Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division II Public Hearing – August 14, 2018
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division II Public Hearing – August 14, 2018
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division II, convened a public hearing on August 14, 2018, at 6:00 PM. Chairperson Mark Young presided, with board members Lee Sha Ruder, Margaret Banning, Mary Kelly, and James Duke present. Legal counsel was Chris Steinmetz, and the proceedings were recorded by Ron Hampton. Staff from the Division of Planning included Heather Stephens, Larry Callaway, Robert Eulenh, Christopher Myers, and Paige Story. The hearing addressed multiple petitions for variances, including continuances, expedited approvals, and two contested denials.
Special Requests & Continuances
- 2018 DV2024 (4217 Graceland Avenue): Continued to September 11, 2018, without additional notice, at the petitioner's request to address staff concerns.
- 2018 DV2021 (3924 & 4002 West Washington Street): Continued to September 11, 2018, without additional notice, at the petitioner's request to finalize neighbor commitments.
- 2018 DV2020 (1810 Barth Avenue): Amended to revert to a five-foot front setback from Pleasant Run Parkway; moved to the expedited docket with staff support and no neighborhood opposition.
- 2018 DV2028 (2019-2029 North College): Continued to September 11, 2018, without additional notice.
- 2018 DV2026 (3155 Bonham Drive): Continued to September 11, 2018, with additional notice, to allow the petitioner to satisfy legal notice requirements.
- 2018 UV2020 (433 North Bradley Avenue): Continued to September 11, 2018, with additional notice.
- 2018 DV2013 (907 South State Avenue): Withdrawn; acknowledged by the board.
- 2018 UV2017 and UV2018: Automatic continuances filed by registered neighborhood organizations to September 11, 2018; acknowledged.
- 2018 DV2022 (525 North Temple Avenue): Continued to September 11, 2018, without additional notice, to accommodate an interpreter.
Expedited Docket Approvals
Three petitions were approved unanimously (5-0) on the expedited docket:
- 2018 DV2025 (4635 East 75th Street): Variance to allow an in-ground pool and spa in the front yard due to the orientation of the house. Approved.
- 2018 UV2012 (1323-1329 Southeast Street): Variance of use and development standards to legally establish a two-family dwelling and detached garage. Approved.
- 2018 UV2019 (1917-1921 Prospect Street): Variance of use to construct three townhome units with detached garages in a commercially zoned area. Approved.
- 2018 DV2020 (1810 Barth Avenue): Variance for a garage addition with a five-foot front setback from Pleasant Run Parkway. Approved after amendment.
Public Comments & Testimony
2018 UV2004 (1302 East Stop 11 Road, Nail Salon):
- David Rutherford (petitioner's attorney): Argued that the proposed nail salon would improve a deteriorating residential property, provide on-site parking to eliminate dangerous street parking, and that the business owner would live on site. He emphasized the property's proximity to commercial zoning and the need for a variance to allow a viable use.
- James Fisher (neighbor, 7916 South Oak Drive): Opposed the petition, citing traffic safety concerns on Stop 11 Road and Oak Drive, including a recent pedestrian fatality and motorcyclist accident. He stated that adding a business would worsen conditions and that the neighborhood has historically opposed commercial encroachment.
- Councilor John Westler (District 24): Opposed the petition, reporting that after door-to-door conversations, residents feared that approval would lead to further commercial development. He noted the area is designated residential and that the existing buffer (fence) should be maintained.
Discussion Items
2018 UV2004 (1302 East Stop 11 Road) – Denied: The petitioner requested a variance of use and development standards to operate a nail/pedicure salon in the garage and breezeway with a future expansion and parking lot. Staff recommended denial, citing inconsistency with the US 31 South Madison Corridor Plan (recommending single-family residential), failure to meet home-occupation requirements (owner not living on site, excessive square footage), and potential precedent for commercial encroachment. The petitioner offered commitments (owner majority-owner resident, removal of sign request) but the board voted 5-0 to deny after hearing testimony from neighbors and the councilor.
2018 DV2027 (7931 West 10th Street) – Denied: The petitioner sought a variance to reduce the landscape front yard from 10 feet to 5 feet for a 10,000-square-foot retail store. Staff recommended denial, stating the reduction would not allow adequate landscaping and that the site could function with the required setback. The petitioner argued operational needs and noted a neighboring gas station had similar variance. The board voted 5-0 to deny.
Key Outcomes
- Approvals: Three expedited petitions approved unanimously (5-0).
- Denials: Two contested petitions denied unanimously (5-0): 2018 UV2004 (nail salon) and 2018 DV2027 (landscape setback).
- Continuances: Multiple petitions continued to September 11, 2018, with or without additional notice.
- Findings of Fact: The board adopted findings of fact for previously denied petitions 2018 UV1013 and 2018 UV3015 (from June 12 hearing), with board member James Duke dissenting on those decisions.
Meeting Transcript
Needed to fill out a tennis lips you just walked in after now. I have heard mine on the volume. As opposed to your other petition. Hey, everybody, how do you question? Okay. Well, okay, the time is a decision, but I'm not going to record the line. Called order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division Two. I am Mark Young, Chairperson of Division Two. The other board members present are Lee Sha Ruder and Margaret Banning to my left, and Mary Kelly and James Duke to my right. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Recording these proceedings today is Ron Hampton. Staff members present today from the division of planning are Heather Stephens, Senior Specialist and Secretary to the Board. Larry Callaway, Principal Planner Two, Robert Eulenh, Senior Planner, Christopher Myers, Senior Planner, and Paige Story, Senior Planner. Keith Holesworth is the current planning administrator. The board has copies of the zoning ordinance that will be incorporated, incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board. Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify. Petitioners and persons appearing in support of a case being heard shall have a maximum of five fifteen minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in support of the petition. Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in opposition to the petition. Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and a summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations and remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence of the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which will which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance. If the petitions have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedures, including posting of the notice signed on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like to petition continue to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing. The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of a parking area, and the dedication of rights away are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid. Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be approved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. Unless otherwise specified an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements. Failure to comply with any of any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services. A person may file a rent request to receive notice of the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board. The request written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number. Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary. Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited. Please be courteous and orderly at all times and please be sure cell phone rings are turned off. Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures? Yes, sir. Um page 86 it says that the petition has been continued to September 11th. Is that true? Which petition are you referring to? Um 2018 DB 2026. Yes. It uh withdrawn or dismissed. Oh no, it says continued request. Continuance was requested. That will be addressed during special requests.
openpublica.com