Opelika commission approves two setback variances; November meeting moved

The Opelika Planning Commission on Tuesday approved two setback variances and voted to move its November meeting to Nov. 18 at 9 a.m.

The commission approved a 21-foot variance to the 30-foot side-yard setback for 304 Fox Run Avenue so the applicant can align a proposed rear addition with the existing building and preserve internal workflow. City planning staff said the existing building currently sits 9 feet from the property line, and the proposed addition would maintain that alignment, requiring the 21-foot reduction from the 30-foot requirement.

City planning staff recommended approval after noting engineering and site constraints. The staff presentation said rotating the addition or shifting it deeper into the lot would encounter roughly a 20-foot slope at the rear of the property that would make grading and drainage more difficult. Brandon Boldt of Boldt Engineering, the applicant’s representative, told the commission the design keeps warehouse bays aligned and avoids difficult grading in the rear. "Those were his reasons," Boldt said.

A nearby business owner, Corey Holmes of 404 Foxtrot Avenue, asked whether a variance granted to the adjacent property would prevent future expansion on his site; staff replied the variance would not change setback requirements on Holmes’s property and would not affect his ability to expand. "Our only concern is if they give the 21 foot for future expansion plans … is that gonna — will there be an issue with that?" Holmes asked. Staff said the variance applies to the applicant’s lot and would not, by itself, alter the neighbor’s setback obligations.

The second variance approved was for a single-family house at 2 Avenue C. City staff said the R-4 zone front-yard setback in that area is 25 feet and that the homeowner had already added an expanded porch and a rear addition; staff recommended allowing a 13.2-foot front-yard setback in this case. Planning staff described the lot as older and irregular, with the house angled to follow a curve in the roadway as it turns onto Darden Street. Builder Lindbergh B. Jackson, who said he has worked in Opelika for decades, told the commission the owner, Leonie Diaz, is a subcontractor who "sometimes gets a little bit carried away" and asked the board for leniency so the porch could remain.

Staff said they received several calls from neighbors and that, after staff explained the lot geometry and proposed change, none of the callers opposed the variance. The commission approved the 13.2-foot front-yard variance; the transcript records the motion language differently during roll call, but the planning staff presentation states the applicable front setback is 25 feet and that the requested variance is 13.2 feet from that standard.

Votes at a glance - 304 Fox Run Avenue (M-2 zone): Motion to approve a 21-foot side-yard setback variance from the 30-foot requirement — outcome: approved. Applicant: Phillips LLC; representative: Brandon Boldt, Boldt Engineering. (See transcript excerpts linked below.) - 2 Avenue C (R-4 zone): Motion to approve a 13.2-foot front-yard setback variance (staff said the front-yard requirement in this location is 25 feet) — outcome: approved. Applicant: Leonie Diaz; representative/builder: Lindbergh B. Jackson. - Commission business: Motion to reschedule the November meeting to Nov. 18 at 9 a.m. — outcome: approved.

What the commission discussed and why it matters City planning staff framed both approvals as limited, site-specific exceptions that respond to existing development patterns and on-site constraints. For the Fox Run property, staff highlighted operational reasons (internal warehouse flow) and site topography that would complicate alternative layouts. For the Avenue C property, staff and the builder argued the house’s historic lot configuration and the way the street curves mean the altered porch maintains the neighborhood’s existing character better than forcing a modification.

Commissioners asked whether the variances would preclude neighbors from future changes; staff answered that neighboring lots would still be bound by the applicable setback standards and would need separate approvals if they sought reductions.

Process notes and next steps Staff said inspections and work on the Avenue C property have been held pending final action; the certificate or permit in question remained on hold until the variance was resolved. The commission said it will meet Nov. 18 at 9 a.m. unless no applications are filed, in which case the meeting may be canceled.

Quotes (selected) - "Hello. Brandon Boldt with Boldt Engineering," — Brandon Boldt, Boldt Engineering (applicant representative) - "Our only concern is if they give the 21 foot for future expansion plans … is that gonna — will there be an issue with that?" — Corey Holmes, neighboring property owner - "We did maybe overstepped our hands in putting those 2 little additions on by not including that in the first variance," — Lindbergh B. Jackson, builder

Ending The approved variances allow the two projects to proceed as shown in staff materials. Planning staff emphasized that neighboring property owners retain their own setback obligations and would need separate approvals for any future changes that affect setbacks. The commission’s next scheduled meeting is Oct. 14; the November meeting was moved to Nov. 18 at 9 a.m. and will be canceled if no applications are submitted beforehand.