Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2021 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketAugust 16, 2021 Board of Adjustment Minutes 1 The Board of Adjustments met Monday, August 16, 2021, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Anil Vira, Chairman; Cathy Slagle; Donna Cook; Michael Baugh; Frank Lamia; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Samara Walley, City Planner; and Allie Knutson, Secretary. Absent: David Martin, Alternate I; Ryan Baker, Alternate II. Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:01 PM. Minutes • July 19, 2021 Motion: Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve the minutes with no changes. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Michael Baugh. Nay: None. BOA 21.08 – Public hearing to consider the request of Walcott Adams Verneuille Architects, Inc. for a Special exception to allow Restaurant Use for property located at 805 S. Mobile Street. PPIN # 61363 Samara Walley, City Planner, presented the case summary: The property is zoned B-1, Local Shopping District. According to the Zoning Ordinance, “Restaurants in the B-1 zoning district may be permitted only on appeal to the Board of Adjustments and may be subject to special conditions”. A new approval may be required if the ownership and/or scope of operations change. Special Exception requests are for the use, the proposed site plan is subject to change. However, the previous use was a restaurant at this location and the proposed restaurant will be similar in style. The applicant intends to keep the existing building footprint but intends to renovate the interior and exterior of the existing building. Staff recommends approval of BOA 21.08 subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised site plan illustrating compliant parking and tree protection prior to the issuance of a business license. August 16, 2021 Board of Adjustment Minutes 2 Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated that the Planning Department received one letter, one phone call, and one email with citizen concerns being rodents and noise/live music. The Board could make restriction of loud music a condition of approval. He also mentioned preserving the live oaks around the property that provide a buffer between the restaurant and the neighbors. Lights in the parking lot should be shielded from adjacent neighbors. Frank Lamia confirmed that a drive-thru would not be allowed in the B-1 Zoning District and that the applicant would need to come back to the Board if he decided to expand the restaurant past the existing building footprint. Cathy Slagle brought up the citizen comments about noise concerns. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated that the City of Fairhope has a Noise Ordinance of 10:00 PM. After that, the police would have to get involved if there was a noise complaint. The Noise Ordinance is complaint driven and the police would have to get a decibel meter. An agreement with the applicant regarding live music and noise may help alleviate some concerns. Tyler Hood, Applicant, stated that they are not planning to have live music, but that he wants to be a good neighbor and would agree to adding a condition to cease live music by a certain time, if needed. Chairman Vira asked what times they will be open, Tyler Hood responded that they will most likely be open for lunch and dinner and will stay open till around 10:00 PM. The food will be Louisiana Cajun cuisine. Donna Cook asked what type of lighting will be in the parking lot. Tyler Hood, Applicant, was not sure, they are still working on lighting as they want the parking lot to be lit enough so that customers do not trip, but he also does not want light pollution for the neighbors. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, added that the applicant has an engineer and there are shields that can be put on parking lot lights as well as a height limit for light poles. Chairman Vira opened the public hearing. Amanda Green Mitchell, 32 Bay Point Court: Ms. Mitchell stated that her backyard faces the restaurant and that she never had a problem with any of the previous restaurant owners, they were very respectful about noise. She did have concerns with parking lot lights as well as rodents. She had dealt with rodent issues in the past, but overall, the people in her neighborhood are excited about a new restaurant coming in. William Bruce, 163 Cypress Lane: Mr. Bruce spoke in favor of the applicant, he has known the applicant, Mr. Hood, for several years now. He stated that he has dined at his other establishments in South Louisiana and that they have good food with excellent service. Chairman Vira closed the public hearing. August 16, 2021 Board of Adjustment Minutes 3 The Board had no further questions for staff or the applicant. Motion: Michael Baugh made a motion to approve BOA 21.08, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised site plan illustrating compliant parking and tree protection prior to the issuance of a business license. 2. Live music ceases at 9:00 PM. Cathy Slagle was concerned with over-limiting the applicant with the current Noise Ordinance already in place and wanted to know if the condition of approval is necessary. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager stated that the enforcement with the Noise Ordinance is warnings leading up to fines and court. The condition of approval has more teeth because the use that was approved, would be on the line. Donna Cook stated that she thought adding that condition would make things complicated when there is already a Noise Ordinance in place. Mr. Baugh’s motion was not seconded, the motion failed. Motion: Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve BOA 21.08, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised site plan illustrating compliant parking and tree protection prior to the issuance of a business license. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, and Frank Lamia. Nay: Michael Baugh Old/New Business Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated that there is one case for next month’s agenda. Adjournment Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn, and the motion carried unanimously. Adjourned at 5:30 PM. _________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Allie Knutson, Secretary N SUMMIT STNBAYVIEWSTBLAKENEY AV POWELL AV KEIFER AV City of FairhopeBoard of Adjustment September 20, 2021 ¯NBAYVIEWSTBLAKENEY AV BOA 21.09 - 306 N. Bayview St Legend COF Corp. Limits R-2 - Medium Density Single-Family COF Planning Jurisdiction ¯ ¯ ^ Project Name:306 N. Bayview St.Application Type:VarianceVariance Type:Side Setback VarianceJurisdiction:City of FairhopeZoning District: R-2, Medium Density Single Family Res. PPIN Number:14512General Location: Surveyor of Record: Engineer of Record: Owner / Applicant:Richard & Julie ClayRecommendation:DenialPrepared by: Samara Walley - l. 1 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 The applicant, Robert Brown, is requesting a side setback variance to allow a swimming pool for the property located at 306 N. Bayview Street. The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Family Residential District. The applicants have provided drawings that illustrate existing and proposed conditions on the subject site. Currently, there is a single-family 1-1/2 story residence, a carport and storage. The applicant is requesting to situate a swimming pool 6’-6” from the property line on the north side of the property. The applicant has provided a narrative in which they note three hardships: 1. “According to the CITY OF FAIRHOPE’S ZONING ORDINANCE, Article III, Section C. Dimension Standards the Minimum Lot Area for an R-2 Lot is 10,500 square feet. The Lot consists of 9,483.65 square feet which us 89.7% smaller than the Minimum Lot Area required. If my Lot were 10.3% larger and met the 10,500 square feet minimum for an R- 2 Lot, I would have no difficulty fitting an 8’-0” wide swimming pool in my side yard without encroaching on the side yard setback.” 2. “…Section C. Dimension Standards also states a Minimum Lot Width for an R-2 Lot of 75’. The Lot is 60’ wide where it fronts Bayview Avenue and 74.5’ along its rear property line…” 3. “Third is the extreme uphill slop of the Lot. The property is relatively level from the west front of the house to the east rear of the house. Then the property slopes steeply uphill approximately with the final 35’ being approximately 8’-0” above the grade of the remainder of the property.” EXISTING SITE PLAN I I BLAKENEY AVENUE (R/W VARIES) 2 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 The site plan below indicates the proposed additions of the pool, wall along Blakeney Avenue and additional renovations. The Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory structures, such as pools, to be situated no nearer that the principle structure along side streets and behind the rear building line of the principle structure. The proposed pool is located on a street side and would therefore be required to align with the existing residence. Additionally, the pool must be located behind the dwelling. As shown, the proposed pool does not meet the accessory structure standards. The placement of a fence/wall, as shown, appears to be in compliance with our regulations. The proposed height of the fence has not been provided. Details would be provided at the time of building permit. The applicant has indicated that the slope of the lot would prohibit the placement of the pool in the rear. However, the proposed plan illustrates additions to the existing dwelling located in the rear of the house. The Site Plan below indicates the existing conditions on site. The yellow areas indicate existing encroachment in the building setbacks. Additionally, the existing carport exceeds the allowed 25% in the rear yard. PROPOSED SITE PLAN ----~- \l \i t-- i\ \ .. I • \ I > I -• I • a-➔--' J.. ·• --- I 3 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 Staff finds that it could be possible to place the pool within the required setback. Staff also notes that the intent of the street side setback on corner lots is to preserve the street view for the properties along Blakeney Avenue. Below is potential alternative for the placement of the pool on the subject site that lies within existing setbacks. ' -· -----\ / -- I E) ul ,, //! I I T·-- I ,./ II f/1 I ' - -- --- I ..... ,._.,_-;'°'':' .. •··· ~..:~-;---" -.,...._~: ---~---- ------- _ ...... , .. , .. ~on Mr•",:__ .. "~:., __ ~~ - -, -\. -·-- \ \ \ ' \ ...., ' \ \ \ \ 4 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 Staff also finds that there are large street trees that may be disturbed as a result of an addition of a pool and fence/wall. If the variance is approved, a Right-of-Way permit may be required and review by the City’s Horticulturalist prior to the issuance of any building permit. A small wooden bridge is currently located on the north side of the property. The proposed pool would be located in its place. If the setback variance is approved, further drainage plans may be required by the City of Fairhope Public Works Department. Artirl, /Tl S uHon C Zoning O is:tr1cts Dimens ion Standard ~ 2. Resl d enti~I Accessory Sm1c.ru1·es I able 3 -3 in dicates dimens ion requi.rement.s for residenti.11 n.cce ssory s tn1crures . T:lble 3-3: Dimension T:1ble -Resldeutl:\l ActeSSOl 'Y S ll'lltlUl'H Dito.tnsia 11 Setbadcs: .\lax. iot:al ..\l:iL i\Jin. L\lin. f°l 'OUI Rur Side Srreet lo t corn::a ge heigh.I Mructure $e_p.ar.a1ion side by .acce.s.so ~· -..ep,u :uioa beh\·e-en Ois tri<f or st.ru<ture from p rindpJe-str11dur es "" $-rl'lJtfUl'I' RIA Bchuui &ont 1s · 1 5' 50' 10%of 30 · so · ro, 5· btnldl1l8 line r«"1lli1~ r ea-t ~g ri<;ulnl1~ <>f poi,('q,l t-VOfd !il i \M:tru tes strucn1.l"C' 10 feel fOf" i!.ll o ther acce.ssory Slruct\lrei R-3 PGH' Behind.rear nouc ~e as sawe as l5%of 20' bt1t no 5' s· bu1ld ul£1 line reqmred J)l'nlC1pl e pt·mc:1ple reqmred rear raUer than o f pn.1.lC:lple !ititUCf\tte. strucna.re yard .. tlie S ttuctl.lJ'C principJe structt1rc All o ther Behind rC'ar ;-5· no nearer 15%of JO"btiuio 10' 5" res iclenWI building Lin• lh,.n rc,quirN rear caUtt than disrrkts ofpnuctple pn.oc,ple yard !he s trucrure simcmrc pnu.ople $h \l.Ch tct •one detached garat_e up 10 600 square feet shall be allowed tor Pimofgarden homes u1 add1hon 10 the m a:wnum 1otttl Jot coverage for other t1CC('SS<Jry sln.ierutes. s ubje<:t to AU o tbc1 .tocdsory struclllfe cli:mmsioo st;md.J.1ds 5 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 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: The configuration of the existing dwelling, its position on a side street and its irregular shape could pose potential difficulty when seeking to place an accessory structure on the lot without encroaching in any building setbacks. (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 finds that the application of the ordinance, in this case, could present an unnecessary hardship. However, it appears that the applicant is seeking to maximize the allowable space on the lot. Several of the existing structures do not meet current zoning regulations. Staff does not support the placement of a pool 6’ from the property line. Additionally, accessory structures are required to be behind the rear building line of the primary structure and no nearer to the street than the principle structure on the street side. Staff finds that the pool could be situated so that it does not present such a great encroachment in the required setback. 6 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and Response: Although the lot is irregular in shape, Staff does not find that the applicant has adequately justified the placement of a pool within 6’ of the property line. (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 or dinance. Response: Relief, if granted, would not cause any detriment to the public nor impair the intent of this ordinance. However, Staff finds that the addition of an accessory structure can be achieved without such a great encroachment in the building setback. Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of BOA 21.09. 7 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 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: 8 BOA 21.09 Clay House September 20, 2021 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. August 9, 2021 VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION Describe the indicated conditions: ITEM 1. I have purchased my parent's 1936 home from my siblings with the intention of restoring it for myself and my wife to move into when I retire and move from Huntsville to Fairhope. We love the historic character of the house and would like to renovate as much of it as possible while making some additions and alterations to the rear to better suit the way we would like to live in retirement. The Lot is on a corner with a 20'-0" side yard setback along the side street. The Lot consists of 9,483.65 square feet, below the Minimum Lot Area of 10,500 square feet for an R-2 Lot. The Lot also has an irregular trapezoidal shape which is narrower in the front than in the rear. The Lot also has a steep uphill slope in the rear yard up to an existing carport/storage building which sits approximately 8' above the grade of the house. We would also like to build a privacy wall setback slightly from the west front of the house, then run it along the north property line to the existing driveway, then turn it to connect with the existing carport/storage building. This privacy wall would create a private side yard visible from all existing and new areas of the house. We have been told by Fairhope Planning and Zoning that a privacy wall as described is acceptable. Within this enclosed private side yard we would like to place a small inground gunite swimming pool which would be totally screened from the street and passerbyers. How do the above indicated characteristics preclude reasonable use of your land? ITEM 2. The substandard square footage of the Lot, the irregular trapezoidal shape of the Lot, and the steep uphill slope with the rear 35'-0" of the Lot being approximately 8'-0" above the grade of the house all make for difficulties in planning additions and alterations as well as locating a small swimming pool. The rear 35'-0" of the Lot would be an ideal location for a pool if not 8'-0" above the finished floor of the house. Typically, a homeowner wants to look out their windows and doors and both see and have access to the recreational areas of their yard. They do not want to look at nor have to maneuver up a retaining wall or a steep grade to a recreational area whether with a pool or not. What type of variance are you requesting (be as specific as possible)? ITEM 3. We are requesting a side yard variance to construct a small inground gunite swimming pool approximately 8'-0" wide by 24'-0" long to come within 6'-6" of the side property line at its northwest corner and within 11 '-2" at its northeast corner. Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80): ITEM 4. From my perspective I see three very real hardships. First is the substandard square footage of the Lot. According to the CITY OF FAIRHOPE'S ZONING ORDINANCE, Article 111, Section C. Dimension Standards the Minimum Lot Area for an R-2 Lot is 10,500 square feet. The Lot consists of 9,483.65 square feet which is 89. 7% smaller than the Minimum Lot Area required. If my Lot were 10.3% larger and met the 10,500 square feet minimum for an R-2 Lot, I would have no difficulty fitting an 8'-0" wide swimming pool in my side yard without encroaching on the side yard setback. Second is the substandard width of the Lot. Section C. Dimension Standards also states a Minimum Lot Width for an R-2 Lot of 75'. The Lot is 60' wide where it fronts Bayview Avenue and 74.5' along its rear property line. If my Lot were a regular rectangular lot 75' wide front and back with the same 20'-0" side yard setback along the side street, I would have no difficulty fitting an 8'-0" wide swimming pool in my side yard without encroaching on the side yard setback. Third is the extreme uphill slope of the Lot. The property is relatively level from the west front of the house to the east rear of the house. Then the property slopes steeply uphill approximately with the final 35' being approximately 8'-0" above the grade of the remainder of the property. RECEIVE1-> G O 9 21 BY: A{L JULIE & RICHARD CLAY 306 NORTH BAYVIEW STREET FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 MYRICK, PAUL D ETUX KAREN C 308 N BAYVIEW DR FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 SULLY,RUTHJEANETTE 300 N BAYVIEW ST FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 WHITE-SPUNNER, KENNETH P ETAL WHITE PO BOX 1377 POINT CLEAR, AL 36564 SKIDMORE, MARVIN G & CAROL A 110 POWELL AVE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 GRANADE, LUCILLE W (93% INT) ETAL GR 109 POWELL AVE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 SCHNEIDER, JOSEPH ETAL SCHNEIDER, RO 5403 PIGEON COVE DR GREENSBORO, NC 27410 ORR, ELIZABETH M 301 N SUMMIT ST FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 WALKER, PELLUM S ETUX SHARON L 303 N SUMMIT ST FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 EVANS, DANIEL CHARLES ETAL EVANS,LE 307 N SUMMIT ST FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 BRUMBACK, CATHY J ETAL PATTERSON, LO PO BOX 421 FAIRHOPE, AL 36533 DE GUTZ, DONALD METAL DE GUTZ, COLL 60 11TH ST NE APT 1020 ATLANTA, GA 30309 MCLAUGHLIN, CAROLYN T 108 BLAKENEY AVE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 BLOSSER, HELEN M 350 N BAYVIEW AVE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 BRODERICK-CANTWELL, JOHN ETAL BRODER 356 N BAYVIEW AVE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 DUNN, HAROLD BRADFORD ETUX KATHERYN 2508 WATKINS CIR BIRMINGHAM, AL 35223 MCCOWN, T VANCE ETAL MCCOWN, TERESA 351 N SUMMIT ST POINT CLEAR, AL 36532 MASSUCH, THOMAS H ETUX BRENDA K 355 NORTH SUMMIT ST FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 SPINKS, CARL TON ETAL SPINKS, SHANNON 361 SUMMIT ST N FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 C. Dimension Standard I. l.ots and Princi1>a l Structure Tabk 3-2 indicates gcncrn l d im n~ion ~1andard, for lol.l. an I pnncipk ·1r1.1c1urc ·mall zoning distn..,b . 'nk olhcrwisc ,pcci!icd in .x:tion D. pci:ml Condi ti n:; for U ··c,. or An1dc pc ·ia l Di ~tncts. oil Joi,, and prim:ipk s1m.:1urc sho II meet the,' landard,. Table 3--2: Dimension Table. Lob and Princi11le Structure Diml.'n slon Min. Lot Area/ l\lin. Std!a:ct.i Ma .lota llol Distric1 or Allowt-d llni cs Per Lor\ idlb rrmll Rur Side Strttt c·cnc.nc=: h) ll!ie Acre( r ) side priucipl lll'UCIUff RIA 3 nc r.:;;' -198' 75' 75' ::!5' 50· none R-1 15.000, f_ . 100· 40 ' 35 ' 10 ·• 20· -to •. R-111 40,000 s.f./ -110' 30 ' JO ' 10·· 10' 15°u R-lb JO.(l()(l • f., -100' 30' 311' 10 · • 20 · :!5 °11 R-lc 20,0{)() S .f I · XO' JO ' Jr)' 10 · • 10' 25°1.1 R -.2 J0.500 • .r.,. 75' 35' J5 ' 10 ·' 10" 37 •., R-J 7.HOO ~-f. • 65' JO ' 35' H' • ::io · 35". R-J PGII -1 .000 ,_f -10' 20' 15' 10·· JO ' J2 5u.. R-31'11 2.-100 , f.' -::>-r 20' 1~· o·· 20 ' -1 5"" Max. britht 30' JU' • J .5' 35· 35· JO' . 30' 30' ()' 108 Blakeney Avenue Fairhope, Alabama, 36532 September 8, 2021 Re: Case BOA 21.09 306 N. Bayview Street To the Board of Adjustment: My husband and I live on 108 Blakeney Avenue, which is next to the above property. We have not been notified of any structure changes to the above carport until we received your notice today. We have lived in our home since 2007, and bought our lot in 2002 with the knowledge that we would be able to see Mobile Bay from our front porch. Indeed, our entire house was designed around this, with the porch only on that side. If the setback is reduced, our view of Mobile Bay will be compromised, and this will also decrease the value of our lot. I value my neighbor's friendship, but would like to see exactly what his plans show before deciding on such an arrangement. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Sincerely, Leon D. McLaughlin, Jr.