Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] Good evening and welcome to the November Town of Smrna Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. We will start with the prayer and the pledge. If you please stand. Start with the prayer. Heavenly Father, thank you so much for bringing us here together safely today, for giving us the opportunity to be able to serve our community and one another. Um, thank you in advance for the discernment and guidance that you'll give us to make the proper decision this evening. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.

Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Vanessa. Next on the agenda, we have citizen comments. The I'll read this phrase here. The town of town town's public comment period shall be reserved for those citizens that have signed up to address a board or committee at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting pursuant to the town's public comment policy. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. Additional comments bas may be submitted in writing. Mitch, do we have any citizen comments today? None tonight.

Seeing no citizen comments, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. Approval or correction of minutes from the October 16th meeting. I assume you have read and reviewed. Do I have any comments or a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. We have a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I abstain since I was not here.

Thank you. Good. [snorts] Good. Next on the agenda is new business. We have a setback variance for Regent Homes for four lots in on Loud Later Court. Yeah, this is a front setback variance of 10 ft to reduce the minimum front setback from 35 ft to 25 ft on Loudwater Court for lots 115 through lots 119 and this is in the Blake subdivision. Um the developer wishes to reduce the primary front setback to 25 ft for these lots. Per the applicant, the allowance of this variance would permit for more functional rear yards and to minimize issues with grading and storm water runoff. This PRD allows for 25% of the single family lots within the subdivision to have a front setback of 25 ft with the remainder to have 35 foot front setbacks. Several iterations of this PRD have been reviewed and approved by the planning commission and council since 2017, resulting in various setbacks throughout the community, ranging from 25 ft during the early phases of the approvals to a mixture of 25 ft and 35 ft in the most recent approved documents. The approved final plat for Blake section 3 phase 2 depicts a typical lot details showing front setbacks of 30 to 35 ft for the principal structure when facing the street and a 25 ft secondary front setback for corner lots. While the PRD is approved for 25 and 35 ft. The developer is constructing dwellings within the section to have primary front setbacks of 30 and 35 ft which exceed the minimum of 25 ft. Section 7.08D 08D of the zoning ordinance detail requirements for variances not involving special flood hazard areas and they are detailed below. Section 7.080 of the municipal zoning ordinance lists general requirements for a zoning variance request. Those requirements and staff findings are as follows. The board shall not grant a variance unless it makes findings based upon

evidence presented as follows. The particular physical surroundings shape topographic conditions of the specific property involved, but that would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict application of the ordinance were carried out must be stated. Staff finds that the properties do have a unique circumstance in regards to the physical surroundings and topographic conditions as the rear of the requested parcels contain a rock face resulting from grading the site prior to development. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable generally to other property in the same district. The properties do not have a uniquely shaped lot as there are no easements and one front setback per lot that would be customary with any normal buildable lot within any other PRD. The variance will not authorize activities in a zone district other than those permitted by this ordinance. Single family dwellings are permitted use within this PRD but are to adhere to all applicable setbacks of the PRD. Financial returns only should not be considered as a basis for granting of the variance. The applicant has not identified financial returns as a reason for result requesting this variance. However, the purpose of this variance is to construct the dwellings and then to sell them after they are built. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property after the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant is the developer of the site as shown in a plot plan smooth for one of the lots we're looking at here tonight, which is lot 119. A regular home floor plan can fit within the setbacks as dictated by the final plat, but it does create a constricted re rear yard for the future homeowner and a steep rear yard based on the topography that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Staff finds that the variance requested could provide the applicant with special privileges denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in this section of the subdivision. The

requested 25 foot primary front setback for the requested lots would not be abnormal for a lot within the subdivision as other lots do have a 25 ft primary front setback. The variance is the minimum that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Staff finds that the requested setback variance may not be the minimum to make the reasonable use of the structure for the proposed use due to the grading and storm water flow in the rear of the lots not affecting any future development of the parcel. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurous to other property or improvements in the area. Staff finds that the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or interest to other property improvements in the area. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of public streets, increase danger of fire, endanger public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values. Staff finds that the variance may not have any these above effects. Variances uh number 10 right here is not applicable in this instance. And in conclusion, for all that, staff does find that these properties are traditionally shaped and do not have any easements present. A home could be built on the properties as the plat shows and meet all applicable setback requirements. Granting the variance would permit any future homeowner to have a more usable backyard space when compared to the dwelling meeting a 35 ft front setback. This subdivision does have other lots which have a 25 ft front setback. So the request is not out of character for the subdivision. So, this is these lots that are outlined are what we are looking at here tonight. It's more so in the rear of the subdivision. Most of it's already built out. There's a handful of lots that are left and these are the next five that the uh this developer would like to uh build. So, looking this is standing at lot 119 which is the furthest north on the

property. uh looking back towards those the remainder of the lots that are being requested here. This is just kind of stepping back further closer to that wall in the rear of the property. Then this is also the far back extent where that wall is at the rear of the property. Once again do the grading. Then this is a uh picture from the grading plan which was reviewed and approved by the public works department. here. The contours right here. This is the rear of the lot that runs through right in that area. Um kind of the way it's shaped infers there is uh water of sorts that may drain a certain way through the brewer yards, but uh there is no easements. And after talking with our public works department on this, they did confirm that if the home were to be built where it's shown on the plat, nothing as far as the water runoff or drainage would affect these homes once they're built. So, um, that is all that I have here tonight.

Thanks, Mitch. Can you Yeah, leave that one open. I'm just kind of curious.

Any questions for staff or any discussion that you have, comments? I've got one comment. So, why couldn't they grade on back beyond where they're at now? Is there any land restrictions? It's just looking like they came in, did the work, grading work, and now the houses won't fit. I mean, they'll fit, but they'll have a minimum backyard. Why can't they go back and do some additional grading to give them additional backyard and keep the same setbacks?

Would be a another review public works to go through that process. I don't know what that would involve since you do have such a steep rear [clears throat] yard. I don't know what disturbance that may have on the lots that have already been built south of the site. Uh if that would because this is all done on the front end before a site even gets developed. So, um, I don't know what the ramifications are of them going back and potentially redoing grading work out there. Am I seeing that correct on the I don't know what direction? Top versus bottom, but on Loudwater Court on the left side, is that a sidewalk coming around that bottom corner that's going up towards the new development?

There will be. Yes, there are sidewalks in there. [clears throat] Mitch, will will the proposed site have less of a backyard than the single family home that we see there or relatively the same? They're all part of the same section. They all have the same typical lot detail. They were built with the 35. Um who the builder was of those lots versus these lots. We have, I believe, four builders back in the subdivision. I don't know if that was a different builder compared to these lots. Um it could all be the same builder in which case you have multiple floor plans. Yeah. Just a matter of finding one that would fit, I guess. Um

and those lots on the lower end are already 35 ft. Correct. Which Okay. And they were built with that 35 ft setback. Yep. And it um looks like this this particular development's come in numerous times for setback request.

Yeah. So, originally it was approved back in December of 2017. Uh, permits were not issued on this site until maybe a year, year and a half later, likely due to the grading work that they were doing out there to get it in a condition where you're able to start building. Uh, so by the time April 2019 rolled around, we had a another iteration where the document, the PRD documents stated about 50% of the lots were to be 25 ft. Originally, it was all 25 ft. So in that you then introduce some of these 30 foot front setback lots and compared to the 25 ft. Um and then October of 23 we then have another iteration of it coming through with dictating 75% should be 35T front setback and then 25% of those lots should have be a 25 ft front setback. So you have as it progressed we went from more 25 foot to less 25 foot front setbacks. Throughout there is a a wide variety of these lots that vary in that 10 foot between 25 foot and 35 foot for those front setbacks.

And these are the really these are the final building paths of this phase it appears. Right. I have double check of this phase specifically. Yeah. It looks like they're leaving themselves an out to keep going up to wherever this is going cuz it's squared off versus a roundabout. So, I wouldn't say it's the last ones. It might be the last of the subdivision, maybe, but portion. It's possible there's more there. [clears throat] Um,

so so if I'm reading this correctly, it it shows we've gone from less of the approved 25 ft setbacks originally back in 2019. They brought it from 50% down to 25%. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. And do we know? Okay. Let's see. Presently, do they only have So, they've used about 45%. So, the way that reads, um, we do have a little bit of staff error on this to an extent.

Okay. Um the October 23 to present numbers exceed 25% of the 35 ft. If you were to build this out with the remainder 29inish lots that are left in the subdivision. If you put the rest at 35 ft front setbacks, you then yield about 37 and a half are still at the 25 foot front setback. So even if you were to build out the rest, then it still doesn't meet the the PRD documents what it should be. So we have a little bit of error on our end on that. So they would have gone over the percentage if they did that. Okay. Still still would anyways to

Oh, okay. Yes. basing the way they've been built. So truthfully, they have known about this from the jump and at least for the past couple of years. So, [clears throat] sorry. No, you're fine. I was just making sure we're any more questions now. Or if not, I can open up the public hearing to do that. [clears throat] Come back to it. Is there nobody here? Good. [clears throat]

At this at this time, I'll close the board of zoning appeals and open up a public hearing for anyone that would like to speak for or against this request. Seeing none, I will close the public hear and reopen the board of zoning appeals meeting for more discussion or questions. [snorts] [clears throat] So, 35 set 35 foot setback. There's multiple reasons for that, right? I mean, sidewalk parking, driveway length, I guess, is what I'm saying. Driveway length for um you're supposed getting cars not on the sidewalk. Four vehicles, right?

Four vehicles, which you need 35 to get there. [clears throat and cough] And I live in a neighborhood that there might not be quite 35 ft, so I know what that looks like. Um that's painful for sidewalk walkers or bikes. [clears throat] And it's odd that the two sites right next to it are also 35 ft already as it is.

Can you uh go back to the grading plan with the proposed contours? Yes. So they have plenty of property to the rear of those. It's just the issue is that the existing grading work will not fit. Isn't Yeah. what they want to do to have a adequate backyard ideal. The entire rear of this subdivision is quite topography challenged. It very steep. Hence the reason why they only went back so far and we that's we have improved open space. They probably don't want to do a retaining wall or anything just [clears throat and cough] natural grade. And then you get in the issue with steepness of the roads and stuff of that nature.

You know, in the big scheme of things, we've done so much in here. a few more lots isn't going to hurt, but I I'm hung up on the four cars. You know, I know that we're trying to move to that direction where where we have adequate because you can drive through some of these developments and you can't walk those developments because the cars are parked across the sidewalk. They're using the sidewalk for a driveway. So, I'm I'm kind of mixed on this, but I think um um path forward um you know, we we need that 35.

And I don't want to I mean, I know we we look at everything individually, each request individually, but I also don't want to set a precedent or don't know that we want to set a precedent that we we look at it. Well, I mean, we're black and white rules are the rule is 35 ft [clears throat and cough] unless there's some hardship setback or easements or whatever that I don't that we're not seeing right now. And there aren't any with with any of the the lots other than just not having and and there may be some people who just really don't want a huge backyard anyway. There's lots of those houses in around town. [snorts]

But yeah, that's that's very aggressive topography and I think the request to me makes logical sense because it allows better and easier water runoff and retention. I'm sure there's a swell they're building in the back of those lots for water somehow. Yeah. Yeah. It shows a swell there. Yeah. You can on that topography all the bees is the swell. Yeah. And again developed by the this is a flowing hardship created by the developer. Public works did verify. I had public works and look at this to verify it for us and they confirm that there's nothing that's affecting it as a result either.

Okay. You're swell. Any more discussion or do I have a motion? I'm going to make [clears throat] a motion to deny based on lack of hardship. I have a motion to deny based on lack of hardship. Do I have second? Okay, I have a second. All in favor of a motion to deny due to lack of hardship. Is that good enough for this? Okay, it is. Okay. All in favor of a denial of request due to lack of hardship. I I Any opposed? Motion carries. Please deny.

Denied. What? Next on the agenda, staff comments and or other business. Nothing else [snorts] for you tonight. Anything? No, it's all you got. Okay, I'll move to ajourn.