Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2007 Planning Commission Minutes 1 The Planning & Zoning Commission met Monday, December 3, 2007, at 5:00 PM at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street. Present: Jean Wilson, Chairman; Tim Kant, Dan McCrory, Bob Clark, Gary Moore, Dick Charles, Lee Turner, Ed Brinson, Bob Gentle. Gregg Mims, Planner, Jonathan Smith, Nancy Milford, planning staff. Chris Gill, Attorney, Betty Rivenbark, Secretary. Absent none. The minutes of the November November 5, 2007 meeting were duly considered and approved as written on motion by Dick Charles, 2nd by Ed Brinson. Dan McCrory and Gary Moore abstained as they were not present at the meeting. ZC07-07 Request of Scott A. Hutchinson of HMR, LLC to amend the Village North PUD (The Triangle). The property is generally located on the north and south sides of where Section Street (Eastern Shore Parkway) meets U.S. Highway 98. Jonathan Smith gave the staff interpretation saying the subject property consists of 108+ acres and was previously approved as Village North PUD. He said the first Village North PUD was approved in November 2001 and amended on December 11, 2002. The application now is to amend the 2002 PUD 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 46,031 big box footprint is shown. The 2002 plan has a maximum 18,000 sq ft single tenant building. The previously approved and newly proposed plan allows for 180,000 sq ft of commercial area. The 2002 plan shows 514 total dwelling units proposed; the new plan shows 494 dwelling units. This is a residential density reduction of 20 units. Throughout the review process the applicant has worked with staff in the following ways: The big box shown on the site plan has been reduced from 54,817 square feet to 46,031 square feet, buffer areas have been revised, and the total commercial square footage proposed for the amendment has been reduced from 200,000 square feet back to the original 180,000 square feet. The PUD process allows for creative site design and flexibility. The process is not only beneficial to an applicant; it can also be beneficial for the City to accomplish development and community goals. Each PUD request is unique and must stand on its own merit and falter on its own weakness. Greeno Road borders the property to the east, north is Fairhope R-1 (Low Density Single Family Residential) and Baldwin County B-1 (Commercial) property. West of the site lies Baldwin County R-2a (Single Family) and Fairhope R-1 property, and south is Fairhope R-1 and R-4 (Low Density multi-Family Residential) property. 2 Issues Associated with this Request: Building A4 (“Big Box”): Building A4 shown on the proposed site plan has a 46,031 square foot building footprint. Staff met with the applicant on November 27, 2007 to discuss various issues relating to the proposed amendment. The applicant informed staff that the proposed building footprint could possibly be reduced to 38,000 square feet. Staff feels that reducing the “big box” building footprint to 38,000 square feet is more in keeping with the original ideas and integrity of the 2002 Village North PUD approved Site Plan. The applicant should reduce the 46,031 building square footage to 38,000 square feet. • In order to get an idea of the mass and scale of a typical grocery store, staff researched the dimensions of some single tenant grocery store buildings in Fairhope. The square footage for Food world is approximately 42,848 square feet and the square footage for Winn Dixie is approximately 52,000 square feet. • Staff contacted Glen LeRoy, who was the City’s Planning and Architectural consultant throughout the Village North PUD approval process. Staff requested that he address the issue of the “big box” and the allotted 180,000 square feet of commercial space. His commentary letter is attached to this staff report. Grocery Store Building Placement: The proposed grocery store is approximately 25 feet from the required 40’ buffer line along Section Street. The building should be at least 80’ from the Section Street Right of Way line. The Grocery Store should set back at least 40’ from the inside line of the required 40’ buffer along Section Street. While the building may be architecturally pleasing, the architectural features of the grocery store should not compromise the intrinsic nature of Section Street. Architectural Features: The articulation of the “big box” grocery store is very important. The box should be broken up to make it appear to be three or four separate buildings. All buildings fronting Market Street should be similar in architectural style and maintain a pedestrian oriented design. Pervious Parking: At least 25% of all parking areas should be constructed of pervious materials. 3 Overall Building Height: Maximum building heights are defined for the proposed amendment as follows: “All residential 35’ to the average between the eave and ridge; all businesses 40’ to the average between the eave and ridge; Non habitual architectural features have a 50’ limit.” The applicant has agreed to revise the building heights to reflect typical building heights outlined in the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. Building heights should be revised to reflect the following: 35’ maximum building height for commercial/ mixed-use and live work; 30’ maximum building height for residential. Building height should be measured as described in the Zoning Ordinance: “The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof.” Building Heights for Buildings F1, F2 and H1: For the area in which buildings F1, F2 and H1 are positioned, the 2002 Village North PUD Ordinance defines the maximum building height as 25’. Staff feels that this building height is appropriate due to the nature of the area and that the area is part of the primary entrance in to the City of Fairhope. The applicant should revise the maximum building heights for buildings F1, F2 and H1 to a maximum height of 25’. Currently, 40’ maximum height is proposed for buildings F1, F2 and H1. Green-space: The area, in which the parking lot is situated between buildings F1 and H1, was shown as a green space area on the 2002 Village North PUD site plan. Staff feels this helps to buffer the project from a heavily trafficked thoroughfare in and out of the City. The parking lot should be revised to show at least half (50%) of the southern portion of the parking lot as heavily vegetated (left natural) green space. This will help to maintain the appearance and integrity of Section Street as the gateway into Fairhope. Percentage of Space Allotted for Retail Development: The 2002 Village North Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1163) states: “Village North is limited to 180,000 square feet of office or retail space as set forth in the Site Plan. No more than 60% of such square footage may be devoted to either office or retail use.” The amended plan states: “No more than 70% of the proposed commercial square footage will be devoted to either office of retail use.” Staff feels the amended plan should state: “No more than 60% of the proposed commercial square footage will be devoted to retail use.” This will help to ensure a mixture of uses within the development without devoting too much space to either office or retail. Parking in Front of Buildings A2 and A3: The parking lot in front of buildings A2 and A3 should be reconfigured to look like the parking situated in front of buildings A5 and A6. This helps in the continuity of the pedestrian 4 feel and design of the site. Site walkability and pedestrian oriented storefronts is key in a development such as this. Service Way: The “Exit Only Service Way” labeled on the proposed plans should be removed in order to maintain the intrinsic character of Section Street as the gateway into the Fairhope community. With the Service Way as it is on the plans, one will drive into Fairhope and see the corner of a grocery store and a loading/unloading area, rather than the lush buffer area that is there currently. Building A1: Building A1 on the proposed site plan should be removed. The building is not especially significant in the overall pedestrian oriented theme and design of the development. The space gained from eliminating the building will help in eliminating the Service Way off of Section Street to allow for better truck delivery traffic flow off or U.S. Highway 98. The area gained by removing building A1 may also be used to make up for parking spaces lost by revising the parking areas in front of buildings A2 and A3. Buildings A2 and A3: Buildings A2 and A3 could be used for retail establishments as currently defined in the proposed amendment package. The use for buildings A1, A2 and A3 should be restricted to office to limit “strip-style” retail developments along Greeno Road. Building A8: Building A8 shown on the proposed plan should be in the place of the parking lot adjacent to the north, and the parking lot should be in the place of building A8 in order to maintain the character and Integrity of Section Street and pedestrian oriented streetscape of the development. Sidewalks: A sidewalk should be incorporated into the development along the west side of Greeno Road and northwest side of Section Street on the north parcel of the proposed plan. Ordinance No. 1163 Village North: All provisions and conditions in the 2002 Village North PUD approved Site Plan and Ordinance shall remain unless otherwise specified by the applicant’s submittal package or staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the two approval options listed below and choose the best option for the City of Fairhope: 5 Option A: Approve the proposed Village North PUD Amendment contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The building footprint for Building 4A (Grocery Store) shall be reduced to 38,000 square feet. 2. Building 4A (Grocery Store) shall be at least 80’ from the Section Street Right of Way line. 3. Building 4A (Grocery Store) shall be broken up to make it appear to be three or more separate buildings. All buildings fronting Market Street shall be similar in architectural style and maintain a pedestrian oriented design. 4. At least 25% of all parking areas shall be constructed of pervious materials. 5. Maximum building heights for commercial, mixed use and live work buildings shall be thirty-five feet (35’). 6. Maximum building heights for residential structures shall be thirty feet (30’). 7. Building heights for buildings F1, F2 and H1 shall be capped at twenty-five feet (25’). 8. The parking lot between buildings F1 and H1 shall be revised to show at least half (50%) of the southern portion of the parking lot as heavily vegetated (left natural) green space. 9. The proposed amended Village North PUD plan shall state: “No more than 60% of the proposed commercial square footage will be devoted to retail use.” 10. The parking lot in front of buildings A2 and A3 shall be reconfigured to look like the parking situated in front of buildings A5 and A6. 11. The “Exit Only Service Way” labeled on the proposed plans shall be removed in order to maintain the intrinsic character of Section Street as the gateway into the Fairhope community. The area in which the Service Way occupies shall remain a natural buffer between the Section Street Right of Way and the proposed development. 6 12. Building A1 on the proposed site plan shall be removed. 13. The use for buildings A2 and A3 shall be restricted to office use to limit “strip-style” retail developments along Greeno Road. 14. Building A8 shown on the proposed plan shall be in the place of the parking lot adjacent to the north, and the parking lot shall be in the place of building A8 in order to maintain the character and Integrity of Section Street and pedestrian oriented streetscape of the development. 15. A sidewalk shall be incorporated into the development along the west side of Greeno Road and northwest side of Section Street on the north parcel of the proposed plan. 16. All provisions and conditions in the 2002 Village North PUD approved Site Plan and Ordinance shall remain unless otherwise specified by the applicant’s submittal package or staff recommendation. Option B: 1. The 2002 Village North PUD Site Plan shall remain unchanged with the exception of allowing the 18,000 square foot building shown as building H8 on the original plan to expand to 38,000 square feet. The use for the 38,000 square foot building shall be limited to grocery store use only. The 180,000 square foot cap on commercial space within the development shall remain. Christopher Baker spoke for the applicant and HMR, he did a slide presentation explaining again what was approved in 2002 and the PUD amendment they are requesting noting the changes on a map. A handout of the slide presentation is in the file. He introduced Bill Metzger who told of the traffic study done for the project, and the developer. After the presentation the public hearing was opened at 5:30 PM and the following people spoke: Cheryl Stankoski handed out a letter asking that it be included in the minutes. She asked the members why have a comprehensive plan if you don’t use it? She said no change should be made, leave as is, that everything affects our values. We are unique, keep or be like everyone else. 7 City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission December 3, 2007 Members of Planning and Zoning Commission: Why have a Comprehensive Plan if it will not be followed? I ask you to deny the request to amend zoning in Village North that will allow a "Big Box". In 2001, this Commission approved Village North as a self contained village for the residents of the village with small shops for the convenience of the residents. To insure its village character and prevent a "Big Box" from coming, you wisely limited the size of any one store. The village was to complement not compete with other village centers and the downtown area. At the informal review last month, a different plan was presented. You were told the "Triangle" does not have a natural attraction such as a beach or a waterfront. Therefore, the new plan is to create an artificial commercial attraction with a "Big Box" anchor store and live/work housing all designed to draw shoppers and clients regionally and to artificially create a destination. This proposal is in complete opposition to what was envisioned for Village North. The Comprehensive Plan, page 25, section 4.3 (attached) states, "A neighborhood Village Center is a mix of residential uses supporting a small commercial retail development with locally focused services. Neighborhood centers should not be converted to community or regional centers and are intended to provide convenience goods and personal services for a one mile radius and not interfere with other centers."You should deny this request because it changes Village North to "Shopping Center North". The Mobile Press Register ( attached) featured an article about 500 Springhill residents hiring a planning firm to create "The Village of Spring Hill" with small shops and flowers which "will rival Fairhope", no big boxes, no anchor stores. I have been told these planners had been to Fairhope to see what we already have in order to use Fairhope as a model for the "Village of Spring Hill" and not the "Shopping Center of Spring Hill." As for the "Big Box store, is there a guarantee that Publix is the store? If you re-zone and Publix does not come, what will you get? I am not against Publix but they should not come here and tell us where they want to locate but rather should be good corporate citizens and comply with our zoning and plans. They should locate in an area better suited for this size store. We can survive without a Publix or do we want one so badly that we are willing to compromise downtown, have vacant buildings on Greeno Road, and destroy the quaint village and uniqueness that is Fairhope. I have been told if this re-zoning is not approved, the triangle can not be profitably developed. We should not be concerned as to whether a developer makes a profit or how much, that is his concern. I believe our obligation is to protect the charm and beauty of our neighborhoods and city. If the triangle can not be developed as approved, let it revert to single family residences. 8 In summary, what are the benefits to denying this re-zoning? 1. Protect downtown, Greeno Road, and future village centers. 2. Preserve the Comprehensive Plan 3. Protect the gateway to Fairhope 4. Reduce traffic and increase public safety 5.Protect Fly Creek watershed Lastly and most importantly, re-zoning should be denied based on the totality of this issue. It is larger than the triangle. Approval will render the Comprehensive Plan a useless piece of paper and set a dangerous precedent for future zoning. There should be no compromise and the request should be denied and not amended in any way. Sincerely: (!A~(:St;J~ Ch ryl tankoski 222 Main Street Fairhope, AL 36532 9 SECTION4 LAND USE PLAN 4.3 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: VILLAGE CENTERS The Fairhope Development Framework contemplates three types of village centers: neighborhood, community and regional. Each is described below: Service Area Size Location Neighborhood Village Centers are intended to provide convenience goods and personal services within an approximately 1-mile service area radius. These centers should be dispersed throughout Fairhope so that there is no overlap in service area radii and to allow each of the centers to function without interference from other Neighborhood Village Centers. These centers are small and focused on providing neighborhood-level services, for example: grocery store, personal services (dry cleaning, beauty salon, bank), restaurant and gas station. These convenience uses can be provided in an area of 60,000 to 180,000 square feet on approximately 8 to18 acres. Neighborhood Village Centers should be located on or directly adjacent to the intersection of arterial streets. The preferred location is to occupy all quadrants of the intersection and maintain a pedestrian nature of streets through traffic calming and intersection details. Intersections off-set in one or more quadrants of the intersection may be acceptable provided sufficient connectivity is maintained into all adjacent quadrants. • Park or public space • Recreation facility • School and Day care (children or adult) • Religious institution Uses • Small professional offices and clinics Policies • Neighborhood market • Local retail and personal services • Multifamily residential • Single family residential Promote the inclusion of amenities as focal points Protect existing neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible land uses; ensure that neighborhood villages have identifiable centers and edges Ensure pedestrian accessibility Provide a public gathering place Encourage street and sidewalk connections Nonresidential buildings should proyide space for multiple tenants and uses Provide internal system of traffic circulation and parking DRAFT 2, JUNE 2006 FAIRHOPE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 25 10 Best Local f ◄G!Mii•MM~ REALESTATE The Press-• f:=l _r.=:l::J hom~s for Register has ~~·) . sale bsted an average• of 1~ \ every Sunda) 'Janua,ythroughJune2006average PRESS·REGISTEE Kathy Jumper/Real Estate Edita SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2007 E-mail: kjumper@press-register.com Phone: 219-567 Spring Hill blueprint gets· a big thumbs up City, community embrace plan to turn asphalt-heavy landscape into walkable neighborhood with thriving commercial Main Street By KATHY JUMPER Real Estate Editor C an a community turn its asphalt- paved, sidewalk- free, traffic-con- gested, vacant- storefront landscape into a walkable neighborhood wlth a thriving commercial Main Street? The more than 500 resi- dents and friends of Spring Hill who packed St. Paul's Episcopal School auditorium this past week to look at pos- sibilities responded with an ov.:-:rwhdming yes. Town planners Dover, Kohl & Partners of Coral Gables, Fla, recently spent more than a week in Mobile, meeting with residents, city planners and traffic engi- neers to plan changes for three major intersections in Spring Hill: Old Shell Road and McGregor Avenue; Mu- seum Drive and McGregor; and Bit & Spur and Old Shell roads. Rivaling Fairhope? The current asphalt-heavy s~enario will be replaced with tree-and flower-lined streetscapes that will rival downtown Fairhope, accord- mg to the blueprint designed by Dover Kohl. The planners were hired by the nonprofit, The Village of Spring Hill, a group of vol- unteer~ formed in March 2006 to reV1tal12e the community. So far, the group has raised more than $ I million in grant money and other donations to make improvements and pay for the town planners uwe want to balance Lumm,~rcial development with residential, v.:alkability and traffic issues," said Lmda St. John, president of The Y-1- lage of Spring Hill. 1 The pl.inners' ideas include side- walks everywhere, a clock tower at Bit & Spur and Old Shell, a roundabout at Muse- um and McGregor, a gas sta- tion that doesn't look like a garage at Old Shell and McGre~or and on-street parking along Old Shell Road. 'Can be a' trailblazer' "Improvements require re- forms, and Spring Hill can be a trailblazer," said Victor Do- ver. "Twenty years from now you want to be able to walk back through here and see the changes." It's doable in Spring Hill, he added, espe- cially with all the residents who support the changes. Mobile Mayor Sam Jones told the crowd packed into St. Paul's for Tuesday's plan- ning wrap-up that The Vil- lage of Spring Hill "set an example of what community participation is all about. ••1 can't stress how impor- tant it is that a community get together to plan for its future," he said. "This is a prototype for us, and you've laid out the ground work for the rest of the city." Jones said the city would commit about$! 13,000 to The Village of Spring Hill for sidewalks to be installed on Old Shell Road from Univer- sity Boulevard to Interstate 65. The group received a $379,000 state transporta- tion grant on behalf of the city, but it required additional . funds before the work could begm. Please see Spring Hill Page 2J ► 11 Others that spoke: Karen Haywood, 660 Washington Drive; Annie York, Bon Secour Avenue; Leanne Pearson, Washington Drive in Colonial Acres; Barbara O’Brien, Washington Drive; Mike Perkins, The Woodlands; Diana Brewer, Washinton Drive; George Dembski; Ken Cooper; Jerry Jackson; Joe Rytlewski; David Legier; Jim Ketchum; Stan McCord; and Wendy Allen. All spoke against asking the application saying it should be denied citing reasons as being misled, now trying to change plan after approval five years ago, traffic cutting thru residential neighborhoods if permitted, danger to Fly Spring Hill blueprint embraced ►Continued from Page 1J Realtor Johnny Robert's townhorne project may be the first development to incorpo- rate some of Dover Kohl's ideas. The owner of Roberts Brothers and two partners are planning The Madison townhomes are on the comer of Old Shell and Bit & Spur. ·They talked me into mak- ing it more community friend- ly, and not an enclosed courtyard-type of develop- ment." Roberts said. "I like it, and we still have the security and the streetscape." Roberts also reduced the number of units from 14 to 12. "We didn't want it to look crammed in there with the trees around there and land- scaping," he said. "They gave me some good ideas. and we're working closely with our architect and them." The next step for Spring Hill is zoning reform. Dover Kohl will develop new form-based coding, which will be present- ed to city planners, according to St. John. The form-based code tar- gets specific changes to the current city building code. such as building structures closer to the street for walka- bility, new parking and shared-parking rules, new storm water requirements and the ability to build multi- ple-story structures, accord- ing to the town planners. The new code will create options for developers and get the ball rolling, according to Sissy Hungerford, secretary for The Village of Spring Hill. "We're not idealistic enough to think people will buy into this without ii bene- fiting them," St. John.said. "That's why we included de- velopers, land owners, mer- chants and the city's staff in this planning process. That's the only way the plan is going to work. "The current zoning was written in the 1950s and the city agrees that it could use updating. We thi!!JU!ie city of Mobile and Spririg,HiH are ripe for change." These "before and after" ren- derings show the intersection of Old Shell Road and McGregor Avenue as it is (top) and as it is envisioned to become following the blue- print of town planners Dover, Kohl & Partners. 12 Creek, hurt downtown area and local supermarkets. Hank Miner spoke in support of the project. The public hearing was closed at 6:20 PM. The Chairman asked the commissioners for comments and Mr. Metzger was asked again about the traffic study and if it was a combined study, he said no, he went over the recommendations saying that there is good East- West flow, separation and good movement. He recommended a signal at Parker Road and a signal at Hwy 98 & Veterans Drive. Bob Gentle said they had met with AL DOT about Village North earlier and that ALDOT predicted a one year time period to what’s already proposed. Mr. Metzger went on to say that he talked to Wayne Curry today and that they support a signal at Veterans Drive. Further discussion led to Bob Clark saying that last month there was an informal review and he had objections to buildings larger than what allowed and it is not smart planning, he said that everyone who spoke tonight had it “just right” and we need to protect downtown Fairhope. He further moved to recommend denial to the City Council, leave existing PUD as is. Bob Gentle 2nd the motion and the vote was: For motion: Bob Clark, Tim Kant, Dan McCrory, Jean Wilson, Bob Gentle. Against motion: Dick Charles, Lee Turner, Ed Brinson. Gary Moore abstained. The Chairman said that items ZC07-08 and SD07-42 had been withdrawn from tonight’s agenda. SR07-11 Request of Arthur Corte for Site Plan approval of the Fairhope Village at Fly Creek Site Plan. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 98 and Parker Road. Jonathan Smith gave the staff review saying that this is the first commercial phase of the Fly Creek PUD approved by the City Council in October 2006. There are four buildings proposed in the site plan. A 54,340 sq ft grocery store and 3 smaller buildings reserved for retail. Shops (1 @ 9,800, 3A and 3B – 11,000 sq ft ) split between two floors. It was noted four- sided architecture will be incorporated throughout the Fly Creek development. He said Drainage calculations and structures have been designed to accommodate a 100 year storm. He said it is bordered to the east by the remainder of the Fly Creek PUD property, on the West is US Highway 98 and B2 property, to the north lies R1 Residential B2 and unzoned property, and south there is R2 Medium Density Single Family Residential property. In staff recommendation he said the submitted site plan is in substantial compliance with the PUD approval granted by the City Council on October 26, 2007. The Staff recommends approval of the Fairhope Village at Fly Creek Site Plan contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The dry detention pond on the site plan shall be changed to wet detention pond that can be expanded to accommodate future development phases. 2. Sidewalks on the southwest portion of the property shall be added to the landscape plan as shown on the overall site plan. The sidewalk along Greeno Road shall extend north to Parker Road. 3. At least 25% of the parking lot shall be constructed of 13 pervious materials. Additional landscaping shall be added to the large parking area. 4. All trees shall be 2” caliper. 5. Pipe number 14 shown on the drainage plans shall be upgraded to a 42” or possibly a 48” pipe. This determination will be made by the Fairhope Village at Fly Creek site engineer and City staff prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. 6. Median areas within the southernmost street going east and west shall be landscaped rather than striped. 7. All buffer areas shall be marked with tree protection fencing prior to any land disturbance of building permit. Any clearing within the right of way shall be approved by City’s Horticulturalist, Jennifer Fidler. 8. Compliance with all City Ordinances and Codes. 9. Approval by the Planning Staff of the architectural design of the “big box” space to reflect the appearance of multiple store fronts. 10. All outside agency approvals and permits shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Approval of the intersection improvements at the intersection of Highway 98 & Parker Road by ALDOT and the City of Fairhope. Arthur Corte spoke regarding the project He introduced Bill Coates of Regency Center who spoke saying they own 450 neighborhood centers in the US and they believe in developing environmentally friendly. Steve Pumphrey, the Engineer of Record spoke. The applicant made a formal slide presentation showing architectural drawings and explained how there will be double frontage because of the grade of the project. He said he is working with Jennifer and there will be a buffer of 50 ft on Hwy 98, 40 ft on Parker Road and 50 ft off of the wetlands. He went over the same points as Jonathan noting the parking and sidewalks. He said the project will be built in two phases and they will maintain the buffer, build up front the pond and take all erosion control measures before site construction. He said Volkert & Associates will be handling stormwater. The commissioners were asked if they had questions and Dick Charles questioned parking plans and walk thru, they assured him there would be walk-thrus. Bob Gentle asked what assurance Fly Creek would be protected. Gregg Mims said his staff would be monitoring this project and will have someone out on site every day. The detention pond will be built before the project starts. Mayor Kant asked about cleaning out the buffer area on Greeno Rd and was told it would not be cleaned out they were talking about the entrance area, that all area on Hwy 98 and turning on Parker Road would not be touched. The Mayor asked who was paying for the traffic light at Parker Road, that it is not in the City plan. Bob Gentle said he thought we had already worked this out. Mayor Kant said he thought only Veterans Drive and Hwy 104 had been approved. Gary Moore asked why build the commercial first and then asked for a time-line. The reply was the residential market down but residential is now under contract. Arthur said the commercial should be built out by this spring and start in 2008 the residential which should take a year. Arthur Corte did say that they agreed to all staff recommendations. All questions answered satisfactorily, Dick Charles moved to accept staff recommendations and recommend approval to the City Council. Lee Turner 2nd the motion. The motion was 14 amended to include that the buffer along Hwy 98 and around the corner would not be disturbed, only at the entrance on Hwy 98 and the driveway entrance on Parker Road. This amendment was accepted by Mr. Charles and Mr. Turner. Motion carried unanimously. Arthur said he is working with Ms. Fidler, make it prettier than it is now, only clean out briars and would be replanting bigger trees. SR07-41 Preliminary Plat approval for the Fairhope Village Subdivision within the Fly Creek PUD/Steve Pumphrey of Volkert and Associates. The property is located on the southeast corner of Highway 98. Nancy Milford gave the staff report saying the property consists of 53.3 acres and the applicant is creating 5 lots. It was granted PUD approval by the City Council on October 23, 2006. Drainage being a big issue in this area, she said a drainage plan and engineer’s certification has been provided. In addition, the Planning Staff has asked another engineering firm for a second opinion. Staff recommendation was to approve conditional upon: 1. All water and sewer issues approved by the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Superintendent 2. A revised landscape plan and a tree survey and protection plan meeting the approval of Jennifer Fidler. 3. Submittal of a set of revised construction plans reflecting all approved changes listed in the discussion above. 4. The dry detention pond on the site plan shall be changed to a wet detention pond, with an appropriate aerator, that can be expanded to accommodate future development phases. 5. Submittal of revised construction drawings reflecting that the outside limit of the buffer must be clearly marked on-site with permanent signs placed every 100 feet prior to any land disturbing activities. Steve Pumphrey spoke for the project and said they agree with all conditions. Lee Turner moved to accept staff recommendations. Ed Brinson 2nd the motion and it carried unanimously. SR07-10 Site Plan Review Eastbay Plaza Office Center/Suncoast Center, LLC. The property located on the south side of Estella Street just west of Greeno Road. The staff report was given by Nancy Milford who said the property is zoned B2 and is located on the south side of Estella Drive. The proposed development is a retail/office plaza consisting of two buildings (Phase 1 and Phase 2). The phase 1 building will have 8 units and phase 2 building will have 7 units. The buildings contain 11,000 sf and 7,000 sf respectively. Staff recommendation was to approve with the following conditions. 1. The submittal of a satisfactory flow test with the approval from the Water and Sewer Superintendent. 2. Parking areas shall be removed out of the 20 foot landscape buffer. 3. Final approval of minor changes to landscape plan by the City Horticulturalist. 4. Compliance with the drainage review letter, dated November 26, 2007, provided by BES. 15 John Peterson was representing the developer and said he would be glad to answer any questions. Bob Gentle asked about the building at the southern end and was told it is planned to be a drive-thru restaurant. Tim Kant said this area had flooded before and wanted to make sure they planned for this. He was told they met on site and looked at the overall drainage and it had been increased to 100 year event. All questions answered satisfactorily Dick Charles moved to approve staff recommendation. Ed Brinson 2nd the motion and it carried unanimously. UR07-03 Request of Baldwin County Sewer Service for an 11-52-11 review of a proposed sewer line force main extension along River Park Road, Myrtle Street, River Road, Old Pierce Road and Danne Road. Nancy Milford gave the staff report saying saying a 11-52-11 review requires proposed construction of street, public buildings, utilities, etc to be submitted for approval. Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC is requesting to extend sewer force main along River Park Road, Myrtle Street, River Road, Old Pierce Road and Danne Road. All lines will be installed to the City of Fairhope subdivision regulations and the current sewer construction standards. Staff recommendation was to approved as requested subject to all sewer construction installation meeting the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Specifications and requirements. Charlie Baumhauer was present representing Baldwin County Sewer Service and said he would answer any questions. Dan McCrory told Charlie that his lines are going to be next to city lines and they are color coded and BCSS is subject to construction standards of City. He said he is aware of that. Dick Charles moved for approval of staff recommendation, Ed Brinson 2nd the motion and it carried unanimously. Chris Gill discussed with the members language in the Maintenance Bond that the City now requires saying that it now says after two years the streets and utilities will be turned over to the city. He said that it is a problem in that the developer sometimes signs the contract and we need to go back and have the developer provide bond. He said the staff needs support in this and at the next meeting would like to introduce a resolution and sample letter to change requirements. Lee Turner offered that the language needs to be specific. All agreed on this proposed change. The 2008 schedule was presented to members and Gary Moore moved for acceptance as presented. Dick Charles 2nd the motion and it carried unanimously. Meeting was duly adjourned at 7:45 P.M. _________________________ _______________________ 16 Jean Wilson, Chairman Betty Rivenbark, Secretary