Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-2017 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketKarin Wilson Mqyor Council Members Kevin G. Boone Robert A. Brown Jack Burrell, ACMO Jimmy Conyers Jay Robinson Lisa A. Hanks, MMC City Clerk Deborah A. Smith, CPA Ciry 'Jrcas11rer 161 Nonh Section Street P.O. Drawer 4 29 Fairhope, Alabama 36533 251-928 -2136 251-928-6776 Fax www.fairhopea l.gov Pn'nretl rm rt'l.) ·c:krl papc.r 1. Call to Order City of Fairhope Board of Adjustment and Appeals 5:00 PM City Council Chambers December 18, 2017 2. Approval of the October 16, 2017 minutes 3. Consideration of Agenda Items: A. BOA 17 .18 Public hearing to consider the request of Kenneth Lee for a Special Exception to allow a restaurant at 552 N . Section Street. PPIN #: 1759 B. BOA 17.19 Public hearing to consider the request of PolySurveying of Mobile, Inc. for a variance to the side setback requirements for property located at 233 Divot Loop. PPIN #: 305097 C. 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. PPIN #: 29980 D. BOA 17 .21 Public hearing to consider the request of Community Bank Coast for a variance to the side setback requirements for property located at 200 N. Greeno Road . PPIN #: 77195 4. Old/New Business 5 . Adjourn October 16, 20 I 7 Board of Adju stment Minutes The City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments and Appeals met on Monday, October 16, 2017 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; Dick Schneider; Harry Kohler; John Avent; Christina Stankoski; Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning; Marcus McDowell, City Attorney and Emily Boyett, Secretary. Absent: Cathy Slagle The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman Vira. The minutes of the September 18 , 2017 meeting were considered. John A vent moved to accept the minutes as corrected and was 2nd by Troy Strunk. Motion carried with one abstention by Dick Schneider. John Avent recused himself and left the room. Harry Kohler joined the Board at the dais. BOA 17.16 Public hearing to consider the request of Thunder Box, LLC for a variance to the front setback requirements for property known as Lot 69 of The Waters at Fairhope subdivision. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report. Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a front setback line adjustment to lot 69 of The Waters, a Planned Unit Development located approximately ¾ mile north of State Highway 104 along State Highway 181. The subject lot is located at the western terminus of Sand Bar Lane. The Waters is located within a Planned Unit Development, case # ZC 05.06. As described in Article III, Section A of the City of Fairhope Zon ing Ordinance , the intent of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is: " ... to encourage innovative development that meets comprehensive plan goals and is tailored to the unique constraints and conditions of a particular site . This district allows flexibility in uses , designs, and building layouts as opposed to other zoning districts to better serve community needs". The applicant included as a supporting document an administrative replat request for lots 69-70 of The Waters, specifically requesting a re-plat of the two lots into a single lot re-labeled "69A". Lots 69 and 70 comprise the original configuration of The Waters, adopted as a PUD by the Fairhope City Council on Apri l 25, 2005 with final subdivision approval of case# SD 06.55 on January 22, 2007. Lots 69 and 70 are generally rectangular, with curved rear lot lines conforming to the curvature of the lake situated notih of subject lots. Both lots lie along the western terminus of Sand Bar Lane. The approved plat for lot 69 reflects a turnaround area approximately 18 ' x 32' necessary to allow a turnaround space for service v ehicles and emergency vehicles, and is required because the dead end of Sand Bar Lane contains no turnaround area. Setback requirements in the approved final plat vary depending upon lot 1 October 16, 2017 Board of Adjustment Minutes groupings. Lot 69 contains 30' front setbacks, 25' rear lakeside setbacks, and 10' side setbacks. When setbacks are applied, the effect of the turnaround creates a "notch" in the southwest corner of the lot's buildable area, subtracting approximately 400sf from the lot's buildable area, with a resulting buildable area of approximately 8,800sf for Lot 69 when examined individually. If lots 69 and 70 are combined and current setbacks are maintained, lot 69 would gain approximately 510 sf up to its forn1er lot line with lot 70 above and beyond the additional area gained from the combination with lot 70. The variance request primarily affects lot 69 and if the variance is granted a consistent 30' front setback will be in effect across lot 69 and into lot 70. The setback would be reduced from 30' to 12' for the 32.05' length of the turnaround area at the southwest comer oflot 69. Lot 69'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. As stated above lots 69 and 70 are generally rectangular, and their topography is consistent with the other lots comprising The Waters. With approximately 8,800sf of buildable area available , Lot 69's existing setbacks do not appear to prevent construction of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback variance. Lot 69's existing setbacks do not appear to prevent construction of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback variance. Further, if Lots 69 and 70 are combined, the east portion of the new lot 69A will gain approximately 510sffom1erly occupied by side setbacks. The 510sf area f01merly occupied by Lot 69 's side setbacks is over and above the area gained by combination with Lot 70. When examined individually, Lot 69's current buildable area with existing setbacks applied does not appear to unreasonably prevent the use of the property for permitted residential purposes. Further, the existing setbacks do not appear to prevent the reasonable use of the property for a residence of similar size to nearby residences. The turnaround area that creates the setbacks in the variance request appears to be unique to lot 69, but is a traffic circulation feature inc1uded in the preliminary and final plat approvals for The Waters and not necessarily a peculiarity of the lot's size, shape, or topography. Staff believes that a variance allowing the setbacks requested is not warranted, and therefore no relief is recommended that would cause substantial detriment to the public and impair the purpose and intent of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: It is staffs position that though the requested variance is an understandable and logical request, no hardship has been proven as required by the criteria established by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article U.C.3.e . Therefore , staff recommends the variance request be denied . Rance Reehl of Thunder Box, LLC addressed the Board saying they want to combine Lots 69 and 70 and stay consistent with the front setback across the newly created lot. He 2 October 16, 2017 Board of Adjustment Minutes said the request makes sense and will allow enough depth to design a home to suitable for the subdivision. Mrs. Stankoski asked what is across the street from these lots and Mr. Reehl responded it is a vacant 80 acre parcel. Mr. Strunk said it seems like a reasonable request but the staff recommendation is to deny. Mr. Dyess stated the request does not meet the criteria for a variance and this setback was self-imposed when the PUD was developed. Mr. Schneider asked if there will only be one home constructed if the lots are combined and Mr. Reehl responded yes. Mr. Dyess noted a re-plat has already been submitted to staff. Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Vira closed the public hearing. Mr. Schneider asked if this type of request is n01mally granted and Mr. Dyess responded each case stands on its own merit. Mr. Strunk stated he is comfortable supporting this request. Mr. Schneider asked if the tax base will change if this is approved and Mr. Dyess explained it would not change because the lot will still have a single family home on it. Harry Kohler made a motion to approve the front setback variance as requested. Dick Schneider 2 nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE - Christina Stankoski, Harry Kohler, Dick Schneider, Troy Strunk, Anil Vira. NAY - none . Harry Kohler stepped down from the dais and John A vent returned to the dais. BOA 17.17 Public hearing to consider the request of Ernest and Tenley Warhurst for a variance to construct an accessory structure on Lot 4 of White Avenue Subdivision. The property is located on the south side of White Avenue, between 300 S. Mobile Street and Mobile Bay. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report. Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a patio and swimming pool upon Lot 4 (PPIN 351457) of the White Avenue Subdivision. The applicant is a Fairhope Single Tax Corporation leaseholder of both Lot 4 referenced above as well as parcel PPIN 14585 located immediately adjacent to Lot 4's east side. The applicant's variance request narrative indicates a desire to replat parcels PPIN 351457 and 14585 into a single lot, and then construct upon the land previously associated with Lot 4, PPIN 351457. Lot 4 was acquired by the applicant as a result of a judgement from Baldwin County Circuit Court Case number CV-2007-900405 (attached). Case number CV-2007-900405 (Case) involved a dispute of the ownership, use, and enjoyment of lands comprising White Avenue Park. The Case's judgment included, among other things" ... The said subdivision plat shall include on its face a restrictive covenant prohibiting the construction of any structures or other improvement on any new lot except (i) within the Pedestrian Easement by the City of Fairhope or Fairhope Single Tax Corporation in connection with the construction, use, or maintenance of the Pedestrian Easement in :furtherance of its purposes; (ii) by a lessee from Fairhope Single Tax Corporation of a New lot in connection with the construction, maintenance, or repair of a pier or wharf over the waters of Mobile Bay and appurtenant to a New Lot, or steps or landings along or across the face of the bluff for the 3 October 16, 2017 Board of Adjustment Minutes purpose of access to or from the shore of said new Lot; or (iii) by the City of Fairhope or a lessee from Fairhope Single Tax Corporation in connection with efforts intended for the stabilization or erosion control of the shore or bluff of Mobile Bay. " As a result of the judgment referenced above, construction of any structures other than the listed exceptions is prohibited. Further, the applicant previously-received a variance on June 20, 2016 reducing the side setback of PPIN 14585 from 6' -2" to 1 '-0" and the home depicted in the setback variance request is currently under construction. The proposed site plan included with the subject application depicts construction of a swimming pool, pool deck, and landscaping onto Lot 4 and immediately adjacent to the 20 ' pedestrian easement included in Lot 4. The subject application does not appear to base the request for variance upon extraordinary or exceptional conditions related to the size, shape , or topography of the subject lots. The subj ect application does not appear to base the request for variance upon extraordinary or exceptional conditions related to the size, shape, or topography of the subject lots. As a result, no hardship has been demonstrated based upon the variance criteria. The subj ect application does not appear to reference any conditions of size, shape, or topography that are peculiar to the subject lots. Staff believes that a variance allowing construction upon Lot 4 is not warranted, and therefore no relief isTecomrnended that would cause substantial-detrimentio the public and impair the purpose and intent of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: It is staff's position the requested variance h as not proven hardship as required by the criteria established by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article II.C.3 .e. Further, staff has been advised by legal counsel that judgments related to Case# CV-2007-900405 precludes the authority of staff or t he Board of Adjustments to ove1nile the court-ordered restrictions placed upon Lot 4, PPIN 351457. Allowing construction upon Lot 4 as requested by this variance request is in violation of the restrictions imposed upon lot 4 by the above-referenced Court Case. Therefore, staff recommends the variance request be denied. Mr. Vira stated the referenced lawsuit created an additional parcel that each of the current adjacent leaseholders were offered to lease. Mr. Dyess said he thought the lawsuit was in regard to riparian rights. Mr. A vent stated the court decision only a llows a sidewalk to be constructed on the subject lot. Mr. Strunk added it also allows access to piers. Mr. McDowell stated the property was parkland and the lawsuit was over piers being constructed from the subject properties. He explained there was a consent decree and all the parties agreed. Mr. Dyess st ated staff has received multiple angry calls from residents and adjacent property owners regarding this case . Mr. Schneider stated the Board should not approve the request because it is specifically against what the court order says. Mr. Dyess stated staff does not support the request. 4 October 16, 20 I 7 Board of Adjustment Minutes Gene Warhurst addressed the Board saying the decree and the Colony's constitution allows the property to be leased with all rights. Mr. Schneider asked if the case went back to com1 would it be approved . Mr. Warhurst stated the plat was not approved by the Planning Commission because it can't meet the Subdivision Regulations for lot size and access. Mr. Avent respond ed the plat has been approved and recorded. Mr. Schneider asked if the applicant knew these restrictions when they leased the property. Mr. Avent stated yes, that's why there was a variance requested for the adjacent property at 3 00 S. Mobile Street. Mr. Warhurst asked if the lot line could be move d to the bay or to the edge of the easement. He added he does not want any more litigation. Mr. Schneider stated there has already been one variance like this denied. He stated the applicant knew the rules and built his house to comply with them. Mr. Warhurst explained he obtained a permit to construct a pier like the adjacent property owners and received a letter from the City stating it would have to be tom down. He stated a lawsuit was filed and the judge found the parkland had reverted to the Colony. Mr. McDowell stated a pier is not part of a riparian right. Mr. Avent stated the variance request and a lot line mov ement is in direct opposition of the court order. Mr. Strunk asked if the case needs more legal review and Mr. Dyess stated the case can be tabled and staff can work with the applicant and the City attorney. Mr. McDowell stated there was a consent decree that everyone agreed to and now it is coming back. He said we can't uphold one part of the decree and throw out another. Mr. Vira opened the public hearing. Mark Nix of 220 S . Mobile Street -He stated he is in the same s ituation and the lots are a hardship. He said they bought the property and now pay the taxes and are responsible for re pairing any damage to the lot but can't use it. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Vira clo sed the public hearing. Mr. Dyess stated the State Lands leasing and permitting changed in 2004 and they have tried to provide a remedy so people could have riparian rights and the ability to build piers. Dick Schneider made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to deny the requested variance due to the requested variance has not proven hardship as required by the criteria established by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article II.C.3.e. Further, staff has been advi sed by legal counsel that judgments related to Case# CV-2007-900405 precludes the authority of staff or the Board of Adjustments to overrule the court-ordered restrictions placed upon Lot 4 , PPIN 351457. Allowing construction upon Lot 4 as requested by this v ariance request is in violation of the restrictions imposed upon lot 4 b y the above-referenced Court Case . Christina Stankoski 2nd the motion and the motion ca.iTied with the following vote: A YE-Christina Stankoski, Dick Schneider, John Avent, and Anil Vira. NAY -Troy Strm1k. Charles Lowery of 9 White A venue -He stated h e does not want any additional obstructions to the vie w of the bay with a pool or a fence. Having no further business, Dick Schneider mad e a motion to adjourn. Troy Strmik 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 PM. 5 Summary of Request: The property owner and applicant is Kenneth Lee. He is seek ing approval for a special exception for a restaurant pursuant the Zoning Ordinance, Table 3.1. According to the use table, a restaurant is in the use category of "service." A restaurant is in the service category and is only allowed in the B-1 district as a special exception. It should be noted that this special exception reque st is for an existing restaurant (Original Ben's Jr. BBQ) which was given its initial business license in December of 1986. The ordinance defines a special exception in article IX. as: "Special Exception: Permission granted by the Board of Adjustment/or a use indicated in this ordinance as a use limited ta a special exception procedureJ subject to conditions specified in this ordinance and any conditions the Board deems necessary to ensure that community interests are furthered by permission of the use". The Zoning Board of Adjustments is empowered by the Zoning Ordinance to hear special exceptions through the following: "Article II. Section 4 .d. Duties and Powers: (2) Special Exceptions -To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of this ordinance upon which the board is required to pass under this ordinance". The Zoning ordinance provides the following criteria for a special exception application : Article II. Section C. e.(2) Any other application ta the Board shall be reviewed under the fol/awing criteria and relief granted only upon the concurring vote of four Board members: (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The 2006 Comprehensive Plan recognizes the existing land use in Section 2.2 on page 8 . It is described as "commercial pockets supply the immediate neighborhood s with goods and services." The subject property is in an area of North Section which falls into the category of a "comme rcial pocket." (b} Compliance with any other approved planning document; Staff Response: The use is existing. Thi s special exception application is only for approval of the u se. (c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; Staff Response: The special exception approval process is contained within the zoning ordinance and is therefore consistent with standards, goals, and intent of the zoning ordinance. (d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; Staff Response : The subject property and restaurant u se is located on a triangular shaped property (see figure 1.), not suitable for any resid ential use. A pocket of commercial uses has historically existed in the vicinity. The current use has existed at the subject property for many years. (e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; Staff Response: As stated previously, the use is existing and presumably has adequate infra structure. (/) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions; Staff Response : The use is existing. This application for special exception do es not include new development. (g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; Staff Response: Staff is not aware of any is sues or deficiencies with other laws and regulations of the City. 2 BOA 17.18 552 N. Section St. -Dec. 18, 2017 3 (h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; Staff Response: Staff is not aware of any issues or deficiencies with other laws and regulations of other jurisdiction. (i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; Staff Response: The use is existing and the special exception application does not permit new development. Any new development must be done in compliance with current setbacks and other applicable regulations. (j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. Staff Response: The use is existing and the special exception application does not permit new development. Any new development must be done in compliance with current setbacks and other applicable regulations. (k) Overall benefit to the community; Staff Response: The use has existed for many years and appears to be a viable use for the property. (I) Compliance with sound planning principles; Staff Response: The existing use is in a "commercial pocket" on a property which is irregularly shaped and not suitable for a residential use or a larger commercial use. This "commercial pocket" was established many years ago well before the comprehensive plan. In addition, the current zoning map for this area recognizes the existing use as commercial. (m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and Staff Response: Staff is not aware of any additional terms or conditions outside of applicable standards of the zoning ordinance. (n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Staff Response: None noted . Comments: As stated previously, this special exception request is for the existing restaurant, Ben's BBQ, which was first issued a business license in December of 1986. The current zoning, B-1 Local Shopping District, does not allow restaurants "by-right", reference Table 3.1. of the Zoning Ordinance. The B-1 does allow a restaurant through the approval of a special exception request which is heard and decided by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Because the current use as a restaurant is not allowed by-right, a special exception is needed for it to be a legally recognized use in the B-1 district. Without the special exception approval, the current restaurant use is considered a non-conforming use pursuant to Article VII. Section C. of the Zoning Ordinance. The following language regulates non-conforming uses: C. Non-conforming Uses Use of land or structure that legally existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, but which could not be initiated under the terms of this ordinance is considered a legal non-conforming use. A legal non-conforming use of land or structures may continue to exist subject to the following: 1. The use shall be restricted to the lot and building occupied by the use as of the effective date of the ordinance creating the non-conformance. A legal non-conforming use shall not be extended to any other building or lot or part of a lot. BOA 17.18 552 N. Section St. -Dec . 18, 2017 2 Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a side setback variance related to Lot 108 of the Quail Creek Estates, The Villas, Phase VI subdivision. The subject property is located at the south end of Club Drive, at 233 Divot Loop. The Quail Creek Estates, The Villas, Phase VI subdivision was approved on September 4, 2007, case number SD 07.33. The subject property is zoned R-3 High Density Single Family Patio/Garden Home Residential District and was approved with the following setbacks: front - 20', rear-15', side - 10' one side only, and side street-10'. On October 30, 2017 a building permit was submitted for the subject property. The submittal was reviewed for compliance and a building permit was issued on September 20, 2017. During a routine sheathing inspection by the Building Department, the inspector noted the structure appeared to encroach into the setbacks. Upon further examination, the front northwest corner of the building was found to be over the setbacks by 2.9'. The applicant is requesting a 2.9' side setback variance for the subject property. 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 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. BOA 17.19 233 Divot Loop-Dec. 18, 2017 3 The Ordinance provides guidance for variance requests through the following criteria: Article I1.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, shapeJ 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 355 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate. Analysis and Recommendation: Variance Criteria: - (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography. Response: The subject property is a pie-shaped lot approximately 15,088 sq.ft. in size. The shape of the lot is not particularly uncommon and the lot is the largest in this phase of the subdivision. The lot has no extraordinary and exceptional topographical conditions. (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: As stated above , the subject property's setbacks do not prevent the reasonable use of the property. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Response: BOA 17 .19 233 Divot Loop-Dec. 18, 2017 Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a rear setback line adjustment to lot 1 of the McMillins Subdivision, located approximate ly 1/3 m il e southeast of South Mobi le Street at the convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. 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 supporting documents depicting the existing survey of the lot as well as a proposed survey requesting treatment of the 35' rea r setback on the southeast side of the property as a 10' side setback line. The proposed survey is a supporting document that represents the desired setback request and is does not represent a re-plat request for subject property to be considered by the Planning Commission. 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 far a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. The Ordinance provides gu i dance 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 2 BOA 17.20 319 Equity St. -Dec. 18, 2017 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 ta the particular piece of property involved; and (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public goad and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance. When a variance i s granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect: Article 11.C.3 .g. Effect of Variance -Any variance granted according to this section and which is not challenged an 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 1 is generally rectangular, with slightly irregular lot lin es on its northea st side bordering lot 2, PPIN 357758. Lot 1 contains two lot lin es that are contiguous with the right-of-way (ROW) at the convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. As-platted, this slight i rregu larity creates two front lot lines as well as two rear lot lines: the 20' front lot line corresponds to a 152.5' rear lot line, and the 118.31 front lot line corresponds to a 5l1 rear lot line. Approximately 69' of the 118.3' lot line is contiguous with the ROW at the convergence of Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. The variance request desires to treat the 35' rear setback line along the 152.51 rear lot line into a 10' side setback line along the same 152.5' lot line . The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section "C" 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 Article IX Section "C" defin es a Lot Line , Rear as: The lot line opposite to and most distance from the front lot lin e. By definition the 201 lot line contiguou s with the ROW i s a front lot line and the 152.5' l ot line opposite to and most distant from the 20' lot line is a rear lot line. Though only approximately 691 of the 118.31 lot line i s contiguous to the ROW, the 118.3' lot line is not the lot lin e of the least dimen sio n contiguous to the ROW. The subject property1s size and buildable area do not appear to be extrao rdina ry or exceptional due to siz e, shape, or topography with the existing setbacks in place. Further, th e sub ject property1 s 3 BO A 17.20 319 Equity St. -Dec. 18, 2017 4 topography is consistent with the nearby lots along Nichols Avenue and Equity Street. The subject property's existing as-platted setbacks do not appear to prevent construction of a reasonably sized residence without approva l of a setback 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: As stated above, the subject property's existing setbacks do not appear to prevent construction of a reasonably sized residence without approval of a setback variance . Further, the existing setbacks do not appear to prevent the reasonab l e use of the property for a residence of similar size to nearby residences . (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Response: The layout of the ROW at the convergence of Nichols Ave and Equity Street creates a number of peculiarities that are unique to subject property. The Nichols Ave ROW increasingly turns to the southeast as it approaches Equity St., cutting across an existing driveway for the lot with PPIN 22291. It is possible, but unknown to staff that this ROW routing was intended to place a large existing oak tree in the ROW. In addition, the convergence of Nichols Ave and Equity St. occurs as a 90-degree curve rather than an intersection, and as a result the ROW at the convergence is irregular in the manner in which the ROW makes the curve of the two streets at the convergence. The ROW along Equity St. travels southwest, makes a sharp turn to the west, and then turns southwest again to intersect with the Nichols Ave ROW. This irregularity creates two lots lines for the subject property that are contiguous to the ROW . The existing survey for subject property treated both lot lines as front lines and as a result two 35' rear setback lines were platted to subject property. The irregularity of the ROW and lot lines is shown below: BOA 17.20 319 Equity St . -Dec . 18, 2017 2 Summary of Request: The applicant i s reque sting a side setbac k variance related to lot 1 of the Greeno Professional Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Greeno Profes sional Villa ge PUD wa s approved April 8, 2002, ca se number ZC 02.01. The subject property is located at the eastern intersection of Edwards Avenue and Greeno Road, located approximately 1/4 mile north of Fairhop e Avenue. The subject property is currently under con sideration for a site plan review, ca se number SR 17.03 as well as a PUD amendment, case number ZC 17.17. Both the site plan review and PUD amendments have been approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission and each case is awaiting review by the Fai r hope City Council for final approval. Cases SR 17.03 and ZC 17.17 are related to the construction of a new Community Bank location, an allowable use within the Greeno Profe ssional Villa ge PUD. The subject request for variance i s related to the driveway side setback on the north side of the property and the allowable overhang of the proposed drive-thru canopy. 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 Adju stments 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 guidan ce for variance reque st 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 finding that: BO A 17.2 1 200 N. Gre eno Rd . - Dec. 18, 2017 3 (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: Lot 1 of the Greeno Professional Village PUD is generally rectangular, with a protrusion fronting upon Edwards Avenue that creates and "L" shape. The existing private access road traversing Greeno Professional Village enters the "L" shape, makes a sharp 90-degree turn to the east, another 90-degree turn to the north, and then continues through the Greeno Profession Village before intersecting Gayfer Avenue. The bank building will be situated in the rectangular region of the subject property with the remaining areas utilized for parking. A bank drive-thru will connect to the existing access road on the northeast side of Lot 1 and re-connect to the access road on the southwest side of Lot 1. An excerpt of the bank's site plan is shown below: BOA 17.21200 N. Greeno Rd. -Dec. 18, 2017 T Dull!< Dal~ AIA Jeth ey R Barr es AIA Ru" S Blount . .\IA. LfED AP la:-.on M Ago,;t1nelll. AIA ,n memory of Mich,H~1 A. Ba, rar1co i:\IA 1%2 ~01 l 161 I p,.;:; e '•i'E ;. . .:.1 .. ne 2C! F •I f,'~ )s JO 19 November 2017 Mr. Wayne Dyess, Director of Planning Mr. Buford l<ing, City Planner City of Fairhope, AL Re: 17045 Community Bank Fairhope -BOA Variance Reques t Submittal Dear Mr. Dyess & Mr. King: Attached is our Board of Adjustments Application regarding the Community Bank project in Fa irhope. Per our previous d iscussions, we are applying for a variance regarding a drive-thru canopy overhan g dimension. We original ly included this request as part of our ongoing PUD Amend m ent subm ittal, but are now pursuing the BOA Variance Request process per your advisement . As you well know, the subject property has a very li mited buildable area th at resu lts from numerous factors, many of which are not under the Owner's control. Th e proper ty is an irregularl y shaped site, whose inherit chal lenges have bee n compounded by the way in which the PUD ha s been implemented over the years. One of the issues we have been working to address is the very shal l ow buildable area the bank ha s due to the existing access road having not been f ully built with the intended easement. Thi s severe l y impacts the available space for the drive-thru and especial l y the overhang canopy on the outermost lane. The drive-thru for the bank was lo cated on the Northern edge of the site both for aesthetic/frontage reasons and out of ne cess ity due to the site layout. Therefore, it is our belief that our request t o allow a modest in cr ease in the al lowabl e canopy overhang at the d ri ve-thru is a justified request that w ill allow customers of the bank to be serv iced with out concern of be ing "in the elements". In addition, because there is an exist ing high -l andscaped buffer and driveway on the property to th e North, we do not believe this variance would in any way negatively im pact the adjacent property. We have included all necessary drawings (annotated for cla rity) as supporting documentati on of this request. If there is any additional documentation or correspondence that would help clarify our request please do not hes itate to give me a call. Sincerely, Neil Polen, Project Architect Dale Partners Architects, P.A. Enclosure: BOA Va ri ance Application & supporting docume ntation as r equired fo) ml @ ~ Ir W1 lg lm lfil NO~ 2017 JY} BY: ... ~D. ...... .