HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2019 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKarin Wilson
Mqyor
coannl Members
Kevin G. Boone
Robert A. Brown
Jack Burrell. ACMO
Jimmy Conyers
Jay Robinson
Lisa A. Hanks , MMC
City Clerk
Michael V. Hinson. CPA
City 7reasurcr
16 1 North Section Street
P 0. Drawer 429
Fairhope, Alabama 36533
251-928-2136
251-928-6776 Fax
1v1v1v.fairhopeal.gov
fn'nml an n.·,J 'C'IL'J paft-r
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
March 18, 2019
2. Approval of Minutes
• December 17, 2018
• February 18, 2019
3 . Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. BOA 19 .02 Public hearing to consider the request of Superb
Foods , Inc. for a Special Exception to allow a Junk/
Salvage Yard at 8330 Nichols Avenue.
PPIN #: 214349
B . BOA 19 .03 Public hearing to consider the request of James
Frederick for a variance to the front setback
requirements of accessory structures for property
located at 308 Miller Avenue .
PPIN #: 14142
C. BOA 19.04 Public heari ng to consider the request of Jan
Fleming for a variance to the rear setback
requirement of the p rincipal structure for property
located at 214 Rock Creek Parkway.
PPIN #: 114788
4 . Old/New Business
• Election of Officers
4 . Adjourn
December 17, 20 18
Board of Adjustment Minutes
The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday,
December 17, 2018 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at the City
Administration Building, located at 161 N. Section Street.
Members Present: Harry Kohler; Dick Schneider; Christina Stankoski; John
Avent; Cathy Slagle; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Buford King, Planner;
Mike Jeffries, Planning Tech.; and Emily Boyett, Secretary.
Absent: Anil Vira, Chairman; and Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM.
Dick Schneider made a motion
BOA 18.11 Public hearing to consider the request of Magnolia Church, LLC for a
Special Exception to allow parking in the front for property located at
301 Magnolia Avenue.
Mr. King gave the staff report .
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a special exception fro m the parking requirements of City of
Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article V, Section B.4.d. (2) to allow "front screened parking on the
Church St. frontage only". The subject property is zoned B-2 General Business District and is
located within the Central Business District. A supporting drawing depicting a future
development on subject property containing three (3) residential units, two buildings with an
unspecified unit count that are likely to be mixed-use commercial/residential, a 20-space onsite
parking area, additional on-street parking along North Church Street, and reconfigurations of
existing on-street parking along Magnolia A venue. The residential units along Church Street
reflect 20' front building setbacks as require d b y Table 3-2, Dimension table, and the mixed-use
buildings are shown at the right-of-way line as required by Article V, Section B.4.a.
The intent of the deve lo pment is to create individual lots for each residential unit, likely in a
future subdivision application, as well as construct parking and an unknown number of potential
mixed-use units likely in a future Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) app li cation. The applicant
states the indicated conditions of the subject property include a "grade differential across the site
(that) is approximately 15 '. The u se of r etaining walls and terraced building areas makes it
difficult to have vehicle access t o th e rear of the Church St. frontage lots". Th e ap plicant states
the indicated conditions preclude reasonable u se of the land because the "rear parking as required
for residential use presents an extraordinary use of land for circulation".
The 20-space off-street parking area located behind (north) of the two proposed
commercial units is n ot required in the CB D as explained in the zoning ordinance
and parking fm the residential units is required . However, Article IV, Section E.2. states
"businesses in the CBD Overlay are encouraged to provide off-street parking facilities"
for commercial uses. It appears the rear (north) parking area satisfies the parking loading
of the two proposed mixed-use units based upon the square foo tage of the commercial
unit s, as if onsite parking was required for tho se commercial units, and that parking is
1
December 17, 20 18
Board of Adjustme nt Minutes
located behind the mixed-use buildings as required by Article V, Section B.4.d.(1).
However, the exact use of the two proposed commercial buildings is not known and
therefore the exact parking requirements for this area is not known and pending the
necessary development applications needed for the site. The subject application is related
to the parking requirements of the Church Street residential units, however the potential
hardship related to furnishing the re quired parking affects the grading of the site.
The subject property is rectangular in shape and approximately 22,400 sf, or slightly
more than ½ acre in size. The shape of the lot is not uncommon, and no minimum lot
size is required for B-2 zoning. The extraordinary or exceptional topographical
conditions are not immediately noticeable visually , however the applicant illuminates the
grade differential on the lot is 15' and the effect of the grade differential.
The applicant states the hardship created by the topography of the subject property affects
the grading necessary to develop the site. Specifically, the applicant asserts the proposed
20-space parking area will have a finished elevation of approximately 1 0' higher than the
finished floor elevation of the residential units fronting Church Street, complicating the
drainage design of both areas . Staff understands the conceptual n eed to allow front,
screened parking for the residential units a long Church Street and does not necessarily
object to the screened parking. Staff be lieves the applicant has a reasonable request for a
relief from the zoning ordinance due to extraordinary and exceptional conditions
pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its si ze, shape, and
more specifically its topography. The applicant requested a variance in their application,
but the type of relief requested is actually a request for special exception. This review
will consi der the applicant's request for a variance and review the criteria for a variance
as a means of evaluating the application, but the staff recommendation will be in terms of
a special exception.
The requested special exception is in relation to the residential u ses to be constructed on
subject property, with e ach unit likely located on its own lot to be created by a future
subdivision request. The dimensions of the property do not appear to prevent the
reasonable use of the property for residential purposes. The applicant's proposed method
of developing the subject property involves cutting and filling of the site.
The applicant wishes to construct the re si dential units at the lower elevation along
Church Street, with street access from Church Street rather than the CBD requirement for
rear loading. The applicant further states the intended development desires to use the cut
material from the site to fill and "bui ld up" the proposed parking area so t hat the parking
area will have the required elevati on to drain from the parking area and connect to an
existing drain inlet at the inte rsection of Magnolia Ave and N. Church Street. Staff
requested the applicant clarify the various alternatives that would not require approval of
a variance from the parking requirements within the CB D and construct the proposed
development with the required rear p arking. The applicant indicated reducing the
elevation of the proposed parking area and raising the finished fl oor elevation (FFE) of
the proposed residential units is possible and would allow rear access to the residential
units by traversing the parking area and reducing the number of parking spots in the
parking area. However, reducing the elevation of the parking area would reduce the
e levation of the drain inlet to the parking area to an e levation where gravity flow drainage
from the parking area's drain inlet to the exis t in g conveyance system would n ot be
possible. Further, deep (4' approximately) excavation would occur immediately adjacent
2
December 17,2018
Board of Adjustment Minu tes
to the existing residential property north of subject property, with possible undercutting
and stabilization of the adjacent prope1iy occuning as a result.
Staff understands the conceptual need for and does not necessarily object to the requested
screened front parking. The application provided additional clarification indicating the
drain inlet for the parking area with an elevation of 105'. If the parking area is
constructed with this drain inlet at 105', the parking lot will adequately drain to the
existing drain inlet at an elevation of 102 '.
Staff met with the applicant multiple times to gain a better understanding of the request
and the conditions of the existing site. Though it is possible the n01thernmost residential
unit could be moved southward to allow a drainage easement for connection of the
parking area's drainage to N. Church Street, the deep excavation needed to allow rear
parking to the residential units would still be required,
Many of the existing residences on the west side ofN. Church Street, which are outside
of the CBD, contain front loaded parking with driveways not unlike those requested by
this request for variance (special exception), and as a result staff understands the potential
compatibility the proposed front loaded parking of the proposed residences provides if
they were not located within the CBD. The proposed development depicted in this case
requires substantial cutting and filling of soil and construction of retaining wall systems
regardless of the type of construction system utilized, and therefore believes the applicant
has not necessarily submitted subject app li cation to avoid financial hardship. Staff
believes the hardship caused by the site 's topography is the ability to construct an
adequate drainage system while also avoiding deep excavation immediately adjacent to
existing residences, which is a possible detriment to the public good. As a result, the
staff recommendation for subject application will be for approval, and staff believes no
relief is recommended to be granted that would cause substantial detriment to the public
good and impair the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends this request for special exception be APPROVED.
Mr. Vira asked if the timeframe for the approval can be limited and Mr. Dyess stated the
Board can make it a condition of approval. Mr. King added the Notice of Action Taken
will be recorded and any conditions are included.
Mr. McCown addressed the Board saying the request is to allow the proposed townhomes
to have parking at grade and to match the existing homes on the opposite side of the
street. He noted on-street parking would only accommodate 5 spaces but the proposed
parking lot will net 44 spaces.
Mr. Vira opened the public hearing.
Ronny Holifield of 55 N. Church Street -He spoke in favor of the proposal and said the
townhomes will fit with the rest of the residential use on the street.
Mrs. Boyett stated she received two calls from surrounding property owners in favor of
the request.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Vira closed the public hearing.
3
December l 7, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE the
spec ial exception to allow front parking along N. Church Street for PPIN 15164 with the
following conditions:
1. The Notice of Action Taken shall be recorded .
2. The Special Exception shall be acted upon within 365 days.
Mr. McCown stated he did not know if the project can be done within a year. He asked
if the approval can be tied to the applicant and this proposal. Mr. King explained the
submittal of a development application, such as a subdivision request or site plan
application, wou ld constitute the approval being acted upon.
Harry Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE -Harry Kohler, Christina Stankoski, Dick Schneider, Anil Vira, and Cathy Slagle.
NAY-none.
Having no further business, Harry Kohler made a motion to adjourn. Christina Stankoski
2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 19
PM.
4
February 18, 20 I 9
Board of Adjustment Minutes
The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, February
18, 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; Dick Schneider; John
Avent; Cathy Slagle; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Mike Jeffries, Planning
Tech.; and Kim Burmeister.
Absent: Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; Christin a Stankoski; Buford King, Planner; and
Emily Boyett, Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM. There were no minutes available to approve
from previous meetings. December 2018 minutes will be tabled for review and approval
at the next meeting (there was no quorum at January 2019 meeting).
BOA 18.14 Public hearing to consider the request of Rick Gambino for a variance to
the side and rear setback requirements for property located at 151 S.
Mobile Street.
Mil<.e Jeffries presented the case. Applicant is asking for a front setback variance of 5 '
making the front setback 25' instead of the required 30'. Mr. Jeffries said staff is
recommending approval. Cathy Slagle said most of the other lots along S. Mobile Street
were compli ant with setbacks of 30 or 30+ feet of frontage. She wondered why this
project is being considered for a 5' variance on the front. Wayne Dyess commented that
the lot is smaller than the average lot in that area and the overall footprint of the house as
proposed is not unreasonable. Applicant reduced the variance request from the previous
meeting in December in which it was heard. Anil Vira asked for clarification of the 10 '
separation rule between principle structure and accessory structure. Cathy Slagle was
concerned that the house might block the view of neighbors if the variance was approved.
John Avent commented that it did not appear the variance would cause an obstruction of
view for neighbors.
No one from the public spoke or objected to the project.
Kathy Heard spoke on behalf of the applicant, who was not there. She said the existing
house (which will be demolished to build the new house) is already non-compliant at
25 .9' off the front instead of 30'. She said Mr. Gambino will be living in this house and
he is not building it for resale .
John A vent made a motion to approve. Dick Schneider seconded the motion. Motion
passed unanimously .
BOA 19.01 Public bearing to consider the request of ADHD Medical Clinic of
Mobile, PC, for a Special Exception to allow a Clinic at 101 Lottie Lane,
Unit 6.
Mike Jeffries presented the case and added that staff recommends approval since the use
would be similar to other businesses along Lottie Lane.
1
February 18, 2019
Board of Adjustment Minute s
No one from the public spoke or objected.
Dr. Westbrook, appli cant, spoke about the project. It will be a clinic for adolescents 12
years old to adult. Cathy Slagle asked what portion of the building would be used as the
clinic. Dr. Westbrook said it would be an interior office space at the southwest side of the
building, second floor.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve. John A vent seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 PM.
2
states the following:
d. Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following duties and powers:
(2) Special Exceptions -To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of this ordinance upon
which the board is required to pass under this ordinance.
The Ordinance provides guidance for special exception requests through the following criteria:
Article I1.C.3.e.
Criteria -(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;
(b) Compliance with any other approved planning document;
(c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
(d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
(e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
(f) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development
conditions;
(g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
(h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
(i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts,
and property values;
(j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property values.
(k) Overall benefit to the community;
{I) Compliance with sound planning principles;
(m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and
(n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
When a special exception is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect:
Article I1.C.3.f.
Effect of Appeal -An appeal to the Board stays all legal proceedings in furtherance of the application
appealed from unless the Director certifies to the Board that a stay would cause imminent peril to
life and property. In such cases, proceedings will not be stayed, unless by operation of a court of
competent jurisdiction. If an appeal fails for any reason , the stay shall be lifted.
Analysis and Recommendation:
Special Exception Criteria :
(b) Compliance with any other approved planning document
Response:
"Junk Yard or Salvage Yard" is an allowable use within the M-1 zoning classification as indicated in the
City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article 111, Section B., Table 3-1 Use Table. However, "Junk yard or
Salvage Yard" is not allowable by ri ght and a special exception is required to allow the use . Further,
Table 3-1 indicates the use is allowed "only on appeal and subject to special condition s".
3 BOA 19.02 8330 Nichols Ave -March 18, 2019
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) Reliet 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 fo ll owing criteria:
Article 11.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) Reliet 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 i s granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect:
Article 11.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.
Re sponse : The subject property ha s a topography that slope s tow ard s Volanta Gulley. The principle structure
and pool are located on the flattest part of the lot. The remaining part of the property behind the rear
building li ne of the principle structure ha s worse nin g slope .
(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.
4 BOA 19.0 3 308 Mil ler Ave nu e -March 18, 2019
Response: Building the accessory structure behind the principle building line would require the removal of
several trees and dirt work on the slope leading to a gulley .
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Response: The site is unique to itself as it is at a dead end street and a large portion of the property would
require extensive engineering to be built upon.
{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 is at a dead end street that leads to Volanta Gulley which is heavily wooded.
Additionally, the entire block that the subject property is located on is owned by the applicant and has
stated that it will be donated as a park to the City in the future. The lot and surrounding area all drain water
to Volanta Gulley . By allowing the accessory structure to be built even with the front building line there will
be less land disturbance to the area.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends this request be approved.
Prepared by:
Mike Jeffries
Planning Technician, QCI
5 BOA 19.03 308 Miller Avenue -March 18, 2019
{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 11.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 11.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 has a topography where the front of the lot slopes towards the street. The
surrounding properties have the same characteristics
3 BOA 19.04 214 Rock Creek Pkwy. -March 18, 2019
(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: The hard ship for the request due to the applicant's health needs which is not recognized by the
zoning ordinance.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Response: The conditions are not peculiar to this site alone as the surrounding properties have similar
topography.
(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 impair the purpose and intent of thi s ordinance. The PUD was created for
the overall development. By making Rock Creek a PUD instead of a regular residential zoning district it
allowed the developers to create different setbacks for the different areas in the subdivision taking different
variables such as topography into account.
4 BOA 19.04 214 Rock Creek Pkwy. -March 18, 2019
Comments:
Staff empathizes with the applicant wanting the variance based on health needs. The Zoning Ordinance does
not recognize health needs as hardship and the extraordinary conditions that the topography may pose is
not particular to the subject property but, is shared by the surrounding properties.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends this request be denied.
Prepared by :
Mike Jeffries
Planning Technician, QCI
5 BOA 19.04 214 Rock Creek Pkwy. -March 18, 2019