Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, September 25, 2019, 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 July 24, 2019 3. New Business Variance Request a. Application Z-19-026 by Thomas Jennings, requesting a nine (9) percent Variance from Chart 2 of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which limits maximum lot coverage to thirty (30) percent, for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-8) and Historic (H-1) districts located at 449 East College Street. Special Use Permit Requests b. Application Z-19-027 by Kristy Allen, requesting a Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation (Beauty Shop) on property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-15) district located at 3877 Manson Pike. c. Application Z-19-028 by Mark LeMay representing Baptist Student Center, requesting a Special Use Permit for expansion of an existing Student Center on property in the Multi-Family Residential (RM-16) district located at 2535 Middle Tennessee Boulevard. 4. Staff Reports and Other Business 5. Adjourn 1  Regular Meeting Minutes of the Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2019 – 1:00 P.M. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Davis Young, Chair Ken Halliburton, Vice-Chair Julie King Tim Tipps Misty Foy STAFF PRESENT Jafar Ware, Planner David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Robert Holtz, Director of Building & Codes Matthew Blomeley, Planning Director Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. The minutes from the June 26, 2019 regular meeting were approved as submitted. Mr. Blomeley introduced Mr. Jafar Ware to the Board Members. Special Use Permit Application Z-19-22 by Ben Spell of Good Ranchers, requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a Temporary Vendor business (food sales) on property in the Highway Commercial (CH) district located at 1720 Old Fort Parkway. Mr. Blomeley reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this application, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) In addition to compliance with the Sign Ordinance, this site must also comply with all of the terms of the Stones River Mall PSO. 2) The tent shall be weighted above-ground and no stakes or other appurtenances penetrating the surface of the parking lot shall be used to anchor the tent. 3) An electrical permit must be obtained for electricity to the tent and the site must pass an electrical safety inspection prior to beginning operation. BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 4) A tent permit must be obtained from the Building and Codes Department prior to the tent being erected. 5) A more detailed site plan, drawn to scale and showing the exact location of the tent, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning and Transportation Departments prior to the issuance of the tent permit. 6) Additional traffic control measures, possibly including Type 3 barricades, may be required by the Transportation Department prior to beginning operation. Mr. Ben Spell of Good Ranchers came to the podium and said they partner the Second Harvest Food Bank, using these sites as a drop-off point for non-perishable food items. He said a potion of their sales go back to Middle Tennessee. Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the application, Chairman Young closed the public hearing. Mr. Halliburton said he has attended one of these locations on a Saturday at lunch and said the parking area was packed. He hoped this location would contain enough parking. Mr. Blomeley said there was ample parking at this location but realized the aerial photo was taken prior to the opening of the movie theater. He said the site has enough parking, it is just a matter if people want to walk. He said there is typically quite a bit of surplus parking in the back. Mr. Tipps asked how many parking spaces the applicant anticipated taking. Mr. Blomeley said it could take up to 12-14 parking spaces. He said this would include a 20’ X 20’ tent which would use approximately 4-6 spaces, plus their vehicle parking and customer parking. Ms. King asked if this would become a yearly event. Mr. Spell said yes, they would like this to be a yearly event. He said they were in the Nashville area last year and that is how they found out about Murfreesboro. This year they plan to set-up, in tandem, at Cool Springs in Franklin, Opry Mills, Rivergate Mall, Lebanon, and one other Tennessee location. He said their business model is to have multiple locations in an area. Mr. Spell said last year several people e-mailed and Facebooked asking them to come to Murfreesboro. He said toward the end of the events last year, they contacted Stone’s River Mall and was told yes, so they set-up without having a permit. Mr. Spell said they wanted to follow the rules and obtain a permit this year. 2 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Ms. King verified if this request is approved today, it will become administratively approved in upcoming years as a temporary vendor Special Use Permit. Mr. Blomeley said the temporary, repeat temporary vendors Special Use Permits are only allowed to be approved administratively if it is the same applicant, the exact same location, with the exact same set-up. He said if this location does not work and there are issues, we could require them to come back before the Board. Ms. King just wanted to make sure this vendor would be treated the same as firework sales, food vendors for Special Use Permits we have seen in the past. Mr. Blomeley said that is correct. Mr. Tipps made a motion to approve a Special Use Permit to operate a Temporary Vendor business (food sales) on property in the Highway Commercial (CH) district located at 1720 Old Fort Parkway with the following conditions: 1) In addition to compliance with the Sign Ordinance, this site must also comply with all of the terms of the Stones River Mall PSO. 2) The tent shall be weighted above-ground and no stakes or other appurtenances penetrating the surface of the parking lot shall be used to anchor the tent. 3) An electrical permit must be obtained for electricity to the tent and the site must pass an electrical safety inspection prior to beginning operation. 4) A tent permit must be obtained from the Building and Codes Department prior to the tent being erected. 5) A more detailed site plan, drawn to scale and showing the exact location of the tent, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning and Transportation Departments prior to the issuance of the tent permit. 6) Additional traffic control measures, possibly including Type 3 barricades, may be required by the Transportation Department prior to beginning operation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Mr. Blomeley introduced Mr. Jafar Ware as our newest Planner and has been with the City since February. He is being exposed to various areas of the Planning Department to obtain experience. This is his first Special Use Permit Mr. Ware has reviewed and written comments for. Mr. Ware comes to us from the State of Tennessee, in a different career path and decided he has interested in coming to work for the City of Murfreesboro, choosing a different career path as a Planner. Mr. Ware has his master’s in public administration from UTC and bachelor’s from Kennesaw State in Georgia. 3 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Application Z-19-023 by Ken Anderson of Franklin Road Baptist Church, requesting a Special Use Permit for a Recreational Field at an Institutional Group Assembly Use on property in the Single-Family Residential 15 (RS-15) district located at 138-154 Gresham Lane. Mr. Jafar Ware reviewed the application and staff comments. If the Board approves this application, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) No lighting is requested or permitted with this special use permit. In the future, if lighting is desired, it will require amending the special use permit. 2) No outdoor amplification is allowed with this use, except on an infrequent basis associated special church events. The use of the proposed athletic field shall operate in a manner that is consistent with the City of Murfreesboro Noise Ordinance. 3) The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a site plan for the athletic field and new parking area. 4) The parcels at 138 and 154 Gresham Lane must be combined with the main church lot via a resubdivision plat. 5) The site plan should be revised to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 10’ width for a Type B landscape buffer. Mr. Scott Graby, a representative of Franklin Road Baptist Church was present to answer questions. Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the application, Chairman Young closed the public hearing. Ms. King referred to the following language: infrequent basis associated special church events. She asked if there were any limitations on that, what that is meaning, what the intention was between the applicant and the City. Mr. Ware said the church already has a soccer field on-premise, that is on their property that falls in the county. They use it for different events and will continue that use on the new proposed soccer field. He said sometimes there are church activities after church on Sundays. Ms. King said it is not every Sunday and not just regular church events. Mr. Graby came to the counter and said historically they have had a yearly homecoming held under a tent. He said they will just continue how they are using the existing soccer field which is adjacent to the same neighbor, just on a different side. Mr. Graby said that use will continue and there is nothing additional planned. Ms. King said ok and asked because she didn’t know what it meant. 4 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Mr. Blomeley added Mr. Graby provided a letter signed by Dr. Mike Norris of the church and Mr. Mike Graves, the neighbor to the north outlining that Mr. Graves is consenting to the proposed application. Ms. King verified Mr. Mike Graves, the neighbor will not have soccer fields on both sides of him but only on the south rather than the north. Mr. Blomeley said yes. Ms. Foy made a motion to approve a Special Use Permit for a Recreational Field at an Institutional Group Assembly Use on property in the Single-Family Residential 15 (RS-15) district located at 138-154 Gresham Lane with the following conditions: 1) No lighting is requested or permitted with this special use permit. In the future, if lighting is desired, it will require amending the special use permit. 2) No outdoor amplification is allowed with this use, except on an infrequent basis associated special church events. The use of the proposed athletic field shall operate in a manner that is consistent with the City of Murfreesboro Noise Ordinance. 3) The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a site plan for the athletic field and new parking area. 4) The parcels at 138 and 154 Gresham Lane must be combined with the main church lot via a resubdivision plat. 5) The site plan should be revised to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 10’ width for a Type B landscape buffer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halliburton and carried unanimously in favor. Administrative Appeal Application S-19-024 by Charles Stoffel of Columbia Neon, appealing an administrative decision by the Director of Building and Codes related to off-premise signage on property in the Light Industrial (L-I) district located along the east side of South Church Street and identified as Tax Map 113C, Group B, Parcel 2.01. Mr. Holtz reviewed the application and staff comments. Staff recommended that this administrative appeal not be approved as follows: 1) Due to the number of signs that could make a similar request. 2) Regardless of the use the original sign, the last permit established the sign as an on-premise sign and the sign and sign structure do not comply with the requirements of an off-premise sign as regulated by the sign ordinance. Chairman Young asked if an off-premise sign would be like a billboard. 5 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Mr. Holtz said yes adding the state regulates signs directly connected to the interstate or off-premise advertising altogether. Chairman Young asked if billboards in the middle of town would be considered off- premise signs. Mr. Holtz said yes but some of those are so old, they are grandfathered in. The City has documentation or proof before we started our sign ordinance it was off-premise advertising. He said this sign differs by the fact we believe it was built on the same lot as Cracker Barrel and somewhere the property lines got changed. Mr. Holtz said when it came to the state’s attention, they went out and investigated and made the determination that it was so close the Cracker Barrel that they couldn’t justify it being off-premise. Chairman Young verified the state assumed it would be a sign to advertise Cracker Barrel. Mr. Holtz said yes, on that lot of record. Chairman Young asked if the sign was on its own piece of property on with Cracker Barrel property. Mr. Holtz said they think little piece of property was part of the old Cracker Barrel store at one time. He said they have no documentation showing them different. Chairman Young asked if it was advertising for Cracker Barrel, it would meet the on- premise advertising regulations even though it is close to the interstate. He verified if it were regulated by the state it would be permitted to advertise for Cracker Barrel. Mr. Holtz said on that lot of record. When it is an on-premise sign, it is not regulated by the state. Mr. Holtz said when he put Sim’s Realty on the sign, it became off-premise advertising and that is when the state gets involved. Chairman Young asked if there was truly a sign to sell the triangular piece of property, it could be sold and then a temporary sign that says Lot for Sale would be permissible for a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Holtz said there would be no limit. He said they issued a permit for the Lot for Sale sign simply because the typical realtor sign is what they call a temporary sign, under 32 square feet and not less than 12-foot high and a permit is not required. When the size exceeds this size, we require a permit. Mr. Holtz said he could use that sign to advertise that lot for sale. 6 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Mr. Tipps asked if the sign was physically less than 1,000 feet from the interstate. Mr. Holtz said yes, it is less than a 1,000-feet from the interstate. He said you can see the off-ramp a few hundred feet from this lot. Mr. Tipps asked if the property is owned by Mrs. Brown. He asked if Mrs. Brown leased the property to Cracker Barrel and then sold off a portion. Mr. Tipps asked where the gun store in relation to this sign. Mr. Holtz showed the location on the site plan. He added there is no connection between the gun store and where this sign is located. Mr. Tipps said regardless of what the sign says, it is not a Cracker Barrel sign which by extension you are saying would be on-premises and would be no problem. Mr. Holtz said if it were on the same lot of record as Cracker Barrel and advertising Cracker Barrel it would not be a problem. Mr. Tipps verified the sign is not on the Cracker Barrel lot now. Mr. Holtz confirmed. Mr. Tipps said by extension, it would be. Mr. Holtz said yes. He said when Cracker Barrel rebuilt, they installed a new ground sign to replace this one. Mr. Holtz said you couldn’t have both signs on the same lot. Ms. King verified Cracker Barrel built a new sign but never removed the old sign. Mr. Holtz agreed. Mr. Ives said they just changed the face of the sign, didn’t remove the sign. Ms. King asked if this lot sold and a small business went here, would that business be able to advertise on this sign. Mr. Holtz said it would be off-premise advertising. Ms. King said even if the small business (coffee shop, food truck, hot dog sales) were placed on this lot. 7 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Mr. Holtz said the lot might not be big enough to develop on to handle a building, parking and landscaping. He said if you could fit the building, parking and landscaping then yes, this sign could be used to advertise the business on the lot. Ms. King verified that was part of the problem since the lot is too small to be sold for development. Mr. Holtz agreed stating the lot has been chopped up to a small little segment. Mr. Tipps referred to a portion of the agenda package where it states On April 9, 2010 Columbia Neon made application for an On-Premise Permanent Sign Permit to install a new sign face in the original Cracker Barrel sign. Mr. Tipps asked, if at that time, it was issued, inspected and it was fine and then a storm happens. So is it still going back to the fact that, at that point in time, it was an on-premise permanent sign. Mr. Holtz said on April 9, 2010, he was making application to put Lot for Sale Sims Realty. Mr. Tipps verified the sign was to sell that lot. Mr. Holtz said yes, that was the understanding but there wasn’t enough to deny. Ms. King asked if another business bought that land, would they still be operating under This Lot for Sale Sign permit or would they have to get a new permit. Mr. Holtz said yes, to put a sign face in they would need a new permit. Ms. King said even if you bought the property that had a prior permit with a different sign face. Mr. Holtz said every time you change a sign face, you must get a permit. He said the only time they wouldn’t require a permit is if it were an off-premise sign. The billboards along the interstate change the faces all the time and no permits are required. All on-premise plans must have a permit. Ms. King verified the off-premise signs are approved by the state before we approve them. Mr. Holtz said yes adding the state doesn’t require a permit to change the face. Mr. Charles Stoffel of Columbia Neon came to the podium. He has been working with Columbia Neon for over 50 years and owns the subject sign. Mr. Stoffel said this has been an off-premise sign from the time it was installed. He gave the Board Members a 8 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 synopsis of every deed for the property which shows the sign has always been an off- premise sign. He said there has been some confusion about the sign being cut-off from the Cracker Barrel property, which he said is incorrect. Mr. Ives asked for a short recess for the Board Members to review the material just given to them by Mr. Stoffel. Chairman Young recommended a short meeting recess, started at 1:50 PM. Chairman Young readjourned the meeting at 2:05 PM. He said the applicant provided the Board Members with timelines of deeds and property transfers from 1968 thru 2013. The documents were entered into the record. Chairman Young asked Mr. Stoffel if he had anything to add. Mr. Stoffel said he still maintains this sign is an off-premise sign and has been from the beginning. He offered to tell the Board Members where the mistake was made if they were willing to listen. Chairman Young asked Mr. Stoffel to explain. Mr. Stoffel said a friend of his, Mr. Jim Cogsdale was a Codes Officer at the City when this building was built. He said Mr. Cogsdale’s job was to inspect the location and make sure the foundation of the sign was off the property line and off the street, which he did. Mr. Stoffel said it was very important to know if the signs were on-premise or off- premise in the state of Tennessee. He said Mr. Cogsdale would always write on the application whether the sign was on-premise or off-premise. If the sign was off- premise, it would need state approval. Once Mr. Stoffel was it was an off-premise sign, he knew to go and get a state permit. He said Mr. Cogsdale made a mistake and did not mark this sign as an off-premise sign, therefore a state permit was not obtained. Mr. Stoffel contends this sign was grandfathered-in, non-conforming sign. Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak for or against the application, Chairman Young closed the public hearing. Mr. Ives asked Mr. Stoffel if he obtained a state permit for this sign in 1975. Mr. Stoffel said no because Mr. Cogsdale did not make him aware it was an off-premise sign. Mr. Ives said Mr. Stoffel just told the Board Members that he knew all along this sign was an off-premise sign. He asked if he misunderstood that. Mr. Stoffel said Mr. Ives must have misunderstood. 9 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Mr. Ives said Mr. Stoffel pointed out that on the application that Mr. Cogsdale said the sign had to be installed in accordance with state regulation. Mr. Stoffel said that is what Mr. Cogsdale wrote on the application. Mr. Ives said if it was installed as an off-premise sign, it had to have a state tag. Mr. Stoffel said Mr. Ives has it confused as the example he was showing the Board Members indicated what Mr. Cogsdale would write on the permit if it were an off- premise sign. He suggested Mr. Ives check the date on the sample which indicates it is a different sign. Mr. Ives said it is Mr. Stoffel’s sign application and if it is off-premise a state permit is required. He doesn’t think Mr. Stoffel ever had a state permit. Mr. Stoffel said Mr. Ives was confused and said the sample permit was the whole motive of this. He was trying to show proof that Mr. Cogsdale told us each time an application for a sign permit was issued and it was off-premise, Mr. Cogsdale would indicate that on the application. Mr. Stoffel said the application Mr. Ives is looking at that has Mr. Cogsdale’s writing on it is a prior location. He suggested Mr. Ives check the dates. Mr. Ives asked where the application for the current sign is located. Mr. Stoffel said it should be in the agenda package. Ms. King asked Mr. Stoffel if he gave the Board Members a document not related to this property. Mr. Stoffel said that was a documentation trying to prove that on the prior permits what Mr. Cogsdale would do as he knew it was very important that the sign was either an on- premise or off-premise. If it was an off-premise sign, Mr. Cogsdale would write on the application stating that a state permit would be required. Ms. King asked if that was related to this property. Mr. Stoffel said no, that was just an example of how Mr. Cogsdale handled his business. It does not have anything to do with this sign. Mr. Ives told Mr. Stoffel there is no date indicated on the example, however he asked Mr. Stoffel to look at the first sign permit that was distributed to the Board Members. He said that permit if for the Cracker Barrel mobile sign and there is a drawing showing an existing building or probably a slab and the existing sign. Mr. Ives said there is no 10 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 indication that the sign is on a separate lot of record so therefore Mr. Cogsdale must have thought it was an on-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel said he did not know it was an off-premise sign. He said that was Mr. Cogsdale job to determine. Mr. Tipps was confused as in the letter Mr. Stoffel submitted and comments made he said it was an off-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel said it has always been an off-premise sign. Mr. Tipps verified that Mr. Stoffel never got a permit from the state for this sign. Mr. Stoffel said he did not get a permit from the state because he was unaware it was an off-premise sign because Mr. Cogsdale did not indicate that on the application. Mr. Tipps asked when Mr. Stoffel realized it was an off-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel said when he got the letter from Cracker Barrel around 2013. Mr. Tipps said the referenced application with the drawing was April 1976. It was pointed out this sign was on a triangle lot separate from the Cracker Barrel sign. He asked if Mr. Stoffel knew the sign was an off-premise sign at that time. Mr. Stoffel said he knew it about 2013. Mr. Tipps asked if Mr. Stoffel with working with Columbia Neon in 1976. Mr. Stoffel said yes. Mr. Tipps asked if Mr. Stoffel knew this was an off-premise sign in 1976. Mr. Stoffel said he did not know it was an off-premise sign until 2013. Mr. Ives said looking at the April 1976 application shows that the project is one lot of record. He believes this has always been on a separate lot of record. Mr. Ives said Mr. Stoffel did not know it and there is no indication on the sketch. He said if the sketch is truly accurate, there would be another line toward the upper right corner of the triangle creating another little triangle which would have been the lot the sign was located on. As Mr. Holtz said, everyone thought this was an on-premise sign and it was treated as an on-premise sign. Mr. Ives said Mr. Stoffel would have learned, if he didn’t know before, but in 2005 Cracker Barrel built a new store. At that time Cracker Barrel put a bigger, new, taller sign on their own lot of record. Cracker Barrel stopped paying Mr. 11 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Stoffel rent on the subject sign at that time, so Mr. Stoffel would have become aware in 2004, 2005, 2006 if not before. Mr. Ives said permits were issued, the building was completed, and they got a Certificate of Occupancy sometime around 2005. Mr. Stoffel would have known that his sign was on a different lot of record as Cracker Barrel had their own sign and didn’t need two signs. In fact, they probably would not have been allowed to have two interstate ground signs if they had wanted them right on top of each other like that. Mr. Ives said then the sign sat empty for a while and at some point, the Larry Sims Realtor sign went up. At that point, the state contacted Mr. Stoffel and informed him this is an off-premise sign that does not have a permit and instructed him to take the sign down. Mr. Stoffel then applied for a permit and the letter that Mr. Holtz shared from the state said no, you cannot have a permit. The state was ready to issue an enforcement order, then Mr. Stoffel said he would change the sign face and make it on- premise. Instead of saying Larry Sims Realtor, I’ll change it to Lot for Sale. The state agreed and did not proceed with their enforcement order. Mr. Stoffel withdrew his appeal with the State Board and shortly after that there was conversation with the City and an equivalent notice from the City that he had an off-premise sign. Then there was the issue he put a sign up without a sign permit. City Staff (David Ives, Betts Nixon, Gary Whitaker, Amelia Kerr) elected at that time to not challenge the fact that Lot for Sale Larry Sims Realtor was an on-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel filled out an application to the City that said On-Premise Sign Application Permit. A copy of this application was shown to you today by Mr. Holtz. Mr. Stoffel signed the on-premise application and kept the sign. Mr. Ives assumed Mr. Sims paid Mr. Stoffel some sign rent over the years. At some point after 2017 a wind storm came thru which broke Larry’s sign. The sign set empty for a period of time before the sign that is up there now was installed. Now, Mr. Stoffel is telling us that he always believed it was an on-premise sign then he found it was off-premise, but he couldn’t make the off-premise work with the state or the city. He went back to calling it an on-premise and now wants to again say it is off- premise. Mr. Ives believes Mr. Holtz correctly said no, you cannot get a city permit for an off-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel received an order to take the sign down and he is appealing that order today. Mr. Stoffel discussed with city staff, asking for a variance. Staff concluded there was nothing in the sign ordinance or zoning ordinance which could possibility be the bases for the variance. Mr. Stoffel is appealing Mr. Holtz’s decision, so here we are. Mr. Tipps asked Mr. Stoffel if that is a fair characterization of what transpired. Mr. Stoffel said no. Mr. Tipps said he was not going to get into a he said, she said. What Mr. Tipps heard Mr. Stoffel say is the sign was always an off-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel said this sign was always an off-premise sign. 12 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Chairman Young asked when the face of the sign changes, does that negate any grandfathering claims or is it looked at the sign has been going all this time and now we are going to change it so then the 1,000 feet become applicable. Mr. Ives said had it stayed an off-premise sign, assuming it was legally per State rules an off-premise sign, and had it continued there would be some change and the grandfathering would continue. He said there are billboards in town that are in places that the City would not allow billboards to be placed today, but they are grandfathered in under State law and can remain. Mr. Ives said under our State Grandfathered Statute there is no limit and is basically forever, unless it is destroyed changed or abandoned. If it wasn’t abandoned before the off-premise sign our contention is it was abandoned as an off-premise sign when he filed a sign application permit for a sign permit saying I want an on-premise sign. Mr. Ives did not know what the State’s position would be today if a formal application were filed but he does know what the State said in and they did not give him an off-premise permit because it was not in compliance with current State rules. He said the State is not bound by the grandfather statute that applies to zoning ordinances. Mr. Ives said what we deal with, from a Grandfathered standpoint, 137208 which applies to city / county zoning changes. He said the State is not bound by those rules. Assuming it was a legal non-conforming off-premise sign and the State changed the law, he thinks the State could come in tomorrow and make you take it down. Mr. Ives said again, the State is not bound by the grandfathered provisions. Mr. Tipps asked Mr. Stoffel if he applied with the State in 2007 for an off-premise sign. Mr. Stoffel said yes, he applied for an off-premise sign in 2007. He said by that time, the State had changed the placement of a sign from 500-feet to 1,000-feet from the interstate. Mr. Stoffel said the sign then did not qualify. Mr. Tipps verified that Mr. Stoffel had and still has remedies with either the State or the City to file a suit for this action. He asked Mr. Ives if this is a correct statement. Mr. Ives said yes. Mr. Tipps said Mr. Stoffel did not exercise them in the past and explained why he didn’t. Mr. Ives said whether that is a valid reason to not have taken the action Mr. Stoffel could have taken in 2007, 2008, or 2009 and someone else to decide an opinion but it is not worth much. Mr. Ives said assume this Board agrees with Mr. Holtz and does not overrule Mr. Holtz’s decision, Mr. Stoffel can proceed with Chancery Court. If this Board should elect to overturn Mr. Holtz’s decision and allow the sign to stay as it is, Mr. Stoffel will need to have a permit from the State of Tennessee to keep the sign up. Mr. Ives said if they grant it, they grant it and we’ll have that sign with us for a while. If 13 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 the State does not grant Mr. Stoffel the permit, Mr. Ives was not sure what the remedy is. He said there is an appeal but doesn’t know what the remedy is. He said it would probably go before a State of Appeals Board first and then ultimately can get into court again if he chooses to do so. Ms. King verified one reason Mr. Holtz placed this in violation was because of the fact there was not a State permit. She said a State permit is required prior to the issuance of an off-premise application. Mr. Ives said for the City rules, that is correct but if you overturn Mr. Holtz then presumably he would apply for an off-premise permit. Ms. King said Mr. Holtz would still have the opportunity to deny and off-premise application. Mr. Ives said, under the City rules we would say attach the State permit with your application. Ms. King asked if it is a prior requisite to an off-premise sign to have a State permit. Mr. Ives said the City application asks for the State permit to be attached. Mr. King verified, at this time, we have an on-premise permit from the City of Murfreesboro for this sign for the prior sign face. Mr. Ives said yes. Ms. King verified there is no current permit application for the current sign face and upon any change to a sign face an off-premise or an on-premise permit application is required by the City. Mr. Holtz said because he believes it is an on-premise sign, City Ordinance requires an application for a face change. He said the State would not come into play at this point. Ms. King asked if there was a State off-premise permit for this location. Mr. Holtz agreed because this sign does not meet the State regulations. Ms. King verified there is no off-premise permit for the City for this location. She asked if what is currently in place for this location is an on-premise permit for a previously existing face of this sign. She verified without making application to the State for an off- premise permit and without making application to the City for an off-premise permit, the 14 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 sign face changed. She also verified what was currently permitted was an on-premise application to a previous sign face. Mr. Holtz said his notice of violation to Mr. Stoffel was for not getting a permit for changing the sign face. He also added to the notice that it is the City’s opinion this is an on-premise sign and cannot be used the way he is using it. Mr. Holtz told Mr. Stoffel to remove the sign face or get cited to City Court. Ms. King said despite the fact there is a rich history regarding this land, what is currently operable under the City and State permit process is one on-premise permit for a Lot for Sale sign on this piece of property. Mr. Holtz said yes for any on-premise signage adding there is currently an on-premise sign permit for the Lot for Sale sign. Ms. King verified that is what is currently in place is the 2010 permit, despite any errors or previously existing situations on this piece of property. She said any other sign situation, according to City policies or ordinances would be, we would need to ask for an application. Mr. Holtz said yes for any on-premise sign. Ms. King said we would be asking for an application and if they were asking for an off- premise sign they would need to attach the permit previously granted by the State. Mr. Holtz said when you get a permit for an off-premise sign from the State, it is to construct a new one. Ms. King said there has never been one in this situation. To get a new off-premise sign for the City we ask them to attach their permit from the State. She asked if that is correct. Mr. Holtz said this is a face change for an on-premise sign. There is a City permit required. There is not a permit required for an off-premise face change. Ms. King said in a previous off-premise face change was made and there was a permit from the State and the City for an off-premise sign, they would not need to apply for a face change. Mr. Holtz said yes. Ms. King said we have an on-premise permanent sign application from 2010 and no application for an off-premise sign or permit from the State for an off-premise sign. 15 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 Mr. Holtz said yes. Ms. King said she thinks she understand that. Chairman Young asked if the hotel just to the east of this sign wanted to advertise on that sign, would that be considered an on-premise sign. Mr. Holtz said no because the sign is on a separate lot from the hotel. Ms. King asked if somebody resubdivided these lots and made it the same lot, would they still have to apply for an on-premise permit. Mr. Holtz said yes. Chairman Young verified a motion was needed to uphold the decision. Ms. King asked procedurally, how the Board would move to uphold or overturn. Mr. Ives said it would either be to grant the appeal and overturn the decision or to deny the appeal which would uphold the decision. He said we don’t have the variety of factors to be resided and more findings to be made as in a variance or special use permit approval. He said the Board needs to either grant the appeal or deny the appeal. Chairman Young said there are a lot of twist and turns with this application and trying to boil it down to make a decision he was leaning on the last discussion. He said we have a permit for an on-premise sign and had a copy of what the City was expecting and what the applicant signed. Based on that, Chairman Young thinks that is what we are dealing with, so he leaned toward supporting the City Staff’s decision and denial of the permit. Mr. Halliburton agreed with Chairman Young. He said Mr. Stoffel made a case for why this might be considered an off-premise sign. With respects to the way it has been treated, permitted, and looked at by the City and the State the Board needs to look at it like it is as an on-premise sign. Mr. Halliburton told Mr. Stoffel if he feels that strongly about it, maybe it does need to go to court. Based upon the Board’s job and what they see today, he agreed with Mr. Holtz’s denial. Mr. Tipps said one of the owners contacted him about this issue yesterday and he did not discuss it. He is acquainted with the person and thinks it would be inappropriate for him to vote. Ms. King knows there are a lot of situations where people try to avoid going to court. She realized that whatever happened in 2007 regarding the State permit may not have 16 BZA Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2019 occurred the way Mr. Stoffel would of preferred due to circumstances beyond his control. She said because we have this permit from 2010, she thinks that is all the City can act on. Because of that she feels that Mr. Holtz made an appropriate decision in issuing the violation. Things happened in the past that we may not have complete clarity on without much further review. Because of this action that occurred in 2010 she didn’t think they could go back that far, and this is what we must rely upon. Ms. Foy echoed her fellow Board Member thoughts. She said some things have happened in the past, but they are stuck with what they have at this point which you can’t pick and choose necessarily. She sees a little bit of picking and choosing here. She let Ms. King go ahead with the motion and she will be happy to second it. Ms. King made a motion to deny an appeal of an administrative decision by the Director of Building and Codes related to off-premise signage on property in the Light Industrial (L-I) district located along the east side of South Church Street and identified as Tax Map 113C, Group B, Parcel 2.01. The motion was seconded by Ms. Foy and carried in favor. Mr. Tim Tipps did not vote. The meeting adjourned at 2:45 P.M. _____________________________ _______________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 17  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 Application: Z-19-026 Location: 449 East College Street Applicant: Thomas Holden Jennings Zoning: Residential Single Family (RS-8) and Historic (H-1) Districts Request: Requesting a nine (9) percent Variance from Chart 2 of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which limits maximum lot coverage to thirty (30) percent Request Overview The applicant, Thomas Jennings, is requesting a nine (9) percent Variance from Chart 2 of the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, which limits maximum lot coverage to thirty (30) percent, for property in the Single-Family Residential (RS-8) and Historic (H-1) districts located at 449 East College Street. The purpose of the variance is to allow the applicant to construct a 8,050 sq. ft. home with a footprint of 3,098 sq. ft. on a 8,050 sq. ft. parcel along the North side of East College Street. The site would have access along a 6.5 ft wide adjacent property to the East described on the attached exhibit as “right-of-way”. Staff Comments The subject property is a 0.185-acre property zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8) located on the northern side of East College Street. It is bordered along the northern, eastern, and western sides by property that is zoned RS-8. The property to the south across East College Street is also zoned RS-8. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request letter and conceptual site plan. Per the Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance, the applicant must demonstrate that the lot has practical difficulties and unusual characteristics and that the need for a Variance is not self-created. 1. Practical difficulties. The narrowness, shallowness or shape, topography or other condition of the land is such that it is extraordinarily difficult to comply with the generally applicable bulk or other regulations of the zoning classification for the property. As shown on the map on page 1 of the staff report, the subject property does not appear to be out-of-character for lots in the Downtown Murfreesboro area. The property is similar in shape, width and depth to multiple properties within the same block. 2. Unusual characteristics of the subject property. The property is unusual in that it has unusual physical features compared to other property located in the same zoning district. The subject property appears to be comparable to other properties located within the same zoning district. Staff was unable to identify any unique characteristics. 3. Not self-created. The condition of the property has not resulted from any deliberate action by the owner. The lot is currently vacant. A house that previously occupied the lot was recently demolished. The applicant has selected a specific floor plan with a footprint that exceeds the maximum building coverage for properties in the RS-8 zoning district. In the attached letter, the applicant contends that all three criteria for granting a Variance are satisfied. Ultimately, after evaluating the evidence provided by the applicant, the Board must determine whether the applicant has presented a compelling case for a Variance. The Board should conduct a public hearing on this matter and determine whether a Variance is warranted. The applicant will be in attendance at the meeting to discuss the request and answer any questions the Board may have. Attachments 1. BZA application 2. Letter accompanying application 3. Chart 1 – Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance 4. Photo of site 5. Exhibits provided by applicant September 6, 2019 City of Murfreesboro Board of Zoning Appeals City of Murfreesboro Planning Department 111 West Vine Street Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130 RE: 449 East College Street – Yard Variance Request Dear Members of the Board, The attached BZA Hearing Request Application requests a lot coverage variance for the property on 449 East College Street. Due to the limited dimensions of the lot, we are requesting approval to extend lot coverage from 30% to 38.5%. Enclosed is a site plan and property map detailing the width and depth of the plat, as well as a proposed first floor footprint. We would like to build a 3,000 sqft home on the property, with a coverage footprint of 3,098 sqft. The lot dimensions are 50’ x 161’, with a total square footage of 8,050. To satisfy the BZA guidelines for variance, we intend to establish the existence of the following concerning the 449 East College Street property: 1. Practical Difficulties - The narrowness and shallowness of the lot make it extraordinarily difficult to comply with generally applicable regulations. AND 2. Unusual Characteristics - The lot is uncharacteristically small compared to other property in this neighborhood and zoning district, requiring a deeded perpetual six-foot right-of-way for ingress and egress through the adjacent property at 451 East College Street. AND 3. Neither the practical difficulties nor the unusual characteristics listed above resulted from any deliberate action of the landowner. Working with the Historic Zoning Commission, the new-construction will match the setback, scale, massing and rhythm of East College Street. An approved BZA Yard Variance Request would allow us to move forward with the desired plan approval through the Historic Zoning Commission Guidelines. We appreciate your review and consideration. Sincerely, Thomas Holden Jennings Lindsey Fournier UPDATED: AUGUST 31, 2017 Chart 2. Chart 2 Revised: 08-17-17 Page 1 of 5 Minimum Lot Minimum Yard Land Use 5, 17, 25 Requirements Requirements Intensity Ratios Maximum Maximum Minimum Lot Requirements, Minimum Yard Requirements and Maximum Gross Lot 16 2 Area Width Front Side Rear Height Density Maximum Minimum Minimum Coverage DISTRICT AND USE (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (D.U./Acre) F.A.R. L.S.R. O.S.R. (percent) RS-15 DISTRICT 1. Dwellings and other uses permitted 15,000 75[12] 40 12.5 30 35 2.9 none none none 25 RS-12 DISTRICT APPENDIX A - ZONING 1. Dwellings and other uses permitted 12,000 70[12] 35 10 25 35 3.63 none none none 25 RS-10 DISTRICT 1. Dwellings and other uses permitted 10,000 65[12] 35 10 25 35 4.4 none none none 25 APP A:293 RS-8 DISTRICT 1. Dwellings and other uses permitted 8,000 55[12] 30[1] 5[10] 20 35 5.4 none none none 30 RS-6 DISTRICT 1. Dwellings and other uses permitted 6,000 50[12] 35[FN] 5 20 35 7.2 none none none 50 RS-4 DISTRICT 1. Dwellings and other uses permitted 4,000 40[12] 25 [1] 5 20 35 10.8 none none none 40 Land Use Intensity Ratios. R-D DISTRICT 1. Single-family detached dwellings and [12] [1] [10] other uses permitted except 8,000 55 30 5 25 35 5.4 none none none 30 2. Two-family dwellings 8,000 55[12] 30 [1] 5 [10] 25 35 10.9 none none none 30 3. Single-family with zero lot line7 4,000 27[12] 30 10[7] 25 35 10.9 0.3 0.48 0.7 none RM-12 DISTRICT 1. Single-family detached dwellings and [12] [1] [10] other uses permitted except 7,500 50 30 5 25 35 5.8 none none none 30 2. Two-family dwellings 7,500 50[12] 30 [1] 5 [10] 25 35 11.6 none none none 30 3. Three-family dwellings 11,250 50[12] 30 [1] 5 [10] 25 35 11.6 none none none 30 [10] 4. Four-family dwellings 15,000 50[12] 30[1] 5 25 35 11.6 none none none 30 5. Single-family with zero lot line 7 attached [12] [1] [7] or detached 3,750 18 30 10 25 35 11.6 none none none none 6. Multiple-family dwellings FN [14] 50[12] 30[1] FN[3] 25 45[11] FN [14] none none FN none CHART 2  MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 Application: Z-19-028 Location: 2535 Middle Tennessee Boulevard Applicant: Mark LeMay representing Baptist Student Center Zoning: Multi-Family Residential (RM-16) Request: Special Use Permit for expansion of an existing Student Center 1 Request Overview The applicant, Mark LeMay with the Baptist Student Center, is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct an outdoor patio and arbor at 2535 Middle Tennessee Boulevard. The patio is 256 square feet in area and the arbor is 1,433 square feet in area. These structures will be constructed at the front of the property adjacent to the existing Student Center fronting Middle Tennessee Boulevard. The arbor will encroach into the required 30’ front setback; however, the Zoning Ordinance dictates that arbors are permitted to encroach into the required front setback. As such, no front setback variance is needed. The elevations and floor plan are included in the attachments of this report. The property to the north is zoned Residential Multi-Family 16 (RM- 16) and is used for residential apartments; the property to the south of the subject property is the Presbyterian Student Center in the RM-16 zone. Relevant Zoning Ordinance Sections Chart 1 of the City of Murfreesboro Zoning Ordinance allows student centers in an RM-16 zone with BZA approval of a Special Use Permit subject to Section 9(D)(2)(aaaa). Section 2, Definitions: Accessory structure or use: An accessory structure or use is a structure or use which: is subordinate to and serves a principal building or a principal use; is subordinate in area, extent and purpose to the principal structure or principal use served; contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of the occupants, business or industry in the principal structure or principal use served; and, is located on the same zoning lot as the principal structure or principal use served. Yard: A required open space on a lot between a lot line and a building or structure which is unoccupied and unobstructed from the grade to the sky, except for the following permitted obstructions: (B) statuary, arbors, trellises, and barbecue stoves; Section 9(D)(2)(aaaa): Student Centers shall be subject to the following standards in addition to the Standards of General Applicability: (aaaa) Student centers shall be subject to the following additional standards: [1] applications for student centers shall be accompanied by a floor plan which depicts the proposed layout of the facility, including the location and square footage of any area devoted to sleeping rooms; [2] areas for outdoor recreational use or outdoor group activities shall be screened or fenced in such a manner as to provide an effective buffer for adjacent uses; [3] parking areas shall be designed and arranged so that backing from the site onto a public right-of-way will not be necessary and adequate space will be available for vehicles to turn around on-site. An on-site off-street area shall be provided for 2  vehicles to load and unload passengers. Parking areas shall not be permitted in the required front yard; [4] the BZA may place limits upon the number of students who may reside upon the premises; and, [5] in order to assure compatibility of the student center with the surrounding neighborhood, the BZA may place restrictions upon the hours of the day during which outdoor recreational activities or other outdoor group activities may be conducted on the site. Staff Comments The applicant attests that the purpose of this project is to beautify the property and provide an area for pedestrians to have a place to sit and enjoy the collegiate community. Throughout conversations with the applicant, it has been suggested there would be outdoor musical events and ministry-based studies. Based upon the application submitted for BZA approval, the applicant asserts: the requested accessory structure will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties; the purpose is to have a comfortable sitting area adjacent to a major crosswalk; that no public service would be affected by the project; that the project will not have any adverse effect on any natural, scenic or historic property; and the project will comply with all additional standards within the Zoning Ordinance for student centers. The applicant has expressed that fencing would create an unattractive environment for the site. However, staff supports landscape screening along the northern and southern property lines to reduce lighting and noise pollution, which could be result from large gatherings. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Areas for outdoor recreational use or outdoor group activities shall be screened or fenced in such a manner as to provide an effective buffer for adjacent properties to the north and the south of the subject property. 2. The applicant shall adhere to all regulations set forth in the Murfreesboro noise control ordinance. Due to the possibility for outdoor musical events and in order to ensure compatibility of the student center with the surrounding neighborhood, the BZA may place restrictions upon the hours of the day during which outdoor recreational activities or other outdoor group activities may be conducted on the site. Murfreesboro noise control ordinance requirements for exterior sound limit and hours in residential zones, which is regulated by the Murfreesboro Police Department, are shown in the following chart: 3  Maximum Permissible Type of Sound/Activity Time Sound Level or Other Restriction Residential and Noise Sensitive Areas-Exterior (as measured from exterior of building) Exterior Sound limit (applicable 7:00a .m.- 10:00 p.m. 55 dBA (Leq) 1 to most sounds and activities} 10:00 p.m.-7:00a.m. 48 dBA (Leq)1 The applicant will be in attendance to respond to any questions the Board may have. Attached Exhibits 1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent 2. Site plan and floor plans 3. Exterior renderings 4. Arbor building materials 5. Site photos 6. Noise ordinance information 4  Letter of Intent for Special Permit 9-6-2019 Owner: Tennessee Baptist Mission Board Property address: 2535 Middle Tennessee Blvd., Murfreesboro, Tn. Property known as: Baptist Collegiate Building To whom it may concern: The Tennessee Baptist Mission Board request permission to construct an approximately thirty feet by forty feet patio and Arbor structure on our existing property. The purpose of this project is to beautify our property and to provide an area for pedestrians to have a place to sit and enjoy the collegiate community. We have worked with the Murfreesboro planning department team over the past six months to design a project that planning approves, and meets the standards as set out in the “standards of general applicability”, and the “ Standards for student centers “ of the city of Murfreesboro for special permit approval. Related to the standards of general applicability: (1). It is our intent, and we do think that our project will not have any adverse effect on adjacent properties, but will enhance the neighborhood, and will not in any way affect the public health or safety in any way. (2). As mentioned in our purpose, we think that our project will create a site for community enhancement as people have opportunity to sit and relax in a comfortable area next to a major cross walk of the city. (3). Being that this project does not change any entrance or exit to our property, we do not think that any public service would be affected by our project. (4). We think this project will only beautify our property, which in effect will not affect loss of any significant natural, scenic, or historic property. There are no such properties adjacent to our project. (5). Working with the city of Murfreesboro planning, and our architect, we have put together a plan that meets the standards imposed for our particular use Regarding additional standards as outlined in the City of Murfreesboro Student Centers standards, it is our understanding that standard (1) would not apply since no sleeping rooms, or any in door plans are part of this project. regarding standard (2), there will not be any athletic recreational events held in the area of the new project. There could be a small group activity from time to time. Our position would be that fencing would only create an unattractive environment for our community. Standard (3), would not be relevant in that all of our parking is located in the rear of our facility, and there would be no vehicle traffic related to this project. Regarding standards (4) & (5), Our ministry has been in existence for more than thirty years at this location, and we have never had any complaints about overcrowding or neighborhood noise issues. We are a Christian organization who highly respects the needs of others. We certainly would not want our ministry to be tarnished by any un appropriate action on our part. We have a full time minister on site who is very much aware of our responsibility to maintain civil order. We have included some before and after photos of our frontage to make you aware of an ongoing issue we are having with the city of Murfreesboro. With the renovation of the Middle Tennessee Blvd. project, we have experienced a dramatic change in the view of the front of our building. Multiple electrical boxes and other structures have sprung up on the easement in front of our facility. We are working with the city to see if they would move some of the structure closer to our property line, and not have so much right in our front door. The latest structure we have been made aware of, is the city has given AT&T a permit to construct a thirty feet cell tower right in the middle of our property. We are appealing to the city to please consider moving some of this structure closer to our property line.  It has been our intent from the beginning to beautify our property and make it something the residents of Murfreesboro will be proud to see. We would appreciate your approval of our project and would appreciate any help you can offer as we attempt to work with the city to move some of the structure that we believe has been poorly placed in front of our facility. Thank you, Mark LeMay FRONT OF PROPERTY FROM MT BOULEVARD FRONT YARD TO NORTH OF PROPETY NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY FROM REAR OF BUILDING SOUTH SIDE OF PROPERTY FROM THE FRONT OF BUILDING