HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2022 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketAugust 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
1
The Board of Adjustments met Monday, August 15, 2022, at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Anil Vira, Chairman; Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Frank Lamia; Donna Cook;
Ryan Baker; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Michelle Melton, City
Planner; and Allie Knutson, Secretary.
Anil Vira, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
Appointment of Board Member
Chairman Vira stated that the first order of business was to allow Ryan Baker (Alternate
II) to fill the vacant spot on the Board of Adjustments.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to appoint Ryan Baker as a full-time member.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Donna Cook.
Nay: None.
Approval of Minutes
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 18, 2022, meeting.
Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Donna Cook.
Nay: None.
Abstain: Anil Vira and Ryan Baker.
BOA 22.08 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Steve Cumbie with
Lanier Construction, Inc., acting on behalf of St. Lawrence Catholic Church, for a Special
Exception to allow the construction of a columbarium for property zoned R-2, Medium
Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is approximately 2.17 acres and is
located 370 S. Section Street. PPIN #: 40048
Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the case summary and showed a map of the subject
property. A columbarium is defined as “vault or other structure with recesses in the walls to
receive the ashes of the dead.” A columbarium’s usage is most closely identified with a
cemetery, which is defined in the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance as “land used or intended
to be used for the burial of the animal or human dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes,
including crematories, mausoleums, and mortuaries.” A Special Exception is required in the R-2
zoning classification to authorize a cemetery as an allowable use. The applicant is proposing to
construct the columbarium southwesterly behind the existing multi-purpose building facing S.
Section Street. The columbarium will be mostly shielded by the existing multi-purpose building.
The columbarium consists of four wall structures approximately seven feet tall each all around.
The wall structure consists of concrete blocks with thirty-six urn niches placed in the inner
perimeter facing inward toward existing landscaping. The proposed plans were shown on the
screen.
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
2
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 22.08, for a Special Exception to construct a columbarium
on the subject property.
Applicant, Steve Cumbie, stated that the structure will be made up of stone, marble, and concrete
at the rear of the church and that it is not a large structure. Frank Lamia asked if the columbarium
would affect the drainage, to which Mr. Cumbie stated it would not and that the church currently
has sculptures in that area now.
Chairman Vira mentioned a letter that was received asking where Ann Street was in relation to
the structure. Another member from Lanier Construction stated that the columbarium will not be
able to be seen from Ann Street. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, listed other
churches that have a columbarium.
Mr. Cumbie mentioned that there are good drainage organics on the backside of the church, he
did not foresee drainage problems.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing.
Ralph Anderson, 105 Kirkman Lane, stated that the drainage currently runs from the church to
his property and that it needs to drain elsewhere other than organics. His property is at the
bottom of a ravine, and he has spent thousands of dollars on fixing the drainage problem.
Donna Cook asked if the City had done anything to help. Mr. Anderson stated that several
Mayors and City Council Members had been to his property, but nothing had been done. The
City drain on the street is not big enough to handle the amount of drainage. The organics are not
absorbing it either.
Ryan Baker stated that he is familiar with the area and asked Mr. Simmons if the approval of the
Special Exception needed to be contingent on the City reviewing the drainage. Mr. Simmons
replied that the drainage would be looked at, but that the Subdivision Regulations do not apply to
this request and that fixing the drainage in an area this size is not something that staff can make
the Applicant do for a project this scale. The recommendation of approval could require a
grading plan to be submitted with the permit. Frank Lamia asked if an Engineer would be needed
for that, Mr. Simmons stated that a Contractor can do a grading plan and that the church may
already have one, but there is nothing structural about this project that would require a Civil
Engineer.
Ryan Baker stated that he did not think this project would cause much adverse effects, but that it
will beautify that area of the church. Mr. Anderson replied that more concrete is the problem, the
city drains are not currently working properly, and every bit adds up to make a big problem at
the bottom of the hill. Mr. Simmons suggested asking the church about using pervious pavers
instead of concrete sidewalk. Mr. Cumbie stated that the project area is small and is not creating
more runoff. Pavers with separation could be used for absorption, but there is enough ground
area with grass to absorb water. Mr. Anderson replied that they cannot handle any more water on
their property. Mr. Cumbie replied that they will not be changing the direction of the flow of
water, everything will be absorbed on the property.
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
3
Mr. Simmons reminded everyone that this request is for the use.
Cathy Slagle asked Mr. Cumbie if the church was agreeable to using pervious pavers, Mr.
Cumbie replied that the church had agreed to use pervious pavers instead of sidewalk.
Donna Cook asked if there was erosion at the back of the church. Mr. Anderson stated that they
cannot get to the back of the other properties, but that there is erosion down the hill, and it is
creating a hole in their backyard.
Chairman Vira closed the public hearing.
Frank Lamia stated that he would be in favor of the Special Exception if everything under the
structure, besides the foundation, was pervious paving. He believed it would be an improvement
from what they have now.
Motion:
Frank Lamia made a motion to approve Case BOA 22.08, the Special Exception to allow
construction of a columbarium, subject to the following condition:
1. The use of pervious paving materials under the structure, aside from the foundation.
Ryan Baker seconded the motion.
Donna Cook asked Frank Lamia to repeat his motion. Frank Lamia replied that all of the
paving area, except for the foundation under the structure, would be pervious. Donna
Cook wondered if they could correct part of the existing problem with this project by
diverting the water elsewhere. Mr. Simmons replied that he was unsure that the water
would not still run down the hill if diverted to the other side of the property.
Ryan Baker stated that they are taking up other things like a driveway or a parking space that
could be required to have by code to compensate for the water. There are already materials there
that are impervious like a sidewalk and there is also koi pond. You would be asking them to
redesign the entire site for an 80-sqaure feet.
Mr. Simmons reminded everyone that this request is just for the use and that the City has grants
to restore the gully.
Ryan Baker stated that there had been a motion made and that he seconded it. Chairman Vira
asked for a roll call vote and the motion to approve Case BOA 22.08, the Special Exception to
allow the construction of a columbarium, subject to the paving area being a pervious surface,
carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Ryan Baker.
Nay: Donna Cook
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
4
BOA 22.09 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, FST Section
Street Hospitality group, LLC, for a Special Exception to allow Hotel Use for
property zoned B-2, General Business District. The property is approximately 0.26
acres and is located at 158 N. Section Street. PPIN #: 112977
Hunter Simmons presented the case summary, the site was once a dental office, but is
now vacant. A map was shown of the subject property. A hotel in the B-2 district is not
permitted “by-right” in the zoning ordinance. However, a hotel is allowed on appeal to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment, subject to special conditions. Therefore, the applicant
has filed for a use appeal to allow for the hotel use on the subject property. Existing site
conditions were shown.
The subject property will be developed as a three story, 15 room hotel. In addition to
guest rooms, the first floor will provide a reception area, a guest lounge where breakfast
and afternoon refreshments could be provided to hotel guests, and an atrium area. The
second and third floors will provide guest rooms, some with adjoining suites. The rooftop
terrace is anticipated to be a bar/event space area. Presently, the developer is considering
whether the rooftop terrace space would be available to the public, available to hotel
guests only, or available on a more limited membership/club basis. Regardless of the
determination, operations would be in compliance with City of Fairhope ordinances,
including noise ordinance requirements. Subject to the results of geotechnical surveys, a
basement may be employed for back of house services such as management office,
laundry facilities and storage. Should a basement not be feasible, a first-floor room would
be converted to back of house services. The developer plans to have this as a full-service
boutique hotel concept and does not anticipate operating it as an “Air BNB” concept. The
plan provides for 7 on-site parking spaces. A site plan, elevations, and floorplans were
shown.
Buildings are limited to 40’ or 3 stories in the CBD. Elevations provided by the architect
show only the elevator structure exceeds the 40’ height limit, which has an exception in
the Rooftop Terrace section of the Zoning Ordinance. All other portions of the building
are under the 40’ limit. A Rooftop Terrace is not a “story.” However, a basement is
defined as a story within the Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, the addition of the
basement makes the proposed building 4 stories, which is not allowed in the CBD.
Within the applicant’s narrative, they mention converting a ground floor room to the
service area if the basement is not allowed. Removal of the basement in the proposed
plans would bring the plans into compliance with the height limit/stories.
The applicant is proposing a Rooftop Terrace. For reference, a Rooftop Terrace is defined
as an outdoor amenity area located on the roof of a building. A rooftop terrace shall be
accessory to the primary use of the building. Individually owned and operated businesses
or venues shall not occupy a rooftop terrace. Structures, excluding elevators and
stairwells, cover 24.8% of the entire rooftop. However, the same plan illustrates other
walls, fireplaces, and a “covered lounge” which are not included in the applicant’s
calculations. Structures on the Rooftop Terrace will have to be revised to meet the 25%
cap. If the use is approved by Board of Adjustment, the applicant will submit for a Site
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
5
Plan/MOP review that will be reviewed by the Fairhope City Council and Planning
Commission.
Staff reviewed existing parking in the vicinity of the proposed hotel. There are 8 on-street
parking spaces adjacent to the subject property. The proposed site plan would remove
two of those spaces to accommodate ingress/egress. The removal of 2 spaces and addition
of 7 on-site spaces results in a net gain of 5 spaces either on-site or immediately adjacent.
The proposed hotel is also across Section St from the Fairhope City Hall/Civic Center.
Public parking is available at the City Hall/Civic Center. Staff believes the proposed
project, in this location, strikes a balance by providing a non-automobile-centric design,
but also containing some of the parking burden on their property.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 22.09, the Special Exception to allow hotel use, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Proposed building is limited to 3-stories. Basement is not allowed without removing an
upper-story floor.
2. Rooftop floor plan shall be revised to limit structures to 25%.
Chairman Vira asked why rooftop terraces are limited to 25%. Mr. Simmons stated that a rooftop
terrace is essentially a fourth floor, but the CBD is limited to 40 feet and three stories. 25% is
supposed to be located away from the public right-of-ways to preserve a street view. There is no
cap for rooftop terraces on a one- or two-story building, only three-story buildings.
Ryan Baker asked how many parking spaces exist around the site currently and how many will
they end up with. Mr. Simmons replied that they are adding 7 spaces on site and removing 2 of
the on-street parking spaces. There are currently 8 spaces adjacent. Cathy Slagle asked about
overnight street parking not being allowed. Mr. Simmons stated overnight parking is not
enforced or penalized unless someone is lingering for a couple of days. We do not have anyone
monitoring parking or meters. There is some language stating that RV’s, food trucks, or
commercial vehicles cannot be parked overnight. There are no current conversations to change
enforcement of overnight parking.
Jay Watkins, Applicant, stated that the project had been started 18 months ago and he has been
working with Mr. Simmons, the Mayor, and City Council. He believes that the proposed plan
provides good use, alleviates parking concerns of street spaces being used with the 7 spots being
provided and being across from City Hall. There is also a possibility of valet to the parking
garage.
Frank Lamia asked what was anticipated for the rooftop terrace. Mr. Watkins replied that they
want to use it for an event or bar space, it could also be used for wedding receptions and
rehearsal dinners. They are also considering a membership for the bar, but that they do not want
to have a full-time bar.
Cathy Slagle asked if there would be any commercial space. Mr. Watkins stated that there was
no commercial space outside of the hotel aside from a giftshop.
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
6
Anil Vira stated that the concept was nice and promotes shopping and staying in Fairhope. Mr.
Watkins stated that they do not plan to have a restaurant because they want to push patrons out to
the existing dining options that Fairhope has.
Cathy Slagle asked if the main entrance was on Oak Street or Section Street. Mr. Watkins replied
that access was on both with parking and loading in the rear.
Ryan Baker mentioned that valet is a great idea to get people to use the parking garage.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Motion:
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve BOA 22.09, subject to staff’s conditions.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker.
Nay: None.
Old/New Business
Chairman Vira stated that there were three items that had been voted on previously but
had expired, so the requests are being revisited. Mr. Simmons replied that these items
will have a public hearing.
Public hearing for BOA 20.07, 900 Creek Drive. PPIN #: 21903
Mr. Simmons stated that this Applicant had been granted a 24’ front setback variance.
There had been three lots combined into one, a drawing was shown on the screen, at the
end of a cul-de-sac. The motion that was previously made was approval to allow a
24’variance to the front yard setback, subject to staff’s conditions:
1. Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Volanta View subdivision shall be re-plated as one lot.
The plat must be signed by Staff and recorded with the Judge of Probate prior to
the issuance of building permits.
2. Location of the underground utility shall be shown on the recorded plat
3. A 5’ drainage easement shall be included on the above-mentioned recorded plat
along the southern boundary.
4. A recorded 10’ easement granted to the applicant and lying south of the 5’
drainage easement shall be recorded with the Judge of Probate. Final language
shall be approved by Staff prior to filing with the Judge of Probate.
5. Coordination with the City of Fairhope Utilities Department prior to the issuance
of building permits.
6. Placement of a note on the subdivision plat stating that a dwelling will be
constructed on existing underground utilities. Any future structure must comply
with Fairhope Public Utility regulations.
7. Existing structure and utilities located on Lot 3 will be removed prior to issuance
of a building permit for new construction.
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
7
Applicant, JJ McCool, stated that he did record the variance the next day. Mr. Simmons
stated that are two things that need to be done with a variance, it needs to be recorded and
it needs to be acted upon. Mr. McCool stated that Covid pushed the construction back
and then the plans changed. The drawings are done and have been given to their Engineer
to do the foundation plan.
Ryan Baker asked if any of the seven conditions had been completed. Mr. McCool
replied that they have taken care of all of the conditions that had been made. They just
have not started construction.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed. Mr. Simmons added that no new comments had been received.
Ryan Baker asked if the list of conditions needed to be amended since they had been
acted upon. Mr. Simmons recommended leaving the conditions as is.
Motion:
Ryan Baker made a motion to approve BOA 20.07, subject to staff’s conditions.
Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker.
Nay: None.
Public hearing for BOA 21.02, 301 Magnolia Avenue. PPIN #: 15164
Mr. Simmons stated that two variances had been granted in the past. This property has
also been through a Site Plan Review, an MOP, and Tree Commission. One variance for
parking to be facing the street rather than being screened per CBD requirements due to
two garage facing Church Street. The second variance for the sidewalk width to be 4’
rather than 6’ in a small section.
Staff’s conditions of approval that were adopted were:
1. All sidewalks shall be ADA compliant and shall be a minimum of 4’ in width.
2. The subject site shall be limited to two garages that address Church Street.
3. Installation of sidewalks, driveways, utilities, etc. within the city ROW shall require a
ROW permit. Trimming and/or removal trees in the ROW shall be approved by the City
of Fairhope Public Works Department.
Chairman Vira asked why the variance had not been acted upon. The Applicant, Vance
McCown, stated that it was recorded, but not acted upon. Cathy Slagle asked if they were
ready to proceed. Mr. McCown replied that they would like to be able to and that a 6-
month extension for the site plan had been approved by City Council. Mr. Simmons
stated that City Council has the ability to grant a second 6-month extension.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
8
Motion:
Donna Cook made a motion to approve BOA 21.02, subject to staff’s conditions 1-3.
Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and Ryan Baker.
Nay: None.
Public hearing for BOA 21.04, 325 Pecan Ridge Boulevard. PPIN #: 270281
Mr. Simmons stated that two lots were platted with 45’ front setbacks in this subdivision.
This property previously had a variance granted in 2018, the current request is a 10’
variance to the front setback requirements and a 7’ variance to the rear setback
requirements. The original buyers who were purchasing this property are no longer
involved, but the original owner paid to have this case heard again.
The Owner was not present.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing and confirmed that no additional comments had
been received regarding this case.
Cathy Slagle asked if someone was going to build on this lot if a variance was approved
again. Mr. Simmons stated that he would let it expire if its not acted upon with the year.
Ryan Baker stated that there does not seem to be movement in the plans and asked what
would happen if the property was sold. Mr. Simmons stated that it would fall back to the
platted setbacks if it expired. If the variance requests were denied, it would also revert
back to the platted setbacks.
Chairman Vira closed the public hearing.
Motion:
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve BOA 21.04, to grant a 10’ variance to the front
setback requirements and a 7’ variance to the rear setback requirements.
Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Donna Cook.
Nay: Ryan Baker.
Mr. Simmons stated that there would be three cases on next month’s agenda.
Chairman Vira asked for information regarding any Applicant’s that may want to apply
for the vacant Alternate position. Mr. Simmons stated that Applicants should send their
applications to the City Clerk.
Adjournment
Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn, and the motion carried unanimously with the
following vote:
Aye: Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook, and David Martin.
Nay: None.
August 15, 2022
Board of Adjustments Minutes
9
Adjourned at 6:14 p.m.
____________________________ ________________________
Anil Vira, Chairman Allie Knutson, Secretary
SSCHOOLSTETTLE STMORPHY AV
CAIN LN
FE
L
S
A
V LARAWAY LNCity of FairhopeBoard of Adjustments
September 19, 2022
¯ETTLE STBOA 22.10 - Lot 4 & 5 Ettle Street
Legend
Roads
Parcels
Corporate LimitsZoningDistrict
Zoning Classification
B-2 - General Business District
R-2 - Medium Density Single-Family
R-4 - Low Density Multi-Family
Planning Jurisdiction
^µ
µ
Project Name:Shared Driveway VarianceSite Data:0.34 acresProject Type:Shared Driveway VarianceJurisdiction:Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:R-2PPIN Number:251503, 14015General Location:East side of Ettle Street, south of Morphy Avenue.Owner / Developer:Sheila HodgesSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
Prepared by: Michelle Melton
Approval with Conditions
1 BOA 22.10 Lots 4 and 5 Ettle St. September 19, 2022
The Applicants, Sheila Hodges and Michelle Hodges, are requesting a 5’ variance to the driveway
side setback requirements as well as a variance for the 3’ separation to the side lot line, to allow for a
shared driveway on the adjoining lots. The location of the properties are Lots 4 and 5 on Ettle Street. The
lots are vacant and the plan for Lot 4 is attached. The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density
Single-Family Residential District.
The Applicants are requesting a variance to the driveway side setback which would result in a 10’
side setback instead of 15’ as is called for when a driveway extends past the front line of the
principle structure. The Applicants make the request due to safety reasons and due to the smaller
than average lot size for R-2 zoning.
Staff supports both of the variance requests.
Figure 1: Property as seen from Google St View and City of Fairhope GIS (last visited on August 30, 2022)
Analysis and Recommendation: Variance Criteria
(a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property
in question because of its size, shape, or topography.
Taib l e 3-2 : Dimension T aib le -Lo~ and Prindple Structure
Dimemfon Min. Lot Are al ~fill. Setbacks Ma:x .. to l:al lot Mai:.
District or Al!lowed Units Per Lot\Vidth Front Rear Side Street CD\'Uage b y au he~ht
USJe Acre {CJPA) side str ud ure s
RIA 3 acres/-198,' 75' 75' 25' 50 ' non e 30'
R-l 15 OOOdJ -100' 40' 35' 10'11 20 ' 40% 30' •
R-la 40 OOOdJ -120' 30' 30' l O'b 20' 25% 35'
R-lb 30 OOOi.fJ -100' 30' 30' 10'11 20 ' 2 5% 35'
R-l!C 20,000dJ -SO' 3-0' 3-0' 10'11 20' 25% 35'
R-2 10 500 ,~ f i -175' n""~ !)_;
,., .i;;: ~
D·~ 10 '~ ~O ' 137% 30' •
b. Where a driveway is in th e side , and ex tends past th e from of the principle struct ure , the si de se tback shall be 15 '. Driveways shall not be
wi thin 3 fee t oflhe side lot line. The area between th e side lot l in e and dri eway sha ll be vegeta ted and remain pe r vious.
2 BOA 22.10 Lots 4 and 5 Ettle St. September 19, 2022
Response: The property, generally rectangular, being 50’ X 141.3’ and containing 7,115ft² makes
the lot smaller than the R-2 minimum size requirements of 75’ wide and 10,500ft². The lots were
created by an unrecorded subdivision according to the Baldwin County Parcel Viewer (Baldwin
County ISV3 (kcsgis.com). Last visited on August 30, 2022, and as shown below and attached hereto.
The lots are legal and non-conforming.
(b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an
unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance.
Response: Staff does believe the driveway side setback and separation requirement create a
challenge to building a home on this property due to the smaller lot size.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Response: The majority of the properties are larger lots that conform to requirements of
Fairhope’s Zoning requirements.
(d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for
a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
Response: Relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purpose
and intent of this ordinance. The shared pervious driveway should actually enhance the
surrounding area and contribute to eliminating run-off from impervious surfaces in the
neighborhood.
Comments:
Staff recognizes the size of the lot is substandard and unique and the extent of the variance
request is minimal.
Recommendation:
:., .. , .. -----..
3 BOA 22.10 Lots 4 and 5 Ettle St. September 19, 2022
Staff recommends APPROVAL of BOA 22.10 with the following conditions:
1. Driveway shall be made from pervious material and approved by the Planning
Department.
2. Driveway shall be split along the common lot line 5’ on each side.
3. Driveway shall be a maximum of 10’ wide.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as follows:
Variances: A modification of the strict terms of the relevant regulations in a district with regard
to placement of structures, developmental criteria or provision facilities. Examples would be: allowing
smaller yard dimensions because an existing lot of record is of substandard size; waiving a portion of
required parking and/or loading space due to some unusual circumstances; allowing fencing and/or
plant material buffering different from that required due to some unusual circumstances. Variances are
available only on appeal to the Board of Adjustment and subject to satisfaction of the standards
specified in this ordinance.
The Board of Adjustments is authorized to grant variances through Article II.A.d(3) which says the
following:
d. Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following duties and powers:
(3) Variances - To authorize upon appeal in specific cases variance from the terms of this ordinance
not contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
provisions of this ordinance will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit
of this ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done.
Prior to granting a variance, the Board shall find that:
(a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in
question because of its size, shape, or topography;
(b) The application of this ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary
hardship;
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and,
(d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose
and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or
building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
The Ordinance provides guidance for variance requests through the following criteria:
Article II.C.3.e.
Criteria – (1) An application for a variance shall be granted only on the concurring vote of four Board
members finding that:
(a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in
question because of its size, shape, or topography;
(b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary
4 BOA 22.10 Lots 4 and 5 Ettle St. September 19, 2022
hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
(d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose
and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or
building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect:
Article II.C.3.g.
Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section and which is not challenged on
appeal shall run with the land provided that:
(1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval
within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and
(2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate.
SITE DATA TOT AL LOT AREA, 1,090 S.F. PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPRINT: 2,2~5.F. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AREA, 8% S.F. TOT AL HOUSE COVERAGE: 44% LEGEND I I PROPOSED NEW c.Eowee DRIVEWAY 10'-I' i ~ 10'-0' I0'-1' GARAGE FROFO&ED 6UILDING OUTLINE ~e,' e,ereAcK LINE LOT 4 10' SHARED DRIVEWAY 61TE FLAN 5CALE::-------1" = 10'-0" NOTES, I. SEPTIC TANK, IF REQUIRED, TO BE DESIGNED• LOCATED BY OTI-IERS IF CITY WATER• SEWER LINES ARE AVAILABLE AT TI-IIS SITE. Tl-IE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR SI-IALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND SUBMIT DETAILS SI-IOWING Tl-IE ROUTING PLANNED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR SI-IALL VERIFY ALL SITE CONDITIONS, CODE REQUIREMENTS, SUBDIVISION COVENANTS, SETBACKS AND ALL OTI-IER MATTERS REQUIRED BY ALL PREVAILING AUTI-IORITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. 3. OWNER AND FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR SI-IALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF Tl-IE I-IOUSE ON Tl-IE PROPOSED LOT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SI-IALL BE VERIFIED BY OWNER/BUILDER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. S. FINISI-IED GRADE TO SLOPE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES INCLUDING ADJACENT PROPERTIES 35>' 5ETE3.ACK LINE LOTS 5!-IEILA I-IODGE5 LOT 4 ETTLE AVE, FAIRI-IOPE, AL 10'-0" PRELIMINARY: 01-15-22, 02-02-22, 01-12-22 PROGRE55 5ET: FINAL REVIEW, FINAL PRINT: 1C::. COj:'!:jrl9ht 2022 CI-IATI-IAM I-IOME PLANNING CCIHIA 1rIHIAM IHIOME IPILANNIINJG DAFl-!NE, ALAElAMA /25 U li>21i>-TI8':l 1b)(Ol lbxclhl21ili21.mt C(O)m Date: 01-12-22 Drawn 6~' R. STOCKMAN 6cale: S.P. 6heet Number : 0 Plan Number XXXX-A-1
From:PAT FOSTER
To:planning
Subject:Variance to Allow shared driveway. Case: BOA 22.10
Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:44:49 PM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
________________________________
We are the owners of 550 Morphy ave. Which is the lot north of PPIN #251503,14015.
As long as the variance request does not change the set back on the side adjoining our property we are ok. The way I
understand this is it only changes the set backs between Shelia Hodges and Michelle Hodges lots which we do not
oppose. If the Request changes setback on lot touching our lot we oppose approval.
Respectfully,
Patrick and Kelly Foster
Sent from my iPad
Susana Hayes, 161 Ettle Street, left a voicemail on Monday, September 12, 2022, regarding BOA 22.10. She stated that she had no objection to the variance requests being made by Sheila Hodges and Michelle Hodges. She believed the homes would be a very fine addition to the neighborhood and the whole community and wished them the best of luck.
SSECTIONSTFELS AVE
MORPHY AVE
S CHURCH STMINNICH CT
S BANCROFT STOSWALT ST
City of FairhopeBoard of Adjustments
September 19, 2022
¯S SECTION STMORPHY AVE
BOA 22.11 - 140 S. Section Street
Legend
Roads
Central Business District
Parcels
Corporate LimitsZoningDistrict
Zoning Classification
B-1 - Local Shopping District
B-2 - General Business District
P-1 - Parking
R-2 - Medium Density Single-Family
R-3TH - Townhouse Single Family
R-4 - Low Density Multi-Family
Planning Jurisdiction
^µ
µ
Project Name:The Plant Shoppe, 140 S. Section StreetSite Data:0.24 acresProject Type:Special Exception, Outdoor SalesJurisdiction:Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:B-2PPIN Number:20224General Location:Southwest corner of the intersection of S. Section Street & Morphy AvenueOwner / Developer:AdvisorsMD, LLCSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
Prepared by: Approve with Conditions
Casey Potts
---D -
1 BOA 22.11 140 S. Section Street – September 19, 2022
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a special exception variance to allow outdoor sales (lot) of plants to be located
at 140 South Section Street. The subject property is zoned B-2, General Business district. According to the
City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section A., the B-2 zoning district is “is intended to provide
opportunity for activities causing noise and heavy traffic, not considered compatible in the more restrictive
business district. These uses also serve a regional as well as a local market and require location in proximity
to major transportation routes.” Additionally, Article III, Section D.8. states the following:
B.4(h) Outdoor Sales Lot- retail use where a significant portion of the merchandise, either in
area or in business value, is typically stored outside during business hours.
The building is currently owned by AdvisorsMD, who currently use the site for professional
healthcare technology services. The applicant is requesting Board of Adjustments approval of
outdoor sales (lot) as a second use on the property. The applicant describes the outdoor plant
sales business as an outdoor plant store, where seasonal, outdoor/indoor plants, and high-end
outdoor furniture including landscape lighting can be sold in an outdoor garden environment.
Analysis and Recommendation:
An outdoor sales lot is an allowable use within the B-2 zoning classification as indicated in the
City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section B., Table 3-1 Use Table, with the approval of
the Board of Adjustment. The outdoor sales lot is not allowable by right, but only by special
exception approval. Further, Table 3-1 indicates the use is allowed “only on appeal and subject
to special conditions”.
The recorded subdivision plat indicates a 5’ greenspace easement (Slide 2114-D) along South
Section Street. Said easement was deeded to the City of Fairhope with Instrument 638362.
Recorded Plat
MORPHY AVENUE
(Eos'I" -110.00· /ff~.>
sa:r -,z ·slt>'E -110.00· Ac+
•:::•:::.• ,: ~-:: (°.•';(~1;~~ w" • .:;••,• :..;,-.:; :ft'~i •,:f•:•:::.~f.:•."f:,)
/1/o,,rl-,"n Al'U ~Atnll<h
LO T 2
f-._
2 BOA 22.11 140 S. Section Street – September 19, 2022
The applicant submitted landscape plans with their right-of-way permit application. It is currently
under review. The proposed landscaping improvements are shown below:
The below site plan depicts the proposed locations of outdoor sales. The green boxes are the
proposed locations of the outdoor displays. Outdoor sales are also proposed directly to the south
of the building.
Proposed Landscaping
Landscaping Images
LOT 1
5-WGeDXWOOO
STl'ilHGUGHTS
PlANT SHOPPE
CRU$HEO
&JioWAROCK
~PLAY T~LES
'Z'HT, rt--JS="O
WOOO.PL>.N'TU-
REf. Ill.AGE fTYP I
11-\',IG BOXWOOD
LOT2
6' Hf_ WOODEN FENCE
4 ARB OR PR ECED ENT IMAG E
e-wG eOXWOOD
15-EG URIOD E
STEPSTONES
EXJSTING TREE (TY?)
1c.-WG BOX\'IOOO
57--!::G URIO~
STEP STONES
H :GUl'UOP=
~WG 6 0XWOOO
EHTR'Y PCfiTM.-Rff.lMAGE ~
19-0io\lfBURfOROHOu.Y
15-COAAl Of\lf'T ROSE
NOTIS
LOCATIONS O F EXISTING
TREES ARE APPROXIMATE
EASED ON AER W. r~G!:ff'
5 ~?OJEN PLA NTER BOX PRE CEDE NT IMAG E
3 BOA 22.11 140 S. Section Street – September 19, 2022
Based on staff’s review, the proposed outdoor sales of plants will not impose on the surrounding
area, nor will it impose on the safety, health, or welfare of the general public. Staff recommends
that fertilizer or other odorous items be prohibited from sale on the property.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment APPROVE the proposed Special Exception for the subject
property to allow outdoor sales (lot) in a B-2, General Business Zoning District subject to the following
condition:
1) Outdoor sales shall be restricted to Lot 2.
2) Fertilizer and other odorous items will not be sold on the property.
3) An ingress/egress easement across Lot 1 and a parking agreement with the owner of Lot 1 shall
be provided to staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
4) The applicant is restricted from modifications of or sales within the 5’ greenspace easement.
Ingress/Egress and Outdoor Display Locations
i;
p
p
I DD •0 ,□ D •DD ~ 1,..__,_,_,.., ______ ..._ ~"""'=""=~
d
Article III Section B
Zoning Districts Allowed Uses
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 19
Table 3-1: Use table
Zoning District
Uses Categories /
Specific Uses R-A R-1(a,b,c) R-2 R-3 TH R-3 P/GH R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 B-1 B-2 B-3a B-3b B-4 M-1 M-2 PUD VRM NVC CVC HTD Dwelling Uses in the PUD District shall be specified based on a development plan according to the standards and procedures of this ordinance
Single-family ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Two-family ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Townhouse ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Patio Home
Multiple-family / Apartment ⚫
Manufactured Home
Mixed-use ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Accessory Dwelling
Estate ⚫
Civic
Elementary School ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Secondary School ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Education Facility ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Library ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Place of Worship ⚫
Cemetery
Hospital
Public Open Space ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Common Open Space ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Community Center or Club
Public Utility
Office
General ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Professional ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Home Occupation
Retail
Grocery ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Convenience Store
General Merchandise ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Shopping Center ⚫
Automobile Service Station
Outdoor Sales Limited
Outdoor Sales Lot
Garden Center
Service
Convalescent or Nursing Home ⚫ ⚫
Clinic
Outdoor Recreation Facility ⚫
Day Care ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
General Personal Services ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Mortuary or Funeral Home
Automobile Repair ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Indoor Recreation ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Dry Cleaner / Laundry ⚫
Personal Storage
Bed & Breakfast ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Hotel / Motel ⚫ ⚫
Boarding House or Dormitory ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Recreational Vehicle Park
Restaurant ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Bar ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Entertainment Venue ⚫
Marina
Kennel or Animal Hospital
Warehouse ⚫ ⚫
Junk Yard or Salvage Yard
Manufacturing
Limited ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Light ⚫ ⚫
General ⚫
Food Processing
Rural
Agriculture ⚫
Rural Market ⚫
Plant Nursery ⚫
⚫ Permitted subject to general ordinance standards and conditions.
Permitted subject to special conditions listed in the ordinance
Permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions
To the Board of Adjustments:
Currently the Fairhope CBD doesn’t have an urban garden where seasonal,
outdoor/indoor plants, high-end outdoor furniture including landscape lighting can be sold in
an outdoor garden environment. Previously this building was occupied by an attorney and is a
parking space. The building was purchased by AdvisorsMD to be their headquarters that
employs healthcare technology professionals as well as having an outside and indoor
showroom being a place that pleasing to both aesthetically pleasing to the employees and the
community. Both The Plant Shoppe and AdvisorsMD are owned by the Mckenzie’s who are
long time residents of Fairhope.
Many cities have retail establishments that are similar in concept such as Leaf & Petal
(Birmingham, AL), Boxwood (Atlanta, GA) and Mainescape (Blue Hill, ME). We have received
consultation from these establishments as well as being chosen by Proven Winners
headquarters in MI as being a site for one of their “garden partners” and will be utilizing their
best practices. The store will be located on the corner of Morphy Ave and Section St at 140 S
Section. The hours of operation are still being determined based on staff availability, but
tentatively we plan to be Tuesday-Sunday with varied hours on weekends. Likely 9am-5 pm on
T-F, Sat morning (7am-3pm) and Sunday afternoons (1pm-4pm). There will be seasonal times
where the displays are limited in the months of January and February as well as well as June
and July.
We do have offsite nurseries as well as a large offsite storage unit in addition to the
storage within the building to house materials for the showroom. There are offices within the
building that will not be accessible for retail sales and these are used for AdvisorsMD
operations. There is however a front glass “show room, where items and indoor sales will take
place.
The Plant Shoppe will sale seasonal plants mums, poinsettia’s, wreaths, topiaries, etc.),
outdoor accessory items hard goods (planters, vases/containers, bereavement and celebratory
gifst, etc.) and indoor plants. In addition of utilizing local growers, some examples of national
brands we will carry include: Monrovia, Jensen Outdoor, Proven Winner, Southern Living,
Kitchler Lighting, Oregon Wire, Napa Home & Garden and many more. We are looking forward
to becoming part of the Fairhope Business Community.
Thank you for the consideration,
Ashleigh L McKenzie
The Plant Shoppe
251-207-1119
Page 4 of 6
APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
Application Type: Administrative Appeal Special Exception Variance
Property Owner / Leaseholder Information
Name: ____________________________ Phone Number: ________________________
Street Address: _____________________________________________________________
City: ________________________ State: ________ Zip: _____________________
Applicant / Agent Information
If different from above.
Notarized letter from property owner is required if an agent is used for representation.
Name: ___________________________ Phone Number: _________________________
Street Address: _____________________________________________________________
City: _________________________ State: ________ Zip: _____________________
Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: YES NO
Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: YES NO
Variance Request Information Complete: YES NO
Names and Address of all Real Property Owners
within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: YES NO
Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception:
Please attach as a separate sheet(s) information regarding the administrative decision made or information
regarding the use seeking approval. Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you wish in your description.
This information will be provided to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as
much as possible your position or proposal.
I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby
submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax
Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application.
___________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name Signature
___________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable)
AdvisorsMD, LLC
Fairhope AL 36532
251-929-7088
140 S. Section Street
Bricken Mckenzie
8/15/22
□ □ □
Page 5 of 6
VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION
What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?:
Too Narrow Elevation Soil
Too Small Slope Subsurface
Too Shallow Shape Other (specify)
Describe the indicated conditions:____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
How do the above indicated characteristics preclude reasonable use of your land?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
What type of variance are you requesting (be as specific as possible)?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80):
"To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the (zoning) ordinance as will not
be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of
the (zoning) ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the (zoning) ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done."
BOA Fee Calculation:
Residential Commercial
Filing Fee: $100 $500
Publication: $20 $20
TOTAL: $
I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby
submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax
Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application.
___________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name Signature
___________________________________________
Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable)
outdoor sales request
________________________________________________
$520.00
Bricken Mckenzie
8/15/22
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
STRING LIGHTS
CRUSHED
BAHAMA ROCK
DISPLAY TABLES
2' HT. RAISED
WOOD PLANTER -
REF. IMAGE (TYP)
11-WG BOXWOOD
PARKING
6' HT. WOODEN FENCE
15-CORAL DRIFT ROSE
19-DWF BURFORD HOLLY
ENTRY PORTAL - REF. IMAGE (TYP)
STEP STONES
57-EG LIRIOPE
STEP STONES
ENTRY PORTAL-
REF. IMAGE
10-WG BOXWOOD
4-WG BOXWOOD
7-EG LIRIOPE
15-EG LIRIOPE
8-WG BOXWOOD
5-WG BOXWOOD
MORPHY AVENUE
SOUTH SECTION STREETPLANT SHOPPE
LOT 2
LOT 1
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING TREE (TYP)
NOTE:
LOCATIONS OF EXISTING
TREES ARE APPROXIMATE
BASED ON AERIAL IMAGERY
L1.0 8 5 5 . 5 3 9 . 5 0 8 6LANDSCAPE PLAN FORTHE PLANT SHOPPEFairhope, AL1" = 10'-0"SCALE:JULY 2022DATE:SPREUS
NUMBER
HART
CHRISTIAN
800TATEOFA A
A
AL
B
MA A ARRREGISTE
E E ED
L NDS C P CHICTTPERMIT SET ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONR
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
N O R T HquantIty botanical name common name size remarks
PLANT USE LIST
NOTE: QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE "PLANT USE LIST" ARE SOLELY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE "PLANTING PLAN" AGAINST THOSE SHOWN IN THE "PLANT USE LIST", AND
PLANT THOSE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE "PLANTING PLAN".
72 Liriope muscari 'Emerald Goddess' EMERALD GODDESS LIRIOPE 8-10" HT. MIN. 1 GAL., @ 18" O/C, FULL PLANTS, STAGGER CENTERS
15 Buxus sinica var. insularis 'Wintergreen' WINTERGREEN BOXWOOD 24-30" HT. MIN. 3 GAL., @ 24" O/C, FULL, WELL BRANCHED PLANTS, STAGGER CENTERSDWARF BURFORD HOLLY
38
Ilex cornuta 'Burfordii Compacta' 24-30" HT. MIN. 3 GAL., @ 3' O/C, FULL, WELL BRANCHED PLANTS, STAGGER CENTERS, WHITE FLOWERS
PLANTS: LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT PHOTOS WITH SCALE REFERENCES OF ALL PLANTS & TREES TO THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL IN WRITING PRIOR TO HAVING THEM DELIVERED TO THE SITE.
19
Rosa 'Meidrifora' CORAL DRIFT ROSE 18-22" HT. MIN. 3 GAL., @ 30" O/C, FULL PLANTS, STAGGER CENTERS
GENERAL PLANTING NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITE INSPECTION PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE CONTRUCTION IN ORDER TO ACQUAINTHIMSELF/HERSELF WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT QUANTITIES FROM THE PLAN AND REPORT DIFFERENCES TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVEFOR ADJUSTMENTS.
3. ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OR REFUSAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AT THE JOB SITE.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR REVIEW BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLANTING.A MINIMUM 48 HOURS NOTICE SHOULD BE GIVEN AND ANTICIPATED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THIS REVIEW.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL AMEND ALL PLANTING AREAS WITH 60% APPROVED ORGANIC SOIL MIX AND 40% APPROVED SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL PROPER DRAINAGE SHALL BE OBTAINED IN ALL AREAS. DO NOT BACK FILL HOLES WITH EXISTING SUBGRADE.
6. PLANTS SHALL BE WELL FORMED, VIGORUS, GROWING SPECIMENS WITH GROWTH TYPICAL OF VARIETIES SPECIFIED AND SHALL BEFREE FROM INJURY, INSECTS AND DESEASES. PLANTS SHALL EQUAL OR SURPASS QUALITY AS DEFINED IN THE CURRENT ISSUE OFNURSERY "AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK" AS PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERYMEN, INC.
7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CONTAINER GROWN UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
8. ALL PLANTING PITS SHALL BE DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL OR CONTAINER.
9. PROVIDE A WATER PERCOLATION TEST FOR ALL TREE PITS. FILL EACH TREE PIT WITH WATER, IF THE WATER DOES NOT PERCOLATEOUT WITHIN 12 HOURS, PROVIDE TREE PIT DRAINAGE. AUGER A 8" DIAMETER HOLE 36" DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TREE PIT ANDFILL WITH CRUSHED STONE. TEST AGAIN FOR PROPER PERCOLATION.
10. FRONT ROW OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMUM OF 24" BEHIND BED LINE AT LAWNS OR WALKS AND MINIMUM 36" BACK OFCURB AT PARKING AREAS.
11. BACK ROW OF SHRUB PLANTING SHALL BE PLANTED 36" OFF FACE OF BUILDING WALL. GROUND COVERS SHALL BE 12" OUT FROMBUILDING AS REQUIRED BY PLANT SPECIFICATIONS.
12. EXCAVATE EDGE OF ALL PLANTING BEDS TO 4" DEPTH TO FORM A NEAT CRISP DEFINITION.
13. PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE 6-8" ABOVE SOD GRADE.
14. ALL PLANTING BEDS AND TREE PITS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 3" SETTLED LAYER OF APPROVED MULCH ON LEVEL AREAS AND APPROVEDMULCH ON SLOPES.
15. GRADE ALL AREAS FOR APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE SODDING.
16. SEASONAL COLOR SHALL BE PLANTED IN FLOWERING STATE.
17. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING GRASS FOR ONE FULL YEAR FROM DATE OF WRITTENSUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. (REFERENCE SPECIFICATIONS)
18. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED AND TIED IN THE FIELD BY AN APPROVED METHOD. REMOVE ALL GUY WIRES AND STAKES AT THEEND OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD.
19. TOPSOIL: TOPSOIL SHALL BE FERTILE, FRIABLE, SANDY LOAM AND A NATURAL SURFACE SOIL OBTAINED FROM WELL AREASREVIEWED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND POSSESSING CHARACTERISTICS OF REPRESENTATIVE SOILS IN THE PROJECT VICINITYTHAT PRODUCE HEAVY GROWTHS OF CROPS, GRASS OR OTHER VEGETATION.- TOPSOIL SHALL BE FREE OF SUBSOIL, BRUSH, ORGAINIC LITTER OR OBJECTIONABLE WEEDS, CLAY, CLOTS, STUMPS, STONES,ROOTS OR OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO PLANT MATERIALS. SHOULD REGEERATIVE MATERIALS BE PRESEINT IN THE SOIL,CONTRACTOR SHALL ERADICATE AND REMOVE SUCH GROWTH, BOTH SURFACE AND ROOT, WHICH MAY APPEAR IN THE IMPORTEDMATERIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.- TOPSOIL SHALL NOT BE HANDLED IN A FROZEN MUDDY CONDITION. THE ACIDITY RANGE SHALL BE BETWEEN 5 AND 7, INCLUSIVE.THE MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SOIL SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING1 INCH MESH 99-100%1/4 INCH MESH 97-99%NO. 100 MESH 40-60%NO. 200 MESH 20-40%
20. STOCKPILE MATERIAL THAT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE CONTRACTOR, BE IMPROVED BYSCREENING AND THE ADITION OF ORGANIC MATTER AND CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES.
22. MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPE WORK FOR 30 DAYS AFTER SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAS BEEN PROVIDED
21. APPROVED PRE-EMERGENT WEED CONTROL SHALL BE SPREAD PER MANUFACTURER'S RATES AFTERALL PLANTINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, IN ALL PLANTED AREAS PRIOR TO MULCHING WITH PINE STRAW.
23. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS AND METHODS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INSTALLATION PROCEDURES UNDERTAKEN BY ANY CONTRACTOR AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR JOB SAFETY.
IN WRITING TO THE OWNER FROM THE PROJECT ARCHITECT.
-I_ -------, -----, --n---n---
-------............
/ '-, ~-------'-
/ V \
/ \
I \
I O I
I o I I
\
\ /' '----./ \ / ------" /
'----........_ __ __
I--::..i-:::i-:::i-_
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
\
0
\ >
/
0
<
\
I
\
I
I
t
X X XXX/2X/2 X/2X/2
NOTES:
1. SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR BED LAYOUTS.
2. ROWS SHALL BE STRAIGHT & PARALLEL UNLESS
BED AREA FOR PARTICULAR PLANT IS SHOWN
IN A CIRCULAR OR IRRREGULAR AREA, THEN
AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
3. SEE "PLANT USE LIST" FOR PLANT SPACING.
2 PLANT SPACING DETAIL
6"
PREPARED SOIL MIX:
60% APPROVED ORGANIC SOIL MIX
40% APPROVED SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL
LIGHTLY COMPACT PREPARED
SOIL MIX TO A DEPTH
APPROVED MULCH (LIGHTLY
COMPACT TO A DEPTH
DEPTH OF BED @ SHRUB -
DEPTH OF POT PLUS 6"
SHRUB
GROUNDCOVER
DEPTH OF BED @
GROUNDCOVERS
10" +/- (FOR 1 GAL.
PLANTS)
3G1G
NOTE: FOR PLANTING BED AROUND AND NEAR EXISTING TREES - ADJUST DEPTH
OF BED AS REQUIRED FOR EXISTING TREE ROOT SYSTEM. THIS AREA TO BE HAND
PREPARED SIMILAR TO WHAT IS SHOWN BELOW
OF 6" +/-
OF 2" +/-)
1 SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER DETAIL
25mm/1"100mm/4"3" APPROVED MULCH
80mm/3"
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
180mm/7"
LAWN
NOTE: TRENCH EDGE TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN
PLANTING BEDS AND ALL LAWN AREAS.
3 TRENCH BED EDGE DETAIL
4 ARBOR PRECEDENT IMAGE 5 WOODEN PLANTER BOX PRECEDENT IMAGE
L2.0 8 5 5 . 5 3 9 . 5 0 8 6LANDSCAPE DETAILS FORTHE PLANT SHOPPEFairhope, ALNTSSCALE:JULY 2022DATE:SPREUS
NUMBER
HART
CHRISTIAN
800TATEOFA A
A
AL
B
MA A ARRREGISTE
E E ED
L NDS C P CHICTTR
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call PERMIT SET ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION+ + +
W)I 10 S:!.I-
NCI
N SUMMIT STOAK AVE
NBEACHRDNBAYVIEWSTPOWELL AVE
KEIFER AVE
City of FairhopeBoard of Adjustments
September 19, 2022
¯NBAYVIEWSTKEIFER AVE
BOA 22.12 - 107 Kiefer Avenue
Legend
Roads
Parcels
Corporate LimitsZoningDistrict
Zoning Classification
R-2 - Medium Density Single-Family
Planning Jurisdiction
^µ
µ
Project Name:107 Kiefer AvenueSite Data:0.14 acresProject Type:Front & Side Street Setback VarianceJurisdiction:Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:R-2PPIN Number:79056General Location:North side of Kiefer Avenue, east of North Bayview StreetOwner / Developer:Edward & Dana HammeleSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
Prepared by: Approval with Conditions
Casey Potts
□
C -
1 BOA 22.12 107 Kiefer Avenue
September 19, 2022
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a building setback line variance to the lot at 107 Kiefer Avenue,
located along Kiefer Avenue approximately 200 feet east of the intersection with Bayview
Avenue. The subject property is located within an R-2 medium density single family zoning
district, which requires 35’ front and rear setbacks, 10’ side setbacks, and 20’ street side
setbacks.
The applicant is currently requesting:
·2’ variance to the front setback requirement.
·14’ side street variance to the side street setback on the west side of subject property.
The applicant provided a floor plan as a supporting document depicting the new residence. As
reported by the Baldwin County Revenue Commission, the existing home’s living area is
approximately 1,325 sf. However, the allowable buildable area created by the existing lot’s R-2
Zoning District setback lines creates a buildable area of approximately 875sf. As a result, the
existing home is an existing non-conformity.
Case History:
In 2018, the applicant requested variances to the R-2 setbacks
before the Board of Adjustments. As stated in the BOA 18.06
request, staff interpreted that the existing home was oriented to
the lot’s rear. The alleyway was interpreted as the front and
Kiefer Avenue was interpreted as the rear.
Specifically, BOA 18.06 requested the following:
·The applicant requested a 24’ rear setback in lieu of 35’
rear setback (existing home is oriented to the lot’s rear)
·6’ side street setback in lieu of the 20’ side street setback
on the west side of subject property
·8’ side setback in lieu of the 10’ side setback on the east
side of subject property
The variances requested in BOA 18.06 were approved
unanimously.
At present, staff interprets the front and rear setbacks
differently than originally presented in BOA 18.06. Staff
interprets the front of the lot and its corresponding setback to
be along Kiefer Avenue and the rear of the lot and its corresponding setback to be along the
alley. The applicant is currently requesting:
·2’ variance to the front setback requirement.
·14’ side street variance to the side street setback on the west side of subject property.
Front
35’
Rear
24’
8’ 6’
BOA 18.06 Setbacks
2 BOA 22.12 107 Kiefer Avenue
September 19, 2022
Analysis and Recommendation:
Variance Criteria:
(a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of
property in question because of its size, shape, or topography.
Response:
Though subject property is a seemingly a generally rectangular lot, examination of its features
and application of R-2 medium density single family residential setback lines (as shown to the
right) reveals a number of exceptional or extraordinary conditions due to the lot’s size and
shape.
As noted in BOA 18.06, the lot area of subject property is 5,906sf. The requirement for lot area
within the R-2 Zoning District is 10,500sf. The lot area of subject property is approximately 56%
the minimum lot size required by R-2 zoning districts. Application of R-2 35’ front and rear, 10’
side, and 20’ street side setbacks to subject property results in a buildable area of
approximately 875sf, considerably smaller than the existing home on the subject property. The
subject property with the R-2 zoning classification setbacks applied is depicted below left, and
the image below right overlays the same images on the subject property’s aerial image:
I
1
I
! ~]
I :> 0..
.. 1~4: __ ~ ~~ -1 ~~ i i
ii 3'
I ;.,
l
..
~ I 0
1 b 0
,_.,.j_ "'
3 BOA 22.12 107 Kiefer Avenue
September 19, 2022
The subject property’s topography is consistent with the nearby lots along Kiefer Avenue,
however the property’s size and partially triangular-shaped configuration appear to be
extraordinary and exceptional due to the lot’s size and shape when R-2 setbacks are applied.
The lot is only 56% of the minimum lot size required by R-2 zoning. It would likely prevent
construction of a comparably sized home to the existing homes within 300 feet of the subject
property. In the scenario of construction of a brand-new home, approval of a setback variance
would likely be submitted.
(b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an
unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance.
Response:
As stated above, the subject property’s lot area is 56% of what would normally be required for
a lot occurring within an R-2 zoning district. As a result, a significant portion of the existing
home is in excess of the R-2 setbacks and the existing accessory structure is vastly greater in
size than the 25% of the rear yard allowed by the R-2 zoning district. The full and complete
application of the zoning ordinance to the subject property only allows the existing non-
conformities to be maintained, preventing the renovations depicted on the supporting
documents that would otherwise be allowable if the existing home was located on a typical
10,500sf R-2 zoning district lot. A new structure would be limited to a buildable area of 875sf.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.
Response:
The west property line of subject property is at an angle that creates a triangular shape and
setback lines to a lot already much smaller than the minimum lot area of a typical R-2 zoning
district lot. The application requests the following:
· 2’ variance to the front setback requirement.
o Required setback is 35’, resultant setback would be 33’.
o The trellis in front of the home is not counted towards the principal structure
footprint due to its lack of roof.
· 14’ side street variance to the side street setback on the west side of subject property.
o Required side street setback is 20’, resultant setback would be 6’.
The proposed building setback lines described above are depicted in the drawing below:
4 BOA 22.12 107 Kiefer Avenue
September 19, 2022
The proposed setback lines create a buildable area of 2,263 sf, slightly in excess of the 2,185.42
sf allowed by the R-2 zoning lot coverage for the subject property.
(d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for
a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
Response:
Staff believes that a variance allowing the setbacks as described in item “c” above is warranted
for subject property. If subject property was a typical 75’x140’ (10,500 sf) lot within an R-2
zoning district, the requested renovations would likely fall well within the standard setback
lines and well under the lot coverage allowed by R-2 zoning. No change of use is requested by
subject application the approval of the setback variance described herein is not believed to be a
detriment to the public good and impair the purpose or intent of the zoning ordinance.
33’
35’
10’
6’ "'" 5ETB"°" ■ N 00• 04'43" W 136 . .24' r·· ~-"'· .... -=-1r !_ w ~ \_ ·~ .. J PROPERTYSE.~K ill "'
5 BOA 22.12 107 Kiefer Avenue
September 19, 2022
Recommendation:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of setback line variances as follows:
·2’ variance to the front setback requirement.
·14’ side street variance to the side street setback on the west side of subject property.
August 8, 2022
TO: City of Fairhope – Board of Adjustment
From: Ed and Dana Hammele
Regarding: Supplemental Information for Variance Request for 107 Kiefer Avenue
______________________________________________________________________________
We are requesting a variance in the setback lines for our house located at 107 Kiefer Avenue as
follows:
1. 2’ variance to the front setback requirement.
2. 14’ side street variance to the 20’ side street setback on the west side of subject
property.
We had been granted this variance previously on May 21, 2018, but were not able to act on the
project within the 365 days required. We are now able to move forward with the project.
Attached is a copy of the minutes from the May 21, 2018 Board of Adjustments meeting with
the staff recommendations.
Please let us know if you need any additional information.
From:Pauline Anders
To:planning
Subject:107 Kiefer Street request for variance
Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:33:34 AM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
That was a garden lot. Used to have many smaller lots behind FSTC property in this area.
After zoning imposed as an overlay on this already built neighborhood, City determined
garden lots could br built on. Before that, the house at 252 was allowed to build over more of
its lot, cause the garden lot counted as part of it.
Without seeing plans the Hammele’s have, I can’t judge what this will mean for this already
overbuilt area of our neighborhood. 14’ side set-back, 2’ front set-back.
Maybe they just want to tear down and use same footprint. But I don’t know that. I hope you
will not allow these variances if they make it harder for their neighbors to use their carports or
garages or if what they are wanting to do will obstruct neighbor’s view of bay. Variances
should not be allowed that could diminish the value of neighboring homes, and especially if it
diminishes their enjoyment of neighbors enjoyment the bay. Hammeles knew what they were
buying when they bought it.
Also, the alleys by this property are in terrible shape. With each rainfall sand and dirt and
leaves etc pour down the alleys. There are low places in alley that collect this dirt and debris
that makes it hard for pedestrians to navigate. Many times the dirt pours onto my property.
That issue has been reported to City, and needs to be addressed before anything else is
allowed.
And, if this variance is not going to case these problems, then I have no objections
Thanks
Pauline Anders
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:Ferrell Anders
To:planning
Subject:107 Kiefer Variance Request
Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 9:19:37 AM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
________________________________
>
> It is difficult to determine the impact of this request without being provided with construction plans by the owners.
It would be much easier had we received this information from the owners prior to receipt of the official notice. By
the way, we understand from staff that an identical variance was approved 4 years ago. I don’t recall receiving a
notification for that so hopefully this request will be considered without the previous approval having any bearing
on this outcome.
>
> Since this parcel is so small, care should be given so as not to overbuild more than the existing structure. Access
along alley for utility and city services should be of utmost concern as well. Bay views from homes to east should be
a very important consideration.
>
> Ferrell Anders
From:Lynn Yonge
To:planning
Subject:Case: BOA 22.12, 107 Kiefer Ave
Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 9:40:25 AM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
This email is being sent to formally object to the setback variances requested for 107 Kiefer
Ave. We have lived at 111 Kiefer Ave. for over 25 years. During that time, we have witnessed
and experienced the difficulty both residents and workers have in using the service alleys in
this neighborhood.
During hurricane repairs, construction projects, automobile service calls and trash pick-up, the
narrow width of the alley is an inconvenience for large trucks. Even residents in automobiles
are challenged by the existing narrow alley width during daily ingress and egress from their
homes. This can be easily seen in the infrequent use of the north segment of the alley in
question. Because of buildings and attachments built along the west side of the alley in the
last century, the only practical access for vehicles of large size is through the southern portion
of the alley in question.
Although we are sympathetic with our neighbor's request to enlarge their home, the property
they own was originally designated a "garden lot" by original Fairhope plat maps. It was never
intended as a homesite. It was too small. The property owners have lived on the site for
several years. If they desire additional space, they can consider building a second story.
In addition, the homes lining Kiefer Ave are all set back, by original founders' design, to allow
neighbor views of Mobile Bay and the bluff. We do not feel extending the front setback
forward is necessary.
We oppose granting either of these variances.
Lynn E. Yonge, MD, FAAFP, FAWM
Wilderness Medicine Director
University of South Alabama Emergency Medicine
405 North Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Office: 251-990-8860
Cell: 251-610-1895
Kelly and Elizabeth McGriff
109 Kiefer Avenue
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
September 9, 2022
Via electronic mail only to planning@fairhopeal.gov
City of Fairhope
Post Office Box 429
Fairhope, Alabama 36533
Re: Request: Front and Side Street Setback Variances
Case: BOA 22.12
Applicants: Edward and Dana Hammele
Property Location: 107 Kiefer Avenue
Dear Board of Adjustment Members,
We object to the variance request for 107 Kiefer Avenue.
The founders of Fairhope designed our neighborhood with the good of the community in
mind. The large setbacks and right of ways were done intentionally, creating an environment
where multiple homes have a bay view as you move up the streets that run perpendicular to the
bay. The lot in question was created as a “garden lot” and is not a full-sized downtown Fairhope
lot for this very reason.
The owners of the existing house were educated buyers. Mr. Hammele is the president of
a local bank. Mrs. Hammele is a realtor. They knowingly purchased an existing house on a “garden
lot” for a lower price than a full-sized lot. They rented this home to tenants before making it their
primary residence. While the property owner must demonstrate a hardship based on the size,
shape, and topography of a lot, one cannot create their own hardship simply because they want to
enlarge the footprint of their existing home. One may not receive a variance for a har dship they
create themselves. Additionally, they are and were aware of all setback requirements. They have
purchased and sold other properties in the bluff area as investments.
Further, the alleyway encroachment creates a serious safety issue. In its current condition,
Mr. Cortinas has already told us that upgrades and improvements to the electrical poles in the alley
are needed. If city electrical and garbage trucks as well as fire trucks are expected to use this alley,
we must consider the setbacks a necessary safety requirement.
As longtime residents of Fairhope and the Eastern Shore, we must remember the
importance of our southern cottage vernacular and the space we have both cre ated and
protected. The streets and lots were created to build a sense of community with porches and
neighbors walking. As our town grows and older structures are replaced, it is important to maintain
the integrity and characteristics we all love. Other towns and communities work hard to create the
New Urbanist atmosphere that we have inherited.
Yours Very Truly,
/s/ Kelly A. McGriff
/s/ Elizabeth B. McGriff
109 Kiefer Avenue, Fairhope