HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2024 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketNovember 18, 2024
Board of Adjustments Minutes
1
The Board of Adjustments met Monday, November 18, 2024, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Anil Vira, Chair; Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Donna Cook; Ryan Baker; Frank Lamia;
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager;
and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk.
Absent: None
Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM.
Approval of Minutes
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 21, 2024, meeting.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Ryan Baker, and Frank Lamia
Nay: None.
BOA 24.13 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owners, James and Heather DeLapp,
for a building height variance, an accessory structure to be built forward of the principal structure
and a variance to retaining wall height of 4’ or 8’ based on placement of primary home on property
zoned R-1 – Low Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 23335
Main Street and is approximately 0.82 acres. PPIN#: 265003
Mr. Baker stated that he needs to recuse himself due to him being the architect for the next-door
neighbor.
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of the Owners, James and
Heather DeLapp, for a building height variance, an accessory structure to be built forward of the
principal structure and a variance to retaining wall height of 4’ or 8’ based on placement of primary
home on property zoned R-1 – Low Density Single-Family Residential District. Mr. Simmons
stated that the applicant was able to modify his design and would only need a height variance now.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 24.13 with the following condition:
1. The building height variance of the principal structure to use the average elevation of the
building footprint.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 5:08pm. Having no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 5:08pm.
Motion:
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve BOA 24.13 with staff recommendations.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
November 18, 2024
Board of Adjustments Minutes
2
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, and Frank Lamia
Nay: None.
BOA 24.16 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Apex Contracting Services
LLC on behalf of the Owner, FST and Bell, Zachary, for a 23’ front setback variance, a 25’ rear
setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-
Family Residential District. The property is located at 258 Equity Street. The property is
approximately 0.18 acres. PPIN#: 14343
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, request of the Applicant, Apex Contracting
Services LLC on behalf of the Owner, FST and Bell, Zachary, for a 23’ front setback variance, a
25’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density
Single-Family Residential District.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of BOA 24.16 for the front setback variance and the rear setback
variance.
Staff recommends approval of the side street setback variance.
Zac Bell, Applicant, asked the Board to favorably consider his requests. Discussion was held
among the board members.
Motion:
At the applicant’s request Ryan Baker made a motion to table BOA 24.16, until staff meets with
the applicant.
Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Ryan Baker, and Frank Lamia
Nay: None.
BOA 24.17 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, FST Beckwith/The Baker
Living Trust, for a Special Exception - to place an accessory structure forward of the principal
structure on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property
is located at 519 Equality Avenue. The property is approximately 1.02 acres. PPIN#: 15475
Notice to withdraw this application was received from the applicant prior to the meeting, but after
the agenda packet was posted.
Old/New Business
None
November 18, 2024
Board of Adjustments Minutes
3
Adjournment
Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Donna Cook, Frank Lamia, and Ryan Baker
Nay: None.
Adjourned at 5:33p.m.
____________________________ ________________________
Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2024
TO: Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Hunter Simmons, Planning Director
RE: Case BOA 24.10 – Fairhope Hotel
Case BOA 24.10 originally appeared on the August 19, 2024 agenda where, at the
request of the Applicant, it was tabled until the October 21, 2024 meeting. Prior to the
October 21, 2024 meeting, the Applicant requested to table the case until the December
16, 2024 meeting, which was granted by the Board.
Staff provided deadlines for any supplemental information to be submitted, but to date,
have not received any further comments or information. Therefore the original Staff
Report is included as it was written for the August 19, 2024 meeting.
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustments
October 21, 2024
BOA 24.10 -Fairhope 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
1 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 2024
Figure 5: Proposed Elevations.
Figure 6: Proposed Ground Floor Plan.
5 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave October 21, 2024
Figure 7: Second Floor Plan.
Figure 8: Third Floor Plan.
6 BOA 24.10 301 Fairhope Ave October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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 October 21, 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.
IA
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
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 ]and 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 rooms
as standard hotel and 16 rooms as suites (with food preparation capability). The
total two-way driveway access wou]d 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 of 4
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 I 00% 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 l 03 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 du.ring 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, Alab ama
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 enforcernent will also be
necessary to force cars into the deck if parking fees are charg13d.
The parking deck has other positive impact such as parking for downtown
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 prime events such as the Arts and Craft
fair or Mardi Gras. The parking deck wi11 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 major 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 of 4
March 29, 2005
HAMPTON INN
Summary of Multi-Use Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway 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! 16 Rooms 78 3 3 3 4
Total 679 28 19 26 25
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
TR!P GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
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 GEMERAT!ON BY M!CROTRANS
HAMPTON INN
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 16 Rooms cf A!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 HO!.!!" 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 P~-~ 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
Sundav 2-Wav 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
~Jcte: ,~ zero indicates no data ava!!ab!e .
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition , 1997.
TRIP GENER.\ TIOM BY MICROTRANS
78
HAMPTON INN
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 73 Rooms of Hotel
March 29, 2005
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Dev iation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 8.23 3.38 1.00 601
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.34 0.00 1 .00 25
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.22 0.00 1.00 16
7.9 AM Peak Hour Total 0 .56 0.78 1.00 41
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.32 0.00 1.00 23
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.29 0.00 1.00 21
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.61 0.81 1.00 45
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.29 0.00 1.00 21
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.23 0.00 1.00 17
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.52 0.75 1.00 38
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.35 0.00 1.00 26
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.26 0.00 1.00 19
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.61 0.81 1.00 45
Saturday 2-Way Volume 8.19 3.13 1.00 598
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.40 0.00 1.00 29
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.32 0.00 1.00 23
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.72 0.87 1.00 53
Sunday 2-Way Volume 5.95 2.89 1.00 434
Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.26 0.00 1.00 19
Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.30 0.00 1.00 22
Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.56 O. 75 1.00 41
Note: A zero ind icates no data available.
Source: lnstiMe of Transportation Engineers .
Trip Generation , 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
..
fected by commuters who occupy parking spaces from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p .m.
Constantly adding to the downtown parking supply should 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 do,•;ntm,vn streets as well, some of which, such ns
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 effec ts 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-s tr eet parking req ui rement s 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 "implemen t the Central City Tra n s-
portation Management Plan by managing the supply of off-street parking
to impro ve mobility, promote the use of alternative modes, support ex ist-
ing and new economic development, maintain air quality, and enhance the
urban form of the Central City." It includes no minim11m parking standards
for nonresidential uses in the core area of the downtown. lvfoximum 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
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). ¼"here
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 11is 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 a!luw 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
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 uf 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 area~ where such factors exist within
other specified districts.
Bicycle Parking
A number of communities recognize how 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
great (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 ,md location of all bicycle parking
spaces shall be in accordance with the community development director
BOA 24.16 - 258 Equity Street
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustments
December 16, 2024
S BAYVIEW STPOMELO STGEORGE ST
W
H
I
T
E
A
V
E
FE
L
S
A
V
E
G
A
S
T
O
N
A
V
E
NI
C
H
O
L
S
A
V
E
D
E
F
E
R
R
I
E
T
C
T
LIBERTY STEQUITY STKUMQUAT STW
H
I
T
E
A
V
E
S SUMMIT ST
W
H
I
T
E
A
V
E
EQUITY STRoad
Parcel
Zoning District
B-1
R-2
µ
µ
Project Name:
258 Equity Street
Site Data:
0.18 acres
Project Type:
10' Front, 12' Rear and 5' Side Street Setback Variance
Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction
Zoning District:
R-2
PPIN Number:
14343
General Location:
Northwest corner of the intersection of
White Avenue and Equity Street
Surveyor of Record:
N/A
Engineer of Record:
N/A
Owner / Developer:
FST and Bell, Zachary
School District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fairhope Middle and High Schools
Recommendation:
Approval
Prepared by:
Mike Jeffries
1 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 10’ Front, 12’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances
Summary of Request:
Applicant, Apex Contracting Services LLC, on behalf of the owner, FST and Bell, Zachary, initially
requested a 23’ front setback variance, a 25’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side street setback variance
on property at 258 Equity Street. The property is zoned R-2 – Medium Density Single-Family Residential
District.
The application was tabled at the November meeting. The request has been revised to request a 10’
front setback variance, a 12’ rear setback variance and a 5’ side street setback variance on property at
258 Equity Street.
Comments:
The lot does not conform to the current day R-2 dimensions because the lot is less than 10,500
sf (approximately 7,400 sf) and the lot is slightly irregular in shape. The lot does not have the
depth most lots do creating a very small buildable area. Once the setbacks are applied an
approximate 18’x38’ buildable area is left. A house currently exists and is non-conforming. See
below.
It is the intent of the Applicant to completely tear down the principle 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).
2 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 10’ Front, 12’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances
Article VII, Section D(3) reads the following regarding front setbacks for non-conforming lots:
3 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 10’ Front, 12’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances
The above site plan illustrates the proposed home in the blue outline, existing home in the
shaded gray, and original proposed setback lines. The plan does not reflect the revised
setbacks.
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 the lot is substandard and shallow.
(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 create an unnecessary hardship.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and
Response: A few neighboring properties share approximately the same shape and size but the
majority have a greater depth.
(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.
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.
4 BOA 24.15 258 Equity St. – 10’ Front, 12’ Rear, and 5’ Side Street Setback Variances
Staff could not support the original variance request and met with the applicant to discuss
alternatives. Although staff and the applicant could not agree completely on the newly proposed
request staff is not adamantly against the request.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the newly revised setback variance request.
Narrative and Explanation
258 Equity Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
• Current setbacks do not allow for any house
• Distance from the property line and the road setback combined meet the standard the
city has set
• Home is under the 37% threshold allowed by the city
• Home placement is not affecting an neighbors, utility, or city activity
1 BOA 24.18 Fairhope 9 LLC
December 16, 2024
Summary of Request:
The applicant Fairhope 9, LLC is requesting a Special Exception to allow Harvey and Thomas
Orthodontics (Dental and Orthodontics Office) on lot 9 of the Encounter Subdivision located at the
northeast corner of HWY 181 and HWY 104. The property is zoned B-2 General Business District, and
the requested clinic use is permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions.
Comments:
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 review criteria for a use appeal is as follows:
Article II. Section C.e(2)
Any other application to the Board shall be reviewed under the following criteria and relief granted
only upon the concurring vote of four Board members:
(a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
Response: Complies
(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: The adjacent lots are yet to be determined.
(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. The site utilizes an existing drainage system.
(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.
2 BOA 24.18 Fairhope 9 LLC
December 16, 2024
(j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property values.
Response: No issues noted.
(k) Overall benefit to the community;
Response: The use proposed will provide a medical clinic service for the community.
(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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the appeal for clinic use for the site known as Harvey and
Thomas Orthodontics.
CITY OF FAIRHOPE
P.O. Box 429
Fairhope, AL 36533
(251) 928-8003
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
APPLICATION
Page 2 of 6
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.
Decision 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 of 6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS (BOA) FLOW CHART
Consultation with Staff
BOA Application
Submittal
-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.
Staff Review of
Submission
BOA Consideration of
Application
Disapproval Approval
Appeal must be filed at
Circuit Court and notice
given to BOA of appeal
within 15 days of Hearing
1 BOA 24.19 St. James Episcopal Church
December 16, 2024
Summary of Request:
Currently, a church or Place of Worship, per the Zoning Ordinance, is not indicated as a use allowed by right;
a use allowed subject to special conditions; nor a use allowed on appeal to the board of adjustments as defined
in Table 3-1: Use Table. Consequently, and as set by historical precedent, the proposed use is brought to the
board as a “use not provided for.”
The subject property is 9.6 acres located at 860 N. Section Street and is zoned R-4 - Low Density Multi-Family
Residential District. The property is currently used by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the
Central Gulf Coast (b/k/a St. James Episcopal Church & School). SE Civil, LLC is the authorized agent. Applicant
is requesting to add parking and sidewalks; improve and/or demolish existing parking areas; and create access
off N. Section Street in a two (2) phase project. A 3 rd phase concerns a proposed multipurpose building that
will take the place of existing parking on the site.
Some improvements are associated with expansion of school classrooms, but schools are a use allowed ‘by
right’ for the zoning district of the Subject Property and not the subject of review under this case. This case is
NOT creating connectivity to Colonial Acres via Washington Drive, Colonial Drive, nor the unopened ROW of
Bon Secour Ave.
Site Plan
Comments:
The Board of Adjustments is authorized to grant relief for a use not provided for through Article
II.A.4.d(4) which says the following:
d. Duties and Powers: The Board shall have the following duties and powers:
(4) Whenever, in any district established under this ordinance, a use is neither specifically permitted or denied
and an application is made by a property owner to the Director of Planning and Building for use, the Director
shall refer the application to the board of adjustment which shall have the authority to permit the use or deny
the use. The use may be permitted if it is similar to and compatible with permitted uses in the district and in
no way is in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance.
2 BOA 24.19 St. James Episcopal Church
December 16, 2024
Analysis and Recommendation:
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; Meets
(b) Compliance with any other approved planning document; The property is zoned R-4; thus, the Tree and
Landscape Ordinance is applicable, including Section 20.5-6 regarding removal of heritage trees. The plans
include proposed removal of heritage trees that must be approved by the City Horticulturist or Tree
Committee.
(c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; Meets
(d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; Meets. The
improvements are well contained within the site and should not affect the character of the surrounding
property.
(e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; Meets. Existing infrastructure
on site.
(f) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development
conditions; There are proposed plans to remove heritage trees, which require permission from the City.
Landscape plans were submitted. The landscape plans can be improved by adding screening of the
parking area(s) from N. Section Street with the required plantings.
(g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; Meets.
(h) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; Meets.
(i) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts,
and property values; None anticipated.
(j) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property values. None anticipated. Connecting the Church to roads in Colonial
Acres is not part of the project nor is it Applicant’s intent to do so.
(k) Overall benefit to the community; Meets
(l) Compliance with sound planning principles; Meets
(m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; Meets.
and
(n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Meets.
Staff has reviewed the above criteria and this application meets the standard requirements for
approval, which is limited to minor additions to a Place of Worship. Plans associated with the
school addition will be further reviewed with the associated Building Permit(s).
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Recommends Approval of case BOA 24.19 to allow expansion to St. James Episcopal Church.
9969 Windmill Rd. Fairhope, Alabama 36532 251-990-6566
DRAINAGE NARRATIVE AND
CALCULATIONS
ST. JAMES EPISCOPAL
PROJECT NUMBER: 20231311
November 12, 2024
Prepared By:
9969 Windmill Rd. Fairhope, Alabama 36532 251-990-6566
Table of Contents
General Information ..........................................................................................................1
Drainage Conditions ..........................................................................................................1
Hydraulic Analysis .............................................................................................................1
Summary of Results ...........................................................................................................2
Appendix A .........................................................................................................................3
Vicinity & Drainage Maps ........................................................................................
Appendix B .........................................................................................................................4
HydroCAD Report .....................................................................................................
Appendix C .........................................................................................................................5
Modified Rational Calculations .................................................................................
9969 Windmill Rd. Fairhope, Alabama 36532 251-990-6566
GENERAL INFORMATION
St James Episcopal Church is proposing to add an new Multipurpose Building to its Campus on
Section Street in Fairhope, Alabama. The project will include the removal of an existing parking
area to make room for the new building and drive isles. A new parking area will be built to
accommodate the required parking. The improvements will add 0.40 acres of impervious
surface; therefore detention will be required to mitigate the increase in stormwater. The
existing site contains a total of 9.58 acres. The existing impervious area is 2.25 acres. The
proposed site will contain 2.65 acres of impervious area.
DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
The property is high in the southeastern corner and generally flows towards the north and west.
Run-0ff from the site primarily discharges into culverts that go underneath 104. We are
proposing to utilize oversized storm pipes to store the increased run-off. A junction box with a
discharge orifice and an emergency overflow weir will be installed immediately downstream of
the oversized storm pipes to reduce the rate of run-off to below the existing rate. Run-off from
around the proposed building will be captured by inlets and roof drains and piped to the oversized
storm pipes for detention. The drainage patterns of the remainder of the site will not be modified.
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Field verified elevations were used to determine the drainage basin area.
The Modified Rational Method was used to develop the detention calculations for the project.
NOAA has published intensity curves specific to this area and the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year,
were utilized in the drainage calculations for this site. The existing GIS contours along with field
verified elevations for the area are used to determine the size of the drainage basin.
Once the critical durations were determined for each storm event, we utilized HydroCAD to model
the ponds to determine the post development rates of run-off.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Analysis determined that the proposed detention pond is adequate to effectively handle and store
the peak post-development flows observed during the two, five, ten, twenty-five, fifty, and one-
hundred-year return events. Please see HydroCad summary in Appendix B showing the pre-
developed flow rates and post-developed flow rates for the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 & 100-year storm events
and the associated high-water elevations.
From:K Haywood
To:Cindy Beaudreau
Subject:Case BOA 24.14
Date:Sunday, December 8, 2024 3:02:28 PM
Please distribute to other members of the Planning and Zoning Board
December 6th, 2024
Dear Planning & Board of Adjustments,
I’m writing in response to the letter sent to residents on December 2nd ,2024 re: case BOA
24.19 – Use Not Provided For re: PPIN#1090 – S.E. Civil, LLC on behalf of Owner,
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast requiring response by
noon Friday, December 6,2024 despite the statement that the information will be posted after
stated response time ends. Therefore, I’m requesting:
1) That the Board of Adjustments DELAY hearing case BOA 24.19 until our neighborhood
and each resident has sufficient time to review the staff reports & case.
2) That the response time be extended to sufficiently allow residents responses to staff reports
& after all information pertaining to the Case has been made public.
3) That the city, planning, &/or board of adjustments revise their process of notifying residents
to a timeline that allows for sufficient responses after all information has been made public.
4) Written response to requests 1, 2, & 3 above.
I hereby reserve all legal rights to case BOA 24.19 USE NOT PROVIDED FOR – PPIN#
1090 – SE Civil, LLC on behalf of Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the DDIOCESE of
the Central Gulf Coast.
Please accept this notice as opposing & objecting to any application now or in the future to
connect any church access to our colonial acres neighborhood via Washington Drive ,
Concord Drive, or any other access point into our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Karen Haywood
660 Washington Drive
Fairhope, AL 36532
(251) 786-1561
Rkhaywood@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
From:Latimore, Michael
To:planning
Subject:Protestant Episcopal Church notice
Date:Friday, December 6, 2024 10:27:45 AM
Good morning,
This email is regarding the proposed Special Exception request letter we received yesterday. The
letter says we need to submit a comment by noon today regarding proposed changes. Those
proposed changes are not published yet, so I am not sure what to comment on. I am assuming the
change deals with expanding the school and car access to the church, and a potential that there will
be a new driveway from the church to Washington Dr.
We love having the church as a neighbor, and a great institution in Fairhope. However, this potential
material disruption to our neighborhood is highly concerning. As we had the church’s survey people
in our yard doing survey work without our permission (including parking in the yard and leaving tire
tracks), we are concerned that the proposed zoning changes would lead to a new church driveway
dumping onto Washington Dr.
Driveway access to the church via Washington Dr would greatly disrupt Colonial Acres, one of the
original subdivisions in Fairhope. Such access would greatly increase traffic, endangering the lives of
children who routinely play among houses in the neighborhood. Traffic would also increase along
Bon Secour Road, which has many young kids in that neighborhood. Furthermore, pedestrians
constantly use the peaceful neighborhoods for long walks and jogs. A church access point would
also diminish this value.
If the church needs more access points, this should be off Section Street, which is already the
church’s main ingress/egress. That road is also accustomed to the traffic volume entering and
exiting Fairhope.
Best Regards,
Mike Latimore
510 Washington Dr., Fairhope
404-386-0850
Northland Securities does not accept buy, sell, or cancel orders by email, or any instructions by email that would require your signature.
Any cellular number provided in this message is for voice communications only. Please use the links below for important disclosures
regarding electronic communications with Northland Securities and its related companies.
EMail Disclaimer [northlandsecurities.com] | Unsubscribe | Firm Information [northlandsecurities.com]
Member FINRA [finra.org] and SIPC [sipc.org], Registered SEC [sec.gov] and MSRB [msrb.org]
www.northlandsecurities.com [northlandsecurities.com]
From:kristen latimore
To:planning
Subject:Protestant Episcopal Church notice
Date:Friday, December 6, 2024 10:41:08 AM
Good morning,
This email is regarding the proposed Special Exception request letter we received yesterday. The
letter says we need to submit a comment by noon today regarding proposed changes. Those
proposed changes are not published yet, so I am not sure what to comment on. I am assuming the
change deals with expanding the school and car access to the church, and a potential that there will
be a new driveway from the church to Washington Dr.
We love having the church as a neighbor, and a great institution in Fairhope. However, this potential
material disruption to our neighborhood is highly concerning. As we had the church’s survey people
in our yard doing survey work without our permission (including parking in the yard and leaving tire
tracks), we are concerned that the proposed zoning changes would lead to a new church driveway
dumping onto Washington Dr.
Driveway access to the church via Washington Dr would greatly disrupt Colonial Acres, one of the
original subdivisions in Fairhope. Such access would greatly increase traffic, endangering the lives of
children who routinely play among houses in the neighborhood. Traffic would also increase along
Bon Secour Road, which has many young kids in that neighborhood. Furthermore, pedestrians
constantly use the peaceful neighborhoods for long walks and jogs. A church access point would
also diminish this value.
If the church needs more access points, this should be off Section Street, which is already the
church’s main ingress/egress. That road is also accustomed to the traffic volume entering and
exiting Fairhope.
Best Regards,
Kristen Latimore
510 Washington Dr., Fairhope
404-593-8308
Sent from my iPhone
From:nick.lindsholm@gmail.com
To:Cindy Beaudreau
Cc:Michelle Melton
Subject:RE: RESPONSE TO CASE BOA 24.19 : USE NOT PROVIDER FOR - PPIN#: 1090 - S.E. Civil, LLC on behalf Owner,
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast
Date:Sunday, December 8, 2024 5:35:43 PM
Attachments:Church_Sketch.heic
Dear Ms. Beaudreau,
Thank you for confirming receipt of my email/letter on December 6th, 2024.
Subsequent to sending the letter, I’ve come into possession of a sketch, attached herewith as
“Church Sketch.heic” and distributed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of
the Central Gulf Coast to members of the congregation on or about December 8th, 2024,
which was not distributed to residents by the city prior to the submission deadline of noon,
December 6th, 2024. Therefore, as previously requested in my prior letter – please accept the
following letter below, comments & requests in addition to all prior requests.
Respectfully,
Nick Lindsholm
558 Washington Drive
Fairhope, AL 36532
(251) 581-1338
Nick.Lindsholm@gmail.com
December 8th, 2024
Dear Planning & Board of Adjustments,
I’m further writing in response to the letter sent to residents on December 2nd ,2024 re: case
BOA 24.19 – Use Not Provided For re: PPIN#1090 – S.E. Civil, LLC on behalf of Owner,
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast and a subsequent
sketch distributed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast
to members of the congregation on or about December 8th, 2024, which was not distributed to
residents by the city prior to the submission deadline of noon, December 6th, 2024.
Therefore, I’m amending my requests as follows:
1. That the Board of Adjustments DELAY hearing case BOA 24.19 until our neighborhood
and each resident has sufficient time to review the staff reports & case.
2. That the response time be extended to sufficiently allow residents responses to staff
reports & after all information pertaining to the Case has been made public.
3. That the city, planning, &/or board of adjustments revise their process of notifying
residents to a timeline that allows for sufficient responses after all information has been
made public.
4. That the applicant provide visual renderings & plans for all proposed modifications with
a sufficient timeline for residents to review and comment prior to a BOA hearing &
approval.
5. That the city request traffic studies for the additional driveway/s, and that the study be
distributed to residents, and that residents may provide comment prior to a BOA hearing
& approval.
6. That drainage study & assessments be made for the property prior to a BOA hearing &
approval.. There appears to be a pond located adjacent to 104 & colonial acres within
the sketch. This item is particularly concerning as drainage runs through these parcels
and through our neighborhood on many of our properties and up to the city pool &
baseball fields on highway 98. I can testify & likely provide video to the fact that this
drainage is critical in events similar to Hurricane Sally as well as strong storms. In fact,
an event prior to hurricane sally led to substantial erosion within the drainage through
the neighboorhood where the city needed to add concrete throughout. Said drainage is
at the back of my property.
7. That any BOA approval is contingent on the church agreeing to never seek a driveway to
Washington Drive, Concord Drive, or any other point in the neighborhood. Our
neighborhood is a densely wooded neighborhood, quiet, walkable & runnable, lacking
sidewalks, and I’m unaware of any sidewalk easements within our neighborhood. Any
additional traffic would not be safe for residents.
8. The sketch indicates that trees will be cut down on the property. The city should require
the applicant to maintain the existing wooded buffer around the entire parcel, including
but not limited to section street, 104, and the entire colonial acres neighborhood and
further replant trees as many trees to the extent possible.
9. That the parcel ID 62467 & # 05-46-03-08-0-003-011.000 be placed in a conservation
easement and buffer to colonial acres by the owner.
10. That the parcel ID 3111 & # 05-46-03-08-0-003-012.000 be placed in a conservation
easement and buffer to colonial acres by the owner.
11. That the owner file a statement under oath that they are not involved in any property
disputes with any property owner/resident on file with Baldwin County Courts or that
may be filed with Baldwin County Courts.
I hereby reserve all legal rights to case BOA 24.19 USE NOT PROVIDED FOR – PPIN# 1090 – SE
Civil, LLC on behalf of Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the DDIOCESE of the Central
Gulf Coast.
Please accept this notice as opposing & objecting to any application now or in the future to
connect any church access to our colonial acres neighborhood via Washington Drive ,
Concord Drive, or any other access point into our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Nick Lindsholm
558 Washington Drive
Fairhope, AL 36532
(251) 581-1338
Nick.Lindsholm@gmail.com
From: Cindy Beaudreau <cynthia.beaudreau@fairhopeal.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 10:04 AM
To: nick.lindsholm@gmail.com
Cc: Michelle Melton <michelle.melton@fairhopeal.gov>
Subject: RE: RESPONSE TO CASE BOA 24.19 : US NOT PROVIDER FOR - PPIN#: 1090 - S.E. Civil, LLC on
behalf Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast
Good morning Mr. Lindsholm,
I have received your e-mail which will be included with the staff report.
From: nick.lindsholm@gmail.com <nick.lindsholm@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 10:02 AM
To: planning <planning@fairhopeal.gov>
Subject: RESPONSE TO CASE BOA 24.19 : US NOT PROVIDER FOR - PPIN#: 1090 - S.E. Civil, LLC on
behalf Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast
Importance: High
December 6th, 2024
Dear Planning & Board of Adjustments,
I’m writing in response to the letter sent to residents on December 2nd ,2024 re: case BOA
24.19 – Use Not Provided For re: PPIN#1090 – S.E. Civil, LLC on behalf of Owner, Protestant
Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast requiring response by noon Friday,
December 6,2024 despite the statement that the information will be posted after stated
response time ends. Therefore, I’m requesting:
1. That the Board of Adjustments DELAY hearing case BOA 24.19 until our neighborhood
and each resident has sufficient time to review the staff reports & case.
2. That the response time be extended to sufficiently allow residents responses to staff
reports & after all information pertaining to the Case has been made public.
3. That the city, planning, &/or board of adjustments revise their process of notifying
residents to a timeline that allows for sufficient responses after all information has been
made public.
4. Written response to requests 1, 2, & 3 above.
I spoke with the city today who confirmed information has not been made available publicly at
this time.
I hereby reserve all legal rights to case BOA 24.19 USE NOT PROVIDED FOR – PPIN# 1090 – SE
Civil, LLC on behalf of Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the DDIOCESE of the Central
Gulf Coast.
Please accept this notice as opposing & objecting to any application now or in the future to
connect any church access to our colonial acres neighborhood via Washington Drive ,
Concord Drive, or any other access point into our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Nick Lindsholm
558 Washington Drive
Fairhope, AL 36532
(251) 581-1338
Nick.Lindsholm@gmail.com
From:J STEVEN MCCLURE
To:planning
Subject:BOA 24.19, SE Civil LLC, 860 N. Section St., PPIN 1090
Date:Friday, December 6, 2024 10:48:42 AM
December 6th, 2024
Dear Planning & Board of Adjustments,
I am writing in response to the letter sent to Colonial Acres residents on December
2nd ,2024 re: case BOA 24.19 – Use Not Provided For re: PPIN#1090 – S.E. Civil,
LLC on behalf of Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central
Gulf Coast requiring response by noon Friday, December 6,2024 despite the
statement that the information will be posted after stated response time ends.
Therefore, I am requesting:
1) That the Board of Adjustments DELAY hearing case BOA 24.19 until our
neighborhood and each resident has sufficient time to review the staff reports & case.
2) That the response time be extended to sufficiently allow residents responses to
staff reports & after all information pertaining to the Case has been made public.
3) That the city, planning, &/or board of adjustments revise their process of notifying
residents to a timeline that allows for sufficient responses after all information has
been made public.
4) Written response to requests 1, 2, & 3 above.
Please accept this notice as opposing & objecting to any application now or in the
future to connect any church access to our Colonial Acres neighborhood via
Washington Drive, Concord Drive, or any other access point into our neighborhood.
Kindest regards,
Steve and Susan McClure
668 Colonial Drive
Fairhope, AL 36532
(251) 459-2441 / (251) 680-6117
mcclurejsteven@bellsouth.net