Board of Zoning Appeals
Town Hall, March 8, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Members present were Chair Bob Haines, Pat Aldred, Larry Felts, Larry Gardner and Charles Lawson. Staff present Counsel Dave Ausbrooks, Engineer Rich Woodroof and Recorder Cindy Lancaster.
The meeting was opened with Chair Haines stating the guidelines set forth for the hearing.
Board Member Lawson made a motion to approve minutes from February 8, 2005, Board Member Aldred second and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Chair Haines noted that the first item of business was in regards to a proposed Car Wash at 7211 Nolensville Road. Mr. Stacy Rawls, representative of the Car Wash, noted that he is before this board for the second time and is requesting a variance for an eight-foot wall surrounding the proposed building. He noted that they felt it would hide and promote crime versus deterring crime. He presented a drawing to the commission and noted it would be presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Engineer Woodroof stated that at the last Planning Commission and Board of Mayor and Aldermen these changes are being initiated to remove the wall and there would be a second reading and public hearing forthcoming.
Board Member Aldred asked if they would be moving forward with the landscaping. Mr. Rawls stated that this would be going before the Planning Commission and they would adhere to their requirements.
Board Member Aldred made a motion to grant the variance to remove requirement for an eight-foot wall. Board Member Felts seconded and this passed unanimously.
Board Member Felts stated that he would be recusing himself for the next item of business due to his relationship with the individuals that are making the request.
Mr. Ryan Workman with Alley and Associates Engineering stated that his client, Vern Patterson with Patterson Auto, at 7215 Nolensville Road, was here to request a variance to construct a building to cover an existing building and enhance the aesthetics with this site. Additionally, the request is to finish the floor elevation equal to the 100-year flood plain.
Engineer Woodroof, referred to Section 5.5.2 within the zoning ordinance addressing the existing building and showing the floor is in the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Workman was asked if the current slab was the same size as the requested building. Mr. Patterson stated that it is approximately three-quarters of the size. He stated that he would like to fix the driveway also. Mr. Workman reiterated that it would contribute greatly to the aesthetics of the building.
Board Member Gardner made a motion to approve the variance, Board Member Lawson seconded. Chair Haines noted that the existing square footage is 1,500 square feet, with an additional 1,000 living quarters. The proposed addition is approximate 1,800 square feet. Engineer Woodroof then noted that a sprinkler system must be installed if the entire building is more than 2,500 square feet. He further noted that the parking lot is in the floodplain and cannot be raised.
Board Member Lawson asked about the drainage ditch and requested the location on the map. Mr. Workman stated that it was not on this map.
Counsel Ausbrooks noted that section 5.5.2 B allows for flood proof or above 3 foot. This Board of Zoning Appeals may need to inquire about this issue.
Board Member Gardner noted that they would not have access to the building if it were flood proofed. Counsel Ausbrooks noted that you could have flood proof doors.
Mr. Patterson stated that he had spoke to the Corps of Engineers and noted that he could not move water. Board Member Gardner stated that the doors would have to be flood proofed to grant a variance. Counsel Ausbrooks stated that he just noted there were two options and inquiry should be made to see if both cannot be met.
Mr. Workman noted that the reason for the ordinance is for safety. In lieu of water proofing the doors, it could be reviewed to get the chemicals and other hazardous materials off the floor to eliminate the possibility of being swept away by a flood.
Board Member Gardner asked counsel if they were willing to flood proof the doors would a variance be needed? Counsel Ausbrooks stated that if they flood proof the area of building in the three foot they do not need a variance. Board Member Gardner stated that they might want to review the cost of this endeavor. Counsel Ausbrooks noted that it is not appropriate for this commission to advise applicants of options. They are allowed to withdraw their request. He further noted that a variance could be granted with stipulations. Board Member Gardner asked if the variance was granted, could construction begin. Engineer Woodroof stated no, the applicant must first present a site plan.
Chair Haines noted that under section 9.2.4 is the criteria for granting a variance. These were addressed and the vote was taken to grant the variance, the variance passed unanimously with four votes for and one, Board Member Felts recused himself.
The meeting was then adjourned at 7:45.