Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2007 Planning Commission MinutesThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Monday, November 5, 2007 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chamber. Present: Jean Wilson, Chairman; Bob Clark, Mayor Tim Kant, Dick Charles, Lee Turner, Councilman Mike Ford. Gregg Mims, Jonathan Smith, Nancy Milford, Emily Irby of Planning Staff and Chris Gill, Attorney. Absent: Ed Brinson, Dan McCrory, Gary Moore and Betty Rivenbark The minutes of the October 1, 2007 meeting were approved on motion by Dick Charles, 2 nd by Lee Turner and unanimously carried. ZC 07-05 Rezone request from R-6 Manufactured Home District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) property of Ivey Lane Development, LLC. Chairman Wilson said Attorney Gill has a conflict with this case. Jonathan Smith gave the staff report saying the property is located on the northeast corner of Morphy Avenue and Bishop Road. Total site area is 3.03 acres. There are a total of thirteen building footprints and twenty-six units are indicated. Modular building construction is proposed. Site density is approximately 8.5 units per acre. No building on site will be over thirty feet in height and approximately forty-five percent of the total site area is dedicated as open space. Total impervious site coverage is approximately fifty-five percent. The applicant has worked with staff to reduce the unit count from thirty-two to twenty-six units; increase landscaped buffers on the north and east property lines from six feet to twenty feet; provide a six foot opaque fence on the north and east property lines; and include a "garden park" and playground in the large open space areas. A pool and clubhouse are also provided as amenities within the development with a pedestrian circulation plan that includes numerous sidewalks throughout the site. The site is bordered to the north, east and west by R-3 High Density Single Family Residential District zoning. South of the site is unzoned land in the County. Staff recommendation was to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Detailed drainage plans in compliance with City regulations will be administratively reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. 2. The City Horticulturalist (Jennifer Fidler) shall sign off on the landscape plan prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. 3. The City Water and Sewer Superintendent (Dan McCrory) shall sign off on the final Flow Model prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. Justin Clements was present representing the applicant and said he would be glad to answer any questions. The project engineer, Richard Borden, was also present. Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing and announced that due to the large number of people signed up to speak that 1 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 P .. ge Two each person would be limited to 3 minutes. Peter Hunter of 4 Troyer Court spoke in opposition of the development saying that this would change the characteristics of the neighborhood, drive down property values and increase the existing drainage problems. Dottie South of 1 Troyer Court and Marion McKnight of 7 Sumac Circle spoke in opposition saying the traffic is already a problem on Bishop Road and this development will negatively impact the current situation. Debra Green of 415 Maple Street addressed the Commission and requested the following letters be included in the minutes. Remainder of page is intentionally left blank. 2 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 415 Maple Street Fairhope, AL 36532 November 5, 2007 Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Ivey Park Development ZC 07-05 Commission Members: Page Three Of, I l};tJrt L In that our property borders this proposal on the north and east, we are personally affected by any development. Therefore, we respectfully request the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission accept this letter, along with the attachments hereto, as our formal opposition to the referenced proposed development. We further respectfully request this letter and the attachments be made part of the official minutes of the November 5, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. All concerns of the area property owners and residents have been completely ignored. Absolutely no consideration bad been given to any issue, either verbally expressed or submitted in writing, during the planning· and approval process. As of September 17, 2007, the Planning Department indicated they would not recommend project approval. Although we have been in close contact with the Planning Department, it was only by accident we realized they would recommend approval. We have requested the date of . approval; however, have not received any response. As of October 30, 2007 all docwnents we have most recently been allowed to review indicate September 14, 2007 as the Planning Department approval date. We were made aware the P&Z Commission does not always receive written or verbal public input; therefor~ our issues were forwarded via email to each Commission member. We had also discovered developers do not receive information regarding concerns from the "general public". Justin Clements stated until we informed him 10/25/07 of our issues, he was completely unaware of any concerns other than an incorrect survey, which, among numerous other problems, has yet to be resolved. In April 2007, Lance Clements appeared before the P&Z Commission for an initial informal review. He did not own the property at the time, and according to Probate records, land purchase was in May 2007. The initial review received an extremely negative response from the majority of the members. According to the current plans, he is proposing a 13 dwelling, 26 unit, 68 parking space modular housing development. Regardless of the current zoning, this proposal is not conducive to the neighborhood. A development of this nature will only succeed in becoming an apartment complex or more likely, a guest worker housing facility. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Fairhope Planning and Zoning Com.mission RE: Ivey Park Development ZC 07.05 November 5, 2007 Bobby and Debra Green Page2 of3 Page Four He has received approval from the City of Daphne, Phase I nearing completion. to allow a larger, similar development in an extremely suppressed area. We urge each of you to view this development prior to any approval. Rejection of this development, as Mr. Lance Clements has strongly inferred, will result in returning the site into another mobile home park. We believe this to be an empty threat, as it would take him decades to recover bis purchase price. We also believe the City has policies or adopted ordinances, which will not allow any vacated mobile home park to be reestablished. Further, there are three recent instances, two of which we have been personally involved, related to incorrect and errors in zoning designations. As an example, we recently purchased a "current" zoning map of a very small section of Fairhope, which includes our personal residential property. There are many zoning discrepancies on this map. When brought to the attention of Jonathan Smith, he advised there were many errors, Citywide, and this was a problem the Planning Department was attempting to correct. Therefore, prior to any approval, we request a paper trail to verify the current R-6 zoning. By Jonathan Smith's own admission, he has used no tooJs other than his "best judgment" regarding adjacent property values, traffic, drainage and environmental issues. It is not a substitute for any tools including the available County or City resources to determine adjacent property values, the Neel-Schaffer Traffic Study, The Natural Resource Inventory, the City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan. the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, particularly Article II, Section C/e.1-8, Article V Section A/5 a-t. The area is the lowest density single-family residential areas within the City. The home · to acreage ratio of surrounding properties is 1 to 7. Morphy Ave., Bishop Road and Fairhope Ave. are heavily congested by current existing traffic. With a mere 50 foot right of way, Morphy Avenue, itself. is extremely hazardous. particularly with regard to service industry vehicles pulling trailers and school bus traffic. Buses and large trucks must stop in the middle of Morphy and wave oncoming or Bishop Road traffic through in order to navigate a turn. This area is the beginning ofCowpen Creek Watershed, which empties into Weeks Bay. The area, particularly at our Morphy Avenue Green Nursery entrance, and their proposed project entrance, is often prone to flooding. The area infrastructure absolutely cannot accommodate such a high-density project. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Ivey Park Development ZC 07 .05 November 5, 2007 Bobby and Debra Green Page 3 of3 Page Five The site plan consists of multiple technical errors. Jonathan Smith has stated errors are to be corrected. What corrections will be made and will any changes or corrections be in favor of the developer or property owner? How will this Commission know what will be approved with incorrect technical data? Mr. Smith has further advised BES Engineering has been consulted and they have indicated no problems with the Site Plan. We find this extremely difficult to believe. In addition. an eight-p1ex. which Barry Fulford informed us would be a duplex, is currently under construction on Bishop Road, near Gayfer Ave. In September 2007, this Commission approved the informal review of Trey Jinright of Jade Consulting, ILC, for a 56-unit milti-family townhouse development (Silo Farms Townhouses). How many of these so-called affordable housing projects have or are to be approved? How many are needed? What is the basis for this need? This development is not what is best for the community. Most developments of this nature are built in low-income areas as means for "affordable housing". They also tend to cause an immediate depreciation in surrounding property values. It is the City's responsibility, through the Constitution of Alabama, Section 35, to protect the property owner, and not ensure a speculative developer a profit. The majority of the property owners affected by this development have owned property and Jived in this community for decades. Our, money, blood, sweat, and years have gone into Fairhope. The developer is requesting a PUD; however, not a change in zoning. Should Mr. Clements requested a change in current zoning, which, again, we are seeking proof: to a lower density, the surrounding neighbors, might be willing to work with him. A development consisting of four or five brick and mortar small retirement type homes, with personal yards, parking, and a neighborhood environment with less impact on traffic, drainage, and adjacent property values, may be an acceptable alternative. A mobile home park is governed by very strict regulations under the City Zoning Ordinances, and can be moved in the future. A slum, which this development will most likely become, will remain for generations to come. Respectfully, c/4kb~ Debra Green 928-9409 1l/4A- Robert M. {Bobby) Green, Jr. 928-9409 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 4 I 5 Maple Street Fairhope, AL 36532 November 5, 2007 Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Ivey Park Development ZC 07-05 Commission Members: Page Six In that my property borders this proposal on the north and east, and I am personally affected by any development. I hereby submit this document related to my comments, as an attachment to our letter to be made part of the minutes of this meeting. I am confident you will not approve this development but defend Mr. Clement's right to develop his property in a fashion consistent with the neighborhood. I would urge the P&Z to please begin to look at some of these projects holistically. Time-and- again developments are approved in a vacuum particularly with no regard for surrounding properties and especially the "downstream environment". For instance: The engineer for this project shows the runoff water running east till it recognizes a property line, magically makes a 90 degree tum, runs uphl!I for 80', makes a 180 degree tum where it enters a 6" pipe at the confluence of the drainage of 13 acres of irrigated famtland and single family residences. Topo maps used by the engineer do not show a shared large drainage ditch common to our two properties. The engineers hydrology documents state design standards of a 25 year flood whereas the city requires a I 00 year standard. Further he shows a combination retention pond/playground. Numerous large trees, required to be shown, are absent from the site survey. There are over 70 trees on the property, yet not one is shown on the landscape plan as required. Trees on the Bishop Avenue right-of way are not shown, as required, and the retention pond in that area could not be built without destroying the root systems of those city-owned trees. An aerial photo, overlaid over the site plan, is now required by the director of planning and zoning. The photo on file with the planning department is the size of a post it note. Our adjacent 9 acre fann property is zoned R-3 and we have no plans on developing it. R-3 would be an appropriate designation for the 3-acre site in question. Should this high-density project go through, what would prevent us from asking for the same high density? I would submit to you that loyalty to Fairhope is a two-way-street. What would prevent other long-term Fairhopian families, owning large undeveloped tracts in this area, to ask the same? I urge you to confirm the trust we place in you as stewards of the citizens of Fairhope, and ask you recommend denial of approval for this project. Respectfully, ~~L Robert M. (Bobby) Green. Jr. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 415 Maple Street Fairhope, AL 36532 October 16, 2007 Mr. Gregg Mims Fairhope Planning Department Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission RE: ZC07.05 Ivey Lane Development Gregg: Page Seven In reference to the proposed Ivey Lane Development, located adjacent to property owned by us on Morphy Avenue, we are forwarding several attachments. We realize no one wants to read a lot of information; however, would appreciate our issues be read and thoroughly considered. Please be advised there may be further specific requests and issues for concern. In addition to Planning Department review, we also request confirmation from the individual members of the Planning and Zoning Commission of their review and comments. It has come to our attention sometimes they may not receive all information provided, particularly from the residents. We would further appreciate copies of these documents placed in member packets. This development met with strong opposition from the Planning and Zoning Commission in April. We were surprised there were·any recommendations, however generic. We do not favor this particular development. Jonathan has indicated no changes, and has stated to us the Planning Department is not in favor of the project. However, an individual has informed us the Planning Department is recommending project approval and the November P&Z meeting will simply be a "formality". If given the opportunity, this individual will confirm this during November meeting. How can such a recommendation be made without P&Z consideration or a public hearing? Please explain how the Planning Department has such administrative authority. This proposal borders our property on two sides and we have conflicts. We have asked the item be held over until December. Jonathan has advised there are no provisions under the current Planning and Zoning Ordinances for the "General Public". He further stated it could be held over if the developer would agree. They have refused. We think this quite unfair. We have been forced, on three occasions, to alter our business meeting and travel schedules for Ivey Park. We would request you ask the President of the Commission, Ms. Jean Wilson, of her opinion. Further, Jonathan advised the developer requested the hearing held over from October to November in order to contact other property owners. To date, we know of no parties contacted. We have initiated all communications with this developer. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Mr. Gregg Mims Fairhope Planning Department Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of Letter dated October 16, 2007 Page Eight We are making a diligent effort to be cooperative with developments for which we have not requested, nor at this point, are favorable toward. Our only requests regarding developments have been for protection from the sprawling encroachment and preservation of the environment. As there are no provisions for the "general public", with every issue, the City gives the impression it serves at the pleasure of a developer, particularly a speculative developer, and not at the discretion of the innocent property owner or citizens of this community. At our request, we have scheduled an October 23, 2007 meeting with Justin Clements. We would appreciate another opportunity to review these plans prior to that date. Please advise ifwe may review the plans early afternoon of Oct. 23 rd. We would as well, ask these documents be made part of the official minutes of the November 5, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, preferably the December meeting, not as attachments. Respectfully submitted, Bobby Green 415 Maple St. Fairhope, AL 36532 928-9409 583-8473 Debra Green 415 Maple St. Fairhope, AL 36532 928-9409 583-0471 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 ATTACHMENT ONE COPY OF EMAIL Page Nine GREGG MIMS, JONA THAN SMITH, EMILY IRBY 9/19/07 INITIAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS IVEY LANE DEVELOPMENT zc 07.05 PART OF LEITER (EMAIL) TO GREGG MIMS 10/16/07 SUBMITTED BY BOBBY AND DEBRA GREEN Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Copy of Email to Gregg Mims, Jonathan Smith, Emily Irby 9/19/07 INITIAL ISSUES OF CONCERN Page I of 2 Attachment 1 Letter to Gregg Mims of 10/16/07 Ivey Lane Development zc 07.05 Page Ten Although we are not entirely opposed to the proposed development, please accept letter, via emai~ in rough draft per our conversation of9/18/07, as concerns relative to the Ivey Land Development, LLC proposal. This development is adjacent to our property on Morphy Avenue and we request consideration to our issues during the October 1st meeting. A more formal document, including additional information, will be presented to the Commission during the meeting; however, a list of specifics is as follow: 1. Lance Clements appeared before the P&Z Commission, April 2, 2007 for an informal review of this project. According to public records, he did not even own the property at that time. Members of the Commission were very vocal in opposition to the project, particularly with respect to density and the need, perhaps, for the property to remain for use as a mobile home park, as unfortunately, it was the only affordable means of housing for some. It was further stated the P&Z felt about 1/2 of the units proposed would be more appropriate. 2. Mr. Clements inferred if the Commission would not allow the project, he would simply place as many mobile homes on it as possible. 3. Mr. Clements purchased the property in May 2007. The Single Tax Colony Lease transfer 5/7 /07, Warranty bill of Sale signed on 5/8/07, recordation 5/10/07. Respectfully, it should not be the purpose of the P&Z to guarantee a profit for a developer speculating on a project that met such initial resistance. 4. The reduction of units has been from 33 to 26, a decrease more in line with 1/4, not 1/2 as recommended. 5. There exists faulty engineering as survey says., 0 iron pin found". This is false. Developer's survey company installed the pins. Their southeast comer, according to our long established Claude Arnold survey, is roughly 4' onto our property and roughly, 4' past a long established property line fence. 6. From all outward appearances, the proposed development seems quite desirable; however, the property layout, placement of the dumpster, "apartment style" parking, modular construction, all point to rental housing units which, this project is approved as presented, would most likely quickly become. 7. The dumpster needs to be relocated. Ifwe were to develop our property for single~ family residences, the dumpster location would have a negative impact on at least two lot sales. We suggest it be moved to Bishop Road area, where it offends no one. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Copy of Email to Gregg Mims, Jonathan Smith, Emily Irby 9/19/07 INITIAL ISSUES OF CONCERN Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 Letter to Gregg Mims of 10/16//07 Ivey Lane Development zc 07-05 Page Eleven 8. How can we put faith in the hydraulics engineer when he uses a 25-year storm event to calculate run-off while Fairhope requires a 100-year event? The drainage pipe under Morphy Avenue to the East of this project, and downstream, is inadequate. The street often floods in heavy rains. How will this be addressed without a negative impact on the downstream property owners? 9. This property is the very beginning of the Cowpen Creek Watershed into Weeks Bay. An Environmental survey showing the downstream effects of any development should be required. 10. The tree survey required does not show dozens oflarge trees along the East property line. No aerial photo was required, which would have identified same. 11. The 6' foot fence should be double sided and 8' in height. Fence should be built for security and to withstand windstonns as valuable nursery stock exists on our property along the north property line. 12. Proposed development, as presented, would warrant parking lot and area security cameras. 13. When the property stood as a mobile home park, residents were kind and friendly. We had numerous episodes of vandalism; however, police finally able to stop problems. We voiced this during the initial review. Vandalism did not stem from any residents of Mobile Home Park Much appreciation is given to distribute this information to the entire P&Z members. Thank you for your kind assistance. Debra Green Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 ATTACHMENT 2 Page Twelve ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR CONCERN MADEPARTOF LETTER {EMAll.i) TO GREG MIMS 10/16/07 SUBMITTED BY BOBBY AND DEBRA GREEN Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 1 of Attachment 2 ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS ZC 07-05 Ivey Lane Development Submitted by Bobby and Debra Green Letter Gregg Mims 10/16/07 Page Thirteen Oppositions to change in zoning or approval of PUD I. In that it has been our personal experience with the City of Fairhope not following adopted ordinances, we are of the opinion every point outlined is valid and should be thoroughly read and serious consideration given to each. 2. Section 35 of the Constitution of Alabama, 1901, clearly states, "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." 3. Number 2 above does not imply the government should protect nor encourage a speculative developer, but should protect and ensure the rights of current residents and long-term property owners. 4. There currently exists a moratorium on modular construction. We request this proposal held over until lifted. 5. The project is located directly in the middle of one of the lowest density single-family residential areas within the city. The home to acreage ratio of surrounding properties is 1 to 7. 6. Any approved development will result in subsequent and similar requests and approval from adjacent property owners. 7. Prior to approval, we request the members of the P&Z Commission closely examine the area from Gayf er A venue, south, to Morphy A venue along Bishop Road, as there are a number of "affordable" housing project approvals in this area. 8. We reiterate our opinion this development is for rentaVapartment use 9. The developer has a similar project, St. Charles Village, currently under construction in Daphne. Phase I, inclusive of 10 units, will be completed in October 2007. As of September 24, 2007, 8 of the 10 units have been pres- sold, two (25%) of which have been sold to "private investors", as rental units. 10. The developer has made the assumption the median price for a home in Fairhope is in excess of$400,000. With this in mind, the developer has also made the assumption $170,000 will be paid for his units, which are wall to wall with other units, have stairway access, no personal yard or storage space, no garage and no individual unit parking space. 11. According to the National Association of Realtors latest statistics, current market value for the development as proposed is less than 70%. 12. The developer has continued to make statements relative to density and restrictions related to that of a Mobile Home Park development, and not the considerations to a PUD. As recently as October 8, 2007, Justin Clements indicated a reduction of units to 21 based on the number of Mobile Homes allowed on site. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 2 of Attachment 2 ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS Page Fourteen ZC 07-05 Ivey Lane Development Submitted by Bobby and Debra Green Letter to Gregg Mims 10/16/07 13. After much thought, it is our opinion a Mobile Home Park may actually be best for this area including, but not limited to the following reasons: a. The restrictions specifically require an 8' masonry fence; b. A Mobile Home Park can be moved in the future, should a more suitable development be proposed for the community; c. Simply living in a Mobile Home does not determine an individual's character or integrity, or lack, thereof; d. lt was recommended in April the area remain a Mobile Home Park and e. This developer continues to imply he will put as many mobile homes on the property as possible if he does not receive project approval. Assuming the City of Fairhope approves a PUD: 14. We request full disclosure of names and addresses of all parties/investors in Trustmark Development Corporation. 15. We request being immediately advised of any changes to the approved project, which may be implemented prior to any administrative or P&Z Commission approval. 16. Upon any project approval, we wou1d appreciate working in cooperation with the City Planning Department. 17. Any approva~ other than the current mobile home park status, should be similar to that of East Gate Subdivision, and not inexpensive modular home "projects". 18. The developer's survey is incorrect. We request another survey of their property. They have suggested we have another survey of our property. We will agree, at their expense. 19. As our business is located adjacent to this proposed development, this places Green Nurseries Wholesale Division inventory, structures and property in jeopardy. We request the erection of an 8' masonry fence along the boundaries of our property. We also request the fence include heavy landscape material. 20. We request no access onto our property, via fence or any other means. 21. We request the fence prior to any unit construction. 22. Initial site preparation will be restricted to construction of the fence. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 3 of Attachment 2 ADDffiONAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS ZC 07-05 Ivey Lane Development Submitted by Bobby and Debra Green Letter to Gregg Mims 10/16/07 Page Fifteen 23. The City is taking responsibility of approving a development; therefore, the developer and the City will assume the responsibility of protecting our property and business. (Refer to paragraph I). The implementation of these measures will include; but not limited to protection from excess drainage, construction debris, trespassing. damage, vandalism or theft of structures, machinery, plant materials, existing trees or anything else located on our property, not listed in this paragraph. 24. Reduction of proposed units should be a minimum of½, preferably a maximum of 7. 25. Each unit should require individual parking. 26. Due to stagnant real estate sales and the National Association of Realtor statistics, in order to provide assurance the development is not apartments nor will tum into a "project" area, we suggest the units be pre-sold, prior to construction. This will encourage and ensure individuals, not private investors, as the developer is proposing. make purchases. This would further protect adjacent property owners from devaluation of their land or homes. 27. We request the State Fire Marshall notified of any approved proposed modular development to ensure required mandates units of modular construction, particularly with reference to rental property. 28. We would request the City hold this and all developers to the highest of standards including the City officia11y adopting all current building ordinances.I codes as regulated by the state and federal governing bodies, specifically the 2007 International Building Code. 29. Please review and refer to Article II (the entire article) of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. We request the City follow the adopted procedures of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Ordinance that no building permit be issued prior to the developer meeting all criteria. 30. In accordance with Artic]e IL Section C, f.(1~2,3) City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Ordinance, modifications in substantial conformance with an approved site plan may be approved by the Director of Planning and Building if they meet the following conditions: I. The modification addresses actual site conditions that were not anticipated in the reviewed site plan; 2. The modification meets the intent of the site plan standards in an equivalent or improved manner than the origina1 site plan; and 3. The modification results in no greater impact on adjacent property than the approved site plan. Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page 4 of Attachment 2 ADDITIONAL ISSUES OF CONCERN ZC 07-05 Ivey Lane Development Bobby and Debra Green Letter to Gregg Mims 10/16/07 Page Sixteen 31. We hold the City and Planning Department accountable for item No. 24, in that it is not the responsibility of the City to ensure a builder or developer a profit, after project approvai should it be determined any project material not meet specific requirements, such as "pavers", and a replacement product be necessary, the builder or developer should use a product of equal or higher quality. This is specifically outlined in Article II, Section C. f. (I, 2, 3). The builder or developer should not be able to find a "legitimate" excuse to save money due to any legislative mandate, cost over runs nor any other reason. 32. We request clear definition of all construction and parking materials used as approved by P&Z. We request thorough research of all project materials to ensure they meet applicable guidelines prior to the approval of the P&Z Commission. 33. We hold the City and Planning Department accountable for Article V, Section 7 of the City Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, changes or amendments to a Planned Unit Development shall be processed in the same manner as the original request. Slight changes in the detail of the Planned Unit Development that do not change the intent, meaning, relationship of structures to each other may be approved by the Director of Planning and Building. 34. We request the Planning and Zoning Commission work closely with the Planning Department to ensure this department nor does any individual arbitrarily assume responsibility latitude for any changes that are clearly the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 35. As indicated through the attached, this area is the head of the Cowpen Creek Watershed. Our industry, located adjacent to this proposal, is heavily monitored under State and Federal guidelines. Therefore, for the protection of the environment and protection of our business, we would request permeable surface over the entire surface parking area, preferably, permeable pavers. 36. We request the City ensure retention ponds are not fed by wells and we be advised of any chemicals which may be placed in same, such as with Arbor Gates Apartments, Greeno Road. Respectfully submitted, Bobby Green 415 Maple Street Fairhope, AL 36532 251-928-9409 Debra Green 415 Maple Street Fairhope, Alabama 36532 251-928-9409 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page Seventeen Trisha LoPorto of 7 Troyer Court opposes this development because of drainage and traffic issues and deprecating property values. Robert Green of 415 Maple Street owns property to the north and east of the subject parcel and spoke in opposition. He stated that the plans show the runoff going east and uphill to his property. He also stated no aerial was submitted which would have shown approximately 70 trees on the property. Charles Cuff of 20378 Bishop Road spoke in opposition saying the neighborhood is single-family residential not multi-family and such zoning would be regression. Jane Whitehead of 8687 Morphy Avenue said she looked at the similar development and did not like it. She stated she would move if it were approved. John Reimer of 5 Troyer Court requests that the Commission deny this application due to the traffic and drainage problems. He also stated concerns with the safety of the residents of the proposed units, that currently school buses block both lanes of Morphy Avenue and emergency vehicles cannot get though if needed. Mr. Reimer presented the Commission with pictures of a similar development that is currently under construction. Scott Lee of 1 Longleaf spoke in favor of the development saying it is providing living areas at a reasonable cost. Waynard White of 12323 County Road 1 stated that he could not find the LLC registered with the state though an Internet search he conducted. Chairman Wilson closed the public hearing. Justin Clements and Richard Borden came forward to answer any questions. Mike Ford asked if the engineer ever visited the site and if the runoff was portrayed as running uphill. Mr. Borden responded that he had visited the site several times and that drainage was not going uphill. He further stated that there are three areas of drainage to control and the site has been designed to meet the City's requirements of a 100-year storm. Dick Charles stated that he would like a second opinion. Jonathan Smith said that a drainage study was not required for the project, but the drainage was revised from a 25-year storm to a 100-year storm. Lee Turner asked what the density would be for R-5 High Density Dwelling Residential District. Jonathan Smith responded that R-5 would allow 10 units per acre whereas the applicant was requesting 8.5 units per acre with the proposed PUD. Justin Clements explained to the Commission that the original site plan had proposed 32 units, which now has been reduced to 26 units. He further explained that the fa9ade of the buildings would be Hardy Plank and they will keep all trees possible. He also stated that the buildings are built to all standards set by the State and can withstand up to 140 mile per hour winds. Mike Ford made a motion to deny and forward an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council. Mayor Kant seconded the motion and recommended that the Commission vote by show of hands. Motion passed with one abstention by Dick Charles. ZC 07.06 Request for R-3 High Density Single Family Residential District Zoning of Eastern Shore Affordable Housing for St. Joseph's Way concurrent with annexation for property located at the north end of New Era Lane. Nancy Milford gave the staff report saying the applicant is 17 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page Eighteen requesting to annex 1.97 acres, which currently consist of 4 building sites. The R-3 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 7,800 s.f. which would allow for the property to be subdivided into 7 lots. Nancy Milford noted that the applicant is a non-profit organization focusing on affordable housing. Staff recommendation was to approve. Chris Baker was present to represent the applicant. Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak. The public hearing was closed. Lee Turner moved to accept staff recommendation and recommend approval to the City Council. Dick Charles seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SD 07.39 Minor Plat approval of St. Joseph's Way/Chris Baker of Hutchinson, Moore & Rauch, LLC. Property generally located at the north end of New Era Lane. Nancy Milford gave the staff interpretation saying the applicant is proposing a 7-lot subdivision on 1.97 acres. The property is currently unzoned with R-3 zoning proposed. The applicant is also requesting a waiver from the minimum street standards in the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant is a documented 501 (C)(3) non-profit organization providing housing to the working poor in the Fairhope Community and does not have the financial resources to the meet the full requirements of the regulations. Staff recommendation was to approve conditional upon receiving final approval of all water and sewer issues by the Water & Sewer Superintendent. Chris Baker was present for the applicant. Dick Charles moved to approve as per staff recommendation with the condition that all water and sewer issues have final approval by the Water & Sewer Superintendent. Lee Turner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SR 07 .09 Site Plan Approval for Jade Professional Office Building/Trey Jinright of Jade Consulting, LLC. (Generally located on the east side of Greeno Road, just south of Gayfer Avenue) Jonathan Smith gave the staff report saying the property is zoned PUD and is part of the Greeno Professional Village approved in 2002. The total site area is 36,905 s.f. (0.847 acres) with a building footprint of 5,000 s.f. and total gross floor area is 9,999 s.f. Proposed building height is 34 feet 4 inches. The project is in compliance with the originally approved PUD Ordinance for the Greeno Professional Village. Staff recommendation is to approve as requested. Trey Jinright was present to answer any questions. Mayor Kant wanted to know if the large live oak on the property would be saved. Mr. Jinright responded that they would be protecting the tree. Dick Charles moved to accept the staff recommendation. Lee Turner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SD 07.37 Multiple Occupancy Project -Approval of Crown Pointe Cottages/Trey Jinright of Jade Consulting, LLC. (Generally located on the south side of County Road 24, just west of U.S. Highway 98) Jonathan Smith gave the staff interpretation. The applicant is proposing 12 one-story 18 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page Nineteen cottages on 5 acres of unzoned County land, with a density of 2.4 units per acre. Each cottage will be 1,300 s.f. (habitable). Staff Recommendation is to approve contingent upon the submission of a Drainage Maintenance Plan, in compliance with the City regulations, prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. Trey Jinright was present and explained that this is a rental type project and would have one owner. John Worley of 7760 County Road 24 had drainage concerns and wanted to verify that the runoff would not end up on his property. He also wanted to know who would maintain the road. Mr. Jinright responded that they would be containing their water on site, which should lessen the natural flow onto Mr. Worley's property. The maintenance of the road would be that of the property owner. Lee Turner move to accept the staff recommendation with the condition that a Drainage Maintenance Plan, in compliance with the City regulations, prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. Dick Charles seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SD 07 .40 Request to vacate a reserved Right-of-way on Lot 1, Mallory Estates/Mike McQuillen of Sun World, Inc. (Generally located on the south side of Twin Beech Road, just west of Thompson Hall Road.) Nancy Milford gave the staff interpretation saying Mallory Estates Subdivision is 40.14 acres, consisting of four large lots. Lot 1 is 8.51 acres. As a rural subdivision, 60-foot right-of-ways were reserved on the plat for future streets. The revised subdivision regulations require a 50-foot right-of-way. Staff recommendation is to approve the reduction of the right-of-way to 50 feet. Mike McQuillen was present and explained that currently the existing house is encroaching the right-of-way. He stated the reason for this request is to allow for a deck to be added to the existing house. Dick Charles stated that this only pertains to the east 30-feet of the ROW. Gregg Mims said the standard ROW now is 50-feet and staff would recommend only reducing 5- feet of the 30-foot on Mr. McQuillen's property. Mayor Kant asked if 5-foot reduction would allow the proposed addition. Mr. McQuillen said no that it might not even eliminate the existing encroachment. Mike Ford asked if the entire ROW could be vacated. Gregg Mims explained it could not without Mr. Mallory's, the adjacent property owner to the east, agreement. Mr. Mallory was present and did not concede to removing the entire ROW, but said he would be willing to work with Mr. McQuillen on a compromise. Dick Charles moved to accept staff recommendation to reduce the right-of-way by 5-feet. Motion fails for lack of a second. Bob Clark moved to deny. Motion fails for lack of a second. Dick Charles moved to table for 30 days to allow the two adjacent property owners the opportunity to seek a solution. Bob Clark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Lee Turner left at 6:30. SD 07.36 Minor Plat approval of Jennifer Moore Merritt Subdivision/Daryl Russell of McCrory & Williams, Inc. Property 19 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page Twenty generally located on the east side of Ferry Road, just south of County Road 32. Nancy Milford gave the staff interpretation saying the property is located in Baldwin County and is unzoned. A three-lot subdivision is proposed on 1.96 acres. All lots are roughly 0.65 acres. Staff recommendation is to approve as requested conditional upon the submittal of a revised plat reflecting the flood zone boundaries. Daryl Russell was present to answer any questions. Mary Catherine of 16981 Ferry Road was concerned with the ownership of Ferry Road and wanted clarification that the lots would be single family residential, but not rental property. Nancy Milford explained that Ferry Road, according to Baldwin County staff, is a common law dedicated public right-of-way. It is a County Road, but it is not County maintained. Daryl Russell verified that all lots are single family residential. Dick Charles moved to approve with the condition that a revised plat reflecting the flood zone boundaries be submitted. Mike Ford seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SD 07.35 Final Plat approval of North Village At Stone Creek PUD/Steve Pumphrey of Volkert & Associates, Inc. Property is located on the east side of Highway 181, just east of Twin Beech Road. Nancy Milford gave the staff interpretation saying the property is 63.13 acres and four lots are proposed. The property was zoned PUD on May 11, 2006 and was amended on November 13, 2006. The proposed plat is in conformance with the approved PUD. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following conditions: 1. The submittal of the Engineer's cost estimate for the Maintenance Bond and the Maintenance Bond Agreement. 2. Completion of the punch list items. 3. Submittal of the revised Operations and Maintenance Plan. 4. Landscape plan shall reflect trees placed at least 25 feet from intersections. Steve Pumphrey of Volkert was present to answer any questions. Dick Charles moved to accept staff recommendation to approve with conditions that the Engineer's cost estimate for the Maintenance Bond and the Maintenance Bond Agreement be submitted, punch list items be completed, a revised Operations and Maintenance Plan be submitted, and the Landscape Plan be revised to reflect trees placed at least 25 feet from intersections. Bob Clark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SD 07.38 Final Plat approval of Dogwood Subdivision/Chris Baker of Hutchinson, Moore & Rauch, LLC. Property is located at the northeast corner of Valley Street and Middle Street. Nancy Milford gave the staff interpretation saying the property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District in the City of Fairhope. Property is 3.1 acres and an eight-lot subdivision is proposed. Staff recommendation is to approve as requested with the following conditions: 20 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page Twenty-one 1. Resolution of the FEMA map revisions to the satisfaction of the City of Fairhope Building Official. 2. Submittal of the Maintenance Bond. 3. Street trees scheduled to be moved within eight months of Planning Commission approval of the subdivision and with notification to the City horticulturalist. Chris Baker of HMR,LLC was present to answer questions. Mayor Kant asked if the fence would be complete prior to the final. Mr. Baker responded that it would be. Dick Charles moved to accept the staff recommendation to approve with conditions that the FEMA map revisions be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Building Official, a Maintenance Bond be submitted, and the City Horticulturalist be notified of the moving of the street trees within eight months from approval date. Bob Clark seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. IR07-12 Informal Review of proposed amendment to the Village North PUD (The Triangle)/Chris Baker of Hutchinson, Moore & Rauch, LLC. Property is generally located on the north and south sides of the intersection of Section Street (Eastern Shore Parkway) and US Highway 98. Jonathan Smith gave the staff interpretation saying the subject property consist of 108 acres and was zoned PUD in December 2002. Greeno Road borders the property to the east, north is Fairhope R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District and Baldwin County 8-1 Commercial. West of the site lies Baldwin County R-2a Single Family and Fairhope R-1, and south is Fairhope R-1 and R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. The applicant is seeking to amend the original PUD site plan in order to accommodate a larger commercial building footprint and a change in the commercial and residential layout. The commercial sections of the development have been reconfigured and a 54,817 sq. ft. "big box" building footprint is shown on the new site plan. The new site plan shows an amphitheatre and other new recreational amenities. The applicant worked with staff in providing additional buffer areas and reducing the total land allotted for commercial square footage form 200,000 sq. ft. to 180,000 sq. ft. The 2002 plan shows 514 total dwelling units and the new plan shows 949 dwelling units. Staff recommendation is to prove. Chris Baker of HMR, LLC highlighted the differences between the approved 2002 PUD and the proposed changes. Commercial square footage will remain the same at 180,000 sq. ft. A decrease of 20 residential units is proposed. The approved commercial building for Parcel A has 30,000 sq. ft. and the proposed building has an increase of 24,817 sq. ft. for a total of 54,817 sq. ft. No proposed changes for the 13 acres for park land, 6 acres for semi- public uses, 100 foot buffer for Fly Creek, 15 acres of open space or public roads. Mr. Baker expressed that the applicant wants to be pedestrian friendly and tie the two sites together while calming traffic. The applicant would also restrict the commercial building on Parcel A to a grocery store. Lisa Loney, Joe Pazdan, and Chuck Wallace of Pazdan-Smith Group were 21 Planning & Zoning Commission November 5, 2007 Page Twenty-two present. Ms. Lahey explained the fa9ade designs would be pulled from existing architecture in Fairhope. The use of natural plantings would pull people in. Chris Baker said Village North fits in the Comprehensive Plan as a Traditional Neighborhood Center. Dick Charles asked for clarification on the 48 live/work units. Mr. Baker responded they would be low traffic home occupations, such as a lawyer's office, no retail. Jean Wilson asked what type of business would Buildings A 1, A2, and A3 along US 98 be. Mr. Baker said small neighborhood business, such as cleaners, casual dining, CVS or Walgreen's and possibly multiple tenants. Bob Clark said they are asking for a building larger than what is allowed in the "big box" ordinance and it does sound like smart planning because there will be two practically across the street from each other. Mr. Clark said it will pull business from Downtown and the Commission is to protect Downtown, it took 20 years to get to where we are now. Jean Wilson said the issues will be with the grocery store and commercial building along US 98 that was previously multi-family. Mike Ford said is a fairness issue, its not fair to deny one person just because they are across the street. Mayor Kant said it took two years to get the current PUD plan approved and he is proud of the City. Chris Baker said that only one person was in opposition of the plan in 2002. Dick Charles asked if they would be using permeable paving for the grocery store site. Mr. Baker said they have a reduction in impervious area, but would look into using a pervious surface. Chris Baker thanked the Commission for their imput. The Planning Commission was duly adjourned at 7:20. 22