Board of Zoning Appeals

SPRING HILL MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, January 31, 2017 AGENDA 5:30 PM Call meeting to order: Stipulation of Members present. Consider approval of the November 11, 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes. General Announcement – The procedural rules for public comment will be as follows: The items will be taken in the order of the agenda. Audience members wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairman and will have five minutes to address the Board of Zoning Appeals. No rebuttal remarks will be allowed. 1. BZA 296-2016: Submitted by William Benedict for property located at 412 McLemore Ave. The property is zoned B-4, Central Business District and contains approximately .5 acres. The applicant requests a variance for parking. 2. BZA 308-2017: Submitted by Sawyer Land Surveying, LLC for property located on Depot Street between Golden Court and Whispering Drive. The property is zoned R-4 and contains approximately 10.99 acres. The applicant requests approval for a building setback variance. Concerned citizens Adjourn Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals TO: Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: Jon Baughman, City Planner MEETING: January 31, 2017 SUBJECT: BZA 296-2016 (Kissing House) BZA 296-2016: Submitted by William Benedict for property located at 412 McLemore Ave. The property is zoned B-4, Central Business District and contains approximately .5 acres. The applicant requests parking variances. Property Description and History: This property is zoned B-4, Central Business District, and is known as the Kissing House and Ritter Morton House. It is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of McLemore and School Streets. The proposed use of a juice bar is an acceptable use under the B-4 zoning classification. The future land use classification, according to the Spring Hill Rising: 2040 Comprehensive Plan is Downtown City Center. The house is classified as a historic property and therefore subject to review by the City of Spring Hill Historic Commission. The Historic Commission met on December 1, 2016 to discuss the subject property and offered the following comments and recommendations for the subject property: 1. The Spring Hill Historic Commission endorses the Variance and/or Special Exception request submitted to the BOZA the applicant, finding that Article IV, Section 5.23 and Article XIII, Section 4 of the Spring Hill Zoning Ordinance provide for Variance and/or Special Exceptions to the prescribed Off-Street Parking requirements, which may be “altered on an individual basis” in recognition that “specific circumstances attach to the property which do not generally apply to other property in the neighborhood”. The Spring Hill Historic Commission finds that requiring a parking area paved with asphalt or concrete, and requiring the standard ratio of parking for a retail business calculated by square footage of the structure, would result in the certain destruction of historical structures and character of the property, negatively impacting and deterring from the historic character of the site. 2. In regards to direct impact to this property and of recognized Historic Significant Sites in the vicinity, the Spring Hill Historic Commission finds that the proposed requests to the Board of Zoning Appeals do not negatively impact Historic Significant Sites located in the vicinity. 3. The Spring Hill Historic Commission requests that additional information be presented to the Historic Commission at the Building Permit or Site Plan stage to ensure any changes or additions to the physical form of structure does not negatively impact this Historic Site or Historic Significant Sites located in the vicinity. Request: The applicant proposes to operate a juice bar in the newer addition portion of the house with a customer service area of approximately 1,000 square feet and approximately 13 gravel parking spaces and a gravel one way drive aisle. To accomplish this the applicant requests variances from the minimum parking area requirements and paving requirements for non-residential parking areas found in Article IV, General Provisions, Section 5, Parking Requirements, of the City’s zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance requires approximately 20 spaces and that the lot/spaces be paved with asphalt or concrete. Findings: The findings below are required to be made by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Annotated Code and the City of Spring Hill Subdivision Regulations. 1.16(1) – The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public good. Staff finds that granting the proposed variance is not substantially detrimental to the public good. 1.16(2) – The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other properties. Staff finds that the conditions upon which these variances are requested are not unique to this property. There are other instances, in the city, where sufficient parking cannot be accommodated on a particular lot. Further, there is no unique condition existing at the site whereas to require a gravel lot rather than a paved lot. 1.16(3) – Where, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment of these regulations or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship would result. Staff finds that the property does not impose any specific limitations, topographical or otherwise, that results in practical difficulties or undue hardship. The property serves the current use, a single family house, adequately. 1.16(4) – The variance will be consistent with the general community character of the subdivision. Staff finds that the issuance of the requested variances will result in a use that is consistent with the surrounding land uses and the current zoning of the property, B-4. The area is a mix of residences and businesses; some of which are businesses located in single family dwellings. 1.16(5) – The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, City Road or Major Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Spring Hill. Staff finds that the proposed variance will not vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan city road or major thoroughfare plan of the City of Spring Hill. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the proposed variances. Should the Board of Zoning Appeals find in favor of granting the variances and allowing fewer parking spaces and a gravel surface, staff recommends consideration of the following conditions of approval: 1. The parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9’x18’. 2. The one-way drive aisle width shall be a minimum of 12.5’. 3. The requests of the Historic Commission shall be honored. 4. The site plan and additional curb cut shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compliance with regulations. Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals TO: Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: Jon Baughman, City Planner MEETING: January 31, 2017 SUBJECT: BZA 308-2017 (Depot Place) BZA 308-2017: Submitted by Sawyer Land Surveying, LLC for property located on Depot Street between Golden Court and Whispering Drive. The property is zoned R-4 and contains approximately 10.99 acres. The applicant requests approval of a building setback variance. Property Description and History: This property is zoned R-4, High Density Residential, and is located on Depot Street. Surrounding zoning classifications are R-2, Medium Density Residential, and B-1, Office. Future plans for the 10.99 acre lot include 40 single family lots and construction of a local street. Request: The applicant requests variance approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for a 30’ building setback on lots 1, 38, 39 and 40. • Depot Street is labeled a collector street on the submitted plans; the Major Thoroughfare Plan indicates that Depot Street is a local street. • Local streets are specified to have 50’ of ROW in the Major Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant has not labeled the existing ROW on Depot Street. Staff believes the existing ROW on Depot Street is 40’; however, this must be verified. • The submitted plans indicate 37.5’ of ROW dedication along the subject property’s frontage. This amount of ROW dedication is unnecessary; if the ROW of Depot Street is, indeed, 40’ the total required ROW dedication required of the applicant, from centerline, would be 5’. • The applicant requests a variance to allow a for a 30’ front yard. Per section 5.4(2) of the City’s zoning ordinance, the required front yard for a local street in the R-4 district is 30’, making this variance request unnecessary. • Further, reducing the ROW dedication from 37.5’ to 5’ will eliminate the need for this variance. Findings: The findings below are required to be made by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Annotated Code and the City of Spring Hill Subdivision Regulations. 1.16(1) – The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public good. N/A. 1.16(2) – The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other properties. N/A. 1.16(3) – Where, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment of these regulations or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship would result. N/A. 1.16(4) – The variance will be consistent with the general community character of the subdivision. N/A. 1.16(5) – The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, City Road or Major Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Spring Hill. N/A. Recommendation: Due to the items noted above, staff finds that this variance request is unnecessary.