Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, September 24, 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 August 27, 2014. 3. New Business Variance Requests a. Application Z-14-056 by Mr. Robert Miller, is making the following requests for property located in a Residential Single- Family (RS-10) zone at 4819 Trevino Court:  Pertaining to a proposed addition to the house, a 5’ 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; and  Pertaining to an existing accessory structure, an 8’ variance from the minimum required 25’ rear building setback for attached accessory structures, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance. 4. Staff Reports and Other Business a. Consideration of amendment to the 2014 Board of Zoning Appeals calendar regarding the November and December submittal deadlines. b. Consideration of the 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals calendar. 5. Adjourn  Regular Meeting Minutes of the Murfreesboro BZA August 27, 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 Amelia Kerr, Sign Administrator David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Chairman Rodgers called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Consideration of minutes: The minutes for the July 30, 2014 regular meeting were approved as submitted. New Business: Sign Variance Requests Application S-14-045 by Ms. Shannon Spence of Valley Signs and Surveys, for Vision Murfreesboro, LLC, is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24(A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 1409 Conference Center Boulevard. Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Timothy Joy with Valley Signs and Surveys was present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 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. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Application S-14-046 by Mr. Rick Thurman, for Trinity Presbyterian Church, is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24(A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 1020 North Rutherford Boulevard. Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Thurman 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. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Application S-14-047 by Mr. Bill Rush, for Lamar TN, LLC, is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24(A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located along the south side of Old Fort Parkway and along the west side of Northwest Broad Street (also identified as Tax Map 091K, Group L, Parcel 00101). Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Rush was present to answer questions. Vice-Chairman Young verified that there was a sign that was already at this location. Ms. Kerr said yes and that it will be located behind Chicago Style Gyros. She said the old sign had to be removed because of the new State right-of-way. Chairman Rodgers asked if this sign would be placed in the exact same location as the previous sign. 2 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Ms. Kerr said they are moving the new sign over from the previous location and the new sign will overhang the easement. She said there is an easement in the middle of that property now. She said the applicants have decreased the size of the sign. Chairman Rodgers asked if this is a sign the applicants are entitled to erect as a matter of right with the exception of it overhanging over into the easement. Ms. Kerr said yes, it is a grandfathered sign per Tennessee Code 13-7-208. Chairman Rodgers verified that, were it not for the easement, they would not have to come before the BZA. Ms. Kerr said they are at the BZA meeting today in order for the sign to overhang the easement. Mr. Ives said Chairman Rodgers was correct in that if there wasn’t an easement issue, they would not have to come before the BZA. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. Application S-14-048 by Mr. Mark Brashears, for Hooters of Murfreesboro, is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24(A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 730 Northwest Broad Street. Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Ben Zetlock with Design and Engineering, Inc., and Trey Walt with Portwine Signs were both present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. 3 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Application S-14-049 by Mr. Carl Bell of A-1 Signs, for Logan’s Roadhouse, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24(A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 740 Northwest Broad Street. Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Bell 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. King made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Variance Requests Application Z-14-050 by Mr. Timothy Dwyer of Leesman Engineering and Associates, for Tire Discounters, Inc., is requesting 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. This request pertains to property located in the Commercial Highway (CH) and Gateway Design Overlay District (GDO-1) zones along the north side of Medical Center Parkway west of Greshampark Drive and identified as Tax Map 079, Parcel 09500. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Dwyer was present to answer questions. Chairman Rodgers asked if this was a use that is permitted by right in the Gateway Design Overlay District. Mr. Blomeley said yes, that the underlying CH zone and the GDO-1 zone do not prohibit this type of use. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. 4 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Application Z-14-051 by Ms. Melanie Davenport and Ms. Judy Goldie, are requesting a variance from Section 25(E)(1)(b) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that, for corner lots in residential districts, detached accessory structures and uses shall be located no closer to the front lot line than 10’ behind the front of the principal structure on the same lot. This request pertains to property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 226 North Maney Avenue, which is at the southeast corner of North Maney Avenue and East Lytle Street and is also identified as Tax Map 091M, Group B, Parcel 00100. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Ms. Davenport and Ms. Goldie were both present to answer questions. Chairman Rodgers asked where the accessory structure was located when the BZA reviewed it in May. He wanted to know if it was roughly in the same spot but not angled like it is now. Mr. Blomeley said he believes it was shown to be a little further off of Lytle at that time but at that point their plans were so preliminary that they didn’t know exactly the layout of the house or weren’t even certain if they were going to be building a detached garage. Chairman Rodgers verified that the City Core Overlay allows the setbacks for accessory structures and principal structures to be the same. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Chairman Rodgers also verified the provision in the Zoning Ordinance that usually governs states that an accessory structure must be 10’ further back than the principal structure. Mr. Blomeley said, for properties located in the CCO, the setback requirements for the CCO would take precedence over the base zoning setback requirements. Chairman Rodgers asked Ms. Davenport, when the BZA looked at this in May, was the detached garage situated so that it was parallel with the street? Ms. Davenport said yes, it was more squared up but they had not yet solidified the plans. Chairman Rodgers verified that the garage doors were facing the house at the May meeting. 5 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Ms. Davenport said yes. Chairman Rodgers verified with Mr. Blomeley that the condition in May was that the garage doors not be visible from Lytle Street. Mr. Blomeley said the garage doors for the principal structure could not face Lytle Street. He said that condition only applied to the principal structure. Chairman Rodgers verified the doors for the detached garage will be visible from Lytle because the structure will be angled. Ms. Davenport said less than 10% of the structure will even be in that setback because it is going to be at such a soft angle. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-14-052 by Mr. Gary Hamontree, is making the following requests for property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone at 1607 Wexford Drive:  A variance from Section 25(E)(2) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which states that, in all residential districts, attached accessory structures and uses shall maintain the same setbacks as required for the principal structure; and  An 11.1’ variance from the minimum required 30’ rear building setback for principal structures and attached accessory structures, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Blomeley passed out a letter he received from Mr. Alan Northern, a member of the Breckenridge Architectural Review Committee (ARC). He said after the Board Members read that they will see there is some uncertainty about the ARC’s requirement that garages must be attached to the house. Mr. Blomeley said the primary reason why Mr. Hamontree is making the request is to comply with the requirements of the ARC, as they have been communicated to him. Mr. Hamontree was present to answer questions. 6 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Mr. Halliburton asked if the BZA should take any of this into account since neither the BZA nor the Planning Commission have the ability to enforce what neighborhood requirements are. Mr. Blomeley said, from the City’s standpoint, the detached garage is compliant just the way it is right now. Mr. Blomeley said he passed out this letter because it was sent to him. He said what the subdivision ARC requires and does not require has no bearing on whether or not something is in compliance with the City’s regulations. Mr. Blomeley said he mainly wanted to keep the Board informed since this was the main reason the applicant cited for requesting the variance. Mr. Ives stated this Board is not bound to consider the request of the Homeowners Association (HOA) but can consider it. Mr. Halliburton said he wanted to make it clear that the BZA is not the enforcing body of the HOA requirements. Mr. Ives agreed and said Mr. Halliburton was correct. Mr. Hamontree said the ARC prefers that all new garages be attached to the house or if the garage is free-standing that it has a connecting roof to the house so that it has the appearance of being part of the house. Mr. Hamontree said he submitted his plans and drawings to the HOA that included the location of the garage on his lot, all setbacks, and building materials to be used in the construction of the garage. After about two months they approved his plans. He took the same plans and drawings to the Buildings and Codes Department in Murfreesboro and after looking over his plans they gave Mr. Hamontree a building permit for an attached two-car garage. He said after about two weeks into construction and $10,000 invested in the project, a Building Inspector noticed the setback issue. The Building Inspector suggested the Hamontrees change the permit from an attached garage to a detached garage so they would not have to stop construction and then apply for a variance later on for the setback requirement in order to build the attaching roof. Mr. Hamontree said the detached garage has been recently finished. He requested the variance to the setback requirement for an attached garage so he can build a connecting roof from his home to the new garage. He said it would also complement their home and blend in better with the other homes of the neighborhood. It would also satisfy the requirement of the HOA that all garages in the subdivision be attached. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Chairman Rodgers asked Mr. Blomeley if there should be one or two motions for this application. 7 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Mr. Blomeley said there should be two. Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve a variance from Section 25(E)(2). The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve the 11.1’ rear setback variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Special Use Permit/Height Variance/Special Use Permit Amendment Application Z-14-053 by Mr. Jim Crumley, for the City of Murfreesboro, is making the following requests for property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone along the north and east sides of Central Valley Road north and northeast of the Liberty Station Subdivision and identified as Tax Map 047, Parcel 00800:  A special use permit in order to construct an institutional group assembly use (i.e., a public safety training facility);  Regarding the construction of a new burn tower, a 20’ variance from the 35’ maximum permitted building height, as stated in Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance; and  An amendment to a special use permit originally approved on September 25, 2013. The original special use permit pertains to approval to construct a telephone or telegraph facility (i.e., a telecommunications tower) on the subject property. The applicant seeks to amend the special use permit in order to modify the location of the proposed telecommunications tower on the subject property. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the special use permit amendment request pertaining to the communications tower, Staff recommends the following condition, which was the same condition of approval placed on the original special use permit: 1) All other applicable State and Federal approvals for the proposed tower must be obtained. Mr. Blomeley said no amendment to the height variance is required because the height that is proposed is consistent with what was approved in September 2013. He said what is requested is an amendment of the special use permit because of the new location of the proposed tower. Mr. Blomeley said City Staff received several items of correspondence from neighbors and passed out copies to the Board Members to review. Mr. Blomeley said the e-mails City Staff received were from Scott and Megan Cook of 822 Megan Drive; Mike and Sara Vickroy (no address listed); Michael Black of 939 Central Valley Road; and Kathy 8 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Black; 939 Central Valley Road. Mr. Blomeley also passed out a handout from Mr. Brad Mankin, who was in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Crumley and numerous representatives of the Police and Fire Departments were present to answer questions. Vice-Chairman Young asked where these training uses are happening now. Mr. Blomeley deferred the question to Mr. Crumley. Chairman Rodgers verified that the subject property abuts unincorporated County to the south and east. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Chairman Rodgers asked if the property to the east is the river. Mr. Blomeley said yes, to the east and the north. He added that property is owned by the Corps of Engineers. Chairman Rodgers verified the property to the south is in the unincorporated County and asked if there is just one lot there. Mr. Blomeley said there are several larger county lots south of the subject property along the east side of Central Valley Road. Chairman Rodgers asked if Central Valley Road terminates at US 231. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Chairman Rodgers asked if the people in the unincorporated County received notice. Mr. Blomeley said yes, all property owners within 250’, regardless of jurisdiction, received notice. He said there were approximately 70 notices mailed out. Mr. Halliburton asked if the different departments were going to speak. Mr. Blomeley said the applicant was present and would be happy to address any questions. He said the Police and Fire departments were also present to answer questions. Mr. Halliburton verified the reason for moving the telecommunications tower is due to artifacts that were found. He noticed the plans show a parking lot being placed where the 9 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 tower was originally approved to be located. Mr. Halliburton said he did not understand that. He then referred to the burn tower stating that it would be used two nights a month. He asked if there would be a specific time limit that those could be used like not past 9:00 P.M., for example. Next, he asked what the current zoning was for this property and the adjoining property to the east. He then said the firing range would be utilized during the daytime but also thought he heard it would be used two times a month in the evening. He asked if there would be a time limit associated with it as well. Mr. Blomeley said the property is zoned RS-15, which is Residential Single-Family with minimum lots of 15,000 square feet. He referred to the zoning map stating the property outside of the yellow area is outside of the City limits. The Corps property to the east and to the north is in the unincorporated County and the property to the south along the east side of Central Valley Road is also in the unincorporated County. He said the Liberty Station Subdivision and the Liberty Valley Subdivision located to the south and southwest of the subject property have a variety of single-family zoning classifications including RS-15, RS-10, and RS-12. Mr. Halliburton asked if the property to the east and the south that is located in the unincorporated County were zoned single-family residential too. Mr. Blomeley said he suspected that to be the case but he has not researched that. Chairman Rodgers referred to the remainder of the tract asking if that was all City-owned property and if that was the location where the waste water is sprayed. Mr. Blomeley said he was not sure if they spray there yet but that is the intended purpose for that property and it is owned by the City and zoned RS-15. He said this is part of the large Coleman farm tract the City bought about 10 years ago. Chairman Rodgers asked if there was a plan to develop the remainder of the property or is it perpetually going to be used for the spraying of waste water. Mr. Blomeley deferred that question to Mr. Crumley. Mr. Crumley said the Coleman farm was purchased by the City about 10 years ago, about 460 acres in total. He said the 52 acre dog-leg on the far southeast corner of the property is not suitable to use for the disposal of reuse water. He said the police and fire training activities are scattered and training is occurring less frequently than they would like to. He said there are no rifle ranges currently in Rutherford County and that the Police Department is currently going to Chapel Hill in Marshall County. For the Fire Department’s training on both the burn tower and the burn pit, they are currently either going to Deason or they are not training on any frequent basis in those activities. Mr. 10 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Crumley said we currently do not have anything similar to the tower that would allow them to use ropes for high end rescue. Mr. Crumley said they want to be good neighbors and that the City has been designing this now for a year and that is why you see on the site plan that there are no facilities within 200’ of the roadway. He said that there is a small ridge between the homes on Central Valley Road and where these facilities would be developed. With the exception of the Communications Tower and potentially the top of the burn tower, he does not believe any of these facilities would be visible to the residents of the subdivision. Mr. Crumley said it is not the City’s intention to take down any of the existing landscaping or foliage. He said the City’s goal would be to leave the Central Valley Road side of the property as much like it is today as possible. Mr. Crumley said he forwarded the aforementioned e-mails to Mr. Blomeley. He said they had some common themes. With regards to traffic, Mr. Crumley said when this facility is at full function, he anticipates an average of about 75 vehicle movements a day. He said the folks that would be going in are employees of the Murfreesboro Fire and Rescue and Murfreesboro Police Departments, and the general public is not going to be invited into this facility on any regular basis. With regards to noise, Mr. Crumley said as soon as they began looking at the opportunity for a firing range on the very eastern side of the property, buffered up against the Corps of Engineers and the river, they knew there would be concern about the noise that would occur from that activity. Using the Police Department’s sound meter, they went out and conducted a number of tests with a variety of the weapons that MPD uses on a regular basis. Mr. Crumley said on that particular day, December 11, 2013, conversational speech at the corner of Central Valley where the entrance to the project would be was about 60 decibels. Mr. Crumley said none of the activities conducted by the Police Department (including a flash bang grenade, various kinds of shot guns, rifles both with silencers and non-silencers, and 7 rifles firing simultaneously) exceeded the 60 decibels of normal conversational speech on Central Valley Road. He also said there would be between a 10-15’ high berm surrounding the firing range which should help deflect and absorb some of the noise that would be created there. With regards to property values, Mr. Crumley said he did not know how to address this issue but that they do intend to be good neighbors with the folks in Liberty Heights. He said they readily agree to comply with various City ordinances, including the noise ordinance and the landscaping ordinance and that they will use good design on the buildings as they go up. The only real building in the first phase that isn’t a pre- constructed modular is the K-9 facility. He said they don’t have full architectural plans for the K-9 facility yet but their commitment is that it will be of quality design and be an attractive design to people who look at it. Mr. Halliburton asked Mr. Crumley to address the reason for the movement of the telecommunications tower and putting a parking lot in its original approved location. 11 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Mr. Crumley said because of the requirement of the FCC that communication towers need federal approval, a NEPA environmental assessment had to be done. Chard (i.e., flint or pottery) was discovered at the tower site. The next step, had they pursued that same site, would have been to hire a phase 2 investigation of that 60’ x 60’ area. He said when the prices for the phase 2 investigation came in at $18,000, the City decided to move the tower. Mr. Halliburton referred to the 75 trips per day and asked if there were any proposed road improvements with respects to this development on Central Valley Road. Mr. Halliburton understood Mr. Crumley to say this facility would be used only for City of Murfreesboro employees or associates. He asked if the City would allow other jurisdictions to train here which would add to the traffic count. Mr. Crumley said from the very beginning they have had the Rutherford County Sherriff’s Department in the plans to include as participants. He said this is clearly going to be a City-owned facility. The City will control it however the City Council deems. He said the City is currently sharing the pistol range at the jail site off of New Salem Highway with the County and the City knows some of their needs. Mr. Crumley said they have not discussed any usage by any other jurisdictions outside of Rutherford County. Mr. Halliburton asked if the car count included Rutherford County Sherriff’s Department using the facility also. Mr. Crumley said he thinks so and he added that this is not going to be a facility that “on- duty” personnel use. He said employees would be training on their off-days. He said there would be events that would include more people than 75 cars there but on average as best as they can predict right now, about 75 cars a day in and out of the facility. Ms. Mosby asked how late the pistol and gun training would be going on each day. Mr. Crumley said they have not set a precise time. He said they asked lots of questions of the trainers that are firearm specialists. He said that is where the 2 nights a month came from stating the trainers indicated on average they would like to train in low light conditions or dark conditions about twice a month. Mr. Crumley said they would be happy to agree to a time limit, such as 9:00 P.M. Vice-Chairman Young asked if there were any other sites looked at that didn’t have a neighborhood across the street or did they come to this one because it was the most efficient use of resources. Mr. Crumley said they didn’t find any other areas that were more isolated that the City controlled or had the opportunity to control other than this site. He said they looked at 12 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 some alternative locations in the 460 acres but chose these 52 acres primarily because Water and Sewer could not use it for the re-use water and it was less costly to extend water, sewer, and electric into it. He said one site they looked at, the roadway just to get to it was $750,000. Ms. King asked for confirmation that the reason the artifact investigation occurred is because the tower requires federal approval. Mr. Crumley said yes. Ms. King asked if that would have to occur at the new proposed location. Mr. Crumley said yes. Ms. King asked if there has been any indication the tower would have to be moved again. Mr. Crumley said they don’t have any indication at this point but the NEPA study on that 60’ X 60’ area has not begun so they cannot say with certainty. He said they identified that as a good location for the tower but have not done the initial investigations that would be required. Chairman Rodgers asked if there are any current plans for road improvements on Central Valley Road. Mr. Crumley said there are no current road plans for Central Valley Road. He said that on the Major Thoroughfare Plan there is a major street that goes through the center of the subdivision, currently George Washington Boulevard, which becomes a connector between State Route 840 and Memorial Boulevard. That appears to be the future primary road that would be used, perhaps taking some of the current traffic off of Central Valley Road. Chairman Rodgers said he is familiar with the area and asked if Walter Hill contained the closest commercial-type establishments. Mr. Crumley said yes and that Walter Hill is about half a mile away. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Black, 939 Central Valley Road, said he lives on the corner of Central Valley Road across from the proposed entrance into the site. He expressed concerns with traffic safety and the location of the proposed entrance. He said that he moved there seven months ago and that he would not have bought that house if he had known this was going to happen. He said they bought because it was a scenic area and that proposed use seems 13 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 too commercial. He said his biggest concern is the traffic on that road and the accidents he regularly sees. Mr. Jake Robinson, 5128 McArthur Avenue, said they have been planning this thing for over a year and most of the residents that live in the neighborhood just found out about this last week. There are a lot of moving parts to this proposal and they haven’t had enough time to absorb all the different moving parts. He expressed concerns about the noise from the firing range. Mr. Robinson asked if there has been an environmental impact study about lead that would be deposited over the years into the ground water and into Stones River. He said that the neighbors would like to know specifically what kind of scenarios will be in the mock city. He said there is a driving training area and asked if that would include high speeds, turns, and screeching tires. Mr. Robinson referred to the burn tower and wanted to know if it would make noise and are they going to use megaphones. He highly urged the Board to defer approval of this site until more can be done. He encouraged the City, if they want to be good neighbors, to hold an open meeting, town-hall style meeting for the residents of that neighborhood. Mr. Robinson said the main entrance, at the intersection of Ticonderoga Avenue, Swamp Leanna Road, and Central Valley Road, is straight across the street and you are going to see a building. He said if you are at the curve where they are going to put the main entrance and you look at the mock city and the training facilities there, that is only about 175’. He said he is also concerned about light pollution. He also expressed concerns about nighttime training. Mr. Robinson discussed whether or not a firing range is needed. Mr. Robinson expressed a concern about water runoff from the parking lots. Mr. Robinson agreed with Mr. Black and expressed concerns about the location of the proposed entrance to this facility. Mr. Robinson said since this is being offered to the County, why aren’t we talking to the County about a joint venture to build a facility like this. He said with him just learning about this last Wednesday, he has already come up with lots of questions and ideas that could maybe solve some of these problems. He is not opposed to guns but don’t want a live firing range right across the road from his neighborhood. He again requested an open meeting where the neighbors could submit their questions. He said that today is not the day to approve this proposal. Ms. Stacy Morgan, 1337 Sam Houston Avenue, said that she wasn’t aware of this until last night at 5:30 because of an e-mail from her property management company. She expressed concern over the increase in traffic and said that a traffic signal at Central Valley Road and US 231 is already needed. She also said that, because of the emergency vehicles that will be there, a wider road is needed along with sidewalks. She expressed concerns about property values and whether the structure proposed to be built at Ticonderoga Avenue and Central Valley Road will be comparable to the value of their homes. She asked how close will the mock city block be to Central Valley Road? She expressed concerns about the hours of operation, including that some residents work at night so the sound may be a factor because people are sleeping during the day. 14 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Mr. Brad Mankin, 1135 Central Valley Road, said that he is opposed to the request because of safety concerns, a negative impact on property values and marketability, and quality of life. He said that Central Valley Road is dangerous because of sharp turns, blind spots, rapid hill descent, and lack of shoulders. He said there are a tremendous number of heavy duty trucks that are transporting dirt to the Middle Point Landfield. Mr. Mankin said there has been rapid deterioration of the road. Mr. Mankin said he talked with Von Dotson, a local realtor with Keller Williams, and he talked about the potential for dramatic decrease in property values with these things coming into place. He said no matter how muffled the sound of the firing range or K-9’s, that is not a selling point. Additional noise will only compound the issues with the truck traffic and noise. Should the zoning request be passed, his family will be looking for an exit strategy ASAP. He said how sad it would be for Liberty Valley and Liberty Station, a neighborhood that has finally recovered from multi recession with new homes being built, to lose its appeal, and value. Ms. Sasha Fallon, 1155 Central Valley Road, said they live directly across from the entrance to this property. She and her husband have 3 small children, ages 2, 3, and 5. She said they have looked at similar facilities online and they look like prisons. She said that she is appalled to think a K-9 unit will be out there barking all of the time and that there will be a gun range. She said that the pictures shown to the BZA by the Planning Staff were misleading in that they give a false sense of the area and how close the houses are. Such a facility as this should have never been proposed near families and homes. She said that she does not want to have her children hearing guns, rifles, and grenades. She requested a denial of this application. Mr. Larry Lewis, 1165 Central Valley Road, said that his house is right in the corner of where Central Valley Road turns north and stated there is going to be a parking lot right across the road from his house with some buildings. He doesn’t see how that can be hidden from his house. Mr. Lewis expressed concerns about traffic safety. Mr. Lewis said he doesn’t like the way the facility is proposed. With regards to night training, he said if you are going to do night training in the summer time and you are going to do it in the dark, it is going to have to be after 9:00 P.M. because it doesn’t get dark until 8:30 P.M. He said that only leaves about 30 minutes to get the training done. He said that is a lot to think about when you are trying to sleep at night. Mr. Greg Holt, at 1237 Swamp Leanna Road, said one of the issues that hasn’t been addressed is that Swamp Leanna Road is also known as Leanna Swamp Road depending on who you ask. The post office has it as Leanna Swamp. He hopes that emergency services know the difference in case he has to call. He said that there is a very dangerous S curve in Swamp Leanna Road and that there are wrecks there constantly. He is concerned about the effect of increased traffic on this road. He said that he would also like more information on the building that is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. He said the proposed facility is going to negatively affect their property values. When he 15 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 moved there, it was country and he realized there would be development but this is asking for too much to put this type of facility in that type of area. He was also concerned with sharing the facility with other public safety departments, which will cause increase use. He does not think they need to put this facility across from a 500 house development. Ms. Mary Catherine Hughes, 1145 Central Valley Road, expressed concerns about traffic safety and the impact of the existing dump truck traffic on Central Valley Road. She said the road is way too narrow and there is way too much traffic. She said if someone wanted to put in a housing development across the street from them, she would highly discourage that because the roads have got to be improved. She has a 10 year old son, a 12 year old son, a 20 year old son, and a 22 year old son that just returned from the United States Army serving the last four years. She said he is not a policeman but he knows what those training facilities are like. She said if the property values of their homes go down, then the taxes that they pay Murfreesboro City will also go down. She said she teaches piano lessons in her home and has an average of 15-20 students coming and going out of her brand new driveway every day. The reason she built the driveway is because they have almost gotten killed. She suggested putting a stop sign at Ticonderoga where the main entrance to this facility is proposed. She said the stop sign would stop the vehicles traveling 60-70 mph. She asked the Board Members to consider if it was their yard where your children already have too little yard to play in because the road is so dangerous, is this what you want for your kids? Mr. Tim Fallon, 1155 Central Valley Road, said he was concerned with the fencing and guarding wire around the facility. Mr. Fallon said the firing range and the mock city block going to be heard throughout the neighborhood. He asked about the phasing of the development. He said there was very little communication to the residents of the subdivision, which included basically only the people that live on Central Valley Road. There are many other houses in the community that were not notified and have not had a chance to review what this is going to do to their quality of life. Mr. Fallon said they moved out there to make sure their kids had a good place to play and a safe place to play. Mr. Fallon is for the Police and Fire Departments getting a proper training facility that he objects to locating it so close to a neighborhood. Mr. Fallon asked the Board to consider all the arguments they have heard today and, if not deny the request, at least delay and study it until it can be discussed further. Mr. Phillip Powell, 1125 Central Valley Road, said he has two swings hanging from the tree in his front yard, and, he can’t imagine any kids out there wanting to swing when there is a mock war going on across the street. Mr. Powell spent eight years in the Marine Corp as an MP and when they trained in mock cities there is yelling and gunfire. He referred to the rifle range stating he can’t imagine a rifle range being at that location. He said it looks like the K-9 facility is proposed to be located where the barn is sitting right now. He said everybody can see the barn from their house and he doesn’t see how 16 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 the K-9 facility can be hidden. He said traffic is another issue, including the dump truck traffic. Mr. Sone Manivong, 5120 McArthur Avenue said he just learned about this less than 24 hours ago. He asked for more time for residents outside 300’ from the development to review the plans. Ms. Ruth Shirey, 955 Central Valley Road, said she realizes everything can’t be perfectly quiet and peaceful in a neighborhood but they already deal with the dangers of the road, the wrecks, and the dump trucks. She said no one has been exaggerating about the traffic and dump trucks. She said that she has the same questions and concerns that have already been voiced. She asked the Board to both postpone this and have a meeting so everyone can talk with Mr. Crumley and ask questions. She said they are right on the curve on Central Valley Road as you come down the hill, so she is sure she will be able to see the development. Ms. Shirey said they bought this property ten months ago, if they had known, they would have never bought at this location. She said if they sell, their selling price is going to be nothing. She said she hopes this doesn’t pass. She said there are other places this facility can be constructed. Mr. Richard Tenpenny, 810 Ronald Drive, said when he and his wife first moved into Liberty Station, they were told there was going to be a greenway built. That is why they chose Liberty Station, and they didn’t have any idea that this kind of facility was going to be constructed. If they had known, they would not have bought there. Mr. Tenpenny said he feels there are other places, other acreages somewhere within Rutherford County that it can go. He said they pay tax dollars for everything else so why don’t they pay extra tax dollars for the fire, police, and EMS to travel out to other places and use other facilities. Mr. Howard Wall, Developer for Liberty Heights, Liberty Valley and Liberty Station, said he heard about this proposal last Thursday, six days ago. He said the property management company was not able to attend the meeting but stated that they have heard the same concerns. The property management company asked Mr. Wall to speak. He expressed concerns about traffic safety. He said he understood that the road was going to be widened when he bought the property. He said that at US 231 and Central Valley Road, there is a need for a traffic signal. He said there are at least 300 families coming out of Liberty Heights and more to come. Mr. Wall said the Board needs to make a recommendation to have the City Manager and the Mayor put in a traffic signal immediately. Mr. Wall requested that the Board to delay this for at least six months. Mr. Brian Riel, 912 Central Valley Road, said that he has been at this location for 40 years and that he is on the other side of the S curve. He said that he is concerned about the entrance into the facility is in the middle of the curve. He said people run off that curve all the time and that is the worst place in the whole area for that driveway. He said 17 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 around the corner would be better. Mr. Riel said last Wednesday or Thursday he got the site plan and a notice about this meeting in his mailbox. Mr. Riel said he hadn’t heard anything about it. He said he wishes the facility was a little more isolated from the residents because of the noise. Mr. Riel also expressed concerns about the dump truck traffic. He asked for more information on how the building at the southwest corner of the site will be used. Mr. Riel said they have lived in this area there for years and it is the most peaceful place in the County. He said they were upset about the re-used water but it is going to be fine. Mr. Riel said he fought against Mr. Wall’s subdivision for a while as he was proposing to put so many houses in but it has been run beautifully. Mr. Riel said he is located right next to the proposed mock city. He said he loves their place out there and said a greenway or a park would be phenomenal. Mr. Tony Henry, 806 Ronald Drive, said that he and his wife have lived there nine years. He asked if the special use permit for the institutional group assembly use would allow for a youth detention center or correction facility to be built in that area. He said there is still uncertainty regarding designated time for the rifle range shooting. He also expressed concern that no artifact inspection has been done at the new site. Based on that information alone, he requested an extended deferral for this matter. Mr. Andy Donnelly, 5256 Reagan Drive, said his rear porch looks back on this development. These applicants have said they are good neighbors but the residents have not heard one thing about the facility even though they have been working on it for a year. Mr. Donnelly said he was against this facility being at this location. The City owns 460 acres at this location and they have chosen to put a disruptive use closest to the existing residential property. He said that if the proposed facility was to be elsewhere on the property and the noisy activities were reduced, then it might be acceptable. He expressed concerns about the noise that will be generated, especially as it relates to the proposed greenway. He said people that aren’t really familiar with the word “institutional” will see this zoning when they purchase houses around this area and have questions about what could go in there. He said he was not sure why the word institutional was included but is not familiar with the actual zoning. He said they all received a list of the different zoning classifications and institutional wasn’t on there so it was confusing. Mr. Donnelly said he is concerned about the dogs being woken up by coyotes, which will cause more barking out there. He said that he is concerned about the visibility of this project to the neighborhood and that it appears that some of the existing vegetation will have to be removed for the development of the site. He recommended reevaluating the locations of the proposed driveways. He said the parking lot lighting will be disruptive. He also reiterated his concerns about noise. Mr. Jake Robinson came back to the podium. 18 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Chairman Rodgers said he wanted to make sure there wasn’t anyone else that needed to speak and didn’t want others coming back up to speak if they have already been to the podium. He said they didn’t need to rehash anything. Mr. Robinson said he wasn’t going to rehash anything. Chairman Rodgers told Mr. Robinson he could have one minute. Mr. Robinson referred to the artifacts asking if the City had paid the $18,000 for additional research, maybe they would have dug down and found something significant but instead they are going to pave over the area and make a parking lot. He said if you are going to move it to the other side you are going to have to do the 60’ X 60’ again and you may find the same thing. Sooner or later you will have to pay the $18,000 and find out if there is something significant there. Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton said Middle Tennessee Electric has an industrial/commercial facility that is going to be built between two subdivisions off of Veterans Parkway. He said due diligence was done by Middle Tennessee Electric not only to portray what the facilities were going to look like, what berms, what fences would be around or near the neighbors, exactly what uses would be in the development, and they did host a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Halliburton said the only fair thing to do in this situation would be to ask the City to do the same as Middle Tennessee Electric did. He said based upon the comments and based upon questions that are unanswered, we need to defer this application and allow the City to have a public meeting with the neighbors in this area and then come back before this board when that due diligence is done. Mr. Halliburton made a motion to defer this application. Mr. Crumley said the City would be glad to schedule a neighborhood meeting. He asked if the Board could separate the special use permit amendment for the communications tower from the special use permit and the height variance for the training facility, as the tower is basically ready to go to bid. Mr. Ives said this is one that would require three separate motions as there are three separate issues. Mr. Ives said the Board can choose to look at the third issue first and then go back or just discuss them one at a time. Mr. Halliburton apologized stating he got a little ahead of the game. Mr. Ives said technically Mr. Halliburton was addressing the first issue which is the special use permit. He said there is no reason the Board can’t go forward and discuss 19 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 these in order or could take the third one first. Mr. Ives said if the motion is limited to the first item which is the special use permit then it would be appropriate to go forward and continue that discussion. Chairman Rodgers said they have already heard the tower and approved the tower previously. He suggested making the motion for the tower first. Vice-Chairman Young verified the tower in question was for the communications tower and not the burn tower. Chairman Rodgers said it is the communications tower. Vice-Chairman Young asked if this tower included the 20-foot variance or only included the communications tower. Mr. Blomeley said the 20-foot variance pertains to the proposed burn tower. The special use permit amendment pertains to the communications tower. Mr. Ives said it is listed as the third bullet on the agenda. Mr. Halliburton said he understood Mr. Crumley’s comment and asked if the Board were to defer that application are they putting the City in a precarious situation with respect to the safety of its citizens. Mr. Crumley said short term, no. He said long term, the improvement of the communications system for fire and police has been on their minds for over five years. They have already purchased new mobile radios that the fire and police employees carry on their person. They have already added Mobile Data Terminal to every patrol car, every fire truck to keep the communications links current. It requires not one but four and possibly a fifth new communications tower. He said this tower was approved last year and it was slated to be on the property line with the Corps of Engineers property. He said once they found the artifacts, they felt they needed to move it. They moved it about 800’ to the west and other than that the tower has not changed. Vice-Chairman Young asked if the tower was approved to be constructed but the rest of the project ran into difficulties would the City still want the tower at this location. Mr. Crumley said the tower was proposed for the Coleman Farm along with the K-9 facility before the City thought more comprehensively about bringing all of the training facilities to one place. Ms. King asked the progress of the remaining towers that were approved last year. 20 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Mr. Crumley said they are all ready to go to bid. Ms. King verified they have not yet been built. Mr. Crumley said no, it will all be bid as one single package. Chairman Rodgers said they are ready for a motion on the special use permit amendment for the communications tower Vice-Chairman Young made a motion to approve the special use permit amendment. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby. Mr. Blomeley asked if that was subject to staff comments. Vice-Chairman Young confirmed that his motion is with the following condition: 1) All other applicable State and Federal approvals for the proposed tower must be obtained. The motion carried by a vote of 4-1 (Mr. Halliburton voted no). Chairman Rodgers said they would now consider the special use permit to construct a public training facility. Vice-Chairman Young agreed with Mr. Halliburton’s comments. He said it needs some discussion and communication with the neighbors before he would be comfortable with it. Ms. King asked if the motion remained on the table. Chairman Rodgers said there is not a motion yet. Ms. Halliburton made a motion to defer the special use permit request indefinitely until the City can meet with the residents and be brought before the BZA again. Vice-Chairman Young seconded the motion. Chairman Rodgers asked when this is brought back to the Board, would that include another public hearing? Mr. Halliburton said if the Board has the ability to do that, he would be willing to amend his motion to that effect. Vice-Chairman Young concurred. The motion carried unanimously in favor Prior to the vote, Chairman Rodgers said he wants to keep an open mind and is glad to hear any comments that may stem from a public hearing. He is pleased that the City is willing to sit down with the neighbors. Chairman Rodgers said he has been on this Board 21 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 since 1992 and there have been few public hearings during his tenure with as many people objecting to a request as this one. He expressed concerns about relating to traffic. Chairman Rodgers said there are rules the Board has to go by with regard to a special use permit, and the City has to prove certain things. They have got to prove that this proposed use won’t have a substantial adverse effect on the adjacent property, that it won’t have a substantial adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that is it adequately served by facilities like streets. Chairman Rodgers said the City can meet with the neighbors but in his mind he can’t conceive how that is going to change those circumstances. He said this is one where it is almost black and white to him that this is not the place for this particular use. Chairman Rodgers said that he regrets having to say that because he really wants to support this development but he is struggling with this. Ms. King asked if a motion was needed for the burn tower height variance. Mr. Blomeley said yes, there needed to be a third motion. Mr. Ives agreed that a third motion was needed. Ms. King made a motion to defer the height variance request for the burn tower indefinitely. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Mr. Blomeley asked, as a point of clarification, if the deferral was indefinite on both motions until such time as the applicant has met with the neighborhood and provided some additional details the Board is looking for. Chairman Rodgers agreed and said the motion also envisioned holding another public hearing next time as well. The Board recessed at 3:45 P.M. until the conclusion of the 4:00 City Council Meeting. The Board reconvened at 4:10 P.M. Special Use Permit Requests Application Z-14-054 by Ms. Bonnie Lee Jonas is requesting a special use permit in order to establish an accessory structure on a lot prior to the time of the substantial completion of the construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. The request pertains to property located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-12) zone at 2820 Wright Haven Court (also identified as Lot 4 of the Taylor Place Subdivision). Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. He said that Ms. Jonas submitted three letters of support from 22 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 neighbors: Betty and Bob Barber at 2930 Pendarvis Lane; Donald and Amy Roney at 2821 Wright Haven Court; and Sheila Scott at 2812 Wright Haven Court. All three of these letters were submitted with her original application and were included in the agenda materials. Ms. Jonas provided a letter from Ted Hazzard at 2824 Wright Haven Court, which is the neighboring property to the north. Mr. Blomeley passed it out to the Board Members for their review. If the Board approves this request, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) If the subject property (2820 Wright Haven Court) is sold, the new owner will have one (1) year from the date of sale to remove the structure or commence construction of a principal structure on the lot. Ms. Jonas was present to answer questions. Ms. Jonas said the applied for the permit at the beginning of July. She said the storage building was built and delivered around July 28. The building is very well constructed. She talked with all but two of her neighbors and they have all given her a verbal approval or sent her a letter saying they had no problem with the building there. She said most of the neighbors said they didn’t even see the building. She said the building is totally surrounded on three sides to avoid vision from other people on the street. Ms. Jonas said combining the lots is not in her plans now because of financial reasons. Chairman Rodgers opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Chairman Rodgers closed the public hearing. Ms. King made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Ms. King made a motion to amend the previous motion for approval to include the following condition: 1) If the subject property (2820 Wright Haven Court) is sold, the new owner will have one (1) year from the date of sale to remove the structure or commence construction of a principal structure on the lot. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-14-055 by Ms. Audra Williams, is requesting a special use permit in order to conduct a home occupation (pet grooming) at her residence located at 2311 Hillmont Drive. The property is located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone. Chairman Rodgers said that he would abstain from the discussion and vote on this application because Ms. Williams is his family’s dog groomer. 23 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Blomeley said he received several e-mails in support of Ms. Williams’s business, including e-mails from Ms. Selma Pancake of 2306 Hillmont Drive; David Hall of 2309 Hillmont Drive; Bonnie King-Myatt of 2311 Hillmont Drive; Peggy Saab of 2307 Hillmont Drive; and Roy Davenport, owner of 2309 Hillmont Drive. All of the e-mail correspondence was provided to the Board. Ms. Williams was present to answer questions. If the Board approves this application Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) All client visits shall be by appointment only, and there shall be no more than six (6) appointments per business day. 2) Hours of operation shall be as follows: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 10:30 AM until 4:00 PM, Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 AM until 2:00 PM, and every other Saturday from 8:00 AM until 2:00 PM. Appointments shall not begin earlier or end later than the hours listed above. 3) Required permits, as determined by the Building and Codes Department, must be obtained for the work that has been performed. The work must pass all required inspections prior to the applicant commencing operation of the business. 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) All client visits shall be by appointment only, and there shall be no more than six (6) appointments per business day. 2) Hours of operation shall be as follows: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 10:30 AM until 4:00 PM, Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 AM until 2:00 PM, and every other Saturday from 8:00 AM until 2:00 PM. Appointments shall not begin earlier or end later than the hours listed above. 3) Required permits, as determined by the Building and Codes Department, must be obtained for the work that has been performed. The work must pass all required inspections prior to the applicant commencing operation of the business. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Young and carried unanimously in favor. 24 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting August 27, 2014 Staff Reports and Other Business None. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M. _____________________________ _____________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 25  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Application: Z-14-056 Address: 4819 Trevino Court Applicant: Mr. Robert Miller Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS-10) Request:  Pertaining to a proposed addition to the house, a 5’ 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; and  Pertaining to an existing accessory structure, an 8’ variance from the minimum required 25’ rear building setback for attached accessory 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 Blackman Grove Subdivision, which is just east of Brinkley Road and south of Blaze Drive. The subject property, 4819 Trevino Court, is zoned RS-10 (Residential Single-Family) and is developed with a single-family residence. It is surrounding by single-family residential zoning and uses. The applicant would like to construct a sunroom addition at the rear of his house. The existing house is situated right at the 25’ rear setback line. There is a 20’-wide drainage easement at the rear of the lot. The applicant has requested a 5’ rear setback variance in order to build his sunroom 20’ from the rear property line. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant detailing the variance request as well as several exhibits, including a survey of the property and photographs. In addition, Staff has included additional photographs of the subject property and the surrounding area for the Board’s review. The subject lot is 86’ wide and 114’ deep. The applicant would like to construct the sunroom addition approximately to the edge of the existing patio. The edge of the existing back patio is approximately 21’ from the rear property line. The patio is not currently enclosed but is partially covered, with the roof over the patio extending approximately to the 25’ setback line, approximately 4’ short of the back edge of the patio. The applicant indicates that constructing a sunroom only as far back as the existing patio cover would “significantly impair the usefulness” of the proposed sunroom. The house has a side-entry garage that protrudes about 15-20’ from the main plane of the home. Because of the location and design of the side-entry garage, the non-garage portion of the home is pushed back 15-20’ behind the front setback line. Were a different house plan chosen for this lot, with the bulk of the house pushed closer to the front setback line, the applicant would likely have a deeper back yard and a more room to build without encroaching into the rear setback. The applicant indicated that the home was existing when he purchased it in 2013. He also points out that the lots to the rear of his lot are large lots. They are part of the Spring Cove Subdivision, which is in unincorporated Rutherford County. The lot directly behind his is slightly less than two (2) acres, and the house on this lot is approximately 110’ from where the sunroom addition is proposed to be constructed. If the Board approves the variance request pertaining to the sunroom addition, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) The addition shall not encroach into the drainage easement and there shall be no fill placed in the drainage easement. When Staff visited the site, it observed that there is an existing accessory structure that encroaches into the rear setback as well. It is 7’ x 7’ and is located approximately 1’ from the rear wall of the house. The structure is not on a permanent foundation; rather, it has been placed directly on top of a concrete patio. According to the applicant, this structure is used for the storage of lawn equipment. Because this structure is less than 5’ from the house, it is treated as an attached accessory structure and is required to comply with the setbacks for the principal structure. According to the survey provided, the adjacent rear wall of the house is located right on the 25’ rear setback line. The accessory structure protrudes out 8’ from the rear wall. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting an 8’ rear setback variance for this attached accessory structure in order for it to remain in its current location. Additionally, the structure is located approximately 3’ into the 20’ drainage easement. The Engineering Department has indicated that it does not have an issue with the location of the structure. Because it is a portable building, it could easily be relocated if there is ever an issue pertaining to the drainage easement. Mr. Miller will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.  2015 Board of Zoning Appeals DATES & DEADLINES ...creating a better quality of life January February March April Planning Department S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 111 West Vine Street 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 Murfreesboro, TN 37130 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 615-893-6441 (office) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 615-849-2606 (fax) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.murfreesborotn.gov 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 BZA meeting dates are May June July August denoted with a box. S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Submittal deadlines are 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 denoted with a circle. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Applications must be submitted no later than 3:00 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PM on the submittal 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 deadline. BZA meetings will 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 start promptly at 1:00 PM 31 30 31 unless otherwise noted. Holidays are noted with a star. Meeting & submission September October November December dates are subject to change. S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Please contact Murfreesboro 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 Planning Department to confirm dates and submittal 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 deadlines 615-893-6441 or 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 via email at: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mblomeley@murfreesborotn.gov 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31