The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-20-2019 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketApril 15 , 20 19 Board of Adjuslment Minutes 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 repo1i 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. l 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-confonnity. 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 l arger 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 it s size and was subdivided before the current regulations were in p l ace. 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 prope1ty having exceptional conditions. Staff rec01mnends this request be APPROVED . The applicant's proposa1 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 strncture). The proposed addition would not have any negative effect on the surrounding area. Clay Adams of WA V Architects spoke on behalf of the applicant saying most of the neighbors are favorable to the request. Ms. Slagle asked ifthere was any negative response from the neighbors and Mr. Adams re sponded no, not from the ones that were spoken with. Mr. Vira opened the public heruing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing. Mrs. Boyett stated a letter of supp01t was received from Genie McCown. Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the st aff recommendation to APPROVE due to the non-conforming lot size. Harry Kohler 2 nd the motion and the motion cruTied unanimously with the following vo te: A YE-Harry Kohler, John A vent , Anil Vira, and Cathy Slagle. NAY -none. 1 Apiil 15,2019 Board of Adjustment Minutes Having no fmiher business , the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 PM. 2 1 BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue – May 20, 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 May 20, 2019 Case: BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue 2 BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue – May 20, 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. 3 BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue – May 20, 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: 4 BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue – May 20, 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. 5 BOA 19.06 103 Blakeney Avenue – May 20, 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 – May 20, 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 – May 20, 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