HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2008 Planning Commission MinutesThe Planning & Zoning Commission met Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:00
PM at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street in the Council
Chambers.
Present: Jean Wilson, Chairman; Tim Kant, Jennifer Fidler, Bob Clark, Gary
Moore, Dick Charles, Fran Slade, Lee Turner, Dan Stankoski. Gregg Mims,
City Planner, Jonathan Smith, Nancy Milford; Chris Gill, Attorney; Betty
Rivenbark, Secretary. Absent: None
The minutes of the November 3, 2008 meeting were duly considered and
approved as written on motion by Dick Charles, seconded by Fran Slade
and passed unanimously.
Jennifer Fidler was welcomed as a new member.
Mayor Kant presented to Dan McCrory the following Resolution for his eight
years of service.
DAN McCRORY
WHEREAS, DAN McCRORY HAS SERVED THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE AS A
MEMBER OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SINCE 2000; AND
WHEREAS, HE HAS WORKED CONTINUALLY FOR THE
BETTERMENT OF THE ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC DEVELOPMENT OF
THIS CITY; AND
WHEREAS, HE HAS GIVEN GENEROUSLY OF HIS TIME AND
HIS DEDICATION TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY HAS WON HIM
THE HIGH REGARD OF ALL HIS ASSOCIATES.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, TIMOTHY M. KANT, AS MAYOR,
PUBLICLY GO ON RECORD AS COMMENDING DAN FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH HE
CARRIED OUT HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND HIS EXEMPLARY SERVICE
OVER THE YEARS.
Dan thanked the Commission and said he had enjoyed working with them.
Dan Stankoski said he had a conflict with the first item and left the room.
SD08-12 Minor Subdivision approval of Saint Joseph Place, 4 lot
subdivision. The property is located on the south side of White Avenue,
between Equity Street and Liberty. Nancy Milford gave the staff report
saying the property is located in Fairhope and is zoned R-2. She said the
smallest lot is 10,898 square feet and the larger lot is 17,770 square feet.
The site is an existing three lot subdivision and the applicant is requesting a
four lot subdivision. Approval was recommended subject to the upgrade of
the existing fire hydrant to be approved by the Fire Chief. Steve Dunnam
1
981
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page Two -December 1, 2008
was representing the applicant and said he would be glad to answer any
questions. The chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak
to this application and there was no one. Jennifer Fidler asked about the
access and was told the access easement is existing and won't be
disturbed. Gary Moore asked about the statement of existing non-
conforming lot and it was explained that these are the original lots 3 and 2
(3A and Lot2A on the plan) and are not the ones being questioned. The
ones being questioned are Lot 1A and 18, the ones fronting on White
Avenue. Further discussion led to a motion by Dick Charles to approve
subject to the upgrade of the existing fire hydrant, as per staff
recommendation. Lee Turner 2 nd the motion and it carried with one no vote
by Gary Moore.
UR08-09 11-52-11 review of the proposed parking for the new Allied Health
Building for Faulkner State Community College, request of Mack Walcott,
Walcott, Adams & Verneuille Architects. The property is located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of Bancroft Street and Fairhope Avenue.
Gregg Mims gave the staff report saying that Mac Walcott is requesting a
review and approval of a new parking layout for the proposed new building.
He said the original plan was approved on March 3, 2008; in the original
plan 52,000 sq ft were shown in the building area and per new calculations
the approximate gross floor area will be 3548 sq ft. The original plan
showed a total of 33 new "green" parking spaces on campus and an
additional 20 angled spaces proposed on the west side of Bancroft Street.
He went on to say that staff had been working with Mac Walcott through the
process of trying to reconfigure the approved parking in a way that is
conducive to site constraints and conditions, that various site conditions,
including existing trees, drainage structures and existing large areas of
active/passive open space have created problems for the site designers. He
went on to say that since March the Public Works Dept had created
approximately 100 new parking spaces in the downtown area and the new
parking deck will provide another 90 new parking spaces. He said he had
his staff conduct a parking survey around Faulkner at peak times
from Monday -Friday and showed chart with results and the result was on
any given day there were still 35-45 spaces available within a block of the
school and downtown area. Staff was asking for feedback. Ryan Baker
spoke for Walcott Adams and said they would like to amend the parking by
putting it on the east side of the campus down by Morphy or eliminate it from
the plan. Bob Clark commented that he walks four miles everyday, has
talked to people and he agreed with Gregg's findings, drew the same
conclusion and he does not think any greenspace should be taken out. Dr.
Gary Branch asked to speak and said that they had no plans to build
parking, that they don't have the funds. He said that in the original
2
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page Two -December 1, 2008
was representing the applicant and said he would be glad to answer any
questions. The chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak
to this application and there was no one. Jennifer Fidler asked about the
access and was told the access easement is existing and won't be
disturbed. Gary Moore asked about the statement of existing non-
conforming lot and it was explained that these are the original lots 3 and 2
(3A and Lot2A on the plan) and are not the ones being questioned. The
ones being questioned are Lot 1A and 1 B, the ones fronting on White
Avenue. Further discussion led to a motion by Dick Charles to approve
subject to the upgrade of the existing fire hydrant, as per staff
recommendation. Lee Turner 2nd the motion and it carried unanimously.
UR08-09 11-52-11 review of the proposed parking for the new Allied Health
Building for Faulkner State Community College, request of Mack Walcott,
Walcott, Adams & Verneuille Architects. The property is located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of Bancroft Street and Fairhope Avenue.
Gregg Mims gave the staff report saying that Mac Walcott is requesting a
review and approval of a new parking layout for the proposed new building.
He said the original plan was approved on March 3, 2008; in the original
plan 52,000 sq ft were shown in the building area and per new calculations
the approximate gross floor area will be 3548 sq ft. The original plan
showed a total of 33 new "green" parking spaces on campus and an
additional 20 angled spaces proposed on the west side of Bancroft Street.
He went on to say that staff had been working with Mac Walcott through the
process of trying to reconfigure the approved parking in a way that is
conducive to site constraints and conditions, that various site conditions,
including existing trees, drainage structures and existing large areas of
active/passive open space have created problems for the site designers. He
went on to say that since March the Public Works Dept had created
approximately 100 new parking spaces in the downtown area and the new
parking deck will provide another 90 new parking spaces. He said he had
his staff conduct a parking survey around Faulkner at peak times
from Monday -Friday and showed chart with results and the result was on
any given day there were still 35-45 spaces available within a block of the
school and downtown area. Staff was asking for feedback. Ryan Baker
spoke for Walcott Adams and said they would like to amend the parking by
putting it on the east side of the campus down by Morphy or eliminate it from
the plan. Bob Clark commented that he walks four miles everyday, has
talked to people and he agreed with Gregg's findings, drew the same
conclusion and he does not think any greenspace should be taken out. Dr.
Gary Branch asked to speak and said that they had no plans to build
parking, that they don't have the funds. He said that in the original
2
88I
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 1, 2008 -Page Three
agreement made with Mayor Nix, if Faulkner put a campus downtown the
City said they would provide parking. Dr. Branch was asked how many
students did they anticipate with the new building and answered 300-400.
He was asked if these would be staggered and he said yes. Jean Wilson
said we were not aware of any agreement previously made but parking is
part of site plan. Gregg said ultimately it is the Planning Commission's call
but the numbers hold true. Dick Charles said eleven years ago he and Larry
Green did a parking survey and all recommendations had been carried out,
there is no need to wipe out this green area. Gary Moore expressed
concern that (1) so many additional students to a strictly commuter
campus couldn't avoid creating a parking, traffic problem; (2) the
Downtown Merchants Association, a fundamental stake-holder in the
issue, did not appear to have been involved in the discussion( or in the
exercise of capturing the anecdotal episodes of parking availability in
the time period shown in the survey); (3) that the Commission had
been working with the school since hearing of their plans in March 08
regarding parking issues and traffic routes to address the expected
growth; and (4) mention of a previous agreement (for the first time)
with Mayor Nix by Dr. Gary Branch that the City would provide parking
at their expense if the school would locate in Fairhope and as such the
school now had no intention of providing additional parking, whether
needed or not. Further discussion led to a motion by Dick Charles to accept
an amendment to the site plan to not require any additional parking at this
time. Lee Turner 2nd the motion and it carried with one no vote by Gary
Moore.
Old/new business -Gregg spoke to the Commission saying he needed
guidance, that the Baldwin County Commission had hired a firm to develop
a Comprehensive Plan for Baldwin County. He said he did not want anyone
to misunderstand, he is fully behind this move, but the planning staff has
concerns as the city has been working with the county and has an interlocal
agreement with the City being the lead agency with a five mile planning
jurisdiction. He said a meeting is planning for December 11 th at 6:00 PM
and he is planning to attend and as a result maybe once and for all this will
eliminate the subdivision problems that cause confusion but some things
don't match, i.e. goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan. He said
he plans to go to the meeting, commend them for plan but emphasize we
would like to give more input and be given notice before the Baldwin County
Commission accepts the plan. He said he plans to sit down with Wayne
Dyess, possibly tomorrow, and get/give feedback. Jean Wilson said it
sounds like he is on the right track. Gregg said their Chapter 10 new
agreements does not make any reference to any previous agreements.
3
06t
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 1, 2008 -Page Four
Jean said we will wait to hear back from him at the next meeting and
possibly some Commission members would be available to meet if he
needed them.
Chris Gill addressed the members on the Ripp and Darby lawsuits giving the
background by explaining that these matters began in September 2007
when Paul Ripp came before the commission with two subdivision
applications whereby the applicant in each case wanted to subdivide a
roughly two acre piece of property into two roughly one acre parcels and
was turned down resulting in the lawsuits. Chris said that the plaintiffs in the
Ripp case filed a motion for summary judgment on their request for a writ of
mandamus, and that the commission filed a motion for summary judgment
on the plaintiffs' damages claim. Chris also reported that, on November
_, 2008, Judge Reid granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
as well as the commission's motion for summary judgment. Chris said that
these rulings mean that Judge Reid has ordered the commission to grant
the Ripp subdivision application and that the commission is not liable in
damages to the plaintiffs. Chris also advised that both the plaintiffs and the
commission have rights of appeal relative to Judge Reid's order but that the
plaintiffs have agreed to waive their rights of appeal if the commission would
do so as well and go ahead and approve Ripp's subdivision application
immediately in accordance with Judge Reid's order as the plaintiffs have a
pending sale of one of the to-be-created lots that they would like to close as
soon as possible. Chris said that he thought it was in the best interests of
the commission and the City to go ahead and bring the matter up, rehear
and approve based on the judge's order. Lee Turner moved to reconsider
the plaintiffs' prior application, Dan Stankoski 2nd the motion and it carried
unanimously. Lee Turner moved to grant approval of Ripf Subdivision,
dividing two acres into two one acre parcels. Tim Kant 2n the motion saying
based on the court's requirement that we do so. Motion carried with one
abstention by Fran Slade. A motion was made to authorize Jean Wilson, as
chairperson of the commission, to act on behalf of the commission and
execute the settlement agreement. Dick Charles 2 nd the motion and it
carried unanimously.
Mayor Kant addressed the Commission asking that a committee be formed
to study height requirements and request that it be left at 30 ft. He related
the recent case of Chris Haley subdivision and that by the time it got to the
City Council meeting that it was changed to 35' mean height. He said it is
not right to be playing around with height rules, not right to citizens, and it is
time to do something. This is a prime example of change without input,
coming in under the radar screen. Lee Turner offered that he and Fran
Slade had met with staff and architects previously and found it is a politically
4
Z61
charged subject. Jean Wilson said possibly we could bring in some outside
expertise. Lee suggested having a meeting with the City Council,
Commission and a couple of architects, get together and get educated; get
pros and cons. Gregg agreed with Lee we need to get general consensus
of what we are looking for. The Mayor and Dan Stankoski were asked to
work out a time that these groups could get together.
Paul Ripp spoke regarding the Publix project and handed out a packet of
papers that he asked be entered into the minutes of the meeting as follows:
5
v6I
The documents provided are public record. The Planning and Zoning meetings are consolidated in '06, '07,
'08, are my notes handwritten. Please enclose this complaint document in the minutes of the November 24,
2008 City Council meeting.
Planning & Zoning ZC-06.12 Aug 6 Pg.2 "Buffers-A 50' Natural/Landscape buffers off of Greeno Road
40' natural/landscape buffer off of Parker Road''
The buffer on Parker Road starts at the right -of-way line, Appx. 30-40 ft. from pavement This gives
approximately 7 5 to 80 feet of pavement.
Planning & Zoning Dec. 3 '07 /sr-07-11 Regency Center• Mr. Bill Coates said they believed in developing
"Environmentally Friendly".
In the same meeting" Mayor Kant asked about clearing out the buffer area on Greeno Road and was told it
would not be cleared out. They were talking about the entrance area, that all area on Hwy 98 and turning
onto Parker Road would not be touched".
"A motion was 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." Pg.14
"Arthur Corte did say that they agreed to all staff recommendations" (same meeting SR-07-41 Dec 3,'07,
Pg.14
Preliminary Plat Approval, staff"recommeodation was to approve conditions upon; A revised landscape
plan and a tree survey and protection plan meeting the approval of Jennifer Fidler"
May 5,"08, Planning & Zoning SD0S-06 Final Plat approva~ staff recommendation to approve Final Plat.
NO discussions came up about the developer being able to REMOVE the right-of-way and to REMOVE the
buffer area and all trees, four major pecans. No discussion came up about changing the landscape plan for
Parker.
Two examples were used by developers, first the Publix Building would be appx 7' deep, resembling the
Target in Daphne, and it currently is appx 28 to 32 feet deep affording the neighborhood the view of the
roof, exactly what they promised would not happen.
The end result is I 00"/o destruction of every living thing on the site. Furthennore, they destroyed 50% of
the buffer area and on Parker Road actually removed it
No aerial photo's, no tree survey, no protection plan, no permits to remove buffer on Parker, no notice to
City Council, Planning & Zoning or the public about the "Revised Landscape Plan" , no on site engineers
for inspection oversights, as promised, and no "greenspace" in Publix Parking.
Even more disturbing than this is how our city managers have overwhelmingly favored the developer's
every request, while refusing to discuss the matter with the public. Many more questions exist from the
Tree Committee, Environmental Committee, Traffic Committee and the Public.
There are questions as to how this project ever was interpreted as complying with the Comprehensive Plan.
Many more concerns about compliance to Storm Wimr Management.
The public was promised a lot by the city and the city bas not protected its citizens. The entire project
w~rrdnts a City C'.ouncil Investigative Committee to answer the questions someone must be accountable for
lhese abuses.
The City Council should issue a stop work order or work at your own risk notice to the developer about
Parker Road Buffer and Right-of-way.
6
96I
letter to editor
letter to editor
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Dear Edi tor,
Chris Wamer <cewamer@mindspring.com>
"courier@guWcoastnewspapers.com"
letter to editor
Nov 19, 200811:08 AM
Not long ago when our community felt threatened by the corporate giant Wal-Mart,
many organized to stop them. Fairhope residents were concerned about increased
traffic, poor planning and a decreasing quality of life resulting from Wal-Mart's
newest development.
Many of these concerns were warranted, because Wal-Mart, 1n retrospect, has done
a good job of managing these stated public concerns. Community organizers were
successful in being heard, and Wal-Mart acted accoringly, promoting stewardship.
There is another large development project in Fairhope that, in my opinion, is much
more threatening to our area I s well-being with respect to traffic, planning
and life quality.
The Parker Road Project is a pefect example of what is wrong with our local planning
apparatus as well as its many misguided players. The Parker Road Project does not
comply with the comprehensive plan. Moreover, it does not follow the rules and
regulations prescribed for tne project by our own city planning department. Specifically,
the inevitable water runoff and exacerbated traffic issues with respect to the plan,
are egregious.
The developer intends to build 850 homes behind this big box strip center. The
intersection at Parker Road and Highway 98 cannot handle the increased traffic,
and neither can the Eastern Shore.
It is not the responsibility of the media to do the right thing in these instances.
Instead, the people must be proactive toward demanding accountability and integrity
from our public officials.
Our working papers prescribe to prevent such projects from happening, yet they do
nevertheless.
I encourage concerned citizens to examine what is currently being done at the Parker
Road site with respect to the plan approved by the City of Fairhope, and the comprehensive
plan approved by the people.
There is little rhyme apparent; and the reason is greed.
Chris Warner
115 Bonham Lane
Fairhope, AL 36532
1251) 213-5006
Page I of 1
8
ooz
08/23/2008 01: 38 2519370227 BAI.IX.JIN Cll HIG,WAV
Baldwin County &~.c..nty
Hipwny~
C •ss• Ptrml Dlvl,!on Olllffll 10n r.O.Boxilfl-Silvtrh!ll M.'6576
Comments:
Thanks,
RDJ
I
Facsimile.·
To: Paul Ripp
Fax: 928-0445
From: RDJ @Permit Div.
Date: August 25, 2008
Re: Publbc/Parker Rd.
Pages: 5, including cover
PAGE 01/05
l'hotll!: (2St) m.om
FAX: (2.11) '137-02?7
9
zoz
08/23/2008 01; 38 2519370227 BALDWIN CO HIGIWAY PAGE 02/05
RJ'cNattt Johnson
From: Rlchard Johnson
Sent: Wednesday. J.\ugust.ZO, 2008 4:27 PM /
To: jcameron@volkert.com
ec: John A. l.1lndy; Joey Nunnally; Greg B. Smith; gregg.Tlims@cofsirhope.com: cat Markert
Subjeet: Parker Road • Publx PToject
Attachments: ROW Pictures ~.pelf
Tracking: Redplc,at Of.llNly
~
ltelll
.lDhnA.l.Ulld'1
Joey~
lllilllfflcl: 8{1JJR,OII! 4:27 PM IIMdl 8/2lf1008 7:r, AM
01!11\!m:e/!)t,:ID084..'Ul'l!I ~1J/21112l)Oa4-Jl.l'M.
Greg B. S1111111 DIM!d: 8(1JJl2008 4:27 PH Reid: l/21/2009 7:02 AM
~l'tlopl!,mm
John:
Please set the attached pholographS taken today. Two l9stlesexlst that nmt be illl!lediately addrffled:
111 -We have not approved the tum lane perrd! or the proPoSect construcflon drawings. There Is no pemitled or
i~led pennlssit)n lbr work to be conducted on the Parker Road R/W. The R/W lines various from 30 lo 40 feet
soldll or exidng edge of pwement. The eonstnldlon fetlC9 In the pletures IS set 12 feet south Of the edgt of
exisllng pavement Indicating that the out and grad!ng shown Is enoroac.lllng 11-28 feet llllfo the publle R/W, The
inslstencethalnowOlfeonthe R.Whas oc.unred to date isnotwpported Ir/ evklenea obselved In the field.
'P -The non-pefflllted worl! conducted so far appears not ID rtlled the design shown In the un-appruved
cons1rllction plans subritted ID the 8ulwln county Highway OeparlmGllt. EJtherthe pbins have been cbanged
and no revisions were provided for our l'8Ylew or the ccmlnletor is not following the plans provided lb them. This is
wonlsome.
Please provide us Will! an up(lqtv set ar plans ror out review and commtl!la/Y. If th• majority of Ille south em
rigll1Hf.Wlly are consumed ti> faclltate a back elope In oilier to maxlrdze 1he development'& faeillfes, this Is
done at the determent dfthe publo. A9 a Plllmilng Engineer for the County, the publc'a best ln1fflsta are served
bJ keep1flg the back slope of the cutdal, on the development's property. Any continued un,penrilled work
conducted on the County'I R/Wis done so-at the developef.s-own-risk.
Yours,
RDJ
Rlcllerd O. Johnson, E.I.
Planning Engineer
Baldwin CIIUnty Hghway 0apa!1ment, Perm! Olvl$lon
Central Annex II
22070 Hlgl!Way 59
Robertsdale, AL 36567
MaltP.O.Box220
SllverhlJI, AL 36578
Phone: (251) 937.o278
Fo: (251) 937-0227
8/251'2008
10
08/23/2008 01: 38 2519370227 BALDWIN aJ H!GlWAV Pt\GE 04/05
Richard Johnson
Frvm: Richard Johnson
S11nt Friday.. August 22, 200B B:09 AM
To: jcameron@vobllcom
Cc: Greg B. Snith; Cal Markert; Neal T. ~ Joey NunnaBy; John A. Lundy; Kevin A. Hermecz;
gregg.mims@c,'ofalrhope.com
Sub)m: Parker Road/PUbllx project
Trac~g: R«lpltwlt Dlmlf IWd
j(I~
Greg 11. 5111th DetMd: &/Z2/2008 8:DII AM "-811: 8(2l/1JJOa 8:09 AM
Cal MarlC!lt 0RIVlftll:8/22/20081:09AM Rad: 8/W20088:t4AM
Nell T. Stllm Det,,nl: 9/W.lDOII 8:09 AM Read: 8(22/2008 8:09 AM
mt Mmlly Deheild: 8/21,/1.«Ja 1!09 #I Read: l{22(2DOe 8:16 AM
lOhn A. IJJ!dV Dt1Wffl1;8/W1JN]a8:09AM Read: 8/21J2/)08 9:ot AM
KeYin A. Hermecz 0elffled: l/l2/200t8..-09 AH ~: Bl»/2008 1:3& Pl'J
gregg.,!11Pt@IXJfalthoi,e.a,f11
Jolin:
As a result of mulliplo convflfl8tions wHII Sammy Muengll with Sunmit Industries, the Contmttor on the Parker
Road/Publx project. they have agreed to ll!fmln tom any more work within tile County RMI until they are suitably
pemittad. Ha acknowledged tllat they may have been over .eggresstve In lhelrgrade WOl1f and llave encroached
Into the RNi. FUrthermore, they 1elmowtedge their responsibllty to remecliata the area tD pre-existing condition If
the County deems necasmy. Volicert needs to review the site work already oonducted In the RIW and revise the
plans accotdfngly. We need updated plans for •rm1 approval, alohg wHh an approved engineer's cost estimate
and bond re!ledlng 1M value oflhatestimelt poalhaste, ltls the opinion Qf1he PemvtEnglneerthat sfight
greclng (n or tess) In th8 RIW Is eeceptable tu ratlltate drmnage; however the steep gt8de9 should be conlned
ID lhe develollfflltlls property. Afff design revision must provide fOf enough shoulder to accotmXldate the
pf'OPOl9d right wn iadius and acceleraUon taper to tile eest ftom the proposed deve/Ot)mtnt's entrance on
Parter Road.
Pltase fOIWlld this emaB ID aR applcable pllll!Q, Our staff wiU wor1c with yours In the mast expedient manner, to
get these req~red RM ~ntl bonded and permitted. TIie longer this site ramalns d1sturbed encl
dmbilzed the mm, ell'lironrnenlal exposure there 11.
Yours,
ROJ
Richard tJ, Joh1130n, E.I.
Planning Engineer
BalmYin County Highway Depanment. Permit Division
Cenlral Annex II
22070 HghWay 59
Robertsdale, AL 36567
Man:P.O. Box220
SilYerllll, AL 36576
Phone: (251) 937--0278
Fax: (251) 937.fJ2Zl
8/25f2008
11
90Z
Print Page
From: Paul Ripp (fpaulripp@yahoo.com)
To: gregg.mims@cofairhope.com
Date:Monday, August 18, 200810:23:16AM
Cc: jwavnmek@bellsouth.net; &
Subject: Publix Site
Mr. Mims,the issues brought before P&Z on Aug 4, 08 raised many questions yet to be answered. Twice the Publix sit
Fly Creek have been compromised. Late Friday afternoon and again this morning excavation along Parker has shrunk
80' setback to only IO' witha 45 degree slope and drop of appx 12' to 27' below grade. An explanation is deserved. Thi
an accident waiting to happen. Now traffic for the site has to park on one lane of Parker Road. What safety measures
prevent a vehicle from going down the grade? The Publix site does not remotely resemble what I witnessed the last 3
years at Council and P&Z. My concerns are those out6ned -the most urgent being traffic, site violations and enforcen
However, other groups, agencies, and citizens have raised'¢auY more serious concerns.
I wish to be informed of any and all public meetiongs relative to Publix site. As you may know there is a group
considering litigation, seeking a complete review of the entire project I for one hope that this does not happen The Ml
Council President, Council and P&Z remain mute. "Call Greg" is the standard amwer when they are questioned.
We are in hurricane season with Faye on the way. The rain Aug 7 was appx 1.5 by my rain guage on Highridge Rd -1
above the site. A serious rain -4 -7 inches -would be a nightmare. I would hope some sort of dialog among those
conemed would prevent a bad situation from becoming worse.
12
80Z
Planning & Zoning
Aug 4, 08
I request that this document be entered in the minutes of this meeting, not as an attachment.
Request the subject of Publix be put on the September Planning & Zoning agenda.
Since I only have 3 minutes, I will highlight major concerns and rely on the Board to provide answm at the
September meeting.
More public information about this project has been requested from the city and will certainly develop
further questions that will be submitted to Planning & Zoning in Sept
What we have is a Big Box Strip Center with a traffic problem.
Issues:
NO TREE SURVEY, SR07-4 I Dec 3, 07 staff recommendations #2 A revised landscape plan and a tree
survey and protection plan meeting the approval of Jennifer Fidler. This responsibility is Jennifer Fidler's.
How can you make issue with Shellbrook Point and not Publix? This is a serious issue and warrants a
detailed explanation.
Buffer Areas discussed with specific guidelines• 50 ft. on 98 • 40 ft on Parker. ZC-06-12 Aug 7, 06,
S07-l l Dec 07, S07-41 Dec 3, 07, SR07-l l Dec 3, 07, SDOS-06 May5, 08. Six times the issue came up.
The buffer zone on Parker was partially cleared, and on 98, from southern comer to 98 entrance and
entirely around Wachovia. Please do not use any excuse relative to grade. Toe property is 213 acres;
developers had plenty of room to comply. On 8-4-081 spoke with the owner of the Wachovia building and
he is very unhappy. He does not understand how Fairhope allowed this to happen and is taken aback that the
project W& allowed to establish such a monstrosity of a wall on his property line. You can be iwured this
has depreciated his property, monetarily and aesthetically. Now if a comparison can be made to
Hamburger Hill or Airport Blvd, just view the wall of over 20 ft. that is wrapped around an existing
business and stripped of any buffer.
Set back on Parker is only 40 ft. on the west ending with a drop in grade of27 feet We were to1d the
Publix would be appx 80 ft from Parker with only a 7 ft drop. Now we will be looking at the roof tops, plus
the drop will be next to a sidewalk. What about safety?
Parker Road driveway was more to the east than its present location. From the present location, at least I 00
ft. ofbuffcr is missing. ls this driveway supposed to accommodate 56 ft delivery trucks and exiting cars at
the same time? Another concern is the limited distance to Hwy 98 from the driveway, allowing appx. 5-6
cars between. A major problem will exist at this location if left alone.
Traffic Congestion is already at max stage at Hwy 98 & Parker. Between 104 and Parker Road will become
U-tum crazy. Toe entire traffic plan needs attention now, not upon completion. (See SD-08-06 May 5, 08)
Toe plantation Pines cut through, as a result of "right turn only" off of Veterans Blvd. is presently a
dangerous situation.
Toe project had major opposition and concerns dating back to Aug 7, 06, ZC06-l 2, from the Woodlands,
Rock Creek, Parker Road only to be iwured what has happened would not happen. Let's not forget there is
already one lawsuit against the city relative to the same project.
Is the answer to the traffic to wait until the 11th hour and try to force the Woodlands or Rock Creek to take
some of the load?
13
OIZ
Let me remind you of your previous pbSitions ....
QUOTES:
Dick Charles, Baldwin Press 8-9-06
''The majority opinion felt the positive factors outweighed be negative fuctors for this property"
Many surrounding property owners had "unsubstantiated allegations"••--------~
Jean Wilson, Baldwin Press 8-9-06
"I thought there were too may outstanding issues for us to make a recommendation to the City
Council"
Dan Moore, Baldwin Press 8-9-06 /
Said his concern centered on landscape buffers between Corte's development and surrounding
properties and the distance between bis proposed commercial buildings and nearby roads, such as 98.
"Those are permanent fixtures" Moore said of the commercial buildings, ''if they are not screened with
distance and in a greenbelt manner, it can begin to look like Hamburger Hill in Daphne".
/Mayor Kant, Citizens for Responsible Government, July 16, 08
"If violations exist with Publix, regarding the buffer zone, report this to the tree committee. I will
not issue a certificate of occupancy if the problem is not answered".
-,:-~tS
/
ugust 7, 06, ZC 06 12 -1 fl 0
1 ~ I,
Bob Clark asked about the big box issue with Comprehensive Plan and Arthur said this,»s 0t) ,.I 1
approved in 95 and pre-dated comprehensive plan adoption regarding Greeno koil. ~ 1-1 ~ I/
/
ugust 7, 06 ZC 06 12
Gary Moore suggested at least I 00 ft. greenbelt buffer around commercial with 75 ft. on Parker.
Two nay votes -Moore and Wilson
SR 07 I I Dec. 3, Pg. 13 ✓·
Gregg Mims said his staff would be monitoring this project and will have somegpe,pn s.iltl em
5
SR 07 11 Dec. 3, 07
Mayor [S.ant asked about clearing out the buffer area on Greeno,,Road and was told it would not be
cleared out, they were only talking about the entrance area, that all areas on Hwy 98 and twning on Parker
Road would not be touched.
SD 08 06 May 5, 08
Bob Gentle said the issue tonight is not traffic
Lee Turner agreed saying that all traffic concerns would be addressed
ZC 06 12 Aug 7, 06
Arthur Corti 's reply to Bob Clark's reference to Big Box Store issue with Comprehensive Plan •
Mr. Corti replied that B2 approved in 95 and pre-dated Comprehensive Plan adoption regarding Greeno $
Road. ~ a
14
ZIZ
IS IT TRUE??
Bob Gentle was the deciding vote on Publix property.
Toe Publix site is a part of a 49 acre parcel upon which Corte paid $133.00 in tax.es last year (2.72 an acre).
The county does not recognize that parcel as having been rezoned by Fairhope or they would have to re-
access it and bill in arrears for 3 past years at a commercial rate rather than timber rates.
County revenue map also shows the two small parcels on Parker as separate from the larger 49 acres.
Oddly they get current use rate as well!
Copies: All Mayor Candidates, Local Press, Rock Creek Homeowners Assoc., Woodlands Homeowners
Assoc., City Council, League of Municipalities
15
Ordinance No. 1317
Fly Creek -PUD
Pagc-2-
DEGREES 02 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, 34.06 FEET TO A CONCREETE
MONUMENT FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNlNG OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN
DISCRIBED; CONTINUE THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02 MIN1JJ'ES 14
SECONDS WEST, 579.69 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR MARKER; CONTINUE
THENCE sourn 00 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, 21.32 FEET,
FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE FROM THE POJNr Of BEGINNING OF 601.01 FEET,
TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE sourn 35
DEGREES 30 MrNlJrES 59 SECONDS WEST, 278.76 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE sourn 58 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 31
SECONDS WEST, 154.03 FEET TO A POINT IN TIIE CENTER OF FLY CREEK;
RUN THENCE sourn 38 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, 151.33
FEET TO A POINT INTIIE CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE sourn 17
DEGREES 39 Mll\UfES 41 SECONDS \VEST, 202.34 FEETTO A POINT IN TIIE
CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE NORTH 65 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 10
SECONDS WEST, 120.69 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF FLY CREEK;
RUN THENCE SOUTH 45 DEGREES .07 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, 95.00
FEETTO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE SOUTH 59
DEGREES 59 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST, 193.06 FEET TO A POJNf IN THE
CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN TIIENCE NORTH 55 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 01
SECONDS WEST, 114.06 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF FLY CREEK;
RUN THENCE NORTII 79 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST, 24Q.69
FEETTO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE SOUTH 71
DEGREES 34 MINIJTES 24 SECONDS WEST, 146.36 FEET TO A POINT INTHE
CENTER OF FLY CREEK; RUN THENCE sourn 08 DEGREES DO MINUTES 08
SECONDS WEST, 30.33 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF FLY CREEK;
RUN THENCE SOUTH 46 DEGREES 12 MlNUJ'ES 14 SECONDS EAST,
DEPARTING TI!E CENn'.R OF FLY CREEK, 14.19 FEETTO A CAPPED REBAR
MARKER ON THE TOP OF THE so um BANK OF FL y CREEK; RUN THENCE
SOUTHWESTW A.ROLY, ALONG THE TOP OF IBE SOUTH BANK OF FLY
CREEK, 463 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A c:APPED REBAR MARKER ON THE
EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. 1-ilGHWA Y NQ. 98, LYING SOUTH 65
DEGREES 33 MlNUTES 52 SECONDS WEST, 430.57 FEET FROM THE LAST
CALLEDMARKER;RUNTHENCENORTH 19DEGREES 51MINUTES 15
SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 468. 75 FEET TO A
CAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN THENCE NORTH 70 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 38
SECONDS EAST, 197 .79 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN THENCE
NORTH 19DEGREES 51 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 140.0DFEETTOA
CAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN THENCE SOUTH 70 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 38
SECONDS WEST, 217. 79 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR MARK.ER ON THE
AFORESAID EAST RJGIIT,OF-WA Y LINE; RUN THENCE
NORTHWESTWAR!'.lLY ALONG SAID EAST.RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
FOLLOWING A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HA VINCl A RADIUS OF 8054.00 FEET,
AN ARC plsT ANCE OF 90537 FEET (CHORD:NORTii 16 DEGREES 36
MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST, 904.89 FEET) TO AN IRON Pll'E MARKER; RUN
THENCE NORTII 76 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 38 SECONPS EAST, l 82.Q2.fEET TO
A CONCRETE RJGHT-OF,WA Y MONUMENT; RUNUIBNCE NORTII 03: •
DEGREES 10 ~$ 54 S~GO~S.WJi~T; 13,5?.fEJrr, '{9 AN JB.C>.N. P)PE
MARiql~ON.THE ~(}Y'.f}i ~9HT,,9!',\\'.1)'.'-!.~0~,P~ )l.OAD;'RUJ'I
TIIBNCE $0UTH 88 DEO)IBES ~5 MIN!JTE$ 29 SECONI)~ EAST, ALONG .rm;
'soumR,iGHT-O(WAYLINEbfPAR@~J9Ap;is2A1fEBT't'Oi\NillON
16
91Z
Ordinance No. I 317
Fly Creek-PUD
Page-3-
PIPE MARKER; RUN THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MfNUTES 23 SECONDS
EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHRJGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 512.61 FEETTO A CAPPED
REBAR MARKER; RUN TIIBNCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 15
SECONDS WEST, 148.00 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN THENCE
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 148.00 FEET TO A
CAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 15
SECONDS EAST, 188.00 FEET TO AN UNCAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST, 168.05 FEET TO
A CAPPED REBAR MARKER; RUN THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES
32 SECONDS EAST, 7. 13 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; RUN THENCE
sourn 88 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST, ALONG AN OLD POST
AND WIRE FENCE, 180.35 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; RUN THENCE
SOUTH 88 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, 695.46 FEET TO THE
POINr OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 53.33 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
1.
A map oft)!e property to be zoned is attached as Exhibit A
That, Attached as "Exhibit A" is ail approved site plan. The property must
develop in substantial conformance with the approved s_ite plan.
2. That, the following development regulations shall govern:
I Building Heights:
• Residential-35'; Mixed-Use/Commercial-40'
Connectivity:
, The street stub-out into the Woodlands Subdivision indicated on the
Outline Development Plan shall be dedicated and maintained as a natmal
easement and shall remain unopened.
Development Phases:
• Construction for any portion of this development abutting Rock Creek
Subdivision or Sandy Ford Subdivision shall be allowed but street stubs
shall not be constructed or connected to Rock Creek Subdivision or Sandy
Ford Subdivision until the site is connected to County Road 13.
• A bridge over the wetlands shall be installed connecting the northeastern-
most section of the developmentto the southern portion of the
development, or the subject site must be connected to an additional access
point before the portion of the property between the wetlands and the
Woodlands Subdivision is developed.
/
Buffers:
• 5~'. ~a~dsca~ Buff~ o_ff of Greeno_ R?ad, 4_0'
Natural/Landscaped Buffer off of the existing Parker Road
Setbaclis:
• Single Family Lots Abutting the Woodlands Subdivision: Front Setback-
17
81Z
Ordinance No. 13 !7
Fly Creek -PUD
Page-5-
The property (05-46-02-04-0-000-001.00 and 05-46-02-04-0-000-002.000) Is hereby
zoned as a Planned United Development concurrent with Annexation. This property
shall hereafter be Iaivl\i! to construct on such property any structures permitted by /
Ordinance No. 1253 and to use said premises for any use pennitted or building sough to
be erected on said property shall be in compliance with the buildin~aws of the City gf
airhope and that any structure shall be rove b the Buildln O 1C1al ofthe City of
au ope an at any stru re erecte o y m comp 1ance with sue aw , c u g
the requirements of Ordinance No.-1253.
The property (05-46-03-08-0-000-001.000 and 05-46-03-08-0-000-003.000)
is hereby rezoned 3-2 General Business to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This
property shall hereafter be lawful to construct on such property any structures permitted
by Ordinance No. 1253 and to use said premises for any use pennitted or buiiding sought
to be erected on said property shall be in compliance with the building laws of the City of
Fairhope and that any structure shall be approved by the Building Official of The City of
Fairhope and that any such structure be erected only in compliance with such laws,
including the requirements ofOrdinance No. 1253.
Severability Clause -ifany part, section of subdivision of this ordinance shall be held
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such holding shall not be construed to
invalidate or impair the remainder of this ordinance, which shall coatinue in full force
and effect notwithstanding such holding.
Effective Date -This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its due adoption and
publication as required by law.
Adopted and approved this~ day of October 2006. ✓
Timothy M. Kant, Mayor
Attest:
Geniece Johnson, City Clerk
Attachment -Approved Amendments:
18
City of Fairhope
nning and Zoning Commission Agenda
5:00PM
City Council Chambers
MayS,2008 ~
~ ✓ ~~~
/( K,~71ti/J?
.2oosM,efu,g ~
3. fP c_onsideration of Agenda <P ,,-~
~v .-___,,,._.-/
~
est of Steve Pumphrey of Volkert &
sociates for Final Plat approval of
Fairhope Village at Fly Creek, Phase II. The
property generally is located on the
southeast comer of the intersection ofU.S:
~~1/
Highway 98 and Parker Road.
B. SD 08-07 Request of Joe Bullock ofEDS, LLC for
Final Plat approval of Steel Branch
~ 1. ubdivision. The property is generally ~ ~ , ~1/iocated just south of the street stub-outs for ~., 7 Quail Creek Drive and Dover Lane.
C. IR 08-03 Request of Pierce Kaylor for Informal
Review of a 28-unit development for
property lpcated on the northeast comer of
Fairhope Avenue and Brown Street.
4. Old/New Business
• Neel-Schaffer Planning (Traffic) Analysis Update.
• Highway 181 Access Management Plan discussion and adoption of
Resolution.
5. Adjourn
19
The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Monday,
May 5, 2008 at 5:00 PM at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section
Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Jean Wilson, Chairm1m; Tim Kant, Fran Slade, Dan McCrory,
Gary Moore, Dick Charles, Lee Turner, Bob Gentle. Gregg Mims, City
Planner; Jonathan Smith and Nancy Milford, Planning Department; Chris
Gill, Attorney; Betty Rivenbark,·secretary. Absent Bob Clark
Jean Wilson welcomed our new member Fran Slade.
The minutes of the April 7, 2008 meeting were duly approved on motion
by Dick Charles, 2nd by Bob Gentle. Gary Moore and Fran Slade abstained.
Motion carried.
5D08-06 Final Plat approval of Fairhope Village at Fly Creek, Phase II.
Volkert & Associates is representing the owner Arthur Corte. Property
generally located on the southeast comer of the intersection of US Highway
98 and P~rker Road. Jonathan Smith gave the staff report saying the_ ,e
property 1s zoned as a PUD and has a total site area of~ with .
three lots indicated on the plat. The Fairhope Village at Fly Creek
subdivision received preliminary P.lat on December 3, 2007 and the PUD
zoning was granted by the City Council on ~-This property
is being developed in phases and Phase I of the development received
subdivision approval on April 7, 2008. This subdivision application is for the
second phase of the development ana includes Lot 3 as indicated on the
Phase II plat. The initial site plan for the Fly Creek PUD shows the property
included in lot 3 of the subdivision to be developed into residential lots and
townhomes. Staff recommendation was to approve the Fairhope Village at
Fly Creek, Phase II. §!_eve Purnohr.et,was present representing Yclke.r:t&
Associates and said he would be glad to answer any question~. Ms. Wilson
said that two people ha.d signed up to speak and called on the first one who
was Dr. H.C. Mullins of 7395 Parker Road. Dr. Mullins had given the
commission members copies of two letters right before the meeting, both
pertaining to this project. He asked that they be included in the minutes
and then referred to the issues he had stated in his letters, safety, traffic
flow and road quality. He had submitted the first one in July 2006. Letters
shown below:
20
H. C. Mullins,M.D.
7935 Parker Road
Fairhope, Abbama 36532
May 5, 2008
Fairhope Planni,g and Zoning Boaro
P.O. Box429 Re: Z.C0i<06
Fairhope, f,J 36533
Dear Boaro Members:
The followlng is submitted in response to the latest proposal for the Fly Creek PUD.
Attaehed la a copy of a letter outlining my earfl8f ooncema, submitted to you in August of
2006.
I am In general very supportive of the development as desailed, but have serious
ccncems limited lo Palker R09d:
Safety
Traflicflow
Road qusity
Recommendations:
1) A requirement for tuming lanes for traffic both entering and exiling Parker
Road on lht east aide of US 98
2) That the design and apocllcalions for upgrading/rebuilding Parker Road
require:
a. Thal the base reqUirements be sufficient to sustain tho type of traffic
antlcipaled 'Mlh Ml development of the PUO, commercial as wei as
residential. (The ansnt base may be totaffy Inadequate.)
b. Parker Road to be a divided 4 lane bouevanl (as usuroo at the
pubic meeting held lo rezone a 5 aae residential parcel on Par1<er
Road lo buainess).
3) The sidewalk on the oouth side ri parter Road extend east from US 98 to
HlglVklile Road.
Rationale:
1) The short d'istances fnorn the US 98 Parker Road intersactioll will allow only a
feW CaJ1 between the entranoa/exill to the propoaed grocery
stor./commercial area reaullll"(I in severe coroesllon that oan be alleviated
somev,t,at by ttimlng lanes as suggested above.
2) Tho sidewalk as currently shown ends short of Highridge road, fairing to
provide safe waking for both children and adults IMng on Highrldge Road.
3) Pal1<ar Road was originally• dirt and gravel road. The base
under the surface asphalt put In plaoe when k was converted to a paved
road Is queatlonable The anticipated traffic to this r,.1 phase of commercial
developmert could resutt In ae~ damage.
4) lnttlsDy, a 4 lane road wlH to necessary to effedlvely handle cars entenng and
exiting the P\JD from Parker Road, espaclaly the congestion mentioned In #1
2
21
9ZZ
above, and ewn more 10 With full PUD developmeol
5) The design im specifications required for Par1<ar Road In this nltlal
phase of development must take into account h future ~ development
Sincerely,
of the PUO with the tremendous amount of anticipated traffic on Parker Road
to and from both eommetdal and residenttal areas. The lnllal design and
speciflcations for a dMded 4 lane road w!lh an adeq1Jata base Is needed for
this initial phase but is absolutely assenllal for Iha tong tenn.
H. C. Mullins, Jr.
3
22
8ZZ
H. C. Mullins, M.D.
7935 Parker Road
Fairhope, Alabams 36532
July 28, 200B
Fairhope Planning end Zoning Board
P.O. Box429 Re: Z.C06.12
Fairhope, /JI. 36533
llear Board Members:
The following Is submitted in response to your letter or July 14• regarding the proposed
Fly Cr!ek PUD.
My home and JroPOrty lie immecf,ately adjacent to and norlh of the proposed
development. I have reviewed the plat made avellable eartler and have met with both the
developer and the engineering company. Though I am support!Ye or the development as
described, I have some questions, eoncems. end recommendations that are Isled
below.
~
1. What are the recommendations of the City of Fairhope Traffic
Committee fol tho US 98 conidor between Highway 104 and Parker
Road both In general and for the Mura, as regards this proposed
development?
What do traffic s1udies of the c·ICU""",99f/'"'.::"--
regaros
3. What are the n,commendaliono of the State DOT raganling traffic
plans for this development and Iha Mure?
4. What ~ the raquast of the developer regarding traffic flow, traffic
light~ etc to accommodate the dewlopment?
Privacy:
1. What specific provisions an, planned for piivacy 7
2. What are /he specific locatlons and dimensions fora "green belt'?
3. What are the specific plans for entering the proposed development
from /he East end of Park9r Road?
4
23
08Z
future Access To Adjoining Prgperty:
What are the locaflon and dimensions of access from the proposed development to both
tho East and South side my property?
Concern• and Recommendations
Safety:
The Problem
The US 9B coniJo< from State Hway 104 to Par1<e, Road ~ extre,nely dangerous and
unsafe. The proposed Fly Creek Project along with the proposed East Bay Development
will result In a tremendous ~ In traffic along this corT'dor and on Par1<e, Road
proper, renderi'Q It much mora dangerous and much less safe.
Conditions for Support of Development
Unless a meaningful solution to the anticipated danger can be assured, I, and mos/ all
111Sidents in the edjolrlng area S1rongly oppose the approval of this develo~enl
RecommendlHon
After speaking with Fairhope, Baldwin County, and S1ate DOT officials. the rnn.,.;,,g is
my pe11onal reconvnendation for lnlflic flow on the US 98 corridor from 104 to Parl<er
Road.
A proper ln1erdiange at tigtw,ay 104 and US 98
A proper interdu111ge at Parke, Road and US 98
Close au crossovers on US 98 between 104 and Parl<ar Road
N. the inter>ection of the north ex1ension of Section Street and US 98,
aUow only a right tum (South).
Allow only right tum In and right tum out on US 98 from 104 to
Parker Road
A proper interthang• at the lnmecllon of Section Street and
Highway 104
Prlvacy:
AA adequate green belt be present on all boundaries to assure privacy for
adjacent pioperty owners.
A privacy fence be placed batweeo my property and the proposed
developmenl
The entrance to the proposed development at the East end of Par1<er
road be engineered so tt,at n does not violate the privacy of my
personal property
Future Access To Adfolnjno Property
Provision for future accesa to my property on both the East and south
side.
5
24
I will attend the hearing on August the t" and look f01Ward to hearing yoor responses
and possibly making some wrbal comments.
Sncel!iy,
H.C.Mulllnt,Jr.
Discussion was held between the commission members and Or. Mullins
on these concerns with all agreeing that they are legitimate concerns.
Paul Ripp of High Ridge Road also spoke saying ditto to letters being
included in the minutes and that the Parker Road intersection is a nightmare
now, that the boulevard question has come up before.
u,umph!]~ect]ow~ traffic is proposed to.be handled
and what he ned i rovem nts he said he id not know, did not
ave the e)ans and was not prepared to answer this Q,U.estion tonight.
G'reg'gsaid currently ALDOT has a permit pending on Parfer Road
6
25
Phase I and as the balance of these come in they will have to come back
and submit preliminary plat with traffic data. He said when the PUD was
approved there were discussions on improving Parker Road and that plans
have been submitted to ALDOT and they are looking at them right now and
there will be extensive road im rovements. Included in these improvements
are additiona turn lanes and deceleration anes on Greeno Road, additional
lanes on Parker Road, and a traffic signal at Parker Road and Greeno Road.
fie sald the question cit the base being strong enough is a legitimate
concern and that will surely be looked into. He said Wayne Curry of ALDOT
is here tonight if anyone wanted to ask him questions. Further discussion led
to Qlc.l<.. I s saying that since these letters were not r ed until
,□g time he move at aQproyal be delayed 30 days to_give time to
answer the questions present~. Motion died for lack of a second. Bob
--Oentle said the issue Tonight is not the traffic issue. Lee Turner agreed
saying that all traffic concerns would be addressed and moved to accept
staff recommendation to approve. Motion carried with one no vote by Dick
Charles and one abstention by Fran Slade.
SDOB-07 Final Plat approval of Steel Branch, Thompson/Achee. EDS,
LLC. is representing the developers. The property is generally located just
south of the street stub-outs for Quail Creek Drive and Dover Lane. Nancy
Milford gave the staff report saying the property is zoned R2 containing 9.55
acres and 18 lots are planned. Preliminary approval was given on July
2007. Staff recommendation was to approve contingent upon any
deficiencies identified at the time of final inspection shall be corrected. Jeff
Wright 18960 Quail Creek Drive spoke citing a huge drainage problem, that
his back yard is washing away, that on an original drawing a swale was
shown and that has gone away. George Thorpe, 18951 Quail Creek Drive
spoke citing drainage, asking about lighting of sign and also requesting a
speed hump. He said that he heard villas were going to be put in and was
told no, that these are single family residences. Joe Bullock in response to
comment about swale not on plans said that it was decided to keep
some trees that would have been removed to put swale in instead of doing
swale decision was to keep trees, and they were contacted today about
drainage and will definitely look into problems mentioned, they will work with
the property owner. He also said some of the problem might be Copper Key
not this development. He said there is a catch basin at the rear of the
property. Jean Wilson asked if the water flowed south and he said yes. Bob
Gentle said isn't there a catch basin at the southeast comer of Copper Key,
Joe said yes. Gregg and his staff were also asked to work with Mr. Wright
and EDS in solving drainage problems mentioned. All comments answered,
a motion was made by Dick Charles to accept staff recommendation for final
plat approval contingent upon any deficiencies identified at the time of the
Final Inspection shall be corrected. Gary Moore 2nd the motion and it carried
with one abstention by Fran Slade. Mayor Kant told Mr. Thorpe that he
should direct his request for a stop sign to his office to be considered.
7
26
City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
1. • Call to Order
City Council Chambers
December 3, 2007
. -2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 5, 2007 Meeting
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. ZC 07-07
B. ZC 07-08
D. SR 07-11
~
Request to consider the application of Scott
A. Hutchinson ofIDvfR, LLC for a PUD
(Planned Unit Development) Amendment to
the Village North PUD (The Triangle). The
property is located on the north and south
sides of where Section Street (Eastern Shore
Parkway) meets U.S. Highway 98.
Request ofDoug Bailey of:HMR, LLC to
amend the Swim Fitness Tennis Center PUD
within the Rock Creek Subdivision. The
Pro_{)erty is located on the south side of
Honours Lane, just north of the Tennis
Courts m Rock Creek.
Request ofDoug Bailey ofHMR, LLC for
Minor Subdivision approval of Park Lane
Town-homes Subdivision; two (2) lots are
proposed. The property is located on the
south side of Honours Lane, just north of the
Tennis Courts in Rock Creek.
Request of Arthur Corte for Site Plan
approval of the Commercial Retail Shopping
Center in the Fly Creek PUD (Planned Unit
Development). The properly is located on
the southeast comer ofU.S. Highway 98 and
Parker Road.
27
9ZI
~v'v~,<
"~ ,.,. t \ tfl"
~(:,t;O v>""r)~ c/).,,. l
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 cott A. Hut inson of HMR, LLC to amend the
Village North PUD (The Triangle he property is generally located on the
north and south side~-~vection Street (Eastern Shore Parkway)
meets U.S. Highway 98. Jonathan Smith ave the staff inte e • n
saying the subject property consis s o .J)B+ acres and was previous!
~roved as Village North PUD. He said the firsIT/illage North was
ap roved in November 2001 ancl amended on December 11 20 The
n now 1s o amen e 2 o accommodate a lar er
co cial bu1 mg oo print and a change in the commercial and residential
~out. The commercial sections o e evelopment have been recon 1gured
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 s uare feet to 46,031 s uare r areas have een revised
and the total commerc1a square footage proposed for the amendment has
been reduced from ?,_00,000 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.
28
8ZI
Planning & Zoning -December 3, 2007
Issues Associated with this Request:
Page Two
Building A4 ("Big Box"I: 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.
29
081
Planning & Zoning Commission -December 3, 2007 Page Three
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 1 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 S~e 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 /l2. 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
30
Z8I
Plan & Zoning Commission -Dec 3, 2007 Page four
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. Wtth 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 A 1 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 A 1 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 A 1, A2 and A3 should be restricted to office to limit
"strip-style" retail developments along Greeno Road.
Building AS: 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:
31
t81
Planning & Zon Commission -December 3, 2007 Page Five
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 ~rcial mixed usp and live work
buildings shall be thirty-five fef(~~·'t \?-.it~V-.-\C>
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 AS 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.
32
981
Plan & Zon Commission -Dec 3, 2007 Page Six
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.AII 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.
33
881
Planning & Zoning Commission -Dec 3, 2007 Page Seven
·~•~~
·~~~~~~~
.. .
:1~)lll!~di21),!lio~•:
io'200!;11i1$~~~
~ ~ ~dilltoJlilfltlk
-. -.. v~~!:!:~
34
Of,I
~'.tai'li11mf~,;lfil>fl~~4-J!•il<liltiiil~ondi<10C!li.')'ofdlli•hts
lit • Qwiifi(~~wllttiil&~~.,,;p1auwelclspltceor ~-~~·~ • ~
~noaidbli~~;uiii~~~dciilld~w.~111MY\\11)',
~I~(. ·, ·.
~~
~xt"'
35
7t,1
\ -b
4.t .-D~~~mll/Q.VliJA~CDnl1Ji$'.
-~'t•,c·' -, •• ·' ; • • ••. -~~~~~
~~.~~~-·--~
·::: ·~~:-~-•~~.
36
Plan & Zon Comm -Dec 3, 2007 Page 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 ZC0?-08 and SD0?-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 82 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
37
9i71
Pinning & Zon Commission -Dec 3, 2007 Page Thirteen
~ortion of the property shall be added to the landscape plan as shown on thL
overall site Ian: The sidewalk along Greeno Road shall extend nortli to
arker Road. 3. At least 25% of the parking lot shall be constructed of
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 S rTI!
Codes. 9. Approval by the Planning Staff of the architectural design of the • ~ 0 "big box" space to reflect the appearance of multiple store fronts. 1 tct> ii
outside agency approvals and permits shall be submitted EJior-t e issuance ~
of a building permit. 11. Approval of the intersectio "mJSfovements at the J.,P,,i/
intersection of Highway 98 & Parker Road b T and the City of 1$ 'f
Fairho e. Arthur Corte spoke regardin project He introduced Bill Coates ,it.AUG
ofR. e spokes • they own 450 neighborhood centers in ~t:
e US and they believe· eloping G~
environmental! friend! . Steve Pumphrey, the Engineer of Record spoke. ~
The appflcant m formal slide presentation showing architectural ~ '1>
n 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 f A
. ', ~uffer of 50 ft on Hwy 98, 40 ft on Parker Road aITTl 50 ft off of the Weflano~ oR \£.
~-~e went over flie same points as Jonatfian noting the parking and sidewalks. cl)J· .
He said the project will be built in two phases and ~y will maintain the,. (l:P-
buffer, build up front the pond and take all erosion control measures before H J.~ v"
,.site construction. He said Volkert & Associates will be handling stormwater. r"'
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 monitorin • • w
ave someone ut n site eve 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
!'lieeiifrance area, that all area on Hwy 98 and turning on Parker Road would t be touched. The Mayor asked who was paying for
the traffic 19 at Parker Roa that it is not in the City plan. Bob Gentle said
he thought we had already rked this out. Mayor Kant said he thought only
Veterans Drive and Hwy 1 ~ had been approved. Gary Moore
38
sv1
Planning & Zoning Commission -Dec 03, 2007 Page Fourteen
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. _8rthur Corte did say that they
agreed to all staff recommendations. All questions answered satisfactorily, J
D1ck Charles moved to accept staff recommendations and recommend
approval to the City Council. Lee Turner 2nd the motion. Ib_e m_,Qf_ion wAs
amended to include that the buffer along Hwy 98 and around the corner \5
wou d not be Is ur on a he en ranee on an t e nvewa
entrance on Parker Road. This amen men! was accepted by Mr. Charles
and~ Turner. Motioncarried 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...9ctober 23, 200§. 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: ,.,c;
1. All water and sewer issues approved by the City of Fairhope Water 0-6'
(;) • >f tJ~B W . A re~ised landscape plan an~ a tr~e survey and protection plan
meetm the approval of Jennifer Fidler;
3. Su mittal o 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
(\·\v<---,;. limit of the buffer must be clearly marked on-site with permanent signs
,.., placed every 100 feet prior to any land disturbing activities. p 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
39
OSI
City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
City Council Chambers
August 7, 2006
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the minutes of the July 5th meeting
3. Approval of the minutes of the July 17th Special Meeting
4. Consideration of Agenda items:
A. zc 06.12
B. SD 06.37
C. SD 06.40
D. SD 06.44
E. SD 06.45
Request to Consider the Application of
Volkert for an Initial Zoning of PUD j
(Planned Unit Development) concurrent
with Conditional Annexation for Property
Located at the Southeast comer of Highway
98 and Parker Road (Fly Creek).
Request of EDS for_Preliminary Plat
Approval ofFairhope Falls, Phases IA, 1B
& 2, a 150-lot division. ( Generally located
on the West side offish River, adjacent to
the south side of Highway 104 and the west
side of Langford Road.)
Request of Moore Engineering for Site Plan
Approval of Berrington Place, a 225-lot
Village Plan. (Generally located on the west
side of Langford Road just south of
Highway 104.)
Request ofEDS for Final Plat Approval of
Copper Key, a 19-lot subdivision.
(Generally located South of Lawrence Road
East of and adjacent to Quail Creek Estates,
Unit Four "B")
Request of McCrory & Williams for
Preliminary Plat Approval of East Park
Subdivision, a 47-lot division. (Generali)
--------------------
40
891
F. SD 06.46
G. IR06.I0
located on the north side of Parker Road just
east ofHighway 98.)
Request ofBaskerville-Donovan for Plat
Approval of Peterson Medical Park, a 3-lot
Minor subdivision. (Generally located on the
southwest comer of Greeno Road and
Middle Street, just south ofHoliday Inn
Express.)
Request of Richard Casey for an Informal
Review of a proposed 4-Iot subdivision
located on the west side of North Bancroft
Street just north of Pine A venue.
5. Old/New Business
6. Adjourn
A. Further Discussion of the Proposed Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan
41
8lI
The Plan 19 & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Monday,
August :2006 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex in the Council
Chamb; at 161 N. Section Street.
Prese· Dick Charles, Chairman; Tim Kant, Dan McCrory, Bob Clark,
Gary.)Ore, Jean Wilson, Lee Turner, Cecil Christenberry. Gregg Mims,
Plan·'9 Director, Jonathan Smith, Planner and Betty Rivenbark, Secretary
Abs,t: Ed Brinson
Thminutes of the July 5, 2007 meeting were considered and approved as
w,en on motion by Tim Kant, 2nd by Dan McCrory with two abstentions
bJean Wilson and Lee Turner. The minutes of the July 17, Special
reting were considered and approved as written on motion by Tim Kant,
,d by Dan McCrory with one abstention by Bob Clark.
It was announced that SD06.45 would be held over until the September
meeting.
Gregg Mims introduced Nancy Milford who has started working with his
Department as a Planner and David Powell, GIS Technician.
ZC0G.12 Request of Leonard Wormser of 1-10 Development, LLC for
zoning change approval of a PUD approximately 213 acres (Generally
located at the southeast corner of Parker Road and Highway 98) Gregg said
the 53.33 westernmost acres are zoned B-2 (General Business) and the
remaining 159.67 acres are un-zoned in Baldwin County. A PUD is
proposed which consists of commercial, retail, condos, townhomes,
live/work units and single family residential lots. Broken down:
commerciaI108 000 s uarefeet; condos, 132 units; town homes, 181 units;
Ive or units, 11; single-famil , 511 units. There are a total of 835
res, en ,a units reposed. Fly Creek runs through all arcels involved in the
prOJeC . ~f the site Is ar er oa and the andy Fo.IQ_sub Ivision,
south of the site Is The Woodlands subdivision, west of the property lies
Hwy 98, unzoned county properties, and the properties in the City of
Fairhope zoned R-1; east of the site lies unzoned County land. He said he
and Jennifer Fidler met with Wayne Curry of ALDOT during the preliminary
review process and they discussed a traffic signal at Parker Road/Highway
98, and the necessary turn lanes. He indicated that ALDOT did not at this
time say that they would install a signal at the entrance of the PUD. He
'passea out a sheet saying that in working with the developer they had
agreed to the following prior to the meeting which is an update on the
printout received with agenda infom1ation:
Building Heights -Residential 35' and Commercial 45'
42
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page Two -August 7, 2006
Buffers -A 50' Natural/Landscaped buffer off of Greeno Road; 40' ,V
Natural/landscaped buffer off of Parker Road ~
Setbacks -Single Family lots abutting the Woodlands SID: Front Setback
10' Rear Setback 30'; Side yard setback 5'
Single Family lots where rear yards abut wetlands: Front setback-10'
rear setback 30'; side yard setback 5'
Remaining Single family lots: Front setback 10'; rear setback 10'; side-
yard setback 5'
Town-homes: Front setback 10'; Rear setback 20'; side-yard setback O;
End unit-1 O'; from Wetlands -30'.
Village Center -Commercial/Retail/Condominium: Front(facing Hwy 98)-
50'; from Parker Rd -40" All other sides-1 O'.
Open Space: -An open space/green space feature shall be incorporated
into the design of the commercial parking area in order to provide a more
pedestrian friendly village center environment. This requirement will be
approved by the Planning Department.
Site Access -Approval and Permits from ADOT shall be obtained and
submitted to the Fairhope Planning Department
Adjacent Site Concerns -All lots on the south side of the project
immediately abutting The Woodlands subdivision shall have a minimum lot
width of at [east 90 feet at front setback line and a rear setback of not less
than 30 feet.
Facade Requirements -Four-sided architectural features shall be
incorporated into the design of all commercial buildings, no metal exposed.
Wetlands -The applicant has volunteered to dedicate the wetlands on the
site as a locally designated permanent Conservation Easement. The
applicant shall work with staff to coordinate this effort.
He said further, all items listed above shall be completed to staff's
satisfaction prior to the issuance of a building permit. It is noted that a
drainage and storm water management analysis must be presented to show
the impact of the proposed development on adjacent properties and the Fly
35
43
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page Three -August 7, 2006
Creek watershed. The purpose and influence of the lakes must be
articulated. This would be required at the time the project is submitted for
subdivision approval and/or request for permits. Robin Gregory of Volkert &
. Associates did a power point presentation showing the whole layout of what .Ji proposed. Arthur Corte spoke to the Commission saying he met with all the gS
~ l));:, homeowners assoc1at1ons. He said this Is a continuation of par'fof ffie • •
1/ , 'IJevelopment of his taff\11y's timberland. He said in 1995 he was asked to
• annex into the city and agreed to do so with the 53 acres comin in as B-2
an t e ot er acres are part of Fred Corie's land for a total of 213 acres.
He said theynave worked extensively to preserve the Fly Creek area, they
plan to enhance/preserve this with walk trails and boardwalks. He talked
about the different companies he is using for the development. Bill Tunnell
of Tunnell/Spangler Walsh spoke saying they wanted to design a elop
this~ so it fits the Fairhope Comprehensive P[g so showed
through a power point presentation buildings they propose for each portion
of the development. Arthur spoke again saying that this will be at least a
ten year project, it will be done in phases. The public hearing was opened
and Mike Perkins, President of The Woodlands property owner's
association, spoke saying the density will only add to the problems, they are
adamantly opposed to it as presented and oppose any connection to the
Woodlands. Jeffrey Philiips, President of Rock Creek POA, also expressed
adamant opposition and cited South Drive problem. Rhonda Jones, a
resident of the Woodlands spoke and told of the time and effort spent on her
property and how they hand cut each tree.bush, she is opposed to
connection that is planned into her property. Doug Montgomery asked if
there is an ordinance that requires a connection. Several others spoke
voicing concerns. Dr. Mullins spoke for PUD citing how Corie's had
developed the other property surrounding him including Rock Creek, The
Woodlands, Sandy Ford and how it was first class. Robbin Gregory spoke to
the question of not having stub out going into other subdivisions. He said
they would not be opposed to eliminating them, they were just adhering to
requirements. Mr. Montgomery asked if they would be in compliance with
one way in and one way out . He was told this could be handled through the
subdivision regulations and an exception could be made but the answer was
yes. The public hearing was closed. There was a ten minute break and
when the meeting resumed at 6:40 the Commission members asked
questions of the developer regarding the heights as proposed, development
ot lo in lik Air ort Blvd in Mobile t • o mercial 1 O '3 ':)
ck and conceal as muc ossible. Gre in· that as late as toda
ey are still working with them on site pla Bob Clark asked about the bI
issue with comprehensive I n h sa1d,t ·s w •
1995 and pre ated comp plan adoption • g Greeno Road. Gary ----'
44
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page four -August 7, 2006
Moore suggested at least 100 ft. greenbelt buffer around commercial with 75
ft on Parker Road. Mr. Corte was thanked for working with the subdivisions
and planning department and commission. After all questions answered
satisfactorily, Mayor Kant moved to recommend approval of the PUD to the
City Council with the following conditions:
The proposed height would not be more
feet on everything else.
They would maintain the natural easement m-,f~Hf,
Any phase going into Rock Creek and Sandy Ford would not be opened
until such time Highway 13 is developed.
A natural bridge or access to Highway 13 be put in before the southeast
corner phase next to the Woodlands is developed.
and to include the condrtions of approval that Gregg Mims presented at the
outset of the meeting.
Lee Turner 2nd the motion and it carried with two nay votes by Gary Moore
and Jean Wilson.
SD0G.37 Preliminary Plat Approval request of EDS of Fairhope Falls,
Phases 1A, 18 & 2, 150 lot subdivision (generally located on the west
side of Fish River, adjacent to the south side of Highway 104 and the east
side of Langford Road) This had been carried over from the July 5th meeting
to give Dan McCrory time to work with the developers on how the city would
serve the development. Jonathan Smith read the staff recommendation
saying the water and sewer issue had been resolved and all requirements
met. The property is not located in the city and is not zoned. These phases
contain 120.54 acres and 150 lots and will be a village subdivision. The
design and concept is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan. The greenspace exceeds the minimum requirements
of the subdivision regulations and copies of the traffic impact and access
needs study have been provided showing turn lanes being provided into the
subdivision which have been approved by ALDOT. General requirement -
FFE of 24" above the highest centerline elevation on the adjacent roadway
will be required for lots located in the flood zone and a note placed on the
plat saying this. Staff recommendation was to approve. Discussion led to a
motion by Dan McCrory to approve, Cecil Christenberry 2nd the motion and
it carried unanimously.
45
Planning & Zoning Commission
Page five-August 7, 2006
SDOG.40 Site Plan Approval of Berrington Place a 225 lot Village
Plan/Moore Engineering & Surveying(Generally located on the west side
of Langford Road, south of Highway 104) Jonathan Smith said this was also
carried over from the July meeting and was tabled in order for the applicant
to address concerns associated with double frontage lots and additional
access. He said the proposped common area along Langford Road has
been increased from 10' to 20'. In addition the developer has agreed to
incorporate a sidewalk, berm and irrigation system. The design of the berm,
landscaping details and irrigation design will be submitted for approval at the
preliminary approval submittal. A note has been placed on the plat that all
lots within the subdivision that abut this common area shall only have
access from the streets within the subdivision and not via Langford Road.
The streets will be built to city standards and the developer has committed
to planting a minimum of 350 over-story trees along the streets, park areas
and retention areas. A second access street has been proposed to connect
the subdivision to Langford Road. He said a draft copy of detailed
covenants and restrictions has been submitted and a total of 9.44 acres has
been provided for greenspace. Staff recommendation was to approve. Seth
Moore spoke for the developer. He said the sidewalk would be woven
throughout the subdivision. When questioned about the turnarounds he said
he plans a T-type. Mayor Kant reminded him that a fire truck or garbage
truck needed to be able to maneuver in these spaces. Mabry Stone,
adjacent property owner spoke saying he that this ought to be done right
from the start. The comment was made that the developer is committed to
the irrigation system on the berm and this will not be turned over to the
property owners until the last lot sold. Further discussion led to a motion to
approve staff recommendation. Dan McCrory 2nd the motion and it carried
with Gary Moore and Jean Wilson opposed.
S006.44 Final Plat Approval of Copper Key, request of EDS (Generally
located south of Lawrence Road east of and adjacent to Quail Creek
Estates Unit Four B) Jonathan reported that the property is located in the
city and is zoned R-1 and contains 13.04 acres and 19 lots. He said a final
inspection was completed on June 23 and all items have been completed.
Staff recommendation was to approve. Joe Bullock was representing
EDS. A motion was made by Dan McCrory to approve, Bob Clark 2nd the
motion and i.t carried unanimously.
S006.46 Minor Plat Approval of Peterson Medical Park/Baskerville-
Donovan (Generally located on the southwest corner of Greeno Road and
Middle Street, just south of Holiday Inn Express) Jonathan said the property
is not located in the city and is not zoned. The property contains 2.87 acres
46
Fundamentals of Municipal. Government
In Alabama, all municipalities operate under what is known as the Dillon rule.
The Dillon rule is a concept that dates back to 1861! and means that all municipalities
function at the pleasure ofthe state legislat11re. Alabama Code states that in cities of
12,000 or more population which have a mayor-council form of government, the
legislative f1.lllCtions of the city must be exercised bv a council while the executive
functions are exercised by the mayor, who is not a member of the council.
The Alabama state legislature in its wisdom has left to the council the discretion
to take the responsibility to be a '·strong council" or "not."This means that the grants of
power are no(effectivc until the council takes legislative action to set them in motion.
Thus, if the council chooses to exercise its powers, it must pass ordinances, resolutions or
motions to do so.
Some of the powers entrusted to a municipal council, which is the legislative
branch of city government, include:
• Has.authority ovir all legislmive as~s of municipal government;
• Detennine what sort of services the municipality will offer;
• Has authority over finance and all property of the city;
• Establishes pol!cies that will be followed in the administration of the city;
• Sets tax levels; •
• Passes ordinances lo provide: Safety, preserves health, promotes prosperity,
improv-e morals, comfort and convenience for the citizens;
• Make appointments of department heads (by ordinance);
• Establish all salaries;
• Specify the duties to be perfonned;
• Designate who shall be authorized lo sign checks;
• Appoints: City Clerk, City Attorney, Police Chief, and Treasurer;
• Appoint committees lo study the needs of the various departments and make
;.
recommendations to the Council; and,
• App0in1 investigative committees lo see if the Council wishes are being carried
out;
• Keep in mind that neither the Council nor any Council member !!ll!l'..direct or
supervise in any way the daily task of city employees. Also, remember,
individual Council members have no authority other than regular citizens of the
municipality. The City Council functions as a body; not as individuals.
Legislative Powers of the Council
The council as a body cstilblishcs municipal policy, and the mayor is charged
with the duty ofimplementin1rthat policy. for instance, in At!omey General's Opinion
89-00243, the issue was whether the mayor or the council had authority to establish the
working conditions of a police dispatcher. The attorney general concluded that the mayor
col1ld require the dispatcher to work at city hall unless the counci I provided otherwise.
47
The qu.estion of where the dispatcher perfonned her duties was a matter of policy, a
decision for the council to resolve. Until the council acted, it was the mayor's decision.
However, once the council acted, the mayor was required to implement that policy.
Another exwnple of the legislative power of the council ls found in Attotney
General's Opinion 92-00289. It concluded that the council is responsible for establishing
policies which will be followed by municipal departments. Department heads may nol
set policies unless the council has delegated the authority to them. A council may
delegate authority to set policy lo the mayor, who may authorize department heads to
detennine policies which their departments will follow. Where the council has not acted.
department heads may set infonnal procedures to follow until the council acts.
The Attorney General has ruled that if a city council exercises its powers to
appoint officers of the city or town, the appointment would be as "otherwise provided by
&t," This bill would specify that a mayor would appoint officers unless otherwise
provided by state law. Thus, if the council wants to appoint officers, department
heads, and/or employees, it must enact a properly drafted ordinance stating such, If
the council does not enact ordinances, .the mayor has the power to appoint all officers,
whose appointment is not otherwise provided for by law. (Section 11-43-81, Code of
Alabwna, 1975). •
Mayoral Duties and Authority
Some of the responsibilities of the Mayor, who is the executive branch of city
govemmcn~ include:
• Acts as figurehead for the City
• Oversees day to day operations of the City;
• Oversees the municipal employees;
• Sees that bills are paid on time;
• Makes recommendations to the Council;
• Ensures that an annual audit is conducted;
• Presents a budget to the council if required;
• Has responsibility to see that the officers and employees of the City
faithfully execute the laws and policies established by the Council;
• Execute municipal contracts;
• Appoint members to the Planning Board;
• Has veto power over ordinances and resolutions, however, the veto can be
overturned by a 2/3 vote of the Council.
According to the Handbook for Mayors and Council Members, it is imperative
that a harmonious working re at1onship eve ops etween ma r an the council. It is
recommended that the mayor take the initiative to establish working relationship
between the council and the office of the mayor.
48
I
1
-~~
i-.-(~ T T
-----
• • I
I
I
I
~i I
I
I
I
I :
PHASE 2 Or, . ,. .• :
FAIRHOPE V?l.LAGE, ~D
F"UTUf(E OE~ENT
rn,_,~
. ttr:JJ_if~,alf
• EJNISH fl--OOB fl EYADOH 9PM
'NTS • .
q ;;:
ti-
-~
.I
-·o
~
I
" i
~
ti
(j) v
J
. ~ .,.__
~t
·l":;:
-I!: ~=--~ i:;:..c~.
~~
E3--
0
LO
\ I ~
' I \ \
\
\
\
\
\ '
'al ""
~
\
\
\
\
~ \
\
\ \_
--... -. , ....... , , , , ,,,,, '1116' . .
--------»,-•-----•-•1:l-,._.......,_t,T-'l-..o:i•4W ......... ~-r.i,._
--~ .. --... --.. o.-,,ri
41)
SCALE:1""'30'-0"
NOT fO"-CONSTRUCTION
---;::..-:--
~~
------------------------------------------------·-------·----------·------------
......
LO
THE
SHOPPES AT FAIRHOPE VILLAGE
LANDSCAPE Pt.AN~ EXHIBIT 'A'
FAIRHOPE, AL
There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned
at 6:20 PM
52