Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, January 25, 2017 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 December 19, 2016 3. New Business Sign Variance Request 4. a. Application S-17-001 by Clyde Rountree of Huddleston Steele Engineering Inc. representing Gross Builders, Mr. Clyde Rountree, is requesting a variance from Section 25¼-26(A)(1), 25¼-26(A)(2) and 25¼-26(C)(5)(c)[2][vi], of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which allow only one (1) Complex ground sign per street frontage on property located at 404 Luke Court. Variance Requests b. Application Z-17-002 by William Koeing, is making the following requests for property located at 1619 Georgetown Lane: i. A thirteen (13) foot and a seven (7) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) District; ii. A three (3) foot Variance from Section 25 Temporary and Accessory Structures and Uses (E)(1)(a) which requires detached structures to be not less than five (5) feet from any side lot line. c. Application Z-17-003 by David Branch, is requesting a seven (7) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum side yard setback for principal 1  structures of twelve and one half (12.5) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) District, for property located at 506 Woodmore Drive. d. Application Z-17-004 by David Underhill representing Sam and Darlene Baker, making the following requests for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-10) district located at 1310 Stonewall Boulevard: i. A one (1) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line; and ii. A four (4) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from side property lines Special Use Permit &Variance Requests e. Application Z-17-005 by Clyde Rountree of Huddleston Steele Engineering Inc. representing Chuck Barnes, Mr. Rountree is requesting a Special Use Permit for the use of a mini-storage facility on property zoned Commercial Fringe (CF) and a Variance Request for a Reduction in a Type D Buffer along the eastern side of the access driveway for property located on Tax Map 069, Parcel 39.12 along Osborne Lane. Special Use Permits f. Application Z-17-006 by David Wandell of Middle Point R/C Flyers, is requesting a Special Use Permit to use a portion of the Coleman Farm located at 1024 Central Valley Road zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-15) for the recreational use of flying radio controlled model aircraft. g. Application Z-17-007 by Michael Black, is requesting a Special Use Permit for the construction of an accessory dwelling on their property zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-15) located at 607 DeJarnette Lane h. Staff Reports and Other Business i. Adjourn 2  Regular Meeting Minutes of the Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2016 – 1:00 P.M. City Hall, Room 218 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Ken Halliburton, Vice-Chair Davis Young, Chairman Frances Mosby Julie King Tim Tipps STAFF PRESENT Donald Anthony, Principal Planner Amelia Kerr, Sign Administrator David Ives, City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Vice-Chair Halliburton called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. Minutes from the November 21, 2016 regular meeting were approved as submitted. New Business Sign Variance Request Application S-16-068 by Amber Hitch of FastSigns representing River Oaks Community Church, requesting a Variance from Section 25 ¼ - 26(C)(1)(a)[2] of the Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance, which prohibits internally-illuminated ground signs in a residential district, for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) district located at 210 Rucker Lane. Ms. Kerr reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. If the Board approves the request, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The sign is required to have push-thru style illumination. 2) Install a timer on the sign to ensure the internal illumination is turned off no later than 10:00 p.m. The applicant, Ms. Amber Hitch was present to answer any questions. BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Vice-Chair Halliburton opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Vice-Chair Halliburton closed the public hearing. Mr. Tipps asked if there has been anything like this request in the past. Ms. Kerr said there have been some applications approved when there were significant hardships. She said one was approved for a church on New Lascassas Highway that had approximately 45-feet from the right-of-way because of a drainage ditch and large State right-of-way. She said another was approved for Providence Christian Academy in 2001 because it was located on a two-lane road that was not well lite. She said since that approval, the road has been widened so the sign sits closer to the road than when it was first granted. Ms. Kerr said a variance was granted to a church on DeJarnette which was about 40-feet off the right-of-way due to a large right-of-way. She said since then the road has been improved so that sign also sits about 25-feet off the road. Ms. Kerr said Siegel Elementary received approved in April or May 2016 because they are surrounded by more industrial-type businesses. She said that’s why they brought up the fact that Publix is located across the street. Ms. Kerr said one neighborhood resident came to the office and spoke with her. The resident did not have any objection to the sign request after Ms. Kerr explained the conditions placed on the application. Ms. Mosby made a motion to approve a Variance from Section 25 ¼ - 26(C)(1)(a)[2] of the Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance, which prohibits internally- illuminated ground signs in a residential district, for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) district located at 210 Rucker Lane with the following conditions: 1) The sign is required to have push-thru style illumination. 2) Install a timer on the sign to ensure the internal illumination is turned off no later than 10:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Variance Requests Application Z-16-069 by David Underhill representing Sam and Darlene Baker, making the following requests for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-10) district located at 1310 Stonewall Boulevard: 1) A one (1) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line; and 2) A one (1) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from side property lines. 2 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Anthony reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Separate motions are needed for each request. The applicant was present to answer any questions. Ms. King asked if the existing structure was the same size as what’s being proposed today. Mr. Anthony said he thought it was the same footprint. Mr. Underhill said yes, it was the same size. Ms. King asked if the existing structure was unacceptable or different. Mr. Anthony said the existing structure was nonconforming. He said the applicant will need to follow current zoning standards since they tore the existing structure down and opted to rebuild. Mr. Underhill revised his earlier statement and said the new structure is a little bit bigger than the structure that was originally there. Ms. King asked if the location of the structure was an issue. Mr. Underhill said it was on the same footprint as the previous structure adding the previous structure (carport) was rotted and about to fall down. Ms. King asked if the previous structure was originally nonconforming when built or nonconforming per our current ordinance. Mr. Anthony could not find any variance for the previous structure in the database. He suspects the structure was built before that requirement was in place or the structure was just built. Ms. King verified we are not 100 percent sure one way or the other. Vice-Chairman Halliburton opened the public hearing. Mona Hunter at 1316 Stonewall Boulevard came to the podium and said she lives next door to the subject property. She said the new structure is a lot bigger than the previous carport structure. Ms. Hunter had problems with other issues pertaining to their codes. She said the new structure is too close to her garage because there is barely enough room to put a ladder between the two roofs. She said there should be a 24-foot hangover from the roof. Ms. Hunter said it is at least a 36-inch hangover and does not have a gutter. She said the 1-foot variance would go into her property. She said the concrete has 3 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 already been poured and the slab slopes toward her property, making the rain drain onto her patio. Ms. Hunter said 1-foot is not a lot but the slab they made sways over into her property. She sees the following to be problems: (1) fire hazard; (2) the roof is too close; and (3) flooding issues with her property. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked Ms. Hunter to pass around her pictures to the Board Members. Mr. Tipps verified Ms. Hunter was located on lot 75. Ms. Hunter said yes. Mr. Tipps said according to the survey provided to the Board Members, it appears her existing garage is also encroaching past the setbacks. He asked Ms. Hunter if she received a variance when her garage was built. Ms. Hunter said she has been on the property for seven years and believes the garage has been on the property for 30 years. She said the house was built in 1957 and thinks if it was built before 1984, there may have been different code requirements. Ms. Hunter said she has not researched that but if she had been there she would have done it by code. Mr. Tipps said it is interesting that her property has more of an encroachment on the setbacks than what this applicant is asking for. Ms. Hunter said this building has been setting there for 30 years. She asked why the survey was done after the building was started adding these codes should have been put in place while the building was being built. She said the property was surveyed about a month ago. Mr. David Underhill at 221 Underhill Road in McMinnville, TN came to the podium. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if Mr. Underhill pulled a permit to build the garage. Mr. Underhill said yes, he did purchase a permit. During the permit process, he told the City employee he was going to tear down the existing structure so he also obtained a demolition permit. Mr. Underhill spoke with the Codes Inspector about the depth and thickness of the foundation. He also told the City employee he was placing the new garage in the same location on the side and rear lot lines. After the permit was issued to Mr. Underhill, he proceeded as he normally would. He said when it came time for the framing inspection, a Codes Inspector came out and looked at it. The Inspector had questions about how far it was from the side and rear property lines and asked Mr. Underhill to get a survey, just to check. Mr. Underhill said the survey showed the new 4 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 structure to be less than 3-inches on both the side and rear property lines. Mr. Underhill said there is a 3-foot overhang on the side of the building close to Ms. Hunter’s garage. He said when you’re in a subdivision the neighbors need to work together and help each other. He pointed out this structure is not any closer to the lot line than the neighbor’s structure. Ms. King asked if Mr. Underhill intended to add a downspout to the garage. Mr. Underhill said yes and will also add gutters. Vice-Chair Halliburton closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Halliburton verified the setbacks are based on the footprint of the building and have nothing to do with the eave. Mr. Anthony said eaves can extend 24-inches beyond the wall of a structure. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if it is 24-inches away from the wall of the structure. Mr. Tipps said they are just a few inches from the property line. Vice-Chair Halliburton thought he heard the eave was more than 24-inches. Mr. Anthony said the structure was 36-inches and it is the eave that is up against the property line. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if it would cause a problem, from Codes, if it is 24-inches and we’re saying it is 36-inches or can the eave be increased. Mr. Anthony said an eave can extend out 24-inches as long as it remains within your property line. He said if you have a 10-foot side yard setback and you build the structure at the 10-foot side yard setback, it is okay for the eave to go 24-inches into the side yard setback. Vice-Chair Halliburton said he understands now. Mr. Anthony said anything over 24-inches is no longer considered an eave and becomes the structure at that point. He said that is how the Zoning Ordinance seems to classify once you get beyond 24-inches. Mr. Anthony said Mr. Underhill has an eave that is almost abutting the property line. Mr. Ives said the applicant is approximately 2-feet away from the property line. He said a 36-inch overhang is within a couple of inches of being two feet from the property line. 5 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Tipps said that was a very nominal overage on the setback. Mr. Anthony agreed. Mr. Tipps said it is being further complicated by going beyond what should have been on the eaves. Mr. Anthony agreed. Vice-Chair Halliburton verified the Codes Department would not allow additional water to flow on adjacent properties than what was already flowing. Mr. Ives said not only more water would not be allowed to flow but not a more intense movement of the water. He said if you had a slight slope and it was dirt and grass, there would be one level of run-off but if you pave a portion of it, you may not put more water on your neighbor, but it will flow at a much faster pace leaving a greater potential for problems. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked when the drainage portion would be inspected. Mr. Ives said it would probably be inspected based on a complaint. He wasn’t sure if there was a routine inspection of that kind of drainage. Mr. Tipps said there weren’t any elevations included in the paperwork so they don’t know which direction the slope will carry the water. Ms. King said it is difficult for the Board to make a decision if they don’t know the full impact. Mr. Tipps said it is unfortunate the owner didn’t get a survey before starting this project or follow Code requirements for the eaves. He said a couple inches of oversight in comparison to the neighbor’s garage abutting right up to the property line is not as significant as this eave encroaching further beyond and also where the water is going to go. Mr. Tipps said, according to Mr. Underhill, the footprint is essentially what it was before so by extension you wouldn’t think you were any worst off but again with not knowing the elevation and having this eave extension further encroaching is a challenge. Mr. Anthony said this is the first time he has heard about the drainage issue and would have prepared an analysis if he’d known. He said if the Board chooses to defer the application, he would be happy to ask the engineering department to look at this. Mr. Ives asked Mr. Underhill if this is new concrete. 6 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Underhill said yes. Mr. Ives asked if the old carport had concrete. Mr. Underhill said yes. Mr. Ives asked if he removed all the old concrete and replaced it with new concrete. Mr. Underhill said they removed part of the old concrete and some of the new concrete was poured on top of the existing concrete. Mr. Ives said ok. Mr. Ives noticed that Ms. Hunter wanted to speak again. He asked her to come to the microphone so everyone could hear her. Ms. Hunter came to the podium and said the applicant added a 36-inch deep and thick sidewalk all the way around the garage. She said before the garage was built, the carport was level. She said the garage has been built-up and added concrete added all the way around it. Ms. Hunter said it is quite a bit bigger than the little carport that was previously there. Vice-Chair Halliburton said thank you. Ms. Mosby suggested deferring the application to find out more about the drainage. Vice-Chair Halliburton said we have that right as a Board. If that is the direction we want to go in, we need a motion to that effect. Ms. Mosby made a motion to defer the following requests for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-10) district located at 1310 Stonewall Boulevard: (1) A one (1) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line; and (2) A one (1) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from side property lines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tipps and carried unanimously in favor to defer. 7 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if the Board needs to give guidance as to what the Board is looking for or is that a conversation Mr. Anthony needs to have with the applicant. Mr. Anthony said he would be happy to talk with Mr. Underhill and talk to our engineering department as well. Mr. Ives apologized for calling Mr. Underhill by Mr. Hunter earlier in the meeting. Vice-Chair Halliburton thanked everyone and said both variance requests have been deferred. He asked Mr. Underhill to get with Mr. Anthony. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if there will be another public hearing when the application comes back to the Board. Mr. Ives said there will be another public hearing because of the many issues with this application. Vice-Chair Halliburton told Ms. Hunter she will be notified when the public hearing will be held so she can voice any opinion she might have. Mr. Ives also advised Ms. Hunter to contact Mr. Anthony for additional clarity regarding her concerns so they can be addressed by the Board. Ms. Hunter said thank you. Application Z-16-070 by Melissa Meyer Cassidy, requesting a five (5) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from side and rear property lines, for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-10) district located at 116 North Bilbro Avenue. Mr. Anthony reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Mr. Anthony pointed out the site plan Staff was given is very confusing and offered to clarify it for Board Members if needed. The applicant was present to answer any questions. Mr. Tipps asked if the proposed side and rear garage were within setbacks. Mr. Anthony said yes. Mr. Tipps asked if the proposed carport would be attached to the garage. Mr. Anthony said yes. 8 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Tipps verified the request is for the 5-feet past the setback from where the carport is attached to the garage. Mr. Anthony said the request is basically for the carport to abut the property line. Mr. Tipps repeated abut the property line. Mr. Anthony said yes adding the current carport abuts the property line. Mr. Tipps wanted to clarify how far the carport was proposed to go but now he understands. Mr. Anthony said if you look at the top of the site plan sketch, you will see a solid line sort of on top of carport. He said that is the expansion, the lengthening of the carport beyond its current boundaries. Mr. Tipps asked if there were variances approved for the existing greenhouse and carport. Mr. Anthony said there were no variances and guessed because of the age of the neighborhood, they probably predated the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. King asked if the existing greenhouse was a covered building. Mr. Anthony said yes. Ms. King asked the type of material. Mr. Anthony did not know and said the applicant would need to answer that question. Mr. and Ms. Cassidy came to the podium. Ms. Cassidy said it is actually not a greenhouse but a shed made out of brick with the same metal roofing as the carport. She said it was incorrectly labeled as a greenhouse on the site plan but a very long brick shed attached to the carport. She said the brick shed forms a carport wall on one side with a single door and is just a long bowling alley style shed that really serves no purpose. Mr. Cassidy said there is a greenhouse in the backyard that doesn’t touch the building and set back from the building. Mr. Cassidy said the brick shed is attached to the carport adding the greenhouse sets behind the shed about 5-feet. He thinks in the process they got the two buildings mixed up. 9 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Ms. King verified the brick shed is what the site plan refers to as storage building. Mr. and Ms. Cassidy said yes. Ms. King verified the pictures reflect the same portion of the yard. Mr. Cassidy said yes. He said the front of either building will start at the same point adding it will extend further back to the rear of the property. Ms. King asked if there would be a carport where it is labeled trailer and truck parking. Mr. Cassidy said it is all carport and the only hard wall building is the section that sets 10-feet off of the property line. Ms. King verified they would have a backwards “L-shaped” carport. Mr. Cassidy said yes, to accommodate for trailer parking. He said the driveway is narrow and when he pulls his truck in, his wife has to park in the driveway towards the road because there isn’t enough room for double-parking. Ms. King said from the looks of the picture it appeared the shaded area was going to be removed and there wouldn’t be anything in its place. She said that provided some clarification for her. Mr. Cassidy said they plan to build right back on the slab location. He said the part that adjoins the neighbor’s property isn’t going to change, it is going to stay exactly as it is. They are not going to move it back or forth. Vice-Chair Halliburton verified with the carport they are not going to be dealing with the same issues that they dealt with the in the previous application regarding eaves and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Cassidy said their eaves won’t extend any further because they only have 4-5 inches until the neighbor’s property so they have to come up with a design to accommodate that. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if there were any other questions for the applicant or for Mr. Anthony before he opened the public hearing. Mr. Tipps verified the parking is carport. Mr. and Ms. Cassidy said yes, that is open and there are no walls on the property line. 10 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Ms. Cassidy said it would be open on both ends. Mr. Cassidy said he designed it that way because of fire hazards since it would be built right on the property line. He said it is more like a workshop or storage area for his work tools instead of a garage. Vice-Chair Halliburton opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Vice-Chair Halliburton closed the public hearing. Ms. King asked if more concrete would be poured. Mr. Cassidy said yes, in the area where the building will be standing. Ms. King asked if more concrete would be poured for the carport extension. Mr. Cassidy said yes, about 11 feet more along that property line. Vice-Chair Halliburton referred to a comment made by Mr. Anthony during the presentation about Staff doesn’t necessarily like to extend out more if the structure is already a nonconforming use. Vice-Chair Halliburton understands the comment but, in this case, the applicants are extending it further back eastward and would remain within the setback requirements. Mr. Anthony said if they are extending the pavement eastward beyond where their current carport currently ends that would be part of the variance because it would still be abutting the property line. He said that is where they are enlarging or increasing the nonconformity. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if this was in respects to the south property line? Mr. Anthony said correct. Vice-Chair Halliburton said he now understands. Mr. Anthony said he feels obligated to mention the nonconforming portion of the ordinance as it is sometimes overlooked. Mr. Tipps asked the property owners if they have thought about moving it five feet to the north. He said it looks like you have a 5-foot variance against the property line that would run 45-feet or longer. Mr. Tipps said if everything was moved over five feet, the applicant would be in compliance. He asked if that would impact the rest of their yard. 11 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Cassidy said yes, in a couple different ways. He said there is a cherry tree in that 5- foot area he planted for his wife when her dog died and they didn’t want to take it down. Mr. Cassidy said the existing driveway comes in right on the property line and can’t be moved as there is a patio. He said they already have trouble getting two cars into the carport since the driveway is only 11-feet wide and if they moved it over 5-feet, there would not be any way to fit both cars in. He said the cherry tree and the corner of the house would come into play and make the carport structure too close to the house. Mr. Tipps thought the Code on that was not less than 5-feet. He didn’t think that would be an issue to the main structure. Mr. Anthony verified it is 5-feet from the main structure. Mr. Tipps said that would be a hindrance but understands the other issues Mr. Cassidy raised. Mr. Cassidy said if they were to move it 5-feet over it would be real tight and difficult to get either vehicle in because of the way the driveway comes up. He said they would be driving over into the patio to get into one of the spots. Ms. King asked if they could put the boat where the proposed garage is and not have that pad on the back side of the carport. Mr. Cassidy said anybody that has tried to back a trailer into an 11-foot driveway with a boat on it would understand. He said a straight shot will be the best option. Mr. Tipps asked Mr. and Ms. Cassidy if they have talked with their neighbors regarding this. Ms. Cassidy said yes adding the neighbors are ok with the request. Mr. Tipps asked if the neighbors were supportive of the request. Mr. Cassidy said the only neighbor this would affect is Clay Beach and he supports the request. He said Mr. Beach’s view of the carport is the area that is rotting. Mr. Cassidy said when the carport was originally built, the lip did not extend out far enough so water ran underneath the carport, which caused the boards holding up the metal roof to rot. He said both sides of the carport are starting to fall down and deteriorate. Mr. Cassidy said they considered fixing the carport but it didn’t suit their needs and they wanted to have something to accommodate what they want. Ms. Mosby asked Mr. Cassidy if he would be doing the work on the building. 12 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Cassidy said he would do the general contracting part but would hire subs and workers. Mr. Tipps asked Mr. Cassidy if he were a contractor. Mr. Cassidy said he was a landscape contractor. Ms. King asked if a variance would be needed if they tore the carport down and rebuilt it as it stood. Mr. Anthony said the requirements would be similar to the last application. Mr. Ives commented about the degree of nonconformity. He said a large part of this neighborhood existed of the older parts of the central city area and was in existence way before suburban zoning was exposed and adopted with the Zoning Ordinance. He said there are very few things that conform today. Mr. Ives said usually, in this vicinity, if the house burns they’ve got to get a variance to build it back where it was, otherwise the neighbor’s houses are 15 to 20 feet off the road adding this house would require a 42- foot setback. He said the City is spending a tremendous amount of money right now to do some Design Overlay work with the whole Highland Park Area. He said the City did an Overlay just south of this a couple years ago that is called City Core Overlay. It was designed to allow some additional uses to encourage some re-use. Mr. Ives thinks this request is completely consistent with that. He said this being a carport with very little wood on it, the fire danger is slim, especially since there is not another structure right next to it. Mr. Ives feels this is a good candidate for the variance to allow a continued use and a bit of expanded use in the process of the redevelopment of this whole area. He said the idea that it expands a nonconformity while it is accurate, true, and something to be aware of, it is not a reason to not approve this variance. Mr. Tipps thanked Mr. Ives for his input and asked in accordance with the North Highland Study what are the anticipated changes. Mr. Ives said the North Highland Study has not been adopted yet and doesn’t know what is finally going to come out of it but the point of it is to encourage some redevelopment: (1) expand existing development; (2) encourage some commercial uses within parts of the area; and (3) encourage the renovation and maintenance of most of the existing residential uses. To facilitate this kind of use would certainly be consistent with the overall approach the City is looking for on both the North Highland Study, the Lower Broad or The Bottoms and the overall City Design Guidelines. Mr. Tipps said based upon Mr. Ives input and the fact the neighbors are fine with the request this will take care of some dilapidated deteriorated structures. 13 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Tipps made a motion to approve a five (5) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the side and rear property lines, for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-10) district located at 116 North Bilbro Avenue. The motion was seconded by Ms. King and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-16-071 by Stephen and Susan Thomas, requesting a ten (10) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum rear yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS-12) district, for property located at 2319 Woodridge Trail. Mr. Anthony reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. The applicants were present to answer questions. Vice-Chair Halliburton opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Vice-Chair Halliburton closed the public hearing. Mr. Tipps asked if the property owner owns the lot to the rear that fronts Garrison Cove. Mr. Thomas said yes. Mr. Tipps verified that only a portion of this according to the plan of the proposed porch would be beyond the 25-foot setback. He said it is difficult to tell by the way it is drawn. Ms. King said it cuts a corner. She asked if it would be the same as the deck or is it going to be a little bit bigger. Mr. Thomas said it is going to be a little bit bigger. Ms. King asked if it would go out into the rose bushes in the back yard. Mr. Thomas said the deck is 15-feet and the porch will go out 18-feet. Ms. King asked if it would basically be the deck and rose bushes located behind it. Mr. Thomas said pretty much, yes. He said they are planning to add a fireplace too so they need to place it farther away from the roof. Ms. King made a motion to approve a request for a ten (10) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land 14 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum rear yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS-12) district, for property located at 2319 Woodridge Trail. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tipps and carried unanimously in favor. Application Z-16-072 by William Koeing, requesting a twenty-two (22) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) district, for property located at 1619 Georgetown Lane. Mr. Anthony said before he started with the review of the application, he wanted to ask the applicant if his request was the same as contained within the application and the staff report. The applicant shook his head no. Mr. Anthony said the applicant has altered the original request and was not sure how the Board wanted to handle this. He was not aware of the change until right before the meeting today. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked the applicant if the change in the request not require a variance at all. Mr. Anthony said he did not know because he hasn’t seen the changes. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked the applicant if he could answer that question. Mr. Koeing said no, a variance would still be needed but it would be less. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked Mr. Ives if the Board could consider the alternative plan today since it has not been presented or publicized prior to this date. Mr. Ives said if we published that the applicant wanted a 10-foot variance and comes in today and says he only needs a 5-foot variance the assumption would be that if someone didn’t care about the 10-foot variance they wouldn’t care about the 5-foot variance. In that case, we are not depriving someone of an opportunity to appear who might otherwise want to. Mr. Ives said although the variance changed and it is less feet there might be something that makes it more intense or more of a potentially objectionable use. He said we need to have it resubmitted. Ms. King asked if Mr. Anthony could take a look at it. 15 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Anthony said yes. Mr. Ives and Mr. Anthony reviewed the changes. Mr. Anthony said this item needs to be deferred. Mr. Ives said the plan needs to be resubmitted with the new data. He asked the applicant if the new plans consisted of a new detached garage. Mr. Koeing said basically all he did was flip-flop the house around and is now asking for a 12 ½-foot variance instead of a 22-foot variance. Mr. Anthony said there looks to be three separate variances on the new plans instead of one variance that was previously requested. Ms. King said it looks like the new request would be affecting the other side. Mr. Anthony agreed. Ms. King said there may be other folks people that could take issue with the new request because of the placement. Mr. Koeing asked what the third variance would be as he could only see two. Mr. Anthony said the front of the house has a 40-foot setback line and now there are two points where the house is encroaching into the setback. He said it also appears at the rear of the house where the detached carport was added, you are within 2-feet of the property line. He said there is a requirement for a 5-foot setback on accessory structures. Mr. Anthony said those would be the three points where variances would be needed. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if the Board were to defer this and the applicant had to resubmit, would he have to go through another application fee. Mr. Ives said he has not had to deal with that in the past. Mr. Anthony asked what Mr. Ives thought if the Board defers it as this item, and it comes back and we keep using the same case number. Mr. Ives said if it is resubmitted, this would be impacting different neighbors so it would have to be republished. He said a significant part of the application costs are used to cover the cost of publication. He said the reality is this is a different plan. It is not 16 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 slightly tweaked, pulled back just a little here but a substantially different plan. Mr. Ives said this needs to be republished so another fee would need to be paid, if resubmitted. Vice-Chair Halliburton said the applicant has the ability to withdraw the application or the Board take a vote on it. He asked Mr. Ives if that is a correct statement? Mr. Ives verified with the applicant that he would withdraw the current application and resubmit the new application. He did not think the Board needed to deny the current application. Ms. King said the Board could still vote on the current application as the plan was submitted. Mr. Ives agreed. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if the applicant would withdraw the current application. Ms. King said the applicant could withdraw the current application and the Board could consider what you have brought today at a later date. Mr. Koeing said to make everybody happy as well as the City, he would withdraw the application. Vice-Chair Halliburton said the Board will accept the application as withdrawn and the applicant can resubmit at a later date. Mr. Koeing thanked the Board. Application Z-16-073 by Pascal Holtkamp, making the following requests for property in the Duplex Residential (R-D) district located at 1025 North Spring Street: 1) A twenty (20) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty (30) feet in the R-D district, for frontage along East Hembree Street; and 2) A twelve (12) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty (30) feet in the R-D district, for frontage along North Spring Street. Mr. Anthony reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the BZA agenda package. Two separate motions are needed, one for each variance request. A representative for the applicant was present to answer questions. 17 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Mr. Ryan Holtkamp, father of the applicant Pascal Holtkamp came to the podium and said his son bought the subject property about two years ago. He said Pascal has taken pride in fixing it up. Mr. Holtkamp said his son wanted to be at the meeting today but was out of town on an MTSU project. Mr. Holtkamp said his son liked this area of Murfreesboro and realized the house was a fixer-upper, older home. He shared some pictures with the Board members of renovations his son has already made to the property. He said they found out they needed these setbacks to add a kitchen and upgrade the property. Vice-Chair Halliburton asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. Holtkamp said the pictures showed before and after images of what renovations have been done. He was impressed with the work his son has done. He said one of the things he has said is he feels like that part of Murfreesboro is having a renaissance like East Nashville. He said the nice thing about the property is there is a nice green-space between Hembree and his property line. His son is concerned about the general curb appeal and a long-term investment. They see that area of town is doing a very nice comeback. Mr. Holtkamp said his son really wants to build this kitchen addition and make this improvement. Vice-Chair Halliburton opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Vice-Chair Halliburton closed the public hearing. Ms. Mosby said it looks like his son has already done some pretty good work. She asked if his son was doing all this work himself. Mr. Holtkamp said yes, quite a lot but he has also helped his son too. He said the pictures showed where the kitchen would be placed and the old asbestos siding removed. Mr. Holtkamp said his son used and selected 4 ½-inch hardiboard which has a more nostalgic look than the 8-inch hardiboard. He also installed a hangover with the help of a contractor. All of the windows are new to specs and codes. He wants to do the same thing with the kitchen. He said a lot of people have walked by and commented on how beautiful the house looks. Ms. King made a motion to approve a twenty (20) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty (30) feet in the R-D district, for frontage along East Hembree Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. 18 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting December 19, 2016 Ms. King made a motion to approve a twelve (12) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty (30) feet in the R-D district, for frontage along North Spring Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mosby and carried unanimously in favor. Other Business Mr. Anthony referred to the Statement of Disclosure of Interests Form distributed to the Board Members. He asked the members to complete the forms and get them back to Ms. Davis. Mr. Anthony told the Board that barring any unforeseen changes, Robert Lewis will be staffing BZA meetings. The meeting adjourned at 2:15 P.M. _____________________________ _______________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 19  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Application: S-17-001 Location: 4048 Luke Court Applicant: Clyde Rountree of Huddleston-Steele Engineering representing Gross Builders Zoning: Planned Unit District (PUD) Request: A Variance from Section 25¼-26(A)(1), 25¼-26(A)(2) and 25¼- 26(C)(5)(c)[2][vi], of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which allows only one (1) Complex ground sign per street frontage 1 Request Overview The Applicant, Mr. Clyde Rountree with Huddleston-Steele Engineering representing Gross Builders, is requesting a variance from Section 25¼-26(A)(1), 25¼-26(A)(2) and 25¼- 26(C)(5)(c)[2][vi], of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which allow only one (1) Complex ground sign per street frontage. The proposed signs are located at 4048 Luke Court which is North of Hwy 96 (Franklin Road) and is a ring road with both public road entrance drives accessible from Fortress Blvd. The applicant is requesting a variance to install two (2) freestanding wall signs, one at each entrance. The properties road frontage is approximately 580’ with two (2) property entrances (one (1) at the Northern side of the property and one (1) at the Southern side of the property. The proposed freestanding wall signs would be 33 sq. ft. with 8’6” overall height and external illumination. Section 25¼-26(A)(1) states that it shall be unlawful to have more than one ground sign on a lot of record or in violation of the regulations set forth herein. 25¼-26(A)(2) states that If the lot of record has at least one hundred feet of frontage on each of two or more public streets, then there shall be no more than one ground sign along each side of the lot of record bordered by such streets and; 25¼-26(C)(5)(c)[2][vi] Number; Multi-tenant complexes with separate outside entrance tenants are allowed one (1) freestanding wall sign per street frontage provide that each street frontage has at least 100’ of frontage. If approved the applicant would be required to comply with all other setbacks and regulations. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Application: Z-17-002 Location: 1619 Georgetown Lane Applicant: William Koenig Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS-15) District Request:  A thirteen (13) foot and a seven (7) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet in the RS-15 district  A three (3) foot Variance from Section 25 Temporary and Accessory Structures and Uses (E)(1)(a) which requires detached structures to be not less than five (5) feet from any side lot line. 1 Request Overview The applicant, William Koenig, withdrew his application at the December 19, 2016 BZA meeting because of the changes made to the location of the proposed new house were not advertised when the legal notice was prepared in December. He wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling unit on property located at 1619 Georgetown Lane. The property is located in the Georgetown subdivision and is zoned RS-15. The property is situated near the terminus of Georgetown Lane, a cul-de-sac, and measures approximately 145 feet in width along the street frontage and 175 feet in depth along the northern property line. The total area of the lot is approximately 21,500 square feet (one-half acre). The previous single-family dwelling unit that occupied the site was destroyed by fire. Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance lists the following minimum required building setbacks for the RS-15 district: 40 feet on the front, 30 feet on the rear, and 12.5 feet on the sides. Detached accessory structures can be no closer than 5 feet from a side and rear lot line. 2 As shown on the exhibit submitted by the applicant, the proposed house would encroach into the required 40-foot front yard setback at one end by a little less than 13 feet, and by a little less than 7 feet at the other end. The proposed detached garage is proposed to be located within 2 feet of the side lot line The applicant requests a 13-foot and a 7 foot variance from the minimum 40-foot front yard setback requirement as well as a 3 foot variance from the 5 foot side yard setback for detached accessory structures. Staff Comments The applicant’s previous house had a width of approximately 75 feet and a depth of approximately 45 feet. The house was situated closer to the street than neighboring houses. While most houses along Georgetown Lane appear to be situated at least 35 to 40 feet from their respective front property lines, the applicant’s house was situated approximately 25 feet from the front property line. The new house would have a width of 58 feet and a depth of 78 feet with a side entry in addition to the detached garage. In the attached request letter, the applicant addresses the standards for obtaining a Variance. The applicant contends that the subject property’s location along the bulb of the cul-de-sac creates a practical difficulty and constitutes an unusual characteristic. The applicant’s front property line is curvilinear due to the property’s location along the cul-de-sac; the curvilinear front property line results in a parallel, curvilinear front setback line and reduced depth on the southern/western side of the property. The applicant contends that the situation is not self-created; the applicant’s previous house was destroyed by fire, and the applicant wishes to construct a new house with a setback encroachment similar to that of the previous house. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. BZA Application 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Site Photographs 4. Applicant’s Supporting Materials 3 4 5 6  1619 Georgetown Lane Site Photographs 1619 Georgetown Lane, aerial photograph. 7 1619 Georgetown Lane, aerial photograph. 8 1619 Georgetown Lane, view of vacant lot taken from Georgetown Lane looking southward. 9 1619 Georgetown Lane, view of vacant lot taken from Georgetown Lane looking to the southeast. 10  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Application: Z-17-003 Location: 506 Woodmore Drive Applicant: David Branch Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS-15) District Requests: A seven (7) foot Variance from Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum side yard setback for principal structures of twelve and one half (12.5) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) District 1 Request Overview The applicant, David Branch has constructed an addition to his house located at 506 Woodmore Drive. The property is located in the Bellwood Annex subdivision and is zoned RS-15. The property is irregular in shape, measuring approximately 26,932 square feet or (0.62 acres). Chart 2 (Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements, and Land Use Intensity Ratios) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, requires a minimum side yard setback for principal structures of twelve and one half (12.5) feet in the Single-Family Residential (RS- 15) District. After a survey of the neighbor’s property it was discovered that the addition encroached into the required side setback along the east property line. The encroachment is almost 6 feet so the applicant is seeking a 7-foot variance. Staff Comments As indicated in the attached request letter, the addition to the house was constructed too close to the property line according to the Zoning Ordinance. After the construction phase, the applicant learned that the addition encroached into the required side yard setback along the east side. The addition is situated approximately 6.7 feet from the front property line. The applicant contends that a licensed contractor pulled a building permit and construction commenced. Following a neighbor’s survey of her property it was discovered that the applicant’s addition was constructed too close to the property line. Staff visited the site, took photos and reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant. It appears that in order to comply with the setback requirement, the applicant would have to (1) modify the structure in its current location to make it conform to City standards or (2) remove the structure altogether. The applicant is seeking a 7-foot variance from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of the side yard setback of 12.5 feet. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. BZA Application 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Site Photographs 4. Applicant’s Supporting Materials 5. Copy of building permit for the garage 2 3 4 5 6 7  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Application: Z-17-004 Location: 1310 Stonewall Boulevard Applicant: David Underhill representing Sam and Darlene Baker Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS-10) District Requests: 1) A one (1) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line; and 2) A four (4) foot Variance from Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which requires that accessory structures on interior lots in residential districts be located a minimum of five (5) feet from the side property lines 1 Request Overview The BZA reviewed this application at last month’s meeting (December 19, 2016) and deferred taking action on the request pending receiving additional information regarding storm water runoff from the newly constructed garage. The applicant, David Underhill representing Sam and Darlene Baker, has begun construction on a detached accessory structure (garage) on the property located at 1310 Stonewall Boulevard. The property is located in the Belle Aire Acres subdivision and is zoned RS-10. The property is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 100 feet in width and 135 feet in depth for a total area of approximately 13,500 square feet (0.31 acres). Section 25(E)(1)(a) of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance requires the following: “for interior lots in residential districts, detached accessory structures and uses, except fences, walls, and hedges, shall be located not less than sixty feet from the front lot line and in no event shall be closer to the front lot line than ten feet behind the front of the principal structure and not less than five feet from any side and rear lot lines.” Upon inspecting the accessory structure, the Building and Codes Department determined that the structure slightly encroached into the required five-foot accessory structure setback along the rear (east) property line less than one foot. Because of the three (3) foot overhang on north side of the building there is an encroachment of 3.18 feet so the applicant is requesting a four (4) foot variance from the five (5) foot requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. This should cover the installation of gutters to the garage. The applicant seeks two Variances for the accessory structure. First, the applicant requests a one-foot Variance from the required five-foot accessory structure setback along the rear (north) property line. Second, the applicant requests a four-foot Variance from the required five-foot accessory structure setback along the side (east) property line. Staff Comments As indicated in the attached request letter, the garage presently under construction is a replacement for a deteriorated garage. The deteriorated garage has been destroyed and removed from the site. The new garage utilizes a footprint similar to that of the garage that was removed. During the construction phase, the applicant learned that the new garage encroached into the required five-foot accessory structure setback along the north and east sides. The new structure is situated approximately 68 feet from the front property line, 58 feet behind the front façade of the house, and nine feet from the house, thereby meeting all of the other requirements of Section 25(E)(1)(a). The applicant contends that moving a mostly-completed structure would constitute a practical difficulty. Further, the applicant indicates that because the new garage is situated on the same footprint as the previous garage, then the previous garage must not have conformed with the City’s accessory structure setbacks either. Staff visited the site and reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant. It appears that in order to comply with the five-foot accessory structure setback requirement, the applicant would have the following options: move the 2 structure to a location that conforms to City standards; modify the structure in its current location to make it conform to City standards; or remove the structure altogether. Two separate votes—one for each Variance sought—will be required for this request. Upon further review it was determined the overhang of the detached garage is extending 36 inches (currently without a gutter) from the exterior wall of the garage. The Zoning Ordinance only allows for cornices, eaves, gutters and the like to project no more than 24 inches from an exterior wall if it is located within a required setback. Since the overhang extends beyond the 24 inch requirement the end of the overhang will now be considered part of the accessory and thus the variance request will be considered from that point. If the BZA approves this four (4) foot variance then the applicant will then be required to make application to the Building & Codes Department’s Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals for another variance for compliance with building codes which may mean fire rating the structure along that property line. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. BZA Application 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Site Photographs 4. Applicant’s Supporting Materials 5. Copy of building permit for the garage 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Application: Z-17-005 Location: Along Osborne Lane near Memorial Boulevard Applicant: Clyde Rountree of Huddleston Steele Engineering representing Chuck Barnes Zoning: Commercial Fringe (CF) District Request: Requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a self-storage facility and a Variance for a reduction in a Type D Buffer along the eastern side of the access driveway 1 Request Overview The applicant, Clyde Rountree representing Chuck Barnes is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a self-storage facility on the property and a variance from Table 2 Buffer Zone Requirements. The property is located on the south side of Osborne Lane just east of Memorial Boulevard and is zoned Commercial Fringe (CF). The property totals 5.48 acres. There will be approximately 325 units in the proposed facility with approximately 44,200 sq. ft. of buildings The Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance requires Board of Zoning Appeals approval for a Special Use Permit for the construction of a self-storage facility in the CF Zoning District. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from Table 2 Buffer Zone Requirements by reducing the type buffer from a Type D buffer to a Type B buffer. Staff Comments As indicated in the attached request letter, the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a self-storage facility on the subject property. Self-service storage facilities are allowed by special use permit in the CF zone. Included in the agenda package is a conceptual site plan, architectural elevations, and a letter addressing Sections 8 and 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has also included photographs of the subject property and of the surrounding area for the Board’s reference. The properties directly to the west are zoned CL and OG and are developed with a convenience market and a small office development. The adjacent property to the south is zoned PCD and includes the parking lot for the State Farm Insurance Company. The adjacent property to the north is zoned RS-15 and has a single-family dwelling on it. Adjacent to the east are properties zoned RS-15 with single family dwellings located on them. According to the conceptual plans, the buildings will utilize earth tones and will consist of split- face colored concrete masonry blocks. Access for the site will come from a single driveway off of Osborne Lane. Customer parking is proposed to be located in front of the office at the front of the site. The applicant’s letter addresses the standards for self-service storage facilities as well as the standards of general applicability. He has indicated that his client will not allow any of the prohibited activities listed in the standards. The plan shows a Type A landscape buffer strip along a portion of the western property lines and a Type D landscape buffer along the northern and eastern property lines. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the landscape buffer requirement of the Zoning Ordinance along the eastern side of the driveway only from a D type landscape buffer to a B Type landscape buffer. He feels a Type D along the driveway is burdensome since there is only one dwelling near Osborne Lane and the remaining portion of the driveway from the end of the house to the actual site has no residential dwellings located adjacent to the driveway. That distance from the rear of the house along the driveway to the larger portion of the site is approximately 430 feet. Each request will require a separate vote. 2 The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. BZA Application 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Site Photographs 4. Applicant’s Supporting Material 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 19, 2016 Application: Z-17-006 Location: 1024 Central Valley Road (Coleman Farm) Applicant: David Wandell representing Middle Point R/C Flyers Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS-15) District Requests: Requesting a Special Use Permit to use a portion of the property for the recreational use of flying radio controlled model aircraft 1 Request Overview The applicant, David Wandell representing Middle Point R/C Flyers is requesting a Special Use Permit to use a portion of the Coleman Farm for the recreational use of flying radio controlled model aircraft on the property. The property is located on Central Valley Road just north of the Liberty Station subdivision and is zoned RS-15. The entire property is over 300 acres while the area proposed for the model aircraft field is approximately 18 acres. The Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance requires Board of Zoning Appeals approval for a Special Use Permit for the construction of recreational fields in a RS-15 Zoning District. The MWSD has already approved the request at their Board meeting on December 15, 2016. Staff Comments As indicated in the attached request letter, the applicant is requesting to construct an airfield and stone parking for the recreational use of model aircraft on the subject property. The letter further states they expect 5 - 15 members daily but is heavily dependent on the weather. There will be no on-site lighting and no utility service to the site. There will be a 96-gallon trash container for trash and a porta-potty placed on site. Neither the garbage receptacle nor the porta-potty will be visible to adjacent properties. The letter also states that through actual testing on the site which includes surrounding wooded area there will be no sound audible at Central Valley Road from the ground operation of the model aircraft. Through actual flight testing on site the sound emanating from the model aircraft in the air and recorded from Central Valley Road is well below the RS-15 standard of 55db and in many cases is inaudible. This is due to the natural buffering of the wooded areas and due to the flight activity occurring away from Central Valley Road. The club is a chartered club of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). The AMA is the official national body for model aviation in the United States. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has formally recognized that flight operations within the AMA safety framework are in full compliance with all FAA regulations and all FAA safety requirements. Flight activity occurring at the site will comply with all provisions of the AMA Safety Code. The applicant feels the use of the site as proposed is compatible with the immediate vicinity. Most of the surrounding property is either recreational use or city owned property. Adjacent properties will not be negatively impacted by the proposed use and nothing in this proposal will affect the use or future development of any adjacent property. There will be no flight activity that will occur over any private property. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. BZA Application 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Site Photographs 4. Applicant’s Supporting Materials 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Application: Z-17-007 Location: 607 DeJarnette Lane Applicant: Michael Black Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS-15) District Request: Requesting a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory dwelling at their residence 1 Request Overview The applicant, Michael Black is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory apartment at their residence. The property is located on the north side of DeJarnett Lane just east of Bear Branch and is zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-15). The property totals approximately 4.4 acres. This property is located on the north side of DeJarnett Lane just east of Bear Branch and west of the Huntington Place subdivision. The property is zoned RS-15 (Residential Single-Family). The applicant wishes to construct a free standing accessory dwelling behind their residence. A special use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals is required for an accessory apartment/dwelling in a single-family residential zoning district. The applicant has submitted a letter describing the request and addressing Sections 8 and 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as a conceptual building elevation of the accessory dwelling, which are included in the agenda package for the Board’s review. For the Board’s reference, Staff has also included photographs of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant would like to add the accessory dwelling to the north side of the house adjacent to the driveway. According to the attached letter the accessory dwelling will exist for single family purposes and will not be used for rental purposes. The accessory dwelling will only be used for family and invited guests. According to the Zoning Ordinance, an accessory apartment is defined as “A second dwelling unit either in or added to an existing single-family detached dwelling, or in a separate accessory structure on the same lot of record, for use as an independent living facility with provision within the accessory apartment for food preparation, sanitation, and sleeping. Such a dwelling shall be accessory to the main dwelling. The accessory apartment will not exceed 700 square-feet of floor area. In his letter to the Board, the applicant has addressed the standards of general applicability, as well as the additional standards for accessory apartments. The applicant is aware that the accessory apartment cannot be used as a rental unit to non-family members. He is willing to record a deed restriction to this effect, as has been required of previous accessory apartment special use permit requests. The deed restriction will put any future buyers on notice that the accessory dwelling cannot be used as a rental unit to non-family members. If the Board desires to approve the special use permit request, Staff recommends the following condition: 1) A deed restriction must be recorded stating that the accessory apartment will not be used as a rental unit to non-family members and that it will be used in a manner consistent with the zoning regulations for accessory apartments. 2 The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. BZA Application 2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Site Photographs 4. Applicant’s Supporting Material 3 4 5 6 7 8