Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2018 Planning Commission MinutesDecember 3, 2018 Planning Commi ssion Minutes The Planning Commission met Monday, December 3, 2018 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; Ralph Thayer; Hollie MacKellar; Richard Peterson; Clarice Hall-Black; Buford King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; Mike Jeffries , Planning Technician; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attorney Absent: Jack Burrell and Wayne Dyess, Planning Director Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5 :02 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. SD 18.41 Public hearing to consider the request of Firethorne Development, LLC for Final Plat approval of The Village at Firethorne, a 20-lot subdivision, Steve Pumphrey. The property is located at the south end of Hemlock Drive and on the west side of Quail Creek Estates, The Villas. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the subject property is approximately 6.27 acres consisting of 3.19 units per acre when divided into 20 lots. The largest lot is approximately 14,583 sf and the smallest lot is approximately 7,359 sf. Subject application is the final plat of a new phase of the larger Firethome PUD. Staff recommends APPROVAL of Case SD 18.41, Final Plat Approval of The Village at Firethorne contingent upon the following conditions: 1) Outstanding Punch List Items requiring completion prior to final plat signatures. a. Street (extension of Hemlock into subject development) shall be cleaned and free of dirt b. Growth of grass seeding in disturbed areas shall be at 90% at time of final acceptance. 1. As of 11/21/2018 the browntop millet planted onsite has been frost- killed. Re-plant with a winter mix of rye grass, winter rye, or other appropriate seeding or sodding to properly stabilize the site. c . The retention pond aerator is not functioning as of 11/21/2018. Place into operation as a punch list item. d. The bald cypress trees planted around the retention pond, not covered by the street tree bond, shall be evaluated by the City of Fairhope Horticulturalist to determine if they will recover from transplant shock or if they must be replaced. Mr. Pumphrey was present to answer any questions. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE contingent upon the following conditions: 1) Outstanding Punch List Items requiring completion prior to final plat signatures. a. Street (extension of Hemlock into subject development) shall be cleaned and free of di1i b. Growth of grass seeding in disturbed areas shall be at 90% at time of final acceptance. Dece mber 3, 2018 Pl ann ing Commission Minutes i. As of 11 /21 /2018 the browntop millet planted onsite has been frost- k.illed. Re-plant with a winter mix of rye grass, winter rye , or other appropriate seeding or sodding to properly stabilize the site . c. The retention pond aerator is not functioning as of 11/21/20 18. Place into operation as a punch list item. d. The bald cypress trees planted around the retention pond, not covered by the street tree bond, shall be evaluated by the City of Fairhope Horticulturalist to determine if they will recover from transplant shock or if they must be replaced. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnso n, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY -none. ZC 18.07 Public hearing to consider the request of Mike Fogle to rezone property from R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District to B-4 Business and Professional District. The property is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of County Road 13 and Fairhope Avenue, at 20451 County Road 13. Ms. M ilford gave the staff report saying the property is 2.8 acres and Mr. Fogle contends the development of the gasoline station and the roundabout has provided a burden to he and his family due to traffic issues and the loss of the residential atmosphere of his property. The applicant and his family live on the subject properties (two parcels). The larger parcel has been developed as a residence with a large pond on the property and the other parcel has been developed a residence. The County installed a roundabout and purchased a portion of Mr . Fogel's property for accommodating the roundabout. The subject property is classified as residential in the City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan. It lies between two village nodes, Greeno Road and Fairhope Avenue intersection and Hwy 181 and Fairhope Avenue intersection which are less than 2 miles apart. Ample commercial locations are provided in the Comprehensive Plan at appropriate locations. The subject - property is not located at one of these l ocations. Staff realizes that the subject property is in the vicinity ofunzoned -unincorporated County where land use oversite does not exist. However, staff does not recognize this fact as precedent and controlling land use decision making for surrounding areas which are in the City or may come into the City through annexation. In addition, a clear line of delineation currently exists between the unincorporated "commercial area" to the north and zoned residential area to the south of the roundabout. The subj ect property is bordered to the north by unzoned property, to the east by R-1 zoned property, and to the south and west by R-2 zoned property. The predominate character of the neighborhood is residential . There is a great deal of drainage that moves across the property. Staff has so me concern with regards to potential site deve lopment due to the current lake on the property. Re-development of the property may be highly expensive as the l ake may require filling dep ending on the percent of lot coverage of re-development. Staff has concerns that to introduce commercial at this l ocation will introduce commercial creep increasing noise and traffic to this intersection and the surrounding adjacent property and neighborhoods. Staff believes it is in1portant to note that B-4 zoning designation does not have a total maximum lot coverage by the principal structure, which means the entire site up to the building setbacks could be util ized for building and potential parking. The applicant has not provided any infonnation regarding traffic as a part of this application, except that the installed traffic 2 December 3, 20 I 8 Planning Commission Minutes circle has presented traffic issues getting out of his current driveway. Richard Johnson, Public Works Director, noted if the application were approved, any curb cuts would need to be made as far to the southeast and north west from the comer as possible. Staff recommendation is DENIAL based on the criteria in Article II Section C.1. e, staff does not support the requested re-zoning due to the application being inconsistent with the City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan and the incompatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Fogle addressed the Commission saying he purchased the property in 2002 and built the existing pond. He explained the roundabout has caused traffic issues with speeding and sight visibility which makes ingress/egress to his property dangerous. Mr. Fogle said light commercial use would be a better fit for the property than residential now. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak he closed the public hearing. Mrs. Boyett stated she received a call from Renae Robinson in opposition to the request. Dr. Thayer asked if the traffic has increased because of the roundabout and Mr. Fogle responded the traffic used to stop before because there were stop signs but now the cars don't slow down. Mr. Turner suggested a PUD could possibly be a better option, but the site does not have 3 acres. Mr. Watson explained that depending on how the property was acquired by the County then a PUD might still be possible. Ms. Milford stated the application could be tabled if the applicant would like to look at the PUD option. Mr. Dyas asked if the ingress/egress concerns could be eliminated if the driveway was relocated further south and Mr. Fogle responded yes. Mr. Johnson noted the property owners declined to have the driveway relocated by the County at the time the roundabout was constructed. Mrs. MacKellar stated there will be an additional school on Fairhope A venue within a year and the traffic is only going to increase. Mrs. Bryant stated rezoning the property to a more intense use seems counter intuitive for the perceived problem. Mr. Peterson noted the Commission recently rezoned a property on St. Hwy. 181 that was just as far from a defined commercial node and he is not opposed to this request. Mrs. Milford explained there is a delineated line established between residential and commercial uses in this area. Richard Peterson made a motion to approve the request to rezone the subject property from R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District to B-4 Business and Professional District. Motion failed for a lack of a second. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for DENIAL based on the criteria in Article II Section C.1. e, due to the application being inconsistent with the City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan and the incompatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion cairied with the following vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY -Richard Peterson. ZC 18.14 Public hearing to consider the request of JFL Holdings, LLC to rezone property from B-1 Local Shopping District to B-2 General Business District, Larry Smith. The property is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of S. Church Street and De La Mare Street, at 51 S. Church Street. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the applicant is requesting to rezone a lot 55'xl35' from B-1 Local Shopping District to B-2 General Business District. The applications stated purpose is to make the properties zoning more consistent with the surrounding zoning. The subject property is also located in the Central Business District and 3 December 3, 20 I 8 Planning Commiss ion Minutes are subject to CBD regulations. The applicant stated in a meeting with staff that intended development goal for the prope1ty was to allow the historic home to remain as is but to allow for a restaurant/Bar use in the structure. Therefore, the exterior and historical character would be unchanged with only interior renovations and a change in use. The current B-1 zoning only allows a restaurant through an appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustments . A Bar (primary use) is not allowed in B -1 under any circumstances. A Restaurant with an accessory Bar is allowed in the B-2 district by-right. An "accessory bar" is considered part of a restaurant use. A Bar (primary use) is defined as "a business serving alcoh olic beverages, which may include accessory food and entertainment services." As indicated in the map above, the subject property is currently zoned B-1. It represents the northernmost property in a series of B -1 zonings along South Church Street. The properties North, East, and West are zoned B-2 and are a lso within the CBD boundaries. On the west, the B-2 district extends south to St. James Avenue. The logical boundary for B -2 would extend south to St. James Avenue which represents the subject parcel and 2 other parcels. The historic use of the subject property has been in residential in the fo1mer name of Church Street Inn. The structure is listed as "contributing" which means any building, object, or structure which adds to the historical integrity or architectural qualities that make the historic district, listed locally or federally, significant. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE the requested rezoning from B-1 Local Shopping District to B-2 General Business District. Mr. Turner stated he did not realize the property was not already zoned B-2. Dr. Thayer asked how an accessory use is determined and Mrs. Boyett stated it is based on sales percentages. There was discussion regarding the historic designation and Mr. Turner stated the City does not have any regulations governing historic structures. Mrs. MacKellar asked why the historical information is included if there is nothing preventing the demolition or renovation of the structure. Mrs. Bryant stated the historical designation does not have any bearing on the rezoning and talking about it is muddying the waters. Mr. Smith was present to answer any questions. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. John Bethea of 300 Fairhope A venue -He said he is in favor of the proposed zoning change. He added many of the properties downtown have the historical designation for the tax breaks. Gary Gover of 300 Lincoln Street -He stated there is a Downtown Fairhope Historic District and it is listed with the National Registry . Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mrs. Boyett stated she received calls in favor of the rezoning from Mr . Gene's Beans. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE the requested rezoning from B-1 Local Shopping District to B -2 General Business District. Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motiop. carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY -none. SR 18.06 Request of Bethea, LLC for Site Plan approval of an amendment to Founder's Square, John Bethea. The property is located on the west side of Section Street, at 76 S. Section Street. Mr. Jeffries gave the staff report saying this application is as a modification to the existing Founders Square Site Plan originally developed by Mike Bernhardt, approved by the Planning Commission December 4, 2006, and approved by the City Council January 22, 2007. The original development was three phases . Phase I and Phase II were completed . Phase III had the infrastructure installed but nothing further. The requested modifications are to the incomplete Phase III and are considered 4 December 3, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes substantial and exceed those which could be approved administratively pursuant to Fairhope 's Zoning Ordinance Article II.C.2.f. The site consists of two lots with a total of 0.2 acres. The proposed height of the building is 32.5' which is 7 .5' shorter than what is allowed. The approved Phase 3 consisted of 5 lots with 4 of the lots having 1 buil ding each. Each building had 1 residential unit, 1 commercial unit, and 2 parking spaces. The fifth lot was used for common area to access the other phases from Section Street. The proposed amendment would allow for the development of two buildings which mirror each other. They are two stories with a breezeway on the second floor connecting the buildings. They are separated by a common wall and do not have direct access to each other. Each building contains 3 units. The bottom floors will each have two commercial units. The second floors each have one residential unit. The common area will remain connecting the first two phases to Section Street between the buildings . The applicant has re-platted the property, so the development will not encroach on any property boundaries in leu of the fact that he is the sole owner of all them. Erik Cortinas, Building Official, was consulted regarding the common wall and the regulations for fire rating were discussed and will be followed. There is a possibility that the common wall could contain a door with the appropriate fire rating to allow for access and connectivity between the two second floor units if necessary. Utilities are established on site from the previous development. This development has the same proposed use and general configuration as the previously approved Site Plan. The most significant change is the reduction of the number of residential units from 4 to 2 and the number of parking spaces from 8 to 2. The 8 spaces from the original Site Plan was double what was required and the 2 proposed spaces meet the parking requirements. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE with the following conditions: 1. A hold hannless agreement shall be signed and recorded for the balcony overhang onto city property. 2. The balcony must contain lighting for the sidewalk. 3. The sidewalk width shall be a minimum of 8 feet per Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance Article V.B.4.e. Mr. Turner opened the floor to public comments and no one was present to speak. Mr. Bethea was present to answer any questions. Mrs . Bryant asked if there will be any residential on the first floor and Mr. Bethea responded no, residential will only be on the second floor. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE with the following conditions: 1. A hold harmless agreement shall be signed and recorded for the balcony overhang onto city property. 2. The balcony must contain lighting for the sidewalk. 3. The sidewalk width shall be a minimum of 8 feet per Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance Article V.B.4.e. Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY -none. ZC 18.15 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for an amendmentto Article III, Section B.1. Table 3-1: Use Table of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance to allow Public Utility in all 5 December 3, 2018 Planning Com missi on Minu tes zoning districts permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions. Mr. King gave the staff report saying a Public Utility is defined in the ordinance in Article IX.B. as: "a use of any structure, land, or infrastructure by a regulated enterprise or franchise to provide a service to all members of the general public that is deemed essential for the public health, safety, mul welfare. Review by the Planning Commission, in accordance with Section 11-52-11 of the Code of Alabama,for review of compliance with the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, may be required for all public utility facilities." A Public Utility is currently only allowed on appeal in 15 of the 19 Zo ning Districts. The Operations Director for the Fairhope Utilities has requ ested an amendment to the Use Table to allow utilities, on appeal, in every zoning district. The effect of this amendment would be to allow an appeal , in every district, to place public utilities i.e. lift station, substation etc. in every district subject to review by the Zoning Board of Adjustments (BOA). Appeals reviewed by the BOA are reviewed against the following criteria: Article II .C.3.E(2) (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; (b) Compliance with any other approved planning document; (c) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; (d) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; (e) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; (I) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post- development conditions; (g) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; (Ii) Compliance witlt other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; (i) Impacts 011 adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; 0) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. (k) Overall benefit to the community; (1) Compliance with sound planning principles; (m) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; and (n) Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE the proposed amendment t o Use Table 3-1 to allow public utilities, by appeal, in every district. Mr. Peterson stated this amendment will allow new sub stations and lift stations throughout the City. He explained the locations should not be dictated by zoning use but by economics and geography. Mr. Turner opened the public h earing. Gary Gover of 3 00 Lincoln Street -He asked if the risks and nuisances have been evaluated for these types of improvements. He said everyone needs to know and understand what this will entail. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing . Mr. Turner explained the locations will b e r eviewed as part of the BOA approval which is why it is permitted only on appeal. Mr. Dyas stated each case will be review based on the criteria outlined in the ordinance. Mrs. Bryant said she would like to see more specific language or design standards for screening. Mr. King explained each case will 6 Dece mber 3, 20 18 Planning Co mmission Minutes require a public hearing and review of staff and the BOA prior to approval. Mr. P et erson stated the utilities are always looking at new ways to h elp blend the required infrastructure into the surrounding environment, but every site is unique and needs t o be evaluated individually to accomplish the best scenario. Rebecca Bryant made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE the proposed amendment to Use Table 3-1 to allow public utilitie s, by appeal, in every di strict. Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote : A YE-Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnso n, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice H all-Black. NAY -none. Old/ New Business SD 16.34 Request of Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for a two-year extension of the preliminary plat approval for Old Battles Village, Phase 4, Steve Pumphrey. Mr. Turner stated the Commission ha s previous ly only granted one-year extensions. Mr. Dyas asked if that precludes the Commission from granting two years and Mr. Watson responded no. Hollie MacKellar made a motion to approve a one-year extension of the preliminary plat approval for SD 16.34 Old Battles Village, Phase 4. Charles Johnson 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote : A YE -Art D yas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson , Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson , and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY -none. SD 16.27 Request of Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for a two -year extension of the preliminary plat approval for Fairhope Falls, Phase 2 and 3, Steve Pumphrey. Hollie MacKellar made a motion to approve a one-year extension of the preliminary plat approval for SD 16.27 Fairhope Falls, Phase 2 and 3. Art Dya s 2nd the motion and the motion carried tmanimously with the following vote: A YE -Art D yas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY -none. Greenspace Discussion -Mr. King reviewed the proposed amendment to the greenspace requirements in the Subdivision Regul ation s. He highlighted the significant changes saying the greenspace requirements will be staggered based on density. Mr. Turner questioned why multiple occupancy projects only require 10 % across the board and sugge sted it b e based on density as well. Mrs . MacKellar and Mrs. Bryant agreed they would like t o see MOPs requirements be based on density. Mrs. MacKellar said she is excited to see these changes implemented. Having no further business, Richard Peterson made a motion to adjourn. Hollie MacKellar 2nd the motion and the motio n carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM. ~-1~ ---Leeurrt'er, Chairman --==-- 7