HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2018 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKarin Wilson
A/c!}'Or
Council Member,-
Kevin G. Boone
Robert A. Brown
Jack Burrell, ACMO
Jimmy Conyers
Jay Robi115on
Lisa A. Hanks, MMC
,;o,clerk
Deborah A. Smith, CPA
Ciry Treasurer
16 l North Section Street
P.O. Drawer 429
Fairl1ope, Alabama 36533
251-928-2136
251 -928 -6776 Fax
11~v1v.fairhopeal.gov
!'nim'fi 011 recycled pafJtT
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
February 19, 2018
2 . Approval of the January 18, 2018 minutes
3. Consideration of Agenda Items :
A. 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.
PPIN #: 15111
B . BOA 18 .03 Public hearing to consider the request of Robert
and Kimberly Mazur for a variance to the Front
setback requirements for property located at 374
Pecan Ridge Blvd .
PPIN #: 270292
4 . Old/New Business
• 2018 Board of Adjustments Agenda Schedule
5. Adjourn
January I 8, 2018
Board of Adj ustment Minutes
The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, January
18, 2018 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at the City Administration
Building, located at 161 N. Section Sti-eet.
Members Present: Chairman Anil Vira; Troy Strunk, Vice-Chair; Cathy Slagle
Dick Schneider; John Avent; Harry Kohler; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning;
Buford King, Planner; and Emily Boyett, Secretary .
Absent: Christina Stankoski
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Vice Chainnan Vira.
The minutes of the December 18 , 2017 meeting were considered. Dick Schneider moved
to accept the m inutes as written and was 2nd by Cathy Slagl e. Motion carried with one
abstention by A.nil Vira.
BOA 17 .20 Public hearing to consider the request of Richard and Mary Mundy
for a variance to the rear setback requirements for property located
at 319 Equity Street.
Mr. King gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a rear setback line variance to lot 1 of the McMillins
Subdivision, located approximately 1/3 mile southeast of South Mobile Street at the
convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. The subject property is located within
an R-2 medium density s ingle family zoning district, which requires 35' front and rear
setbacks as well as 1 O' side setbacks. Lot 1 is generally rectangular, with slightly
irregular lot lines on its northeast side bordering Lot 2, PPIN 357758. Lot 1 contains two
l ot li nes that are contiguous with the right-of-way (ROW) at the convergence of Nichols
A venue and Equity Street. A s-platted, this slight in-egu1arity creates two front lot lines as
well as two rear lot lines: the 20' front lot line con-esponds to a 152.5 ' rear l ot line, and
the 118 .3' front lot line corresponds to a 57' rear lot line. Approximately 69' of the
118.3 ' lot line is contiguous with the ROW at the convergence of N ichol s Avenue and
Equity Street.
The variance request desires to treat the 35' rear setback line along the 152.5' rear lot line
as a 1 O' side setback line along the same 152.5 ' lot line. The City of Fairhope Zoning
Ordinance Article DC Section "C" defines a Lot Line, Front as:
"The lot line contiguous to the 1ight-of-way line of the street on which the lot has
least dimension. "
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C" defines a Lot Line, Rear
as:
"The lot line opposite to and most distant from the front lot line."
1
January 18 , 201 8
Bo ard of Adjustm e nt M inutes
By definition the 20 ' lot line contiguous with the ROW is a front lot line and the 152.5'
lot line opposite to and most distant from the 20' lot line is a rear lot line. Though only
approximately 69' of the 118.3' lot line is contiguous to the ROW, the 118 .3 ' lot line is
not the lot line of the least dimension contiguous to the ROW.
The subject property's size and buildable area do not appear to be extraordinary or
exceptional due to size, shape, or topography with the existing setbacks in place. Fmther,
the subject property's topography is consistent with the nearby lots along Nichols A venue
and Equity Street. The subject property's existing as-platted setbacks do not appear to
prevent constrnction of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback
variance. The requested variance wishes to treat the 152.5' rear lot line's 35' rear setback
line as a 10 ' side setback line. Though the convergence of Equity Street and Nichols
A venue, as well as the ROW associated with each street creates the peculiarities
described above, the 20' lot line contiguous to the ROW and its corresponding rear lot
line of 152.5 ' in length clearly meets the definition of "front" and "rear" lot lines. Staff
believes that a variance allowing the setback requested is not warranted.
Recommendation:
It is staff's position that the rear lot line for which a setback variance is requ ested clearly
meets the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C" definition of a rear
lot line, and therefore the 35' rear setback 1ine is the c01Tect setback line for the subject
prope1ty. As stated previously the subject property's existing setbacks do not appear to
prevent construction of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback
variance. Fmther, the existing setbacks do not appear to prevent the reasonable use of the
property for a residence of similar size to nearby residences. As a result, staff
recommends DENIAL of the request for a rear setback line variance.
Edward McMurphy was present for the applicant. He stated the property is owned by his
step-daughter and his wife is the realtor. He said the neighbors do not oppose their
request. He explained the configuration of the lot and the application of the setbacks will
restrict the possibility of a single story house to be constructed on the lot. He requested
the Board approve the south property line being reduced to 1 O'. He added this will also
allow the house to be aligned with the adjacent homes.
Mr. Vira asked what direction the adjacent homes face and Mr. McMurphy responded
they front Equity Street. Mr. Dyess stated orientation is not considered when reviewing
an application. Mr. A vent said he struggled with this case but he understands the
ordinance but it seems to be geared toward a comer lot in a typical subdivision. He said
the lot is irregular but so is most of the Fruit and Nut neighborhood. He noted the angle
of the lot would put the back yard facing the adjacent home. Ms. Slagle explained that
due to the curve of the intersection of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street the houses along
the street will never line up completely. Mr. McMurphy stated the applicant needs more
square footage of the lot to be able to construct a single level home instead of a two story.
Mr. Dyess stated wanting a larger house is not a hardship or grounds for a variance. He
explained there are specific guidelines and c1iteria to be met for granting a variance. He
said the rules and ordinances apply to everyone and a variance should be granted due to
2
January 18 , 2018
Board of Adjustment Minutes
not having reasonable use of the property. Mr. Dyess said the rnles are virtually the same
across the state and the country. Mr. Schneider said bigger houses equal more taxes and
we should try to get the nicest house in the City. H e added the regulations should not
apply to these shape lots.
Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Vim closed the
public heating.
Mr. Strunk stated the buildable sq uare footage is restricted with two rear yard setbacks.
Mr. King said the applicants previous request for relief to the eastern setback bad a
favorable recommendation from staff because it could have been considered a s ide
setback. Mr. Dyess stated the rear lot line is defined as opposi te of the front l ot line and
the front lot line is desc1ibed as the nan-owest line along the right-of-way. Mr.
McMurphy said this request is logical and reasonable and there has been no opposition
from the neighbors.
Dick Schneider made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Motion failed due
to lack of a second.
Mr. A vent said the applicant does have reasonable use and buildable area even though the
lot is iITegular. He stated a hard ship has not been proven.
Cathy Slagle made a motion to accept the staff reconunendation to deny the request for a
rear setback line variance because the existing setbacks do not appear to prevent the
reasonable use of the property for a residence of similar size to neai·by residences.
John A vent 2nd the motion and the motion canied with the following vote: A YE -John
Avent, Troy Stnmk, Anil Vira, and Cathy Slagle. NAY -Dick Schneider.
BOA 18.01 Public hearing to consider the request of Lance Hill for a Special
Exception to allow Storage at 362 S. Greeno Road.
Mr. King gave the staff report.
Summary of Request:
The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow storage units at 362 S. Greeno
Road, which is the location of Fairhope Floor Covering. The storage unit facility will be
located immediately west of the Fairhope Floor Cove1ing Building. The subject prope1ty
is zoned M-1 Light Industrial Dist1ict. According to the City of Fairhope Zoning
Ordinance Article III, Section A., the M-1 zoning district is intended to provide a suitab le
protected environment for manufactming, research and wholesale establishments which
are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable emissions, and generate little
industrial traffic. A simi lar storage facility, D oc's Storage, is located i1mnediately nmih
of the subject property and the storage facility's buildings are immediately west of
Fairhope Animal Clinic. The subject prope1ty is bordered by M-1 zoning to its north,
south, and west, Greeno Road to the east, and B-2 General Business Distiict east of
Greeno Road.
"Personal Storage" is an allowable use within the M-1 zoning classification as indicated
in the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section B ., Table 3 -1 Use Table.
3
Janu ary 18, 201 8
Boa rd of Adju stm eot Min ute s
However, "Personal Storage" is not allowable by right and a special exception is required
to allow personal storage as an allowable use. Further, Table 3-1 indicates the use is
allowed "only on appeal and subject to special conditions". The applicant is proposing to
constrnct the storage facility immediately west of the existing Fairhope Floor Covering &
Interiors facility , which will partially shield the storage facility from the view from
Greeno Road , in similar fashion to the maimer in which the existing Doc's Storage
facility is shielded from view from Greeno Road by the Fairhope Animal Clinic. The
existing nearby storage facility as well as the nearby printing company, glass company,
and an HV AC contractor are examples of compatible uses with the proposed storage
facility.
Recommendation :
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment APPROVE the proposed Special Exception
for the subject property to allow a storage facility.
Mr. Hill was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Vira opened the public hearing . Having no one present to speak, Mr. Vira closed the
public hearing.
Troy Strunk made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the proposed
Special Exception for the subject property to allow a storage facility.
Having no fmther business , Dick Schneider made a motion to adjourn. Troy Strunk 2nd
the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:42 PM.
4
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 District. Each proposed use is consistent with Article Ill.
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. Storm water
Management requirements .
Comments:
The current zoning of the subject property i s 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 Ill. Section B. Allowed Uses, Table 3-1: Use Table, of the
Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, the proposed restaurant and gift shop are allowed uses.
Per Article Ill. 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 11 811 per a 1994 survey provided with the
application for variance . Parcel "A' is 45'x44' totaling 1,980 sq.ft., and Parcel "B" 45'x44' also totaling
1,980 sq.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.
2
3
'>;/
.•
_·-:· ,~ . ..., ..
. . l'•J\,.)0 .~
~),
~
;' '>'{:
~'
,':J
"'..., fl:1 ~
:I ,.l'
.
;>.
Restaurants and Bars:
1 space for each 4 seats up to 52 sea t s and 1 space for each 6 sea t s thereafter.
General Retail and Office establishments:
0 to 400 sq uare 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
u se 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 pedestrian acces s 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.
Stormwater Variance:
A total variance from stormwater is very problematic and staff does not support such a variance.
Various nontraditional stormwater methods can be employed i.e . exfiltration, in ground holding basins
or even rain barrels, to contain and release stormwater. Staff recommends that these methods be
explored. Any method of stormwater management must meet the intent of Article IV. Section F. Storm
water Management regulations and approved by the Public Works Director.
The Zoning Ordinance provides criteria for each variance to be re v iewed against through Article 11.3 .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 piece of property in
question becau se of its size, shape, or topography;
Response: The application of the setback requirements of 20' front and rear yard leaves the
buildable area a 4'x 90' rectangle. The small area and the peculiar shape of 4' depth of building
envelope renders the subject property without a reasonable use and a variance is therefore
warranted. Staff feels that the parking hardship can be mitigated through compensatory parking in
the Fairhope Pier vicinity. Staff does not support the stormwater variance.
(b) The application of the ordinance to this piece of property would create an unnecessary
hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance.
Response: The very small buildable area coupled with the peculiar shape creates an unnecessary
hardship.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and,
Response: It appears that the subject property is unique in its size and location and hardships.
5
(d} Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the publi c good and impair the pu rpose
and intent of this ordinance; pr ovided however, that no variance may be granted for a u se of land
or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
Response: Staff believes that setback variance is warranted. The parking variance is conditioned
upon compensatory parking in the vicinity. The variance requested for stormwater management is
recommended to be denied. Staff feels that recommended variances and associated conditions
protect the public good and will not impair the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Recommendation:
6
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 ge nerated 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.
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 propose d 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 storm water variance and recommends that a nontraditional
method be employed to meet the stormwater requirements with approval by the Public Works
Director.
Summary of Request:
Th e ap p li ca nt i s r equ es tin g a buildin g se tback line variance to lot 16 of the Pe can Rid ge Subd ivisi on,
located alon g Pe can Ridg e BLV D approximately 0.23 mil es south of Mosley Road and 0.41 mi les eas t of
County Road 13. The subject property is located w ithin an R-2 medium den sity single famil y zoning
di strict, w hich r equires 3 5' front and rea r se tback s as w ell as 10' side setbacks . The appli cant provid ed
a supportin g document depicting a proposed home to be constru cted on the lot, show ing the home's
layout on th e subject property with a requ ested continuous 25 ' front setback line follo w ing the we st ,
south w est, and southern continuou s property line as w ell as depicting a northern 10' si de setback line
and an ea stern 35' rear set ba ck line. Th e s upporting docu ment is dra w n t o scale but i s not a survey.
Comments:
The Ci ty of Fairhop e Zon i ng Ordinan ce 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 Adju stm ents is authorized to grant a v ariance through Articl e II.A.d(3) which state s 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 guidan ce for variance r equests through the follow ing crit er ia:
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 part icular piece of property
2 BO A 18.03 37 4 Pe can Rid ge Bl vd. - Feb 19, 20 18
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:
Lot 16 is generally rectangular, with a radiused southwest area in lieu of typical angular corner. 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 2001 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossary define s a Lot Line, Front as:
"The lot line contiguous to the street right-of-way line of the street on which the lot ha s 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 2001 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Glossary defines a Lot, Corner as:
"A lot abutting t wo or more streets at thei r intersection or upon two parts of a street which
form an interior angle of le ss than 135 degrees. The point of intersection of the street lines is
the corner."
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 req uire a corresponding 35'
building setback line. The subd ivi sio n plat for Pecan Ridge Subdivision, instrument number 2218C does
not note or depict specific building setback lines for subject property (a site data table i s included and
an excerpt of the site data table i s b elow ):
3 BOA 18.03 374 Pecan Ridge Bl vd. - Feb 19, 2018
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
set back line variance to allow a 10' 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 sim ilar si ze to nearby residences.
Prepared by:
J. Buford King, LEED AP, QCI
City Planner
Subject property looking southeast
Subject property looking west along ROW
8
Subject property looking northwest
Subject property looking northwest from lot 8
BOA 18.03 374 Pecan Ridge Blvd. -Feb 19, 2018
Fairhope Board of Adjustments Agenda Schedule 2018
MEETING DATE 5:00PM SUBMITTAL DEADLINE 3:00PM
Thursday, January 18, 2018 Monday, December 18, 2017
*Moved due to the Martin Luther King holiday
Monday, February 19, 2018 Monday, January 8, 2018
Monday, March 19, 2018 Monday, February 12, 2018
Monday, April 16, 2018 Monday, March 12, 2018
Monday, May 21, 2018 Monday, April 9, 2018
Monday, June 18, 2018 Monday, May 14, 2018
Monday, July 16, 2018 Monday, June 11, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018 Monday, July 9, 2018
Monday, September 17, 2018 Monday, August 13, 2018
Monday, October 15, 2018 Monday, September 10, 2018
Monday, November 19, 2018 Monday, October 8, 2018
Monday, December 17, 2018 Tuesday, November 13, 2018
*Moved due to the Veterans Day holiday
Thursday, January 24, 2019 Monday, December 10, 2018
*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. **