Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2021 Planning Commission MinutesApril 5. 2021 Planning Commission 'vlinutcs The Planning Commission met Monday, April 5th at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Hollie MacKellar (via virtual attendance); Harry Kohler (via virtual attendance), John Worsham; Jason Langley, Water and Sewer Director; I Iuntcr Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Planner (via virtual attendance); Carla Davis, Planner (via virtual attendance); Samara Walley, Planner (via virtual attendance); Kim Burmeister, Planning and Zoning (minutes); and Chris Williams, City Attorney Absent: Rebecca Bryant, Clarice Hall and Jimmy Conyers Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5: 10 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. ZC 20.05 520 N. Greeno Road Rezoning Public hearing to request rezoning of .73 acres from R-1 Low Density single family residential to Highway Transitional District (HTD). Property Owner /Applicant: Donna Dawsey, Penny Odom, & Sandra Lee General Location: East side of Greeno Road between Dyer Road and Gayfer Avenue Project Type: Rezoning Project Acreage: .73 acres Zoning District: R-1, Low Density Residential District PPIN Number: 3193 Engineer of record: n/a School District: Fairhope Elementary, Middle, & High School Report prepared by: Samara Walley {City Planner) via virtual meeting connection Comments Hunter presented case summary: Donna Dawsey, Penny Odom, and Sandra Lee are requesting to rezone property from R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District to Highway Transitional District. The property is approximately .73 acres and is located on the east side of Greeno Road between Dyer Road and Gayfer Avenue, at 520 N. Greeno Road. The applicants state that the property is no longer conducive for residential use and this is therefore justification for their request. The applicants state that there are no proposed plans for the property at this time. After listing the property for several months, there has been no residential interest. They state that they have, however, received some commercial interest if rezoned commercially. It should be noted that the Planning Commission recommended tabling this application at its November 5. 2020 meeting. At that time the applicants were requesting to rezone the property 1 April 5. 2021 Planning Commission \1inutcs to B-2, General Business District. The Fairhope City Council recently adopted the Highway Transitional District. Ordinance 1702 was adopted February 22, 2021. The applicant is now seeking to rezone to the newly adopted Highway Transitional District (HTD). Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of case number ZC 20.05 520 N. Greeno Road rezoning from R-1 to HTD. One of the owners, Sandra Lee (11755 Halcyon Loop, Daphne, AL) spoke on behalf of family for the rezoning of the property. Property has no residential interest but there is some interest for commercial here. Rezone to HTD would be a less intensive use than other commercial zoning. Hunter gave a description of HTD and allowable uses per the Zoning Ordinance: Article \I, Section I. HTD -Highway Transitional District 1. Intent The special standards listed in this section for the highway transitional district are intended to: • Provide an alternative to properties along state highways within the City of Fairhope that are beyond the area of influence of the Village Nodes and Commercial Nodes as contemplated by the City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan. • Provide development opportunities consistent with the City's vision for commercial corridors to better serve community needs. • Unlike other districts within this section, the HTD is not an overlay district and does not affect any property owners, other than those who voluntarily apply for rezoning to this district. 2. Size Lots shall be a minimum of 20,000 s.f and under 3 acres. 3. Use Uses for the HTD are listed in Table 3-1: Use Table. Rezoning to HTD may be conditioned so that uses permitted on appeal require a site plan. 4. Location -Eligible lots must have minimum of 100 feet on one side fronting the rights- of-way of US Highway 98, Alabama Highway 104, or Alabama Highway 181 and lie within the Corporate Jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope. Lee Turner said this seems to be a good compromise for rezoning. Public Hearing: none 2 April 5, 2021 Planning Commission \1inutcs Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case ZC 20.05 2nd: Art Dyas 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote: AD-Aye RB -Absent HK-Aye JW-Aye LT-Aye HM -Aye JL -Aye CHB -Absent JC -Absent SR 21.01 Magnolia Mixed Use Site Plan Review; Public hearing to consider the request of FST Wisc Properties-TN, LLC and S.E. Civil for approval of the site plan Property Owner: FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC Applicant: FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC and S.E Civil General Location: The north side of Magnolia Avenue just east of Church Street. Project Type: Site Plan Review Zoning District: B-2 General Business District Parent Parcel PPIN Number: 254510 and 343620 Engineer of record: S.E Civil School District: Fairhope West Elementary, Fairhope Middle, Fairhope High School Report prepared by: Hunter Simmons Recommendation: Denial Summary/Comments Public hearing to consider the request of FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC for Site Plan review approval of Magnolia Mixed Use, a 20-unit multiple occupancy project. The subject property is zoned B-2 General Business District and approximately .31 acres (13,288 square feet). The property is located on the north side of Magnolia Avenue just east of Church Street. A MOP case was submitted simultaneously with this Site Plan application. Consequently, staff report for the MOP and the Site Plan Review will be similar. The applicant proposes a 3-story mixed-use building. As proposed, the ground floor consists of two office spaces and a parking garage with 16 parking spaces (6 of which are compact spaces). One of the 3 April 5. 2021 Planning Commission '.\1inutcs commercial spaces is 1,780 sf and the other unit is 400 sf, thus providing 18.7% commercial space on the ground floor. Use for the two commercial spaces was not provided but will be available for future rental space. The second and third floor plans are identical, consisting of 8 residential units and 1 commercial space on each floor for a total of 16 residential units and 2 commercial spaces. Each of the commercial spaces are 1840 sf. Along with the commercial space on the ground floor, there is a total of 5,860 sf of commercial space proposed. "Commercial Space" is clearly identified on the plat, however if approved it should be noted that the space shall not be utilized for dwelling units. Ten of the residential units are 1BR and six are 2BR. The applicant stated all units will be long-term rentals and will not be short-term rentals. Materials primarily consist of brick and stucco. Materials are illustrated on included elevations. Plans also illustrate a building height, including parapet wall, of 40' and appear to be measured from the from the midpoint of the front far;:ade to the top of the roof. The applicant proposes the building built to the front and rear property lines and will provide an 8' sidewalk within the ROW that includes two tree wells planted with Chinese Pastiche trees. There are currently four parallel parking spaces within the ROW. Two of those space will need to be removed to allow ingress/egress, leaving to spaces per applicant comments. There is approximately 5' between either side of the building and the side property lines. Drainage, as well as most utilities are provided within the 5' spaces. Balconies are proposed that project over City sidewalks. A hold-harmless agreement is provided as required by the City. A revised site plan also depicts a courtyard to be added to the site. Garbage will be collected in 5 individual garbage bins stored within the parking garage. The property owner has a management team that will be responsible for taking out the trash cans and returning them. The site will be serviced by Fairhope Utilities for electric, gas, water, and sewer. AT&T will be the telephone provider. An underground vault was approved for the electrical transformer, by the former electrical superintendent. Within the last few weeks, the applicant was informed by the Electric Department an underground vault was not a viable option. To date, an alternative plan has not been finalized. Staff is concerned about a potential location and questions where a transformer, if required, would be located. Drainage is connecting to an existing stormwater conveyance system. It should be noted, if approved, an administrative replat will be required prior to issuance of a building permit to combine the two lots into one. 4 April 5, 2021 Planning Commission V!inutcs Finally, staff briefly discussed an alternative curbing option other than currently proposed but was unable to continue discussions due to matters beyond our control. The ultimate solution should not greatly impact the proposed development so staff recommends a conditional of approval that all sidewalks, curbing, and striping located in the City ROW be approve by the City of Fairhope Public Works. Hunter: This project was tabled by the Planning Commission in February 2021 due to traffic and garbage concerns. Changes did not change on residential units; these stay at 16 units. Ground floor commercial was reduced to 400 s. f. (reduced from 525) and 1780 s. f. (reduced from 2080 s.f.). and cited recent complaints with the Henry Flats development next door. Applicant states these will be long term rentals not short-term rentals. Proposed are 16 parking spaces: 6 compact, 9 (instead of 8) regular parking spaces, and 1 (instead of 2) handicap parking spaces. There will be 5 instead of 10 garbage cans provided for the proposed project. Henry Flats, similar project next door, was used as reference for garbage requirements. 2nd and 3rd floor is proposed to contain 1,850 s. f. of "common commercial space". A mechanic closet was added as well. Front elevation has been revised. No side or rear revisions. Historically we have not required much parking in the CBD. However, parking meters are suggested in areas limited parking such as Fairhope's CBD. Code Enforcement has received complaints on parking issues stemming from Henry Flats. Parking is currently an issue, recently Henry Flats managed towed a vehicle from city right of way. Henry Flats was advertising "No Parking" for city right of way spots. There is a potential issue with the stripping of the parking areas and compact car spaces in the parking garage of Henry Flats, limiting parking inside. Garbage pick up is also anticipated to be an issue, based on visual observations of Henry Flats waste management (garbage cans being left out, etc.). He anticipates this project might have similar issues. The standards of the zoning ordinance have been met, but, in staff's interpretation, staff does not believe the goals and intent of the zoning ordinance, nor the CBD district overlay, has been achieved. Mixed use with commercial and residential uses are encouraged throughout the city. However, we must evaluate the intensity of proposed developments and evaluate the burden on the community. All things considered, staff believe the proposed project, as currently proposed, attempts to pack too much into too small a space. It does not provide an overall benefit to the community. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of case SR 21.01 Larry Smith, SE Civil, Engineer of record for project, spoke via virtual attendance on behalf of the applicant. Commercial is being utilized as much as possible per the City's request. Applicant has tried hard to meet the intentions of the CBD. He said Henry Flats management put up No Parking signs because near properties have done the same. Art asked Hunter what an appropriate use for this site would be. Hunter said commercial as primary and residential as secondary use. Art said CBD property should support and establish businesses as primary function of the CBD. Lee stated that 16 parking spaces (the requirement) does not seem to be enough for a unit with this proposed density. He suggested a possible zoning ordinance change in the future. 5 April 5. 2021 Planning Commission \1inutcs Lee: City may need to consider metered parking if we consider projects of this nature in the future. Art: CBD needs to stay primarily business/commercial, as per the definition of the Central Business District. Lee: Community expects the leaders to protect and preserve downtown. Art: People expect to park close to the business they are supporting. Parking is very limited downtown and this is perceived as a parking problem. Larry Smith, S. E. Civil: (via virtual attendance): Building space has been manipulated to utilize as much commercial space as possible. Fifty percent of the ground floor is commercial. "No parking" signs referenced from Henry Flats have been removed, though there are still some similar signs nearby with similar issues. The stripes Hunter referenced are not impeding the traffic isle. Garbage cans are not out at night (Henry Flats). Pictures shown were during the day, placed out for pick up. Maximum allowed parking for residential per zoning is 19 and we are proposing 16. City may need to change the zoning ordinance. He is at a loss on this one (as to denial). Public hearing: Mike Dobson, 311 Magnolia: His residence at 311 Magnolia is mixed use but the primary function is commerc·1al. His residential unit is on two floors and is single family. He would be the next-door neighbor to this property. He received an award from the City of Fairhope on the development of his mixed-use property. He said he has not been able to reach Mr. John Wise to fully express his concerns. His concerns are: Parking, which is already an issue Garbage and trash placement, which is already an issue for Henry Flats, a similar project next door He is vehemently opposed to this project. Blake Barnes, attorney and property owner of law firm at 306 Magnolia: His concerns are: This project proposes too much density (22-32 people) for one third of an acre. This project does not meet the intent of mixed use which should be primarily commercial with residential as a secondary use. He said the commercial units downstairs at Henry Flats, the similar project developed next door, are still unoccupied and are being used for storage. There is no common area for this property He is opposed to this project. Mike Shipper, lawyer/ property owner of 52 North Church Street. He cited sections in the Subdivision Regulations. This project will not be harmonious with other downtown properties. He is opposed to the project. Doug Kennedy~ business owner of property at 308 Magnolia Balconies of proposed property are two feet from property line Traffic is already an issue on Magnolia 6 April 5. 2021 Planning Commission \:1inut.:s Residents from this project would very likely use his parking area for parking because parking is already an issue He is opposed to this project John Wise, property owner: via virtual attendance: spoke to express his extreme disappointment with the way this case has been handled. He has redesigned the project from 24 units to 16. He feels he has met all conditions and does not understand what kind of development the city would support here. Mixed use is being promoted. Change the city regulations. Commissioners have a duty to abide by the regulations. It does not appear staff is going by the regulations. He wants the City to tell him exactly what will be acceptable here. He has spent 600K on the property and has rights to develop. He respects the adjoining property owner's opinions and apologized for not being in contact with Mr. Dobson. Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to DENY Case SR 21.01 Art asked him to state the reason for the denial motion. Reason for denial per John: Denial is based on intent of CBD which is primarily commercial use. This project will require the removal of at least two city parking areas. This project is primarily residential with a commercial afterthought, and that is not the intent of the CBD district. 2nd: Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote SR 21.01 for recommending City Council deny this project: AD -Aye RB -Absent HK-Aye JW -Aye LT-Aye HM Aye JL-Aye CHB -Absent JC -Absent Unanimously denied 7 April 5. 2021 Planning Commission Minutes SD 21.10 Magnolia Mixed Use MOP; Public hearing to consider the request of FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC and S.E. Civil for approval of the MOP Property Owner: FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC Applicant: FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC and S.E Civil General Location: The north side of Magnolia Avenue just east of Church Street. Project Type: Municipal Occupancy Project (MOP) Zoning District: B-2 General Business District Parent Parcel PPIN Number: 254510 and 343620 Engineer of record: S.E Civil School District: Fairhope West Elementary, Fairhope Middle, Fairhope High School Report prepared by: Carla Davis Recommendation: Denial Summary/Comments Public hearing to consider the request of FST Wise Properties-TN, LLC for Site Plan review approval of Magnolia Mixed Use, a 20-unit multiple occupancy project. The subject property is zoned B-2 General Business District and approximately .31 acres (13,288 square feet). The property is located on the north side of Magnolia Avenue just east of Church Street. A Site Plan application was submitted simultaneously with this Site MOP application. Consequently, staff report for the MOP and the Site Plan Review will be similar. The applicant proposes a 3-story mixed-use building. As proposed, the ground floor consist of two commercial spaces and a parking garage with 16 parking spaces (6 of which are compact spaces). One of the commercial spaces is l,780sf and the other is 400 square feet. Thus providing 18.7% commercial space on the ground floor. Use for the two commercial spaces was not provided but will be available for future rental space. The second and third floor plans are identical, consisting of 8 residential units and 1 commercial space on each floor for a total of 16 residential units and 2 commercial spaces. Each of the commercial spaces are 1840 sf. Along with the commercial space on the ground floor, there is a total of 5,860 sf of commercial space proposed. "Commercial Space" is clearly identified on the plat, however if approved it should be noted that the space shall not be utilized for dwelling units. Ten of the residential units are lBR and six are 2BR. The applicant stated all units will be long-term rentals and will not be short-term rentals. The applicant proposes the building built to the front and rear property lines and will provide an 8' sidewalk within the ROW that includes two tree wells planted with Chinese Pastiche trees. There are currently four parallel parking spaces within the ROW. Two of those space will need to be removed to allow ingress/egress, leaving to spaces per applicant comments. There is approximately 5' between either side of the building and the side property lines. Drainage, as well as most utilities are provided within the 5' spaces. 8 April 5, 2021 Planning Cornrni,si,rn \1inutcs Balconies are proposed that project over City sidewalks. A hold-harmless agreement is provided as required by the City. The site plan has also been revised to depict a courtyard. Garbage will be collected in 5 individual garbage bins stored within the parking garage. The property owner has a management team that will be responsible for taking out the trash cans and returning them. The site will be serviced by Fairhope Utilities for electric, gas, water, and sewer. AT&T will be the telephone provider. An underground vault was approved for the electrical transformer, by the former electrical superintendent. Within the last few weeks, the applicant was informed by the Electric Department an underground vault was not a viable option. To date, an alternative plan has not been finalized. Staff is concerned about a potential location and questions where a transformer, if required, would be located. Drainage is connecting to an existing stormwater conveyance system. It should be noted, if approved an administrative replat will be required prior to issuance of a building permit to combine the two lots into one. While the proposed project may provide the minimum required parking, staff believes the density of units on .31 acres creates an unreasonable burden on adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff fails to see how revised plans address traffic and parking concerns posed by the Planning Commission. Staff acknowledges the applicant made efforts to include more commercial space, but overall unit counts remained the same. All things considered, while staff agrees the proposed project may meet the standards of the zoning ordinance, we do not believe the goals and intentions have been achieved. 16 residential units and 4 commercial units on .31 acres while providing 16 off- street parking spaces and removing 2 on-street spaces negatively impacts adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods. Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of case SD 21.10. Note: This is tied to SR 21.01. Hunter: The site plan and MOP are similar. Other than the electrical supply, the technical standards of the case are resolved. However, staff believes for reasons stated in SR 21.01, the proposed project is not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. For the reason, staff recommends denial. Public Hearing: See Public Hearing comments in SR 21.01 Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to DENY Case SD 21.10 9 April 5, 2021 Planning Commission \1inutcs Reason for denial: Denial is based on intent of CBD which is primarily commercial use. This project will require the removal of at least two city parking areas. This project is primarily residential with a commercial afterthought, and that is not the intent of the CBD district. 2nd: Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote SD 21.10 AD-Aye RB -Absent HK-Aye JW-Aye LT-Aye HM -Aye JL-Aye CHB -Absent JC-Absent Unanimous Lee stated that cases ZC 21.05 and ZC 21.06 have been withdrawn from this meeting. SD 21.16 Mayfield Subdivision; Public hearing to consider the request of David Baxter and ,Jerri Mayfield for approval of the 3-Iot subdivision on the East side of Lawrence Road just South of the intersection Gayfer Road Property Owner /Applicant: David Baxter and Jerri Mayfield General Location: East side of Lawrence Road, just South of the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension Project Type: 3-Lot Minor Subdivision Project Acreage: 29.14 acres Zoning District: Unzoned PPIN Number: 36376 Engineer of record: S. E. Civil School District: Fairhope Elementary, Middle, & High School Report prepared by: Samara Walley (City Planner) April 5. 2021 Planning Commission \1 inutcs Comments: Public hearing to consider the request of David Baxter and Jerri Mayfield for plat approval of Mayfield Subdivision, 3-lot minor division. The property is approximately 29.14 acres and is located on the east side of Lawrence Road, just south of the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension. The subject property is in Fairhope's Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope's Subdivision Regulations. Fairhope's Subdivision Regulations Article VI Section D requires the provision of sidewalks along all streets in the Planning Jurisdiction of Fairhope. The preliminary plat does not illustrate sidewalks and therefore the applicant is requesting a waiver. The site plan illustrates a 3-lot division fronting Lawrence Road. Two fire hydrants are illustrated on the plat within a 450' radius of each other. Utility and drainage easements are illustrated on the plat for each lot. In lieu of a sidewalk, the applicant has illustrated a sidewalk easement along Lawrence Road. There are wetlands illustrated on the site. A 30' wetland buffer has been provided. The applicant has also provided a Wetland Delineation from Wetland Sciences. Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of case number SD 21.16 Mayfield Subdivision with the following condition; Approval of sidewalk waiver. Samara stated thf' details of the case. Staff has received all utility letters. David Diehl, surveyor with S.E. Civil, was present via virtual attendance to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. He said the applicant has received a family subdivision exemption from the County. Public hearing: none Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case SD 21. 16 with the following conditions of approval: • Approval of sidewalk waiver. 2nd: Art Dyas 2nd tne motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote for appr9vaLof SO 21.16: AD -Aye RB Absent HK Aye JW Aye 11 April 5, 2021 Planning Commission Vlinutc:s LT-Aye HM-Aye JL-Aye CHB Absent JC -Absent Unanimous approval SD 20.48 The Estates at the Verandas Village Subdivision Amendment; Public hearing to consider the request of FST, Verandas LLC for approval of the request to amend the Verandas Village Subdivision approved November 2020, from Phase 2 to Phase 2 and 3. Property Owner /Applicant: General Location: Project Type: Number of Lots: Project Acreage: Zoning District: PPIN Number: Engineer of record: School District: Report prepared by: Comments: FST, Verandas LLC south side of State Highway 104 approximately 3/8 mile east of the SR 104 I SR 181 intersection Village Subdivision Amendment 120 59.72+/- Unzoned 64685 Dewberry Engineers Fairhope East, Middle, and High School Mike Jeffries Dewberry Engineers on behalf of FST Verandas LLC requesting an amendment to the Estates at the Verandas Village Subdivision approved November 2020. The approved village plan includes 2 phases. Phase 1 has preliminary approval January 2021. The request is to split phase 2 creating an additional phase. This will have a result of three phases total in the village subdivision. No other changes are proposed, Staff Recommendation: Approval of the amendment to the Village Subdivision Hunter: this case is also tied to SD 21.17 and SD 21.18. Current Phase 2 is being proposed as Phase 2 (SD 21.17) and Phase 3 (SD 21.18). This is simply to divide phase 2 into phase 2 and 3. In the future, he may handle this administratively, if planning commission approves. Lee said yes, administrative approval would be appropriate in the future. Trae Corte, property owner and developer, was in attendance to answer questions. He asked Hunter if the City had renumber some of his lots. Hunter said they have renumbered some consecutive lot numbers. 12 April 5. 2021 Planning Com1111ssio11 \i!i11ulcs Hunter said he can address this administratively. Public hearing: No one spoke Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case SD 20.48 2nd: Art Dyas Fd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote for approval of SD 20.48 AD-Aye RB -Absent HK -Aye JW-Aye LT-Aye HM -Aye JL-Aye CHB -Absent JC-Absent Unanimous approval SD 21.17 The Estates at the Verandas Phase 2; Public hearing to consider the request of FST, Verandas LLC for approval of the 25-lot subdivision on Highway 104 near State Highway 181 Property Owner /Applicant: FST, Verandas LLC General Location: south side of State Highway 104 approximately 3/8 mile east of the SR 104 I SR 181 intersection Project Type: Number of Lots: Project Acreage: Zoning District: PPIN Number: Engineer of record: School District: Report prepared by: Major Subdivision 25 88.87 +/- Unzoned 64685 Dewberry Engineers Fairhope East, Middle, and High School Mike Jeffries 13 April 5_ 2021 Planning Comnllssicrn \1inutcs Comments: Drainage. Engineer of Record provided a report that the proposed project meets or exceeds both Fairhope's and Baldwin County's subdivisions regulations and will not have an adverse effect downstream. The Low Impact Development techniques utilized on site provides a 95.8% TSS removal exceedrng the 80% required. Greenspace requirement was waived with approval of the Village Subdivision due to lot size. Proposed phase 2 is in substantial conformance to the approved Village Subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Approve with the following condition: Approval of the omendment to SD 20.48 Estates at the Verandas Village Subdivision (approved in November 2020). Trae Corte, owner and developer, was in attendance to answer questions. Hunter reviewed the case details, with Mike Jeffries attending via virtual attendance. Public Hearing~ No one spoke Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case SD 21.17 with the following conditions of approval: 2nd: • Approval of the amendment to SD 20.48 Estates at the Verandas Village Subdivision Art Dyas 2"" the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote on approval of SD 21.17 AD -Aye RB -Absent HK Aye JW-Aye LT -Aye HM -Aye JL -Aye CHB-Absent 14 April :i. 2021 Planning Commi.s.,illn Vlinulcs JC~ Absent Unanimous approval SD 21.18 The Estates at the Verandas Phase 3; Public hearing to consider the request of FST, Verandas LLC for approval of the 10-Iot subdivision on Highway 104 near State Highway 181 Property Owner /Applicant: FST, Verandas LLC General Location: south side of State Highway 104 approximately 3/8 mile east of the SR 104 I SR 181 intersection Project Type: Number of Lots: Project Acreage: Zoning District: PPIN Number: Engineer of record: School District: Report prepared by: Comments: ----- Major Subdivision 10 +I- Unzoned 64685 Dewberry Engineers Fairhope East, Middle, and High School Mike Jeffries Drainac1e • engineer of Record provided a report that the proposed project meets or exceeds both Fcwhope's and Baldwin County's subdivisions regulations and will not have an adverse effect downstream. The Low Impact Development techniques utilized on site provides a 95.8% TSS removal exceeding the 80% required. Greenspace requirement was waived with approval of the Village Subdivision due to lot size. Proposed phase 3 is in substantial conformance to the approved Village Subdivision. ~fiecommendation: Approve with the following condition: " Approval of the amendment to SD 20.48 Estates at the Verandas Village Subdivision Troe Corte, owner and developer, was in attendance to answer questions. Public Hearing: No one spoke Motion: John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case SD 21.18 with the following conditions of approval: 2nd: • Approval of the amendment to SD 20.48 Estates at the Verandas Village Subdivision 15 April 5. 0021 Pla1111111g Co1111ni"1011 vlinutc:s Art Dyas 2nci the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Vote onQJ2Proval QfSD 21.18 AD-Aye RB-Absent HK-Aye JW-Aye LT-Aye HM-Aye JL-Aye CHB -Absent JC -Absent Unanimous approval SD 21.19 Fairhope Falls Phase 8; Public hearing to consider the request of Leonard and Sharon Smart and 68 Ventures, LLC for approval of the 34 lot subdivision on Highway 104 Property Owner /Applicant: Leonard and Sharon Smart and 68 Ventures, LLC General Location: east side of Langford Road just north of Dressage Way Project Type. Number of Lots: Project Acreage: Zoning District: PPIN Number: Engineer of record: School District: Report prepored by: Comments: -~··------~ Major Subdivision 34 10.84+/- Unzoned 350639,310029 Dewberry Engineers Fairhope East, Middle, and High School Mike Jeffries Drainage has been reviewed and approved by City of Fairhope's Public Works Director, l\ichard Johnson, P.E. The drainage for phases 4-9 will utilize 3 detention ponds that will discharge through concrete weir outfalls structures to the immediate pond downstream cventuailv into a stilling basin before sheet flowing into existing wetlands. -The ponds as wet basins achieve the required 80% TSS removal. -The applicont has received the proper wetland permits to combine a small non-jurisdictional wetland too larger wetland pond. o Wetlond buffer signs must be in place prior to any land disturbance activities. 16 April, '.'021 Plarn1111~1 C\)rnmi.-..:--inn \'linut('.-1 -The proposed lot sizes and layout are consistent with the approved Village Subdivision and with mimmum lot size of 9,100 SF. I\ traffic study was provided for that included the remaining phases 4-9 encompassing 391 lots. The study recommended improvements for the intersection of Langford Road and SR 104 be widened to accommodate northbound left turn lane, an eastbound right turn lane, and a westbound left turn lane. These improvements shall be installed before application for Final Plat. Staff Recommendatiqn: Approve with the following condition: • A rep/at sat1sjyinq condition 1 of approval for SD 20.47 Fairhope Falls West Village Subdivision. • Recommended t raffle improvements as stated in staff report are installed prior to acceptance of application for f1nal plat. Any deviation will require reapproval from the Planning Commission. • Amenities are 1nstolled prior to acceptance of application for final plat. Hunter provided cJetails of the case. Reminder to the developer on requirements for requesting extensions. 1f needed Applicant I developer has two years to obtain final plat approval. All phases are expected to be completed by 2024. Lee asked I lunter jor clarif1cation on the two-year deadline with projects needing more time to complete und obtmn finol plat. Normally there is only one extension allowed. Hunter sOl<i it depenc}s on construction details but also depends on percentage of project completion as to whether or not st off would recommend granting approval for extensions. Art said hypothettco!/y opp/leant might be required to re-apply if not granted an extension or not granted a second extension, based on current regulations. Cherice f3r 1mnon, Oewberry, was available via virtual attendance to answer any questions on behalf of the developer. She 1S wwting on a response from AL-DOT to determine whether the entrance at 104 will be required w hove a traffic light. There will be a left turn lane regardless of traffic signal requirement. Public heari!)K none Motion: Art Uyas rncJ a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case SD 21.19 with the followinp, conditions of approval: • A rep/at sal1sf ylnq condition 1 of approval for SD 20.47 Fairhope Falls West Village Subdivision. • Rep/at clorifyinq phasinq lines • Recon1menoecf tmff1c improvements as required by AL-DOT (including traffic lights) and as per staff recomrnendmion, ond as stated in staff report. These shall be installed prior to acceptance of applicotJOn for Jina/ plat. Any deviation will require reapproval from the Planning Commission. 17 April· :,1121 Pla1111111g (·01111111,,1,,11 \1i1111tc, • Ame mt !es ore :nstolled prior to acceptance of application for final plat. 2nd John Worsham ) the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote Vote onggproval QfSD 21.19 AD-Aye RB -Absent HK-Aye JW-Aye LT -Aye HM-Aye JL-Aye CHB-Abscnt JC-Abser;t Unanimous clpprovcJI SD 2 l.20 rho pc Falls Phase 9; Public hearing to consider the request of Leonard and Sharon Smart and 68 Ventures, LLC for approval of the 58 lot subdivision on Highway 10-t Property Owner /Applicant: Leonard and Sharon Smart and 68 Ventures, LLC General Locotwn: east side of Langford Road just north of Dressage Way Project Type: Number of Lots: Project Acreage. ZomncJ Distnct.· PPIN Number. Engineer of record: School District: Report prepored by: Comments ----~--·- Major Subdivision 58 18.31+/- Unzoned 310029 Dewberry Engineers Fairhope East, Middle, and High School Mike Jeffries [)rainagc has been reviewed and approved by City of Fairhope's Public Works Director, hicharu Jchnson, P.E. The drainage for phases 4-9 will utilize 3 detention ponds that will d,sc:hargr' through concrete weir outfalls structures to the immediate pond downstream cvcntucJ: into a stilling basin before sheet flowing into existing wetlands. -7 he ponds us wet basins achieve the required 80% TSS removal. -7 hos received the proper wetland permits to combine a small non-jurisdictional wet/om! too forger wetland pond. ;, Vvetlund buffer signs must be in place prior to any land disturbance activities. 18 April -'ll21 Plan111::/ Cu1n11\h·,\"" Vlt\Htlcs -7 IH: proposed lot sizes and layout are consistent with the approved Village Subdivision and vv1lh n11n11num lot size of 8,344 SF n troff 1c study was provided for that included the remaining phases 4-9 encompassing 391 luls. I ht· sl udy recommended improvements for the intersection of Langford Road and SR 104 be widened to accommodate northbound left turn lane, an eastbound right turn lane, and a nd left turn lane. These improvements shall be installed before application for Final Staff Recommendotion: Approve w 1th the following condition: • A replot sa11sjy1nu condition 1 of approval for SD 20.47 Fairhope Falls West Village Subdivision. • Recomrnendeci ! rajfic improvements as directed by AL-DOT and staff and as stated in staff report; installed p11or to acceptance of application for final plat. Any deviation will require reapproval from the Plunninq Commission. • Amem11es ore ins tolled prior to acceptance of application for final plat. Public J Cherice Brannon, Dewberry, was available via virtual attendance to answer any questwns on of the developer. Public commu11 s-none Motton: --- Art I ,,r,is rn, ca motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE Case SD 21.20 with : lie foii:)•Ning conditions of approval: • A repln! sot ;1:1q condition 1 of approval for SO 20.47 Fairhope Falls West Village Subdivision. • Recom, nc>nclt • t mj/ic improvements as required by AL-DOT (including traffic lights) and as per staff recomrnenc}ot 1cn, ond as stated in staff report. These shall be installed prior to acceptance of applicu !ion finol plat. Any deviation will require reapproval from the Planning Commission. • Amemtles ore :nstolled prior to acceptance of application for final plat. 2nd John Wursl1,:11 ) the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote Vote on opprcvo/glSD 21.20 AD-Aye RB -Abse 1t HK-Aye JW-Aye LT-Aye HM-Aye JL-Aye 19 April , 1 1i:1 1 Plann-'" ('()11:i11iss1,-11 \l1mllcs CHB-Abs,,n: JC-Abser:• Unani:1 :ous Jpproval Old/New Business 1. /J.1 ,er Place SD 21. 04 applicant I developer has requested a 60 day extension Motun Jo/;n Worsham made a motion to approve the request for 60 day extension 2 nd : /\1 t Dyos the motion leading to the vote~ Vote on apprQvaLof 60-day extension for River Place SD 21.04 AD-Aye RB -Absc:1; HK-Aye JW-Aye LT-Aye HM-Ayf:' JL-Aye CHB -Abs,':'cl JC-Abse 1, l Unanirnuus c1pprovJI ) . Huntc:r requested a work session with Planning Commission once per year to discuss department goals. Work Session tentatively set for April 23 rd at noon, De mps Room if available. Attorney cautioned that this meeting must meet th open meeting rules. 3. 1---hmter mentioned a possible upcoming proposed change to zoning ordinance, amending the Short-Term Rental ordinance to include 8-4 as an allowable zo111r1g for short term rentals. Commissions offered support. Adjournment Molicm to acJJourn by John Worsham: Art Dyas seconded motion to adjourn. Unanimous. Adjcurn al /:15 p.m. _ft Lee lurnL'l", ( 'hairrnan Kirn Burmeister, Planning and Zoning 20