HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-2018 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketCity of Fairhope
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
December 17, 2018
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the November 19, 2018 minutes
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. BOA 18.12 Public hearing to consider the request of Stephen
and Ashley Thompson for a variance to the side
street setback requirements for property located at
511 Fels Avenue.
PPIN #: 45713
B. BOA 18.13 Public hearing to consider the request of Black
Oak Holdings for a Special Exception to allow a
Hotel/Motel and a variance to the building height
requirements for property located at 10 N. Section
Street.
PPIN #: 88449
C. 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.
PPIN #: 14484
4. Old/New Business
2019 Board of Adjustments Agenda Schedule
Election of Officers
5. Adjourn
November 19, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
1
The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday,
November 19, 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; Christina
Stankoski; Cathy Slagle; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Buford King,
Planner; Mike Jeffries, Planning Tech.; and Emily Boyett, Secretary.
Absent: Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; and John Avent
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman Vira.
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 from 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 Avenue. The residential units along Church Street
reflect 20’ front building setbacks as required by 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 development 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) application. The applicant
states the indicated conditions of the subject property include a “grade differential across the site
(that) is approximately 15’. The use of retaining walls and terraced building areas makes it
difficult to have vehicle access to the rear of the Church St. frontage lots”. The applicant states
the indicated conditions preclude reasonable use 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 not required in the CBD as explained in the zoning ordinance
and parking for 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 footage of the commercial
units, as if onsite parking was required for those commercial units, and that parking is
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
November 19, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
2
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 required 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 10’ higher than the
finished floor elevation of the residential units fronting Church Street, complicating the
drainage design of both areas. Staff understands the conceptual need to allow front,
screened parking for the residential units along Church Street and does not necessarily
object to the screened parking. Staff believes 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 size, 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 consider 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 uses to be constructed on
subject property, with each 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 residential 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 “build up” the proposed parking area so that the parking
area will have the required elevation to drain from the parking area and connect to an
existing drain inlet at the intersection 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 CBD and construct the proposed
development with the required rear parking. The applicant indicated reducing the
elevation of the proposed parking area and raising the finished floor 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
elevation of the drain inlet to the parking area to an elevation where gravity flow drainage
from the parking area’s drain inlet to the existing conveyance system would not be
possible. Further, deep (4’ approximately) excavation would occur immediately adjacent
to the existing residential property north of subject property, with possible undercutting
and stabilization of the adjacent property occurring as a result.
November 19, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
3
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 northernmost 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 of N. 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 application 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.
November 19, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
4
Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE the
special 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, would constitute the approval being acted upon.
Harry Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE – 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.
Th e Board of Adjustments is auth o rized to grant va ri ance throu gh Articl e II.A.d{3} whi ch says the follow in g:
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) 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 g uidance for variance request s 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 f i nding 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 proper ty 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 o r di nance.
When a variance i s granted by the Zoning Board of Adju stment it has the followin g effect:
Article 11 .C.3 .g.
Effect of Variance -Any variance granted according to t his section and which is not challenged on appeal
shall run with the land provided t hat:
(1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any condit ions 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
3 BO A 18 .1 2 511 Fe ls-Dec ember 17, 2018
(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 in shape and is an existing non-conforming lot. The lot is 50' in
width and the minimum lot width for an R-2 lot is 75'. The minimum lot area is also an existing non-
conformity. The minimum for R-2 is 10,S00sq feet and the subj ect property is approximately 5,600sq feet. If
the subject parcel was a conforming lot, the addition could be much larger and wou ld not require a 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.
Response: A covered porch accessing the rear is not possible on the other sid e because it is at the 10-foot
required setback line. A 10-foot setback on the south sid e wou ld allow room for a sma ll covered porch to be
built.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and
Response: The requ ired side stree t setback is enforced because a part of Ettie Street ends at the subject
property and serves as access to one parce l to the southeast. It has no connections to any other parcel or
street.
(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.
Response: Relief, if granted, would not cause any detriment to the public nor impair the intent of this
4 BOA 18.12 511 Fels-December 17, 2018
@tvo h((;jrrovJ
21 too fmcJl
ref Sha,pl
511 Htlc; is o.., SO f+ IOti r._onect fl<.2 l75f+ '1ft min), cmc./
cl,ue, +o ih locatlifn Oh the Wmer aF 2 (feail e,,,,tL slrecb
t-he S{t ~ctcks ave S1tr~011s 0\1 ·t0-e ~di fo-1:
If +h-t lot VV.f.(e ~ 75rW,de thv,e would hf pitnty
(y{ YO O YYl fti b i111/d 'th-t r O (Uri tD I YMf V N-e tl!f nc.:li {}(I .,, d ? .
, . L '7-, 4-f-/htfrc l-V!e ~r,r,er~ 1 l?u+ vJ1th tht rianol'I' lltt we (M not v1Uv<e. ~.
Sil Feb 1 ~ o. SD fr lo+ 1=.orrel ta. (~Ft Jot rn,n.) <AnJ d,«e, ·Iv 1+-s IDca·hoYI
o\f\ +"1~ corc-i-er of -:z. dwd et1tl. .. tilhd untOnnecie& s-tr-eck ·the sf-1-bwlts o+ a. corn~ lot o ~tre.triuus. -~
L NO~ 2018
·W . . .
4 th Edition, parking demand for a hotel fluctuates during the day, with peak parking demand in the
morning and evening. Parking demand also fluctuates during the week as well, with a peak parking
demand on weekends. Therefore, the peak parking demand of morning and evening coincides with
traditionally lower parking demand in the CBD. Considering the limited size of the hotel, staff believes
that existing demand of the current use and the demand proposed use will be similar and effect on
current parking will be minimal.
Excerpt re l ative to CBD parking from Zoning Ordinance.
Article V. CBD 4.d. Parking -
(1) No parking is required for non-residential uses in the CBD. If parking is provided, it shall be
located behind the building, screened from public rights-of-way, and have a direct pedestrian
connection to the primary building entrance of the public right-of-way.
(2) Dwelling units in the CBD shall provide the required parking. It shall be located behind the
building, screened from public rights-of-way, and have a direct pedestrian connection to the
primary building entrance of the public right-of-way.
Article V. Site Design standards E.2. Required Parking
These standards (Parking Requirements) shall not apply to the CBD Overlay, where on-street parking
is permitted. However, wherever practicable, businesses in the CBD Overlay are encouraged to
provide off-street parking facilities.
I n addition to the use appea l, the applicant has also filed a variance request for relief from the
l anguage in the Centra l Business District (CBD} limiting all building in the CBD to 3 stories and 40'. The
language from the Zoning Ord inance says the following:
Article V.D.4.c. Building heights for all structures shall not exceed 40 feet or 3 stories.
The applicant is wishing to construct a boutique hotel on the subject property, 4 stories and 40' in
height. The maximum height of the proposed hotel is with in the maximum height but at the 4 stories
exceeds the 3-story l imit provided for in the Zon i ng Ordinance.
Analysis and Recommendation:
The app l icant has requested a variance from the maximum 3 story limit in the CBD. The applicant is
seeking a variance for 4 stories. The fol lowing Variance Criteria is found Article II.C.3{e):
(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;
Staff Response: No exceptional conditions noted to support the 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.
Staff Response: No Unnecessary hardship could be identified.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and,
Staff Response: No pecu liar conditions relative the property was identified.
(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
7 BOA 18 .13 10 N. Section St. -Dec . 17, 2018
Staff Response : Staff believes that granting of a variance to exceed the maximum of 3 stories would
create a dangerous precedent that could negatively affect downtown. The City Council recently
adopted an amendment to increase the minimum height to 3 stories and 40 feet . This amendment
created and important urban design goal of proportionality of buildings. By allowing 4 stories within
the 40' maximum negatively impacts the desired proportionality caused by the amendment .
**************************************************************************
As stated previously, a boutique hotel is allowed only on appeal in the B-2 District
Article II.C.3(2)(e) Use Appeal Criteria
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;
Staff Response: The Comprehensive Plan encourages developments which contribute to the long-
term vitality of downtown. Staff believes that a downtown hotel, with proper parking consideration,
can positively affect the long-term vitality of downtown by bringing people downtown for longer
periods of time and different times of the day (morning and evening).
(b) Compliance with any other approved planning document;
Staff Response: Staff will ensure compliance with all planning related documents.
(c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Staff Response: Staff believes a hotel use does meet the intent of the ordinance . In addition, the CBD
is intended to contain restaurant and entertainment type uses.
(d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
Staff Response: All the surrounding property is in the CBD and is zoned B-2 .
(e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Staff Response: As discussed in this report, parking is a concern for the proposed use . However, after
reviewing the current use and its demand, compared to the demand created by a hotel use ,
considering the peak parking demand during the day and week, parking impact is basically a "wash".
(f) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development
conditions;
Staff Response: The proposed use is a redevelopment of an existing disturbed site.
(g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Staff Response: Staff will insure all are met.
(h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Staff Response: Staff will insure all are met.
(i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise , traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts,
and property values;
Staff Response: As stated previously, parking demand of the new use is a "wash ". No other negative
impacts are anticipated .
8 BOA 18 ,13 10 N. Section St. -Dec . 17, 2018
(j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property va lue s.
Staff Response: As stated previously, parking demand of the new use is a "wash". No other negative
impacts are anticipated.
(k) Overall benefit to the community;
Staff Response: The use wi ll aid the development of more long-term vita lity to downtown as desired
by the Comprehensive Plan .
(I) Comp lian ce with sound planning principles;
Staff Response: Staff believes that the approva l of a hotel use in the CBD are in keeping with sound
planning principles.
(m) Compliance w ith the terms and cond itions of any zoning approval; and
Staff Response: Staff wi ll in sure al l conditions wi ll be met.
(n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Staff Response: None noted .
3.d(2) The app lication shal l be submitted to the Board at the schedu led pub li c hearing, with the
Director's
report. The Board sha ll consider the application and take one of the following actions:
(a) Grant the requested relief;
(b) Grant the requested relief with specific conditions;
(c) Deny the requested relief; or
(d) Continue discussion of the application for further study. An application shall only be continued
one time without the applicant's consent before the Board can take one of the above actions. An
applicant may agree to more continuances.
Recommendation:
The staff has carefully considered this application and its impli cations to development downtown . The
staff recommendation is two parts:
1. Staff recommends that the variance to allow 4 stories be DENIED .
2 . Staff recommends that the appeal for a hotel use in the 8-2 district be APPROVED.
9 BOA 18.13 10 N. Section St. -Dec. 17, 2018
As stated previously PPIN 14484 ha s a lot area of approximately 6,514sf. The lot coverage allowance of B-3a
zoning is 30%, resulting i n approx imately 1,954sf of availab l e lot coverage by the prin ci ple structure . The
principle structure lot coverage chart on the previou s page , excerpted from the proposed site plan, is
1, 726sf and is al lowable for the lot. The rear yard area, as ca lculated by ArcGIS for PPIN 14484 is
approximate ly 2,42 1.G sf. The allowable accessory structure lot coverage for residentially-zoned districts is
25%, or 60Ss f (if a residential standard is app lied to subject property). The garage as an acce ss ory st r ucture
w ith a propose d lot coverage of 546sf is acceptabl e and would also be allowable i n a residentially-zoned
area.
Comments:
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance define s 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.
Th e 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 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.
4 BOA 18.14 151 S. Mobile Street -December 17, 2018
setback lines.
(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
requi r ed setbacks desp ite the subject property's non-conforming size. As a resu lt, it appears a residential
structure of sufficient size may be constructed on the subject property and the property's size, shape, and
topography does not preclude the use of the property for residential purposes and does not appear to
represent a hardship contemplated by the zoning ordinance. As stated previous ly it does not appear the
proposed site pl an reflects the minimum deviation from the zoning ordinance required to cure the non-
conformity created by the subject property's lot size affecting the front building setback line.
(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 size, which is peculiar to the subject
property. However, the proposed site plan does not appear to reflect the minimal deviation from the zoning
ordinance required to cure the non-conformity created by the subject property's lot size affecting the front
building setback line.
(d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and
intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building
or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
Response: Staff acknowledges the conceptual need for setback variances on subject property and does not
necessari ly object to a variance that allows the proposed site plan to compensate for the lot's non-
conforming size. Staff believes if the minimum deviation from the zoning ordinance required to cure the
non-conformity is proposed, that minimum deviation is un l ike ly to cause substantial detriment to the public
and impair the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends case number BOA 18.14 request for setback variance for PPIN 14484, 151 S. Mobile Street
be TABLED for additiona l study. Staff acknowledges the existing lot is approximately 1,000sf smaller, and
approximately 18' shorter than a conform ing lot located within the B-3a zoning distort, however the
proposed site plan does not reflect the various allowances outside of the variance request process to
compensate for a non-conforming lot's front setback line . It is possible the proposed home may be
constructed without the need for variances or for a variance representing the smallest deviation necessary
from the zoning ordinance to cure the non-conformity. Staff requests the applicant provide sufficient data
and drawings reflecting the various allowances provided for non-conforming lots described in Article VII
Section "C" which may elim i nate or reduce the requirement for a front setback variance. The applicant is
advised additional information supporting its request for variance shall be submitted to staff by the close of
business on Friday, January 4, 2019 for inclusion on the January 24, 2019 Board of Adjustments meeting
agenda.
6 BOA 18.14151 S. Mobile Street-December 17, 2018
Fairhope Board of Adjustments Agenda Schedule 2019
MEETING DATE 5:00PM SUBMITTAL DEADLINE 3:00PM
Thursday, January 24, 2019 Monday, December 10, 2018
*Moved due to the Martin Luther King holiday
Monday, February 18, 2019 Monday, January 14, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2019 Monday, February 11, 2019
Monday, April 15, 2019 Monday, March 11, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019 Monday, April 8, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019 Monday, May 13, 2019
Monday, July 15, 2018 Monday, June 10, 2019
Monday, August 19, 20189 Monday, July 8, 2019
Monday, September 16, 2019 Monday, August 12, 2019
Monday, October 21, 2019 Monday, September 9, 2019
Monday, November 18, 2019 Monday, October 14, 2019
Monday, December 16, 2019 Tuesday, November 12, 2019
*Moved due to the Veterans Day holiday
Thursday, January 23, 2020 Monday, December 9, 2019
*Moved due to the Martin Luther King holiday
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS ARE HELD IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FAIRHOPE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
AT 161 N. SECTION STREET
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SEE THAT ALL SUBMINTTALS ARE MADE IN A
COMPLETE AND TIMELY SEQUENCE AND TO HAVE THE CASE PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD
AT SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
**INCOMPLETE SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. **