HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2023 Planning Commission Minutes[
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
The Planning Commission met Monday, May l, 2023, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161
N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairman; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Hollie MacKellar; Clarice Hall-Black;
Erik Cortinas, Building Official; Councilman Kevin Boone; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning
Manager; Michelle Melton, City Planner; Chris Williams, City Attorney; and Cindy Beaudreau,
Planning Clerk
Absent: Rebecca Bryant, Jack Burrell
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
Approval of the Minutes April 3, 2023:
Erik Cortinas requested a change to the Minutes at the bottom of page 4 to reflect that the City of
Fairhope would not be providing the pavers for SD 23.12, Washington Square.
John Worsham made a motion to approve the minutes as modified from the April 3, 2023, meeting.
Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black and Erik
Cortinas.
NAY: None.
Consideration of Agenda Items:
IR 23.01 Request of the Applicant, Trae Corte, on behalf of the Owner, Sena, Inc., for an
Informal Review of Belle Vie. The property is approximately 0.40 acres and is located on the
northeast corner of Bayview Street and Fairhope Avenue. PPIN #: 15283
Summary:
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the Informal Review for Belle Vie. This
presentation was prompted by a 4-unit MOP request that was received by the Planning and Zoning
Department. This informal review is to discuss an administrative rep lat of the property and how that
affects the property. This project is on the northeast comer of N Bayview Street and Fairhope Avenue
and was a platted lot from the '20s and it contains two historic lots ofrecord. While there are two historic
lots, the property has been used as a single piece of property since the lots were created. This property
is zoned 3b-3, which has no side setbacks. The setbacks for this property would be 20' for the front and
rear. The applicant would like to develop four condo lots to be used as single-family residences. There
are two lots fronting N Bayview with 20' setbacks; however, along Fairhope Avenue, there is a 20'
landscape buffer. Chairman Turner asked who owned the landscape buffer. Mr. Simmons replied that
the homeowner owns it.
The applicant has requested an administrative replat to combine the two lots. The resulting lot would be
132' x 132'. The Zoning Ordinance refers to frontages based on dimensions. The shortest dimensional
frontage is the front, and all other setbacks and definitions follow. The applicant would like the frontage
on Fairhope Avenue and the rear setbacks on the north side of the property. The Zoning Ordinance also
states that if there are two frontages, then there should be two rear yards as well, which would essentially
1
[
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
place a 20' setback to all parallel lot lines. Staff feels that may be too prohibitive. Staff believes it is
logical to have two front setbacks and one rear setback. Chairman Turner asked if the applicant
combined the two lots into one, would that meet the setbacks? Mr. Simmons stated that it would with
the proposed setbacks. Chairman Turner stated that a precedent has been set of allowing people to
combine lots and he does not see an issue with allowing the applicant to go from two lots to one.
Chairman Turner and Mr. Simmons listed a few projects where this has occurred. Mr. Simmons stated
that the replat gives the City some negotiating ability to work with the setbacks and asked for the
Planning Commission's thoughts.
Hollie MacKellar was concerned with drainage and the footprint of the project. Mr. Simmons stated that
the drainage would be reviewed during the MOP. This presentation is more about the administrative
replat and how it affects the setbacks.
Erik Cortinas confirmed that the proposed buildings are rear loaded, and the access would come off
Bayview, then asked if the City would lose any parallel spots on Fairhope Avenue. Mr. Simmons stated
that the City would not lose any parallel spots on Fairhope A venue. Mr. Cortinas asked whether this
request and/or approval is binding to just this project or does it go with the land. Mr. Simmons replied
that once the replat is signed, it stays with the land, but he does not intend to sign the replat until the
review is complete.
John Worsham asked about the 3' setback on the east side and how the Zoning Ordinance states there
should be a 10' setback for the residence next to it. Mr. Simmons stated that there is park land next to
it. Ms. MacKellar stated that there are residences to the north of the property. Mr. Simmons stated that
there is a historic precedent for this. This is about the zoning when looking at a setback versus how the
property is being used.
Chairman Turner stated he feels very comfortable allowing this property to go from two lots to one, but
not comfortable enough to set the front and rear setbacks. He would prefer to wait for the staff
recommendations and any ramifications. Chairman Turner suggested that Mr. Simmons share the pros
and cons with the developer of the project. Mr. Simmons also noted that there are historic trees on the
property that are protected. Staff has told the applicant to keep the trees, but the applicant will appeal to
the Tree Committee.
SR 23.04 Request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner,
Encounter Development, LLC., for Site Plan Approval of WA WA. The property is
approximately 2.73 acres and is located on Northeast corner of State Highway 181 and State
Highway 104. PPIN #: 108453
Summary:
Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the Site Plan Review for WA WA. The property is zoned B-2
and is approximately 2. 73 acres at the northeast comer of State Highways 104 and 181 with direct
ingress/egress to Highways l 04 and 181. Ms. Melton shared the site plan and the aerials of Lot l. The
highway construction setbacks are 125' along Highway 181 and 100' along Highway 104. The setbacks
will accomplish the 20' greenspace buffers along the highways. There are 20' setbacks facing Encounter
Drive and Bushel Drive. Mr. Simmons stated that the landscape plan includes trees to hide the signs
from the road. The Site Plan includes interior sidewalks in addition to the required 8' sidewalk directly
2
{
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
outside of the store. A 12' wide multi-use trail is proposed throughout the larger development and the
applicant has provided ADA approved crosswalks across the ingress /egress points. The parking plan
meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The original plans contained more than 50 parking
spaces which allowed for 20' light poles. The revised plans include 49 spaces which limit the light poles
to a 10' overall height. Chairman Turner asked for confirmation on the height of the light poles. Mr.
Simmons stated that was something that may need to be discussed because with the lower light poles,
more poles will be needed to allow for the same amount of light. Chairman Turner and Ms. MacKellar
both agreed that they would prefer the 1 O' light poles. Ms. Melton continued with her presentation
stating that the sign plan exceeded the allotted amount, and that WA WA is working on revisions.
Staff recommends conditional approval of SR 23 .04 with the following conditions:
1. The landscape plans shall be revised pursuant to this report and the Tree Ordinance prior to
submission to the City Council.
2. A photometric plan shall be submitted and approved prior to applying for a building permit.
3. Revised signing plan shall conform to the Sign Ordinance.
Chairman Turner confirmed that the 20' of required landscaping is on the right-of-way on their own
property. Mr. Simmons confirmed but stated that there have been some conflicts where greenspace has
not been allowed in the construction setback. ALDOT has been involved, has no intention to acquire
any more area and is okay with the buffer and trees being located on the 20' ofright-of-way. Chairman
Turner asked if, in the future, what if someone is concerned with the height of the trees and comes in
and bulldozes it all down. Mr. Simmons has spoken to Riviera Utilities who confirmed that the power
should never conflict with the trees. Riviera is hoping to begin installing power underground in this area
and getting rid of the overhead lines.
Chairman Turner asked Paul Marcinko, Jade Consulting, what one of the structures was on the plans.
Mr. Marcinko stated that was the gas canopy. Mr. Simmons asked if a fourth condition should be added
to memorialize the height of the lights. Chairman Turner and Mr. Worsham asked if the height of the
light poles would fall within any of the other conditions. Mr. Simmons stated no.
Chairman Turner allowed for public comment.
Motion:
John Worsham made a motion to recommend approval of SR 23.04 subject to staff recommendations
and the addition of a fourth condition that the light poles be at a IO' height.
Hollie Mackellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black and Erik
Cortinas.
NAY: None.
3
[
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
SD 23.15 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC,
acting on behalf of the Owner, RW Battles, LLC, for Final Multiple Occupancy Project
approval for Publix at Point Clear. The property is approximately 25.50 acres and is located at
the Northwest corner of Greeno Road and Old Battles Road. PPIN #: 17515
Summary :
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the final MOP approval for Publix at Point
Clear. The store has been open for a period of time while waiting on the substantial completion letters
from the Engineer and the utility inspections. Once this project is approved, the remaining tenants will
be able to move in. Chairman Turner asked that, in the future, attention is given to the need for redundant
connectivity and the proximity to the road.
Mr. Simmons listed the follow up requirements of the applicant:
l. An MOP Site Plan shall be recorded with Probate like a Final Plat. Staff shall approve the MOP
Site Plan prior to recording. The MOP Site Plan shall be for Lot 5 with units as shown in the
report. The General Layout Plan shall be relabeled MOP Site Plan and the following items
added:
a. Signature blocks shall be added on the cover page.
b. Remove replat Site Data Table. The 16 units approved within this MOP are contained
within Lot 5.
2. Provide Maintenance Bond and Maintenance and Guarantee Agreement for utilities being
accepted by the City of Fairhope.
Chairman Turner asked for confirmation that the electrical is provided by Riviera. Mr. Simmons
confirmed.
Staff recommends approval of SD 23 .15 with the following conditions:
1. Complete the aforementioned "follow up requirements of the applicant"
2. The park area, formally lot 7, shall be restricted to greenspace/park use only
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 5:40pm. Having no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 5 :40pm.
Motion:
Hollie Mac Kellar made a motion to approve Case SD 23 .15 with staff recommendations.
Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black and Erik
Cortinas.
NAY: None.
4
[
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
SD 23.16 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC,
acting on behalf of the Owner, Two Hands Design & Development, LLC, for Final Plat approval
for Hill Top Phase II. The property is approximately 4. 70 acres and is located on the west side
of Section Street on Petiole Drive and north of Petiole Drive. PPIN #: 40591
Summary :
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented final plat approval for Hill Top Phase II. Mr.
Simmons clarified why some of the trees were not installed. He explained that during the process, the
plan on the left (figure 1) contained the drainage areas that were originally submitted during preliminary
plat. The request was to use the plan on the right (figure 2), it was agreed that was a better landscape
plan and it was approved administratively. The perimeter trees had not been intended to be removed, so
the trees are being installed during the week of May 1-5, 2023.
Mr. Simmons listed the follow up requirements of staff and the applicant:
1. Copy of the recorded plat
2. Copy of the recorded O&M Agreement
3. Maintenance and Guaranty Agreement executed by the developer -this document is not
considered fully executed until City Council approves the Acceptance Resolution and the
Mayor signs said agreement.
a. Remember to include the instrument # from the recorded plat
b. Please include 30 days in paragraph 3
4. Final plat must be recorded within 120 days after the date of final approval
Staff recommends approval of SD 23 .16 Hill Top, Phase Two final plat with the following conditions:
1. Installation of remaining punch list items
2. Complete required follow up activities
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 5:43pm. Having no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 5:43pm.
Motion:
John Worsham made a motion to approve Case SD 23.16 subject to staff recommendations.
Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black and Erik
Cortinas.
NAY: None.
5
l
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
Old/New Business:
• ZC 23.03 Amendment to Article III, Section C; and Article V, Section B, in the City of
Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance
Summary:
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented this item stating that Zoning Ordinance
contains one statement that the height limits for the CBD is 40' and three stories. Staff believes that the
instructions need to be clarified in this area of the Zoning Ordinance. Some requirements within the
current regulations utilize form-based codes in the Overlay District that are less concerned with
traditional zoning and more about the forms of buildings, which is distinctly different from Architectural
Reviews. Staff is proposing better standards to clarify the existing goals of the City rather than creating
new regulations and is requesting feedback. Mr. Simmons has received input from multiple people who
stated that the reason for the 40' building height was so the architects could add features like pitched
roofs and detail which would require additional room.
Mr. Simmons shared a slide that showed where if a pitch roof was utilized, the building could be three
stories, but if a flat roof was used, then the building was limited to two stories. Ms. MacKellar stated
that the top floor on the flat roof could be utilized for something by the public. Mr. Simmons showed
how the flat roof was limited to 32' which leaves room for a parapet wall and 8' for an elevator shaft
and the things that would be needed to access that roof top. The Zoning Ordinance, as written, appears
to incentivize the flat roof rather than allowing for additional detail. Staff believes that a three-story
building with the first floor being 12', the second floor being 10' and the third floor being 9' allows for
architectural detail and the ability to stay within the 40' height restriction. If Fairhope wants to cater to
the higher ceilings for the first two floors, then the height of the building would exceed the 40' limit.
Chairman Turner reminded the Planning Commission that, in the past, architects had stated that they
would include creative features, but have not done that, and in fact, more flat roof buildings have been
built. Chairman Turner also stated that he does not believe that anyone would be hurt by stating a flat
roof has two stories and an incentive to having a third story would require some architectural features.
Ms. MacKellar believes that a great opportunity was missed by demanding what we should have rather
than what we allowed. She believes that a 15' ceiling gives a classic grandness, and we should expect
more from builders. Mr. Simmons stated that the builders will have flexibility on the height of the
ceilings. Ms. MacKellar stated that we should implement the ideas of other smaller, but growing,
communities who are using their space well.
Erik Cortinas stated that he is not comfortable with Fairhope dictating to a designer, that the rule is 40'
to a flat roof if they want to put three stories in and meet the 40'. Chris Williams stated that this could
potentially change the height requirement depending on what type of structure you are looking at in the
CBD. Mr. Cortinas stated that a 4' parapet is, to a large degree, a code requirement because when you
have roof mounted equipment, you must have a protection system like a railing or a parapet all around
the roof so that if there are service techs up there, they are protected from the edge of the roof. Some
structures, like townhomes, must have a required parapet wall that has to come up for fire separation,
which can be interpreted as an architectural feature or a code requirement. Mr. Cortinas used as an
example, a roof top house with the exit coming off the top. If you have a roof top area, you must have
a fully enclosed stair leading to the ground from that floor which will then, by default, give you an 8'
tall building with an exit stair that goes all the way down so now you are building 40' with a roof top
terrace with an 8' exit room extension on top of it.
6
I
L
May I, 2023
Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Simmons agreed with Mr. Cortinas that building codes must include safety features but believes
that these amendments will give the designers the instructions they need on the front end. Chairman
Turner stated that there was a lot of discussion about this in the past and the 40' height requirement was
agreed on. He just believes that the architects are working to maximize every space possible along with
giving them the opportunity to give their clients, who want a third story, some options. Mr. Simmons
explained that within his measurements on the two-story building, there is room for an elevator shaft
which would be allowed with a roof top terrace. Mr. Worsham asked what the height was on the second
drawing that shows the roof exceeding the 40' and if that were decided, would it become part of the
ordinance. Mr. Simmons stated that it is close to 46' and he would prefer to keep everything under 40'.
Mr. Cortinas explained the building code defines building height as the mid-point between the eave and
the ridge. The City of Fairhope began defining building height to be measured to uppermost ridge in the
early 2000s but amended the definition to match the building code around 2018. Mr. Simmons stated
that where the base is defined, average lot elevation before you move any dirt, is a hard thing to do on
many properties. Mr. Simmons suggested, within the CBD, that some very clear heights could start at
the sidewalk and measure to the peak for consistency. Mr. Cortinas asked, if we do this in the CBD,
does it, by default, change the overall measurement of roof heights throughout the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Simmons replied that it would not. Mr. Worsham stated that he agrees with graphic #1 and #3. Ms.
MacKellar would like a group of architects to meet and get their opinion on what they are working on
and what they see, and that Rebecca Bryant is a great resource. Mr. Simmons agreed to include some
architects and developers in the discussions. Chairman Turner is leaning towards # l and #3 but agrees
with Ms. MacKellar that others need to be involved. Mr. Simmons stated that limiting flat roofs to two
stories is almost pulling a reverse on some people and they should not be penalized if they already have
plans in the works. Mr. Simmons also suggested, if any amendments are made, that a few months are
given to people, who have bought property and have a plan, an opportunity to bring it to the City without
being penalized. Mr. Cortinas and Ms. MacKellar are not initially comfortable telling someone who
wants a flat roof that they are limited to two stories and that the City needs to be careful entering the
realm of architecturally dictating or architecture review. Chairman Turner stated that maybe the City
could not dictate how many stories and just limits the height. Mr. Simmons explained that there is logic
to limiting it to two stories. Some of the codes in other municipalities require a 12' first floor to
accommodate awnings, that may be added, to be out of the head space of people walking by. Ms.
Mac Kellar stated that the of use of the roof top roofs during events, like Mardi Gras and the parades, in
the CBD would be a great resource for those types of events. She does not understand why we would
approve the flat roofs if that space were not going to be utilized. Mr. Simmons stated that the ordinance
dictates the forms of the buildings, but not the architectural reviews where they are told what materials
to use.
Adjournment
John Worsham made a motion to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously with the following vote:
A YE: Lee Turner, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black and Erik
Cortinas.
NAY: None.
c._v-4-L~~
Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary
7