HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2018 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKarin Wilson
Mayor
Co1111cil Members
Kevin G. Boone
Roben A. Brown
jac k Burrell , ACMO
Jimmy Conyers
Jay Robinson
Lisa A. Hanks, MMC
Cil]• Clerk
Deborah A. Smilh, CP.\
Cicy 'frcasurer
16 1 Nonh Section Street
P.O. Drawer 429
Fairhope, Alabama 36533
25 I -928-2 136
251-928-6776 Fax
www.fairhopeal.gov
rr111fld ,:m Ti"\)'Cli.:d pdpe•t
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
May 21, 2018
2 . Approval of the April 16 , 2018 minutes
3 . Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. BOA 18 .05 Public hearing to consider the request of Terri
Carlton , on behalf of MLC Properties , LLC , for a
Special Exception to allow a restaurant at 759
Nichols Avenue .
PPIN #: 81781
B. BOA 18 .06 Public hearing to consider the request of Michael
LeBatard , on behalf of Dana and Edward
Hammele , for a variance to the front and side
setback requirements for property located at 107
Kiefer Avenue.
PPIN #: 79056
C . BOA 18 .07 Public hearing to consider the request of Ben
Stewart, on behalf of Julia Merrick, for a variance
to the side setback requ i rements for property
located at 13 Via Maria .
PPIN #: 254913
4 . Old/New Business
5 . Adjourn
April 16,2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, February
19, 2018 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at the City Administration
Building, located at 161 N. Section Street.
Members Present: Troy Strunk, Vice~Chair; Harry Kohler; Christina Stankoski;
Dick Schneider; Cathy Slagle; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Buford King,
Planner; and Emily Boyett, Secretary.
Absent: Chairman Anil Vira and John Avent
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Vice Chai1man Strunk.
The minutes of the February 19, 2018 meeting were considered. Dick Schneider moved
to accept the minutes as written and was 2nd by Christina Stankoski. Motion carried with
one abstention by Cathy Slagle.
BOA 18.04 Public hearing to consider the request of Harold Thompson, on behalf
of Belgrove Estates, Inc., for a variance to the front and rear setback
requirements for property located at 325 Pecan Ridge Blvd.
Mr. King gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a building setback line variance to lot 5 of the Pecan Ridge
Subdivision, located along Pecan Ridge Blvd. approximately 0.23 miles south of Mosley
Road and 0.41 miles east of County Road 13. The subject property is located within an
R-2 medium density single family zoning district, which requires 35' front and rear
setbacks as well as 1 O' side setbacks. The applicant provided a floor plan as a supporting
document depicting a proposed home to be constructed on the lot. The proposed home
has a lot coverage area of approximately 3,500 sf, however the allowable buildable area
created by the existing lot's setback lines creates a buildable area of approximately
2,806.92sf.
Lot 5 is generally "pie" shaped, with a radiused east property line. The radiused lot line
is contiguous to the Pecan Ridge Blvd. right of way (ROW) and is therefore a "front" lot
line. The subdivision plat for Pecan Ridge Subdivision, instrument number 2218C does
not note or depict specific building setback lines for each lot within the subdivision
unless specifically noted but does include a site data table explaining setback lines. The
building setback lines described in the site data table excerpt mirror the building setback
requirements from the circa 2001 Zoning Ordinance with the exception of the side street
setbacks which are 20' in the circa 2001 Zoning Ordinance. Though each setback line is
not drawn on each lot, subject property's front, rear, and side setback lines are clearly
derived from the site data table. In addition, lots 5, 6, and 13 include delineated front
setback lines of 45'. In addition, lots 5 , 6, and 13 also feature radiused front lot lines. It
is not known to staff or explained in the approved subdivision plat the rationale for the
45 ' front setback lines specifically delineated on lots 5, 6, and 13.
1
April 16, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minu tes
The subject property's topography is consistent with the nearby lots along Pecan Ridge
Blvd. The subject property's size does not appear to be extraordinary or exceptional due
to size or topography; however, the location of the as-platted front setback line and its
radial shape creates a buildable area of approximately 2,806.92 sf. When compared to
the sizes of the existing homes within 300 feet of subject property, the as-platted front
setback of subject prope1ty appears to prevent construction of a comparably-sized
residence unless approval of a setback variance is granted.
Staff believes that a variance allowing a 35 ' front setback and 30' rear setback is
warranted for subject property. The as-platted, but unexplained 45' front setback line,
combined with the shape of the lot prevents construction of a residence of similar size to
the surrounding residences.
Recommendation:
It is staff's position the existing building setbacks of subject property prevent the
reasonable use of the property for a residence of similar size to nearby residences. The
average residence lot coverage size within 300' of subject property is approximately
3,805.01 sf, and the allowable building area created by the existing building setbacks is
2,806.92 sf. Staff recommends APPROVAL of a setback line variance to allow a 35'
front setback line and a 30' rear setback line for lot 5 of the Pecan Ridge Subdivision,
PPIN 270281 . The approval of the afore-mentioned setback line variances will create a
buildable area of approximately 3,834.35 sf, which allows the reasonable use of the
property for construction of a residence of similar size to nearby residences.
Mr. Strunk opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Strunk
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Boyett stated staff has received several calls regarding this case, but no opposition
was expressed to the request. Mr. Kohler clarified the setback is a plat restriction not an
ordinance requirement. Mr. King responded it is only a plat restriction.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve a 3 5 ' front
setback and a 30' rear setback variance for the subject property. Dick Schneider 2nd the
motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE -Harry
Kohler, Dick Schneider, Christina Stankoski, Troy Strunk, and Cathy Slagle.
Having no further business , Dick Schneider made a motion to adjourn. Cathy Slagle 2 nd
the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:13 PM.
2
Summary of Request:
Terri Carlton, MLC Properties, is requesting a restaurant use , allowed on appeal, for the property
located on 759 Nichols Avenue. The subject property is zoned in M-1 Light Industrial District and is also
in the Medical Overlay District.
Comments:
The subject property is zoned M-1 Light Industrial District which does not not allow a restaurant use
pursuant to Article Ill. Section B. Table 3-1: Use table. However, the subject property is also located in
the Medical Overlay District pursuant to Article V. Section H. A restaurant use is allowed on appeal in
the Medical Overlay District.
"Article V.H.3.C. Use s Permitted Subject to Appeal and with Conditions .
(1) eo mmercial communication towers
(2) Detoxification centers and substance abuse centers associated primarily with the primary medical
facility
(3) Retail, restaurant, personal services, branch banks, offices, conference facilities, clinics and similar
workplace support uses when within any individual structure, gross floor area shall be limited to 10
percent of the total gross floor area
(4) Crematorium "
Analysis and Recommendation:
The subject property currently contains an existing restaurant (Wharehouse Bakery). The construction
and remodel of that business began in July of 2015 . The current application for appeal is an addition of
a restaurant use on the subject property. A restaurant use is allowed in the Medical Overlay District on
appeal pursuant to Article V.H.3.C.
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 several references of supporting Thomas Hospital due
to its economic generator status. The subject property is in the same block and purportedly does a
large volume of business with hospital staff and visitors. This interaction helps support the hospital
and its related uses. The Comprehensive Plan provides no further detail for this area .
(b) Compliance with any other approved planning document;
Response: None noted.
(c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Response: The subject property is in the Medical Overlay District and is a supporting use to the
hospital 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 majority of the area is zoned M-1 with uses consistent with M-1. A restaurant
currently exists on the subject property (Warehouse Bakery). An additional restaurant will not affect
the character .
(e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
2 BOA 18.05 759 Nichols Ave nue -May 21, 2018
Response: None 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 has been previously disturbed and contains an existing use.
(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 noi se , 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: The use in the same block as the hospital and supports and serves staff and visitors to
the hospital thereby reducing travel times and volumes on local roadways.
(I) 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 to establish a restaurant use at 759 Nichols
Avenue .
3 BOA 18.05 759 Nichols Aven ue -May 21, 2018
INGERSOLL'S REFRIGERATION
AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING, INC.
March 13, 2018
To Whom It My Concern :
AL#83090 Heating & Air
AL #50520 Refrigeration
762 Nichols Ave
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
251-928-9392
Ingersoll's Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc . is located directly
across the street from Warehouse Bakery and Donuts , LLC and District Hall, LLC at
762 Nichols Avenue, Fairhope, Al. We are in support of the City of Fairhope
issuing them a variance to operate both restaurants at their current locations of
759 Nichols Ave and 761 Nichols Ave.
Please do not hesitate to contact me direct at 251-928-9392 should you have any
questions .
Regards,
Ingersoll's Refrigeration, Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc.
1~r!t4~
President
F□UNOATIDN
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Open Heart Surgery
tlew Birth Cenll!r
Emergency Department
Cardiowscular Lab
Cardiac Rehab Renovation
Digital Mamm ography
Balloon Angioplasty
General Surgery Expansion
High Definition Video Equ ipm ent
Eleclrophysiology Cardiovasr.u lar lab
Emergency Department Equipment
64 Slice CT
Zero Gmily Radiation Protection
Shuttle Ca,1s
SunositE M-T urbo Ukrasound
Birth Cenll!r labor 6 Delilery Beds
MICU Watting Room
Pediatrit Rehab Playground
Pediatric Uni t
Sterimlactic Care Needle Biopsy
Diabetes Program
Mammogram Viewer
Surgical Equipment
HIT Image Guidan ce Syi;tem
MICU Waiting Room
March 7, 20 18
City of Fairhope
Fairhope, AL 36532
Dear Sir,
The Thomas Hospital Fo undation is offe1in g this letter of support of the Warehouse
Bakery and Donuts and Di strict H all zoning variance req uest. The owners of these
establislunents are good corporate citizens s uppo1ting both the community,
Thomas Hospital and the Thomas H ospital Foundation.
Various Thomas Hospi ta l Foundation committees use Warehouse Bakery a nd
Donuts for meetings tlu·oughout the year. Th ey are always accommodating of us
and our schedules. I be lieve they enhance the area by offering employees of
Thomas Hospital a place to eat within close proximity to the hospital.
Fee l free to contact me if you have any additional questions or if I can help in any
way.
Since ·ely,
l,atl h
Vice nt
<Post Office <BoJ(929 • <Fairfiope, )ffa5ama 3 6532 • 251-279-1512
March 7, 20 18
C ity o f Fairhope
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
Dear Sir,
Thomas Hospital
I NFIRMARY HEALTH
More devoted to Z{~ life.
Ormand P. Thompson Ill
President
Please acc ept this letter as Thomas Hospital's support of the Warehouse Bakery and
Donuts and District Hall zoning variance request. The proprietor of these establishments
have been good stewards in our community. They continually work to improve the
environment around t he hospital offering employees a place t o eat and hold meetings.
The Warehouse has always and I'm sure will continue to be good corporate cit izens
and support Thomas Hospital.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questi ons or if I can be of
further service.
Sincerely,
Ormand P. Thompson Ill
President
OPT/smh
750 M o r phy Avenue I P.O. Box 92 9 I Fa ir hope, AL 36533 I 251-279-1 516
l(Hi11.t1u' [Jtl,11.,H;'
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a building setback line variance to the lot at 107 Kiefer Avenue, located
along Kiefer Avenue approximately 200 feet east of the intersection with Bayview Avenue. The subject
property is located within an R-2 medium density single family zoning district, which requires 35' front
and rear setbacks as well as 10' side setbacks and 20' street side setbacks. The applicant provided a
floor plan as a supporting document depicting a proposed renovation to an existing home located on
the subject property. The existing home's living area is approximately 1,325 sf as reported by the
Baldwin County Revenue Commission, however the allowable buildable area created by the existing
lot's R-2 Zoning District setback lines creates a buildable area of approximately 862sf and as a result the
existing home is an existing non-conformity.
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 Jot 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 a variance through Article II.A.d(3) which states 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 cr iteri a:
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:
2 BOA 18.06 107 Kiefer Avenue -May 21, 2018
(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 I1.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:
Though subject property is a seemingly a generally rectangular lot, examination of its features and
application of R-2 medium density single family residential setback lines reveals a number of
exceptional or extraordinary conditions due to the lot's size and shape.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Defined Terms defines a Lot Line, Front as :
"The lot line contiguous to the right-of-way line of the street on which the lot has least
dimension."
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Defined Terms defines a Lot Line, Rear as:
"The lot line opposite to and most distant from the front lot line."
Though the existing home on subject property is oriented toward Kiefer Avenue, the lot frontage is
technically ori ented toward the alleyway behind (north) of subject property. The north property line is
approximately 23' wide, and the south property line is approximately 61 ' wide. The lot area of subject
property is 5,906.52sf as determined by ESRI ArcMap utili zing the Baldwin County Revenue
Department's parcel data polygon shapefiles. The lot area of subject property is approximately 56% the
minimum lot size required by R-2 zoning districts. Application of R-2 35' front and rear, 10' side, and 20'
street side setbacks to subject property results in a buildable area of 862.17sf, considerably smaller
than the existing home on the subject property. The drawing below left depicts the subject property
3 BOA 18 .06 107 Kiefer Avenue -May 21, 2018
of the R-2 setbacks and the existing accessory structure is vastly greater in size than the 25% of the rear
yard allowed by the R-2 zoning district. The full and complete application of the zoning ordinance to
the subject property only allows the existing non-conformity to be maintained and would prevent the
renovations depicted on the supporting documents that wou ld otherwise be allowable if the existing
home was located on a typical 10,S00sf R-2 zon ing district lot. Further, if the existing structure was
razed and replaced with a new structure, the new structure would be limited to a buildable area of
862sf and a variance would very likely be submitted so that a home of similar size to those within 300'
would be constructed.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.
Response:
The west property line of subject property is at an angle that creates a peculiarity unique to subject
property by creating a partially-triangular shape to the lot and thus applying partially-triangular
setbacks lines to a lot already much smaller than the minimum lot area of a typical R-2 zoning district lot
(smaller than an R-3 zoning district lot). The app lication was submitted believing R-2 zoning districts
require 30' front and rear setbacks, and the application assumed a 10' side setback line would be
applied to the east and west side setbacks. The application requests the following, based upon the
assumed setback lin es:
5
1. Reduce the {assumed) 30' front setback line to 24' to allow construction of a new porch.
o Without a setback variance request the existing porch may only be "maintained" as
allowed by Article VII, Section F. of the Zoning Ordinance.
• The existing "porch" appears to be a vegetative-covered trellis that could on ly be
maintained and not improved or reconstructed without a variance.
■ The requested 24' setback line falls approximately in line with the existing
porch's southern terminus as seen in the aerial image.
o For comparison purposes, R-3 zoned lots (7,800sf minimum) require 30' front setbacks
(subject property's rear setback line includes the existing building's front orientation)
2. Reduce the west side yard setback in two areas by approximately 41" to allow for construction
of a second -floor balcony and rear side porch.
o As stated the application assumed the west side setback was 10'. For clarity and to
allow construction tolerance, this staff report will assume a reduction of 48" (4') and
assume the reduction in street side setback will be from 20' to 6'.
• The 41" reduction is likely the applicant's desire to request the minimum
variance needed to cure the setback intrusion.
3. Reduce the east side yard setback by approximately 20" to allow for a residential elevator shaft.
o Similar to item 2 above, this staff report will assume a reduction of 24" (2') and assume
the reduction of the east property line side setback will be from 10' to 8'.
BOA 18.06 107 Ki efer Av enue -May 21, 2018
The aerial image below depicts the proposed setbacks overl aid the subject property:
(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 believes th at a variance allowing the setbacks as de scr ibed in item /(c" above is warranted for
subj ect property. If subject property was a typica l 75'x140' (10,500 sf) lot w ithin an R-2 zonin g district,
th e requested renovation s would likely fa ll we ll within the standard setback lines and well und er the lot
coverage allowed by R-2 zoning. No chan ge of use is requ ested by subject application the approva l of
the setback variance described herein i s not believed to be a detriment to the public good and impair
the purpose or intent of the zoning ordinance.
7 BOA 18.06 107 Ki efer Ave nu e -May 21, 2018
Recommendation:
It is staffs position the existing building setbacks of subject property create an unnecessary hardship by
applying setbacks to a 5,609sf lot normally applied to a 10,S00sf lot. Further, the angled western
property line creates a peculiarity unique to subject property that applies triangular setback lines to a
rectangular property.
The applicant is advised the subject application did not address the existing accessory structure on the
property, and subject application does not consider any work other than maintaining the existing non-
conformity of the existing accessory structure. The drawings included as supporting documents depict
an apparent accessory dwelling constructed as a second floor to the accessory structure, which is not
permissible in R-2 zoning districts. Further, subject application does not contemplate the breezeway
shown on the supporting documents, and the applicant is encouraged to consult with the Building
Official regarding the breezeway prior to submission of building plans, as the subject application does
not request a variance related to lot coverage. In addition, "balconies" referenced in the supporting
documents must meet the requirements of Article Ill, Section C.3. of the zoning ordinance and must not
extend more than two feet beyond the yard area requirements.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of setback line variances as follows:
• 24' rear setback in lieu of 35' rear setback (the existing home is oriented to the lot's rear)
• 6' side street setback in lieu of the 20' side street setback on the west side of subject property
• 8' side setback in lieu of the 10' side setback on the east side of subject property
Prepared by:
J. Buford King
LEED AP, QCI
City Planner
8 BOA 18.06 107 Kiefer Avenu e -May 21, 2018
March 27, 2018
VARIANCE REQUEST SUPPLEMENT
Describe the indicated conditions:
l. The existing home was built under a d ifferent land use ordi nance which
a l lowed for much sma l ler building se t backs. Today the City of Fairhope Land
Use Ordinances requires greater bui lding set-backs.
2. The Owners of the existing home and property are wishing to improve and
upgrade the existing structure by adding a second floor, porches and covered
walkway to the garage and a second floor to the ex isting garage. All of wh ich
are in keep ing with the recen t trends taki ng place taking in that neig hborhood
area.
3. The modern b u ilding set back requirements inst ituted by the City causes the
bu ilding footpri nt of the lot to be very narrow and wou l d preclude the
const ruction of t he Front Porch, Side Balcony and Rear Side Porch. The new
Front Porch is intended to be const ructed over the e xisting Front Porch's.
footprin t.
4. Also two corners of the existi ng structure penetrate t he modern b ui l ding
setback li nes on the west side of the property.
How do t he above indicated characteristics preclude reasonab le use of your land?
l. The modern building setback lines wil l not allow for the construction of ·the ·: · -... •· .. •· ,,, ·· •
Front Porch, Side Balcony n or the Rear Side Porch facing the alleyway and Bay
thus preventing t he proposed remodeling of the existing structure to a more
suitable and modern home in keeping with t he trends of that area in Fa irhope.
What type of variance are you requesting?
l. Smaller Front Yard Bui lding Setback from 30 feet to 24 feet to allow for a new
front porch to be const ructed.
2. Smaller West Side Yard Bui lding Setback in two areas approximatel y 41 inches
to allow for the construction of a Second Floor Balcony, and Rear Side Porch
(Please see attached site plan).
W~@~l[W~lffi
Jru APR O 9 2018 lY)
BY: ... Y.6 ....... .
', ,; ,i ... ,
3. Smal ler East Sid e Yard Building Setback of approximately 20 inches to allow
for a residential elevator shaft (Please see attached site plan).
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a building setback line variance to lot 13 of Trentino, a Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Lot 13 is located along Via Maria approximately 1,100 feet north of the Trentino
entrance along Parker Road. The Trentino PUD requires 15' front setbacks, 20' rear setbacks, 5' side
setbacks, and 15' side street setbacks. Maximum lot coverage as a function of the PUD is 65%. The
applicant provided a floor plan as a supporting document depicting a proposed 641 -1011 wide home to
be constructed on lot 13. However, lot 13 includes a 10' landscape easement in addition to the setback
lines described above, effectively creating a 15' side setback on an 80' wide lot. The variance
application requests the proposed home be constructed upon lot 13 across the 51 east setback line up
to the landscape easement, with the landscape easement becoming a de facto 10' side setback for lot
13's east side. The 5' side setback line on the west side of the lot will not be affected by this
application, and if approved the effect of the variance will be to set the east side setback line to 0'. The
applicant provided a letter from the Trentino Property Owner's Association stating the Trentino
Architectural Review Committee concurs with the subject application.
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 a variance through Article 11.A.d(3) which states
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.
2 BOA 18.07 13 Via Maria -May 21, 2018
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:
Subject property is a rectangular lot and does not appear to contain exceptional or
extraordinary conditions due to the lot's size, shape, and 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.
Response:
Subject property is a component of the Trentino PUD and the landscape easement included on
lot 13 is a reflection of the intent of the PUD at its creation circa 2002. The landscape easement
on the lot is above and beyond the setbacks already required for the lot and is not necessarily a
hardship imposed by the PUD ordinance but rather a feature of the PUD. Subject application
appears to reflect the evo lution of the desires ofthe PUD.
3 BOA 18.07 13 Via Maria -May 21 , 2018
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.
Response:
There are six (6) landscape easements occurring within the Trentino PUD, and therefore the
landscape easement on subject property is not peculiar to subject property.
(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:
Staff believes that a variance allowing the requested O' east side setback as described in the
summary of request is warranted for subject property. No change of use is requested by
subject application the approval of the setback variance described herein is not believed to be a
detriment to the public good and impair the purpose or intent of the zoning ordinance.
Further, the existing 10' landscape easement will serve as a de facto side setback on the same
lot so that the proposed home to be constructed will have at least 10' of setback from the
adjacent common area 4 while preserving the access allowed by the easement. All other
setback lines shall be maintained as-platted.
Recommendation:
Subject application is a unique situation that is similar to a re-plat of the subdivision and its PUD
master plan, but a change in the size and shape of the subject lot is not requested . Staff
believes in this situation a variance is warranted in lieu of a re-plat because only one setback
line is to be affected by the variance, and a 'de facto' setback line twice the width of the PU D's
side setback requirement will still be in place due to the existence of the landscape easement.
This application does not change the landscape easement, nor does it change the lot coverage
requirements of the subject lot, and those provisions of the PUD ordinance will remain in
effect.
As a result, staff recommends APPROVAL of the variance converting the 5' east side setback line
to O' for the subject property.
Prepared by:
J. Buford King
LEED AP, QCI
City Planner
4 BOA 18.07 13 Via Maria -May 21, 2018
TREN'TINO
PROPERTI' OWNERS' ASSOCJATION, INC,
PO BOX 1263, MONTROSE, ALABAMA 36559
April 5, L018
To Who1n It May Conccrt1:
This is to advise that the Trentino Architectural Review Con1n1ittcc-(ARC)
has agreed to rescind the 5 foot setback requircnlC~nt from the 10 foot
l andscape casement on the east side of Lot #13 to al low for the proposed
nc\v home construction. This wilJ allow t he new home to be built
adjacent to the easement on the east \Vhile still n1aintai ning the required
setbacks on aU other sides. it is understood that the builder will have to
also obtain the proper approval to rescind the setback requirement from
the City of Fait-hope.
Respectfully Submitted:
Mark Durrett
Chairrnan Trcnti no ARC
fo) ~ @ ml Il WI ~ 1n)
lffi APR~ 2018 JY}
BY: ... ~f? ........ .