Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

So in the absence of chairman, I'd like to nominate Tom P is chairman from Tim.

Um so in the absence of the chairman, I'd like to nominate Tom P as chairman prom to conduct the meeting. Motion second. Second. All in favor? I opposed.

All right. The board zoning adjustment for the city of Cater is now in session. You're coming before the board for consideration to an ordinance based upon special conditions. Are the literal enforcement of an ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship for you? or there's been an error in the enforcement of the ordinance. Your case will require four favorable votes from the board for your request to be approved. Please come forward when your name is called and state your name, address, and what you would like this board to do for you today. Please call the role here. Here,

here. All right, we've got the minutes to approve. Are there any corrections to the minutes of the last meeting? Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say yes. Please call the first case.

Okay. Good afternoon. I'm Chad Bowman, the planning director. I'm going to go through the new business. We have two variances and one use variance. I'll start off with number one, 260127-01, a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach on the side setbacks at 707 Prospect Drive. The petitioner is Donald Wayne Hartzell Jr. The subject address is 707 Prospect Drive Southeast. The current zoning is RF F7. Um surrounding land uses and zoning is to the north institutional to the south RSF7 to the east RSF7 and to the west RS7. Based on the current new zoning rewrite, an accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height shall be set back from all sides and rear lot lines a minimum of 10 ft of the applicable minimum setback for principal structures in the district in which the structure is located and whichever is less. The applicant is requesting a variance which requires accessory structures greater than 12 ft to have setbacks of 10 ft. The proposed accessory structure encroaches into the required 10 ft side setbacks on both sides of the lot. On the west side, the structure will be located within 5 ft from the property line requiring a variance of 5t and on the east side the structure will encroach by 5t requiring a five foot setback side setback variance on both sides. The planning department recommends approval based on the shape of the lot as being the hardship that the lot germanders and becomes thinner because of the back access alley and the and the required rightway adjacent to the property.

Is there anyone here representing that case?

I'm Donald Hartzel. My wife Jessica and uh we uh moved in the home about two years ago and she asked if uh and thank you guys for taking your time today. Uh she asked if I was going to be okay with not having a garage in our uh in our backyard and I said sure. And uh lo and behold, here we are. So, uh we had been working with um the uh planning department uh for the past about a year and a half and uh they had asked for us to get a survey and then um and the intent was to have a almost a 30 by 40 at one point. We've reduced it down to a 30 by 30 and it's uh because we don't have any storage um and for our cars and also for uh there's there's no attic space. We don't have any attic space and we don't have any of course crawl spaces. Uh the other alternative the house is rather small and we just don't have much for storage and that's that's why we want to go this this route. But um the uh zoning uh had changed last October, I believe it is. And it was 5 ft at one point. Now it's 10 ft understandably. Uh we want to ask for the variance of 5T on both sides. And uh we would still have the 10-ft variance on the back side of the garage. It'll be a 30 by30 garage twice the 30 by 40 there. Any questions from the board?

Looks like you'll have 5 foot on the rear and the two sides. Yes, sir. Actually, on the rear, we could go 10 foot if it's if it's required because that was in the old Yeah, it was, sir. Yes, sir. Will there be any business conducted in this garage? No. Strictly for personal use, right? Yes, sir. And we've gotten a quote from Summertown Metals, which is out of Hayden, Alabama. Um, the total uh cost is 30 grand for the building and the prep the site. And of course, then we'd have to get some electricity. There is a pole that needs to be moved. Um,

yes, sir. Um, it's it's more the power lines coming across the backyard need to be moved. So, I've talked to my neighbors. They're okay with that uh of getting it moved. I know it's at my expense and I'd have to work that through engineering. Okay. Yes, sir. This will be a slab on grade metal building. It'll be on slab. Yes, sir. Metal building with it's got wood structures for the for the truss and for Yeah. Yes, sir. Any more questions from the board? Any comments from the public? Any comments from the planning department?

You just said building department. No comment. Uh public testimony is now closed. There being no further comments, this appeal is presented to the board for it ruling. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Please call the RO. Yes. Yes. Murray, yes. Yes. Bag. Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate you guys time. Thank you.

Okay. The next case, petitioner Pewight Menali, property owner Roger Stevenson. Subject address 715 Summit Drive Southeast. The request is a variance to allow reduction of parking spaces. The current zoning is light industrial. The surrounding land has a zoning of urban corridor mixed use on all four sides now, south, east, and west. The variance is to allow reduction of parking spaces from 75 required to 54 proposed. Uh parking for 75 spaces would impose an unnecessary hardship by mandating parking that is not supported by the actual use of the building leading to overp parking, inefficient land use, and additional impervious area without a corresponding public benefit. The requested reduction maintains sufficient parking while supporting responsible site design consistent with the operational reality of the facility. Typically, these type of buildings require anywhere from 200 to 300 square ft of gross floor area. The building is 15,000 square ft. When we did the math, at 300 square ft, all it will require is 50 spaces. At 200 square ft, using that number, it will require 75 spaces. Um the planning department sees no issue with reducing the parking simply because the type of use won't be at full capacity all of the time. You have youth coming in practicing for baseball and softball and so forth. Uh so we see no issue there in this case.

Good afternoon. Um, Galia Ferguson, I guess. Do you want me to sign my name? I I'll sign it later.

Yes. Um, Joan Minelli, uh, 310 8th Avenue Norththeast. We represent the Rodan Properties. Who is the applicant? And just I guess the only thing that I would like to add is this facility is by appointment only. It is a um new to the cater batting facility and um we will have or what we are showing on our plants you probably see there it has 14 cages batting cages. So and you can kind of imagine there will be about maybe two three kids in each cage and everybody will be there per appointment. So we don't expect much of the traffic there. We feel like 54 spaces is plenty. And so, thank you.

Any questions from the board? Any comments from the public? Comments from the planning department? Comments from the building department? No comments. All right. Public testimony is now closed. There being no further comments, this bill is presented to the board for its ruling. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve.

All right. Uh, please call the role. All right. Yes. Yes. Curry, yes. Uber, yes. Yes.

Okay, moving on to our last case. The petitioner is Pewight Menali, property owner Roger Stevenson. Subject address 715 Summit Drive. The request is use variance to allow indoor recreational center. The current zoning is light industrial. The surrounding land zoning is urban corridor mixed use on all four sides, north, south, east, and west. The use v initial development plans and due diligent efforts were undertaken. and the subject property was zoned M2 under the previous zoning ordinance. Under that ordinance, the proposed use was consistent with the use that the applicant proposed and the character of the district. During the site planning process, the city adopted a new zoning ordinance and the property was reclassified to industrial district. Under the current principal use table, indoor recreational facilities are no longer permitted. So basically, under the previous ordinance, it was permitted. Under the new ordinance, it is not permitted. And I will tell you as from the standpoint of the plan of staff that we will be looking at adding indoor recreational facilities as a principal use under light industrial zoning. And with that being said, I also would like to add that nationally this is a trend in warehouse districts as a viable use for vacant warehouse structures for them to have industrial mean excuse me for indoor recreational facilities and activities simply because of the space the height of the structure and so forth. The planning department recommends approval as well on this Thank you, Galia Ferguson and Patt Mcelli. Again, um I just appreciate you to uh for looking into this and I appreciate you, Chad, for pointing all this out about the recreational facilities and I'm glad that y'all are going to take it into consideration to

add it to the ordinance. Um the only thing that I would like to add again it is by appointment and um we don't expect much of the traffic and if we really look into that it's not a recreational facility like what we see in point mard um it's a bit different it's a business where you have to pay to get the training so um but this area um as we know I know that it's now industrial district uh very close to um 6th Avenue how 31 very close to pretty much part of Decar. So we think it it would be a great addition to this district. Thank you.

Questions? Any questions forward? Any comments from the public? Comments from the planning department? No comment. Comments from the building department. No comments. Public testimony is now closed. There being no further comments, this appeal is presented to the board for its ruling. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. This has been approved. Good evening, board. This is Tommy. I'm Tommy Williams with the board of uh with the planning department. And I'm going to go over the bylaws one more time for y'all. And I'm just going to make the uh corrections that uh y'all recommended. So, right under officers, number one, the chairman will have a minimum of one year experience on the board of zonic adjustments. Number two, vice chairperson. The vice chairman will be required to have a minimum one-year experience on the board of zoning adjustments. Number three, we left the same. Number four, we exed out the secretary. And then and did we add the capsule certification date of January 27th? I mean January 2027. Under members, number one stayed the same. Number two, would y'all added all members shall be capsule certified within 12 minutes following the appointment and shall remain certified throughout the term. And Tommy, I don't think it was that the capsule certification was January 26th. I think the five laws would come into effect January.

Okay. Effective date for the for the bylaws. So number four, we going to act the effective date for the bylaws will be 12 months from now, which will be January 2027. And for the members, number two, we're going to have all members shall be capstone certified within 12 months and remain capstone certified throughout their term. 12 months following their appointment. where you could just leave this as adopted when you adopt it and make it within 12 months. Okay.

That way you don't have to put an effective date of violence for a year in advance. On that take out the effective date of the files of January 2027 instead when you put all members shall be captive certified should be just within 12 months of adoption of the bylaws because that's what's who's currently on here. Yeah. So that gets both that cover. It would basically say all board members shall be cast within 12 months adoption of the bylaws or 12 months or within 12 months of appointment.

So we just combine our two bylaws adopted tonight. The capstone requirement would be one year from now. If there were a new member in three months, it would be and then next year you could just take that part out and leave it with all members. I think does that all the balances? Okay. Want to make sure I'm not

All right. So on top of numerator we got rid of number two. And on fees, it increased to 150. And then on public notice, once again, we got rid of number two. Is that what you're saying? I said get rid of so take out. However y'all want to say it. In order of business, we did move up minutes from the bottom to the second.

Order. It was already here. We just changed the order a little bit. Any other discussion from the board? Is this open to public comments or anything or just to the board?

Any further input from the board regarding the proposed by amendments. Is there a motion to Is there a motion? I move to approve the B laws as discussed as presented and amended in our discussion from just for clarity and redundancy. Could you recap what we have listed right now for the revisions?

So everything on here should be correct except for probably number two count. The chairman will be required to have minimum one years experience on the board zoning adjustments. Uh same thing for number two. We took out number four right here. It just needs to be worded. You know it way make sure it says what you want it to say. Number two, all board members or VZA board members shall be caps certified within 12 months of adoption of these bylaws. for within 12 months of their of the board member respective appointment and then um all board members shall remain current on CAPSO certification throughout their term because you all have staggered terms. The only change I make is each board member and the superior member.

Yes. In two cases in each one in each. Yeah. Unless it's

Yeah. Where you put me just put in three number. So at the top after it says all BCA board members also put super memory there. Then you're going to put one more place after that where it says or within 12 months of board members after I The only other changes um on the one and two apostrophe needs to come after the RS

for one year minimum of one year experience up here.

Sorry. Do you need that again? remove number two from students. So yeah, don't need it. Oh, no. I mean, he was going to continue. Yes.

All board members and super within 12 months of the adopted of these bylaws or within 12 months of the board members and super members respect. All boarders and super shall remain current on capital certification throughout number two change the order of operations for minutes and move from the bottom to the to the table. We changed the table 152 and I got rid of some notes.

I think there was one other change on here but from the original ones that were used under appeals number one. Yes. That mean it's there. It just needs to be changed with them adopting it because we're using the old set. told y'all previously planning department but

I think that's all that I saw there.

Is there a second? Second. Please call the RO. Second up. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Second. Yes. All right. The proposed final amendments have been approved with amendments. Is there any other business to discuss?

I have a All right. Before the board, uh, we have two elected chair and a vice chair. Guess we have deliberations. Nominations. Nominations. All right. Floor is open for nominations. I nominate Tom, Mr. Chair. Is there a second? Does that do we do them sequentially or together?

See if there's any any other nominations. You have to close nominations for that one then get your second or if there's just one or well you can go ahead and do the second on this one then. Go ahead. Are there any any other nominations person? Nomination close. Please call a second.

Yes.

Yes. Uber. Yes. Yes. Uh for vice chair. Nomination for vice chair.

I nominate Erica. She's a super. Oh, she's a super mayor. You got you got Mark Hoody and got here. Should we not make someone who's not here? I'll second that. Please call the RO. Nomination closed for vice chair. Call the yes. Mur.

Yes. Hoover. Yes. All right. We now have a future chair and vice chair. Is there any other new business to discuss? And is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor?