Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-2010 Planning Commission MinutesAugust 2, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 1 The Planning Commission met Monday, August 2, 2010 at 5:00 PM at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Dick Charles, Vice-Chair; Bob Clark; Gary Moore; Jennifer Fidler; Fran Slade and Mike Ford. Jonathan Smith, Planning and Building Director; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary Absent: Jean Wilson, Chairperson; Tim Kant; Lee Turner Vice-Chair Dick Charles presided and called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. The minutes of the July 6, 2010 meeting were considered and Jennifer Fidler moved to accept the minutes as written and was 2nd by Fran Slade. Motion carried with abstentions by Mike Ford, Bob Clark and Gary Moore. UR 10.13 Request of the AT&T for 11.52.11 Utility Review and Approval of the proposed installation of approximately 8,610 linear feet of fiber optic cable, Jeff Hadley. The project will run along Fairhope Avenue from Blue Island Avenue to Oberg Road (a.k.a. County Road 13). Nancy Milford gave the staff report saying 275 feet of the installation will be trenched and the remaining 8,335 feet will be placed by directional bore underneath the sidewalk on the south side of Fairhope Avenue. The cable will be buried at a minimum depth of 36” under the sidewalk and a minimum of 48” under the roadway. There will be six manholes installed to be flush with the ground line and no trees will be impacted by the project. Staff recommendation is to approve conditional upon the following seven conditions: 1) the submittal of the State Permit for the project to the City of Fairhope Building Official; 2) remove sidewalk sections for project work on an as needed basis only; 3) provide pedestrians with an alternate route for walking around the areas of construction; 4) provide a schedule for how long the sidewalks will be out of service; 5) prior to any digging being performed by the cable installer, coordination with and approval from the Water and Sewer Superintendent shall be required; 6) temporary easements to allow pedestrians to travel around the work areas; and 7) installation of a sidewalk on Fairhope Avenue and Ingleside Street. Mr. Charles opened the floor to the applicant and Mr. Hadley stated he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Charles had concerns that the six handholes may be covered up and would not be able to be located during harsh weather or at night in an emergency. Mr. Hadley responded they could be marked above ground with orange and white markers, but the handholes have electronic markers which allow them to be located in such conditions. Mr. Ford asked if anyone other than AT&T would need to access the handholes and Mr. Hadley said no. Mrs. Slade asked for explanation of the temporary easements and the sidewalk installation on Fairhope Avenue and Ingleside Street. Mr. Hadley stated Jennifer Fidler requested AT&T to provide a way for pedestrians to get around the locations where the sidewalks will be taken up and a temporary easement is the only way they could accomplish that. Mr. Hadley said there is approximately 58’ along Fairhope Avenue and Ingleside Street that currently does not have a sidewalk and he has agreed to construct a sidewalk along that portion of right-of-way. Mrs. Fidler stated she rode the site with Mr. Hadley and Ms. Milford. Her first concern was installing the cable under the sidewalk, but she has spoken with the Mayor and he reassured her it is a normal practice. Her second concern was the ability of pedestrians to August 2, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 2 get around the construction, which is being addressed by the temporary easements. Mr. Hadley stated AT&T is also installing three inter-ducts so that after this construction if any additional cables need to be added to this route the area will not have to be disturbed again. Mr. Charles opened the floor to any public comments; however, there was no one present to speak. Bob Clark moved to accept the staff recommendation to approve conditional upon the following seven conditions: 1) the submittal of the State Permit for the project to the City of Fairhope Building Official; 2) remove sidewalk sections for project work on an as needed basis only; 3) provide pedestrians with an alternate route for walking around the areas of construction; 4) provide a schedule for how long the sidewalks will be out of service; 5) prior to any digging being performed by the cable installer, coordination with and approval from the Water and Sewer Superintendent shall be required; 6) temporary easements to allow pedestrians to travel around the work areas; and 7) installation of a sidewalk on Fairhope Avenue and Ingleside Street. Gary Moore 2nd the motion and the motion passed unanimously. IR 10.03 Request of Barton & Shumer Engineering for an Informal Review of HSW Subdivision, a six lot division, David Shumer. The property is located on the east side of County Road 3, just north of Emery Childress Lane. Nancy Milford gave the staff report saying the property is located in Baldwin County and is unzoned. The total site area is approximately three acres and contains six residential units. Half of the homes were permitted through Baldwin County and half were permitted through the City of Fairhope and each unit has an individual 911 address. There are no planned infrastructure improvements as part of the subdivision and the residences are currently serviced by the required utilities. Ms. Milford stated the applicant is requesting the following six waivers to the Subdivision Regulations: lot frontage on a publicly maintained road, water model, detention/stormwater management, common area, lot size and building setbacks. Ms. Milford added waivers to street lighting, tree and sidewalk standards would also be required for this project. Ms. Milford said staff does not feel that this request meets the minimum waiver requirements outlined in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, due to the lack of any extraordinary hardship relating to the physical characteristics of the parcel. Staff recommendation is for the Planning Commission to provide insight and comment regarding the proposed subdivision waivers. David Shumer, the applicant’s engineer, addressed the Commission saying the residences were built under the County and City as rental units and now the applicant wants to sell each of them individually. Mr. Shumer stated he has spoken with Baldwin County and they do not have any problems regarding the subdivision of the property since the improvements are already built. He said they are looking for direction from the Commission since several requirements of the Subdivision Regulations can not be met. Mr. Shumer stated a survey has not been completed and lot size waiver request may not be required. He said he has spoken with Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Superintendent, regarding the wavier to the Flow Model requirements and Mr. McCrory agrees there is not a reason for it since they are not projecting a future demand. Mr. Charles asked if surveys will be required pre and post-construction. Mr. Smith responded yes, if the applicant were to make a formal submittal for subdivision approval. Mr. Charles asked if staff has concerns with so many requirement waivers. Mr. Smith stated this is a unique August 2, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 3 situation because the homes are already constructed; however, it would be hard for staff to support this type of request in this area if it were not already built. He added these homes were built prior to the Subdivision Regulations requirement for multiple occupancy project review. Mr. Ford said he is familiar with this property and he understands the situation, but he feels if the Commission approves this request others property owners may do the same thing to get around the City’s requirements. Mr. Smith stated there are several other properties in the City’s jurisdiction that are similar to the subject property and it is possible those property owners will ask for the same type of approval. Fran Slade asked if this could go be approved by the County as a Family Subdivision. Mr. Shumer stated the applicant is subdividing to sell the units and the County’s intent is subdividing for family purposes. Mrs. Slade stated she is not comfortable with granting all of these waivers and would like to see some of the requirements met. Mr. Ford asked if the property falls under Barnwell’s fire protection and Mr. Shumer responded he is not sure. Mr. Ford asked if there is adequate access for a fire truck to turn around. Mr. Shumer stated there is a 30 foot wide ingress/egress easement which is what the County requires. Mr. Ford stated the City can allow less than 50’ for a right-of-way. Mr. Smith explained the City has approved large lot subdivisions in rural areas to vary from the typical right-of-way standards; however, these are not large lots and the reason the Commission has approved those type subdivisions in the past are because the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision Regulations call for flexibility in rural areas with large estate lots. Mr. Moore asked the reasons these can not be sold with metes and bound descriptions and Mr. Smith stated that would constitute a subdivision. Mr. Clark said he has a problem with setting a precedent; however, there is not a real easy answer. He stated he is concerned with others following suit. Mrs. Slade asked if the lots are on the market and the applicant stated yes, they are. Mrs. Slade stated the lots need to be taken off the market. Mr. Charles opened the floor to public comments and no one was present to speak. Mr. Smith stated there are other ways to convey the units to individual owners, such as the Condominium Act. The applicant, Sandy Wise addressed the Commission saying he is just trying to right a wrong. He stated the houses were permitted by the County in 2001 and by the City in 2004. Mr. Wise said no improvements are going to be made to the property and he has already been advised that he can sell the lots with a metes and bounds legal description and deed the property tomorrow and no red flags will be raised with the County with lots this size with houses already on them. Mr. Ford asked if the applicant would pave the street or make any improvements to the property and Mr. Wise said he has contracts on three of the properties already and can close by the end of the week. Mr. Ford stated he would be comfortable with not requiring street trees and sidewalks because the property is so far out and would not be coming inside the City limits but would like to see some type of a gesture made to give the Commission a reason to approve it and not set a precedent for others to follow. Mr. Charles asked if any of the residents currently living in the units were present and Mr. Wise said no. Mrs. Fidler asked if the County suggested how the stormwater should be handled. Mr. Wise said the site would be as is because there will not be any improvements made. Mr. Shumer stated when the project was originally planned and developed drainage was not addressed. Mr. Clark asked the applicant if he is not granted permission for this project would it stop him from doing what he wants to do. Mr. Wise responded no, he will deed a metes and bounds description to somebody August 2, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 4 and let it fall where it falls and the City will have whatever complications come down the road after that if someone complains they do not have the proper dedicated easement to their property. Mrs. Slade said she would have a real problem saying yes to nine waivers. Mr. Smith explained prior to 2008 this was allowed; however, now the City has a multiple occupancy project review that projects like this would go through. He said this is an ownership issue and there are ways the applicant can go about selling the residences without subdividing and he does not recommend the applicant do a metes and bounds description and try to sell the lots because that would constitute an illegal subdivision. Mrs. Slade stated ownership could be conveyed with a ground lease. Mr. Wise said he wants fix this and do it the right way and if the Commission is going to deny his request then he will look at doing a ground lease. Mr. Charles asked if the Commission could get a legal opinion and review this at the next meeting and Mr. Smith stated this is more of an issue for a real estate attorney. Mr. Smith added he felt the City’s legal advisors would say there are two other ways to accomplish individual ownership of the residences without going through the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Charles said his concerns are the numerous waivers and setting a precedent. Mr. Clark said the Commission is not here to make a decision tonight and the applicant has received plenty of input. Mr. Wise said he and Mr. Shumer would meet with Mr. Smith to see if they can work out a plan to bring back before the Commission. Mrs. Fidler said she would be willing to waive street trees and sidewalks but would like to see a paved right-of-way for fire access and safety. Old/New Business Greeno Road Corridor – Preliminary Planning Session Minutes, Dick Charles. Mr. Charles reviewed the minutes with the Commission and explained the purpose of the meeting was exploratory and to keep this project alive. He stated the homeowners along the corridor have the intention to maximize the use of their property and the entrance into the City. Bobby Green addressed the Commission saying he would like to expand the group of participants to include more homeowners and Chris Gill, the City Attorney, at the next meeting. Debra Green stated she feels that all parties involved want to do what is best for the property owners and the City; however, the City does not have a plan for this area and a plan needs to be developed first. She added the environment, surrounding community, tax credits for the City and property owners, and the best use of the adjacent properties all need to be considered. Mr. Moore stated he appreciates the committee for having the meeting and their work. Mrs. Slade said South Greeno Road also needs to be addressed. Having no further business, Fran Slade moved to adjourn and was 2nd by Jennifer Fidler. Motion passed unanimously and the meeting was duly adjourned at 5:57 pm. ________________________ ________________________ Dick Charles, Vice-Chair Emily Boyett, Secretary