HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2018 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketFebruary 19, 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: Chairman Anil Vira; Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; Christina
Stankoski; Dick Schneider; John Avent; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning;
Buford King, Planner; and Emily Boyett, Secretary.
Absent: Cathy Slagle
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Vice Chairman Vira.
The minutes of the January 18, 2018 meeting were considered. John Avent moved to
accept the minutes as written and was 2nd by Dick Schneider. Motion carried with one
abstention by Christina Stankoski.
BOA 18.02 Public hearing to consider the request of Bob Pope for a variance to
the Front and Rear setbacks, parking requirements, and stormwater
requirements for property located at 4 Beach Road.
Mr. Dyess gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
Bob Pope is seeking to add on/construct a restaurant and gift shop on the subject
property. It is zoned B-3(b) Tourist Resort Commercial Services Di strict. Each proposed
use is consistent with Article III. Section B. Table 3-1: Use Table under Use categories of
Service (restaurant) and Retail (gift shop). The applicant is seeking a O' front and rear
setback, a variance to the parking requirements contained in Article IV.E. Parking, Table
4-3 Parking Schedule, and a variance from Article IV. Section F. Stonn water
Management requirements.
The current zoning of the subject property is B-3(b) Tourist Resort Commercial Services
District. This district is intended for a range of commercial and resort residential uses at
appropriate locations to serve the needs of tourists. Pursuant to Article III. Section B. Allowed
Uses, Table 3-1: Use Table, of the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, the proposed restaurant and gift
shop are allowed uses.
Per A1ticle III. Section C. Dimension Standards, Table 3-2 : Dimension Table -Lots and
Principle Structure, the subject property required setbacks are: front 20'; rear 20'; side O' and
maximum height is 30'. The applicant is requesting a 20' front and rear yard variance to build to
each property line. The rear property line abuts the bluff. The applicant has stated that he has
already obtained a front setback variance some years ago. The variance was not recorded and
some uncertainty remains about the current validity of the variance. To "clean up" the
uncertainly, the front setback variance request has been included in the current request.
The subject property is comprised of Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" per a 1994 survey
provided with the application for v ariance. Parcel "A ' i s 45 'x44' totaling 1,980 sq.ft.,
February 19, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
and Parcel "B" 45'x44' also totaling 1,980 s q.ft., for a cumulative total for both parcels
of 3,960 sq.ft. Parcel "A" currently contains a restaurant use which appears to be
constructed to the front and rear property line. Staff is unclear how the building was
permitted and has no information to determine the permitting process.
Setback Variance:
As stated previously, the subject property is comprised of two lots Parcel "A" 44'x45' and Parcel
'B" 44 'x45', for total frontage for the subject property of 90' and rear of 90'. When applying the
20' front and rear setback a the 44' lot depth, a total buildable area of 4 ' is allowed under the
Zoning Ordinance. Obviously, this isn 't enough area to consider a property "usable". Staff
supports to the variance for setbacks.
Parking Variance:
As stated previously, the current restaurant located on Parcel "A" of the subject property is, and
has been, using the public parking around the fountain. Again, the permitting process for this
use is unclear. However, staff does not support a total variance from the parking requirements.
The public parking does get constrained in this area at times.
The parking requirements are provided in Article IV.E. Parking, Table 4-3 -Parking Schedule,
which provides the following:
Restaurants and Bars:
1 space for each 4 seats up to 52 seats and 1 space for each 6 seats thereafter.
General Retail and Office establishments:
0 to 400 square feet of floor area -4 parking spaces
400 to 5000 square feet of floor area -same as above plus 1 for each additional 400 square feet
Because the current parking is for the public to use the pier and surrounding park areas, staff
recommends that three conditions be added to any variance approval.
1. Compensatory parking, equivalent to the parking demand generated by the
proposed use per Table 4-3 -Parking Schedule be provided in the Fairhope Pier
park vicinity as determined by the Public Works Director.
2. Compensatory parking be installed prior to the issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy (C.O.).
3 . The sidewalk near the Fireman's Hall be extended past the subject property to
provide a safe p edestrian access from available parking area to the proposed u se.
This will also create a pedestrian network to the pier area and the proposed use.
The sidewalk must be permitted through the Public Works Depattment as it will
b e located on City property.
Stormwater Variance:
A total variance from stormwater is very problematic and staff does not support such a variance.
Various nontraditional stmmwater methods can be employed i.e. e xfiltration , in ground holding
basins or even rain barrels, to contain and release stormwater. Staff recommends that these
methods be explored. Any method of storm water management must meet the intent of Article
IV. Sectio n F. Storm wat er Management regulations and approved by the Public Works Director.
2
February 19 , 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
Recommendation:
1. Staff recommends approval of a 20' variance to the rear and front setback.
2. Staff recommends approval from the parking requirements of Article IV .E. Parking,
Table 4-3 -Parking Schedule conditioned upon:
a. Compensatory parking, equivalent to the parking demand generated by the
proposed use per Table 4-3 -Parking Schedule be provided in the Fairhope Pier
park vicinity as determined by the Pub lic Works Director.
b. Compensatory parking be installed prior to the issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy (C .O.).
c. The sidewalk near the Fireman's Hall be extended past the subject property to
provide a safe pedestrian access from available parking area to the proposed use .
This will also create a pedestrian network to the pier area and the proposed use.
The sidewalk must be permitted through the Public Works Department as it will
be located on City property.
3 . Staff recommends denial of the stormwater variance and recommends that a
nontraditional method be employed to meet the stormwater requirements with approval
by the Public Works Director.
Mr. Dyess explained the question is whether the applicant has reasonable use of the
property and with the setbacks applied there is only a 4 ' buildable area. Mr. Schneider
asked if the new parking spaces would be built on City property and Mr. Dyess
responded yes, the location would be determined by the Public Works Director but paid
for by the applicant. Mr. A vent asked if the sidewalk would also be on City property and
Mr. Dyess responded yes, there is approximately 5' between the existing parking spaces
and the property line. Mr. Vira stated a zero lot line would require accessing the rear of
the building for maintenance by City property. Mr. Strunk asked iftownhomes are
allowed in B-3b and Mr. Dyess responded no.
Mr. Pope addressed the Board saying there is 12' between the curb and the property line.
Be explained he is proposing a 30' two-story building with a gift shop or coffee and ice
cream on the first floor and a restaurant on the second floor. He said people were not in
favor of the condos but some people don't want anything . He stated he has no objections
to the parking conditions . Mr. Strunk asked if Mr. Pope would restrict the uses to
restaurant and gift shop and Mr. Pope responded yes. Mrs . Stankoski aske if the
applicant could come back later and make it entire site a restaurant and Mr. Dyess
responded yes, but the parking would still have to be met.
Mr. Vira opened the public hearing.
J olm Manelos of 104 White A venue -He read a letter to the Board against the proposal.
He cited concerns with potential harm and impact to the bluff and substantial detriment to
the public good .
Pat Brandon of 107 N. Bayview Street -He spoke in opposition to the variance requests.
He stated this proposal is at the expense of all property owners in Fairhope and petitioned
the Board to deny the request for the greater good of the community.
3
February 19, 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Vi.ra closed the public hearing.
Mr. Avent stated the recent changes to the definition of building height could allow a 40 '
building on the site. Mr. Vira asked if the height could be restricted and Mr. Dyess stated
he was not sure. Mr. Strunk stated the existing building could be modified and built to
30' now. Mr. Schneider asked if there are any proposed drawings . Mr. Pope stated he
does not have any drawing at thi s time, but it will be nice. Mr. Vira suggested tabling the
application to see drawings and if the approval can be tied to drawings. Mr. A vent stated
he has concerns with the offsite parking, the visual impacts to the view, and the impact to
the toe of the bluff. Mr. Dyess explained it would be a regulatory taking if the property
owner is not allowed to develop at all. He said the parking has to be met and he can ask
legal staff if the height can be limited.
John A vent made a motion to deny the request. Dick Schneider 2 nd the motion and the
motion carried with the following vote: A YE -Christina Stankoski, Dick Schneider, John
Avent, and Anil Vira. NAY -Troy Strunk.
BOA 18.03 Public hearing to consider the request of Robert and Kimberly Mazur
for a variance to the front and rear setback requirements for property
located at 374 Pecan Ridge Blvd.
Mr. King gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a building setback line variance to lot 16 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 10' side setbacks. The applicant provided a supporting document
depicting a proposed home to be constructed on the lot, showing the home's layout on the
subject property with a requested continuous 25' front setback line following the west,
southwest, and southern continuous property line as we ll as depicting a northern 10' side
setback line and an eastern 35' rear setback line.
Lot 16 is generally rectangular, with a radiused southwest area in lieu of typical angular comer.
The western, southwestern and southern lot line is a continuous lot line contiguous to the Pecan
Ridge Blvd. right of way (ROW) and is therefore a "front" lot line.
The 200 1 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossary defines a Lot Line, Front as:
"The lot line contiguous to the street right-of-way line of the street on which the lo t has
least dimension."
The 2001 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossary defines a Lot Line, Rear as:
"The lot line opposite to and most distant from the front lot line."
4
February 19,2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
The 2001 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossa,y defines a Lot, Corner as:
"A lot abutting two or more streets at their intersection or upon two parts of a street
which form an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. The point of intersection of the
street lines is the comer."
Both the 157.8' northern property line and the 95' eastern property line are both opposites and
most distant from the front lot line due to the continuous nature of the front lot line. As a result ,
the 157.8' lot line and 95 ' lot lines are both rear lot lines, and therefore both lot lines require a
corresponding 35' building setback line. The subdivision plat for Pecan Ridge Subdivision,
instrument number 2218C does not note or depict specific building setback lines for subject
property. The subject property's topography is consistent with the nearby lots along Pecan
Ridge Blvd. The subject property's size and buildable area do not appear to be extraordinary or
exceptional due to size, shape, or topography, however the orientation of the continuous front lot
line creates two rear lot lines and therefore two rear setback lines. The subject property's setback
lines created by the continuous front lot line create a buildable area of approximately 2,055.16 sf.
When compared to the sizes of the existing homes within 300 feet of subject property, the
setbacks of subject property appear to prevent constmction of a comparably-sized residence
unless approval of a setback variance is granted.
The continuous front lot line contiguous to the ROW along Pecan Ridge Blvd. creates a
peculiarity unique to subject property by creating two rear lot lines and thus creating 35'
setbacks for the entire property. As stated previously the 35' building setback lines create a
buildable area of approximately 2,055.16 sf, as calculated by ESRI ArcMap. The application for
setback variance for subject property requests a continuous 25' front setback line following the
west, southwest, and southern continuous property line as well as 1 0' side setback line in place
of the 35' setback line along the northern property line, and retains the eastern 35' rear setback
line. The 35 ' building setback lines related to the continuous front setback line and the east rear
setback lines, but includes a 1 0' setback line along the northern property line. The allowable
buildable area of this setback line configuration, as calculated by ESRI ArcGIS ArcMap, is
4,490.32 sf.
Staff believes that a variance allowing the 25' front setback requested is not warranted, however
staff supports a variance allowing a 10' setback line along the northern property line, essentially
creating a 1 O' side setback line. The supporting document included with the request for variance
depicts not only the requested 25' continuous and 10 ' side setback lines, but also a proposed
house of 3,491 sf in lot coverage. The 4,490.32 sf allowable building area created by allowing a
l 0' setback line along the northern property line allows construction of a comparably-siz ed
residence to the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood within 300' of subject property.
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
3,033.46 sf, and the allowable building area created by the existing building setbacks is
2,055.16 sf. Staff does not support the approval of a variance allowing a 25' setback line
along the continuous front lot line, however staff recommends APPROVAL of a setback
5
Febru ary 19, 2018
Board of Adju stment Minutes
line variance to allow a 1 0' setback line along the northern property line of PPIN
2702952. The approval of the afore-mentioned 10' setback line creates a buildable area
of approximately 4,490.32 sf, which allows the reasonable use of the property for a
residence of similar size to nearby residences.
Mr. King explained this is not a comer lot because there are no intersecting streets.
Mr. Bennett addressed the Board saying he thought the property was a comer lot and
originally applied the setbacks as a comer lot. He explained the current house plans he
would like to build will not fit on the lot with the setbacks as required.
Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak , he closed the public
hearing.
Mrs. Stankoski asked staff if any letters or calls had been received regarding t his request
and Mrs . Boyett responded no. Mi·. Schneider asked if the reduced setbacks will impede
the neighbor's view .. Mr. Avent said 35 ' should be maintained at the front. Mr. Vira
asked if the applicant is satisfied with staff recommendation and Mr. Bennett responded
no , the 35 ' setback along the front line will still preclude the house from fitting on the lot.
Mr. Strunk asked what the setback is for the adjacent lot to the east and Mrs. Boyett
replied 20'. Mr. Avent asked if the houses would line up if the subject property was
given a 25' setback on the southern portion of the front line. Mr. King stated the
recommendation allows for reasonable use of the subject property.
Troy Strunk made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve a setback line
variance to allow a 10 ' setback line along the northern prope1iy line. Christina Stankoski
2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE -
Christina Stankoski, Dick Schneider, John Av ent , Anil Vira, and Troy Strunk. NAY -
none.
Old/New Business
2018 Agenda Deadlines -Troy Strunk mad e a motion to approve the 2018 Agenda
Deadlines as presented. Dick Schneider 2nd the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
Having no further business , Troy Strunk made a motion to adjourn. John Avent 2nd the
motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 PM.
6
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 10' 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.
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 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) 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 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:
2 BOA 18.04 325 Pecan Rid ge Blvd. -April 16, 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) 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 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:
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 2001 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossary defines a Lot Line, Front as:
The lot line contiguous to the street right-of-way line of the street on which the lot has
least dimension.
The 2001 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossary defines a Lot Line, Rear as:
The lot line opposite to and most distant from the 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 (an excerpt of the site data
table is below):
3 BOA 18.04 325 Pecan Ridge Blvd. -April 16, 2018
JC. .,._. ~ IIW.&. ~ 1'1 Wllblf W N Utter ~1 K 111111
r:# ~ 01 AS 910WN tlJl£CN WH0-E'ltl • cw; S ;M«.-JT9
F1Dff llaJJIM.1 SETm -;JO FUT 0R NS SHOWN ttJlEOft
MMIUI.OM RTIAQC-JI flEEI
SIJI[ 111L1.:D1NO IEla.\CIC -,o FtE1' (II ti fU1 • A DIIYEWAY • CH CM 11X 1lffll A I f'OOT ~ _., .ll.tlll ntA.1 lOT LIi:
The building setback lines described in the site data table excerpt above 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:
B. Lot an d Area Req uireme ,Hs .
Desc r iption R1 R2 R3 R3PGH
Mlnlmi m lol Mtfi 15.cro~riumr, red 10~ ~.c 1ume feel 7,l!CO:,qum c reet -1,oco !lqu.lrc tea
Mi1 1lrnun1 Lol Wk1U1
:, lnlctlo r k b l CIJ r~t 7SfU!!I 85 fea ~fool
b. Q:ll'llct Id:,. 115leet OO let:'!t llOfe" ss , .. 1
t,Vnlmum r-ronr
tlulldlr,g Un• 4'.Heel Y>tee.1 :»f.,, "l!lle<I!
PJdllm um Skie
Building Li ne
a.Interior let IO lee< 10fce l arm,1 I ,'nfd of 10 foci
b. comer Iv. 20 reel , 6lreat ado 2'.l fwt, &l reel ~ido 20 rcol ol,-u t o-.;Jo 1D fact, 1otrt-lll Gid9
MinimumRE,a r '.!G leel 351 ... 1 351aol 1s re~1
llul<f01 0 Lroi>
Mi'P:imum Primary
ll'11:dlo~ COVO t1lOO 401)(1reont 37rxm,oc,I ~pt!(CeOI ED percent
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.
The map excerpt below was created using ESRI ArcMap and reflects the 45' front building
setback line depicted on the plat as well as 35' rear and 10' side setback lines on subject
property as derived from the site data table. The buildable area, as calculated by ESRI ArcGIS
ArcMap, is 2,806.92 sf:
4 BOA 18.04 325 Pecan Ridge Blvd. -April 16, 2018