Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2022 Board of Adjustments Agenda Packet1 March 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes The Board of Adjustments met Monday, March 21, 2022, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Anil Vira, Chairman; Cathy Slagle; Frank Lamia; Donna Cook; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Casey Potts, City Planner; and Allie Knutson, Secretary. Absent: Mike Baugh. Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:01 PM. Approval of Minutes Frank Lamia made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2022, meeting. Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Donna Cook. Nay: None. BOA 22.03 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Cowles, Murphy, Glover & Associates, acting on behalf of the Owner, Robert M. Green, Jr., for a Special Exception to allow for a Medical Clinic Use for property zoned B-2, General Business District. The property is approximately 1.66 acres and is located on the west side of US Highway 98, south of Hoyle Avenue. PPIN#: 17231 Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the case summary. The applicant desires to develop the subject property of Fairhope Urology as a Clinic, which is allowed only on appeal and subject to special conditions. A Site Plan review and a Minor Subdivision review was considered at the March 2022 Planning Commission for the Fairhope Urology project. The Planning Commission approved the Minor Subdivision to create four lots and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Site Plan. The Site Plan is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on April 11, 2022. The Planning Department did receive a few comments from neighbors regarding drainage, but drainage is not something that would be reviewed during a Special Exception case and was reviewed during the minor subdivision case at Planning Commission. Frank Lamia asked where the water travels and where the line of the B-2 and R-1 zoning was. Mr. Simmons stated that the water drains to the southwest and there is an existing ALDOT drainage easement on the southern portion of the property. Mr. Simmons showed what was zoned B-2 and R-1 and where the buffer would be to protect the residential zoning from the B-2 zoning. The drainage easement is located on the R-1 zoned property that prevents it from being built on in the future. March 21, 2022 Board of Adjustments Minutes 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 22.03 for the Special Exception for clinic use for Fairhope Urology. Donna Cook stated that she was concerned about the parking. Mr. Simmons stated that they meet the parking requirements per the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Vira opened the Public Hearing. Having no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion: Frank Lamia made a motion to approve Case BOA 22.03. Cathy Slagle seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Donna Cook. Nay: None. Old/New Business Mr. Simmons stated that there would be one case on the agenda for next month. Adjournment Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn, and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Frank Lamia, and Donna Cook. Nay: None. Adjourned at 5:18 p.m. ____________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Allie Knutson, Secretary CREEKDRN SECTION STCity of FairhopeBoard of Adjustments April 18, 2022 ¯CREEK DRBOA 22.04 - 863 Creek Drive Legend RoadsParcelsCorporate LimitsZoningDistrict Zoning ClassificationR-1 - Low Density Single-FamilyR-4 - Low Density Multi-FamilyPlanning Jurisdiction ^µ µ Project Name:863 Creek DriveSite Data:Appx. 0.28 AcresProject Type:14' Front Setback and 30' Rear Setback VarianceJurisdiction:City of FairhopeZoning District:R-1PPIN Number:63531General Location:North Side of Creek Drive West of N Section StreetSurveyor of Record:Rowe Engineering and Surveying, Inc.Engineer of Record:Rowe Engineering and Surveying, Inc.Owner / Developer:Patricia NiemeyerSchool District:Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:DenialPrepared by: Casey Potts     1                                                                          BOA 22.04 863 Creek Drive                                  April 18, 2022      The applicant, Rob Littleton, on behalf of the Owner, Patricia Niemeyer, is requesting a 30’  variance to the rear setback and a 14’ variance to the front setback on Lot K of the Volanta View  Number 2 Subdivision. The property is zoned R‐1 Low Density Single‐Family Residential District.   If approved, the rear setback for Lot K would be 5’ in lieu of the required 35’ and the front setback  would be 26’ in lieu of the required 40’.     This property was considered by the Board of Adjustments in BOA Case 14.01. In 2014, the  applicant requested a 30’ variance to the rear setback and a 10’ variance to the front setback on  Lot K of the Volanta View Number 2 Subdivision. Due to the shape of the subject property, staff  recommended the Board of Adjustments approve the thirty‐foot rear setback and the ten‐foot  front setback variance request. The Board of Adjustments approved the variance request, per  staff recommendation.    Current BOA Case 22.04 makes a similar request. The difference is the front setback variance  request. Figure 1 details the proposed dwelling layout on the site in relation to the variances  granted in BOA Case 14.01. The proposed site plan indicates that the dwelling is 26’ from the  front property line. As such, the applicant requests a 14’ variance of the front setback, which is  more than the 2014 BOA variance requested.       Figure 1: Encroachment of the Site Plan on the 2014 30’ Front Setback    The Zoning Ordinance states that, “prior to granting a variance, the Board shall find that…there  are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in  question because of its size, shape, or topography” (Article II, Section A, 4.d.(3)(a)). As cited in  The Site Plan  encroaches over the  30’ setback approved  in BOA 14.01.  PROPOSED DWELLING ✓     2                                                                          BOA 22.04 863 Creek Drive                                  April 18, 2022      BOA 14.01, the subject property is oddly shaped, creating a hardship due to the dimensions the  property. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece  of property in question because of its shape.    When discussing topography, however, there is no hardship. As shown in Figure 2, the site  experiences three feet in total topography change over the entire site.       Figure 2: Site Topography    Since topography is not an issue, translation of any structure on site is possible. Figure 3 shows  an adjusted site plan that translates the proposed dwelling within the setbacks as they were  approved in 2014. The 20’ wetland buffer is scaled in as well.     •oo - NOS #107JJ \ \ () NATIJRAJ..~ .,,. ,.,.. .,. ___ / / /     3                                                                          BOA 22.04 863 Creek Drive                                  April 18, 2022           Figure 3: Adjusted Site Plan      For reference, building elevations are included below in Figure 4.    Figure 4: Building Elevations    Due to the fact that topography would allow for translation of a structure within the building  setbacks, staff recommends DENIAL of BOA 22.04. Staff does not support the variance to the  front setback of 14 feet. However, staff supports a variance to the front setback of 10 feet and  a variance to the rear setback of 30 feet, as originally approved in BOA 14.01.    Analysis and Recommendation:  Variance Criteria    R:IG:I-IT ELEVATION I I "-:::-=:'-'""" / , I / REAR ELEVATION     4                                                                          BOA 22.04 863 Creek Drive                                  April 18, 2022      (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property  in question because of its size, shape, or topography.    Response: The lot shape is not typical.  The lot has an unusual pie shape where a 40’ front and  rear set back meet each other over most of the lot. A portion of the area that does not have  overlapping front and rear setbacks contains wetlands.     (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 maintains agreement with the recommendation made in BOA 14.01.       (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and    Response: The triangular shape of the subject property, combined with the wetlands, is unique.      (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 does not believe that granting the variance would cause substantial detriment to  the public good or impair the purpose and intent of the ordinance.        Recommendation:    Staff recommends DENIAL of BOA 22.04. Staff does not support the variance to the front setback  of 14 feet. However, staff supports a variance to the front setback of 10 feet and a variance to  the rear setback of 30 feet, as originally approved in BOA 14.01.        5                                                                          BOA 22.04 863 Creek Drive                                  April 18, 2022      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 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:         6                                                                          BOA 22.04 863 Creek Drive                                  April 18, 2022      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.