Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2017 Planning Commission MinutesOctober 2, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes The Planning Commission met Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Charles Johnson; Richard Peterson; Ralph Thayer; Hollie MacKellar; Jay Robinson; Wayne Dyess, Planning Director; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attorney Absent: Buford King, Planner Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:04 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. Mr. Turner announced the proposed rezoning on Manley Road for Pinewood Subdivision is not on tonight's agenda and Item H . SD 17.20 has been withdrawn by the applicant. He also stated Item L. SD 17 .24 will be heard first. The minutes of the September 5, 2017 meeting were considered and Ralph Thayer moved to accept the minutes as corrected and was 2nd by Charles Johnson. The motion carried with abstentions by Rebecca Bryant and Jay Robinson. ZC 17.14 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for a proposed amendment to Article III, Section D.9 Accessory Dwelling Units of Ordinance #1253, known as the Zoning Ordinance, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying this amendment was continued from the September meeting and the purpose of this amendment is to allow accessory dwelling units (with kitchens to make a bona fide dwelling unit), subject to locational requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The benefits of accessory dwelling units are many including having the ability to age in place, affordable housing, and the ability to have family stay close such as young adult relatives starting careers or elderly parents. These serve not only economic benefits to a family but also social benefits. Staff recommendation is to approve as proposed. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Dr. Thayer stated lots of accessory dwelling units are manufactured and # 11 states manufactured homes may not be used. Mr. Dyess stated he was addressing specific concerns. Mrs. Bryant said prefabricated elements may be more appealing to some residents and she suggested tying the restrictions to the building code and not just eliminating manufactured homes. Mr. Turner stated any structure will have to meet the building code and said the important thing would be to make sure the wind requirements are met. Dr. Thayer asked what the parking requirements are for a principal dwelling and Mr. Dyess responded 2 spaces and 1 additional space would have to be added for an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Turner asked for clarification regarding the term "family." Mr. Dyess explained it would prevent accessory dwelling unit s from being rented by • multiple people. Mr. Peterson asked if RVs would be considered a manufactured home and allowed as an accessory dwelling unit and Mr. Dyess res ponded no. Mr. Robinson asked if there is a definition of a manufactured h ome in the ordinance and Mr. Dyess responded yes. Mrs. Bryant stated there are manufactured homes that meet the building code and not just the watered-down HUD requirements. Mrs. Bryant said she thinks this is a po sitive amendment. 1 October 2, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Rebecca Bryant made a motion to approve the proposed accessory dwelling unit amendment with the following conditions: 1. Consolidate number 1 and 8 into one requirement regarding size restrictions. 2. Number 11 be tied to the building code and not completely prohibit manufactured homes . Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. ZC 17.15 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for a proposed amendment to Article II, Section C.2 regarding Site Plan Review of Ordinance #1253, known as the Zoning Ordinance, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess requested this case be heard for comments only and continued until next month for consideration. He explained the purpose is to allow more focus on planning aspects of site plan review rather than the detailed engineering. He stated this will shift the review from engineering to compatibility and site integration with the surrow1dings. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr. Turner asked if this will require any commercial rezoning request to have a site plan and Mr. Dyess responded yes. Mr. Dyess explained this will allow staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the community to know what will be constructed and what it will look like when there is a zoning change. Mrs. Bryant asked if this requirement will only apply for properties rezoning from residential to commercial and Mr. Dyess answered no , it will be for all rezonings. Mr. Turner expressed concerns that this will be a deterrent for annexation. Mr. Turner and Mr. Robinson questioned the requirement that all major subdivisions will have to go through the City Council. Mr. Dyess stated this requirement would only be for subdivisions requesting a zoning change. Mrs. Bryant said it seems the purpose is to eliminate detail and expense at the beginning but the submittal requirements still mandate full architectural drawings . Mr. Dyess exp lained there is an accompanying amendment coming next month with additional pre- application procedures. Mrs. Bryant suggested also allowing some flexibility for changes. Mr. Peterson asked the difference between a PUD and this site plan review. Mr. Dyess stated PUDs allow for flexibility and waivers to the regulations and a site plan does not allow any deviations from the regulations. Mrs. MacKellar asked ifthere will be a sunset clause for site plans and Mr. Dyess responded yes, a 1 year expiration with possible extension granted by the City Council. Mr. Dyas asked if site plan expires would the zoning revert to the previous zo ning and Mr. Dyess stated that could be one possibility or the zoning could remain but a new site plan would have to be approved. Mrs. MacKellar stated she liked the expiration clause and said we need to be prepared for the effects of our decisions. Mr. Turner stated he likes the proposed amendment and thinks it will help with Greeno Road. SD 17.25 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for Final plat approval of Pinewood Subdivision, a 7-lot division, Tom Granger. The property is located on the south side of Manley Road between Saddlewood Subdivision and the Fairhope Municipal Soccer Complex. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 9.7 acres and 7 lots are propo sed. The property is unzoned in Baldwin County but is surrounded by City of Fairhope R-1 Single Family Residential District zoned property. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following conditions: 2 October 2, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes 1. The applicant shall install the water service for the lots facing Manley Road. 2. Approval of the 10' right-of-way dedication by City of Fairhope City Council. 3. The applicant shall submit GIS As-builts for final approval by the City of Fairhope Water Department when completed. Mrs. Milford stated the City Council has already accepted the 10' right-of-way dedication and that condition can be removed. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mrs. MacKellar asked what will be done with Lot 7 and Mr. Granger responded nothing at this time. He noted the applicant is contemplating a Phase 2 but nothing has been done so far. Dr. Thayer asked if the soccer complex can handle the drainage and Mrs. Milford stated there is a letter from the engineer of record for the soccer complex verifying the drainage facilities are sufficient. Mr. Dyas asked if Lots 1-6 will each have a driveway onto Manley Road and Mr. Granger responded yes. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install the water service for the lots facing Manley Road. 2 . The applicant shall submit GIS As-bu ilts for final approval by the City of Fairhope Water Department when completed. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. SD 17.26 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC for plat approval of Main Street at Montrose, a 3-lot minor subdivision, Steve Pumphrey. The property is located on the east side of main Street between Ledyard Street and Ecor Dechene. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 2 .55 acres and is the first phase of the Montrose Preserve PUD. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following conditions: 1. Make corrections to the preliminary/final plat certificate blocks to reflect The Utilities Board of the City of Daphne (Daphne Utilities) as the drinking water provider to the subject property. 2. Make corrections to the preliminary/final plat certificate blocks to reflect Riviera Utilities as the electrical provider to the subject property. 3. Finished Floor Elevations shall be reflected on the plat prior to recording. 4. Submission under separate cover and approval of a fire flow model for the subject property is a condition of approval. Indicate the location of the nearest fire hydrant on the plat prior to recording. 5. Make corrections to the preliminary/final plat to reflect 15' drainage and utility easements as required by City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article V, Section E. 5. a. Mr. Dyas stated only condition number 4 is still outstanding at this time. Mr. Dyas asked for some details of the PUD since most of the Commissioners are new. Mr. Turner stated the applicants worked with staff and the residents of Montrose to come up with a plan that everyone was happy with. He added the applicant designed the project to keep the existing trees and not tie into the narrow streets in Montrose. Mr. Dyas asked if this is the entire project and Mr. Dyess responded no, the overall project is much larger. Mrs. Bryant questioned the drainage on the rear of the lots and Mr. Pumphrey responded the drainage area is not on the lots but behind them. Mr. Dyas asked if the PUD is completely residential and Mr. Pumphrey responded yes. Dr. Thayer asked about the 3 October 2, 2017 Planning Commissio n Minut es conservation easement and Mr. Pumphrey stated nothing has been done with it to date but it will be included with an additional phase of the project. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mrs. MacKellar thanked the applicant for working with the residents to design a project they were all supportive of. Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve with the following condition: 1. Submission under separate cover and approval of a fire flow model for the subject property is a condition of approval. Indicate the location of the nearest fire hydrant on the plat prior to recording. Ralph Thayer 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Old/New Business Mr. Dyess introduced Richard Johnson as the new Public Works Director. Dr. Thayer stated half of the complaints the Commission hears are about drainage. Mr. Johnson said he is looking forward to working with the Commission and staff to help the fix the drainage issues not just move them around. By-Laws Discussion -Art Dyas -Mr. Dyas explained he would like to propose an amendment to the Planning Commission's By-Laws regarding outside communication and transparency. He stated it will provide guidelines for the Commission to disclose whether there has been any outside communication to allow for everyone to be privy to the same information prior to the case being heard. He added it will allow Commissioners a "way out" when they are approached outside of meetings. Mr. Peterson asked how it will affect him in regard to working with the utilities and Mr. Dyess explained he will just disclose anything at the meeting. Mr. Turner, Mr. Robinson, and Mrs. Bryant agreed this is something that is needed and were in favor of the amendment. Having no further business, Art Dyas made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Thayer 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 PM. --d/ ~-----t3~·~- Lee Tumer,"chairman 4