Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

to the circuit court having jurisdiction according to section 908.02 of the zoning ordinance of the city of Auburn, Alabama. The board consists of five regular members in two supernumeies. The supernumer participate in all discussions but only vote when necessary to assure four voting members and have a board consisting of five members when possible. All decisions are made with a roll call vote and a concurring vote of four members is required to approve an application for a variance. Thank you. Okay, so our first uh item up is BZ 2025004 347 Frasier Street. too tall.

Also, my name is Krisp. I'm one of the new planners. It's like every time we meet there's a new realize there's a new face. So, it's nice to meet y'all officially. So, all right. So, here we go.

All right. So we have new business. So this case BZ 2025004 is a request for a variance of 7T 1 in to the required 20 foot setbacks and to allow 48t.92 in lot width to the required 60 minimum lot width. The zoning ordinance for this particular parcel is corridor redevelopment district west. So, CRDW um the zoning ordinance in question, table 51, which is labeled lot area setbacks, maximum impervious surface and parking requirements for conventional subdivisions in the city of Auburn zoning ordinance, requires lots within the CRD zone to have rear setbacks of no less than 20 ft and lot width of 60 ft. And the property is located at 37 or 347 Frasier Street. the applicant is well neighbors. So, kind of just an overview of this prox map. You can see kind of highlighted in this little area right here is the subject property. The surrounding area to the north, south, and west is CRDW. The zoning east of it is neighborhood redevelopment district as well as CRDW. Um, kind of just giving you an overview of the area. So, So, this is kind of just an overview of the project right here. This was submitted by the applicant. The top photo is the current single family residence located on 347 Frasier Street. This house was built prior to 1950s. That's what our records say. And the zoning ordinance for the city of Auburn was enacted and put into place around the 1980s. the applicant is proposing to build. You can kind of see these two orange circles. And actually, this yellow circle right here is the current property, which is kind of tucked away

in the back. Uh the applicant is proposing to build a single family resident kind of in the style of these two buildings right here. So, it's kind of in the nearby area. He's also proposing, this is pretty critical, to demolish the current residence and put one of these types of houses that he's proposing right here. So, this is the current floor plan that was submitted to us. Um, it's subject to change, but this is what it was submitted. Um, it kind of just mimics the style of kind of the previous, uh, houses that, you know, you can kind of look at on this street. Um, the layout of the house is a five bedroomedroom, four and a half baths. So, that is the just kind of layout of it. You can see there is a first, second and third floor. Um the first floor contains a great room, common area, porch as well. And the second and third floor is where the master bedroom is. The third floor is where all the bedrooms are. That is not the master bedroom. And kind of just looking at the site plan that was submitted. This is the current um site plan that the applicant wants to submit. It is looking at building a 650 ft house. um that will be demolishing the current property. So, and then kind of just like a gravel driveway in the front. It is worth noting that at this current state, the maximum IF or ISR is above 0.35, which is the maximum we allow in CRDW. So, it is something worth noting.

How much is it? Was that in our note? It was and I was going to ask that question as well. How much is the difference in that? Right. So, you're looking at a 0.13 difference. So the current ISR is at 048. Maximum ISR allowed is 0.35. Yeah. And this is kind of just table 5.1. This is the whole um kind of table we're looking at and the applicants proposing variances for. If you can pay attention to the less than 10,000 square footage row right here,

since the lot is about 8,500 square footage of area, it uh has to go by these, you know, lot area setbacks and minimum standards we have in our zoning ordinance. So, you can see the lot with minimum is 60 ft. The applicant's lot width is currently 48.92 ft. You can also see that the minimum rear setbacks is 20 ft and currently the applicant is requesting a variance for 7.1 ft instead of that 20. And kind of just looking at table 52, this is our setbacks and regulations for NC. You can see that since this area is CRDW, it does not kind of go along with some of the NC standards we have. But these are just an example to show youall what we do have for NC zoning. We do have another exhibit right here which is exceptions for residential setbacks. If you want to pay attention to point number one which is front and rear yard setbacks um for existing nonconformities which this lot is currently for single two three or multif family dwellings they may extend the five feet into the required front or rear setback um for the non-conforming part which is whatever is less. So unfortunately if you add 5T to the variance request it only hits about 12.1 instead of 7.1 ft. So it doesn't hit that 20 ft minimum. And then looking at exhibit 8, which is right here, this is limits on expansion for non-legal non-conforming uses. Uh if you want to pay attention to point number one right here, the area of such expansion shall not exceed 25% of the area of the existing non-conforming use or structure unless otherwise allowable in this section. So, this is just kind of just some of the stuff that says and

outlines on our resing ordinance regarding legal non-conformities. And I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all have. Did we receive any communications from the public notice? We received uh a couple phone calls from this signs we put out just uh one by the property owner, one by um nearby owners as well, just voicing their concerns. Can you share those concerns? But that's fine.

Yeah, I guess I'll Yeah, I I'll answer that. So, so, so I guess we've had we've had opposition um from neighbors. We've had oppositions from pro I guess uh commercial business owners over there, um residential neighbors over there who've been concerned uh just kind of um speaking in opposition to the variance. Um, I imagine they'll probably speak at the public hearing, but uh, we've had I I think generally speaking, just I I think the sentiment has been if they are going to redevelop the lot, they would like the rules to be followed and not a variance granted for them to do something like this.

I don't have another question and I may wait until the applicant speaks. However, I noticed that the applicant stated that um that um a dwelling could not be built on the property without the variance yet. I do want to confirm that there is a house sitting on the property today that is expected to be demolished. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. That is correct. Yeah. And I guess kind of that's that that's a pretty big uh distinction. So, so I guess kind of the point of kind of the exhibit I guess 6 through 8, okay,

is really kind of talking through what the what provisions there are for people who want to expand on conformities and redevelop them. And I the point of the variance and I guess kind of where the variance kind of kicks in isn't that, you know, the current house is unlivable or anything. It's that to build something new that they need the variance. And so should they tear the house down, then the setbacks would then have to all be applied and that's what they need the relief from. And so if they were to sell the house, someone live in the house as is, uh, like whatever the bedroom and the beds may bedrooms, bathrooms may be or, you know, if they were going to take advantage of the expansion through the non-conformities, um, whatever that renovation would allow them, then that that's what they would have. They wouldn't need a variance to do any of those things. But if they are going to demolish the current house, then the setbacks would then apply to this lot. Um, and I think one of the things that was also in the staff report that that we didn't didn't mention, this area is incredibly old. Uh, there is no subdivision associated with this. There is no annexation associated with this. This is all old original Auburn pretty much. And so we couldn't go back to how this lot got here, when this house got got here. That that's why things are kind of vague. again just kind of referencing um the earliest stuff is from 80 years ago of kind of what we have records of. So

yeah. Okay. Okay. So I I do have a question about the um picture that we showed on exhibit one. So when we subject that to the um I'm just I'm trying to get my bearings to see where these match. So the ones that have been redeveloped, these large white 5544 structures, those were in NRD. Yeah. And so I guess we could go to the prox map.

Yeah. And so the so where that is is that if you make a right on Grant Street and then make a left up, that's where those lots are. And so in NRD, we've kind of gone back back and forth with this. Initially, ADDUs were not allowed. And so I I guess there's the importance of the floor plan is that the common space and the open the common space and the public or the common space and the private space. So what that translates to is private space in in homes how we regulated in the city of Auburn is private bedrooms and private bathrooms within those bedrooms. And so that equates to private space. And so if there's a more if there's greater than 50% private space in a what looks like a house, it is an uh an ADU which is an academic detached dwelling unit. So that's normally when you see the five beds, five and a half baths kind of deal like you know they'll all have their own bedroom within them. And so what you end up with is, you know, the 60% private space. And so to qualify as a single family home, you must be greater than 50% common space. And so what then? So that was a big point of contention. They submitted a revised site plan that opened up some of the bedrooms and took some of the bathrooms out of those bedrooms. That way they could meet the ratio. And so that is how they qualify as a single family home. Now to get to the zoning, like I said, we went back and forth about are ADDUs allowed in NRD and it was something that they were initially and then there was a lot of redevelopment with ADDUs and then that was taken out of NRD uh explicitly to not allow them. And then same thing in CRDW where ADDUs are not allowed. So that is why it was a sticking point that you cannot get a variance to allow to do a use that is not allowed. So that's a use variance and so that's why they had to change the floor plan. Um and so the CRDW so so the short answer is that those were developed in NRD at a time

when ADDUs were allowed even though like from the outside they look to be the same. The floor plan is not. And so I do want to make that distinction. What is what what what Mr. Neighbors is proposing to build would qualify under our ordinance as a single family house. Um, and what was redeveloped on those other lots would qualify as ADDUs and those are not allowed in CRDW. So, zoning wise is is okay to be built. It's just the variance on those setbacks.

Yes. And I and I guess kind of the the the point of uh kind of the the zoning ordinance and I guess kind of kind of where we come down. Um, five five beds, four and a half baths or or five bedroomedroom house does not fit on every single lot. Like different lots have different sizes. Um, I I guess from from from a personal aside, uh, when I live, my first house out of grad school was a one bed, one bath, 680 foot, you know, house, standalone house. Um, but, you know, it's just kind of like like I mean that's there's just a there's a spectrum of just kind of houses of what's available, just kind of housing topology. Um, and I guess the stringent setbacks and like the character of conventional sub conventional subdivision regs would apply should the house be torn down. So, I said the big thing is lots like this probably just need to be modified, take care of the house uh would kind of be the position of the zoning ordinance on it.

When did the NRDW uh was it revised to not allow the ADUs? Because I do remember there's a big boom in those coming up and then when did we revise that? Was that a recent change or? Yeah, I would say that was relatively recent. Okay. I did not realize that. Okay. I don't have any questions at now. Not right now. Yeah. Any more questions? Okay. We will now open the public hearing if anybody wants to speak. Or the applicant. Wait, I'm sorry. Oh, no. Yeah. Yeah. So, public hearing is open so people can talk. Okay. Yeah, you're good. You're good. Yeah. Just make sure you sign in. Make sure you sign in. Okay. Thank you.

My name is Linda Saxton. I'm the owner of Days Hair Salon on 316 Frasier. And I have uh when they did my building, they did parking inside and out. So the part of the streets are parking and one side is not parking. So with that many bedrooms, where are the people going to park? Where you going to have to set back? is about what 3,000 square foot of that house over there on that land. So I don't see where you can have a five bedroomedroom and parking and then the overflow hit my business and then I won't have nobody to uh the service people with the trucks and thing to park. So I don't need that friction to come towards my business. I'm not trying to stop progress, but I just need uh my clearance.

Are you located next door to this property or across the street? Right across the street. Okay. Okay. Next to the large. Uh so if you all, you know, come, you know, I don't mind progress,

but don't put nothing that large in that little area cuz it's very small. If you want to go there and you can see it, you can talk to Barren on the, you know, make it look good and stuff like that, but go and see for yourself cuz in back of her house, uh, Miss Viral, um, Collins, her property is back of the house. It's run in the back. It's just like a little square. So, it's like 50 by 60. 50 in the front, 60 on both side, and 50 in the back. So, it very small. Thank you for

and Miss Axton, we definitely understand. I mean, you have a business and parking is definitely a legitimate concern.

Okay. My name is Vera Collins and I'm stay at 351 Freder Street at Nick's door 2347. And it it just going to be a problem blocking so close to my home and where I think they're going to have from 20 to 60 from 7.1 to 48.92 is going to bring their h their property so close to mines. That's where my bedroom is sitting and I'm already having a problem of keeping the yard up. So, if they bring the house that close, they're not going to be able to do the house. And like Miss Sax said, um, behind the house, if they bring that back, that just gonna be right to my fence. And I don't see how a lawnmower or weed eater or anything can get back there. And it's gonna block the whole view up. And that mean you can be looking down into my bedroom kitchen. Even if I sit on my porch, they has the whole thing. And again, it's about parking. Right now, you can't get for one car in the park. And like I said, we know we parking on one side today, but yet still for five people, that's going to be a a problem. it already a problem with the other surrounding and this just going to add more and I'm right next door to her.

So I'm just asking please do not have it to be reszone just say as it is. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. How you doing?

My name is Johnny Richardson. I live at 313 Frasier Street and um the property that they bought that that driveway is a part of my property and um I had it surveyed and they pulled the stakes out the ground and um I called the courthouse. The man came down and seen it. He told me to take the fence down. I'm 60some years old. How can I take down um seven yards of fence, you know, and then they have a driveway on my property, put a driveway without my permission. And um I feel like they're taking advantage of me and my property, the people that stay there. And um when I called the police and I went I called the courthouse. The courthouse came down. He told me to move the fence. But it's not my duty to move a fence somebody else put up, you know. And um I just get to run around when I ask I I said when I got it surveyed, isn't it against the law for them to pull the stakes off the ground? And nobody give me an answer. I just every time I ask, I get to run around tell me move the fence. It's your fence. You can move it anytime you want to. I said I'm going to get out there and move all that fence by myself. You know, I'm 60ome years old. I can't get out there and move all that fence. They don't dug holes in the grounds and put cement and everything else and and I got to move all that stuff, you know, and I try to and I have the stakes in the ground showing them that's on my property. And I said, I just asked y'all to move that stuff off my property. And every time I ask them personally, I get argument and fussing and um but no, I don't want the thing built on the side of next next to me. I'm at 313 Frasier Street.

And where are you in relation? Are you across the street from me? Just south. No, I'm next door. Next door. Next door. Okay. And can we get some context about u Mr. Richardson comments about the survey? Can you kind of put that in context? Uh, yeah, I guess this is kind of first first I've I've heard of it, but yeah, we we we can address everybody's comments kind of once the public hearing is closed. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, I'm Elizabeth Hill. I'm at 274 Bragg Avenue, which actually sits very on the corner of Bragg and Frasier. So, I'm opposite the side of the street that she's on, but I sit on the very end of that street. Um, I have been around since ADDUs happened. I was part of helping do that because the contractors came into this neighborhood and said, "We're building single family homes." They were not single family homes. They were ADDUs. So, we worked with zoning and we got ADDUs in as part of the process because they were coming. Before that, we had um private dormatory developments and so they worked around whatever those regulations were to be like, "No, these are actually single family homes." And then we had to get ADDUs into the zoning ordinance. So that's how that happened. And now they've said, "Oh, wait. We didn't actually want all those ADDUs in there." So now they've even taken it out that you can't you originally like he was saying that you could put ADDUs in all of that without, you know, without any request and now they've taken all that out. So all that to say is that's the background of it. The stretch from basically that whole purple stretch on the lefthand side that that sits in the middle is still basically an intact historic African-American neighborhood and it is very difficult to watch to have watched this all come in. I understand development and progress but I also think that the job of the zoning board and the job of the planning is to look at the greater good of the whole neighborhood. like that's your job to me. I understand people want to build what they want to build on their property, but I think the context of the larger hole is what your job is. And so it's been difficult in this neighborhood to kind of work through that because there's constantly people working around whatever gets put out, they work around whatever gets put out. So I feel like we're finally getting to a spot where that can happen. And then they are putting up an addu and calling it a single family home. I know the floor plan got changed, but that's what it's going to be used for. And that puts

strain on the system, right? It puts strain on the neighbors next to it because what it is supposedly being used for is not actually what it's being used for. And so the um it makes a difference to now how their properties are viewed, right? So even though it's technically falls under a single family home, the way it's going to get used now changes how the ne the the house the neighborhoods are looked at next to each other. like the lots next to each other are looked at differently because of what gets put on that and I think it also puts a strain on we've had several people mention this it also puts a strain on the infrastructure so originally when we moved in that h in our place 15 years ago you could park on both sides of Frasier everybody was parking on both sides of Frraasier and there were several times ambulances could not get down that street so we decided okay we've got to do something we went to the city they said no parking on one side of the street so now there's parking only on one side the street. But then when you begin to add all of this five bedroomedroom, five bathroom stuff. Well, if you have an ADDU, your parking requirements are different than a single family home.

So in an ADDU, you have to have 1.1 per bedroom. In a single family home, you're only required two spots. So it's again putting pressure on that infrastructure because what is technically getting built is a single family home, but the way it's going to get used is going to affect the neighbors and affect the infrastructure and all of that, right? So my request is the fact that your job is to look out for the larger neighborhood. And so I would say please don't give them this variance because it's going to change the larger neighborhood in a way that we don't want. And I think if we look projecting out into the future, if you need to correct my facts, correct my facts. No, no, no. I don't need to correct your facts. It's it's just the timer didn't go off.

Oh, sorry. I didn't even see there was a timer. I'm so sorry. I apologize. Um I I will be finished. I would say please don't give them the ranks. Okay. Thank you. Where's the timer? Yeah, normally Yeah, normally there's a bell. No bells. I just feel the bell either. So bad. And also just make sure I think you are all signed in, but make sure when you're speaking that you're signed in. Just we have you in public record. Thank you.

How y'all doing? How are you? My name is uh Limo Fitch. I reside at 311 William Street with my mom as well. Um, I've been living in this neighborhood since I was a kid. And I'm saying to uh kind of to to her point uh with the uh a lot of these houses coming up like that, I'm going to address it in the simple fact of again it's changing the uh uh the way they're looking at this neighborhood because me personally, I'm 42 years old. I only stay uh if I walk down Canton and this is my problem with the neighbor uh with with it getting so many houses. When I walk down Canton, I'm actually stopped because I don't live in those apartments during the summertime and during the uh Christmas holidays and stuff like that. Like I I'm an active person. I'm not too old to move around or whatever. And I just try to frequent the store which is Wiggles right up the street. But I've been stopped on several occasions because I don't and the officers quote, "There's student housing here and nobody's here." Well, I've been living here since before the student housing. Lived there. I used to catch the bus where the student housing is. And I don't see why the student housing now all of a sudden paints a different picture because I don't I'm not a student there. Well, I've been staying here from Bragg to 311 Street longer than those houses have been there. And now it's those houses are looked at as more important than me actually walking down the street and my safety. Like I'm saying this because I was surrounded by seven cops all because I'm walking home from the store. That don't if those houses make me look like that, I don't want none of them in there. I would prefer y'all tear all of them back down and put the what you said a family house back into the community. That's all I want to say. Thank y'all.

Thank you for your comments. Very interesting perspective, Mr. Fitch. Thank you.

Applicant here. probably. Okay. So, I will uh close the public hearing and if the applicant would like to speak, please go forward. Yep. Yep. Yep. Make sure I'm doing this right. Okay.

Good evening, members of the BZA. Uh my name is Will Neighbors and today I am representing uh Miss Gloria Bledsoe um who owns the property at 347 Frasier Street here in Auburn. Um the property is a single family home and it is in violation of three separate zoning regulations. Uh two of them being the setback, one being the lot width. On June 29th, the property was listed for sale through the MLS in ASIS condition. Uh the property went under contract contingent upon being able to redevelop the lot which is located within the corridor redevelopment district. The first sentence of the advertisement is selling property as is uh mentions redevelopment and the property has a tax appraised value of $55,000 including the house that was built in the 1940s. The lot is especially small, as people have discussed, uh, with it only having 50 feet along Frasier Street and, um, 60 feet for a total of 3,000 total square feet. As a result, this lot of record does not meet the minimum lot width for a single family residential home, which it currently contains. We are proposing to redevelop the parcel by building a single family residential home which requires a variance for the lot width. The lot is an existing lot of record and has been for many years. Um this is the first obvious request is that the zoning is that the width requirement um go away. Additionally, the existing home is in violation of the required front and rear residential setbacks. The front of the home is only

six feet away from Frasier Street and the setback requirement, I believe, is 25. The back property line um is currently uh less than 9 ft away. uh and it has a current zoning requirement of 20 ft. So um if you take the proposed setbacks and you set them on the lot, you know, we are proposing to build a 600 square f footprint to be as close to compliance as we can be. In order to be in compliance, a new redevelopment on this lot would have to contain 11 foot wide home, which is obviously not feasible. Um, so the purpose of, you know, the the request is to have this existing single family residential lot go from having three uh current violations down to two. We have reached out to Miss Collins via letter as well as uh my surveyor uh spoke to her during the survey process in an attempt to possibly acquire her property so that the rear setback could be adhered to. Um I am not aware of any of the discussions related to Mr. uh Richardson at 313 Frasier and a uh wood a a fence and a issue related to a property line. This is all news to me. Um, as it relates to Miss Collins on the north side of the property, what we are actually proposing to build reduces

the encroachment upon her property line. Um, where the house currently sits about 9 ft away, it would sit about 13 feet away. Um, as it relates to the concerns about uh parking, one of the reasons that we are trying to push it as far back as we can is because it would allow for uh ample parking in front of the house and along the side rather than force people onto the streets for the purposes of parking. So you we have met u at nauseium with the city and looked at the entire planning book and what could possibly be redeveloped on this property to adhere to the required setbacks and we were not able to identify one. Um, and therefore that's why we're here today requesting that we take the single family home that's in violation of three setbacks or zoning requirements down to two and redevelop the parcel as we've proposed. And with that, I'll take any questions if allowed.

So, Mr. neighbor. Um I know you just said you spoke agnosim with the city planning, but we've had like five people speak today. Sure.

Have you considered building something else that would not require variance that would that you could build on the on the property given the concerns that you've heard from the people that live in the community? Cor I mean, I don't believe there is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I I don't believe outside of a home that's 10 ft wide, I don't know that we identified anything within the zoning, we were attempting to do single family to everything else is single family. We even looked at some of the commercial and other opportunities, but we agreed that that wasn't

Yeah. So, to Mr. neighbor's point. So, if you look at 52, um the I guess like if we

go to it. Um yeah, so I I think only have 51. So, but 52 has all of the performance subdivisions pretty much. Uh it's 502, I'm sorry. So, so you guys it's actually not in here, but it has all the performance uses. And so, that's where you get the duplexes, town homes, uh all those different things. So, the only thing that actually could go here like he's saying would be I guess even if we because I think it's slightly under 3500 square feet. Um I think it's 3,400 and some change would be the only thing you could probably put would be a duplex. Uh that would require that would still probably require a variance on the lot minimum. And so pretty much kind of like like he's right. I mean, the only thing that would fit would probably be if you guys gave a variance on town homes being able to exist behind or above each other. And so, pretty much allowing a flat, a flat would work on this lot. That's the only thing from a redevelopment standpoint. And that was kind of why I made the point of variances like the is the lot unusable? I think it would be different if it was already a vacant lot that didn't have anything on it. But with there already being a house in house there that somebody is living on, this is one of the reasons that we have the expansion for non-conformities. And so to to his point, if your ambition is to redevelop this lot, like we looked at that day, it is not viable under any of the performance subdivisions, under the conventional subdivisions, like I said, and a lot of that is because it's a remnant of very old Auburn. Uh we don't know when this lot was created and I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the smaller residential lots in town from a single family house standpoint, but I mean we do have provisions for it. That's why uh in the conventional in the conventional table that I mean there's entire zoning districts that are NC4 that are this size. Um they just have really small cottages on them. Uh just kind of similar to what's already there.

Let me add this. So the per the 50 by60 is a legal description that if you research the title work you come up with but if you actually go do a survey on the property it's 48.92 and 48 or 48 roughly 48 by 58 uh which is 2800 total square feet. Um, and if correct me if I'm wrong, but in the event that you do a a major renovation, it would trigger us back here requesting is it renovation or is it the tear down?

Yeah. So, no. No. So, so if you So, you would be capped on on the remodel of like how much you could put into the bones of the house. I guess kind of it' be off the off the appraised value. But I guess in a recent um in a recent meeting what what I learned the most the more stringent version of this if that there's flood plan on here in FEMA. FEMA actually does county valuation uh 55. But I guess kind of on the in my world I would I would honor the value of the land not just the house I I guess. And so what whatever that valuation came back to be then that that's where the flexibility would be at. But the to his point, if there was there would be a cap on the monetary amount, the monetary value that you could put into the house to remodel it and and maintain it. I guess if you were going to add another bedroom or something like that, but like I said, I think the 4,000 like NC4, NC5 or NC6, those really small lots. Those are kind of for cottages kind of like what you guys see here. And so I think this lot is probably one of the ones where it's not it's not really suited for redevelopment without assemblage. And so this lot kind of by itself on an island doesn't really make any sense for redevelopment. It would make a lot more sense if there was like assemblage with it with surrounding property. And that was kind of one that was part of the intent behind CRDW and and NRD that there would be assemblages of some of these smaller lots but just kind of that's if neighbors are willing to sell. And it sounds like in the situation they are not.

So based on what you said, is this a unnecessary? Is this a hardship? I'm I'm getting lost in in the technicalities. You know, one of our job is to Yeah. So grant variances just to grant variances. Right. So right. So I can't tell if it's a hardship because it sounds like there are some unique circumstances. So I'm I'm we're just trying to make the the best decision.

Yeah. So, so from, so from a from a technical lens, we would say no because there's already an existing use on the there's already an existing use on the lot. And so, like I said, this would be different if this was a vacant lot that he was trying to build on, never had been built on, and then there'd be reasons because the ordinance had created a hardship for him. But with the existing house that is already there, and the provisions in the n of expanding non-conformities to to the in the eyes of the city that there are provisions for you to expand it, it just would not allow you to have a five-bedroom house on it. Like I said, nobody everybody's not entitled to have a five bedroomedroom, sevenbedroom house. I mean, you can do that on another lot somewhere. Um would be the position of the city, but there is an existing use here. There's a house that people are living in. Um it would be up to maintain the city's position would be to maintain the house as is or expand it within the expansion provisions.

Can I ask a question about expansion within the provisions? So, the tax appraised value of 55,000. I was told that we couldn't improve the structure more than half of the TAV without coming back here and asking for three variances. Is that not accurate? I guess I don't want to conflict someone else's like opinion bet, but like I guess kind of on on my position um for things that are in the zone and ordinance, it would be up to me just kind of about how we handle improvements and kind of what value valuation we work off of. And so I mean there there would be evaluation but I I don't want to confirm it or not kind of that information. Okay.

And this is a single family residence that's there. Correct. Yeah. Correct. On a non-conforming lot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a non-conforming. It's a non-conforming lot. Non-conforming. It's a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. I think there 40. It's old. So it it's I mean words matter. So it's not technically that it's in violation. This is a non-conforming property. Yeah. And I mean violation.

It it could um it could it's not that it can't be can't be rented out to a family or something like that. I mean we run into that into other equations in other places of town that are also really old. Uh people want to do four or five beds. And it's just like no like you you can you're free to rent this out. You just cannot do you know five unrelated people living here kind of deal. I think that's an important distinction too. I noticed when the planner presented that he said this is a proposed plan which basically what we heard was we went from a 55 to a 54 to kind of skirt those regulations but um I think you know if it walks like a duck I mean it seems to me like you're probably going to have five college students living there.

We did not we did not alter the house plan uh after those conversations. This this has been the proposed uh house construction plan since the get-go. That the the house he's referring to is ones that were uh the two streets over those were originally proposed as he suggested and were changed at a later time. But they are their use right now is that there are five college students living in those homes. Correct. probably. So

NCR CRD, can you have five unrelated or is it three or less? I feel I have to check things I used to know off the top of my head. Yeah, that's that would be another I mean that would be a question for planning, not really for us, but it goes back to the parking. Absolutely. Oh, and you did you started to say too that you reached out to Miss Collins because this looks like basically Miss Collins has for sort of a modified flag lot like she partial out part of this and she you didn't really finish that but she was not interested in selling any portion of her land to

she didn't like see she owns here and then it wraps around because with that we could correct the rear setback and then and you said you don't know anything about the fence. Just did you pay for the survey that Mr. Richardson is regarding did he did you have a survey on this pro property? Um I did but our site plan shows a wooden fence on his property not in conflict with our property lines. I'm not sure where that I think Mr. Were you going to provide some context to that?

Oh yeah yeah yeah. So so I'm sorry you can you can only speak during public hearing. So I I can't verify that. That was the only time that I've that was the first time that's been that that we've been made aware of that. And I guess kind of our our position on property line disputes and things like that. Those are things just kind of in between private property owners. So something that the city doesn't really get into. If you're going to look at um the GIS data, sometimes it can be off. We don't we don't we don't guarantee that information. We recommend people get surveys associated with that. Uh to answer your question on the CRDW, you are so it is up to five unrelated. And so and so like like I said the CRD CRDW was when it was thought of applied and administered redevelopment was the intention but assemblage was a part of it. And so for the small lots like this like I said I think those are those are areas this is a lot that would be prime for assemblage into greater lots but it's just kind of at the will of neighbors if they do want to sell um and to allow that assemblage. So,

and I would just lastly say that, you know, keep in mind this is related to the current land owner's wishes to sell the property. She has a will and buyer contingent upon this. So, you know, the hardship is would certainly be on Miss Gloria and not on myself. Well, the hardship has to follow the land. Like the hardship is not for a person's circumstances or a developer or whatever the plan is. the hardship would be if it's applied to the actual parcel or the land. Okay. So, that's the the difference there.

Um, but I do understand where you're coming from. I see that she wants to sell and you know it's her right to sell. Um, you know, and if it's conditioned on that, then that would be something that we need to work out. Um, also, okay, go back to the ISR because I see we have two variances. One is for seven uh seven feet. So even still, even if we get past these, just say these variances go through, we've still got a issue with the parking because this is all gravel. Correct. So So yeah. So the ISR would either need to come into compliance or they'd need a variance for that. So you guys wouldn't be able to grant a variance for that because there wasn't a hearing related to that. So So we didn't advertise for that. And so that that's a technicality on our end. And I guess kind of

Yeah. So on this though on this though, things like this are like this is a preference. This is something where if they wanted to shave it and just have the space for two parking spaces and then move forward with a single family home, they could. This isn't something that's like hard in stone. They couldn't move forward without that is something they can change. That's totally voluntary on their end.

We have showed it to the city only provided two parking spots and in compliance with the with the uh ISR. However, if you're going to put five bedrooms and if if if the intended use is for more than five unrelated people to live there, where are the three other people going to park? Theoretically, like that that becomes an issue. So, speaking to the people who spoke in the public hearing, they're going to park in the street or in the yard, which is not I wouldn't I mean, I would put the property for sale or for rent to, you know, whoever rented it. wouldn't um but I guess this is an attempt at alleviating some of the parking concerns that we've heard and that would be a second request.

Okay. Is there anything else? I don't have anything. Question. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you.

So, now we will have We'll open it open for a board discussion. All right. Any comments? I mean, I think, you know, we we have I I see uh two sides of this coin. I do know that this is a non-conforming property. It's been there forever. It obviously supersedes the zoning that's been applied afterwards. um you know, we'd have to work out about the the how much of it could be renovated, you know, without triggering some sort of um reszoning pro or variance program needed. But I think the thing is what we have to do is that it can't just meet one thing. It's got to meet all of the different um

you know criteria for a variance to be considered. And I don't know that we've got that just off the top of my head and I would agree with that

requirements A through G. You know, uh, also the hardship is applied to the land. We can all see that there is an existing pro, you know, property on there. Um, I do, you know, want Miss Bledo to be able to sell her property and do what she wants to with it. Um, but I also understand and appreciate quiet enjoyment for the neighbors, um, you know, during the redevelopment process. I think it's also important for us to consider all of the residents um in the area that all um brought a different perspective. We know that parking is is is real and we understand that even with the ISR variance I we just kind of clearly described the fact that parking would be on the street that could affect the businesses in the area. I think one of the things that um uh resonated with me was the pressure on the infrastructure um in the area and with the height of the building. The comment from the one um um Miss Collins who commented about now looking down into her prof. think I think that's real and I think that uh all of these are are true concerns and and I just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we've had five or six people um who live right there who've grown up in this area that's been there um for a significant amount of time that all said that they appreciate growth, they appreciate development and want to see change happen. But I think um we have to think about the variance and the impact that the variances will have. in addition to the fact that maybe something else can be done with the property,

you know, I mean, he's proposing a five bedroomedroom, three bath, single family detached. Um, so we're talking about 650 square feet. I mean, at that point, and we've done this before, you know, you just kind of re-evaluate what you're willing to build and just sort of, you know, sort of shrink it down as much as you possibly can. There's, you know, there was something else that popped out that, um, the existing lot, let's see. Oh, uh, existing lot size combined with zoning setbacks make single family home or any other use impossible. We kind of know that's not the case because there is actually a single family use property.

Marty, you've been quiet. Yeah, I'm just saying if you built a you built a three a real threebedroom two-b house that you know a a real family would move into would probably be more acceptable to appropriate to the neighborhood. And I think that's probably the intent of the zoning overlay on that the the Yes. Yeah. And so so I I would say I think just kind of the similar thing um everything doesn't always have to be maxed out. properties can't be can't always realize like their maximum value. And if I think that the city's position is just really simple. I mean, if that's going to happen, redevelopment's fine. We would just prefer that they're not they don't seek a variance to do so.

Would they be able to redevelop this into a 3-2 without coming back to us? I don't know if they could build a 32. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, and so, and so I I like I said, I think a lot like this, I think it's either it's expand the existing house and kind of use the provisions of the expansion of the non-conformity or like, you know, just someone who would just add this kind of to either the rental portfolio or whatever if they were just add rent to one person or rent to a family. Um, but it's it's just kind of one of those things where every lot in town isn't going to be suitable for a five- bedroomedroom rental. No, I'm not talking about I'm talking if they were to demolish this to build a 32, they're still coming back to us. So that have to build up buy another lot. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so

land or smaller. So, even with a smaller house, they're coming to us for a variance. But then your neighbor might say, you know, you can have a little bit of the land. Who's to say that this they wouldn't change what they proposed because this is just proposed construction. They could change to three-bedroom, two bath. Well, that'd be the requirement for the variance, right? I'm saying we could do that. Don't you can't change it. It's got to be threebedroom, two bath, otherwise the variance doesn't happen. Yeah, we can make the provision in that. So, they're not coming back to us next month with a new plan. or even if it's a threebedroom or four, you know, we could change that or have that as as provision instead of Well, and I think too if you know if we get through this and then it comes back up for ISR, I would rather have it be a one-stop shop for everything than have to come back for us again later on. Right.

Yeah. And so and so I mean even on the ISR, I mean that that's something that that's voluntary and that that's their choice. just kind of how they have it shown like like you said I mean they can meet uh by only providing two on-site parking spaces but but the idea with that and I with the 1.1 is that you have one for all your bedrooms within the 0.1 is for your guests and like you guys heard just kind of what in in older places like this where the streets are really narrow where people are parking on the street um there's also I mean uh it wasn't mentioned but there's also an issue with game day parking and people parking during the game a and parking on other people's property and all of that. So that that is a flagrant issue that that has been that has been an issue over here. Um and so kind of the ISR is something that could be solved, but I think that would from the city's standpoint, but it would really probably just push the issue downstream and kind of off of the site. And so I think to to your to your point about could they just do a 3-2 and like this be different. I think this would just be one of those lots that redevelopment is impossible without without an assemblage. Um, and like I said, with the neighbors not being not being open to that. It it just doesn't look like redevelopment is kind of the future for this one as far as like a scrape and then then go up. It just might be something where the where the house can be renovated and they may have one or two beds or something like that. But I don't think this is a scrape and redevelop. It would probably be a renovate um and repurpose kind of deal

this time. Yeah. Yeah. Would anybody like to put I'll make a motion to deny um Oh. Oh, sorry. Positive motions. Please. Positive motions. Yes. I move to reject. No, I just wanted to say move to approve. Uh let me find the case number. Sorry. Sorry y'all. We've been out of practice. We haven't met I think since February. So, we apologize. Uh move to approve BZ25004 347 Fraser Street. Somebody does need Second. Second. Will Faulner? No. Mary Boyd, no. Amy Soros, no. Leticia Smith, no. Marty Hefren, no.

All right. All right. So, that was our only order of um business for today. Is there any uh other business? No, I think um knowing knowing what I know, we will be meeting next month. So, Okay. So, so yeah, I I will see you guys next month. Uh different variants um not not related to this one, but there there's been one that's been working its way through and I think there are some others other ones that might find us soon too. Um so so we might meet pretty consistently here towards the end of the year. Okay. And then we have a new member too which is not here unfortunately. So we wanted I was looking forward to welcoming a little bit. So

yeah know the her so so so yeah we actually had a training a couple weeks ago. She she was really great. I'll I'll allow her to introduce herself stuff when she's here, but she's familiar with land use, was actually very excited about land use as a reason that she applied for it. Um, it was it was really nice. She was paring a lot of the things uh in the meeting to us and kind of getting questions about it or having questions about it. So, the training went went really well. Um, I I guess kind of the only thing I would say just kind of be out on the radar for uh we might have some joint training from North Alabama just kind of because I know they have a threshold for 10 members and so we only have nine on the planning commission. So we might have um so we might include some of that and offer that to y'all as well. Um that would be great. I did that training like three years ago. It's very it's very valuable training.

You got a hand slap for approving too many but but yeah so so yeah I would say that's that's the only thing uh we just have I know there are several variance applications just kind of in the process. So so yeah we'll I will be seeing you guys again next month. Okay. All right. If there's nothing else, we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you.