Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2024 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketSherry Sullivan Mayor Counc11 Members Kevin G. Boone )aGk Burrell, ACMO Jimmy Conyers Corey Manin Jay Robinson Lisa A. Hanks, MMC CiryC/erk Kimberly Creech Ciry Treasurer 16 I North Seccion Street P.O. Drawer 429 Fairhope, Alabama 36533 251-928-2136 251-928-6776 fax www.[airhopeal .gov ;I,,:,: r,\)'\k,f 1,,1n:r City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments Agenda 5:00 PM Council Chambers August 19, 2024 1. Call to Order 2. 3. Approval of Minutes • July 15, 2024 Consideration of Agenda Items A. BOA 24.07 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, William Bolton, for a Special Exception -Use on Appeal -to display automobiles for outside sales on property zoned M-1 -Light Industrial District. The property is located at 7841 Porter Lane and is approximately 0.17 acres. PPIN: 38692 B. BOA 24.09 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, FST and Thomas F. Munsey, for a Special Exception -to allow for an accessory structure to be built forward of the principal structure on property zoned R-1 -Low Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 52 N. Ingleside Street and is approximately 0.83 acres. PPIN#: 14954 C. BOA 24.10 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Mack McKinney, on behalf of the Owner, FST Sildi LLC, for a Special Exception -Use on Appeal -to allow for a hotel on property zoned B-2 General Business District. The property is located at 301 Fairhope Avenue and is approximately 0.20 acres. PPIN#: 14359 Sherry Sullivan Mayor Council Members Kevin G. Boone Jack Burrell, ACMO Jimmy Conyers Corey Manin Jay Robinson Lisa A. Hanks, MMC CityCl,-rk Kimberly Creech City Treasurer 161 No nh Seccion Screet P.O. Drawer 420 Fairhope , Alabama 36533 25 1 ·928 ·2136 25 t -928 •67 i 6 Fax www .fairhopeal.gov 4. 5 . D. BOA 24.11 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Jason LaSource, for a 15' front setback variance and a 5' side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 50 Fels Avenue. The property is approximately 0.22 acres. PPIN#: 14503 Old/New Business Adjourn July 15, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 1 The Board of Adjustments met Monday, July 15, 2024, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Ryan Baker; Frank Lamia; Bryan Flowers; David Martin; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Michelle Melton, City Planner; and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk. Absent: Anil Vira and Donna Cook Vice-Chair Slagle called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Approval of Minutes David Martin made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 17, 2024, meeting. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Bryan Flowers, and David Martin Nay: None. BOA 24.08 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Shelley Springer, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal – to allow for a hotel on property zoned B3-b – Tourist Resort Commercial Service District. The property is located at 131 Fairhope Avenue and is approximately 0.30 acres. PPIN#: 15053 Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the request of the Applicant, Shelley Springer, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal – to allow for a hotel on property zoned B3-b – Tourist Resort Commercial Service District. Ms. Melton shared the zoning and aerial maps along with the existing and proposed site plans. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 24.08. Shelley Springer, 131 Fairhope Avenue, stated that she would like to revive the inn. Frank Lamia asked for confirmation that this was not a bed and breakfast, but a hotel. Ms. Springer stated that there are six suites, similar to the Fairhope Inn, and agreed stating that there will be no restaurant on site but will serve a continental breakfast and coffee. Vice-Chair Slagle asked if the parking would be on the north side. Ms. Springer stated yes. Ms. Slagle stated that there was a small home between the proposed inn and the alley. Ms. Springer stated that the parking would be up against that home. Ms. Springer continued that she does not anticipate any problems with the parking. She believes with the price point, she will attract the shoppers and that there are no amenities with the inn, so the neighbors will not be disturbed by anything that would draw the visitors outside. Mr. Simmons added that there is a landscape buffer and there is no event space at this inn. Bryan Flowers asked about a room rate. Ms. Springer stated that it would be about $350/night. July 15, 2024 Board of Adjustments Minutes 2 Mr. Simmons stated that he appreciated the work that the applicant has put in for this request and work with what is on site. Mr. Lamia asked if there was a schedule for the renovations. Ms. Springer stated that she is in the process of submitting part 2 of the Alabama Historic Tax Credits. She has been approved for part 1. As soon as she gets the approval on part 2 then an engineer will prepare the drawings and continued that she is ready to start as soon as three months. Mr. Simmons added that this project will follow up with an MOP that will go through the Planning Commission. Mr. Lamia asked if she could start construction in three months, would they open in a year? Ms. Springer agreed that it could be ready in a year. Vice-Chair Slagle opened the public hearing at 5:10pm. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed at 5:10pm. Motion: Ryan Baker made a motion to approve BOA 24.08. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Bryan Flowers, and David Martin Nay: None. Old/New Business Mr. Simmons stated that there are four cases for July. Adjournment Ryan Baker made a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Bryan Flowers, and David Martin Nay: None. Adjourned at 5:12p.m. ____________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary BOA 24.07 - Bolton Automotive City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments August 19, 2024 SPRING RUN DR INGLESIDE AVEGREENO RDPORTER LN MIDDLE ST LLOYD LN S INGLESIDE STCOMMERCIAL PARK DRGREENO RD SPORTER LN MIDDLE ST Road B-2 General Business District B-4 Business and Professional District M-1 Light Industrial District R-1 Low Density Single-Family Residential District R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District µ µ Project Name: Bolton Automotive Site Data: 0.17 acres Project Type: Special Exception: Use on Appeal Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: M-1 PPIN Number: 38692 General Location: East side of South Ingleside Ave, north of Porter Lane Surveyor of Record: N/A Engineer of Record: N/A Owner / Developer: William Bolton School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Denial Prepared by: Mike Jeffries Page 4 of 6 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Application Type: D Administrative Appeal IXl' Special Exception D Variance Property Owner / Leaseholder In.formation Name: \rJ~\\,O.,rA ~lli(\ Phone Number: 8'5\-y;)o-Su7{Q Street Address: ':J 8<h_ llis-xfr ~ City: • State: AL., Zip: ......:3=C.O=S=J ..... d-____ _ Applicant / Agent In.formation Ir d ifferent from above . Notar ized letter from prop erly ow11er Ill required 1f a n agent is used for repr esentation .. Name: Phone Number: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: Variance Request Information Complete: 6) NO §) NO YES NO Names and Address of all Real Property Owners within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: & NO Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception: Please attach as a separate sheet(s) information regarding the administrative decision made or information regarding the use seeking approval. Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you wish in your description. This infonnation will be provided to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as much as possible your position or proposal. I certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this ap lication. Pr~erty Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name Btv1~--taw,1 Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable) VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?: D Too Narrow D Elevation □ Soil D Too Small D Slope D Subsurface D Too Shallow D Shape [tZ] Other (specify) How do the above indicated char,acteristics preclude reasonable use of your land? ~•, ti,,,. JW( J.i t,.,4{"" '-' Vfl''"'- • ~re are yoy. r questing (be as specific as possible)? ",,_ t«. ,41 '"" 'I.I ""'"~ ~~ I,• Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80): Page S of 6 I ~,~,.., "To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the (zoning) ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interes t, where, owing to special conditions , a li t eral enforcement of the provision of the (zoning) ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that t he spirit of the (zoning) ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done ." BOA Fee Calculation: Residential Commercial Filing Fee: $ l 00 $500 Publication: $20 $20 TOTAL: $ I certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this a pl'cation. ~\.Y,\\,Qm M ~\<_" GD \½o Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name Q5\ \3\:aod~ Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable) CITY OF FAIRHOPE P.O. Box 429 Fairhope, AL 36533 (251) 928-8003 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS APPLICATION Page 2 of6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS (BOA) APPLICATION Authority: The City of Fairhope is authorized under the Code of Alabama, 1975 to create and establish a Board of Adjustment whose duties are quasi-judicial. Public Notice: All BOA applications are required by State Law to give notice in both the newspaper and to all real property owners with 300 feet of the proposed change. The cost of this notice is paid by the applicant. All notice charges are paid at the time of application submission. The BOA must conduct public hearings in conjunction with all applications. At the time of the BOA meeting all interested persons will be given the opportunity to speak either pro or con for the proposal. BOA Functions: The BOA performs several functions: 1) hear and decides appeals from a decision made by an administrative official of the City of Fairhope; 2) hear and decide on granting special exceptions as permitted in the Zoning Ordinance, and; 3) authorize on appeal in specific cases variances to the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Deci.sion and Voting: The BOA is a 5 member Board. The Board will conduct a public hearing and consider the request of the applicant. The Board has three (3) options: 1) approve the request; 2) deny the request; table the request. Approval of the request requires 4 of the 5 members of the BOA to vote in favor. A simple majority does not pass. BOA Application Submission: The BOA application must be complete. An application is not considered complete unless all required documents are provided at the time of submission. An incomplete application may not be accepted by staff. Deadlines: The City of Fairhope wishes to expedite the BOA process in the best and most effective manner possible. To that end, it is important that deadline times and dates are adhered to by the applicant (refer to the attached schedule for dates and times) Page 3 of6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS (BOA) FLOW CHART Consultation with Staff BOA Application Submittal Staff Review of Submission BOA Consideration of Application Disapproval Appeal must be filed at Circuit Court and notice given to BOA of appeal within 15 days of Hearing Approval Completed Application Site Plan with Existing Conditions Site Plan with Proposed Layout Map of adjacent properties with zoning Names and addresses of property owners within 300 ft. 1 BOA 24.07 Bolton Automotive 7481 Porter Lane – August 19, 2024  Summary of Request:    Applicant, William Bolton, is requesting a special exception to allow outdoor automotive sales at 7841  Porter Lane.  The subject property is zoned M‐1, Light Industrial district. According to the City of Fairhope  Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section A(15):  M-1 Light Industrial District: This district is intended to provide a suitable protected environment for manufacturing, research and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable emissions, and generate little industrial traffic. Industrial parks should be encouraged. Locations should be in accordance with comprehensive plans.  Additionally, Article IX, Section B(4)(h) states the following:  Outdoor Sales Lot‐ retail use where a significant portion of the merchandise, either in area or in  business value, is typically stored outside during business hours.  Comments:  Subject property currently does not have access from Porter Lane although that is the official address.  Porter Lane is a private road. An address is needed for a building permit application, which the Applicant  previously pulled. It is not a City of Fairhope ROW. Staff consulted Baldwin County and they confirmed  Porter Lane was not their ROW either. Porter Lane appears on plats as an easement, unopened ROW, and  as “Reserved for Public Road.” Currently legal access to this property has not been provided.   Figure 1: Porter Lane  Figure 2: Slide 2081‐E excerpt circa 2002  2 BOA 24.07 Bolton Automotive 7481 Porter Lane – August 19, 2024  The Applicant owns the property to the north, but it appears access is blocked by the existing  building built at the rear of the property extending almost lot line to lot line.   Figure 3: Existing Conditions.  3 BOA 24.07 Bolton Automotive 7481 Porter Lane – August 19, 2024  The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance defines a special exception as follows:  Special Exception: Permission granted by the Board of Adjustment for a use indicated in this  ordinance as a use limited to a special exception procedure, 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 Board of Adjustments is authorized to grant special exceptions through Article II.A.d(2) which  states the following:  d.Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following 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 Ordinance provides guidance for special exception requests through the following criteria:  Article II.C.3.e.  Criteria ‐ (2) Any other application to the Board shall be reviewed under the following criteria and relief  granted only upon the concurring vote of four Board members:  (a)Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; (b)Compliance with any other approved planning document; (c)Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; (d)The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; (e)Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; (f)Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post‐development conditions; (g)Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; (h)Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; (i)Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; (j)Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. (k)Overall benefit to the community; (l)Compliance with sound planning principles; (m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and (n)Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. When a special exception is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect:  Article II.C.3.f.  Effect of Appeal – An appeal to the Board stays all legal proceedings in furtherance of the  application appealed from unless the Director certifies to the Board that a stay would cause  imminent peril to life and property. In such cases, proceedings will not be stayed, unless by  4 BOA 24.07 Bolton Automotive 7481 Porter Lane – August 19, 2024  operation of a court of competent jurisdiction. If an appeal fails for any reason, the stay shall be  lifted.  Analysis and Recommendation:  Special Exception Criteria:  (b)Compliance with any other approved planning document Response: As indicated in the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article III, Section B., Table 3‐1 Use Table, an  outdoor sales lot in M‐1 may be permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions. The  Applicant desires to use the subject property for automotive sales. Depicted below is an image of the  existing conditions of the site. The applicant also provided a site plan.    Figure 4: Existing Conditions  5 BOA 24.07 Bolton Automotive 7481 Porter Lane – August 19, 2024  Figure 5: Site Development Plan  Improvements consist of  a gravel parking area that is compacted for vehicular traffic.  The above site plan depicts the proposed site; however, it does not specifically identify the outdoor sales  area. The site plan should be revised to identify where the outdoor sales are as well as specifically state  the items that will be located outside and available for purchase.   Figure 6: Tree Removal Plan.  6 BOA 24.07 Bolton Automotive 7481 Porter Lane – August 19, 2024  The Tree Ordinance is applicable to this property and all heritage trees are protected. A previous building  permit was submitted to build the same parking lot and was denied. Several trees are shown on the  above plan. It is important to note the plans submitted are not stamped by a surveyor, engineer, or  architect. The Tree Ordinance requires a landscape plan to be drawn by a licensed landscape architect  or state certified landscape designer.   Several uncertainties exist with this project from the location and intensity of the outdoor sales  to the legal access to the property. A vehicular use sales lot without legal access is very concerning  to staff.  Recommendation:  Staff  recommends  the  Board  of  Adjustment  DENY  the  proposed  Special  Exception  for  the  subject  property to allow outdoor sales lot in this M‐1, Light Industrial Zoning District due to lack of access and excessive traffic that would be generated along Porter Lane (if legal access was cleared) through  the surrounding residential area.    Permit for Below Site Plan was DeniedREVISIONS r--.... I -.... .. ,_ ------~-------\~ -----SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN '''"4' ncae: OftAWJHGS ARE NOT TO BE USED F0ff """"""""· flDOINO. fl[COAfM, 'PON. CONYEYNfCE. SA.LU,, ORM lHE 8ASas FOR THE~O!IA .. _, B:S IIU,l,IFORt ~ SEJMCES Jt1Rl.J.A f ~311al.~2!1..a«ii1fAX:2S1.cMIS2 VICINITY MAP LEGEND ----------O....,.,,.t:onGUll~ ()L-QCJlffCIUJIIM .... .,_.,. -,.,,..~ r,o,._., '.,. ~~~~ WWCl!'llr,.,._...,. SURVEY NOTE 1, 'tMCa.ft\'l'f'.,~OJIIQl;flOlO. ICID.AU.1N.l:IRU~ .... ~4f W~CIM&lfNCa90MI• ----~-.-..1 T FOR PERMITTING ONLY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 80L TON PARCEL 7"l PORl'IER LAH.IE: F"AltHOPe., AL J65.U ONO. """'" ._,. ~11 )( A. ... 11,,6,10'Jl C2 NO. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS G) 05-46-04-20-1-000-042.005 BOLTON, WLLIAM WALTER PO BOX 1348, FAIRHOPE, Al 36533 0.67 ACRES ® 05-46-04-20-1-000-044.000 MAHANTRAJ PALESTINE L L C ETAL JSN HOTEL AND S L LC 19751 $ GREENO RD, FAIRHOPE, AL 36532 2.1 ACRES ® CITY OF FAIRHOPE EASEMENT @) 05-46-04-20-1-00CM>52.001 PORT ER, DOYLE ETUX .K>ELLEN 711 NICHOLSAVE, FAJRHOPE,Al.36532 0.'8ACRES ® 05--46-04-20-1-000-042.002 Ml)()t.E EARTH U.C 25 RIVER RTE, MAGNOLIA SPRINGS, AL 36555 1.54 ACRES ® 05-46-04-20-1-000-046.000 EASTERN SHORE MEDICAL PLAZA LLC 11~n5 S GREENO RD, FAffiOPE, AL 36532-3843 2.S9ACRES (J) 05-46-CM-2().1-000-049.000 PORTER, ROBERT G JR ETAL PORTER. JUDY C 15839 TRAFALGAR OR, MACOMB, Ml 480,U 0.!50ACRES REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPllON AfflROVEO [ "' 4 4 •• "' 4 . "' MIDDLE STREET !!O'ROW "' ATER OAK ..___ :---,::::,O.lii.,w:1,ii D TREE "' 'l, "' ..___ ~8M ~ER OAK ~~ ~'=l,EAD TREE * 33• 2-'~ DEAD I I I I ~ I ~1/ /~ / PARl<ING / RRY PHOR ---------------------------------~oo~·~oo-~~w-,~~~00-------------------.~.o~.a~------- I I I I ....... I " I " I ""- / " ----... -... ( I --------- \ '2<tEASBAENT (RESERVED FOR PUBLC ROAD) 40' EASEMENT I SITE SURVEY J --__ ---__ ---__ ---__ ---__ ---__ ---1·=1 0·-0· __ ---__ ---__ ---__ ---__ ---__ T HESE DRAWlliGS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. BIDDING, RECORDATION, CONVEYAliCE, SALES, OR AS THE BASIS FOR THE ISSUAliCE OF A PERMIT 0 I B s BEAUFORT ENGINEERING SERVICES 311 FELS AVENUE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 PHONE: 251,929.Q551 FAX; 251-929.Q552 ® JOB NO: DRAWN BY: X AB V ICINITY MAP LEGEND P.O.B. e 24' CAMPHOR G) PROPERTY UHE ADJ. PROPERTY U"'= EX. MAJOR CONTOUR UNE EX. MINOR COttT~ LtfE CENTER LltE POINT OF BEGINNING TREE TYPE & CIRCUMFEREtfCE ADJACEHT PROPERTY OWNERS KEY EX. ROAO'ASPtW. T ~// ij I EX. 81.DG. EX. CONC. PARCEL INFO PARCEL NUMBER: I 05-46-04-20-1-000-042.000 PIN: I aa692 SITE DATA TABLE PROPERTY ADD~ESS: 78A 1 PORfE~ LN. ZONING: M,,1 UGHT lf'IDUST~ SECTION'TOWNS><IPIRANGE 2G-8S-2E TOTAi.SiTE: ~0.692 Sf" I 0.24 ACRES PROPOSED USE: COM MERCIAL MIIIIMUM SETBACJ<S: Natl£ LEGAL DESCRIPTION STATE OF ALABAAIA COUNTY OF BALDWIN 108' X 99'FROM l'fE CORNER OF SECTIOf'l 201 RUN SOl/THA DISTANCE OF 133/i FEET A>l)WEST ADISiAHCE OF 640 FEET TO THE POIITT OF BEGll'HHG, THENCE OONTIHIJE WEST 108 FEET, THENCE NORTH 99 FEET, THENCE EAST 108 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 99 FEET TO !>IE F'OINT OF BEGINNING COHTAINNG 10,692 SQUARE FEET {0.2~ ACRES ), MORE 00 LESS. ONE lttett-1CTJY s " l"at. 10' w I FOR PERMITTING ONLY SITE SURVEY PII-IW""' BOLTON PARCEL S1 7841 PORTER LANE FAIRHOPE, AL 36532 O!:SIGN:OBY: CH:O<EDB'Y: OATE, 05-15-2024 5""T or xx REVISIONS I I _ _L -----\---=- " '--. .w-,..TPQM: ... ~ ettrou.ontm ...... l'Ola. -- .......... - > <.;: - ...... I .... ._ .q>SWlt'l'<JAN .,r~ _,._ ... , •a.a·~ .... ,_... -· ------------ ·---i TREE DEMOLITION PLAN lHESE DftAwt«QS ARI NOT TO IE URD "Oft """""""'"""· IIIO()t,iQ.Rf~110H. COtMYN«:£,. IAl.ll, OR A!J nE &\SIS FOR fHEISSUAHCEO#A -aeAUFOftT~SEIMCE.9 111 FB.SA'mfJEF ~39532PHCN.'.2SMIZNS51f~2$t .. ,.. X LEGEND ----_ ... ----o.~~- otllHOlllc:o.To.,IIIIM .,.,.~ ,_T'l'fl(t~ .... --- SURVEY NOTE ,. TflleMINtY-.S~OC'f'llatit. lllf'D."""TIIIU ... .-lfll:M.....,_.~, • ....,_..QII.Mll~ts9QWf~ - --;...;-_; ; FOR PERMITTING ONLY TREE DEMOLITION PLAN BOLTON PARCEL 71M I ,oAtEA lANf P:~ALJBS.l2. C1 ... Revised Site PlanNO. DATE I I I/ \ .. , ..... . _;~;:· ........ . \ :;,.-~·:: \ I ll L --- --- --_J --- --_ j --1-- -j _ --- --- --- --- --- --~~"" ~ I ~'.PECAN I : : II I HITT.OM= I ACCESS DRIVE L __________ _ HERITAGE TREES NEW GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE GRAVEL PARKING AREA (2 SPACES), COMPACTED FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 66"WATER 0 iUJ REVISIONS DESCRIPTION APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1"=30'-0" THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, RECORDATION, CONVEYANCE, SALES, OR AS THE BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT B s BEAUFORT ENGINEERING SERVICES 311 FELS AVENUE FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 PHONE: 251-929-0551 FAX: 251-929-0552 JOB NO: X \ / I "--'\ ~OLIDAYINN I I r~~TJJ \ \ I \ I I I I J / VICINITY MAP LEGEND PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE EX. MAJOR CONTOUR LINE EX. MINOR CONTOUR LINE EASEMENT LINE NEW GRAVEL AREA EXISTING CONCRETE AREA EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ASPHALT EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN SURVEY NOTE 1. TREE SURVEY WAS PERFORMED ON JULY 8, 2024 FOR PARCEL 7841 PORTER LANE. ALL TREE SIZES SHOWN WERE MEASURED AT 48" ABOVE GRADE AND IS SHOWN IN CIRCUMFERENCE. ONE INCH=30'-0" 15' 0 ~IL■ 30' 60' i FOR PERMITTING ONLY DRAWING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAWN BY: JL BOLTON PARCEL 7841 PORTER LANE FAIRHOPE, AL 36532 DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: JL DATE: 06-25-2024 SHEET C3 OF xx Michelle Melton City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments August 19, 2024 BOA 24.09 -52 Ingleside -Proiect Name: 52 Ingleside Street Site Data: 0.83 acres Project Type: - Speci al exception -allow for accessory str ucture Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning_ District: R-1 -Low Density Single-Fam ily Residential District PPIN Number: 14954 General Location: North Ingleside and Fairhope Avenue intersection Surveyor ol Record: N/A Engineer ol Record: N/A Owner L Developer: FST, Thomas F. Munsey School District: Fairhope Elementary Sc hool Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Approved w/ Conditions Preeared b:ii: '--- --Road c:J Corporate Limit LJ Parcel Zoning District -B-1 8 ·2 PUD R·1 r;- c i COLEMAN•AVE---- N ~ -w E Page 4 of6 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Application Type: 0 Administrative Appeal O Special Exception ( -~riance '- Property Owner / Leaseholder Information Name: 71.,Mc..; f; i'Y11A.Y1i! Phone Number: ~ l I ·-JS'6-'85::4 () S~reet A~dress: 5:a, i\ , ;.'.\~..O..C ,A~ S:t -. City: T<>·, rko>4>~ State: AL Zip: 3L1$2:>;1, Applicant / Agent Information If d11fcrent from above. Notarized letter from property uwner 1s required if an agen t 1s used for representation. Name: Phone Number: Street Address: City: State: Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: Variance Request Information Complete: ✓ Names and Address of all Real Property Owners Zip: YES NO YES NO ✓ YES NO within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: YES NO Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception: Please attach as a separate shect(s) .information regarding the administrative decision made or information regarding the use seeking approval. Please feel free lo be as specific or as general as you wish in your description. This information will be provided to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as much as possible your position or proposal. l certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property i owned by Fairhope Single Tax C~~ authorized Single Tax representative shall s~ s application. ) V\.J ]/\/) &( -2 £ M, \,\ Y\ S<, '::L -t.~~~'::::L_...sj..~~,jLU~"""<;:-:;;- Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Nlme Si ature Date Fair ope ingle Tax Corp. (If Applicable) /,wb/#t {. DMitfs'j 1ll a,.)~0 FSTe VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?: 0 Too Narrow 0 Too Small 0 Too Shallow 0 Elevation 0 Slope ~ape D Soil 0 Subsurface 0 Other (specify) Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80): Page S of6 ''To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the (zoning) ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of the (zoning) ordinance will r esult in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the (zoning) ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done." BOA Fee Calculation: Residential Commercial Filing Fee: $100 $500 Publication: $20 $20 TOTAL: $ I certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign applicatio . RoV\11,ti s & i 1/V!(l~~ :r Date Fairhope gle Tax Corp. Applicable) ~~ G Davi/SfM,1/L as ~ tJ ~Tr!. 1  BOA 24.09 – 52 N. Ingleside Avenue    Summary of Request:  The Applicant is requesting a Special Exception to allow an accessory structure to be built  forward of the principle (primary) structure on the street side. The subject property is zoned   R‐1 Low Density Single Family Residential District. It is located on the northwest corner of N.  Ingleside and Fairhope Avenues and is approximately 0.83 acres. The address for the primary  structure is 52 N. Ingleside Avenue.       Comments:    Subject property does not conform to the current setbacks for R‐1. The subject property was  platted in 1969 with different setbacks and under different rationale than what the current  Zoning Ordinance requires. The subject property is a corner lot and in 1969 corner lots were  platted with two (2) front setbacks of 40 ft. One facing each street. There was not a street side  setback for corner lots. Subject property  is Parcel D below.      Slide 577‐B circa 1969.   2  BOA 24.09 – 52 N. Ingleside Avenue    Currently, on corner lots the shorter length of the two (2) street facing dimensions is  considered the front. In this case, N. Ingleside Avenue is considered the front of subject  property, which the address reflects. Since N. Ingleside Avenue is the front then Fairhope  Avenue is considered the street side. Under the current Zoning Ordinance, the street side  setback for R‐1 lots is 20 ft. However, subject property is a non‐conforming legal lot of record.  Regardless of the street side setback footage, Table 3‐3 requires an accessory structure on the  street side of the lot to be placed “no nearer than the principle structure.” See below.       This means that the accessory structure cannot be closer to the street side than the side of the  principle structure. Due to the two (2) historical 40 ft setbacks the primary residence and  original accessory structures were placed toward the interior back corner of the subject  property. There were no rear setbacks in R‐1 when the plat was recorded in 1969.     Applicant is seeking approval to place an accessory structure within the historical 40 ft formerly  known as front, now side, setback along Fairhope Avenue. See below. The proposed placement  and dimensions of the accessory structure (a shop/tool shed) is the purple crosshatched 30x40  rectangle. Red crosshatched structures are pre‐existing and outdated and are to be removed.  Note that the proposed accessory structure appears to be going over the setback, but Applicant  confirmed that is not the case and  the intent is to stay within the 40 ft setback. The Building  Permit application review will confirm the proper placement for the accessory structure. Per  the below visual the proposed general location for the accessory structure is probably the best  location for it, all things and structures considered. The lot is large enough to accommodate the  accessory structures that are to remain as well as the proposed accessory structure.    3  BOA 24.09 – 52 N. Ingleside Avenue       Comments:  The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance describes Special Exceptions as a duty and power of the  Boad of Adjustments in Article II, Section A(d)(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 review criteria for a Special Exception is as follows:  Article II. Section C.e(2).    Any other application to the Board shall be reviewed under the following criteria and relief granted  only upon the concurring vote of four Board members:    (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:  Response: Complies    4  BOA 24.09 – 52 N. Ingleside Avenue    (b) Compliance with any other approved planning document;  Response: Complies    (c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;  Response: Complies    (d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;  Response: Complies  (e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;  Response:  No issues noted.      (f) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post‐development  conditions;  Response: No issues noted.     (g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;  Response: No issues noted.    (h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;  Response: No issues noted.    (i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts,  and property values;  Response: No issues noted.    (j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential  physical impacts, and property values.  Response: No issues noted.    (k) Overall benefit to the community;  Response: Replaces dilapidated structures and places modern structure within the setback line.     (l) Compliance with sound planning principles;  Response: No issues noted.    (m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and  Response: No issues noted.    (n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Response: No issues noted.        5  BOA 24.09 – 52 N. Ingleside Avenue    Staff Recommendation:    Staff recommends APPROVAL of BOA 24.09 ‐ Special Exception to Table 3.3.; whereas an  accessory structure will be placed closer to the street side (Fairhope Avenue) than the principle  structure.                                    ,,..._ ~ 0 a:: 0 ~ f-w w a:: f- (/) w 0 vi '=l c., ?; z I I 0 CMf 2_ ~: :! .., SW CORNER or • COLIJMN UES 0.4.N FENCE ·oN LINE CRF (CARRIER) CONCRETE ORIV( PARCEL A STEP -- 28. ~ - 10.2· f 2 • ~►~,r-· I s~ ~~ l;,,,3~:r I· STEPS-fljJI J~!!, ; ;.... ;,, ,t,.; :~ N~ ,.._ ! :,, l w "l X §~ z jl I FENCE 0,4'5 -CT~12. :.: ---------0 lP S 89'56'J1" W 2\9.16' (0) WEST 219,0' (R) . ~ t'' ~ ,. 20.J' :J =!;. ~ ·STEPS J9,7' - ' ' 8UILO,NC 7' ~ 'l;N ~CH ~ "'" 9U!'. ,;2· OTF 0 ~-.,...__ .... G-~•·--. . -)l(u, llAIJJWIII COUNTY ~ PARCfl "O" Of 1lfC R£SU8DIVISK)N OF CD HIEIIOUI LfASEHOI.0 IN TH[ SOOIHl!fSf CORJ/fR Of THC SOUIHCAST I Of TH( IIORrlifASf l OF SfCOON 17. OMSIOH FOUR (4) Of !Hf W/0 Of rliC LESSOR IN llif CflY Of FAIRHOl'f. AlA8AM4 PfR ITS Pl.Al THCRfOF R(CJJRO(D SfPffJ.lfJfR IJ. 1911 AHO PfR SISlMSION WJ' Of S.W ED M£Mrn:R ILAS[IIOtD. COIITNNINC PARCHS "A". ii". "c", ANO "0" RCCOROfD Ill PR08AI[ RCCOROS OF 8ALD'MH COIJIITY. A1MA11A III WP 800I( 6. PNX 190. I H[R(BY C[RTlfY fllAT AU PARTS Of rHIS s~ AHO ORA11711G 11,\Vf fi[[N COl,IP{[f£0 IN ACCOROANC[ 1111H JI£ CURRfNf RfOUUlCMfJIIS or 1H( STA/IO.l,ROS or PRICOC( FDR SUIM:'IJl,t IN 1lf( SI.Ar£ or AL,W.11.A ro Ill[ BfSf Of If( 1(/j()I\\ElJCC IIIFDRW.IIOII, NI() BCUCf. OanielClorlc AlABAMA LICENSE# 27720 2024.06.05 09:41:23-05'00' FAIRHOPE AVENUE (RO.W, VARIES) 0--G be '(~W'<w-! □ b--1tj\t1'\ j Lt~·OC\K \\"-E>0 S . 0 -r,._")r--'6e<:\ n~"1 6\,1:\!;,>j 7'(:-55 ~+ -fn,W'\ '.:Vow...Q.<"' """"'-~, To ?ro~B"";IJ.. ,.,.,..btlt,.._ -...... LM 01( HW .... """ 111\1 1·2 20· ---"""' 24-270 207/56 PARCEL C WEST 8!> O' (R) s a9·55•3,· w 84.93' co) ~p OtiP--- TOMMY MUNSEY BOUNDARY SURVEY 52 N. INGLESIOE STREET FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA ,. Olr NOT[S: I NJ¥,rF~Y>~ SOWHl!R'lWl/ll D.CRF WI'(]) I/OH It}() fCUIO D.crr CRM'{O f!IP /'ff,_ o cwr CO#CR£lf _, rru,v D.orr Gl'Ol lc,> IR(IH /'ff fOUfJ D.IIBF A!BIRIIOHfCXMO D.IPf 111011 PWfCUIO OCRS CM'A:ll ffJN It}() S{I (R/ lil'COIO (OJ QISllMll R.0,W. RIQI/ Of WAY P.O,C. PllfOT Of C0110C0100 P,0.B, POIHTOflfiHIIIC -0-CHI/II ti/I( fOICC -x-"'1{fOICC _,_ IIOCI0/(1/C! ):{ • ~ J/Bl1X.JiflJID UCHIPCIC l'(M(R/'(1( Q£Cll1£4. 8'1X 111 <XllltOOHHC COIUNSal ------<<><'--~-® -Nl(S0£111WHJ(£ COl sv 911f,R( SO£II VN.\{ €) SlllfJa LOCAJ[ © !Olfi/lWll(f/l ----------;~ ~ _,.rN<Y SO!R Pf'£ ~WCllll 9$/IK:I lOCAIT ~-EM ____,_.,----,r>A.S -- g: e,~ ~ C,\S""' WAl!R~ WAl!R VAIi{ /Jl(lfll!//Nir llllill!ll(>rjCOlffllOIY<I.\£ SWlrJa !OOOIT ll'.lf!/1"4/ill!ll --- fp ll,IJ[. Pff IEWIO£ f'Cl)(SJN, /'f/(/1 li'llCVN.tf ,;$'ACE 1~1£ /f/OIIJPl'CIMI/K£lf --ro ----••-- /f/0! l)fl!C CAIi( ll!DCf Gllll[ 1".ll @ S10MIIINfl/U L:::::. /lA!v,(.(1 >----------< .ll0llil /'ff /'111(71/ CJll'.CCIIMW4J[0 WT!l /'ff IIO'-/Om!ClO OOl'CR£ll' /ff IICl/",IIIJlffllC[/)alNCIICl[-/'ff 0'1'-CL111M1ilr0 P!ASIII: /'ff (I/OP£) Z R(WIO l»KN'illlS 8'!11) (W P\,<I Of ~ 10·C(fl0(0 II lili' &,()( t. ~.l(t 190 »I) ALSO II.II( 511·0 fl !/£ O£ra: Of 11C ltllCC Of ,_rr. 8'IDWI ctltllll'I, -J. r>tS -,,,, ~ oocs r,or REIUCI Mr rmr M l'J.lCJOT R(Wl/(JI Ollfll rlWt 111~1 IS ltl8f M -f!I llf. alOO'S rtW/('(NI/X, SUll'D< I.I($ [SIMIUSI(]) Br S!All/lt flllP.li4la OI llfiililCrM CIMMAIIIS NI£. IIOI SHO!fi <. r>tS -IS llC PffOl'OO'f Of SWffH, QMI( • ASSOalltS. # IS S001.Y IOI! II{ I& Of /IC aEHT IIWfD ffl'Ullf MO IS -10 /HY 0/NfR IW!rr, " "'y HOf It 1$> llfllOIII f'!iOI aJf<SCl(I IT!OII Simi\ a.Al¥ a ASSOCIOTfS, 5 r>tSWIWCIS/0'1:Alflll()l-(Wl(l,li<IW'(•lliUlll/!,l:A/'f~Olllf/lO SQtJIC hr),tk,GI Udrni,t ""' u.s, tfliP)' Ji s,." "P<"I•• ,.~. II/. ,,.,, I , " (l31J a,1a-a•o, / • ASSOClG'e5 .::, ""'' f Uf'll')'QfY ~"'"' ,.,4,..,,;. 309., II.Ill i..ot1• Silfl• G, lo• JS, s,,on1,,. rtm, .tJ. ,..,,, · . . . ,_. } . ,, . I ......... :., (." "':..-.~, . .... \w._ ~ •. • ,. ';: -" " ., . i \ .. "' .. "'0 ~ P i~ \ C!..:,: "' "l ' ' ~ -0 •s ----------1~ --- C l \.. ~ ~::----··---~..AS 4! < ' '.:a-. ... 6 ... mo ~ "' ~ Q I I I~ ,c:: ii !l, --fr'-~ I '1 I ' S.7°7 ,. i.. ~.!·,:·. C. r-- -.... ...; ---,--- City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments August 19, 2024 BOA 24.10 - 301 Fairhope Ave - Hotel Project Name: Fairhope Hotel Site Data: 0.20 acres Project Tr_E!_e: Special exception -allow for hotel Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning_ District: 8-2 General Business PPIN Number: 14359 General location: Northeast corner of Church Street and Fairhope Avenue Surver,or ot Record: N/A Engineer ot Record: N/A Owner I Develooer: FST Sildi School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Denial Pre�ared bir:: Hunter Simmons Zoning District �==,---; PINE·A -UA � z ci, )Jo �I :;I I �1-==:::::::::::::: ;=:;:;::;::::;:;::::;;;;::;:;:::::;::::;-t;::;;:;;;::::;:::;t;;�--� i;=:::;::::;::::;::�::!:::I 'lil . ' Page 4 0£6 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS D Special Exception D Variance • Pro erty Owner Information :DkA/1 5-, 2.0 City: Applicant/ Agent Information Name Stree City: • Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: Variance Request Information Complete: Names and Address of all Real Property Owners I NO NO NO within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: ~NO Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception: Please attach as a separate sheet(s) information regarding the administratiYe decision made or infonnation regarding the use seeking approYal. Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you wish in your description . This infonnation "ill be prodded to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as much as possible your position or proposal. I certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this applicatio~,l the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorizbedft Sfgle Tax representative shall sign this application. ;' --=-=,=---_------~-=---Property Owner/ aseholder Printed Name Si-a Date 3/'¥zin1-Fairhope S • le Tax Corp. (If Applicable) R~u~ 6,1::::,av,'d!'MN ~s. ~,J~,r::.;re VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?: D Too Narrow D Elevation D Slope □ Soil D Subsurface Page 5 of6 D Too Small D Too Shallow D Shape ~her (specify) C4Jl>rt,0Ntltt,. '1JJ£..f!o,s Describe the indicated conditions:__.,1Je~:lt'),._.c.,D~L...,,1u:c~__.l/r.a.......:~-.._....'('_~-1-1-c-,.Jl-.~ia-,,j,&____.'ll~IU,....,.._l,-#lJJW-:~:AE-- How do the above indicated characteristics preclude reasonable use of your land? ""~C- What type of variance are you requesting (be as specific as possible)? CfJNI.H1?/IAJ~ ,_,s-g ,=«-,9t,J eL Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80): ''To authorize u pon appeal in specific cases such va1iance from the terms of rhe (zoning) ordinance as will not be contrar~ ro the public interest , "here, owing to special condi•ions, a literal enforcement of the provision of t h e (zo ning) ord inance \\"ill resulr in u n necessary hardship and so that the spi1ir of the (zoning) ordinance shall be observed and substantial just.Jee done." BOA Fee Calculation: Residential Filing Fee: $100 Publication: $20 TOTAL: $ 1 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Summary of Request: The Owner, Sildi, LLC, is requesting a Special Exception to allow for Hotel Use for property located at 301 Fairhope Ave. The property is zoned B-2, General Business District and is located within the Central Business District (CBD). Mack McKinney is the Architect and Authorized Agent. Figure 1: Rendering of Proposed Hotel. *Rendering does not match currently proposed plans. A hotel in the B-2 district is not permitted “by-right” in the zoning ordinance (see excerpt from Table 3- 1: Use Table below but is allowed on appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, subject to special conditions. Therefore, the applicant has filed for a use appeal to allow for the hotel use on the subject property. 2 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Existing Conditions: The site is the location of the former Fairhope Hardware Store. Figure 2: Existing site looking northeast. Figure 3: Aerial of site on April 27, 2024. 3 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 A Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) was approved for a 6-Unit renovation by the Fairhope Planning Commission on September 5, 2019. The property has since sold. Staff met with current owners on three occasions. The first meeting we discussed a building with a restaurant and medical spa on the ground floor and four residential/short-term rental units above. Due to the high costs of restoration, the second meeting highlighted the need to demolish the existing building and add thirteen (13) hotel rooms on the second floor, nine (9) on the third floor above a restaurant and medical spa; a portion of the third floor was proposed as a roof-top bar that can been seen in the rendering in Figure 1. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant provided the following description on the proposed site: We are writing to seek approval for the construction of a multi-purpose building at 301 Fairhope Avenue, which will include 3 commercial spaces, 27 hotel rooms, and a rooftop terrace that will be owned by the Hotel. The full set of proposed plans are included as attachments. For convenience, a few of the proposed plans are shown below. It is important to note that this case is about the use approval. Staff is not reviewing dimensional requirements, nor is the Board being asked to approved final plans at this stage. The Board could request final plans as a condition of approval if it deems appropriate. Figure 4: Proposed site plan. 4 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Figure 5: Proposed Elevations. Figure 6: Proposed Ground Floor Plan. 5 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Figure 7: Second Floor Plan. Figure 8: Third Floor Plan. 6 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Figure 9: Rooftop Plan. Review Comments Along with the hotel use, the building, as currently proposed, would also require MOP approval from the Fairhope Planning Commission and a Site Plan Review approval from the City Council. Review criteria for a use permitted on appeal and subject to special conditions is listed in Article II, Section C.e(2) and summarized below: Building Height/Stories – Buildings are limited to 40’/3 stories in the CBD (Article V, Section B.4.(c)). Elevations provided by the architect show only the elevator structure exceeds the 40’ height limit, which has an exception in the Rooftop Terrace section of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will confirm building height and dimensional requirements under future review, if the use is granted. 7 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Rooftop Terrace - The applicant is proposing a Rooftop Terrace. For reference, a Rooftop Terrace is defined as: Rooftop Terrace: A outdoor amenity area located on the roof of a building. A rooftop terrace shall be accessory to the primary use of the building. Individually owned and operated businesses or venues shall not occupy a rooftop terrace. Parking – The Fairhope Zoning Ordinance does not require parking spaces for any of the proposed ground floor uses. However, there is a precedence for required parking with a hotel in the CBD. Without negating the other review criteria listed above (Article II, Section C.e(2), adequacy of public infrastructure (public parking) and impacts on adjacent property/the surrounding neighborhood are of particular concern. Staff recommends 1 space per hotel room based on previous precedent of the Hampton Inn, but the Board (or Council or Planning Commission) may have a different opinion. A parking study, like the one provided by the Hampton Inn could also be beneficial to clarify parking demand. For clarification, the Hampton Inn on Section St. was approved in 2005. Within the Site Plan Review, a Traffic Impact & Parking Considerations study was supplied by the Applicant’s Engineer. At the time, an 89 room hotel with 12-15 guests would require a maximum of 104 spaces. An agreement was made between the Fairhope Parking Authority and the Applicant to utilize land owned by the Parking Authority (80 existing spaces at the time) to construct a parking garage. A copy of the study is included within this packet for review. 89 spaces within the parking garage were reserved for the Hampton Inn, with the rest available for public parking. Article V, Section B.4 provides some guidance on parking within the CBD: d. Parking – a. (1) No parking is required for non-residential uses in the CBD. If parking is provided, it shall be located behind the building, screened from public rights-of-way, and have a direct pedestrian connection to the primary building entrance of the public right-of-way. b. (2) Dwelling units in the CBD shall provide the required parking. It shall be located behind the building, screened from public rights-of-way, and have a direct pedestrian connection to the primary building entrance of the public right-of-way. c. (3) Residential and office is encouraged on the upper floors of buildings; lower floors are encouraged to be retail or restaurants. Article V, Section E.2. (Required Parking), also notes the following exception within the CBD: These standards (Parking Requirements) shall not apply to the CBD Overlay, where on-street parking is permitted. However, wherever practicable, businesses in the CBD Overlay are encouraged to provide off-street parking facilities. As previously mentioned, the proposed hotel use is permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions. Each proposal should be evaluated separately, with special consideration given not only to the goals and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, but also the impacts on surrounding property. While there is not an explicit requirement for parking, projects should be evaluated to determine whether their parking demand puts an undue burden on neighboring property/businesses. Staff reviewed existing parking in the vicinity of the proposed hotel. 8 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Article IV, Section E.7 states that “On-street parking within 300 feet of any lot line may be credited to the parking requirement at a rate of one credit for every two on-street parking spaces”. Staff has mapped the City’s inventory of public parking spaces, as well as most of the private spaces within the CBD. Based on the information below, there are 82 on-street spaces that lie within 300’ of the subject property. Ironically, there are also 82 separate address points within the same 300’ buffer. Address points were used to determine how many individually occupied “units” exist. Units may include retail space, restaurants, office, or other commercial uses. There is a 1:1 ratio of on-street parking:occupied units. Figure 10: Parking analysis within 300’ of the subject property. As shown in the above study, Church street does not have many on-street public parking spaces and is already crowded with cars parking on the sides where parking spaces do not exist. The Zoning Ordinance contemplates the proposed restaurant, medical spa, and office uses will utilize the surrounding parking spaces, much like the neighboring businesses. However, Staff does not feel there is enough on-street parking nearby to absorb parking for a 27-room hotel without negatively affecting neighboring businesses. 9 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Specifically, the Applicant has proposed three different parking solutions, which are described below, along with Staff comments. Option 1: Utilizing 306 Magnolia Ave for parking. Per the Applicant’s narrative: The location map and parking plan below was provided by the Applicant: Figure 11: Location of proposed valet lot. Figure 12: Proposed Parking Layout. 10 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Staff has concerns about setting a precedent with small surface level parking lots in the Central Business District. We do not feel this solution fits within the overall goals of the comprehensive plan. More importantly, the property on Magnolia is currently zoned B-2. To provide a parking lot, the property would have to be rezoned to P-1 (Parking District). Below is the definition of Parking District, with more information available in Article V, Section F. of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council is the authority to approve a zoning request, with reviews and recommendations by Staff and Planning Commission. At this time, for the requested use, Staff would not support the rezoning request because the proposed solution does not consolidate and share parking. Furthermore, the parking plan shown for 306 Magnolia Ave does not accommodate for other City regulations, most notably landscape requirements of the Tree Ordinance. It would be highly likely final designs would result in a reduced parking count. Within the CBD, parking lot plans could be reviewed as part of a the zoning request. For the purposes of the Use Approval, Staff, nor the Board, can answer whether a parking lot would get approval on 306 Magnolia Ave. Therefore, we cannot recommend this solution at this time. Option 2: Leasing parking spaces from the Parking Authority. Per the Applicant’s narrative: The City and the Parking Authority have long emphasized the use of the parking garage. The Parking Authority is finalizing a Study that will likely confirm the Applicant’s assertion that the garage is underutilized. However, the speculation is that it is underutilized because downtown employees and hotel guests are utilizing on-street parking instead. Solutions, including enforcement, are being discussed between the City and the Parking Authority. In addition, 89 spaces on the top two floors are reserved for Hampton Inn as established within the agreement referenced above for its contribution of building the parking deck. I would assume they cannot be leased to another entity. Ultimately, the Parking Authority, as Owners, would be the authority to answer those questions. Staff, nor the Board, can give permission to utilize the garage for the proposed use. Option 3: Credit for parking spaces. Per the Applicant’s narrative: We believe the Applicant is referring to Article IV, Section E.7.a below: 11 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Staff’s evaluation is clarified above. Each use permitted on appeal and subject to special conditions is evaluated individually, geographic location, intensity, access to public infrastructure and impacts on surrounding businesses are just a few of the evaluation criteria. For example, the project referenced was also a hotel, but it was on a larger lot and only included 14 hotel rooms. They provided seven parking spaces on-site and there were on-street parking spaces that were largely unused within 300’ of that particular property. It is also important to note that that project left room on their site for loading/unloading. To accommodate Article IV, Section E.7.a, the credits for on-street parking was approved by the Board, Planning Commission, and City Council. Whereas, this application proposes three commercial spaces, almost twice the number of hotel rooms, and fewer on-site parking on a smaller site. The Applicant states the spatial constraints impose challenges on the subject property, but Staff believes those challenges are imposed by the requested use, or, more specifically, the intensity of the specific use. Parking for four rental units, as originally discussed, could be accommodated on site. Conclusion and Recommendation The Central Business District is unique and the focal point of the City. Walkability and non-automobile-related activities are critical. However, we almost must consider how each project will affect the CBD long-term and the precedent each approval may have on future projects. In general, Staff is not comprehensively against the idea of rental units or a hotel in this location. And we believe the architecture, as proposed, would be an asset to downtown. But the intensity of the proposal, in the location proposed, is too much of a burden on the current infrastructure for the benefit of one property. We do not believe we could offer the same solution to other property should they request the same. In which case, we feel we must recommend denial as currently proposed. Furthermore, some of the proposed solutions would require approvals from other authorities. For this reason alone, we feel it is not appropriate to recommend approval until the feasibility of those solutions are vetted. Because there may be other authorities involved, Staff would not be opposed to tabling the request to allow the Applicant appropriate time to work through the other options appropriately, or alter the request. Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of BOA 24.10: 12 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 As stated previously, a hotel is allowed only on appeal in the B-2 District, criteria for those uses are listed in Article 2, Article II.C.3(2)(e) (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: Staff believes that a downtown hotel, with proper parking consideration, can positively affect the long-term vitality of downtown. However, we do not think the currently proposed project meets these goals. (b) Compliance with any other approved planning document; Staff Response: More clarity may be needed, depending on the three solutions proposed. (c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; Staff Response: Staff believes a hotel use does meet the intent of the ordinance, but the proposed intensity of the mixed-use building does not meet the intents of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; Staff Response: Parking for a hotel is typically ‘park and leave it’ that could affect the neighboring businesses which have a higher turnover rate. (e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; Staff Response: Utilities and drainage would be reviewed under different applications, but Staff foresees no significant problems. Impacts to public parking are discussed above. (f) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions; Staff Response: The proposed use is a redevelopment of an existing disturbed site. (f) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; Staff Response: Staff would like to note the existing building is a historically contributing building, but understands there have been several evaluations of the existing structure. Demolition is permitted within our regulations. (g) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; Staff Response: Staff will ensure all are met through permitting. (h) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; Staff Response: Parking and deliveries is our main concern. (j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. Staff Response: Parking and deliveries is our main concern. (k) Overall benefit to the community; Staff Response: We feel the current proposed plan, with existing conditions, would have a negative impact. (l) Compliance with sound planning principles; Staff Response: ‘Don’t do for one, what you can’t do for all’ is a mantra frequently heard during our Planning Commission meetings. We do not feel we could support the same request on neighboring properties at this time. There have been other developments in the neighboring area that have discussed hotels, bed and breakfast, or other short-term rentals. Staff would expect the same considerations. (m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and Staff Response: None noted at this time. (n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Staff Response: None noted at this time. 13 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave August 19, 2024 Board of Adjustment Review Procedures: d. Review - Application review shall occur according to the following: (1) A complete application shall be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building. The Director shall offer a written report on the merits of the application to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. (2) The application shall be submitted to the Board at the scheduled public hearing, with the Director’s report. The Board shall consider the application and take one of the following actions: (a) Grant the requested relief; (b) Grant the requested relief with specific conditions; (c) Deny the requested relief; or (d) Continue discussion of the application for further study. An application shall only be continued one time without the applicant’s consent before the Board can take one of the above actions. An applicant may agree to more continuances. Dear Members of the Board of Adjustments, We are writing to seek approval for the construction of a multi-purpose building at 301 Fairhope Avenue, which will include 3 commercial spaces, 27 hotel rooms, and a rooftop terrace that will be owned by the Hotel. According to the Fairhope zoning ordinances, a hotel is permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions. We have met with Hunter several times and understand that the requirement is to provide one parking space per hotel room. However, we face significant challenges in meeting this requirement due to spatial constraints on the property. We can only provide 3-4 parking spaces onsite. Our proposed hotel is situated directly adjacent to the public parking garage, which provides ample parking capacity. We have visited this garage numerous times since the completion of the Alley project and have observed that the top two floors remain mostly empty. We have documented this with pictures and believe this nearby facility could effectively serve the parking needs of our hotel guests along with on-street parking and the onsite parking we will provide. In a similar case, another proposed hotel was granted parking credits for the nearby convention center, a precedent we hoped would be applicable to our situation. Unfortunately, we were told that no such parking credits will be granted to us, and we must provide 27 parking spaces for the 27 hotel rooms. It is important to note that the City Zoning Ordinances do not specifically require any parking spaces for a Hotel in the CBD district. We have invested significant time and resources into developing several potential parking solutions, which we would like to present to the Board. We believe one of these solutions will meet the parking needs of the CBD district. )( ' . One key. solution involves utilizing the property at 306 Magnolia Street Fairhope, Al 36542. The property, currently home to Barnes Law Firm, is on the other side of Fairhope Arts Alley, almost adjacent and contiguous to our property. Mr. Barnes has received a permit from the City to remove the existing building. Once removed, the space will provide room for 28 parking spaces. Coupled with the 3 onsite spaces, we would exceed the requirement of 27 parking spaces. Mr. Barnes has agreed to provide a long term lease to us. J, •4 ' Another viable solution would be for the City and Parking Authority to rent an undetermined number of spaces to us in the parking garage. Given the top two floors of the garage are mostly empty, this would be a pratical and efficient use of existing resources. Lastly, we would like the Board of Adjustments to consider allocating some credit for parking spaces as has been done for another Hotel project on August 15th 2022. It is important to note that the current building on the property is in very poor condition and is considered an eyesore to the community. Additionally, it poses a potential hazard, particularly in severe weather. Redeveloping this site would significantly improve the aesthetics and safety of the area, contributing positively to the community. Moreover, the City of Fairhope stands to benefit significantly from this development. The hotel would generate substantial lodging tax revenue, and the retail spaces would contribute additional sales tax revenue. Currently, Fairhope is losing lodging tax revenue to hotels in other Baldwin County locations. By approving our project, the city can capture this revenue and enhance its economic vitality. Attached to this letter, you will find detailed information regarding our proposed project. We respectfully request that the Board of Adjustments consider these solutions and grant us the necessary approval to proceed with our project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Daniel Prickett I* &o BE BE:v rsED P~f<. PL-,AN4 CHEMATIC RENDERING FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH JULY8,2024 , co co ASPHALT PO.B. S .W. CORNER OF LOT I , BLOCK 7, DIVISION I , OF FAIRHOPE 'SINGLE TAX CORPORATION r.::i ~ I /2' CAPPED REBAR (ILLEGIBLE) • 0) C ~ b .. , -co . ""' C -1/2' C APPED ASPHALT ~ r REBAR (ILLEGIBLE) f \~ .'~ S89"46'01"E 69.94' , I l • CONCRETE 301 FAIRHOPE LLC 8,708 Sqft 0 .20 Acres± BLOCK BUILDING BUILDING CORNER 2.0G' WEST AND 0.5G' SOUTH OF PROPER.TY CORNER ASPHALT 1/2 ' CAPPED REBAR (MOORE) AROOR LEAN-TO AREA ENCLOSED AND BEING POSSESSED BY ADJACENT ESTABLISHMENT BUILDING N89°41'29"-,Y 88.92' 1/2' CAPPED REBAR(ARNOLD)7 PK NAIL AND I WASHER ~ MACK MCK1Nr EY <\RClllTF(T SURVERY FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH 20' 0 \ SCALE 1 "=20' 20' !::,.:__ • ·;:s;;:: .I Q ·1 ~ ASPHALT .f'.'O..'B. 5,W. CORNER.OF-LOT . I .• °f:,LOCK 7, DIVISION •. i ,-OF fAIR.liOPE ·s1NGLE TAX ·coRP.ORATfON .r.:i ~ I /2" CAPPED REBAR (ILLEG IBLE) .• b_j C) -~ . . -.. C>) P .~ .. . :---.. ~ • • c::, -I /2" CAPPED ASPHALT •••••••••• · · ti2J• CAPPED • • • • · · · · · -RE~A~ (MOORE) ~ .-~BAiqiL:lEG iBL_E) } \-0 • ~ .c:;. ________ • ~S~-8~9_;0 ·4~6:.·• ~0~1'.1E~-~-6~9-~9_;:;4•' -~-·~;_;· ·.-~-;_;· -~-~llil("~~=-~:__ ____ .!_NVJ.8~9~• 4~2~'.!_1i_4'___!' W~.J.7 A .. /, J . .... ·• .. ~-C~R~ f' t • . ·Mc : .... , -1 . . 2 .0G' I I 4. ;-;I 5;',lgl:~~::::..,,_, 2'.CURB AND . GUTTER WO D FENCE ETWEEN B ILDINGS ASPHALT ·FAIRHOPE A VE. LEAN-TO AREA ENCLOSED AND BEING POSSESSED BY ADJACENT EST ABLISHMENT BUILDING N89°41'29" 80' R-0 -W SITE PLAN J08 NO, : DATE : ORA"" 8Y : CHECKED 8Y : I --------~-~-=-------,.-----,,------,..,,.-----o..r--- ' , , ' MACK MCKINNEY .\RCHITcCT DIAMOND GRADE SIDEWALK CLOSED SIGN N.T.S L EGEND: PEDESTRIAN ROUTE· -• - PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH ~ J l) l~ 0 -~~ z • G) r m ~ Q) (/) (l) 3 Q) -0 (/) -c ::; 0 r+ 0 < O') • • 0 O') • --- •>) ~ - --- -- X X -X -X -x·■----11---X --+, MA C K M C Kl N Nl:.Y -----e----14-__ .__........__~ • I Io rri Ix o-c (J) (J) -I rri z C) -1 c3 --I a I - 2.0 40 PARKING FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH Pl<-.o POSE'D VAL E.1 LOT 3oeo MA.Gr-. OLIA AV&NIIE I I I I I I I ~--------~--~---~==~ I MEOSPA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JREA TMENT ROOMS CD jj SECONDARY ENTRY ! NOTE: SEE SHEET A 4.1 to, WALL DETAILS 1--fil FIRST FLOOR PLAN 5HU1~: A1.1 .. MACK MC K INNEY ARCHITECT m2"1tud1a.llc !Z I SI s F +/- GR OUN O FLOOR ' FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH I 202 l---0- 1 ""' I I -----~=:,::I'd I I : 201 (il -r~a : ~ ,,_ I I -l __J I I I 1:( cb ,_.,, 205 207 0 ta,Cijff\l © , ... I I I ct •T:f 0 Y'.:t" 209 © '1'IG I I I I I I I I I 0 rr-.-0 If◄' 0 0 ~.~:,~ND FLOOR PLAN 2 v:➔• 0 .... ~ SECOND FLOOR P LAN 1u1 MA C K MCKINNl:Y .\RCHITECT A1 •2 t 4 k EYS SECOND · FLOOR F A IRH O PE AND CHURCH © © 11___.k'...!::;;!.m,)ij=~--, OO °""""''" L_ J:'.~ltlir~-, © .... I I I. 2 I © ..., 0 THIRD FLOOR PLAN [NOTE: SEE SHEET A 4.1 FOR WALL DETAILS rW ,,~~. 1\0" SEE PLAN SHEET A1.2 FO R TYP ICAL WALL TAGS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET [ill ~ , n M AC K M C KIN N ~ Y A.R C llI 1ECT THIRD FLOOR FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH ... ·-~a·o -F: i ·t ,, I c;F • CoV&~&J7 ~ 1 & 14 ~,: ~TA •~s/·ELEV. G~C:. sp , I \ MACK MCK I Ni'.EY ',RtHITE<T m~,1ud10.lk FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH \ fJ] -- tr ..::1 I t;~ .11 1 . ,c µ~q,f , r+. ,. '(. ·-,..Q.AS.t l4 1[ l ., 1'. -.... O()ORS .QJ ... i ..,, SEe\\$00\ ~-•1 .~ •• ::fT47, E:~. PAIIITtOBRICK ' : SPEC BB.OW i: : I COl!Nta: (WHITT:) . i y ~~.!!.~·-·-~ .: . : , .. 0 . c J 11;;.~~ i - AI.Ut.lNUM AMACKETS ~ r __ · I ~a:::.: I LOUVE----- PANELS \ I : I I I I -· ' (PAINTED) ,• i ----/\, I :i._, --~ ,=-= .. _ - 1 'k' "":' . :-' !.:.... ~ --;--::.J 7fi1 .= ~ ~ , \ =---, r\ ~ :-:ii rr-'r ,, 1 Open ()pen -1 i ' ii I "' .. 3 -., ""' = -.. • I '""-r ' \ I ~ ,Z RCKWAI.L I j\ ·r . :...--... _, --.-A-' I Ei= ;:;;;;;;;;;;; --~--~-·- m l '· T i . \ r--~F"', ~ i1 --. I ' . .,-":"r r, ....... -~ ~ --i re • .-i-""'i,,,, .... ,, ,. ... • ·r· -l j • ' ' • -~l. "'-n ~~ • ""----MACKET:L ~ - ! ""!J ~~ [.....-~ J;~ EE ........, ;:: -: ~. ~ i-:~ ~ I [ ~ l 2 b I I I\ • -. "-[/J.UMINUM RAIUNGS ' .. 1 BRICII HEAOERS • • J ,t ' .... AT EACH OPE!IING ,_ ' .. I .,, -... -I • -;: I , .. UJMLOOVE.R -·~·. I r-,,."}'? l ' -01.0CI.ASS .. ; OPEN) G, --8R1CK HEACERS ---• -~ -~T EACH WtNOOW . 0 ... -~ -' = ·= -[PAINTED) µ -I •· ---SIJHBREl.LA AWNINGS I ...J , ~ / 7 Opeo <t" °"'" Opao O,,on '"' -'f Ti'1/ '. I. ' I< ... -- ;;; ;a.,;;;;;. == [] --INTERNAUY I -..... ---@@fij ~ LIT 8LAOE SGN ALUl.lNUM ---~v RAIUHGS -r--,. 4· ' ,., I ... . ~ BRICK VENEER I ea ~ ;. t.2 ~ .,..-(PAINTEO •WHl!lc) ;;;J:::; I ' ,I II @ J ~-II I BRACKETS J --.. ~ "-- I I !,•"'') ~113.~ t it ;; .<>;.I I ' --~~ ~oUTH E t-~AT~ 301 -A2.l ELEVATIONS FAIRHOPE AND CHURC·H . ... . ~ ~ fl-~ -,., ' •: I _ _:__1 • . \ ' . .._ t : ! -- ~ \ r I f'-1 R / ~,l I . ·-.. .. -'ll ·s"?l,cf) --r , ? -,,... I -I . -0 ~Af<. I --~-. I • - [ffi] ACK M C KI\INEY ARCHI TECT «· I . • -~rg ~e,OF" T e.. ·et. ~"'-CE ,Rt -1 . -. -- J .. .. ~ . I - I J ' • ' • ( 1---✓ <o_U f:s;f F?c':)o Ms-0 -...___ I -0 • ~ ~ • -_, • I, X i ,.. . 'J r ' 1 t Gu~,;, f<.ootv,i~ -, -----0 ~ ~ ---- // /;: --,---ff' ' • ,/ \ i:. I 2 ' ,I/; ---., ' . • ' ..,. ---~ \ J ~ ;' . -, . \ \ i ~Host 1TA I... ITY ~ . ~ ~c E-p.,--1,e. N -! ◄ . • . . - • C. . ~l l~eq ; f I --' --I .. . \ ,., \. BUILDING I .f 'J SECTION l~. FAIRHOPE AND CHURCH ---. -· -· --------·-· -· --·-----------·--~----·--·-•--------------~--~·-----------·- .. . . -----. . . ---• __ ._· -- -~-. -. -•-. -------------·--------- Traffic Impact & Parking Considerations Section Street Hotel Fairhope, Alabama An 89 room Hampton Inn is planned in Downtown Fairhope. The hotel will have a pedestrian entrance from Magnolia A venue and Section Street. The hotel will have the primary vehicular entrance on Section Street and a second vehicular entrance to the hotel and parking garage from Church Street. Traffic Impact Trip Generation is an infom1ational report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It is intended as a tool for planners, traffic engineers, zoning boards, and others interested in estimating the number of vehicle trips likely to be generated by a particular land use. It is based on more than 3,000 trip generation studies conducted by public agencies, developers, and consulting firms and reported to the Institute. The attached Trip Generation calculations are for an 89 room hotel with 73 roon1s as standard hotel and 16 rooms as suites (with food preparation capability). The total two-way driveway access would have a total of 679 trips per 24 hours. The heaviest impact would have 28 vehicles entering during the a.m. peak and 19 vehicles exiting; and during the p.m. peak 26 vehicles entering and 25 vehicles exiting. These studies are based on national averages and in my opinion would produce an excessive result for the Fairhope Downtown Area since a high percentage of the trips would be for walking to shopping and eating in the downtown. Even with the Trip Generation numbers, the traffic impact would be minor and no additional traffic control devices are recommended. The proposed development has good circulation and a safe plan for pedestrians and bicycles. William J. Metzger, Jr., P .E. Traffic Impact & Parking Considerations Section Street Hotel Fairhope, Alabama Page 2 of4 March 29, 2005 Parking Considerations The proposed parking deck will have a total of 201 spaces. The lowest level will only have access to Church Street with 105 spaces. The second level will have access to Church Street and Section Street with 96 spaces. The current parking lot on Church Street has approximately 80 spaces available. The hotel is projected to have 64% occupancy the first year and up to 68% by the third year. The hotel is estimated to have 20-30 employees with a maximum on duty of 12-15 per shift at 100% occupancy. The Fairhope City Subdivision Ordinance requires one space per room (89) and one per employee ( on duty 15) or total of 104 required based on 100% occupancy so this should be the maximum required. Hotel guests would be directed to the 2nd floor. I used the Institute Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation 3rd Edition to calculate estimated parking use and it estimates 107 spaces needed by the hotel. Also I used American Planning Association Parking (AP A) Standards to evaluate the hotel's need and it estimates 103 spaces. Total parking deck Required by the hotel Available for other use 201 spaces 104 spaces 97 spaces The parking deck can be a very positive structure for the City's merchants. The on street parking in the downtown area during mid-day and also during peak shopping seasons are mostly full. If the merchants and employees are forced into the deck on street parking will be available for customer's use and should improve business because parking would be so convenient. Many downtown merchants and employees are currently using the best available spaces. Few of these merchants realize they are taking their customer's space or don't want to admit they are. If the City of Fairhope charges for the spaces in the parking deck and also the spaces in the Bancroft lot, the maximum on street spaces could be left open for downtown customers. Fairhope has a lot of elderly shoppers who may also shop more if they can park closer to their destination. The City needs to enforce the William J. Metzger, Jr., P .E. Traffic Impact & Parking Considerations . Section Street Hotel Fairhope, Alabama Page 3 of4 March 29, 2005 existing two hour parking limit or most people are not going to use the parking deck because of the extra walking distance. This enforcement will also be necessary to force cars into the deck if parking fees are charged. The parking deck has other positive impact such as parking for do\vntown residents and the hotel guests are more likely to shop and eat downtown than guests staying elsewhere. The fees for the deck can be raised during prin1e events such as the Arts and Craft fair or Mardi Gras. The parking deck will be mostly operated by electronic gates and will require a minimum of employee labor. A parking lot company in the area estimates a needed for an employee of approximately 16 hours per week for the first five years and 32 hours per week after that due to ageing equipment. The parking deck will be well lighted. The deck will accommodate vehicles up to seven feet in height. Summary The hotel traffic generated will have no major impact to the existing streets in downtown Fairhope and no additional traffic control is recommended. The proposed plan has good circulation and is a safe plan for pedestrians and bicycles. The proposed parking deck should be a 1najor asset to the downtown area. If managed properly the City could make more parking available in convenient locations for downtown shoppers and diners. Downtown's are a very complex subject and various opinions are shared by Traffic Engineers, Planners, Main Street Merchants, and Politicians. I have included a few pages from the AP A Parking Standards that addresses some of these issues. William J. Metzger, Jr., P.E. Traffic Impact & Parking Considerations Section Street Hotel Fairhope, Alabama Page 4 of4 March 29, 2005 HAMPTON INN Summary of Multi-Use Trip Generation Averaae Weekdav Drivewav Volumes March .... 29, 2005 • , Land Use 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two-Way Size Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Hotel 73 Rooms 601 25 16 23 21 All Suites Hate! 78 3 3 3 4 Total 679 28 19 26 25 Note: ,A_ zero indicates no data avai!ab!e. TR!P GENERATION BY MICROTR.t..NS HAMPTON INN Summary of Multi-Use Trip Generation Saturday and Sunday Driveway Volumes March 29, 2005 Saturday Sunday 24 Hr Peak Hour 24 Hr Peak Hour 2-Way 2-Way Land Use Size Vol. Enter Exit Vol. Enter Exit Hotel 73 Rooms 598 29 23 434 19 22 All Suites Hotel 16 Rooms O O O O O O Total 598 29 23 434 19 22 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TR!P GENERATION BY M!CROTRANS HAMPTON INN Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 16 Rooms cf .6.!I Suites Hotel March 29, 2005 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 4.90 2.29 1.00 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.21 0.00 1.00 3 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.17 0.00 1.00 3 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.38 0.62 1.00 6 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.18 0.00 1.00 3 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.22 0.00 1.00 4 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.40 0.63 1.00 6 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.22 0.00 1.00 4 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.18 0.00 1.00 3 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.40 0.64 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.18 0.00 1.00 3 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.22 0.00 1.00 4 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.40 0.63 1.00 6 Saturday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 f'!ote: 1~, zero indicates no data avai!ab!e. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TR!P GENERA. T!OM BY M!CROTR.6.NS 78 HAMPTON INN Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 73 Rooms of Hotel March 29, 2005 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 8.23 3.38 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.34 0.00 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.22 0.00 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.56 0.78 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.32 0.00 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.29 0.00 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.61 0.81 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.29 0.00 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.23 0.00 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.52 0.75 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.35 0.00 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.26 0.00 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.61 0.81 Saturday 2-Way Volume 8.19 3.13 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.40 0.00 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.32 0.00 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.72 0.87 Sunday 2-Way Volume 5.95 2.89 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.26 0.00 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.30 0.00 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.56 0.75 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 601 25 16 41 23 21 45 21 17 38 26 19 45 598 29 23 53 434 19 22 41 ... • ..... :•; •-· --~ ~---,-=="" ~--·---· ._-.. ~:-;,;,; __ -:-.--·5:t•f-···::_-__ _ :::· =--~-~~----::-:_---·= ------. -------- --·--__ ---·----·----=--·--~--.--··:--~ -. --;·- .. ' --~:-_-_.-. ---~-.-~=:t: ...,~~- -·-.... ·--· .. ---~-~.,, ........ ~;~t~:~}~+~ _:--;~~~~-~. -'.'""'·•~':r:"'~ .... ;. .... ----~-:~--~ ~--:~;~~--7~~?~~-#i.::S ~~-_._ --~-:,;-~~~ -~-,..~----=· .. --·-. . .... l:===,==a=-= ... --=:--:-:-;_·-:·::-c-:::-:--;-=:: . . ·------- ,.._-""' -. --= ... --=--:r=---~ ~-----_-___ --~-~-~~~--- • ----' ~i~>--=-- F'=='-",=-· ~ ~---, :_ --~-~~:;.:~~~ : . --,----,.,-,-.~~ ·-~~-~~~ ~~=--:'.~--~ ;~ -~: . ~ ~~~;::~;~~--~:~:~--~~~-~"~~::~~-;..":~--... -·--·- . -~-,-===~ _ _.$_ .~: ~-=;=;~~" ::';;=_~: _¥,, ___ ~_,_#.:. _;;;: __ -~----~~~~~:;;#.~~~~ . . . -... :,--. : _.· ·.: -=-. :. _.:~-:-·=--~---·_ .• .:.:· .-:~:~-~; ·=-·~: :"'."~-7~~' : . .'~:": •• --•• • if::=~==-,,,_ ___ • -~·:;-__ •. "· R..l'-'111'~.l.::;;::i:..::,-.~¥:,,~~~-t_}_~~~~=~---~-·~-•-··~_ef_;f_:_,_·_;·:_-_:~ .•.•. ···~.=_:_~_ .• _._J>_._~_·.·_.:: ___ µ~~;· -',i!!;,.;~~ -...... ~---····--··-· .... -.. . ,. __ ...... ____ _ __ __ _ _ __ :.:.--;acc:.s_f:c.c,,~~-:;.:,-;-_.', -~~~~;;;~;;~~:;;: ~¾;~~~~~ifii~~:;~~~~~~~-~-·_;· -~-~-. -_-:~~~ ... _._. ·_-_._ .~:··-. --~:-. ~;:~ - 14 Maximum Number of Parking Spaces Required .. The maximum number of off-street parking spaces for any building or use shall not exceed the amount determined as follows: 1. Parking lots of more than twenty and less than fifty-um: spaces. Park- ing lots may not have more than one htmdred twenty percent (120%) of the number of spaces identified in Table 15-C, not including accessible spaces, unless a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the parking area is landscaped in accordance with the standards of this chapter. 2. Parking lots of fifty one spaces or more. No more than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the number of spaces required as identified in Table 15-C of this chapter, not including accessible spaces, are permitted. Based on Helena's minimum parking requirement for retail uses of 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, a 5,000-square-foot retail store would be required to provide 21 spaces and could provide no more than 25 spaces (unless 20 percent of the parking lot is landscaped)-:a very narrow range. (Note that maximum standards of 125 or 150 percent of the minimum are more prevalent and provide a somewhat wider range.) Gen- erally, communities with minimum parking requirements that are set par- ticularly low (i.e., below typical demand) might consider higher maximum standards (e.g., 150 or 200 percent of the mini.mum) when using this method. A third method is a limit on the overall number of parking spaces in a particular geographic area. Cambridge, Massachusetts, uses parking maxi- mums as part of comprehensive set of strategies to reduce automobile de- pendence (Millard-Ball 2002). The Cambridge zoning ordinance, for ex- ample, states that ''the total number of parking spaces serving non-residential uses in the North Point Residence District shall not exceed 2,500 spaces, allocated to each lot in the district at a rate of 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of lot area." Cambridge also uses the more popular ap- proach of setting parking maximums for many individual land uses. Some communities offer automatic exceptions to maximum parking standards if certain objectives are met. For example, San Antonio, Texas, which incorporates maximum standards for an extensive number of uses in its zoning code, exempts structured parking and parking located on perviuus pavement. The pervious pavement exemption is subject to stan- dards that describe the underlying soil permeability, level of the water table, the slope of the lot, and maintenance of the lot (e.g., sweeping and washing). • A note of caution: maximum standards that are set particularly low may result in spillover parking that could erode support for such standards. On-street parking restrictions accompanying maximum standards are one way of dealing with this issue, though such restrictions are also controver- sial in many places. Resident-only parking restrictions are often both a response to and a source of friction between the wishes of area residents, who like having on-street parking available for themselves and their guests, and businesses and institutions that rely on the ability of their patrons to find places to park. Time will tell whether maximum standards completely replace minimum requirements as concern continues to rise about traffic congestion, low-density development, and the environmental consequences of automobile dependence. Downtown Parking Standards In recent years, a number of communities without a traditional downtown have attempted to create such a place. Parking in downtown areas is complex and subject to a variety of competing interests. For example, the needs of busi- nesses that rely on the availability of short-term parking are sometimes af- fected by commuters who occupy parking spaces from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Constantly adding to the downtown parking supply shouk:I not be the sole solution to solving real or perceived downtown parking "problems." Doing so, in fact, is likely to work against goals aimed at improving air quality, re- ducing traffic (or at least reducing the rate of increase of traffic congestion), and increasing transit use. When parking demand in a downtown area in- creases substantially, there are only a limited number of ways to increase the traffic carrying capacity of downtm,vn streets as well, some of which, such as elimination of on-street parking, are not necessarily desirable. Levinson (1982), as cited by Barr (1997), suggests that a review of down- town parking strategies should begin with consideration of the following points: • What are the community development, environmental, and transporta- tion goals for downtown and the surrounding areas? • What basic policies underline formation of plans and options? • Which range of parking options are meaningful in relation to: existing parking facilities and street systems; downtown development patterns and intensities; origins, destinations and approach routes of parkers; transit service capabilities; and environmental and energy constraints? • How can parking serve as a catalyst for desired development? • Should parking be provided for all who want to drive downtown, or should it be rationed in some specific manner? • What balance should be achieved behveen parking located on the out- skirts of downtown and parking located along express transit stops in outlying areas? • What are the effects of parking on the location and design of public trans- port routes, stations, and terminals? Although this report focuses on zoning requirements, such requirements are only one piece of the downtown parking puzzle (as the above points suggest). Signage, pricing, location, design, supply, metering of on-street parking, and long-term employee parking versus the availability of short- term parking for retail customers are also issues to be considered. Morrall and Bolger (1996) conducted quantitative research and con- cluded, "The proportion of downtown commuters using public transport is inversely proportional to the ratio of parking stalls per downtown em- ployee." The size of a downtown, the mix and intensity of land uses, and the availability of transportation alternatives and commercial or public parking facilities combine to form a unique environment that many zon- ing ordinances recognize through particularly low parking requirements and, in some cases, maximum requirements. No minimum off-street parking requirements exist for nonresidential uses in many downtown areas, particularly in large cities (e.g., Portland, Or- egon; Boston; Massachusetts; Columbus, Ohio; San Diego, California). The Parking and Access section of the Portland, Oregon, Central City Plan Dis- trict contains regulations intended to "implement the Central City Trans- portation Management Plan by managing the supply of off-street parking to improve mobility, promote the use of alternative modes, support exist- ing and new economic development, maintain air quality, and enhance the urban form of the Central City." It includes no minimum parking standards for nonresidential uses in the core area of the downtown. Maximum park- ing requirements for office uses range from 0.7 to 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of new net building area in the core. 15 16 Among mediu1!1-size downtowns, parking reguirements vary widely. In the Central Business District Zone in Grnnrl Rapids, Michigan, (pop. 197,000) parking is required at a rate of one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for nonresidential buildings and hotels. Off-street park- ing is not required for any building constructed prior to January I, 1998, however, or for new buildings and cumulative additions to existing build- ings with a gross floor_area of 10,000 square feet or less. CBD Parking Required Automobile Parking Off-street parking space as required herein shall be provided for all build- ings and structures and for additions to existing buildings or structures. The number of spaces required for all uses shall be one :;pace for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for all non-residential buildings and hotels, and one space per dwelling unit for all dwellings. Required Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking shall be provided in conjunction with new automobile parking facilities. Any new facility providing parking for more than fifty (50) automobiles, shall provide bicycle parking at a rate of one bicycle park- ing space for each forty (40) automobile spaces, with a minimum of six (6) spaces. In lieu of providing bicycle parking within the parking facility, the owner may provide bicycle parking at an alternate location well suited to meet the needs of potential users. Public parking facilities designed to pro- vide remote employee parking on the fringe of the district shall be exempt from this requirement. Madison, Wisconsin (pop. 208,000), and Richmond, Virginia (pop. 198,000), do not have parking requirements in most or all of their downtown dis- tricts; they do, however, negotiate all parking needs through a transporta- tion management ordinance. Communities with small downtowns vary widely in their management of downtown parking. Some have chosen to develop parking programs focused on public parking lots that serve the downtown area. In Holland, Michigan, for example, a community with 27,000 residents and a tradi- tional downtown of approximately eight square blocks, "All businesses located in the C-3 Central Business District shall be deemed participants in a community parking program and shall be exempt from parking require- ments herein specified. For any additional residential use created, addi- tional parking areas shall be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth herein" (Section 39-52). Distinctions Based on the Type of Commercial District In addition to special regulations for downtmvn parking, some communi- ties choose to provide distinct parking requirements based on the type of commercial district rather than delineating citywide requirements for each particular land use. (In some cases communities use overlay districts-see below.) The basic premise is that a commercial district serving a particular neighborhood will draw patrons from a relatively small market area, in- creasing the chances that many will arrive via walking, for example, while districts that allow uses drawing from a regional market may require more parking per square foot of floor area for the same use. Cambridge, Massachusetts, offers an example of differentiating between districts; its regulations provide that the parking requirements vary "ac- cording to the type, location and intensity of development in the different zoning districts, and to proximity of public transit facilities." For example, the minimum parking requirement for general retail establishments varies from one space per 500 square feet, one space per 700 square feet, and one .. space per 900 square feet, depending on the type of zoning district. Maxi- mum standards in Cambridge vary by district as well. Portland, Oregon, does not require off-street parking in several of its commercial zoning districts (e.g., Mixed Commercial/Residential zone, Storefront Commercial zone, and the Office Commercial 1 zone). Wnere parking is required, the city makes distinctions based on the scale of devel- opment allowed in the district and, in some cases, the residential density of the surrounding area. There are no minimum parking requirements as- sociated with uses in the Neighborhood Commercial 1 zone, which "is in- tended for small sites in or near dense residential neighborhoods." Off- street parking is required for uses in the Neighborhood Commercial 2 zone, which "is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods." Off-street parking require- ments are generally less in the Neighborhood Commercial 2 zone ·than in another level of commercial activity, the General Commercial zone, which "is intended to allow auto-accommodating commercial development in areas already predominantly built in this manner and in most newer com- mercial areas." The Role of Overlay Districts Overlay districts can be an effective tool for incorporating unique parking requirements that recognize and foster unique characteristics associated with particular areas in a community. Minneapolis has several overlay districts that incorporate special park- ing requirements. The Pedestrian Oriented Overlay Districts, scattered throughout the city, include maximum parking standards and restrictions on the location of parking facilities. The Downtown Parking Overlay Dis- trict prohibits new commercial parking lots in the downtown area and lim- its the size of new accessory surface parking lots to no more than 20 spaces. Greensboro, North Carolina, uses unique parking standards in its East Market Street Pedestrian Scale Overlay District. One purpose of the over- lay district is to "modify the image of the corridor, moving away from the existing vehicular-oriented thoroughfare to an image which is attractive to pedestrian access and use." The parking regulations in the overlay district include the following: Parking Credits and Exceptions: i. In all areas, on-street parking spaces on the right-of-way between the two side lot lines of the site may be counted to satisfy the minimum off- street parking requirements. ii. Where parking is available off-site within 400 feet of the front entry to the building, and that parking is owned or controlled under a perma- nent and recorded parking encumbrance agreement for use by the oc- cupants or employees on the site, said parking may be counted to sat- isfy the off-street parking requirements. iii. In those portions of the Overlay District with underlying zoning of GB, GO-H and HB and which are occupied as a retail use, all parking lo-. cated behind the front setback of the building shall be double-counted so that each such parking space behind the front setback shall be counted as if it were two (2) spaces available to satisfy the off-street parking requirements for such retail use. iv. Where it can be demonstrated through a documented parking study that the demand for parking of the combined uses of two (2) or more buildings can be satisfied with the shared and jointly accessible off- street parking available to those buildings, then a special exception to these parking requirements may be granted by the Board of Adjust- ment to satisfy the minimum parking requirements. 17 18 !Ii.: The Richmond, Virginia, zoning code includes a very extensive descrip- tion of the rationale underlying its Parking Overlay Districts: Pursuant to the general purposes of this chapter, the intent of Parking Overlay Districts is to provide a means whereby the City Council may establish overlay districts to enable application of appropriate off-street parking requirements to business uses located within areas of the City characterized by a densely developed pedestrian shopping environment in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. The districts are intended to recognize that, due to several factors, business uses located in such areas typically generate lower demands for privately maintained off-street parking spaces than are reflected in the requirements gen- erally applicable in the City and set forth in Section 32-710.1 of this chapter. Parking requirements within Parking Overlay Districts are designed to reflect the factors that result in lower parking demand in such areas. These include: a function similar to that of a shopping center, resulting in a high proportion of multipurpose trips by patrons; considerable walk-in trade due to proximity to residential areas and employment centers; significant numbers of employees that walk to work due to proximity to living areas; availability of public transportation; and many older buildings which have been adapted from other uses and tend to be less efficient than newer spe- cial purpose buildings. It is also intended that each Parking Overlay Dis- trict reflect the supply of public parking spaces within the district by pro- viding for further reduction in the parking requirements in direct proportion to available public parking. Parking Overlay Districts are intended to complement the UB Urban Busi- ness District and to be applied principally to those areas within such dis- trict which possess the factors enumerated above, but may also be applied independent of the UB District to other areas where such factors exist within other specified districts. Bicycle Parking A number of comrmmities recognize hm-.,• bicycle travel can reduce vehicular parking demand. Overall, less than 1 percent of all trips in the U.S. are bicycle trips. Since 48 percent of all trips in the U.S. are shorter than three miles, many believe the potential for increasing utilitarian bicycle travel is gn~at (Pucher and Schimek 1999). The extent to which bicycle travel can substitute for automobile travel may depend on demographics, climate, and the availability of the infrastructure to accommodate bicycle use, in- cluding bicycle parking. U.S. communities that have the highest level of bicycle use tend to be midsize cities with a large student population, such as Gainesville, Florida; Madison, Wisconsin; Boulder, Colorado; and Davis, California. The presence of a major university need not be a prerequisite to making a serious effort to encourage bicycle travel as a legitimate form of daily transportation. PAS Report 459, Bicycle Facility Planning (Pinsoff and Musser 1995), cov- ered a wide range of bicycle infrastructure and regulation issues. The re- port included the following general guide that suggested minimum bi- cycle requirements for a variety of uses. A number of communities have chosen to institute minimum bicycle parking requirements, while some also allow for a reduction in the num- ber of required automobile spaces when bicycle parking is provided. (See Table 3.) In Davis, California, considered by many to be the preeminent bicycling community in the U.S., "the number and location of all bicycle parking spaces shall be in accordance with the community development director :Michelle Melton City of Fairhope Board of Adjustments Augus t 19, 2024 BOA 24.11 -50 Fels Avenue Proiect Name: SO Fe ls Avenue Site Data: 0.22 acres Project T);'.ee: ,·' \ Setback variances of S and 15 feet Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning_ District: .. .. R-2 Medium Density Si ngle-Family Residential District PPIN Number: 14503 '- General location: Freedom Street and Fels Avenue Surve);'.or ol Record: N/A Enaineer of Record: N/A Owner L Develoe_er: Jason LaSource School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Approved w/ Conditions Preeared b~: Name --Road ~ Parcel Zon ing District -B-1 B-2 B-3a B-3b R-2 R-4 z Page 4 of6 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Application Type: D Administrative Appeal D Special Exception [Jl Variance Applican / Agent Information If dJfferent rrom abuve , Norarizect leller from propcriy owner is required if an agent is U:;ed for repr esentation_ Name: Phone Number: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: YES NO Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: YES NO Variance Request Information Complete: YES NO Names and Address of all Real Property Owners within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: YES NO Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception: Please attach as a separate sheet(s) infonnation regarding the administrative decision made or infonnation regarding the use seeking approval. Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you wish in your description. This information will be provided to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as much as possible your position or proposal. I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application. ~~A /VI , k~re-e rroperty Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name 6/13/2r ~, Date able) VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?: D Elevation D Slope □ Soil Page 5 of6 • D Too Narrow D Too Small D Too Shallow D Shape D Subsurface ~Other (specify) L)ve ak foe Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80): "To authorize upon appeal In specific cases such variance from the terms of the (zoning) ordinance as will not be contrary to the public Interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of the (zoning) ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the (zoning) ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done." BOA Fee Calculation: Residential Commercial Filing Fee: $100 $500 Publication: $20 $20 TOTAL: $ I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereb submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Sin 1 Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this a..,--·,.._._. ~So/\ M. f-~~U/C.€' Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name 6/23/~'-I > Date         1 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource)  – 15’ Front Setback and 5 ft Side Setback Variances    Summary of Request:  The Applicant/Owner, Jason LaSource, is requesting a 15’ front setback variance and a 5’ side setback  variance for the principle structure to preserve an 80+ year old heritage live oak tree. The address is 50  Fels Avenue.           Figures 1‐3: Existing Conditions of house and tree.          2 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource)  – 15’ Front Setback and 5 ft Side Setback Variances    Comments:    As mentioned, the lot nor the structure conform to the current day R‐2 dimensions because the  lot is less than 10,500 sf (approximately 9,504 sf) and less than 75’ feet wide (66’ wide).  None  of which are peculiar to the neighborhood. The existing principle structure is built 20’ from the  front lot line and 4‐5’ from the side lot line and remains a legal non‐conforming structure to  Staff’s knowledge.   See below.          The lot was platted with its current dimensions in 1910‐1911. See below.                   3 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource)  – 15’ Front Setback and 5 ft Side Setback Variances    It is the intent of the Applicant to completely tear down the principle and accessory structure  and rebuild. New structures shall conform to the current Zoning Ordinance unless there is a  case for a variance based on the following criteria listed in Section C(e)(1).        Article VII, Section D(3) reads the following regarding front setbacks for non‐conforming lots:       The direct “adjacent lots” are 24 and 52 Fels Avenue with approximately 15’ and 60’ front  setbacks, respectively. See below.               4 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource)  – 15’ Front Setback and 5 ft Side Setback Variances    Applicant’s narrative states that the requested setback variance will be further back than  several of the neighbors on the block and that is a correct statement. Many of the houses are  zoned differently with different setbacks.   Article VII, Section D(3) allows relief, under certain  conditions, when adjacent properties are built closer to the street than current front setbacks  allow.  The average front building line of the two adjacent properties is 37.5’, so there is no  relief allowed for this proposal.     Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan with Oak and Largest Limbs              5 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource)  – 15’ Front Setback and 5 ft Side Setback Variances    The above site plan illustrates the proposed home with  an area cut out to protect the tree and  its roots. Applicant has consulted with Chris Francis Tree Service (“Franics”) whereas Francis  “verified the tree is healthy” and Francis recommended tree protection measures in the event  the above site plan is approved. The estimate is within the packet.   Staff recommendation is confined to the current Zoning Ordinance. The Tree Ordinance does  not apply to single family residences per 20.5‐4(1). The Planning and Zoning Director may grant  a 7’ administrative setback variance to protect and/or preserve an existing Heritage Tree. See  Article IV, Section G.  Although the requested deviations from the existing front and side setbacks may be minimal,  new builds must conform to current setbacks unless the BOA deems otherwise. In that vein,  there have been variances granted based on trees in the past, most of which were prior to the  adoption of the Tree Ordinance in 2011 (Ord. No. 1444).    The following  is a previous case.   BOA 13.01 105 Fels Avenue: Granted 30’ rear setback variance (5’ rear setback) to preserve a  60” heritage live oak. Minutes mention Applicant cutting out buildable area to preserve the  tree.  In the case above, Staff supported the administrative variance, but was limited to the 7’.   The Board granted an additional variance based on the merits of the case, including the fact  that the lot was only 45’ wide.    Analysis and Recommendation:  Variance Criteria    (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the piece of property in question  because of its size, shape, or topography.    Response: The City acknowledges a Heritage Tree is worth saving in various sections of local code.      (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 application of the Zoning Ordinance does not create an unnecessary hardship.    (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and    Response: A heritage live oak meets the tree preservation criteria of Article IV, Section G, which  is unique to this piece of property.                6 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource)  – 15’ Front Setback and 5 ft Side Setback Variances    (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the  purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for  a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.     Response: Relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public good because tree variances  have been granted in the past to protect heritage trees.     When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect:     Article II.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.    The current house plan (two‐story) conflict with the largest limbs as submitted with the plan.  We did  not receive elevations or second‐story floors plans.  Staff supports any efforts to save the Heritage Tree  but feel a variance should be granted conditioned on a specific plan that is designed to work around the  tree as much as possible.  Currently, we do not have enough information to support the Variance  request.     Recommendation:    Based on the Zoning Ordinance and what was submitted Staff recommends Denial of a 15’ front  setback and 5’ side setback variance for the principle structure in case BOA 24.11.  However, it  may be the pleasure of the BOA to decide otherwise.     GOO rnJ [ill] ,!-·-·-·-·--· ' I l I I ' I I i . I I I ! I i . I ' I i ' I f833' A8(M GROUNO UMf 21' ABOVE GROUNO ' I 'l:, .,t.-,'Jl U~ 14' ABOVE GROUND ' I i ,f-•~ I ... q . I O\JfOOOfl ~TOCAdoe 19 \',C• ... . I I i I ' I ' I . 1 ' I ' I i ~ I FELS AVENUE I -·-·-----·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·7 EXISRNG l«JUSE Ii II II II ....... ..,.. II .,. tr a,,.., II II I r lXIE.SIEOfROffl S£l8ACX ' I I ' I i I ' I . 1 ' I . I i I 5' f N -LMOAICAHO~ESTUMBS 1 L>uNQCY I t'F ;O.I' 1 O' ____,,,. r_. 1:7.Jlf'.C \!f-t• MA!lfUl:DATW a"rr ~1)'r l""---=~==!J I i . I ' I I Hl"7 I . I I 1 ' I ' I . ! ! l ' I i I i . I . 1 ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I I i l-...L _____________________________________________ _J () 1,a,n .. ,su,..,01,1..1 LASOURCE I SITE PLAN I COASTAL CLASSICS RESIDENCE To whom it may concern: We purchased our property at 50 Fels Avenue in 2017 with the intent to build. The house was in such poor shape that we almost did not even consider visiting the property because the pictures were so terrible. We took a chance and decided to visit the property and upon seeing the live oak, the proximity to the bay and room for a garden we made an offer to purchase the property. Our intention from the beginning was to build a coastal cottage home with a modest footprint to preserve our great outdoor space while preserving the 80+ year old live oak. We are in an area that has a lot of foot traffic and frequently observe people stopping directly in front of our property to admire the massive live oak that hangs over the property. We did the same thing upon our initial visit to 50 Fels. It is a magnificent tree that has many more years to mature and should be preserved. Moving the house up 2-3 feet from where it currently sits and keeping our current set back on the east side (where our house sits now) would allow for that. Even with moving the house forward it will still be set back further than several other houses on our street including the 5 houses that are west of us. With the new house remaining near where the current house is on the east side it will give our neighbor to the west more privacy than if we had to center the house and move it closer to her lot. Almost all of the houses on our side of the street are offset to the left with driveways on the right. Maintaining our left offset will allow us to keep our current level of privacy while maintaining the look of our street. We enjoy teaching our daughter how to garden and having space for friends and family to enjoy in our backyard so do not want to take up our entire property with a house which we would have to do otherwise. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jason and Sarah LaSource (251) FOR-TR E 8727 Glover Lane Daphne, AL 36526 Proposal For La Source, Ja son & Sara h Jason & Sa rah La Source SO Fels Ave Fa i rhope , AL 36532 la Source air excavation (FHP ) ACCEPT □ ITEM DESCRIPTION A) Air Excavation D ay Rate ltWi@@ffiii Pur Excavatio n Day Rate (P HC crew 8 hours air excavation. root pruning, and inspection of trunk fla res) B} Ai r Excavation Day Rate NM Alr Excavati on Half Day Rate (P HC crew 4 hours air excavation, root pruning, and inspection of trunk fla re s) Please use the checkbox to mark items as accepted. Terms Proposal #26962 Created: 03/14/2024 Location 50 Fels Ave Fairhope, Al 36532 From: Chris Francis Customer Contact mobile: 251-379-4822 sourcy24@yahoo.com Due upon completion QUANTITY UNITPRJCE AMOUNT 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 1 $1,200.0 0 $1,200.00 Chris Franeis Tree C,1re 11 (251) 367-8733 I Page lof 3 Proposa l #26962 Created:03/14/2024 From : Chris Francis 01. Performance -Chris Francis Tree Care, LL C (herein "CF!r:" or "Chris Francis Tree Care") will attempt to coordinate scheduling of work with client soas to avoid scheduling conflicts. Chris Francis Tree Care reserYes the right toanive at the job site unannounced unless otherwise noted Chris Francis Tree Care will attempt to meet all performance dates but is not held liable for any damages due to delays. We must work around weather; heavy equipment, traffic, employees, and otherfactors; please understand OZ. Workmanship/ Professionalism -Chris Francis Tree Care will perform all work in a professional manner using experienced personnel outfitted with the appropriate tools and equipment to complete the job safety and properly. All work should be performed according to /SA Best Management Practices, ANS/A300 Standard Practices, and ANSI Z133.1 Safety Standards. Chips from stump grinding will be left on site unless otherwise noted OJ. Insurance· Chris Francis Tree Care will maintain General Liability Insurance -which provides coverage for damages to property and injury to persons other than employees. Chris Francis Tree care will maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance -which provides coverage for injury to employees. Chris Francis Tree Care will maintain l,,ehicle liability Insurance -which provides coverage for vehicular accidents. Chris Francis Tree Care will also maintain a bond which covers your personal property while employees are present on the site. Unless otherwise noted, some damage to lawn is normal for tree serYice. 04. Ownership-Client warrants that all trees, plant material, and property upon which work is tobe performed are either owned by the client or that permission for the work has been obtained from the owner by the client. Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Chris Francis Tree Care and its employees from any and all claims and damages resulting from client's failure to obtain said permission from owner. 05. Hidden Obstroction Clause -Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Chris Francis Tree Care for damage to any and all below grade objects or systems including, but not limited to: water pipes, sewer pipes, field lines, cable lines, telephone lines.gas pipes, electrical lines, etc_ Client agrees that Chris Francis Tree Care and its employees are not responsible for damage to hidden conditions which Chris Francis Tree Care and its employees were not made aware of including, but not limited to: geothermal lines, septic tanks, im"gation systems, drainage systems, unstable soil, etc Failure of client to notify Chris Francis Tree Care of location of hidden conditions releases Chris Francis Tree Care from any and all damages resulting from hidden conditions. 06. Scheduling-A deposit of 1096 of the overall project cost may be due upon agreement of the project to cover rented equipment and purr:hased products. Most tree work will not require a deposit. Upon acceptance of proposal (and payment of deposit, where necessary), an estimated sta,t date for the projed will be provided to the client. Deposits are nonrefundable. If a deposit is required, it will be clearly spelled out in the proposal. 07. Terms of Payment-Apayment of 5096 of the overall project cost may be due before sta,t of project. Most tree jobs will not require upfront payment Upon completion of the job, the remaining balance will be paid by the client in full to Chris Francis Tree Care. Cetta in projects will require credit card information tobe on fife. Clients providingcreditcard Information hereby authorize the charging of such card in the amounts as agreed A convenience charge of 3% is billed for all credit card transactions. There is no fee for payments made by cash or check. Client agrees that any unpaid balance due to Chris Francis Tree Care not paid will accrue 2% interest per month after 30 days. Client agrees that the work performed by Chris Francis Tree Care constitutes a mechanic's lien pursuant to Alabama Law. Client agrees to be responsible for any and all costs of collection of said amounts due under this contract including, but not limited t o: attorney fees, col/edion fees, fifing fees, and coutt costs. OB. Warranty-Client agrees that Chris Francis Tree Care is not responsible for plant materials. Chris Francis Tree Care will offer a 1 year limited warranty for all planted material if irrigation, plant material, and maintenance are all provided by Chris Francis Tree Care during that 1 year time frame. Fettilization and pesticide treatments are not guaranteed to solve problems or eradicate pests. Reapplications are often necessary. If you suspect a problem, please call immediately. 09. Estimate -Client agrees that the estimate is just that: an estimate (not advice, not an inspection, not an opinion). Plant. equipment, and material availability and prices are subject to change from t he date the estimate is created to the statt or completion date. If changes are Chris Francis Tree Care 11 (25 1) 367-8733 I Page2of 3 Proposa l #26 962 Created: 03/14/2024 From: Chris Francis necessary, 1..nns r ranc,s ,ree 1..a re w,11 noctry cne c11enc 10 reso,ve cne issues. rree esumaces can oc creacea DilSeo on a ,enc sspecmc desires. Travel fees may apply, Rush f ees may apply. 10. Consufl3tions -For all consultations and inspedions, client agrees to ()aY a fee of $150 to $450 per hour; minimum 1 hour: This indudes but is not limited to: landscape consultations, arborist consultations, irrigation consultations. inspedions, etc... This rate will also apply for the entire time the representative of Chn's Frands Tree Care is waiting for client's arrival and/or required for witness reports and/or testimony. During normal consultati ons, the arboristcan provide professional opinions and mitigation options. This is NOT tobe confused with a free estimate, which provides only an estimated costto complete the work. Clients may also be responsible for travel fees. IL Travel fee /Overtime Fee -Estimates, consultations, and professional services in areas outside of the Eastern Shore of Baldwin County, Alabama will incur a trave/fee. Travel fee is based on the time required to drive to and from the site. Time for travel c,1nnot be applied to one hour minimum (on site). Normal work hours are Monday through Friday BAM -4PM; appaintments scheduled outside of normal work hours may incur an overtime fee. 12 Change Order/ Additions -Client agraes that additional charges will be applied to the invoice for any additional 1MJrk that the client requests. If you would like to know the e)(act amount, please request an estimate before authorizing changes. 13. Emergency I Hourly Jobs-Due to the nature of emergencies. these jobs are invoiced at hourly rates for tabor and eQuipment While we maintain reasonable rates, emergency jobs invoice at higher than 'normal" rates due to the increase in laborcosts,increase in equipment costs, scarcity of resources, and urgency. Special order items will include a 15% convenience charge. Rates can be provided upon request and may require hourly minimums. 14. Severability-This is a legal binding contract; however if any part of t his contract is deemed unenforceable, the remainder does remain in full force, By clicking the 'Accept Proposal' button eledronically, the customer agrees to the terms and conditions of the c:ontrac:t If the a.istomer is unable to sign efectronically, a signed and dated paper copy of the contrad is acceptable and must be re tu med to Chris Francis Tree Care before the work is to be performed Sig nature X P lea5e sign here to 3ccept the terms and conditions Sal es Reps Chris Francis Office: 251•367-8733 Mobile: 251·51(}0186 chrls@chrisfrancistreecare.com Date: Chris Francis Tree Care 11 (251) 367-8733 I Page 3of 3 .. ; .f> • .,_.; I. I :,1, . . ' ' l' :. • ' f ". ! ,. ·. ~ '} t ~ )Y , l t ;J ··~ ... ' 1!: .·Ji • t1':-. ? ~\·"'\,; .. t,, • {' ·: . ' ~, / •:;' /D IlVJ[~ tr C(ll~T ~- .. ,, l .JI ...... C / -,. • I I t _, I • J! · l 11 · ! J ·., ·1 ; J. . j , ·, ./ w•..-. I . . I • ! •.• • 1- .... ~ ~ i i' ' I 1, ! _.f ·: ... i,s;!'_~~---~::J~.:~~ );,.;,Q. . :~ ;-"I: ... ,. ~, ... •7 :,rp· .i· ... / • W. H.C,..,,1.,_,',c;.,,¼-:-, .• ' ·7 ~ •.• I ~ '' ·1&:i th ,s. t 2.8 _ .. ~ , , • --1- • ,Uo · ~:,• T,~·-11 i -~ • ···i . l 32 i _·34 I "r ~"'"~ ,,..,t,(, llto/ "'' ,~ o~C,.-IPA::/,. , c-,~t ,~"' o-.-,,,,,.,,,,,~ ., .s.;...,.,, (;-,_,,·41·,a,_n:,,, ,: f ;Pr.,-1a1&,,-. 4,rqpr ~ : "r#~ T"Allfl"ltl"~ S•N GLI 7A1. C o f'lPoqA'f'l•N .. ) t ~C. ,...,iJo,y,-1_~ 1. ~.,-,:. ,,,,NI' & tM,pA ,. •. :. DAVID LOWERY SURVEYING, L.L.C. ~ ., ,. .. , ..... -----~~-' '---..... ___ ,.. _ ___,, __ ,.,,_-~__,.... 'l"l.3' .) o-,r,:.oa:at,lldl•kn::lr''..-crieocts,_,..,.._.., ~ ...... ___ ... ___ ,,..,._,."_ .... .,., ot ______ ,._i,-_,,,, , No-"""""d-~-~.,...,.. -- ...,, ... ~~~ ~,,~O'f'IOIW r. ...,_....,...., __ ..... ,,,_. ____ .. _ "'""""" 7 Plot ......... .,~ W'tllOIA 0.. NNJiM ~•..,._fl MIIIJ Ot • MIi ~ --·-...,._.., .. -....... ~ ... --.., ... ....... t'4<~""'1't ..... _..,.., ___ ,,,~~ ,_..,i,,e_..., ,, .._,.,tlle~to,uw,-----~--"" ..... ~ , -""--..."""...,...._ ... _"" ... ™? UN-~~ \OT ON 1l1t !lClUfl1 ~ OI ~ Allt ~ ON n"C ~T 8"1.Df 1.0IO(c.7.~2~oocn,.c..c•1JYior,; _, 0'Yl90f.Z o, l"l V.~ o-t,st ,~ ~ tAllC GOl!l'Olt.lflOll III N crrror '"""'°" Al ~ ~ TNC "-"' lttO«D(t) i,, U.,C eoc,,r. I ON r..ct '10-Sl I "' THC ~Tt ~~ 011' eotO,Wf co.,lr'f ~ PlAT or A IOUNCWr'f UNt SUIMV PMJ>Altm F0A LASOURCE BALDWIN COUNTY, AL. 9CA&t 11.0,,00 ows,., , .. oeoll?PO~ lfGEND ANO S"IMBOI.S r1 "lC0IID __ ,-,.a oc O\NINAQ 11,lCTlt( • KTtlllOOI 1'111 0 l'OIMl)lfOOiftll t:. ,... NOi !Cl P'O.( l'OINT Of ~c,n f'.O.D ,0,tlf(}II'~ + "1(1rf()~ ~ fDfC% • tUIQ!~l'05T □ c.ootl't~ W1e~11 ~It ~ m 'l ~ ~ ,Jon,,,fo,t LASOURCE 0.22 ACTes DAVID LOWERY SURVEY/NC, L.L.C. 552&4MARTINV. STOCKTON. AL 38&19 251-037'-2751 ph. 251-037-Z75efD ~tdmll.COIII 20· / / / / / / / SCALE 1" =20' 0 20· ------