BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
OCTOBER 8,
2007
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alex Kessler, Barbara Timmons,
Kelly Thornton, Nevin Taylor, Greg Faulkner, Harry McMannis, Richard Mickley
OTHERS
PRESENT: City Planner DeLong, Zoning
Inspector McCoy, Clerk Patterson, Dean Lautzenhizer, Josh Hoover, Brooks
Heminger, John Hart, Lesley Santa, Robin & Denis Blake,
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: Mr. Mickley noted a change
on Pg. 3, last line in first paragraph, the word “tone” should be “term”. There being no further additions or
corrections, the minutes for the meeting on September 10,
2007 were approved as amended.
AGENDA
ITEMS:
OLD
BUSINESS:
1. Requesting a variance for a
fence to be located 5.7’ from the City right of way on Creekview Drive
Fawn Meadow Drive as opposed to minimum of 25’ front setback required; R-2
zoning district; filed by Brooks & Kelly Heminger,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: No
comments.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Heminger addressed the
Board. He met with the Woods of Mill
Valley Homeowner’s Association and Mr. Hembree (Mr. Heminger’s neighbor). Agreement made between the Association and
Mr. Hembree was for the fence to be no more than 11’ from the sidewalk, 4’ high
fence, wood or vinyl picket fence, not a solid privacy fence. Mr. Mickley said since the City right-of-way
is 1’ inside, the setback would be 10’. Ms. McCoy stated it will be 11’ from
the sidewalk or 10’ from the right-of-way.
The variance request is for 5.7’ from the City right-of-way; it should
be 10’ from the City right-of-way. Mr.
Heminger presented to the Board documents from the Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Taylor requested that copies be given to
the Clerk for the record.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton moved to
approve a request for variance to be located 10’ from the City right-of-way on
Fawn Meadow as opposed to 25’ minimum setback required; R-2 zoning district,
with this fence being wood or vinyl, no greater than 4’ in height, a picket-style
fence, seconded by Mr. Mickley and the question put, stood:
Mrs.
Timmons noted the variance was requested on
Mrs.
Timmons YES Mr. Thornton
YES Mr. Taylor YES
Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Mr. Kessler YES
Variance
granted.
NEW
BUSINESS:
2. To hear a request for a
variance to permit 15.58’ front setback on Fox Fire Drive and 21.36’ front
setback on LaCosta Drive vs. minimum of 25’ front setback required in the Links
Subdivision; R-2 zoning. Filed by Maronda
Homes, Inc.
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy said applicant presented a revised plot plan at the meeting, so she’ll
reserve comment until after applicant speaks.
Mr.
Thornton asked about the address of
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Josh Hoover of Maronda
Homes addressed the Board. He
distributed a copy of a new proposal and noted it had changed quite a bit. In the original plot plan, the home would be
facing LaCosta. In a letter received
from Administration today, the 30’ setback on the north side of the property should
have been 7.5’. Ms. McCoy explained that
it was an oversight. Mr. Hoover said
instead of the original application where they would be challenging the two
setbacks on the south and the west side, 25’ to 15.58’ and 25’ to 21.36’, the request would change, instead of the 30’
on the north side, it would be 7.5’. The
letter stated that that would be the side setback, which would make the address
be off of
Mr.
Taylor clarified that the new request is to bring it off of
Mr.
Thornton said BZA Rules of Procedure says that presentation materials are
supposed to be made available prior to the meeting. He feels this is a significant change and
does not provide adequate presentation to the public for anything to be decided
on this issue this evening. He suggested
either withdrawing this request and a new correct plot be
submitted, or the Board accepts the changes and tables this until the next
meeting so that people will have a chance for input. Applicant agreed with tabling the variance. Mr. Hoover explained why the change in plot
plans. The revised plan was shown to him
last Friday and he noticed the 30’ setback was changed to the 10’ utility
easement, so he asked his surveyor to draw a different house on the lot.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton moved to
table the request for variance until the next meeting, Tuesday, November 13,
2007 at 7:00 p.m. (The City offices are
closed on Monday, 11/12/07 in observance of Veteran’s Day). Motion was seconded by Mr. Faulkner and the
question put, stood:
Mr.
Thornton YES Mr. Taylor
YES Mr. Faulkner YES
Mr. McMannis YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mr. Kessler YES
Mrs. Timmons YES
Request
for variance tabled.
3) To hear a request for a
variance to permit 7.6’ in height; 25 sq. ft., identification sign vs. 12 sq.
ft., 5’ in height sign permitted; to be located in the Legends subdivision; AR
zoning district. Filed by
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Mr.
DeLong cited 1139.13 a, b, c, d, and said Findings of Fact were not met, and
therefore, he is recommending disapproval.
He noted an email received from Mr. Morrison which indicated applicant
thought City was disapproving the sign.
City is not disapproving the use of the sign; just the proposed size and
height.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Glen Dugger, Attorney
for Vernon Morrison, address the Board.
The requested sign is an odd-shaped, large piece of limestone. When the original sketch plan approval was
filed for this subdivision, it was done with the thought that the access to the
Legends subdivision off of
Mr.
Taylor suggested eliminating some of the blank space at the bottom of the
stone. If you eliminate 2’, it will
bring it under the square footage by almost 1-1/2’. Mr. Dugger said they could reduce the height,
but he’s not sure where that gets them with the total square footage because of
its unusual shape.
Mr.
DeLong stated that it says on the final plat that
this property would be deeded, but it hasn’t been so far and asked why? Also, without a homeowner’s association, who
will be maintaining this property and sign?
Mr. Dugger responded that this property is part of the Legends subdivision
and this part of the property would be conveyed to the adjoining owner to the
northeast, the Sullivan’s. He noted that
part of the difficulty in working this whole thing out was that a street was
being put through in a place that people didn’t actually ever conceive there
would be a street. Mrs. Sullivan has
agreed to take that property and as part of that, it will remain open space. When it is conveyed to her, she has a
maintenance obligation of the property and the sign, and it becomes restricted
so that it won’t be developed.
Mr.
Thornton asked about the two additional property lines. He asked for clarification of the two
areas. Mr. Dugger said one is
Mr.
Thornton asked exactly where the sign would be located. Mr. Morrison said behind the setback lines
and behind the utility easement. There
is a light pole right on the corner.
Applicant will comply with setbacks.
Mrs.
Timmons asked what happens if Mrs. Sullivan no longer owns the property. Will the responsibilities be conveyed to the
new owner? Mr. Dugger said the deed will
include covenant restrictions, which will go with the property if ever
transferred.
Mrs.
Timmons asked about the size of the letters on the stone. Mr. Morrison responded the letters will be
6”. Have looked at 8” letters, but feel
that may be too large. There will be no
lighting for the sign, except for the street light located near the sign.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mrs. Timmons moved to grant
the variance to drop the height to 5’ and when cut down by 2-1/2’, it should
equal less than 13’ sq. ft., seconded by Mr. Mickley and the question put,
stood:
Mr.
Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner
YES Mr. McMannis YES
Mr. Mickley YES Mr. Kessler
YES Mrs. Timmons YES
Mr. Thornton YES
Variance
granted.
4) To hear a request for a
variance to permit lot frontage of 20 feet as opposed to minimum frontage of
125 feet required; SD-1 zoning district.
Filed by John Hart, Kimley Horn and Associates,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: :
Mr. Delong noted the unique circumstance with this property, however, he cited
1139.13 a, b, c, d, and said Findings of Fact were not met, therefore, he is
recommending disapproval.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. John Hart of
Kimley-Horn addressed the Board. He has
applied for a variance for road frontage.
As background, he said Wal-mart and Murphy Oil are looking to transition
this property from its current lease development where Murphy pays rent, to an
ownership situation. They are doing this
with similar sites all across
Mr.
Thornton asked why the relationship between Wal-mart and Murphy Oil was changing
from a tenant to an ownership. Mr. Hart
said the relationship is changing because it’s the desire of both firms to move
from this lessee renter’s agreement to an ownership agreement.
Mr.
Taylor asked if Wal-mart owned the other two sections in the area. Mr. Hart said they do not currently own them;
however, they may have at one time. Ms.
McCoy noted the lot on the left, going out of the drive, was still owned by
Wal-mart when conversations started with Mr. Hart this spring. This lot was available and would have made it
a lot easier for the Wal-mart and Murphy Oil
split. They actually created this
land-lock situation. Ms. McCoy also
expressed a concern that if this variance is approved, Murphy Oil will come in
for a sign since they would have frontage.
Mr.
Thornton said because the variance was for the property in question at that
time, does that convey over to this. Ms.
McCoy said that wouldn’t change the variance.
The
actual lot is .984 acres. Wal-mart as it
stands today is 23.9. By removing this
part, it’ll take it down to 23.61. The
.984 acres includes 25’ frontage. The
change in the parcel will go up slightly, .05 acres. Mr. Mickley asked if the
25’ includes the road or does it go down beside the road. Mr. Hart said that includes the swath.
Mr.
Thornton asked if this becomes its own lot, would anything existing in this lot
be in violation of the code. Ms. McCoy
said no, because the canopy does not count as lot coverage, just the kiosk.
Mr.
Thornton asked what Wal-mart and Murphy Oil are going to do if this variance is
disapproved and has it been disapproved in other communities? Mr. Hart said at this point there have been
no disapprovals.
Mr.
Taylor suggested making the lot bigger because 20’ is not much to deal
with. Mr. Hart said the property is
land-locked, so that’s not possible.
Mr.
Mickley stated Murphy is depending upon their lease agreement with Wal-mart for
their access. Mr. Hart agreed. A common access agreement exists that wasn’t
required to be put into place because they weren’t owners of the property at
the time of development. Once this is
approved, an access agreement, covenants, restrictions and easements agreement
will be recorded that will convey access from Wal-mart to Murphy for
deliveries, pedestrians, common parking, etc.
There
is a maintenance agreement that says you will keep your lot clean, shovel your
snow, fix broken light bulbs, be a good neighbor and not become a blight to the Wal-mart site.
Mr.
Thornton noted lot 5559, BW3’s, and asked where there access is. Ms. McCoy said it’s off the driveway. Mr. Thornton expressed concern for another
immediate left turn like the one at Starbuck’s.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton said due to
the nature of two commercial lots seemingly two, one lot, one tenant needing to
have access through the same entrance/exit, there is no reason why the Board
should consider letting this go forward to compound the problem. Mr. Hart does not see how the access that is
going to be conveyed to BW3’s impacts his request for the lot split, because he
is not proposing any new curb cuts or new access or cross access drives. Mr. Thornton said it will have impact because
their entrance point is off of the now-owned property of Murphy Oil. Mr. Hart hopes denial is not considered because
of the driveway of a neighboring property, because those are two independent
applications.
Mr.
Delong said from the Design Review aspect, Wal-mart has controlled both of
these properties on where access is and how many parking spaces they’re allowed
to have. Design Review is very concerned
about the amount of parking on these lots, but Wal-mart won’t let these people
park in their parking lots. A lot of
this has been self-imposed by Wal-mart.
Mr.
Hart asked if this variance is denied, what does it limit him to in terms of
reapplying for a revised situation, or could he possibly request to table and
go back to his client with some of the expressed concerns. He was told that he can come back and be “old
business” on the next meeting agenda.
Mr. Hart made a request to table the item as presented until the
November meeting agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.