Loading...
07 - July 14 Planning & Development Department 102 West Main Street  Prattville, Alabama 36067  334-595-0500  334-361-3677 Facsimile planning.prattvilleal.gov CITY OF PRATTVILLE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT A G E N D A July 14, 2015 4:00pm Call to Order: Roll Call: Chairman Leo Jamieson, Vice-Chairman James Miles, Mr. Jerry Cimis, Mr. Mac Macready, and Mrs. Jerry Schannep. Minutes: March 10, 2015, April 14, 2015, and May 12, 2015 Old Business: None New Business: 1. 150714-01 VARIANCE To allow a mobile home in a residential zoned district. 323-B Hazel Street R-3 Zoning District (Single Family Residential) Thomas L. Davis, Petitioner District 2 2. 150714-02 VARIANCE To allow a mobile home in a residential zoned district. Durden Road R-3 Zoning District (Single Family Residential) David C. Jernigan, Petitioner District 1 3. 150714-03 USE-ON-APPEAL To allow church use on the property. Commerce Court (Lot 7) B-2 Zoning District (General Business) Abundant Life Church, Petitioner District 5 4. 150714-04 VARIANCE To encroach 22’ into the required 40’ rear yard setback. 844 Jensen Road R-2 Zoning District (Single Family Residential) Willie Motley, Petitioner District 2 Miscellaneous: Adjourn Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment July 14, 2015 Minutes Page 1 of 4 City of Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes July 14, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) was called to order by Vice- Chairman James Miles at 4:03 p.m. on Tuesday,July 14, 2015. ROLL CALL: Present:Vice-Chairman James Miles,Mr. Gerald Cimis,Mr. Mac Macready,Mrs. Jerry Schannep and Alternate member Captain Michael Whaley.Absent:Chairman Leo Jamieson. Quorum Present Staff present:Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan,Secretary. Vice-Chairman Miles stated the governing rules for the Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment according to the Code of Alabama, 1975 and the procedure of the meeting. MINUTES: Mr. Cimis moved to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2015, April 14, 2015, and May 12, 2015 meetings. Mr. Crosby seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: VARIANCE To allow a mobile home in a residential zoned district. 323-B Hazel Street R-3 Zoning District (Single Family Residential) Thomas L. Davis, Petitioner Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the variance request to replace a mobile home in a residential district on property 323-B Hazel Street. He stated that the property is zoned R-3 for single family residential. He stated that there are two mobile homes located on the lot. The petitioner replaced a dilapidated mobile home with the existing one without obtaining a permit prior to placement. Thomas Davis, petitioner,presented the request to place a mobile home on his property.He stated that he purchased a 2014 model to replace a 1969 model for his brother who will reside there.He stated that there was always a mobile home on the property and thought that it was grandfathered in. Vice-Chairman Miles opened the public hearing. Those who were in attendance for the public hearing spoke in favor of the request. There were none to speak in opposition to the request. William Davis, 323 Hazel Street Ulysses Jackson, 359 Hazel Street Ollie Davis,561 Clayton Street Joseph Albright on behalf of Ms. Underwood, 1050 Spring Street Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment July 14, 2015 Minutes Page 2 of 4 The public hearing was closed. Mr. Cimis stated that the property is zoned R-3 for single family residential. He stated that the petitioner should seek to rezone the property to allow the mobile home to be placed there by right. Mr. Duke stated that the zoning in the area hasn’t been changed at least since 1987. After no further comments, questions, or discussion, the vote was called. Mr. Cimis moved to deny the request as submitted. Mr. Macready seconded the motion. The motion to deny failed by a 4/1 vote as recorded. Oppose: Chief Whaley, Mr. Macready, Mrs. Schannep and Vice-Chairman Miles. Favor: Mr. Cimis Mr. Cimis moved to withdraw his motion. Mrs. Schannep seconded the motion. The vote was called to approve the variance request. The vote failed by a 2/3 vote as recorded. Favor: Chief Whaley and Mrs. Schannep. Oppose: Mr. Cimis,Mr. Macready and Vice-Chairman Miles. The request to allow a mobile home in a residential zoned district on property at 323-B Hazel Street was denied. VARIANCE To allow a mobile home in a residential zoned district. Durden Road R-3 Zoning District (Single Family Residential) David C. Jernigan, Petitioner Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the variance request to place a mobile home in a residential zoned district. He stated that the property is a vacant lot located in the Durden Heights subdivision. He stated that the proposed request is a prohibited use in a R-3 district. David Jernigan, 733 Ruth Street,petitioner, stated that the proposed mobile home would be occupied by family to help take care of him in his failing health.He stated that he had adjacent property rezoned and assumed that this one had been rezoned as well. Vice-Chairman Miles opened the public hearing. Miranda Jernigan Leek, 731 Ruth Street,daughter of petitioner,spoke in favor of the request. She stated that they are cleaning up the neighborhood and need someone to look after her father and take care of the property. Allen Williamson, 715 Ruth Street, spoke in opposition to the request.He stated that they are trying for years to clean up the area from the mix of mobile homes and single family homes. Jessica Hollinger, 627 Durden Road, spoke in opposition to the request that the mobile home would affect the value of her home. Misty Cummings,granddaughter of the petitioner,spoke in favor of the request. She stated that the proposed mobile home would be a newer model that would look like a site built home. Roy Parrish, 630 Durden Road, spoke in opposition to the request.He stated that he has resided in the neighborhood for 68 years.He stated that he was concern about there being additional mobile homes on the lot if approved. Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment July 14, 2015 Minutes Page 3 of 4 The public hearing was closed. Mr. Jernigan stated that most people can’t afford a site built home and there is nothing wrong with a mobile home if they are erected right. Commander Whaley stated that the lot is undeveloped and should be properly zoned for mobile home use. After no further comments, questions, or discussion, the vote was called. The BZA voted unanimously to deny the request to allow a mobile home in a residential zoned district on property located on Durden Road. USE-ON-APPEAL To allow church use on property. Commerce Court (Lot 7) B-2 Zoning District (General Business) Abundant Life Church, Petitioner Mr. Duke introduced the use-on-appeal request to allow a church use on property at vacant lot on Commerce Court. Geno Tolver, petitioner,presented the request for a church use on property on Commerce Court. He stated that the purchase of the property is contingent upon the board’s approval for the church use. Vice-Chairman Miles opened the public hearing. Kevin Mcloughlin, 3500 Eastern Blvd., Montgomery, representing the shopping center,stated that they were not opposing the church use but wanted to know how the proposed church use would affect the existing and future businesses that serve alcohol. Mr. Tolver stated that the church would be an asset to the businesses in the area. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Duke stated that the lot is relative small. He stated that a basic site plan would be needed prior to approval. He recommended holding the request to allow time to verify any secondary access easements and adequacy of the lot. Mr. Cimis moved to table indefinitely the request to allow church use on Commerce Court. Chief Whaley seconded the motion. The motion to table indefinitely passed unanimously. Vice-Chairman Miles called a recess at 5:30 p.m. The meeting resumed at 5:35 p.m.with the addition of alternate member Jerry Crosby taking the seat of Chief Whaley all other members were present. VARIANCE To encroach 22’ into the required 40’ rear yard setback. 844 Jensen Road R-2 Zoning District (Single Family Residential) Willie Motley, Petitioner Mr. Duke introduced the variance request to encroach into 40’ rear yard setback on property at 844 Prattville Board of Zoning Adjustment July 14, 2015 Minutes Page 4 of 4 Jensen Road.He stated that the property was inspected in conjunction with a request for permit to construct a front addition. The inspection revealed that the carport encroaches into the rear yard setback.The encroachment makes the property non-conforming, limiting the Planning Department’s ability to approve additions to the structure.He stated that the encroachment does not negatively impact the adjacent property owners. Willie Motley and Nell Motley, petitioner’s,stated that they were not aware on any violations. They stated that the carport was built in 2003. Richard Glenn of Richard Glenn Construction is the contractor for the addition. He stated that the carport is an aluminum awning.He stated that he did not construct the carport. Vice-Chairman Miles opened the public hearing.There were none to speak. The public hearing was closed. Note: (There were two signed in that did not speak). Mr. Cimis stated that there was no adverse effect to surround property. After no further comments, questions, or discussion, the vote was called. The BZA voted unanimously to approve the variance to encroach 22’ into the 40’ rear yard setback on property at 844 Jensen Road. MISCELLANEOUS: The BZA will hold training session on August 13, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Hall Annex. ADJOURN: After no further comments, questions or discussion the meeting was adjourned at 6:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan,Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustment CITY OF PRATTVILLE Board of Zoning Adjustment Planning Department Staff Report VARIANCE 323-B Hazel Street BZA Application – 150714-01 DATE July 12, 2015 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Thomas L. Davis Property Owners: petitioner Agent: N/A Location: NE corner of the intersection of Hazel Street and Moore Drive Development Status and History Previous Variance Requests/Approvals: N/A Conditions of Previous Approvals: N/A Property Configuration Acreage: 0.28 acres (12,197 square feet) Zoning Classification: R-3, Single-family Residential Relevant District Standards: Zoning Ordinance, Article 1, Section 4. - Uses. A. In each district, no use other than the types specified as "permitted" or "permitted on appeal," shall be allowed. (See: Article 7.) Uses specified as "permitted" shall be permitted upon application to the Director of Planning and Development. Uses specified as "permitted on appeal" are exceptions and no permit shall be issued for such uses except with the written approval of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and subject to such Page 2 of 6 conditions as said Board may require to preserve and protect the character of the district. B. Any use or structure existing at the time of enactment or of subsequent amendment to this ordinance, but not in conformity with its provisions, may be continued with the following limitations: Any use or structure which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance, except with the written approval of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, shall not be: a. Chained to another nonconforming use. b. Re-established after discontinue [dis- continuance] for one (1) year. c. Rebuilt after fire or storm loss, exceeding its value, above foundation, at the time of loss. C. Mobile homes which do not conform to the district in which they are located may be replaced if totally destroyed or moved by fire, wind, flood or the elements, provided that such replacement occurs within ninety (90) days of the initial movement or distinction. Nonconforming mobile homes shall not be otherwise replaced. Zoning Ordinance, Article 7, Section 71 Residential District Requirements All "R" Districts USES PERMITTED: Accessory structures: gardens, playgrounds and parks; public buildings, including public schools and libraries; satellite dishes or discs as herein defined by that ordinance, and no other; and parking of recreational vehicles, as herein defined subject to the following conditions: a) At no time shall such parked or stored camping and recreational equipment be occupied or used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes. b) If the camping and recreational equipment is parked or stored outside of a garage, it shall be parked or stored to the rear of the front of the building line of the lot. c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (b), camping and recreational Page 3 of 6 equipment may be parked anywhere on the premises for loading and unloading purposes. USES PERMITTED ON APPEAL: Customary home occupations; public utility structures, such as electric substations, gas metering stations, sewage pumping stations and similar structures; general hospitals for humans, except primarily for mental cases; churches; cemeteries; semi-public buildings; golf courses; municipal, county, state or federal use; kindergartens, nurseries, nursery schools, day care centers, private schools; and satellite dishes or discs, not defined herein. USES PROHIBITED: Mobile homes, house trailers, trailer courts or camps, commercial and industrial uses, including parking lots or parking areas in connection with these uses, not specifically permitted. R-3 Districts USES PERMITTED: Single-family dwellings. USES PERMITTED ON APPEAL: Duplexes and other apartments, Clubs not conducted for profit; rooming and boarding houses. (See: regulations common to all "R" Districts, listed above.) Effective variance as re-stated by staff (see application for applicant statement): 1. Re-placement of a non-conforming manufactured home in an R district. Statement of Hardship: (taken from application) “The mobile home was 1969 in bad condition. I removed the mobile home and replaced it with 2014 mobile home of the same size” Page 4 of 6 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: May 27, 2015 Recommendation: Denial – Continuation of Non-Conforming Use Planning Staff Comments: Background: The lot at the NE corner of the intersection of Hazel Street and Moore Street contains to two manufactured housing units. According to city aerial photography, two manufactured housing units have been located on the subject property since at least 1985. The applicant is requesting a variance to replace the existing unit at 323-B Hazel Street with a newer unit. Prior to obtaining permit, the applicant removed the existing home and replaced it with a newer model with the same basic dimensions. When reviewing the permit application, the zoning administrator noted that the location is zoned R-3. As a result, the application for permit was denied since replacement of the unit conflicts with Section 4 (C) of the city’s zoning ordinance. Analysis: Variances fall into two general categories – area and use. Area variances grant some relief from the dimensional requirements of the ordinance such as setbacks, parking spaces, landscaping, sign height, etc. Use variances allow the property to be used for an activity specifically prohibited by the ordinance. The requested variance would allow a use prohibited in the R-3 district. Use variances are general considered by planning professionals and by the Prattville BZA as a rezoning/reclassification of the property without following the regular zoning process reserved to the city council by Alabama law. In use variance cases, it is usually difficult to prove an unnecessary hardship. Alabama law does not specifically prohibit use variances. Both use and area variances have been recognized by the Alabama courts. However, proper application of the standards for unnecessary hardship make use variances unlikely. The general tests of whether a hardship is unnecessary are: 1. Can the land in question yield a reasonable return if used in compliance with the ordinance? Hardship cannot be self-created. Reasonable return does not equal maximum return. 2. The defined hardship must be due to circumstances applying only to the applicant’s property and not shared by other properties in the same district or area. Page 5 of 6 3. The board must determine if the variance will adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The hardship may not be self-inflicted by action or acceptance of the conditions 5. Variances should not violate the spirit of the zoning ordinance or be contrary to the public interest. The requested variance is contrary to the specific language of Section 4 (C) concerning replacement of non-conforming manufactured homes. In addition, at 12,632 square feet, 105 feet wide and 120 feet deep, the subject property meets the basic dimensional requirements for its present R-3 zoning designation. As a result, the request for variance fails the initial test for hardship since the lot can be developed by the applicant or sold for a reasonable return. Therefore, the application for variance may be denied and a suggestion made to the applicant to request a rezoning of the property. State code and best practices require the BZA to measure variance requests against several basic standards. Below is the staff opinion regarding the standards and this request. 1. No special conditions and circumstances exist regarding this structure which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3 zoning district. 2. A literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do result from actions of the applicant. 4. The granting of a variance will confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3 district; 5. The granting of a variance is not in harmony with the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance; 6. A variance may not adversely affect the surrounding property, the general neighborhood, or the community as a whole; 7. A variance will allow the establishment of a use prohibited under the terms of the zoning ordinance in an R-3 district. Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Application C. Staff Photos CITY OF PRATTVILLE Board of Zoning Adjustment Planning Department Staff Report VARIANCE Vacant Lot – Immediately South of the Intersection of Durden Road/Ruth Street – West Side of Durden Road BZA Application – 150714-02 DATE July 13, 2015 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: David C. Jernigan Property Owners: petitioner Agent: N/A Location: Vacant lot – immediately south of the intersection of Durden Road/Ruth Street – west side of Durden Road. Lot 18 Durden Heights subdivision as record in Book 86, Page 102 in the Office of Autauga County Judge of Probate, April 28, 1956. Development Status and History Previous Variance Requests/Approvals: N/A Conditions of Previous Approvals: N/A Property Configuration Acreage: 0.21 acres (9,148 square feet) Zoning Classification: R-3, Single-family Residential Relevant District Standards: Zoning Ordinance, Article 7, Section 71 Residential District Requirements All "R" Districts USES PERMITTED: Accessory structures: gardens, playgrounds and parks; public buildings, including public Page 2 of 5 schools and libraries; satellite dishes or discs as herein defined by that ordinance, and no other; and parking of recreational vehicles, as herein defined subject to the following conditions: a) At no time shall such parked or stored camping and recreational equipment be occupied or used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes. b) If the camping and recreational equipment is parked or stored outside of a garage, it shall be parked or stored to the rear of the front of the building line of the lot. c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (b), camping and recreational equipment may be parked anywhere on the premises for loading and unloading purposes. USES PERMITTED ON APPEAL: Customary home occupations; public utility structures, such as electric substations, gas metering stations, sewage pumping stations and similar structures; general hospitals for humans, except primarily for mental cases; churches; cemeteries; semi-public buildings; golf courses; municipal, county, state or federal use; kindergartens, nurseries, nursery schools, day care centers, private schools; and satellite dishes or discs, not defined herein. USES PROHIBITED: Mobile homes, house trailers, trailer courts or camps, commercial and industrial uses, including parking lots or parking areas in connection with these uses, not specifically permitted. R-3 Districts USES PERMITTED: Single-family dwellings. USES PERMITTED ON APPEAL: Duplexes and other apartments, Clubs not conducted for profit; rooming and boarding houses. (See: regulations common to all "R" Districts, listed above.) Requested Variance: Effective variance as re-stated by staff (see application for applicant statement): 1. Placement of a manufactured home in an R district. Page 3 of 5 Statement of Hardship: (taken from application) “Health Reasons.” PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: July 12, 2015 Recommendation: Denial – Appropriate action is a request for rezoning Planning Staff Comments: Background: The applicant is requesting permission to locate a manufactured home on the vacant lot platted as Lot 18 of the Durden Heights subdivision. Lot 18 is zoned R-3, Single-family residential, which specifically prohibits use of the lot for mobile homes (manufactured homes). Lot 18 is one of three connected lots owned by the petitioner. The applicant’s other parcels, Lots 17 and 19 (addressed as 733 and 731 Ruth Street), are zoned T-2, Area for Parking Mobile Homes. Lot 17 is currently occupied by a manufactured home. Lot 19 contains a site built structure. The zoning of Lots 17 and 19 is consistent with the T-2 zoning applied to all Durden Heights lots on the south side of Ruth Street, except Lot 18. While the neighborhood contains a 50/50 mixture of site built and manufactured homes, T-2 is the predominant zoning classification for the Durden Heights lots. Analysis: Variances fall into two general categories – area and use. Area variances grant some relief from the dimensional requirements of the ordinance such as setbacks, parking spaces, landscaping, sign height, etc. Use variances allow the property to be used for an activity specifically prohibited by the ordinance. The requested variance would allow a use prohibited in the R-3 district. Use variances are general considered by planning professionals and by the Prattville BZA as a rezoning/reclassification of the property without following the regular zoning process reserved to the city council by Alabama law. In use variance cases, it is usually difficult to prove an unnecessary hardship. Alabama law does not specifically prohibit use variances. Both use and area variances have been recognized by the Alabama courts. However, proper application of the standards for unnecessary hardship make use variances unlikely. The general tests of whether a hardship is unnecessary are: Page 4 of 5 1. Can the land in question yield a reasonable return if used in compliance with the ordinance? Hardship cannot be self-created. Reasonable return does not equal maximum return. 2. The defined hardship must be due to circumstances applying only to the applicant’s property and not shared by other properties in the same district or area. 3. The board must determine if the variance will adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The hardship may not be self-inflicted by action or acceptance of the conditions 5. Variances should not violate the spirit of the zoning ordinance or be contrary to the public interest. At 9,148 square feet, 75 feet wide and 118 feet deep, Lot 18 meets the basic dimensional requirement for its present R-3 zoning designation. As a result, the request for variance fails the initial test for hardship since the lot can be developed by the applicant or sold for a reasonable return. Therefore, the application for variance may be denied and a suggestion made to the applicant to request a rezoning of the property. State code and best practices require the BZA to measure variance requests against several basic standards. Below is the staff opinion regarding the standards and this request. 1. No special conditions and circumstances exist regarding this structure which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3 zoning district. 2. A literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do result from actions of the applicant. 4. The granting of a variance will confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3 district; 5. The granting of a variance is not in harmony with the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance; 6. A variance will adversely affect the surrounding property, the general neighborhood, or the community as a whole; Page 5 of 5 7. A variance will allow the establishment of a use prohibited under the terms of the zoning ordinance in an R-3 district. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Application C. Plat – Durden Heights subdivision - 1956 D. Staff Photos CITY OF PRATTVILLE Board of Zoning Adjustment Planning Department Staff Report USE-ON-APPEAL Abundant Life Church Vacant Lot – Commerce Court Lot 7, Cherry Tree Properties, Plat 1 BZA Application – 150714-03 DATE July 13, 2015 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioners: Abundant Life Church Property Owners: J. L. Goodson, Jr. Agent: Geno Tolver Location: West end of Commerce Court (behind K-Mart), Vacant lot (Lot 7, Cherry Tree Properties, Plat 1) Development Status and History Submission Status: Platted as Lot 7, Cherry Tree Properties, Plat 1, July 1997. Initial request for site development of this property Previous Approvals: N/A Conditions of Previous Approvals: N/A Property Configuration Acreage: Approximately 1.76 acres Proposed Use: Church Current Zoning: B-2 (General Business) Required Zoning: Church permitted with use-on-appeal approval from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Page 2 of 3 Surrounding Developments and Uses: The property north, east, and west of the site is zoned B- 2, General Business and developed as such. The property to the south is zoned R-2, Single-family Residential and used for low density housing. The property is immediately adjacent to three lots in the Prattville East Subdivision on Seasons Drive. Street Extensions or New Streets: None required or proposed. Water and Sewer: Adequate potable water and sanitary sewer for the proposed use is provided to the site. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: July 12, 2015 Recommendation: Table Request Until Additional Site Information Can Be Provided and Reviewed. Planning Staff Comments: Background. According to Mr. Tolver, the Abundant Life Church is currently meeting at the Doster Community Center, and does not expect to build on the subject site within 3 to 5 years. The congregation has offered to purchase the subject property contingent on use-on-appeal approval for a church use. Mr. Tolver provided a plan and profile layout of the proposed 14,400 square foot church building. He was not able to provide a site layout at this time. The 120’ by 120’ structure (excluding front porch and attached portico) includes an auditorium with seating for 329. Analysis. Below is the staff assessment of the three general question applicable to uses- on-appeal: 1. Is the proposed church an allowable use-on-appeal, and not a prohibited use in a B-2 district? The requested use is a permitted use-on-appeal. It is not a prohibited use in a B- 2 district. Page 3 of 3 2. Is development of the proposed church on Lot 7 of the Cherry Tree Properties, Plat 1 subdivision located at the west end of Commerce Court in the public interest? Does the proposed development meet the spirit of the City of Prattville Zoning Ordinance? The answer to these two question is not clear based on the presented information. A primary purpose of the city’s zoning ordinance is to insure that adequate space and facilities are provided for a given use. Regarding churches, the zoning ordinance requires adequate setback from adjacent properties and an adequate parking field. Per city ordinance, the church’s 329 seats dictate a minimum of 132 parking spaces. At minimum 9’ x 18’ configuration, the spaces will require 21,384 square feet. The required 24’ wide parking lot aisles will consume an additional 15,000 square feet. Without accounting for the front porch and the attached portico shown on the plan, the proposed church structure uses 14,400 square feet of the lot. These three basic site components require 1.17 acres. The subject 1.76 acres is irregularly configured with platted easements on the north, west, and south property lines. The easements remove or hamper the use of .31 acres on the site. This basic analysis does not account for required frontage and interior landscaping or the 20’ vegetated buffer required on the south property line where a B-2 district abuts an R-2 district. Whether and how these zoning requirements can be accommodated by the subject property is not clear without a basic site plan. Furthermore, if the site can accommodate the initial construction, it is unclear whether it contains sufficient space for a modest expansion of the church at a later date. 3. Does the proposed church use cause substantial adverse impact to adjacent or nearby properties or uses? The proposed use is located at the end of Commerce Court; a 985’ long cul-de- sac. Commerce Court will be sole access point for the church. In addition, the configuration of the lot suggests that any structure will be at least another 100’ to 200’ past the end of the cul-de-sac. As an assembly occupancy, the single access point and the greater than 1000’ distance from McQueen Smith Road may not be permitted under city building or fire codes. Without a basic site plan review by city departments, it is unclear whether the proposed use can be permitted. In addition, the Board of Zoning Adjustment should consider the impact of an average of 100 vehicles accessing the site from a single point. The presented information raises several questions which can only be answered with an initial site plan review. Question 3 cannot be answered at this time. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Application C. Subdivision Plat – Cherry Tree Properties, Plat 1 D. Plan and Profile – Proposed Church Building CITY OF PRATTVILLE Board of Zoning Adjustment Planning Department Staff Report VARIANCE 844 Jensen Road BZA Application – 150714-04 DATE July 12, 2015 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Willie Motley Property Owners: same as petitioner Agent: Richard Glenn Construction Location: 844 Jensen Road Development Status and History Previous Variance Requests/Approvals: No previous variances Conditions of Previous Approvals: N/A Property Configuration Acreage: Approximately 0.35 acres (15,246 square feet) Zoning Classification: R-2, Single Family Residential Relevant Standards: Section 4. – Uses (B) Any use or structure existing at the time of enactment or of subsequent amendment to this ordinance, but not in conformity with its provisions, may be continued with the following limitations: Any use or structure which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance, except with the written approval of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, shall not be: (a) Chained to another nonconforming use. (b) Re-established after discontinue [discontinuance] for one (1) year. Page 2 of 4 (c) Rebuilt after fire or storm loss, exceeding its value, above foundation, at the time of loss. Section 5. - Building lots, yards and open spaces. In each district, each structure, hereafter erected or altered, shall be provided with the yards specified and shall be on a lot of the area and width specified in Article 7. No open space or lot required for a building or structure shall during its life be occupied by or counted as open space for another building or structure. Exceptions to the district requirements for building lots and yards follow: a. Where the owner of a lot of official record at the time of adoption of this ordinance does not own sufficient adjacent land to enable him to conform to the yard and other requirements of this ordinance, one (1) building and its accessory structures may be built provided the yard space and other requirements conform as closely as possible, in the opinion of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, to the requirements of the district in which it is located; and further provided that neither side yard shall be reduced to less than five (5) feet in width. b. No building need be set back more than the average of the setbacks of the existing residences within one hundred (100) feet each side thereof. Section 68 – Definitions. Yard, rear. The yard extending across the entire width of the lot between the main building, including covered porches, and the rear lot line. Section 71— R-2 Districts Minimum Lot Size: 10,500 square feet Maximum Lot Coverage: 45% Yard Setbacks: Front: 35’ Rear: 40’ Sides: 10’ Page 3 of 4 Requested Variance: Effective variance as re-stated by staff (see application for applicant statement): Existing, attached aluminum carport encroaches 22’ into the required 40’ rear yard setback. Requesting approval of variance for this addition. Statement of Hardship: (taken from application) “Unable to move carport” PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: June 10, 2015 Recommendation: Recommend approval – no adverse impact to adjacent properties or spirit of the ordinance. Planning Staff Comments: On June 9, 2015, the petitioner’s contractor applied for a permit to add on to the front of the structure at 844 Jensen Road. Upon inspection, the zoning administrator determined that the existing structure had sufficient front setback – approximately 185’ to accommodate the proposed 16’ x 28’ addition. The administrator also noted that the existing structure included an attached carport extending 22’ into the required 40’ rear setback. Upon finding a non- conforming structure, the administrator denied the requested permit based on the non- conforming use clauses found in Section 4 (B) of the city’s zoning ordinance. The applicant is requesting a variance to account for the previously added carport and its encroachment into the rear yard. State code and best practices require the BZA to measure variance requests against several basic standards. Below is the staff opinion regarding the standards and this request. 1. No special conditions and circumstances exist regarding this structure which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-2 zoning district. Page 4 of 4 2. A literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. 4. The granting of a variance will confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied by the zoning ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same R-3 district; 5. The granting of a variance is in harmony with the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance; 6. A variance will not adversely affect the surrounding property, the general neighborhood, or the community as a whole; 7. A variance will not allow the establishment of a use prohibited under the terms of the zoning ordinance in an R-2 district. ATTACHMENTS None. Please see earlier mail out.