City Council rejects rezoning for historic Avondale houses

A group of investors that includes Coby Lake, former owner of Avondale Brewing Co., failed today in their attempt to get city approval of a zoning change for a strip of historic houses the group owns in Avondale.

The Birmingham City Council, at its regular meeting for Tuesday, April 24, did not vote to approve the requested change in zoning for the houses, located at 101 42nd Street South, from medium-density residential to mixed-use.

The vote was 3-3, meaning the item failed. Council President Valerie Abbott, as well as councilors Steven Hoyt and William Parker, voted no.

Councilors Lashunda Scales, Hunter Williams and Darrell O’Quinn -- who represents the district -- voted in favor of the change.

Lake and Birmingham Properties LLC have already renovated the four formerly dilapidated brick houses, which are said to be more than 100 years old and once served as housing for workers at Avondale Mills.

The houses are located one block east of 41st Street South, Avondale’s main commercial strip.

The planning and zoning committee of the Birmingham City Council also rejected the request on March 1, when Hoyt -- the chairman of the committee -- and Abbott voted against it and O'Quinn voted for it.

Architect Scott Phillips, who filed the zoning request, told the council that, while the parcel is zoned residential, “it is not a piece of property that supports residential in reality.”

He noted that the houses are located near a parking lot, railroad tracks, a large recycling plant, light manufacturing and other commercial uses.

The developers have discussed bringing in small businesses, perhaps including such establishments as a barber shop, sandwich shop, attorneys, accountants or offices for nonprofit organizations.  

Tracey Hayes, a senior planner with the city, told the council that the zoning request was not consistent with the zoning recommended in the city’s new comprehensive plan.

Hayes said that the East Avondale Neighborhood Association, after voting against the rezoning request in 2017, had recently voted to approve it given certain conditions.

For example, the developers would have to keep the site’s residential character and refrain from having any outside music.

Phillips said that the developers had tried to address the concerns of area residents and had spent a lot of money to save the historic structures, including a new roof on one house.

He told Williams that if the council rejected their zoning request, the developers would have to find some residential use for the site, which he said could be difficult.

“It is not a normal residential property,” he said. “We have to find a use that would be attractive.”

Phillips also said that, given the conditions imposed recently by the neighborhood association, the owners would have to go back to the neighborhood to get approval for each new tenant in the development.

Hoyt -- a frequent critic of spot zoning who is also chairman of the Planning and Zoning committee -- was adamantly opposed to the change and also noted that the zoning change does not fit the new comprehensive plan.

“if you spend all this money on a comprehensive plan and then go against it, what are you doing?” he said.

“I’m not voting for this,” Hoyt said. “I am going to be consistent.”

Abbott agreed, also referring to the project as spot zoning, and suggested that investors should be more cognizant of zoning restrictions before they buy certain parcels.

She said that the residents of East Avondale already hear a lot of noise from the recently revitalized Avondale commercial strip and that their quality of life is being impacted.

“We keep on nibbling away the edges of our residential neighborhoods when we have a lot of commercial property unoccupied,” Abbott said.

O'Quinn said that he agreed with what the developers had done at the site and commended them for saving the historic houses.

“This is a unique piece of property,” O’Quinn said, noting what he said is the largely commercial character of the area.

“It's not like you are putting a commercial property in the middle of residences,” he said.

He said he thought as long as the owners stuck to the conditions attached to the rezoning that the community would be “amenable to have this as a use for the property.”