Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2016 Planning Commission MinutesSeptember 6, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes The Planning Commission met Monday, September 6, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: George Roberds, Vice-Chair; Jennifer Fidler; Bob Clark; Bernie Fogarty; Jay Robinson; Hollie MacKellar; Kevin Boone; Jonathan Smith, Planning Director; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Chris Gill, City Attorney Absent: Tim Kant and Lee Turner, Chairperson Vice-Chairman Roberds called the meeting to order at 5:04 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. The minutes of the August 1, 2016 meeting were considered and Bernie Fogarty moved to accept the minutes as written and was 2 nd by Jennifer Fidler. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Roberds stated there is a full house tonight and everyone will be allowed to speak but there will be a 3 minute time limit for each speaker. SD 16.14 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC for Multiple Occupancy Project approval of the Retreat at Fairhope Village, a 240-unit project, John Avent. The property is located at the east end of Fly Creek Avenue, behind Publix in The Shoppes at Fairhope Village. Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the site is approximately 21.45 acres of the 214 acres Fly Creek PUD. The site was initially approved by the City Council on October 23, 2006 and was amended to allow the proposed plan on April 11, 2016. Four apartment buildings consisting of240 units are proposed. Mr. Smith stated the application has been reviewed based on State law and the City's regulations. He said the drainage plans were reviewed by John Curry, P .E., President of Hydro Engineering Solutions, on behalf of the City for a third party review. The applicant provided an Environmental Assessment for the site which established a water quality benchmark for Fly Creek and will allow comparisons during and after construction. Staff recommendation is to approve the Retreat at Fairhope Village Multiple Occupancy Project Site Plan, contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The City's engineer (i.e., John Curry) shall complete a review of the applicant's final plans to ensure that said plans are in full compliance with the provisions of the PUD approval and meet or exceed the drainages standards in the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. 2. The "Wilderness Area" shall be fenced off, prior to any land disturbance activity. 3. Jennifer Fidler, Public Works Director and City Horticulturist shall sign off on a final Landscape Plan. John Avent of Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC addressed the Commission saying Mr. Smith summed up the project and very detailed plans have been submitted and every aspect of the project has been covered. Mr. Roberds opened the public hearing. Dot Yeager of 451 S. Mobile Street -She asked if the plat has been recorded and why an extension was needed. She asked why we are in a hurry to do something. Mr. Smith explained the extension was granted due to the pending litigation. Faith Kaiser of 107 Oak Bend Court -She stated apartments affect property values negatively and tax monies will go down and the school will be overcrowded. 1 September 6, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Tom O Hinger, Jr. of 3 16 Cumberland Road -He stated concerns regarding traffic and asked when the new traffic study was done and received. Mr. Smith responded the traffic study was dated after April 2016. Wendy Soloman of 123 Sandy Ford Road-She questioned the sewer system and how it will be handled. She said Rock Creek's lift stations have already failed. She also asked if FEMA looked at Fly Creek during the recent rain storms. Mrs. Fidler responded no, FEMA did not look at Fly Creek and they do not do assessments. Lee Frailie of 213 North Circle-He asked if the Commission is aware a lawsuit was filed regarding this project and a request to dismiss was denied. He asked why it is being rushed if there is a lawsuit. He stated if one tree is cut down then that is irreparable harm and will the Commission be responsible. Lynn Maser of 106 Chestnut Ridge -She stated the Planning Commission went against the people and approved this once. She said apartments will change Fairhope and this request should be denied or tabled. Paul Ripp of22985 High Ridge Road-He stated concerns with existing damage to the creek, the traffic study, sewer line, apartments in Daphne, and said a million dollar bond won't fix the creek if something goes wrong. He said this case should not be heard with pending litigation regarding the site. Karin Wilson, Mayor Elect, of336 DeLaMar-She said the Fly Creek Watershed is in peril and the Restore Act Funds have already been earmarked for watershed management and this study should be done and enacted before any development is done around Fly Creek. She said an impact study also needs to be done on our schools because they are already under-funded and overloaded. She said the developer needs to indemnify the City and pay for defense of any litigation resulting from the decision made tonight regarding this case. Suzanne Sims of 507 N. Mobile Street -She thanked Hollie MacKellar for voting against this development the first time. Matthew Teague of 153 Fels Avenue -He asked the Commissioners if these developments represent the will of the people in Fairhope and what is the model that Fairhope is going for with these developments. Mr. Clark responded he is here to serve Fairhope and he has for several years. He said in order for a development to get this far it has to have met all of the rules and regu lations. Margaret Caden of 124 Sandy Ford Road-She stated this development was voted down the first time it was heard and she asked why it was allowed to come back 3 months later. Anthony Pritchett of 9 Viale Trentino -He said it is unbelievable that the traffic study could show no increase from 2009 to 2016 and there must be an error in the study. Debra Green of 415 Maple Street -She stated the traffic study is wrong and there is much more traffic now . She stated Mr. Corte got a plan approved with Publix and small houses and now changes have been made . She said the Commission should stop this and let the new administration handle it. She said there is a pending lawsuit and this case should not be heard. Mr. Smith explained the Commission can table the application but then it must be heard within 30 days or the application will be automatically approved. Jesse Patterson of 10630 County Road 1 -He asked if anyone in the audience that is not employed by the developer is in favor of the apartments -there was no show of hands. Susan Relfe of 202 Cumberland Road -She asked the Commission for their accountability and said the approval of this project will result in less taxes, lower property values and lower education standards. She asked the Commission to vote no for this development. 2 September 6, 2016 Plann ing Commission Minutes Lisa Adams of 860 Creek Drive -She stated she has lived on Fly Creek for 20 years and the water quality of the creek has deteriorated since the Publix shopping center was built. She asked that the Environmental Assessment be available to the public. Mr. Smith responded all documents are public record and are available in the Planning Department. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Roberds closed the public hearing. Mr. Gill explained the approval of the Planned Unit Development was a zoning request and is different from this request. This application is a Multiple Occupancy Project review which has to meet the requirements set forth in the Subdivision Regulations. He explained Section 11-52-32 of the Code of Alabama states once the application is brought before the Commission, a decision must be rendered within 30 days without the applicant's approval to postpone. He said this is a technical review, not discretionary . Mrs. Wilson said PUDs are supposed to benefit the community. She stated the developers are being given special attention not the community. She said more studies are needed and the developer needs to pay for any legal fees. She asked what can be done to stop this project. Mr. Gill explained this is a review from the Subdivision Regulations where you either meet the requirements or you don't. He stated there are no grounds to deny the application if all of the requirements are met. Mrs. Fidler asked what the repercussions are if irreparable harm is done before the lawsuit is settled and Mr. Gill said this approval does not entitle them to turn dirt. Mrs. Fidler said she is concerned with the traffic study and she asked if it can be looked at again. Mr. Smith responded the study was stamped and signed by the engineer and if it not accurate then the City has legal right for recourse. Mr. Clark asked if the traffic study was done in 2009 or 2016 and Mr. Smith responded new traffic counts were done in 2016 . Mr. Avent explained the traffic study did not say traffic has not increased , it said no major improvements were required to Parker Road and US 98. Mrs. MacKellar said she was raised here and is now raising her children here and she has never voted for this project because she does not think it is what Fairhope needs. Adam Milam of 116 Pecan A venue -He said the application does not meet the requirements because not everything is complete. He cited the drainage and landscaping have not been approved. He asked that more traffic and environmental studies be done and for more details to be provided. He said we need to remove the emotion and make sure Mr. Smith has done a full review and everything is comp lete. Mr. A vent responded everything is complete and his firm has never spent this much time and money on a project. He stated they have gone above and beyond to provide as much detail as possible. Mr. Robinson stated additional studies won't impact whether the application meets the requirements or not. He asked if there is any downside to tabling the application for a 3rd party review of the environmental and traffic study and Mr. Gill responded no. Mrs. MacKellar asked about the Hydrologic report and Mr. Smith stated that would be a post-development function but the Commission can request it and even require additional testing as a condition. Mr. Boone asked if the Commission can deny the application because they don't like it and Mr. Gill responded no. Mrs. MacKellar asked why we are here to review projects and why not just have an attorney approve them if all the boxes are checked. Mr. Gill explained the State law set this procedure to have a 3rd party board to review subdivision matters to make sure all the boxes are checked. Mr. Robinson said this has already been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council and it if it meets the requirements then it is going to be approved but he doesn't think it should be voted on while there is pending litigation. Mr. Roberds stated that the options before the Commission tonight are to approve , deny, or table and be heard within 3 September 6, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes 30 days. Mr. Gill agreed and stated the applicant is proceeding at his own peril because the judge could decide the PUD is invalid but this is the process the Alabama legislature designed for us to follow. Mr. Boone asked what the repercussions are if it meets all of the requirements but we vote no because we don't like it and Mr. Gill answered the applicant could file for a writ of mandamus and get a judge to order the Planning Commission to approve it. Mr. Robinson asked how long they have to wait to resubmit the application if it is denied and Mr. Smith responded 6 months. Mr. Fogarty said if it is tabled tonight then within 30 days a decision must be made. Mr. Robinson asked if a 3rd party review is doable within 30 days and Mr. Gill said a review of the existing studies but not new studies. Mrs. Wilson said if the Commission doesn't know the repercussions of this meeting then the case should be tabled. She stated the conditions need to be met or it is not a complete submittal. Mr. Smith explained it is not uncommon to have conditions of approval and everything will be needed prior to permitting. Jay Robinson made a motion to table until the October Planning Commission meeting. Bob Clark 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE -Jennifer Fidler, Bob Clark, George Roberds, Jay Robinson. NAY -Bernie Fogarty, Hollie MacKellar, Kevin Boone. The Commission took a 5 minute recess. SD 16.16 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Multiple Occupancy Project approval of Old Battles Place, a 110-unit project, Scott Hutchinson. The property is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of Section Street and County Road 34 (a.k.a. Old Battles Road). Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the property was annexed into the City of Fairhope in 2006 and zoned R-5 High Density Multi-Family Residential District. Per the Zoning Ordinance the R-2 zoning district allows 10 units per acre (UP A); however, in 2006, the applicant that petitioned for annexation and R-5 zoning voluntarily restricted density for the site to 5 UP A. The applicant is proposing 110 apartment units with a clubhouse and pool on approximately 40.89 acres as the first of two phases. Staff recommendation is to table the Old Battles Place Multiple Occupancy Project Site Plan, due to the following: 1. The City is awaiting the results of the traffic study. Any improvements recommended shall be shown on the plans. 2. The City's Public Works Director and Horticulturist has landscape plan concerns that could result in a significant change in site design. 3. The City's Water and Sewer Superintendent has expressed that there are unresolved issues regarding the possibility of required sewer lift station upgrades. Mr. Boone stated an accurate traffic study cannot be done until the County finishes the work on Section Street just south of this site. Scott Hutchinson addressed the Commission saying the density for the site is half of what is allowed by right in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the side setback for the R-5 zoning district is 1 O' and the applicant is proposing the closest building at 40 '. Mr. Hutchinson said the applicant is agreeable to adding a 42" field fence with trees planted along the property line. He explained there seems to be a misconception as to what these apartments will be and he said they will be comparable to large lot subdivision houses. He stated he is aware of the staff recommendation and the conditions. He said the traffic study will be done but they were waiting until school started and then the County begin work. He noted both streets are County rights-of-way and they will have the say as to 4 September 6, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes what is done. Mr. Hutchinson explained the sewer lift station is currently overpowered and he is willing to work with the City to find a reasonable solution. He added the issues are not on the subject property but at the City's lift station further north on Section Street. He said the landscape issue is a disagreement on how the calculations are figured. He stated he and Jennifer Fidler interpret the tree ordinance differently and based on her interpretation the site will have to be reconfigured. Mr. Roberds opened the public hearing. Carol Gordon of 17861 S . Section Street -She stated she represented the 184 property owners of four neighborhoods: Cottages at Point Clear, Azalea Ridge, Polo Ridge, and Point Clear Stables. She said they understand the property has been zoned for 10 years and the density has been reduced but there are still concerns with traffic, drainage, and the explosion of growth in Fairhope. She asked if the right-of-ways are City or County and said the traffic study needs to be complete and any improvements made prior to the approval. She said they have reviewed the drainage plans and it looks adequate but she requested the engineer be on site daily to oversee the construction and installation of the drainage facilities. She asked what amount of rain is considered in the 24 hours study for the drainage. She also asked the Commission to make studied and educated decisions on how this community grows. Arnold Brodbeck of 18280 S. Section Street -He stated he is an adjacent property owner and a resident on Section Street. He stated concerns with increased traffic and the proposed entrance of the development being over a hill. He asked if a turn lane is required will it encroach onto his property. He questioned the potential removal of the large heritage oak trees, buffers along his property line, drainage , and tree protection. He asked for a 6' fence and a vegetative buffer along the northern property line of the subject property. Jonathan Ellis of 7056 Brodbeck Lane -He stated the property to the north of the proposed site is family land and they have tried to be good stewards of the land. He stated Fairhope doesn't have the infrastructure to support this rapid growth and these projects do not represent what we want Fairhope to be. Beth Brodbeck of 18280 S. Section Street -She stated her family owns the entire north property line of the subject property. She said they have only been notified of this proposal for 2 weeks and that is not enough time to look into adequately. She said this development is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Village concept and they don't want Section Street turned into Hwy. 181. She said the whole plan needs to be looked at in order to make a good decision. She requested an independent traffic study done and to compare the original plan the site was zoned with against this plan. She stated concerns with the impact on the water and sewer, property values, and additional costs for the City. Susan Beeco of 6112 Saddlewood Lane -She stated she is not anti-growth but uncontrolled growth causes harm. She said the impact fees sound like a lot but they don't last or cover the impact on the entire city. Ginger MacMicking of 17375 Polo Ridge Blvd. -She said the drainage from all of the property between the subject property and her property ends up in her yard. She stated concerns with the drainage, traffic , and the ownership of units. She asked if the TR District will be asking for apartments next. She stated the last Comprehensive Plan said single family residences can be built in R-5. 5 September 6, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Jim MacMicking of 17375 Polo Ridge Blvd. -He stated this is one of the most beautiful cities and he said we should use every legal tool we have to deny this project. He said flooding will happen more and more and we must protect the citizens. Paul Pacey of 18384 S. Section Street -He stated concerns with traffic , overloading water and sewer infrastructure, and overcrowding schools. He said we need to preserve what we have here in Fairhope and what makes our city great. Debbie Ellis of7194 Brodbeck Lane -She stated concerns with traffic, noise and light pollution, water and sewer availability, drainage, and quality oflife. She asked what will be done with the rest of the property. Mette McCall of 7190 Brodbeck Lane -She stated concerns with traffic and overcrowding schools. Owen Edwards of 18327 S. Section Street -He stated he is currently building a house across the street from the subject property and he is living in the Palladian while it is under construction. He said it is a nice place but not the type neighborhood you want. He said the swells hold water and breed mosquitos. Marty Leatherbury of 18302 Lakewood Drive -She agreed with the previous comments and said she is already being flooded in Lakewood . She asked the Commission to stop the development and revisit the City plans before any more projects are approved. Tony Galardi or 586 Musket Avenue -He said he has lived here for 22 years and the growth has been unchecked. He cited concerns with drainage and traffic. He asked the Commission to stop the development until there is a plan to follow. Bonnie Gulsby of 410 Bartlett Avenue -She said the applicants have clear cut all of the trees and now she has to look at the devastation from her property. She asked why swells will be built along the property line. She stated concerns of standing water, schools, and traffic. Edward McMurphy of 17861 S. Section Street-He asked what the Commission's options are for tonight. He asked if they can take ownership into consideration and deny the project because of rental. He asked what the square footage of the units will be. Mr. Roberds stated the options for tonight are to approve, deny, or table the application. Mr. Gill stated the City's regulations do not distinguish between rental or owner occupied units. Mr. Hutchinson stated the units will be approximately 1500 square feet and $1600 for a 3 bedroom. Wayne Round of 545 Musket Avenue -He asked if the buffer between Old Battles Village and the buildings are 40' and Mr. Hutchinson answered the setback will be 40' and 80' on the north side and 60' on the east property line. Burton Craige of 15297 Scenic 98 -He said this is a beautiful urban/rural area and it is important to protect what we have. He said the new administration is looking at things differently and it would be a shame to lose something when changes are coming. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Roberds closed the public hearing. Mr. Hutchinson addressed the public comments saying the drainage will not be pushed on the Brodbecks property and their drainage will be picked up as well. He said the drainage is designed for a 100 year storm. He explained the second phase will look similar to this phase. He stated a traffic study will be done and they were planning to use Sain & Associates but he does not care who does it as long as it is a reputable company. He said the setbacks will be from 40' to 80' and they will go over the buffer requirements. He explained the sight distance on Section Street appears short for the entrance but he said it meets the requirements. He said the buildings will be similar to the Palladian but the density is less. Mrs. Fidler asked if the traffic study will consider 6 September 6, 20] 6 Planning Commission Minutes the new phases of Old Battles Village and will an additional entrance be provided with phase two of the development and Mr. Hutchinson responded yes. Mrs. Fidler said the landscaping plan need additional details for tree preservation and they need to resolve the disagreement on the interpretation on the tree ordinance because it will affect the layout. She also stated a traffic study needs to be completed before the project moves on. Bernie Fogarty made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to table the Old Battles Place Multiple Occupancy Project Site Plan, due to the following: 1. The City is awaiting the results of the traffic study. Any improvements recommended shall be shown on the plans. 2. The City's Public Works Director and Horticulturist has landscape plan concerns that could result in a significant change in site design. 3. The City's Water and Sewer Superintendent has expressed that there are unresolved issues regarding the possibility of required sewer lift station upgrades. Bob Clark 2nd the motion. Mrs. Fidler asked if the applicant will have to be voted on within 30 days if the application is tabled. Mr. Hutchinson said the applicant will request to table the application. Mr. Gill stated the 30 day rule doesn't apply if the applicant requests the application be tabled. Mrs. Fidler asked if there can be an engineer on site for the installation of the drainage and Mr. Hutchinson responded yes, they typically do. Mrs. MacKellar asked what else can be done with R-5 zoning and Mr. Smith they are limited to what is allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. He said the regulations need to be updated and we have to work with what we have. Mrs. Wilson said we are here for the citizens she asked what can be done to allow the citizens more say. Mr. Gill stated this case is in the same place as the Fly Creek development and the time to make the changes or add restrictions was 10 years ago when the property was rezoned. Bob Clark made a motion to accept the applicant's request to table the application. Kevin Boone 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The Commission took a 5 minute recess. SD 16.18 Public hearing to consider the request of Rowe Engineering and Surveying for plat approval of Forty Four Ninety-Eight subdivision, a 2-lot minor division, Don Rowe. The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of US Hwy. 98 and County Road 44 (a.k.a. Twin Beech Road). Mr. Smith gave the staffreport saying the property is located in Baldwin County and is unzoned. The total site is approximately 8.09 acres and 2 lots are proposed. Mr. Smith stated the applicant wanted a waiver to the 30' buffer requirement but it was not included in the adjacent property owner letters as required so it will have to be re-advertised. Mr. Rowe said they request to go forward without the waiver. Staff recommendation is to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A flow model meeting the approval of the Water and Sewer Superintendent shall be submitted. 2. A wetland determination survey shall be conducted and all required buffers shall be labeled on the plat. 3. The applicant shall submit the required utility letters. Mr. Roberds opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing. 7 September 6 , 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Mrs. MacKellar asked if the subdivision will be residential and if there will only be one entrance. Mr. Rowe responded it is Professional/Office and he is not doing the site design so he is not sure of the access points. Jennifer Fidler made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 1. A flow model meeting the approval of the Water and Sewer Superintendent shall be submitted. 2. A wetland determination survey shall be conducted and all required buffers shall be labeled on the plat. 3. The applicant shall submit the required utility letters. Bernie Fogarty 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. SD 16.19 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Preliminary Plat approval of Southtown Pointe, a 6-lot division, Tim Lawley. The property is located on the north side of Pecan A venue and the west side of Section Street. Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the property is located in the City of Fairhope and is zoned R-3 High Density Single Family Residential District. The property consists of approximately 2.44 aces and 6 lots are proposed. Staff recommendation is to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a 1 O' easement along the property lines with the 30" pipe to accommodate for maintenance of the pond and the drainage pipe . 2. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be r,evised to add any additional information required for LID maintenance. 3. The applicant shall verify with ADEM whether an ADEM NOI is required to be filed on this project and provide this information to the Planning Staff. 4. All conditions of approval shall be satisfied in a timely manner, prior to a pre- construction conference. Mr . Lawley addressed the Commission saying he is aware of the conditions and does not have any issues with them. Mrs. Fidler said the recorded easement was not signed by the Mayor and the City has never maintained it. Mr. Lawley said the pipe picks up water from Ivy Circle and does not have any effect on the water from the subject property. Mr. Gill said if the City does not want to claim the pipe then the property owner could remove it. He said the only document we have regarding the pipe shows the maintenance being the City's. Mr. Clark stated he owned the property from 1978 to 1992 and there were issues with flooding then. He stated the flooding never damaged anything because there was nothing there to damage but the water was there and there were times he thought it may reach the electrical box at the bottom of the radio tower but it never did. He said the pipe was put in after 1978 because he remembered the City saying they had an easement and they were putting a pipe in it. Mr. Roberds opened the public hearing. Leonard Dunn of 388 Pecan Avenue -He asked if the applicant will be keeping the oak tree on the site and Mr. Roberds responded yes. Walter Gutzke of 452 Ivy Circle -He asked if the site is filled in, will the water be pushed back to Ivy Circle and Mr. Roberds responded no, the site water will be handled on the site. Mr. Lawley stated he is aware of the water issues and the drainage. He said a portion of the water from the northern 35 acres is collected by pipe and the rest will be held in the common area. He also said the applicant has no plans to cut the oak tree but it may need to be trimmed. 8 September 6, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Thomas Dunn of 7827 Haven Street -He asked if the houses will be spec homes or contract builds . Mr. Lawley responded the lots will be sold and houses built. Christopher Grant of 455 Ivy Circle -He stated concerns with the water and in favor of the retention pond that was to be installed. Dennis Clark -He asked who would maintain the proposed pond and Mr. Lawley responded the Property Owners Association. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Roberds closed the public hearing. Mrs. MacKellar asked what the square footages of the homes will be and if there will be a common driveway. Mr. Lawley said the homes will be approximately 2,200 to 2,400 square foot and there will be a driveway for each lot. Mr. Clark asked if the lots will be graded to be flat and Mr. Lawley responded there will be some grading but the houses will be on floating slabs to work with the grade. Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a 10' easement along the property lines with the 30" pipe to accommodate for maintenance of the pond and the drainage pipe. 2. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be revised to add any additional information required for LID maintenance. 3. The applicant shall verify with ADEM whether an ADEM NOi is required to be filed on this project and provide this information to the Planning Staff. 4. All conditions of approval shall be satisfied in a timely manner, prior to a pre- construction conference. Jay Robinson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. er business the meeting was adjourned ·at 9:20 PM. 9