Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2019 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKarin Wilson Mayor Council Memb,rs Kevin G. Boone Robert A. Brown jark Burrell , ACMO jimmy Conyers fay Robinson Lisa A. Hanks, MMC City Clerk Michael V. Hinson, CPA City Treasurer I 61 North Smion Streec P 0. Drawer 429 Fairhope, Alabama 36533 251-928-2 136 25 I -928-6776 Fax www.fai rhopeal.gm· 1. Call to Order City of Fairhope Board of Adjustment and Appeals 5:00 PM City Council Chambers June 17, 2019 2 . Approval of Minutes • April 15, 2019 3 . Consideration of Agenda Items : A. BOA 19 .06 Public hearing to consider the request of John and Stephanie Casto for a variance to the front setback requirements for a principal structure at 103 Blakeney Avenue. PPIN #: 14346 B. BOA 19 .07 Public hearing to consider the request of Jason and Debra Schmitt for a Special Exception to allow Personal Storage at 950 Nichols Avenue. PPIN #: 276903 C . BOA 19.08 Public hearing to consider the request of James and Elizabeth Lowery for an Administrative Appeal to Article IV , Section E. Parking of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. D. BOA 19.09 Amendment to the City of Fairhope Board of Adjustment By-Laws regarding attendance of members. 4 . Old/New Business 5. Adjourn April 15, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes 1 The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, April 15, 2018 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; Harry Kohler; John Avent; Cathy Slagle; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Mike Jeffries, Planning Tech.; and Emily Boyett, Secretary. Absent: Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; Dick Schneider; Christina Stankoski; and Buford King, Planner The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM. There were no minutes available to approve from previous meetings. BOA 19.05 Public hearing to consider the request of James Leonard for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements for a principal structure at 110 Atkinson Lane. Mr. Jeffries gave the staff report saying The applicant is requesting a 10’ variance from the rear yard setback requirements of 35’ in the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section C.1 Table 3-2 to 25’ to allow for the bathroom to be redesigned to include a laundry room which is currently located in the detached garage. The minimum lot area for the subject property is an existing non-conformity. The minimum for R-2 is 10,500sq feet and the subject property is approximately 6,361sq feet, roughly 60% of what is required by the current zoning ordinance. If the subject parcel was a conforming lot, the addition could be much larger and may not require a variance. Due to the setbacks on this non-conforming lot it makes it impossible to expand the house in the rear or front as the house already encroaches into both setbacks. The conditions are peculiar to this piece of property as it is an existing non-conforming lot due to its size and was subdivided before the current regulations were in place. Relief, if granted, would not cause any detriment to the public nor impair the intent of this ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance grants relief based on a particular piece of property having exceptional conditions. Staff recommends this request be APPROVED. The applicant’s proposal appears to be as minimal as possible that will allow a small renovation to locate the laundry room in the primary residence while maintaining the required separation distance from the detached garage (accessory structure). The proposed addition would not have any negative effect on the surrounding area. Clay Adams of WAV Architects spoke on behalf of the applicant saying most of the neighbors are favorable to the request. Ms. Slagle asked if there was any negative response from the neighbors and Mr. Adams responded no, not from the ones that were spoken with. Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing. Mrs. Boyett stated a letter of support was received from Genie McCown. Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE due to the non-conforming lot size. Harry Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE- Harry Kohler, John Avent, Anil Vira, and Cathy Slagle. NAY – none. April 15, 2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes 2 Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 PM. 1                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019    Project Name:  103 Blakeney Avenue    Property Owner / Applicant:  John F. and Stephanie T. Casto    General Location:  Blakeney Avenue  approximately 150’ west of          N. Summit St.     Request:  Front setback variance    Project Acreage:   1/4 acre approximately    Zoning District:  R‐2 Medium Density Single   Family Residential       PPIN Number:  14346    Report prepared by:  J. Buford King   Interim Director of Planning   And Zoning     Recommendation:  Table for further study           Board of Adjustment  June 17, 2019  Case:  BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue  -••• s.bjod ~• CITY OF FAUUfOPiE ZONIN.G Zoo1'1g R.2 liledu-DeniySE e.f•m lt, R-3 ti"J D Uy ~~ flmly ... ,t, R-1 "'II 0<11H'f DW!I ~ lle..Senml Cl .. e.-o a itR•-ll>d; ·gO!ilJiC ,~m•1 ~o-ol15•~D '-1 8u _r,,:., and Pr•""""'•I 01111.:1 LJgf111"4lrfflj]D1 ;ct P~IUIII ... z 2                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019  Summary of Request:  The applicant is requesting a variance from the front setback line requirements of the City of Fairhope Zoning  Ordinance.  The applicant provided a site plan depicting a proposed home to be constructed on the lot  associated with PPIN 14346 with a requested front setback of 20’‐25’ in lieu of the required 35’ front setback  associated with the property’s R‐2 Medium Density Single Family Zoning District.       Additional Background Information  The applicant states on its application “I would like to build a house as far forward on the lot so as to have a  sufficient back yard”. R‐2 Medium Density Single Family zoning district requires the following dimensions, as  indicted in Article III, Section “C” of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance in the excerpt below:    Dimension District or use Min. Lot Arca/ Allowed Units Per Acre(UPA) Min. Lot Width Setbacks Max. total lot coverage by principle structure Max. height Front Rear Side Street side R-2 10,500 s.f./- 75' 35' 35' 10' 20’37% 30' l   The existing lot, as indicated on the Baldwin County parcel viewer, is 58.8’ wide at the right‐of‐way (ROW),  widening to approximately 79.8’ wide, and 154.9’ long, with a lot area of approximately 11,055.03sf as  calculated by ArcGIS, shown in the excerpt below:   An excerpt of the proposed site plan included with subject application is depicted on the bottom of the  following page.  The requested variance indicates a reduction of the required 35’ front setback to 20’‐25’.   Because PPIN 14346 is an existing non‐conforming lot width (58.8’ in lieu of the required 75’ lot width) in zoning  district R‐2, the City of Fairhope zoning ordinance contains provisions related to allowing variances to building  setback lines that are applicable to subject property.  It is possible, but not known if the requested setback  reduction is eligible for an administrative front setback adjustment as allowed by Article VII, Section D.3. of the  zoning ordinance, which states:    3. The front setback (and, on corner lots, the street side setback) shall not apply to any lot where the average setbacks in the same block and within 200 feet of the subject lot is less than the minimum setback required for the district. In such cases, the proposed building may be aligned with the building’s existing on either side thereof.  Identify Identify fr om: <Top-m ost layer> EJ .. Un zo ned Parcels , .... 05-'16-03-37-0-005-063 , 502 Loca ti on: I 87 °54'23 .224'\II/ 30'3 I '48 ,771'J Field Value PAR_NUM 063 , 502 CALC_ACRE 0, 25379 TOWNSHIP 6S RANGE 2E COUNn' 05 LOCATOR 46 PL S_AREA 03 SECTI ON 37 - LAND_GRANT Baron de Feriet Q_SECTION 0 MAP _BLOCK 005 CIT_LIM 06 SUB _DI V LOT _NUM Global!D {3FD4 53C7-640 1 ~96-8 IFE-BB07 1F6E 1566 ) Shape _Length 482.364 516 Shape _Area 1105 5,0320 13 ox l!][IJ 1 · " i I I i I I J I 'I "' l g /l I I I ! ('I') I I l.() ! CJ) i I I ! 5 1.9 {j 1 , __ - 59 8 I Paree.I ID: 14346 ----- Pa ree.I Number: 05-46-03-37-0-005-063.502 10 PIN: 14346 Owner Name: FST CASTO, JO HN F ETUX STEPHANI E T Address: 429 CLUB HOUSE DR City: FAIRHOPE I State: AL I Zip: 36532 I : 0 More Details N 0 LO Zoom to C") I N l (0 I t-- 63.503 (0 I t--I I I ( I I i 58 !8 /11 2 __._ 3                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019    The applicant did not provide a survey of the front building setback lines as allowable by Article VII, Section D.3.,  for the purposes of requesting an administrative approval of a building alignment as noted above.  Though not a  survey, staff utilized the aerial photographs within Arc GIS to estimate the front setbacks of the existing  structures within the same block, which are included in the chart below:    PPIN  Front Setback distance  Remarks  108949 35’ Assumed 2’ overhang,  measured as approximately 33’  from ArcMap  14728 35’ Assumed 1’ overhang,  measured as approximately 36’   from ArcMap  14931 40’ Measured to edge of roof rake, may have an overhang   increasing setback up to 2’   14833 43’ Large (2/3 acre) lot   14416 58’ Large (nearly 2/3 acre) lot    Based upon the cursory survey performed above, the  average front setback distance within the block  containing PPIN 14346 is approximately 42’.  The  applicant may wish to conduct a professional survey of all  properties within the same block as well as within 200’ of  subject property to determine if the average front  setback is less than the required 35’ front setback so that  an administrative request may be submitted.  An excerpt  drawing of the proposed new residential structure is  included below right, with the required 35’ setbacks  shown in red in their approximate locations:    It appears the proposed principle structure will  sufficiently fit within the required setbacks without a  setback variance.  As stated previously PPIN 14346 has a  lot area of approximately 11,055sf.  The lot coverage  allowance of R‐2 zoning is 37%, resulting in  approximately 4,090sf of available lot coverage by the  principle structure.  However, the lot coverage of the  proposed structure appears to be approximately  2,544.46sf based upon the drawing furnished with  subject application.  Utilizing the required setbacks of 35’  front and rear, 10’ side (west side) and the requested 15’  driveway side setback (east side) the allowable lot  coverage, without a setback variance, is approximately 2,865sf.  The drawing excerpt below left depicts the  allowable lot coverage within the required setbacks in light green, and the drawing excerpt below right depicts  the requested lot coverage in light green, shifted north to fit within the required 35’ front and rear setbacks:    t(N,Qt,ull ,., • I ;~,, ' •• l ~ ~,. I / -:,; !:"'SJ' .!'O' ~ iUi-':11! l~SOl •ES'l -90 (FitCl rrnSlllWcl, .. 35' SETBACK LINES ; ~t'~~~f'l~UL ir i:'--...!..!..----+-++---1' ' / ~ 1 -'l'-U.H.."Nlf'tl.l'.te-"f!f!!'IIIJ..~f -n:n:iu-,•Lte: ------""~•L~~• ~L----~:...__J_-+-..!L.--l,,;i;~.ii;=--'-=------4. BLAKEN ti.so PnL1 -If-:-t l'<co\ ' :, \ y STREE'T 4                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019    Comments:  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 variance 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.  r "'f½! ,,C 1~ ~-0 i ~;t----.:I~---.---"',.~ I r !I 1' W 1/ / ,~ / --I H 1-----'-,--------1----1 / ~ t I ---CIYDK:~-~ t~ ~2 .. 'W--;11.92' (M'iD •?" ~SI -588?' (~tC) RlCHl-Of"-W,_YYARl[S(J>A\1(0) !; J• ii o, I .. 'f ~ !~·~.' r :, , ~~, -,:w."lff;ru,,,c;c I ~: .____'--½+---e""--- REQUESTED LOT CO V ERAGE SH IFTED NORTH 0 FIT W ITH IN SETBACKS 5                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019     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 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.      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 generally rectangular  in shape and approximately 11,055 sf, or slightly more  than 1/4 acre in size.  The shape of the lot is generally  rectangular, widening to a very slight “L” shape  approximately 95.3’ into its northern depth.  The lot size  is approximately 555sf greater than the minimum lot size  required for a lot zoned R‐2, however the lot’s 58.8’  width along the ROW is less than the required 75’ lot  width, and therefore demonstrates an existing  nonconformity.  The lot has no visible extraordinary or  exceptional topographical conditions and rises gradually  from northwest to southeast from an elevation of 63’ to  71’ as seen in the topographic map at right:   The applicant indicates the hardship created by the size,  shape, or topography of the subject property is a “long  narrow lot (58’ wide) [and] will require a long narrow  house” and the applicant wishes to “build a house as far  forward on the lot so as to have a sufficient back yard”.   6                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019  The subject property is approximately 555sf larger than the minimum lot size (10,500sf) of a lot zoned lot R‐2,  and therefore is a conforming lot size.  Further, the subject property widens to approximately 79.8’ into the  northern depth of the property, approximately 95.3’ north of the ROW line. As a result, the rear yard contains  the required 35’ rear setback as well as a 79.8’ width, greater than the required 75’ lot width. As a result, and  assuming demolition of the existing structure, the rear yard is of sufficient size and dimensions to comply with  R‐2 zoning.  Staff recognizes the more narrow lot width along the ROW reduces the allowable lot coverage by a  principle structure, however the requested lot coverage is less than the allowable lot coverage without the  application of a setback variance. Further, the requested lot coverage may be placed on the subject property  without the application of a setback variance.       (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.     As stated previously the requested lot coverage appears to comply with the zoning ordinance utilizing the  required front, side, driveway side, and rear setbacks, and the property’s dimensions allow the creation of rear  yard of sufficient size, all without the application of a setback variance.       (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.    Response:  As stated in sections (a) and (b) above, staff understands the conceptual desire for a front setback  variance on subject property.  Staff does not necessarily object to a variance that allows the proposed site plan  to compensate for the lot’s non‐conforming width in order to acquire additional allowable lot coverage, which is  peculiar to the subject property. However, the proposed lot coverage may be accomplished without a setback  variance, and the requested setback variance does not appear to reflect the minimum deviation from the zoning  ordinance necessary to allow the requested lot coverage to be accomplished.      (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 acknowledges the conceptual need for setback variances on subject property and does not  necessarily object to a variance that allows for a site plan to compensate for the effect of the lot’s non‐ conforming on overall lot coverage.  Staff believes the minimum deviation from the zoning ordinance required  to cure the non‐conformity or hardship  has not been proposed, and recommends the case be tabled as indicated in the staff recommendation below.     Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends case number BOA 19.06, request for setback variance for PPIN 14346, 103 Blakeney Avenue  be TABLED for further study.  Staff acknowledges the existing lot contains a more‐ narrow lot width along the  ROW than the required lot width for R‐2 zoning, however the proposed principle structure included with subject  application fits within the required setbacks of the property without a setback variance. Staff desires to table  the case to allow the applicant to re‐evaluate the request for variance, perhaps to contemplate a request for  variance based upon a desire for greater allowable lot coverage. Further, the applicant may wish to conduct a  professional survey as allowable by Article VII, Section D.3. and request an administrative front setback  adjustment depending upon the results of the survey. Staff requests any additional information or revisions to  Case number BOA 19.06 shall be provided to staff no later than the close of business on Friday, June 7, 2019.          7                                                                                                               BOA 19.06  103 Blakeney Avenue  – June 17, 2019  Prepared by:  J. Buford King  Interim Director of Planning and Zoning    Site Photos                                    Looking northeast toward subject   property and PPIN 108949 beyond from   Blakeney Avenue Looking north toward subject property  from Blakeney Avenue  Looking northwest toward subject  property from edge of right‐of‐way along  Blakeney Avenue  Looking northwest toward subject  property along Blakeney Avenue with   PPIN 14416 beyond  I L____I L____ I L____I L____ 1 BOA 19.07 950 Nichols Avenue – June 17, 2019    Board of Adjustment    June 17, 2019    Special Exception    Case:  BOA 19.07 950 Nichols Avenue    Project Name:  950 Nichols Avenue    Property Owner / Applicant:  Debra Schmitt/Larry Smith, PE  S.E. Civil Engineering and   Surveying    General Location:  South side of Nichols Ave.   approximately 750, east of the   intersection Greeno Rd and   Nichols Ave.     Request:  Special exception for Personal  Storage use in M‐1    Project Acreage:  Approximately .5 acres    Zoning District:  M‐1 Light Industrial District    PPIN Number:  276903    Report prepared by:  Mike Jeffries  Planning Technician, QCI    Recommendation:           Legond ··-· Sub,-CI Pucal CI TY OF FA IRHO PE ZONING Zoning ~TR To.,.,R.,.. R-A AU!dcntlel l"'9Mc11Uurc: Clilf."a R-1 I.OWDet\lCySlflOle-Fltnty Al(I I Rl(bl Rl (c:) A-2 i.ledum Ol!'MltySk'lpii&-F".1mLJr -R,3 H lgh Cena.«y Su,'i!ll!.f am.fy i:;i.3 PGH. P•o-oJGtr..U~ $1'!1(111t FJt,il)' CJ R..;) 'TH 1oM/l(IU!1!$if\Ott!hmiy -A-4 LowDt:rui~Mi;ill.f ■ml~ R-5 H!Qh 0fL'IUy0w.tllf!Q FUtllHM.ltl A.g Mobllit H'ame P.111t Ombicl -B--1 Loe.I Sh~1151 Dlitrla 6-,.2 Ge:netllBIJtlnettlJittilC! -8-Jji Tc11,nt1FtuonL~oD11r110 ! ~ 11 '----'-----'---'---''--'----' ~ ti'i.lMuOl~ricl 2 BOA 19.07 950 Nichols Avenue – June 17, 2019  Summary of Request:  Larry Smith, PE with SE Civil, is requesting a Personal Storage use which is not allowed by right but by  special exception in Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance for the property located on 950 Nichols Avenue.  The  subject property is zoned M‐1 Light Industrial District.      Comments:  The subject property is zoned M‐1 Light Industrial District which is not allowed by right pursuant to  Article III. Section B. Table 3‐1: Use table but must go before the Board of Adjustments as a Special  Exception. Special conditions are required to be met according to Article III Section D.8 referenced  below:  8. Personal Storage a. Intent: The intent of the special conditions for Personal Storage is to:  Allow for personal storage services to be mixed with other compatible commercial uses;  Ensure that personal storage facilities are located appropriately in order to minimize the impact on adjacent property; and  Recognize that the design and scale of personal storage facilities can determine how well this use fits in with surrounding uses. b. Location Requirements: (1) Exterior personal storage facilities on more than two acres shall be located only in the M-1 and M-2 districts and only by special exception. (2) Exterior personal storage facilities on less than two acres and indoor personal storage facilities may be located in the B-2 district and only by special exception. c. Site Requirements: (1) All one-way drive aisles shall provide for one 10-foot wide travel lane. Traffic direction and parking shall be designated by signs or painting. Requirement Met (2) All two-way drive aisles shall provide for one 10-foot wide parking lane and two 12-foot wide travel lanes. (3) Two parking spaces, to be located at the project office for use of clients, shall be provided for the manager’s quarters plus one additional space for every 25 storage cubicles. Requirement Met (4) Any other site requirements determined through the special exception procedure to minimize impacts on adjacent property. The applicant has provided a site plan showing 67 units with a management office. The parking  requirements and drive aisle widths have been met.      Analysis and Recommendation:  The subject property is currently vacant with metal buildings on either side one being used for a gym  “All around Fitness”.      The review criteria for a use appeal is as follows:  Article II. Section C.e(2)   Any other application to the Board shall be reviewed under the following criteria and relief granted  only upon the concurring vote of four Board members:    (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;  Response: The Comprehensive Plan makes reference to the Village Node to the north of the  subject property and to a Commercial Node to the south. It also shows the area along Nichols to be  commercial.  The Comprehensive Plan provides no further detail for this area.     (b) Compliance with any other approved planning document;  Response: None noted.    3 BOA 19.07 950 Nichols Avenue – June 17, 2019  (c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;  Response: The subject property is zoned M‐1 and the Personal Storage is not allowed by right but  permitted only on appeal to the Board of Adjustments and is therefore in keeping  with the intent of the ordinance.      (d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;  Response: The south side if Nichols Ave. east of Greeno Rd. is predominately either zoned M‐1 or  is unzoned property. The surrounding uses are commercial in nature except for R‐ 3PGH Zoned subdivision to the north and a subdivision at the southwest rear property  line where appropriate buffering is shown on the site plan and would be required.     (e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;  Response:   No issues noted.  Any impacts would be minor in nature.    (f) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post‐development  conditions;  Response: The subject property is developed on three sides and no negative impacts are  anticipated.    (g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;  Response: No issues noted.    (h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;  Response: No issues noted.    (i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts,  and property values;  Response: No issues noted.     (j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential  physical impacts, and property values.  Response: No issues noted.    (k) Overall benefit to the community;  Response: It is a low intense use that provides extra storage opportunities for the surrounding  facilities as well as the neighborhood to the north.    (l) Compliance with sound planning principles;  Response: Staff believes this use is in keeping with sound planning principles.    (m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and  Response: No issues noted.    (n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Response: No issues noted.    Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the appeal for a Personal Storage use at  950 Nichols Avenue.  1 BOA 19.08 805 N. Section St. – June 17, 2019    Board of Adjustment    June 17, 2019    Case:  BOA 19.08 805 N. Section St.     Project Name:  805 N. Section St.    Property Owner / Applicant:  James Lowery/  Clay Adams WAV Architects    General Location:  West side of N. Section St.   Approximately 250’ north of  the intersection of Volanta  Ave. and N. Section St.    Request:  Administrative Appeal   Parking    Project Acreage:   7,392sq feet    Zoning District:  B‐3b ‐ Tourist Resort Commercial  Service District    PPIN Number:  33061    Report prepared by:  Mike Jeffries  Planning Technician, QCI    Recommendation:  Approval with conditions      2 BOA 19.08 805 N. Section St. – June 17, 2019  Summary of Request:  The applicant desires to add an addition to their existing office building to allow adequate room for their  employees and provide privacy for their clients. The added square footage requires 2 additional parking  spaces per Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance Article IV Section E.2 Table 4‐3.          The applicant wishes to utilize a double stacked parking method for 4 employee parking spaces. Four other  single parking spaces will be in front of the office bringing the total number of parking spaces to the required  8. They are also showing a proposed bike rack that could be used for 1 parking credit are electing to not  remove any parking spaces.               U') 0 (.0 tO w 0 ('I en ~ 0 Q'I r z Land use Businesses: Genera l Retail and Office establishments \ r°""" c,..., Tap Pipe S 70° 06' 49" E 104.66' 8.2' []' ~~ ~ Crj "'! .. ~ 39.4' Office Building ~ i....:i 42,S' Parking Required whiche ver is greater. 0 to 4 00 quare fee t of 4 parking spaces floor area - 400 to 5000 square feet of sa me as above plus 1 for each floor area - over 5000 square feet of floor area -- 0 16 \0 1/1 additiona l 400 square feet ame as above plus l parking space for each additional 200 square feet Aspholt Drive co: r J4.9' r\. _0------------------..-lf.L __ ,:=:.:_~_::::::~ f<Md Crimp Tap Pfpe ( N 70° 08' 50" W 105.'16' TOU!d C<lmp Top Pip! J EXISTING SITE PLAN 3 BOA 19.08 805 N. Section St. – June 17, 2019      Comments:  The applicant when he purchased the property was provided with an old zoning verification letter from 1974  that stated the property was zoned B‐2. B‐2 zoning does not have a rear set back line and would have  allowed for a possible addition in the rear. Staff met with the applicant and architect and it was verified by  reviewing archived zoning maps that the property was rezoned at some point to B‐3b as early as 1986. The  applicant proposed the idea of stacked parking for the employees. The Zoning Ordinance gives direction on  parking but does not specifically allow or deny stacked parking therefore staff could not approve the parking  and the applicant has made an appeal to the Board of Adjustments.   Under the direction of the Erik Cortinas the City of Fairhope’s Building Official the new addition and altering  of parking will also allow upgrades to the building to provide a handicapped bathroom and a handicapped  van accessible parking place.   The current driveway encroaches across the south property line. The new parking will remove the  encroachment.     Staff does not see any detriment to the public good or to the character of the surrounding properties.  Staff Recommendation:  Staff Recommends approval of the stacked employee parking with the following conditions:  1. The employee parking spaces shall be clearly marked with appropriate signage and separate parking  space striping.   2. All utilities will be marked at time of construction and any necessary relocations will be at the owners  expense.    Prepared by:  Mike Jeffries  Planning Technician, QCI   in 0 (0 tO LL.I 0 N OJ '<r 0 Ol z \ F'eund Crirr4> Top Pipe 8 .2' [I]~ ½ ~ "l t'-"I C:> ~ S 70° 06' 49" E EXISTING Office Building (1200 S.F.) 6 SPACES 42.5 ' (_ N 70° 08' 50" W rCM1C1 Crimp Top PlpP R Q PQ SE D 20'-0" 20'-0" ©EMPLOYEE ONLY 17\EMPLOYEE \::..,/ ONLY Comp act Car NEW DRJVE LIN E L----- 9 Asphalt Drive "' 0 9 ~ Lf) ~7"-----T""~"'l-----------'1-"' J, 1' in ,,; 105.36' G)vAN HC SITE PLAN Scale 1"=10'-0" MEMO    Date: June 7, 2019  To:    Fairhope Board of Adjustment  From: Emily Boyett   Secretary  Re: By‐Laws Attendance Amendment  ******************************************************************************  Staff has prepared the proposed amendment to the City of Fairhope Board of Adjustment By‐ Laws Article III regarding attendance as per the Board’s request.  The intent of the proposed  attendance language is to establish and clarify expectations for members of the City of Fairhope  Board of Adjustment.  The proposed language is as follows:    ARTICLE III  Attendance  Attendance at Board meetings by all regular members is mandatory.  If in a calendar  year any member should miss four (4) meetings, the Chairman shall notify the Fairhope City  Council of said absences.