Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2020 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketCity of Fairhope Board of Adjustment and Appeals 5:00 PM City Council Chambers October 19, 2020 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes • June 15, 2020 3. Consideration of Agenda Items: A. BOA 20.07 Public hearing to consider the request of Jerry and Barbara McCool for a variance to the front setback requirements for principal structures at 900 Creek Drive. PPIN #: 21903 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjourn June 15, 2020 Board of Adjustment Minutes 1 The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, June 18, 2020 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at the City Administration Building, located at 161 N. Section Street. Members Present: Anil Vira, Chairman; John Avent, Vice-Chair; Dick Schneider; Cathy Slagle; Christina Stankoski; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Carla Davis, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary and Erik Cortinas, Building Official. Absent: Troy Strunk The meeting was called to order at 5:01 PM. The minutes of the May 18, 2020 meeting were considered. John Avent made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Dick Schneider 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE – John Avent; Cathy Slagle, Dick Schneider, and Anil Vira. NAY – none. ABSTAIN – Christina Stankoski. BOA 20.06 Public hearing to consider the request of William and Patricia Dorgan for a variance to the front setback requirements for accessory structures at 22585 Main Street. Ms. Davis gave the staff report saying the subject property is 22585 Main Street and is zoned R-1, Low Density Single-Family Residential District. The applicant is requesting an accessory structure setback variance. The applicant’s property is located along Mobile Bay and thus is considered a waterfront lot. An amendment was made to the Zoning Ordinance on June 10, 2019 (Ordinance #1652) that defines a waterfront lot as “any lot or parcel adjacent to Mobile Bay”. Properties fronting Mobile Bay must adhere to front yard setbacks where the property abuts the bay, and rear yard setbacks where the property abuts the street. The applicant has constructed a new boat house and pier in what is now considered to be within the front yard setbacks which is not allowed. Prior to new construction of the boat house and the ordinance amendment; the applicant had a gazebo/ pier house on the property that met the rear and side yard setback requirements. However, it appears that new construction and renovations took place without permits after the zoning amendment was adopted which now places the boathouse and pier house within the 40’ front yard required setback. The applicant is now asking the board to provide relief to allow structures to be located within the 40’ front yard setback on this waterfront property. The applicant states that the new pier house does not interfere or obstruct any views out towards the bay, nor does the pier house reduce the well-established character of the Montrose bluff neighborhood. The applicant also states that there are many other properties along the bluff that have similar structures within what is now their front yards. Staff is aware that similar lots within the surrounding area also have structures located along the waterfront and thus approval of this request would not seem out of character with the uniqueness of the surrounding area. Staff recommendation is approval of an accessory structure to be placed within the required 40’ front yard setback at 22585 Main Street. Mr. Simmons explained when the definition of “waterfront lots” was established it did not address accessory structures in front yards such as pools, gazebos, and kitchens. He June 15, 2020 Board of Adjustment Minutes 2 said an amendment to the ordinance can be made to address front yard accessory structures or they can all be brought before the Board. Mr. Avent said he understood the confusion and suggested an amendment to the ordinance be made to clarify. William Dorgan addressed the Board saying the pier house is approximately 70’ down on the beach. Ms. Slagle asked why no permit was obtained for the structure and Mr. Dorgan explained he did not think one was required because it was part of the pier. He stated the work for the house was permitted and he even asked the Building Inspector. Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Catherine Cusa of 22563 Main Street – She asked what the use of the property will be and if a grinder pump will be required. She noted the vegetation has been cleared and said retaining walls are needed to keep the site stabilized. Mrs. Boyett stated a letter in opposition was received and she had one telephone call in support. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Vira closed the public hearing. Mr. Cortinas addressed the Board saying the Building Department does not issue permits for piers or buildings over the water; however, the subject structure is on the beach and within the City Permit Jurisdiction. He noted there was a valid permit for the principle structure and all inspections are current. Mr. Cortinas said the applicant wanted a to install a lift for access from the pier house to the principal structure which caused a Stop Work Order to be issued. He explained the issues with flood zones, electrical work, and plumbing can be addressed through permitting, but the main concern is whether the structure is legal. John Avent made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve an accessory structure to be placed within the required 40’ front yard setback at 22585 Main Street. Cathy Slagle 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Dick Schneider, John Avent, Cathy Slagle, Christina Stankoski, and Anil Vira. Old/New Business John Avent made a motion to remove Troy Strunk from the Board of Adjustment due to failure to fulfill requirements of the By-Laws. Cathy Slagle 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Dick Schneider, John Avent, Cathy Slagle, Christina Stankoski, and Anil Vira. Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:46 PM. 1 BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive – October 19, 2020 City of Fairhope Board of Adjustment October 19, 2020 Case: BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive Project Name: 900 Creek Drive Property Owner / Applicant: Jerry McCool General Location: Terminus of Creek Dr. adjacent to Fly Creek Request: Front Setback Variance (24’) Zoning District: R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District PPIN Number: 21903 Report prepared by: Samara Walley, MCP City Planner Recommendation: Approval with Conditions N 900 Creek Drive N Creek Dr. 900 Creek Drive R-1 .t.M, Densily Single-family -■•1.-,1~-ll_!I __ ••1o·--1-.-.,,.,,--c--~- ■••-----.... ~--.,, ..... t 2 BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive – October 19, 2020 Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a Front Setback Variance at 900 Creek Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District. The applicant is requesting a 24’ front yard variance (16’ front setback in place of the required 40’ front setback). The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 40’ in an R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential district. The applicant provided the following drawing of the proposed dwelling and lot configuration: Portion of drawing prepared by Moore Surveying Emphasized by Staff to indicate variance request An application was initially submitted requesting a front and sideyard setback variance. The applicant desires to build a dwelling on the subject site and notes the property’s configuration and location adjacent to Fly Creek as justifications for the request. The initial application was withheld from the agenda and was not heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. The applicant has since acquired the property to the north and is no longer in requesting a sideyard setback variance. The current request is only for a 24’ front variance (16’ front setback). - 3 BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive – October 19, 2020 The applicant stated in the narrative submitted to Staff that there are underground power lines that bisect the subject property. The existing lines are illustrated on the site plan. Staff has spoken with the City of Fairhope Utilities Department, along with the applicant, to discuss the location of the existing lines. As a condition of approval, coordination with the City of Fairhope Utilities Department will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Also, a note should be placed 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. 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 subject property is irregular shaped and would therefore make it difficult to build within the required 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: With building setbacks as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would have limitations regarding the allowable configuration of a proposed dwelling. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and Response: Because of the irregular shape and curved shape in the rear, it appears that the applicant would be forced to angle the proposed dwelling and reduce the footprint in order to remain in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. (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, if granted, would not cause any detriment to the public nor impair the intent of this ordinance. The property poses several limitations due to its irregular shape. Potential concerns, such as the existing underground utilities have been discussed in detail with the necessary departments and the applicant. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the approval of the front yard variance request to allow a 24’ front yard setback subject to the following 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 BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive – October 19, 2020 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. Prepared by: Samara Walley, MCP City Planner 5 BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive – October 19, 2020 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: 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 6 BOA 20.07 900 Creek Drive – October 19, 2020 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. From: k sahl Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:15 PM To: Jerry " JJ " McCool Subject: Variance Dear Mr. McCool, We have received notice of your request for a variance on your property located on Creek Drive. As an adjoining property owner we do not object to the city granting you the variance for which you have applied. Sincerely, Kathleen Sahlstrom President Creekside Development Corp OBA Fly Creek Marina. Samara Walley From: Sent: To: Jerry" JJ" McCool <jj@wildlifesolutionsinc.com> Monday, August 17, 2020 9:49 AM Samara Walley; Hunter Simmons Subject: Fwd: JJ McCool Variance Request Second letter JJ McCool Begin forwarded message: From: Kurt Schneider <kurtsails@gmail.com> Date: August 17, 2020 at 9:43:49 AM CDT To: Jerry JJ McCool <jj@wildlifesolutionsinc.com> Subject: JJ McCool Variance Request Dear Mr. McCool, I appreciate your invitation to meet at the site of your proposed residence on Creek Drive. It was helpful to see what you are planning and how it transitions and interfaces with my adjacent property. Now that I am informed I feel comfortable with what you are proposing. Sincerely, Kurt Schneider 1 City of Fairhope Board of Adjustment and Appeals; RE: BOA 20.07 Applicant: Jerry McCool As a property owner within 300' I have the following concerns with this request: 1. There are 2, not 1, existing unpermitted structures on the combined parcel ( 1 A?) under discussion. Lot 3 has an illegally (by a previous owner) constructed bathroom, no permit at construction and illegally tied into the city sewer system along with Lot l's (constructed by applicant) unpermitted structure. Structures once completed are near impossible to modify/change/comply except when a new permitting process occurs, like now. Can we please address both of these unpermitted structures at this juncture? 2. The underground utilities that service a large portion of residence will mostly likely have a concrete slab constructed over it. I believe that the City has not been given an easement at this time. Again, all leverage on the City's behalf to correct this oversight will be lost once you approve this variance. This should be clearly addressed PRIOR to any approval. This variance request started over 4 months ago and has been protracted and confusing. However, I would like to congratulate the process and ALL it participants including the City, especially the public utilities staff, the McCool's, and Neighbors. Where personally I am sorry to see one of the last open green spaces on Fly Creek be eliminated, the process, however messy, did prevail. Carol Gordon Lot 5, Block A, Volanta View Subdivision 462 Satsuma St.