[ROLL CALL ]
[00:00:15]
>> I'LL CALL THE JUNE 1, 2022, BOARD OF ZONING MEETING TO ORDER. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
MINUTES. DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TOLOOK TEA THE APRIL 6TH MINUTES? >> YES, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO
>> KIM WHITE? >> YES, MARTY HEFFREN?
[CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS ]
>> ANY PERSON AWE BEREAVED BY ANY DECISION OF THE BOARD MAY WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER SUCH DECISION APOOL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO SECTION 980.02 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA.
THE BOARD CONSISTS OF FIVE MEMBERS AND TOE SUPERNUMB RARES.
[INAUDIBLE] TO APPROVE AN APPLICATTAPPLICAAPPLICATION FOR [INAUDIBLE] TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR AW SUPERNUMB RA [INAUDIBLE] TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR AO SUPERNUMB RA.
[INAUDIBLE] TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.
WE MENTIONED MOVING TO JULY MEETING TO THE 4TH OF JULY
HOLIDAY. >> THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE CAN BRING IT UP UNDER CHAIRMAN COMMUNICATION AT THE END OF THE MEETING. WOULD THAT BE OKAY?
>> THAT'S FINE, I WAS JUST WORRIED LIKE NUMBER FOUR HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE POSTPONED AND WE HAVE TO SAY WE'RE POSTPONING IT TO A DATE SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD MATTER
WHAT ORDER WE DID THAT IN. >> SURE, SO THE DATE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING. IT WAS JULY, RIGHT?
>> IT'S THE 6TH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 13TH.
>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT CHANGE?
>> YEAH, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.
WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO ON THAT, THAT'S FINE.
WE CAN TAKE THINGS OUT OF ORDER. I HAD NOT CONNECTED THE DOTS SO
SORRY ABOUT THAT. >>> SO OUR JULY MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 6TH. IN THE PAST WE HAVE MOVED THAT OUT A WEEK BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE TRAVELING FOR THE 4TH. DOES ANYONE HAVE PROBLEM WITH MOVING THE MEETING TO JILL 13TH INSTEAD.
ARE Y'ALL GOING TO BE AVAILABLE ON THAT DAY?
>> YES. >> DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT A
DISCUSSION? >> THERE ARE PROBABLY 50 WAYS TO DO THIS. YOU ALREADY HAVE SORT OF A RECOGNITION THAT THERE'S SUPPORT FOR CHANGING IT SO I THINK IT'S PER FKTLY FINE TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THEFECTLY FINE TO WAIT UE END OF THE MEETING AND DO IT UNDER CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS.
WHEN YOU GET TO THE FOURTH REQUEST, MOVE IT POSTPONED TO THE MEETING IN JULY AND IF WE WANT TO SAY IT WOULD BE
[1. Variance to Section 511.03(G), Use Limitations for Accessory Structures, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-006 ]
JULY 13TH, I THINK THAT'S FIND BECAUSE I THINK YOU WILL CHANGEIT TO THAT DATE. >> ALL RIGHT, NEW BUSINESS?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. YOUR FIRST YOU TESTIMONY IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 511.03-G WHICH IS USE LIMITATIONS ON ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A SHED OR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE PLACED APPROXIMATELY 30-FEET IN FRONT OF THE HOME WHEN IT IS REQUIRED THAT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT BE LESS THAN 10-FEET BEHIND THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOME.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 513 CROSS CREEK ROAD IN THE WILL LO CREEK SUBDIVISION, ZONED NC-26. THE PROPERTY IS HERE FRONTING THE STREET. THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE SHED IS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
HERE'S A DIAGRAM OF WHERE IT IS PROPOSED TO GO.
THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HARDSHIP.
[00:05:08]
THE POND OR LAKE OF WILLOW CREEK IS TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA HERE. THIS IS THE HOME HERE, I BELIEVE. RIGHT THERE.AND THIS IS THE STREET. AND HERE IS A STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY COMING OFF OF CROSS ROBING HERE AND THE HOUSEROSS CREEK HERE CROSS CREEK HERE AND THE HOUSE THERE. BEAR WITH ME.
THE DRIVEWAY GOES OFF CROSS CREEK FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THERE'S A PARKING PAD IN THIS AREA HERE AND IT IS THAT APPROXIMATE LOCATION WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE PLACED, RIGHT HERE.
AS I MENTIONED, THEY HAVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HARDSHIP TOPPING A RAH FEW IS A BIG FACTOR ON THE PROPERTY.
IT SLOPES I THINK 24-FEET FROM THE STREET DOWN TO THE POND WHICH IS RIGHT IN THIS AREA HERE.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THERE ARE UNDER GROWN SPRINGS AND STREAMS PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY.
STAFF WASN'T ABLE TO VERIFY THAT BUT THE APPLICANT DOES SAY THEY ARE PRESENT. I RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND SHOULD YOU GUYS GRANT THE VARIANCE, WE HAVE TWO CONDITIONS TO GO ALONG WITH THE REQUEST. ONE THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT BE EXPANDED TO ADD ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA AND THAT THE LOCATION BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE EXHIBIT AND THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ONE WOULD BE TO TO THE MATERIALS AND/OR THE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE BE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE HOME AND BE NEUTRAL IN COLOR SO THAT IT BLENDS IN WITH THE SURROUNDINGS AND IS NOT VERY NOTICEABLE FROM THE STREET. AND THE LAST CONDITION WOULD BE TO NOT REMOVE THAT EXISTING VEGETATION THAT WOULD SERVE AS A SCREEN FROM THE STREET. THE APPLICANTS ARE PRESENT THIS AFTERNOON SO IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO ANSWER, THEY ARE HERE. >> ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT WE HAVE FOUR CONDITIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE TWO THAT'S LISTED WITH MATERIALS BEING THE SAME COLOR AND VEGETATION IS NOT REMOVED?
>> CORRECT. >>> OKAY, PERFECT.
THANK YOU. >> SO I WAS OUT THERE TODAY.
HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET? THEY'RE OKAY WITH YOU PUTTING A SHED THERE? THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET, THAT'S WHO I THINK WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I LIKE YOUR CONDITIONS.
IF YOU WOULD PUT SOME SHRUBBERY OR SOMETHING ON THE SIDE FACING THE ROAD. IT'S A GREAT SPOT FOR A SHED.
THAT'S THE MOST IDEAL, IT'S LEVEL, YOU HAVE ACCESS AND ALL THAT STUFF BY IF I WAS THE GUY ACROSS THE STREET, I WOULD
APPRECIATE THAT. >> NEXT TO THE SHED?
>> YEAH. THE DOOR WOULD PROBABLY FACE THE FRONT DOOR, RIGHT? AND THE SIDE TO THE STREET? IF THERE'S FOLIAGE THERE, THAT WEB BETTER.
WHAT'S THERE IS NOT THIS THICK. SOMETHING TO MASK THAT, THAT WOULD BE NICE. GOOD.
>> SO ARE YOU BRIAN CONNELLY? >> YES.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ANY FURTHER?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. >> I HAVE A QUESTION AND IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION BUT ON THIS SCREEN K YOU POINT TO ME WHERE IN T WHERE IN THIS VIEW THE SHED
WOULD BE? >> IN THAT AREA RIGHT THERE.
[00:10:04]
>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT? >> JUST TOO SIGN IN ON THAT PAPER BEFORE YOU LEAVE. THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE WANTING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN TO BOARD SCOT
>> I>> IDISCUSSION. >> I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE
CONDITIONS. >> ALSO IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. I WOULD SAY THAT WE CONDITION ON NOT JUST PUTTING BUT ALSO MAINTAINING VEGETATION.
IF A TORNADO COMES THROUGH AND WIPES OUT THOSE TREES JUST THAT
YOU MAINTAIN IT. >> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT
>> OKAY, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BZ-2022-006, A VARIANCE TO ALAW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE PLACED APPROXIMATELY 30-FEET IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO BE NO CLOSER THAN TEN FEET TO THE REAR OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT IT NOT BE EXPANDED, THAT THE STRUCTURE BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBIT IN THE STAFF REPORT. THAT THE MATERIAL AND PAINT BE COMPLEMENTARY TO THAT OF THE HOME AND NEUTRAL IN COLOR TO BLEND WITH THE VEGETATION AND THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE VEGETATION THAT SCREENS THE SHED FROM THE ROAD.
>> YES, MARTY HEFFREN? >> YES.
>> LATICIA SMITH. >> MARY BOYD?
>> YES. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WAS
[2. Variance to Section 502.02(E), Performance Residential Development, Duplex, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-007 ]
THERE A CONDITION TO ADD THE SHRUBS?>> JUST MAINTENANCE. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
NEXT UP, TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR PROPERTY AT 238 SUMMER HILL ROAD IN THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EAST ZONING DISTRICT. THE FIRST IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 30% TO 39%.
SIDE NOTE, THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 38% AFTER REVIEW, THE 39 IS NOT NEEDED, JUST 38. SO I WILL JUST REMIND Y'ALL OF THAT AT THE END. THE SECOND IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FRONT SET BAKE OF 25-FEET TO ALLOW A MINIMUM FRONT SET BACK OF 250-FEET. HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S GOING TO -FEET.
HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S GOING TO SHOW, LET'S SEE. THE LOT IS NEXT TO A PLATTED ALLEY THAT'S UNIMPROVED. IF VACATED, IT WOULD ADD ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE'S A MAP OF THE AREA OOPS. WE HAD TRAINING ON THIS AND I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT. [LAUGHTER] THIS LOT IS PART OF THE WOODWIND SUBDIVISION, THE CRD-E SUBDIVISION AND IN THE SUBDIVISION THIS LOT IS THE SMALLEST. THE OTHERS RANGE BETWEEN 15,000 AND 19,000 SQUARE FEET SO THAT IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY. HERE'S THE SITE PLAN IT'S GOING TO SHOW THE 3400-SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE.
[00:15:02]
THE 30% FAR THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED WOULD ALLOW 2665 SQUARE FEET. THE VARIANCE WOULD BE WHAT THEY NEED TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED PLAN.THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 25-FEET AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REDUCE IT TO 20-FEET. THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA ARE DEVELOPED TO SINGLE FAMILY WHICH ALLOW A SETBACK OF 20-FEET SO STAFF BELIEVES ALLOWING THIS WOULD BE OKAY AND WOULD ALLOW THIS PARKING HERE TO BE LOCATED A LITTLE BEHIND THE FRONT PLANE OF THE BUILDING AND WOULD ALLOW THIS PARKING HERE.
IT'S GOING TO BE A TIGHT SQUEEZE BUT THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF GETTING IT ALL ON THE SIGHT AND IT WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM TO MA MOVERMOVERNER TVER T. BASED ON THE SIZE AND UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE LOT, STAFF THINKS THESE ARE HARDSHIPS AND RECOMMENDS VARIANCE OF UP TO 80% OF THE MAXIMUM FAR AND A REDUCTION OF FIVE FEET TO ALLOW A FRONT SET BACK OF 20-FEET.
THESE ARE JUST GOOGLE STREW VIEW PICTURES OF THE HOME.
IT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. HERE'S A PICTURE LOOKING FROM THE BACKYARD OUT ONTO THE STREET AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO BE KEEPING THESE LARGE TREES. THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS THE SOUTH AND THE LAW OFFICE ON GLENN.
HERE IT'S GOING TO SHOW WHERE THAT ALLEY IS THAT RUNS NEXT TO THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IMPROVED.
THAT'S ALL. >> ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR
AMBER? >> YES, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ALLEYS IN GENERAL. WHO IMPROVES IT IF IT'S GOING TO BE IMPROVED? WHO DECIDES WHETHER IT'S GOING
TO BE IMPROVED? >> THIS WAS PLATTED BACK IN 1947 ORIGINAL AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY HAD INTENDEDL AND I'M NOT THEY HADY AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY HAD INTENDED AT THAT TIME.
THE APPLICANT DID MEET WITH PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF -- WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? VACATING, YES.
VACATING THE ALLEY. IT'S REALLY A MONTHS LONG PROCESS BY THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
>> AND IF THEY VACATED THE ALLEY, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE --
>> THEY WOULD DIVIDE IT TO BOTH OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EITHER
SIDE. >> SEW THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL INGRESS EGRESS BUT IT WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE THE ABILITY OF OTHER --
>> IT WOULD NOT, NO. THE ALLEY WOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE PLAT PRETTY MUCH AND JUST WOULD NOT EXIST IF IT WAS VACATED.
>> OKAY, SO EVERYONE ELSE ON THE ALLEY TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE
BLOCK WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS? >> THE WAY THE SUBDIVISION IS --
I DON'T HAVE IT IN HERE. >> I THINK IF THE CITY WAS TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THAT ALLEYWAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK OF THE ENTIRE ALLEY, NOT JUST A PIECE IN THE MIDDLE OR ON THE END BECAUSE THAT WOULD DISRUPT THE INTENT OF THE ALLEY AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED. THIS IS A CONVERSATION BIGGER THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY BY IT'S BEEN THERE A WHILE. NO ONE HAS BATHERED TO IMPROVE IT AND MORN LIKELY, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT GOING TO GO OUT AND PUT THE MONEY FORWARD TO IMPROVE THE ALLEY SO I DON'T THINK YOU WILL SEE IT IMPROVED AT THIS POINT IN TIME SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON OR RATIONALE FOR THAT.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE CITY AND I THINK THE CITY ENGINEER AND OTHER PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THAT. OTHERWISE WHAT YOU MENTIONED IS CORRECT, THEY WOULD BE SPLIT BETWEEN PROPERTIES ON BOTH
SIDES. >> AND ARE THEY GOING TO USE THE -- ARE THEY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT PIECE OR NOT?
>> FOR WHAT USE? >> YOU MENTIONED THAT IF THEY REABSORB THAT PART, THAT'S A HORRIBLE, NONTECHNICAL TERM, THEN THAT WOULD INCREASE THEIR AVAILABLE LOT SIZE.
>> RIGHT. >> BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY LOOKED AT THAT?
>> RIGHT, WHEN IT'S VACATED. >> AND THEY HAVE NOT REQUESTED
[00:20:02]
THAT. IT'S JUST WHAT'S PRESENTED>> NONE, NOPE. MR. LYNN IS PRESENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? >> I CAN'T REALLY HEAR A THING.
I'M FIXING TO GET SOME HEARING AIDS BUT ANY QUESTIONS?
>> DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> OKAY.
WE'LL SAY THAT THE APPLICANT WAS PRESENT BUT DECLINED TO SPEAK.
I WILL OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TOO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN BOARD DISCUSSION.
BASED ON AMBER'S REPORT AND THE FUNNY LOT SHAPE, I THINK THAT IS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. AND THE ALLEY IS AN ADDED
STRANGENESS THERE. >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> ME, EITHER. >> I SAW THAT IT HAS A
CONDITION. >> YES, I'M SORRY, I FORGET TO MENTION THAT. THAT CONTRADICTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BZ-2022-007, VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.3 TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM FAR OF APPROXIMATELY 0.39 AND THAT THE BUILDING BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.
>> YES, MARTY HEFFREN? >> YES.
>> LATICIA SMITH. >> MARY BOYD?
>> YES. >> AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ALAW THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MONEY MUM FRONT SET BACK OF 25-FEET TO ALLOW A MINIMUM FRONT SET BACK OF
>> YES, MARTY HEFFREN? >> YES.
>> LATICIA SMITH. >> MARY BOYD?
>> YES. OH, YOUR VARIANCE WAS APPROVED.
[3. Variance to Section 513(C), Off-street Parking, General Requirements, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-008 ]
THIS NEXT VARIANCE IS TO ALAW GRAVEL PARKING SPACES AT A BUSINESS. THIS IS A REQUEST TO HAVE GRAVEL INSTEAD OF THAT. THE PROPERTY IS LOW CAUGHTED RIGHT HERE. THIS IS A UNIQUE PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO STRUCTURES ON IT.
THERE IS THE RESIDENCE DNL STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT CLOSEST TO WARRIOR COURT OPT EAST AND ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL DEPLUCKS TO THE WEST. THE APPLICANTS WANT TO CONSTRUCTION THAT LARGER ONE INTO AN ARK TEACHING AND LAND CAPE ARCHITECT FIRM AND THAT WOULDCHITECT AND LAND CAPE ARCHITECT FIRM AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE SIX SPACES.
THIS IS ZONED REDEVELOPMENT WEST AND SO THE MOST OF THE AREA AROUND IT. THERE IS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT, OFFICES, COMMERCIAL, RESTAURANT IN THAT AREA SO THERE'S A WIRED. HAVING AN OFFICE IS ALLOWED ON THAT LOT. ALL THE PARKING IS PROPOSED TO BE BEHIND THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, FOUR RIGHT HERE AND TWO PARALLEL SPOTS RIGHT HERE. PART OF THIS IS CONCRETE.
IN THE STAR REPORT IT SAYS THERE'S EXISTING GRAVEL.
THAT WAS A MISTAKE THAT MAYBE 15 YEARS AGO THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN GRAVEL. WHEN I WENT OUT THERE, NOT JUST
[00:25:01]
GOOGLE EARTH, IT'S JUST DIRT AFTER THAT CONCRETE ENDS BUT THE CURB CUT IS EXISTING. THIS ISSUE THAT WE SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT IS WHERE THE REDENTS OF THE DUPLEX WILL PARK.I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE THE PARKING BEHIND THE STRUCTURE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THERE FROM GOOGLE EARTH BUT WHEN I WAS THERE. PEOPLE WERE HOME AND I DOESN'T WANT TO GO INTO THEIR REAR YARD SO I DID NOT SPEAK TO THEM BUT I DID NOT WANT TO GO TRESPASSING. THIS IS TWO IMAGES OF WHERE THE PARKING WILL BE. THIS IS NOT THE STRUCTURE TO BE CONVERTED. THIS IS THE DUPLEX.
OVER HERE IS WHERE THE FOUR SPOTS WOULD BE AND THEN THIS WOULD BE IMPROVED WITH THE GRAVEL AS WELL IF APPROVED THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON THIS AND THE STAFF DIDN'T FIND ANY HARDSHIP OR CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE STAFF DISCUSSED SEVERAL CONSIDERATION FOR YOU TO LOOK AT DISCUSS AND I BELIEVE THES FOR YOU TO LOOK AT DISCUSS AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF THE VARIANT WAS IN THE APPROVED, IT CAN STILL BE AN OFFICE AND STILL BE RESIDENTIAL SO NOT GRANTING IT WOULD NOT ELIMINATE ANYTHING.
AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. SO THE REQUEST DOESN'T MEET ALL OF OUR CRITERIA BY THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO PROVIDE ANSWERS OR
JUSTIFICATIONS. >> WHAT'S THE INTENT?
>> TO NOT HAVE GRAVEL, HANDICAP -- AND SPEAKING YOU HAVE, ONE SPOT WILL HAVE TO BE PAVED WITH THE MARKINGS AND SIGNS AND EVERYTHING THAT THE IBC WILL COVER.
ONE SPOT WILL HAVE TO BE ACCESSIBLE BUT AS FAR AS BIKES, WEAR AND TEAR, MAINTENANCE, HAVING A HARD, PERMANENT SERVICE
IS PREFERRED. >> WILL IT COST ANY ISSUES TO LIKE A FIRE TRUCK GETTING BACK THERE?
>> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY IS ONLY 15-FEET, I BELIEVE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD NEED TO GET BACK THERE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE HOSES.
>> I THINK AS LONG AS THE WIDTH IS OKAY, A HARD SURFACE IS OKAY.
DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT, I'M NOT A FIRE PERSON BUT WHEN WE WORKED WITH THE UNIVERSITY AND THERE WAS INGRESS AND EGRESS ISSUES, IT'S AN ISSUE IF YOU HAVE THEM GOING BACK AND FORTH ALL THE TIME. THEN YOU WANT CONCRETE BUT OTHER THAN THAT, JUST IN THIS RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE SETTING, I
DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. >> IF THERE'S A REVIEW AFTER THIS, TYPICALLY AN ALL WEATHER SURFACE IS SOMETHING, THE TERMINOLOGY THAT'S USED FOR A FIRE TRUCK ACCESS THAT'S NOT PAVEED BECAUSE ID BECAUSE IF IT YOU DON'T NEED THE FIRE TRICK SINKING DOWN IN PLACES. WE HAVE NOT TALKED WITH THEM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS REQUEST, IT'S JUST A VARIANCE REQUEST AND DEPENDING ON THE LENGTH OF HOSE REQUIRES TO GET BACK IN THERE, THEY LIKE TO GET THE LENGTH OF HOSE INTO ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT LENGTH ON THE TRUCKS HERE. I WILL SAY THIS T SLIDE THAT HAD THE LAYOUT OF PARKING ON IT. IT DOES NOT HAVE DIMENSIONS AND IN LOOKING AT THAT, IT HAS SHARP, RIGHT ANGLES FOR TURNS IN THE PARKING LOT, YOU KNOW CARS DON'T WORK THAT WAY SO I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON FURTHER REVIEW. IT'S GOT TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF BACKUP SPACE. THERE'S NO DIMENSIONS HERE.
>> THE PARALLEL SPOTS ARE 24-FEET LONG.
>> WE GOT THAT BUT THE BACKUP SPIES BEHIND THEM, IT'S GOING TO BE AACE BEHIND THEM, IT'S GOINGO BE A LONGER DEPTH FOR THE BACKUP SPACE THAN THE PARKING SPACE AND IT LOOKS TO BE AT THE SAME, MAYBE IT'S NOT. WE'RE NOT TO THIS BEING A BOON FIED PLAN THAT MEETS OUR CODES.
>> AND THIS IS JUST TO SHOW US WHERE THESE SPOTS WOULD BE IF
[00:30:11]
PERMITTED TO USE GRAVEL. >> AND YOU SAID THERE'S PAYMENT
UP TO WHERE THAT FIRST CAR IS? >> RIGHT TO THERE.
THERE'S GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENTS DONE REGARDLESS.
IT'S DIRT AND SOME OF IT IS SINKING AND RUTTED OUT IN SPACES SO THERE'S GOING TO BE WORK REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S DONE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION AS A FOLLOWUP TO SOMETHING.
HOW DO WE MAKE A DECISION WHEN YOU SAY FURTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE A DECISION. WHAT WOULD THAT BE?
>> I THINK IT'S PAVEMENT IN THIS CASE.
IF THERE'S A SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE REQUIREMENT IS PAVEMENT. SO WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT PAVING IT? IS THERE A HARDSHIP THAT WE CAN'T PAVE THAT? FOR WHAT REASON? AND IT CAN'T BE A FINANCIAL REASON.
I LOOK AT THIS AND SEE A DRIVEWAY THAT APPEARS TO BE NARROWER THAN A TWO WAY DRIVEWAY.
IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BACKING UP INTO SIX PARKING SPOTS, IS IT TOO NARROW TO PASS SOMEONE? IT SHOULD BE A TWOWAY DRIVEWAY IN MY OPINION. YOU HAVE THE PARALLEL SPACES MENTIONED BY MORGAN. TYPICALLY, AND THIS IS AUBURN, BUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES SOMETIMES YOU CAN BACK INTO A STREET.
WHEN YOU GET INTO THE CONTEXT OF OFFICES AND COMMERCIAL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IT'S TYPICALLY DESIGNED IN A MANNER WHERE YOU GO EVERYWHERE IN TOWN, YOU PULL IN, YOU CAN BACK UP AND YOU APPROACH THE STREET IN A FORWARD MOTION SO OUT OF THOSE PARALLEL SPACES, DO YOU BACK UP THE 50 OR 60-FEET INTO THE ROAD? IT'S JUST AN AUDIOCASSETTE WART ARANGESMENT BUT THAT'S NOT THE DESIGN ARRANGEMENT HERE.
THE QUESTION IS JUST REALLY A MATTER OF SURFACE.
IS THERE A JUSTIFICATION TO NOT PAVE IT AND WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION? IF THERE'S A FIRE ISSUE, I THINK THAT COULD HANDLED AT A LATER POINT IN TIME.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I'M CURIOUS ABOUT GRAVEL INSTEAD OF PAVEMENT INSTEAD OF THE COST.
>> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO SPEAK?
>> I WAS JUST WAITING FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT TO OPEN.
>> ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? >> I'M THE APPLICANT'S SPOUSE.
HE'S OUT OF TOWN. IT'S TRICKY ON THIS LOT TO COMBINE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT FEEL -- COMBINING THAT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FEEL. THE GRAVEL ALLOWS THE RESIDENTIAL PART IN THE BACK TO NOT FEEL SO COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THAT, TO ALLOW IT TO FEEL NOR QUAINT AND COTTAGEY INSTEAD OF A COMMERCIAL OFFICE.
AGAIN, IT'S A SMALL, PROFESSIONAL FIRM, THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE IN IT OTHER THAN THE TWO EMPLOYEES.
WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THAT FEEL OF THAT CORNER OF TRYING TO COMBINE ON A LOT A COMMERCIAL AND A RESIDENTIAL SPACE.
ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO ANY OTHER THINGS?
>> WE'RE RENTING IT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN US AND THE ACTUAL OWNER.
>> DO THEY NEED THE OWNER'S PERMISSION TO GATE VARIANCE?
>> WE DID GET THE OWNER'S PERMISSION.
[00:35:02]
YES, WE HAD TO GET HIS PERMISSION, YES, THAT WAS PART OF THE PACKET. I WAS LIKE YOU DON'T LOOK LIKEJAMES. >> YEAH, I'M NOT BUT HE GOT HIS
PERMISSION. >> HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING FROM
THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DUPLEX? >> I HAVE NOT
>> WE HAD A SIGN OUT FRONT AND THEY DID NOT CALL, BUT WHEN WE SEND OUT THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER LETTER THEY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN WIN SINCE THEY ARE THE SAME PROPERTY SO IT WOULD BE ON THE LANDLORD TO DISCUSS THAT OR FOR THEM TO HAVE CALLED US WITH
THE SIGN. >> RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S A RENTAL
PROPERTY AS WELL. >> WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING IN JUST A MINUTE. IF YOU DON'T MIND SIGNING IN
BEFORE YOU LEAVE. >> I DID, YES.
>>> OKAY, WE WILL OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I WAS JUST HERE TO GET MORE INFORMATION.
EVERYTHING SEEMS OKAY TO ME. >>> WHAT'S YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS? >> JOEY CATRET AND I STAY
SO YOU SAW THE SIGN? >> YEAH, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, BASICALLY. YEAH.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE GRAVEL PARKING?
>> NO, NOT TOO MUCH. >> GREAT, SIG. SIGN
>> ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN TO BOARD DISCUSSION. I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY TO CONDITION IT SO IT'S CHANGED SO IT'S NOT AN ARCHITECTURE FIRM THAT WON'T HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT, THAT THIS IS
REASSESSED, YOU KNOW? >> I WOULD SAY NO BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IS WITH THE LAND, NOT THE OWNER.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN CONDITION IT BASED ON AN EXACT BUSINESS OR
USE. >> IT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SO IT WOULD ALLOW MULTIPLE TYPES OF USES.
>> IT COULD BE COMMERCIAL OR GO BACK TO RESIDENTIAL.
>> RIGHT. >> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION, LET ME SAY THAT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I AGREE WITH MORGAN. TYPICALLY A VARIANCE RUNS WITH THE LAND. IT DOESN'T CHANGE WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THAT ASIDE, YOU EITHER NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT GRAVEL IS ACCEPTABLE NO MATTER WHAT ELSE GOES ON HERE, BECAUSE TO ME, THIS IS A CHANGE OF USE.
THIS IS THE BIG CHANGE OF USE WHEN YOU TAKE HOMES THAT FRONT ON A BIG ROAD AND THEY'RE HOMES AND ONE DAY YOU SEE THE LAW OFFICE THERE, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE PROPERTY AND YOU DO THOSE THINGS REQUIRED IN THE CODE.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD A CONDITION THAT SAID ONLY APPLIED TO THIS USE, THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN IS IF IT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE CONDITION, GRAVEL IS GOOD FOREVER AND EVER.
I WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST THAT YOU THINK A LITTLE MORE INTENTLY AND THINK ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE VARIANCE.
>> AND THIS IS MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
IF IT WAS FULL COMMERCIAL AND THERE WASN'T RESIDENTIAL THERE,
WOULD GRAVEL STILL BE OKAY? >> RESIDENTIAL ONLY, YES.
>> RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT DUPLEX COULD BE CONVERTED INTO COMMERCIAL BUT IF WE APPROVE GRAVEL AS A PARKING AND DRIVEWAY THEN, YES.
>> IS YOUR QUESTION IF IT STAYED RESIDENCE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE
PAVED PARKING? >> I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE GRAVEL BELOW ME THAN ASPHALT IF I WAS STAYING THERE.
[00:40:06]
IT'S ACOUSTICALLY BETTER AND IT'S NOT SO HOT WALKING OUT BUT THAT'S JUST ME. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.>> THE WHOLE THING, BOTH BUILDINGS, IF THEY WERE ALL COMMERCIAL THEY WOULD BE BEFORE YOU WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST TO PROVIDE GRAVEL PARKING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER WOULD BE BUT IT WOULD BE MORE.
IF I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST, RE-ASK IT.
>> STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST?
>> STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU READ WHAT THE APPLICANT WROTE AND LOOK AT THE CRITERIA THAT ARE PRESENT AND NOT PRESENT AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AMONG THEMSELVES AND SEE.
>> IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE REPORT, THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE OF THOSE SECTIONS AT LEAST C, D, AND E THAT THE STAFF REPORT DOES SAY THAT THERE'S NO UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT WAS IN D.
AND THEN IN HERBING, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE THREE STATEMENTS THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET EACH OF
A THROUGH G. >> BUT THEN IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANT REQUEST.
>> IT DOES SO MY REQUEST. >> IT DC REQUEST.
>> IT DE REQUEST. >> IT DOES SO MY APOLOGIES.
I THINK UPON FURTHER REVIEW IF WE WERE SENDING THIS OUT TODAY, IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.
>> BASED ON HOW WE INTERPRET THE DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA.
>> WHAT WOULD THAT RECOMMENDATION BE?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE FOR DENIAL IF IT DIDN'T MEET A
THROUGH G. >> UNLESS YOU READ THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENTS DIFFERENTLY OR HER SPENCES OR HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, YOU COULD MAKE THE MOTIONS THAT YOU FEEL ARE PROBATION REPORT BUT WE WOULD GO BACK AND CHANGE THAT IN
HINDSIGHT. >> HAVE YOU PARKED BEHIND THE RESIDENCE BEFORE? OR DO YOU ANTICIPATE ANY
PROBLEMS WITH THAT? >> [INAUDIBLE]
I COMMEND THEIR DESIRE TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL THAT'S COTTAGEY AND IN KEEPING WITH THE FEEL THAT THEY WOULD LIKE, A LITTLE LESS COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL.
I AGREE WITH WHAT MARY SAWED ABOUT THE WAY THE DPRAVL FEELS AND LOOKS AND THE HEAT THAT IT PUTS OFF OR LACK THEREFORE AS OPPOSED TO CONCRETE. I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS AS LONG AS IT'S RECOGNIZED THAT THIS PARTICULAR LAYOUT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE FINAL
CONFIGURATION. >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH THOSE
STATEMENTS AS WELL. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT AND I WANT THE APPLICANT TO GET WHAT SHE WANTS.
>> IT'S GOOD FOR WATER RUN OFF, TOO.
>> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THERE. I'M GOING TO READ IT AGAIN BUT
Y'ALL GO AHEAD. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IS IT JUST GRAVEL OR ASPHALT OR ARE THERE PAVER OPTIONS IN THE
MIDDLE? >> THEY REQUESTED GRAVEL WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THIS, THAT'S WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GRAVEL.
THEY PUT THAT WORD GRAVEL. >> OKAY.
GOT YOU. >> THE RENTERS OF THE PROPERTY
[00:45:24]
ARE THE ONES APPLYING THE CHANGE, RIGHT?>> YES. >> OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE.
GRAVEL IS WAY CHEAPER. >> AND PAYING FOR THE
>> I HAVE SEEN THEIR WORK BEFORE, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S JUST GOING TO BE SPLAYED ALL OVER THE PLACE.
>> YEAH. >> IS THERE A MOTION?
>> MR. FOOT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INPUT?
>> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY VOLUNTARY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> THERE YOU GO.
>> BZ-2022-008 FOR OFF STREET PARKING SURFACE REQUIREMENT TOO
ALAW GRAVEL PARKING. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.
>> LATICIA SMITH? >> MARY BOYD?
YOU'RE VR VARIANCE PASSED. CONGRATULATIONS.
[4. Variance to Section 503, Building Setbacks, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-009 ]
AND THEN NUMBER FOUR, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO POSTPONE THIS TO OUR JULY MEETING.I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING
>> OKAY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE BZ-2022-009 TO OUR JILL MEETING DATE SOON TO BE DETERMINED.
>> LATICIA SMITH? >> MARY BOYD?
[OTHER BUSINESS ]
ANY OTHER BUSINESS? YES, WE DO.
I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE OUR JULY 6TH MEETING TO
>> LATICIA SMITH? >> MARY BOYD?
>> YES. >> ANY OTHER BUSINESS? NO? I HAVE NO COMMUNICATION.
DOES STAFF HAVE COMMUNICATION? OKAY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.