacent to a parcel that is zoned CH where a church was approved a number of years ago but was never constructed. Mr. Blomeley thinks the church still owns that property but it was rezoned CH as was the remainder of the land that went all the way up Fortress to the interstate. Chairman Rodgers verified this side is part of the Gateway Design Overlay District. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Chairman Rodgers verified it does not extend into the apartments next door. Mr. Blomeley said the apartments as a part of the Planned Development were required to meet the Gateway Design Overlay District Standards. He said they actually went through the Gateway Design Overlay District review process when they were developed back around 2006. Chairman Rodgers asked if those standards impacted the development of this site. Mr. Blomeley verified Chairman Rodgers was referring to the Gateway Overlay District Standards. Chairman Rodgers said yes. Mr. Blomeley said yes. They are required to meet much more stringent landscaping, architectural requirements, and open space requirements. The Planning Staff and Planning Commission did scrutinize the plan for compliance. These were the only areas of non-compliance that were identified. 6 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Chairman Rodgers verified as far as uses go, this is an allowed use as a matter of right in the GDO. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve a 5’ variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[4] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 10’ between parking and/or access drives and adjacent property on lots of less than 1.5 acres. (This variance pertains to the proposed Sonic restaurant lot, which is to be subdivided off of the master parcel.) The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve a 7’ variance from Section 24, Article III (E)(4)(b)[3] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 7’ between buildings and parking and/or access drives on lots of less than 1.5 acres. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-14-033 by Mr. Rick Cantrell of PSMT, for Mr. John Zhang, is making the following request for property located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-16) zone at 903 and 907 Southeast Broad Street (also identified as Tax map 102E, Group C, Parcels 04700 and 04600):  A 25’ 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;  A 17.5’ variance from the minimum required 25’ side 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;  A 3’ variance from Section 27(J) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum 8’-wide front planting yard where the site is between one (1) and two (2) acres.;  A variance from Section 26(C)(1)(b)(2) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that parking spaces or access aisles for parking spaces of multi-family dwellings located in the RM-16 district shall not be located within a required front yard.; and  A variance from Section 27(L)(1)(b) and Table 1 of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which state that a Type C buffer zone is required to be planted when property in a Residential Multi-Family (RM-16) zone abuts property in a Residential Duplex (RD) zone. 7 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves these requests, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots into one lot of record must be recorded. Mr. Blomeley said if the Board approves the buffer variance, Staff recommends the following additional condition: 1) A 6’-tall privacy fence must be installed along the northern property line (subject to approval by TVA). In addition, an alternative landscape plan pertaining to the area along the north property line must be approved by the Urban Environmental Department. Mr. Kane Adams with the Urban Environmental Department was present to answer any landscaping related questions. Mr. Cantrell, Mr. Zhang, and Mr. Chet Rhodes, the design engineer, were present to answer questions. Mr. Halliburton asked if the shared access drive would be improved. Mr. Blomeley said he does not know if the access drive would need to be widened. He referred that question to Mr. Cantrell or Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Blomeley said Mr. Cantrell is indicating that the access drive would be widened. Mr. Halliburton asked if the buildings located to the rear of the lot are going to be raised up because of the grade of the lot. Mr. Rhodes said that the buildings in the back will actually set at a lower elevation than the ones along Broad Street. He said they are not all setting at the same elevation but they are the same height buildings. Mr. Halliburton asked about the improvement to the access drive. Mr. Rhodes said yes the access drive will be improved. He said there is a joint access easement draft. Mr. Rhodes said the access drive needs to be fire accessible among other requirements. Ms. King asked if there are a required number of parking spaces for a development such as this. 8 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley said yes. He said with the number of bedrooms proposed, there are 40 parking spaces that are required and they are meeting that number with the garages. Mr. Blomeley said in order to count garage parking spaces, those have to be dedicated specifically for vehicular parking. They cannot be used for any other purpose. Ms. King verified the garage spaces could not be used for storage. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Ms. King verified the spaces in front of the building with landscaping on them are not parking spaces. Mr. Blomeley said those are just spaces where the vehicles will pull into the garages. Ms. King said that is so people don’t run into each other when they are pulling into their garage. Mr. Blomeley said correct. Ms. King verified if any of the spaces were removed, they would not meet the required parking spaces. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Chairman Rodgers said as you are looking down Southeast Broad Street, they are asking for a 25’ variance for a 15’ setback and asked where the other properties are and are the other properties consistent with a 15’ setback. Mr. Blomeley said on the opposite side of the street the buildings are set back much further from the street but the property just to the south, the apartments that Mr. Zhang owns, are less than the required 40’ setback off of Southeast Broad Street. Mr. Blomeley said the house that was previously on the subject property was less than the required 30’ setback. Mr. Blomeley said the house to the north is setback a greater distance from Southeast Broad Street than is being proposed. Chairman Rodgers asked as you continue to go north, does that pretty much hold true, that they are all greater than 15’. Mr. Blomeley said he doesn’t recollect specifically. Chairman Rodgers said there are not very many lots from her to Mercury. 9 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley agreed that is correct, probably just two or three more houses before you actually hit the intersection with Bradyville. Ms. King asked what about farther to the south. Mr. Rhodes said he wanted the Board Members to understand that the 40’ setback is from the proposed right-of-way line which is about 11’ further in than the existing one. He said they are giving up 11’-12’ for the future widening of Broad Street. Mr. Blomeley confirmed that Mr. Rhodes is correct as the applicants are being required to dedicate right-of-way at the front of the site. Chairman Rodgers said if we discard the right-of-way dedication, then we are talking about a variance request that would be around 15’. Mr. Blomeley said correct. If the front property line was not changing due to the dedication of right-of-way, it would be a 25’-26’ setback as opposed to a 15’ setback. Ms. King referenced the fact that the proposed front landscaping is shown in the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Blomeley said he noticed that too and said that would need to be adjusted. He said it looks like the landscaping is being shown in the proposed right-of-way and it would need to be pulled back onto the subject property when it is submitted for review by the Planning Commission. Chairman Rodgers said Staff supports the 25’ variance request but he didn’t hear whether or not Staff supports the rest of the other four requests. Mr. Blomeley said Staff is generally supportive of the variance requests. He said they have met numerous times with Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Cantrell and Mr. Zhang. They realize this is a very difficult piece of property to develop. The TVA easement encumbers so much of the parcel. The building improvements must be located outside of the TVA easement and proper maneuverability for fire trucks must also be provided. That is something that Mr. Rhodes has worked diligently with the Fire Department to try to submit a plan that enables fire trucks to maneuver throughout the site. Chairman Rodgers said it is only difficult to work within this property because they are trying to put five buildings in 0.43 acres. Mr. Blomeley said 0.43 acres is what is encumbered by the TVA easement, which leaves a little bit less than an acre where buildings can be located. 10 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Chairman Rodgers said there is still a little bit less than an acre of property where five buildings are proposed. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Chairman Rodgers asked if there are any other practical difficulties or hardships they are talking about other than trying to put five buildings on less than an acre. Mr. Blomeley said what they have cited in their application materials is the TVA easement, the grade change, and the dedication of right-of-way that are impacting their property. Chairman Rodgers asked about the acreage of the site after the right-of-way is dedicated. Mr. Blomeley asked the applicants if 1.42 is the acreage post-right-of-way dedication or pre-right-of-way dedication. Mr. Rhodes said it is pre-right-of-way dedication. He said that the net acreage will be around 1.3. The area of the buildings is about .95 acres. Mr. Halliburton asked if the TVA easement were not there, what would be the allowed density with respect to this piece of property. Mr. Blomeley said it would be a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre so at 1.3 something acres, you would be looking at approximately 21 units. Mr. Halliburton asked how many are there now. Mr. Blomeley said 20 units. He said that the number of units permitted takes into account the entire property so they have 1.3 acres after the right-of-way dedication. The number of units is not based upon what is outside the TVA easement. It is based upon the total acreage of the property including the TVA easement. Mr. Halliburton confirmed that the TVA easement impacts the property with regard to where the buildings can be located. Mr. Blomeley said the TVA easement does dictate that the buildings be moved to a certain portion of the site. Chairman Rodgers asked about the number of units that would be allowed on the property if it was 0.9 acres and there was not a TVA easement. 11 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley said if the property boundaries did not include the TVA easement and it was just 0.9 acres, approximately 15 dwelling units would be permitted by right. Vice-Chairman Young asked if there were any specifications on how large a dwelling unit has to be. Mr. Blomeley said there is no minimum or maximum size per dwelling unit, per the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rhodes reiterated that the density calculations include the area encumbered by the TVA easement. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. Cantrell said if these variances are granted, they want to make some additional commitments. They are committing to 10 red maple trees along the property frontage. Mr. Cantrell also showed an area at the front of the site where one parking space would be eliminated and 20 laurels would be added. He said that the building elevations that parallel Southeast Broad Street had brick on the first floor and hardi-board on the second floor, and they are committing to all brick on the building facades along Broad Street. Mr. Halliburton asked if you lose the parking space, where is he making it up. Mr. Cantrell said he has one parking space to lose. He is trying to increase the amount of green space and trying to increase the vegetation down Southeast Broad Street so the subject property would have a better streetscape. Ms. King verified instead of four parking spaces in the front, you would have three parking spaces. Mr. Cantrell said yes. Ms. King asked if the two parking spaces on the other side would remain. Mr. Cantrell said yes and he would add landscape material in front of those parking spaces. Mr. Blomeley said in regards to the number of parking spaces, he misspoke earlier and said they have two surplus spaces. If he eliminates one parking space, according to the calculations provided there would still be one extra parking space. 12 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Ms. King asked Mr. Cantrell if he would be willing to take away one of the parking spaces on the other side of the driveway aisle and add landscaping material since there are 2 extra parking spaces. Mr. Cantrell said yes, if that is the desire of the Board. Chairman Rodgers asked for clarification on the term “required front yard.” Mr. Blomeley said that it is another term for the required front setback. Mr. Cantrell oriented the Board Members a little more about the property stating the two parcels that are to the southeast are both heavily wooded and vacant. The next property is called Silver Point which continues all the way down to Middle Tennessee Boulevard. That particular project is a PUD developed many years ago by Mr. Nipper. These homes have a common drive that serves those homes so there are no individual driveways that come onto Southeast Broad Street. Mr. Cantrell said the lots on the other side of Southeast Broad Street are larger tracts that have been there for quite some time. Mr. Guy King, 926 Southeast Broad Street, spoke against this application. He said he has tried selling his property twice and both times the properties across the street greatly hurt his property value. Mr. King said, when he had his house appraised, the properties across the street hurt his property value. Mr. King said he is not in favor of doing anything that is going to hurt his property value any more. He does not like the idea of right across the street having 20-21 properties that the sole objective of this plan is to cram as much as they can into a small piece of property. Mr. King said there is not one variance on the agenda that he is in favor of. He said that, due to the reduced front setback, it sounds like the cars are going to be parking right on the street and in order to get in and out, it is going to cause problems on the street. Mr. King said the buildings are going to be so close to the side lot line and the shared access drive that vehicles will be driving very close to the buildings. He said Mr. Zhang owns the two existing brick apartment buildings next door. He said that they are an eyesore. Mr. King said the applicant talked to some of the adjoining property owners. Mr. King said he talked to some of his adjoining property owners and none of them liked what they received in the mail about what was going to happen. Mr. King asked the Board Members to deny every single one of the variance requests. He said he is not opposed to developing but feels like they are trying to do too much with this small piece of property. He said if they cut back and do less he would be much happier. There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton said he is looking at this from a standpoint of what the applicant is allowed to develop by right. He said that his understanding is that they are not asking for 13 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 any more units than what they are allowed by right. Mr. Halliburton asked Mr. Blomeley if that is a correct statement. Mr. Blomeley said yes, that is correct. Mr. Halliburton said if this TVA easement wasn’t here, would they be asking for any and all of these five different variances. He is not sure what the answer would be to that question. He said he does think the reason they have to ask for the majority of the variances is because of the TVA easement. Mr. Halliburton said he understands the concerns of the property owner across the street but that this property is already zoned for this number of units, and that the property owner has the right to put this number of units on this property. Mr. Halliburton said he would like to see some additional landscaping at the front of Mr. Zhang’s property to the south. He said that would present a more appealing look to this entire development. Mr. Halliburton also voiced his opinion on reducing the parking spaces stating he is not a real fan of that because he thinks they need as many as they can get especially with the fact that someone is going to have to police the fact that these unit owners are not going to be able to use their garages for storage. Vice-Chairman Young said, while there is a lot going on with the property, he is approaching it like Mr. Halliburton that it is already zoned RM-16 which is going to be more dense than the property across the street. He questioned whether they would have to allow that many variances. He agreed, though, that the TVA easement has caused the applicants some difficulties and challenges with developing the property. Ms. Mosby agreed it would look nice with the extra plantings for the neighbors across the street. Ms. King said her biggest concern with parking is that there is a big open space that is going to be visible to cars, traffic, and neighbors. She said potentially not just with cars that are going in and out of the property but perhaps cars that are being stored there. She said additional landscaping would be helpful aesthetically and from a noise standpoint. Ms. King said this is challenging to her but agrees with her colleagues that this is a property that is zoned in that regard. Ms. King said her challenge is they are pushing up against the front of the site and although she would hope that more landscaping right there would help alleviate some difficulties, she fears that if the road expands you do limit the ability to have access to sidewalks. She said she would feel better with the additional landscaping in order to create a better visual effect for the community. Chairman Rodgers asked how long Mr. Zhang has owned this property. Mr. Zhang said he purchased the property around April 2013. 14 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Chairman Rodgers asked if the TVA easement was there when Mr. Zhang bought the property. Mr. Zhang said yes. Chairman Rodgers said he is ok with the 25’ variance request because of the right-of-way dedication. He said that is something that doesn’t currently exist but that will be required with the development of the property. Mr. Blomeley said the right-of-way would be dedicated with the resubdivision plat when the properties are combined. He said exactly what those road improvements will entail is anybody’s guess right now. Chairman Rodgers agreed that is a practical difficulty that currently exists that wasn’t of Mr. Zhang’s making or knowledge. He said all the other characteristics of the property certainly existed at the time he purchased the property. Chairman Rodgers said Mr. Zhang knew what the building envelope was and is doing nothing other than trying to get as many units on this piece of property as he possibly can. He said setbacks are there to improve the appearance of property and make sure you are consistent with the surrounding property in keeping the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Rodgers said there is nothing about this development proposed that would be consistent with surrounding property, in his opinion. He said he would feel comfortable with the 25’ front setback variance request but as far as all the others are concerned, he will vote against those. Mr. Ives said he is not sure it would be appropriate to condition any of these requests on Mr. Zhang doing landscaping improvements off-site. He said if they volunteered to install landscaping on the property next door, that would certainly be appropriate. Mr. Blomeley added that might be something Mr. Zhang volunteers to do. Mr. Ives said if Mr. Zhang volunteers to do it and does it, that would be wonderful but to condition approval on it would be a mistake. Mr. Halliburton referred to the items that Mr. Cantrell has proposed for this site, does the Board have the ability to make those conditions of approval or will that be done at site plan. Mr. Blomeley said if they are things that the Board wants to condition as a part of approval, then it would need to be explicit in the record for the BZA and in the motion. If the BZA does not wish those items to be conditions of approval, then they could just be left up to work out during the site plan reviewing process. If the Board feels that the 15 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 variances would not be granted unless there were those conditions, then those conditions would need to be included. Mr. Ives said it is appropriate to make any of those as conditions of approval, if the Board chooses. Mr. Blomeley said that Mr. Cantrell also mentioned that the front facades would be all brick along Broad Street. Mr. Ives also mentioned the trees in front of the units. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve a 25’ variance from the minimum required 40’ front building setback for principal structures with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots into one lot of record must be recorded. 2) Additional plantings shall be added along the front of the site, as depicted on the exhibit presented by the applicant at the meeting. 3) Two (2) of the parking spaces proposed in the required front yard shall be eliminated in order to accommodate additional plantings at the front of the site. 4) All building facades adjacent to Southeast Broad Street shall be all-brick. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Vice-Chairman Young verified the 2nd variance deals with the side lot line that abuts the property Mr. Zhang already owns. Mr. Blomeley said yes, it is the side property line along the south side of the property. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve the 17.5’ variance from the minimum required 25’ side building setback for principal structures with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots into one lot of record must be recorded. 2) Additional plantings shall be added along the front of the site, as depicted on the exhibit presented by the applicant at the meeting. 3) Two (2) of the parking spaces proposed in the required front yard shall be eliminated in order to accommodate additional plantings at the front of the site. 4) All building facades adjacent to Southeast Broad Street shall be all-brick. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried in favor by a vote of 4-1 (Chairman Rodgers voted no). 16 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve a 3’ variance from Section 27(J) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum 8’-wide front planting yard where the site is between one (1) and two (2) acres with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots into one lot of record must be recorded. 2) Additional plantings shall be added along the front of the site, as depicted on the exhibit presented by the applicant at the meeting. 3) Two (2) of the parking spaces proposed in the required front yard shall be eliminated in order to accommodate additional plantings at the front of the site. 4) All building facades adjacent to Southeast Broad Street shall be all-brick. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried in favor by a vote of 3-2 (Chairman Rodgers and Ms. King voted no). Chairman Rodgers asked to what extent has the parking spaces within a required front yard been addressed. Ms. King said there are 4 parking spaces that remain. Chairman Rodgers asked if these spaces were still in the setback. Mr. Blomeley said there were actually seven spaces that were entirely or partially within the front setback, three along the north side of the entrance drive and four along the south side of the entrance drive. Mr. Blomeley said with the elimination of two of those spaces there will only be five spaces in the required front setback. Chairman Rodgers asked where those five spaces would be located. Mr. Blomeley said one would be removed on both sides of the driveway aisle. Mr. Halliburton said that is correct. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve a variance from Section 26(C)(1)(b)(2) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that parking spaces or access aisles for parking spaces of multi-family dwellings located in the RM-16 district shall not be located within a required front yard, with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots into one lot of record must be recorded. 2) Additional plantings shall be added along the front of the site, as depicted on the exhibit presented by the applicant at the meeting. 17 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 3) Two (2) of the parking spaces proposed in the required front yard shall be eliminated in order to accommodate additional plantings at the front of the site. 4) All building facades adjacent to Southeast Broad Street shall be all-brick. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried in favor by a vote of 4-1 (Chairman Rodgers voted no). Ms. King said it was mentioned that TVA mandates a maximum height for landscaping. She asked Mr. Blomeley to explain the Type C buffer and how tall those plantings might be. Mr. Blomeley asked Mr. Adams to speak to the Board about what would and wouldn’t be allowed in the Type C buffer. Mr. Adams said typically what is in a Type C buffer would not be allowed in a TVA easement. He said TVA has a list of what they will allow in their easement. Mr. Adams said generally what they have seen is a fence in the middle and plantings on both sides. With a Type C buffer, you would generally see two rows of a broad growing evergreen tree that grow in excess of 30’ – 40’ tall. Ms. King asked if what is proposed with the fence mimics any other type of buffer that we have within our zoning and regulations. Mr. Adams said that there was recently a large TVA easement that had a required Type C buffer and the plantings proposed are not going to get any taller than 15’. He said having a fence helps to mitigate noise. Ms. King asked if the proposal was to have plants on both sides of the fence. Mr. Blomeley said there is only a 5’ wide planting yard north of the parking spaces. He said there would not be enough room to get plantings on both sides of that fence. He said there are areas in front and to the rear of those parking spaces where they could have a wider planting yard and potentially get plantings on both sides of the fence. He said that, adjacent to the edge of those parking spaces, there would probably be room for just the fence and some narrow vegetation. Mr. Adams said his concern with the 5’ width is that generally they want to see the fence on the subject property side and the plantings adjacent to the other property so that the neighbors can have the benefit of the plantings. He said if the fence is right up against those parking stalls, that fence is probably going to get hit unless there are wheel stops. Mr. Adams said it also makes it hard to access the landscaping for maintenance. He suggested they put a gate in the fence to access the other side. 18 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Blomeley said that is part of the reason why he worded his recommended condition of approval in saying that a 6’ privacy fence must be installed along the northern property line subject to approval by the TVA and that, in addition, an alternative landscape plan must be approved by the Urban Environmental Department. Mr. Blomeley said working in this tight area would probably require some detailed collaboration with Urban Environmental and the applicant in order to come up with an acceptable plan for both access and maintenance of that area. Mr. Adams said once Urban Environmental approves the plan, it has to go to TVA for their approval. He said sometimes what Urban Environmental approves may not be approved by TVA. Mr. Ives said that, according to the plans submitted, the privacy fence would be next to the parking space and then the 5’ planting yard is on the outside of the fence where someday there could be issues about access. He said there were some other discussions about having the plantings inside the fence. He said if the Board has a preference about the specific location of the fence, it needs to be made clear. Mr. Adams said in areas where they can’t have plantings on both sides of the fence, he said it would be advantageous to have it on the adjacent property owner’s side for their benefit. He said otherwise they are going to be staring at a blank fence. Mr. Blomeley said that, unless the Board has a preference, the location of the fence would be something that could be worked out at a later stage as far as what is beneficial for access and maintenance of the planting yards. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve a variance from Section 27(L)(1)(b) and Table 1 of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which state that a Type C buffer zone is required to be planted when property in a Residential Multi-Family (RM-16) zone abuts property in a Residential Duplex (RD) zone, with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots into one lot of record must be recorded. 2) Additional plantings shall be added along the front of the site, as depicted on the exhibit presented by the applicant at the meeting. 3) Two (2) of the parking spaces proposed in the required front yard shall be eliminated in order to accommodate additional plantings at the front of the site. 4) All building facades adjacent to Southeast Broad Street shall be all-brick. 5) A 6’-tall privacy fence must be installed along the northern property line (subject to approval by TVA). In addition, an alternative landscape plan pertaining to the area along the north property line must be approved by the Urban Environmental Department. 19 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried in favor by a vote of 3-2 (Chairman Rodgers and Ms. King voted no). Mr. Halliburton said he hopes that Mr. Cantrell and Mr. Zhang will think about adding landscaping in front of the adjacent property to the south. He said he will probably make the same comment when the Planning Commission reviews the site plan. Special Use Permit / Variance Request Application Z-14-034 by Ms. Julie Smith, for Absolute Fireworks, is making the following requests for property located in a Commercial Highway (CH) zone at 131 Cason Lane:  A special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (seasonal fireworks retailer); and  A variance from Section 9(D)(2)(eeee)[2] of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that in the event the proposed location of a temporary vendor will be on the site of an existing permanent business, the number of parking spaces displaced by the temporary vendor (including areas for tents, trailers, inventory, and parking for the temporary vendor) will not total more than 25% of the total parking available on the site. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City’s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) 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. 6) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. 7) There shall be no outdoor product display or storage in the southernmost row of parking spaces. In addition, the delivery truck for the furniture store shall be parked off-site. Ms. Smith 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. 20 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Ms. King made a motion to approve the special use permit with the following conditions: 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City’s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) 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. 6) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. 7) There shall be no outdoor product display or storage in the southernmost row of parking spaces. In addition, the delivery truck for the furniture store shall be parked off-site. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve the variance request. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Special Use Permit Requests Application Z-14-035 by Mr. Jake Loyd, for Mid America Distributors, Inc., is requesting a special use permit in order to operate a temporary outdoor vending establishment (seasonal fireworks retailer) in a Commercial Highway (CH) zone for property located at 2325 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) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City’s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) 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. 6) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. 7) One Type III barricade must be installed to the west of the tent and one must be installed on the east side of the proposed tent. The barricades must be in place for the duration of the selling season. 21 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Loyd was present to answer 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. Mosby made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) Certification should be submitted that the tent is flame-resistant or treated to be flame-resistant. 2) A fire extinguisher should be kept on-site at all times. 3) The City’s fireworks ordinance should be posted on-site. 4) No fireworks are to be set off on-site. 5) 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. 6) The tent must meet all minimum building setback requirements for the CH zoning district, and a tent permit must be obtained for the tent. 7) One Type III barricade must be installed to the west of the tent and one must be installed on the east side of the proposed tent. The barricades must be in place for the duration of the selling season. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Chairman Rodgers said the parking lot is very congested. He said the parking lot will fill up completely on days around holidays like the 4th of July. By adding the fireworks use, it is going to be a little tight, but he is willing to see how it goes. Mr. Loyd told the Kroger store manager if it causes problems, he won’t ask to use the site again. Application Z-14-036 by Mr. Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Mr. John Westlund of the Presbyterian Student Fellowship, is requesting a special use permit in order to expand an existing student center in a Residential Multi- Family (RM-16) zone for property located at 2529 Middle Tennessee Boulevard and 618 Crestland Avenue. 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) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots must be recorded. 2) The structure at 618 Crestland Avenue must comply with minimum building code requirements, as determined by the Building and Codes Director. 22 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Rountree and Mr. Westlund were both present to answer any questions. Ms. King asked Mr. Blomeley what was across Crestland Avenue from the subject property. Mr. Blomeley said it is zoned RM-16 and it is developed with either single-family homes or multi-family structures that were originally constructed as single-family homes. Chairman Rodgers said Mr. Blomeley mentioned the Baptist Center to the north does not have access onto Middle Tennessee Boulevard. He asked if that was true for all the other houses that continue to the north and south of this property. Mr. Blomeley said the majority of them probably do have access to Middle Tennessee Boulevard. Vice-Chairman Young said he remembers an application that dealt with ingress and egress and the proposed widening of Middle Tennessee Boulevard. Mr. Blomeley said that was the last student center that came before the BZA, which was operated by the Family Worship Center. Mr. Blomeley said that was just a block or two away from this site. He agreed there were some ingress and egress issues with that particular site. He said if he recalled correctly, the ingress and egress into that site was going to remain substandard until Middle Tennessee Boulevard was improved. Mr. Blomeley thinks that came before the Board in 2011 or 2012. Ms. King asked if there has been a review of this plan with regard to drainage. Mr. Blomeley said yes, stating this was submitted for site plan review simultaneous with submittal to the BZA. It is being reviewed administratively and will not be required to go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Blomeley said he has not discussed the drainage plan with the City Engineering Department, so he can’t discuss that specifically other than to say the City Engineering department has reviewed and will continue to review to make sure there is no negative impact on adjacent properties. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. John Holloway, 2523 Middle Tennessee Boulevard, said his property adjoins the subject property along the south property line from Middle Tennessee Boulevard all the way to Crestland. Mr. Holloway requested from the original site plan a change in the landscaping asking for Green Giant or Verbena along the south property line. Mr. Holloway asked that the curbing be extended past his lattice fence and evergreen plantings be provided there. Mr. Holloway said he saw the lighting plan this morning. He asked to see the new revised site plan. Mr. Holloway said if the lighting plan is 23 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 compliant and the lighting is facing north, he has no problem with that. He said the ingress/egress will be an improvement. He said Crestland is much easier and safer. The Baptist parking lot that has been there for a while is not compliant with current landscaping requirements, but this new parking lot addition will be required to be brought up to current minimum requirements, including landscape islands. If they address the additional curbing and landscaping of about 30’ on the site plan, he is perfectly fine with it, and he said he would like those issues addressed. Ms. King asked Mr. Holloway where he would want those trees to be with respect to their parking as it is now. She said the Board is not aware of the location of his lattice fence, so it is hard for her to imagine what he is talking about. Mr. Holloway said there is a fence on his property all the way from Middle Tennessee Boulevard to about 100’ from Crestland Avenue with the exception of his garage. Mr. Blomeley showed a picture of the fence on the overhead. Mr. Holloway pointed out the location of his garage and where the curb and landscape area with laurels was proposed to be installed. He did not think the proposed landscaping was satisfactory, and he requested evergreens be planted. Mr. Holloway said the curbing stopped at the solid fence and he requested the curbing come up approximately 28’ from there all the way to the edge of his garage with plantings all the way up in order to block visibility. Ms. King asked if this is on the Crestland Avenue side. Mr. Holloway said it is not on the 618 property but actually part of the 2529 property. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley if he had a copy of the updated site plan so Mr. Holloway can review them. Mr. Blomeley said yes and gave Mr. Holloway a copy. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Holloway to review the plans as we continue on with the hearing. He will come back to Mr. Holloway after he has a chance to review the plans. There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. However, he stated that Mr. Holloway could come back to the podium after he has had a chance to review the plans. Chairman Rodgers asked if the ingress and egress along Middle Tennessee Boulevard is just ingress. He asked if any consideration has been made to eliminating ingress 24 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 completely off Middle Tennessee Boulevard so the only access to the property is from Crestland Avenue. Mr. Westlund said the reason they talked about maintaining that driveway is awareness of where they are located. He said they have volunteers from local churches bringing food for the college students to gather each week. He said it is far easier for them to find their location off of that main road than off the Crestland Avenue. In addition, it is easier for new students coming in finding their location. Mr. Westlund said the students that come regularly will start using the Crestland Avenue entrance rather than the Middle Tennessee Boulevard entrance. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley if he knows anything about the Middle Tennessee Boulevard improvements and how they would affect the property. Mr. Blomeley said he has not reviewed those plans in relation to this property. Mr. Ives said he also has not reviewed the plans but added that there will be a nice improved landscape median in the middle of the road. He doesn’t know if it would be possible to turn left into this location if you are driving to the north. Mr. Ives said there is a good chance you won’t be able to, but he doesn’t know that. He said it may be that it is only “right-in” if you are driving toward the south. He said if that is the case there won’t be much of a traffic disruption. Mr. Westlund understands that most of the expansion of Middle Tennessee Boulevard is going to be on the campus side across from the subject property. He said the City did seek right-of-way on the subject property to store equipment while construction was going on. Mr. Ives agreed there would be very little, if any impact to the subject property front yard but he doesn’t know what impact the median will have. Mr. Westlund said he is not aware of that either. Mr. Holloway said from reviewing the plans for the road project, the median will affect the subject property. He said the plans are showing ingress only from the lanes going south bound for “right-in” only. He thinks the other entrance is on Ewing. Chairman Rodgers asked if there was a plan for a right-turn lane. Mr. Holloway said no, not in the middle of the block. He said it looks like the curb has been extended as he requested. Mr. Holloway said since the applicants have addressed all of his concerns and questions, he recommended the Board approve the application. 25 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 He said it will be a much better operation for the students in maintenance, upkeep, and safety. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve the request with the following conditions: 1) A resubdivision plat combining the two lots must be recorded. 2) The structure at 618 Crestland Avenue must comply with minimum building code requirements, as determined by the Building and Codes Director. 3) Evergreen plantings, consistent with what is shown on the conceptual landscape plan submitted to the BZA, must be provided along the southern property line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. (The original motion was made with only Conditions 1 and 2. Vice-Chairman Young added the third condition after the following discussion took place before the vote.) Mr. Blomeley brought up the possibility of the third condition about the landscaping along the southern property line and whether or not the Board wanted to include any type of condition for the development to be consistent with the landscape plan that has been submitted or an equivalent landscape plan. Vice-Chairman Young said he assumed when Mr. Holloway looked at the plan, that part was taken care of and asked what part the Board needed to address. Chairman Rodgers said he thinks the final landscape plan should be consistent with the amended plans as presented. Mr. Blomeley agreed. Application Z-14-037 by Mr. Richie Bolin, for Middle Tennessee Christian School, is requesting a special use permit in order to expand an existing institutional group assembly use (a private school) in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone for property located at 100 East MTCS Road. More specifically, the applicant is seeking approval to construct six (6) lighted tennis courts on the property. 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 condition: 1) The existing tree line along the eastern and southern property lines must remain undisturbed. In addition, any gaps in the existing tree line must be filled in with evergreen trees. Mr. Bolin was present to answer questions. 26 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Vice-Chairman Young announced his child is a student at Middle Tennessee Christian School, so he would not participate in the discussion or vote. Chairman Rodgers asked if the neighbors that abut this site were mailed a notice of the application. Mr. Blomeley said yes, standard notification protocol was followed, including notices mailed to property owners and tenants within 250’ as well as a legal notice in The Murfreesboro Post and signs posted on the property. Chairman Rodgers verified the neighbors to the south were mailed notices. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Ms. King referred to the lighting plan and asked if the darkest line is the property line. She said there are three dotted lines and a dark line. Mr. Blomeley said yes, the dark line is the property line but he is not sure what the three dotted lines represent. Mr. Bolin asked if Mr. Blomeley had the pictures of the tree line. Mr. Blomeley said yes and showed the photographs on the overhead. Mr. Bolin said he is concerned about filling in the gaps along the tree line. He said this is a mature tree line and he thinks things will grow up and the gaps will eventually close. If they go to digging and disturbing roots and planting trees, they could do more damage to the trees that he thinks would grow together. Mr. Blomeley said it is at the Board’s discretion whether they wish to include the recommended condition of approval. Ms. King asked if there was room to place trees in front of or behind the tree line on MTCS’s property. Mr. Bolin said yes, there is. He said they have quite a bit of property in the back of the tree line on the east side but he was concerned about who would maintain that area. Mr. Bolin referred to one particular area and said the present trees would grow together faster than he could plant and grow trees anyway as they would all be fighting for the same sunlight and nutrition. Chairman Rodgers asked if this would build out the site now. 27 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 Mr. Bolin said no. Chairman Rodgers asked if they still had room. Mr. Bolin said there are future plans to the south and front of the elementary school. Chairman Rodgers asked if they had any more athletic fields in the future. Mr. Bolin said there may possibly be some additions or modifications to the softball field. 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 condition: 1) The existing tree line along the eastern and southern property lines must remain undisturbed. In addition, any gaps in the existing tree line must be filled in with evergreen trees. Mr. Blomeley said if it were acceptable to the Board, the proposed condition could be amended so that those gaps be filled in only if feasible and approved by the Urban Environmental Department. He said Staff does not want to harm any of the existing trees or vegetation. Mr. Halliburton said he thinks that is a good approach and recommended Mr. Bolin work with Urban Environmental to determine the best route to work out the gaps but not mandate they plant trees. Ms. Mosby amended her motion to approve to include the following condition: 1) The existing tree line along the eastern and southern property lines must remain undisturbed. In addition, any gaps in the existing tree line must be filled in with evergreen trees, if feasible and approved by the Urban Environmental Department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Staff Reports and Other Business None. 28 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting May 28, 2014 The meeting adjourned at 3:45 P.M. __________________________ ________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 29  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS JUNE 25, 2014 Application: S-14-038 Address: 1335 Conference Center Boulevard Applicant: Mr. Kyle Fielder of Bozman Sign Company, for Murfreesboro Hotel Partnership, LLC Zoning: Commercial Highway (CH) and Gateway Design Overlay District (GDO-1) Request: 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, Kyle Fielder with Bozman Sign Company representing Murfreesboro Hotel Partnership, LLC, 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 1335 Conference Center Boulevard is within the CH and GDO-1 zones. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one (1), internally illuminated push thru style freestanding wall sign with 20 square-foot display area, an overall height of 4’. The sign will be located within a 30’ public utility easement and a 25’ storm drainage easement. The Agreement for a Sign in a City of Murfreesboro Easement for this location has been signed by Murfreesboro Water and Sewer, Murfreesboro Electric, the City Engineer, and the Director of Building and Codes. A letter of approval has also been received from Atmos Energy and AT&T. CUD has no water utilities at this location and therefore has no interest in the easement. Due to the sensitivity of placement of the sign in regards to utility lines, the sign has been located on-site by a Tennessee registered engineer. The applicant will comply with all other setbacks and regulations. Mr. Fielder will be in attendance to answer any questions that the Board may have.  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS JUNE 25, 2014 Application: Z-14-025 Address: 2703 Lockwood Court (also identified as Lot 26 of the Rivers Edge Subdivision) Applicant: Mr. Steve Steele of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for PNB Holding Co. 2, LLC Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS-10) Request: A 15’ variance from the minimum required 35’ 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 subject property is located in the Rivers Edge Subdivision, which is just east of Cason Lane and the Three Rivers Subdivision. The request pertains to Lot 26 (2703 Lockwood Court), which is located along Lockwood Court off of Parkwood Drive. Rivers Edge was originally zoned as a PRD (Planned Residential District) and was adjacent to several other PRDs (Three Rivers, River Downs Annex, and River Oaks West) 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. 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 PRDs are no longer required under the traditional bulk zoning. As a result, Section 1 of Rivers Edge was rezoned to RS-10. The original PRD zone for Rivers Edge required a 25’ front setback, 5’ side setbacks, and a 20’ rear setback. The subdivision, including the current lot configuration, was designed in 2004 and then the preliminary plat was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission with the setbacks as denoted in the approved PRD zoning plan. In the years that followed, the subdivision infrastructure was constructed by the original developer. Rivers Edge was rezoned to RS-10 in 2011 after it changed ownership. The current RS- 10 zone requires a 35’ front setback, 10’ side setbacks, and a 25’ rear setback. The applicant proposes to reduce the front setback for this lot to 20’, instead of the required 35’. In order to do so, he has requested a 15’ front setback variance. This would essentially allow the same depth in the building envelope as what was proposed to be allowed with the previous PRD zoning. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant’s representative detailing the variance request as well as several exhibits, including the recorded plat and a plot plan with the proposed reduced front setback. Photographs depicting the subject lot and surrounding area have also been included by Staff for the Board’s review. The Board should note that two (2) similar requests were approved in January 2013 for Lots 5 and 7. The Rivers Edge Section 1 plat has been recorded, and the subject lot (Lot 26) is 10,949 square-feet. The applicant makes the case that the lot sizes and dimensions were designed and constructed with the original PRD setbacks in mind. The front, side, and rear setbacks were all increased with the 2011 rezoning to RS-10. Most of the lots in Section 1 can accommodate the increased setbacks. Lot 26, however, is a shallow cul-de- sac lot that lacks depth in its building envelope. As stated earlier, the requested variance will create a building envelope on this shallow lot with the same depth as would have been allowed with the previous PRD setbacks. The applicant further states that being able to push the house closer to the street will allow for a more substantial backyard. Staff notes that, in addition, because of a 20’ drainage easement at the rear of the lot, there is limited ability to move the house closer to the rear lot line. The applicant also indicates that the house the buyer is proposing to build has a relatively small footprint. The plot plan that the applicant has submitted shows a side-entry garage. Staff believes that if the requested variance is granted and the house is allowed to be constructed closer to the front property line, it is important that a front-entry garage not be allowed. A side- or rear-entry garage will lengthen the driveway and allow for more off-street parking. If the Board approves this variance request, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) A front-entry garage will not be allowed for the principal structure. Mr. Steele will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.