Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-2023 Planning Commmission Minutes[ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes The Planning Commission met Monday, June 5, 2023, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Lee Turner, Chairman; Rebecca Bryant, Councilman Jack Burrell; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Hollie MacKellar; Erik Cortinas, Building Official; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager; Michelle Melton, City Planner; Chris Williams, City Attorney; and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk. Absent: Clarice Hall-Black Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5 :00 PM. Approval of the Minutes May 1, 2023: John Worsham made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 1, 2023, meeting. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. Jack Burrell joined the meeting. Old/New Business: • SD 21.36 Old Battles Village -Phase 6 -Request of Applicant, Dewberry, for an extension of one year for preliminary plat approval. Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request for a one-year extension for preliminary plat approval of Old Battles Village -Phase 6. Motion: Eric Cortinas made a motion to recommend approval of SD 21.36. John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Mr. Burrell asked if this was the first extension. Mr. Simmons confirmed that it is. A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes • SD 21.32 Windmill Professional Park MOP -Request of Applicant, S.E. Civil, for an extension of six months for final plat approval. Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request for a six-month extension for final plat approval of Windmill Professional Park MOP, explaining that the project is almost complete with all the infrastructure in and just a little greenspace that needs to be completed. This is also the first extension request. Motion: John Worsham made a motion to recommend approval of SD 21.32. Jack Burrell seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. • SD 23.11 Myrick Place -To discuss installation of sidewalks . Summary: Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, opened the discussion for placement of sidewalks at Myrick Place. This case was heard at the April 2023, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant provided a 15' sidewalk easement with the agreement that sidewalks would be installed along Estella Street. The applicant has now provided a letter from an arborist asking that sidewalks not be installed due to the damage it could cause to the existing trees. The applicant provided photos of the existing areas along Estella Street and has proposed adding striping along the curb line behind the parking spots for a 5' wide walkway. Staff included potential options of: 1) installing the sidewalk on the south side of Estella Street which would require review and discussion with Richard Johnson, P .E., Public Works Director and may require additional engineering for drainage and cross walk locations; or 2) creating a sidewalk plan that provides internal connectivity through the development. Seth Moore explained that a pathway could be painted along the asphalt within the 15' easement. Mr. Moore agrees with the arborist that the trees would be damaged if a sidewalk was placed where originally planned. Chairman Turner asked what would happen where the painted pathway would stop. Mr. Moore stated that he believes a building will be built on Lot 1 so that the pathway could continue. A sidewalk could be built along Lot l and could be connected to the painted pathway. Mr. Burrell asked why the painted pathway does not extend the entire west to east. Mr. Moore stated that the concrete sidewalk can be placed once the building is built on Lot l. Chairman Turner stated that he believes that the striping should only be in front of Lots 2 and 3 and then continue with a sidewalk in front of Lot 1. Mr. Moore thinks that the sidewalk could start after the driveway between Lots 1 and 2. Rebecca Bryant joined the meeting. 2 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Simmons stated that this is a challenge due to cars backing into the walking path and suggested that Mr. Jeffries' proposals be considered. Erik Cortinas explained that there are ADA compliance and surface roughness issues to consider. Mr. Cortinas stated that one of the things that he battles during home construction is that sidewalks need to be laid out first then the cut from the road must ramp up to that. Oftentimes, when the ramp up for the drive hits the sidewalk, it ends up tilted the wrong way. So, laying the sidewalks out right from the beginning, allows for a clean slate on the south side of the road. Mr. Cortinas believes that the topography on the south side of the street would allow for a more even sidewalk and keeps from directing pedestrians into areas where cars are backing out. Mr. Moore stated that there are two manholes within the stretch on the south side of the road which could be a hindrance. Mr. Simmons suggested meandering the sidewalk. Mr. Burrell asked Mr. Myrick if he would be opposed to building the sidewalk on the south side of the road instead of the north side of the road. Mr. Myrick responded that he is not opposed to that, he just does not want to damage the trees. Mr. Burrell stated that he could not commit funds on behalf of the City Council for a sidewalk, but he may be able to seek funds due to the sidewalk being a connector sidewalk if built on the south side of the road. Mr. Moore acknowledged that it would be easier to build a sidewalk on the south side. Mr. Cortinas stated that connectivity may be hard to get on the north side of the road due to having to cross seven driveways, but on the south side there is 645 linear foot of a semi developed lot ending at Ingleside which would be much easier to do. Mr. Simmons stated that there are some unknowns on the south side of the road, but it appears to be a more suitable option. Mr. Simmons asked the Planning Commission if the bonding amount for this project could be used for issues that may arise during construction of the sidewalk. Motion: Chairman Turner requested a 30-day extension to allow time for staff to review the areas around Myrick Place. Consideration of Agenda Items: UR 23.06 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 23,777 LF of buried fiber cable in the City ROW in the Song Grove, River Oaks, and Spring Run Subdivisions. Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of AT&T for a utility review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 23,777 LF of buried fiber cable in the City ROW in the Song Grove, River Oaks, and Spring Run Subdivisions. Mr. Simmons showed an aerial of the proposed installation with the standard conditions. Mr. Cortinas asked if door hangers would be placed. Mr. Simmons confirmed there would be. Mr. Cortinas stated that West Chase Court is dense, and everyone parks on the street, the driveways, and the sidewalks. Mr. Simmons stated that prior to placing the door hangers, staff will call the phone number on the hangar to ensure that someone who can answer questions will answer that phone number. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 3 [ L June 5. 2023 Planning Commission Minutes 1. A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the City prior to issuance of any pennits. 2. Consultation with the City's horticulturalist, to determine if the required depth of bore must be increased so that no trees are impacted by the project. The contractor is responsible for any damaged trees. 3. At all street crossing locations, conduct potholing to determine exact location and elevation of existing utilities. Reflect the exact elevation of utilities and GPS coordinates of the pothole locations on a set of as-built drawings. 4. An additional right-of-way pennit may be required for the potholing procedures. 5. Follow-up activities below required by staff and the applicant: 6. Upon satisfactory review and approval by ROW Construction Inspector, as-builts will be submitted to the mapping technician for inclusion in GIS utility maps as needed. 7. Provide draft door hanger for approval at time of pre-construction. 8. Provide a Traffic Control Plan to ROW Inspector prior to commencement of any work. 9. Ensure enough space for proposed work is available within existing easement, if not applicant is responsible for either expanding existing easement or acquiring an additional easement. l 0. Applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities (750ft max per day). 11. Utilities boxes shall be concentrated near existing boxes. 12. For permitting purposes, applicants shall provide subsurface utility engineering quality-level C, unless otherwise required by the Fairhope Building Department. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to recommend approval of UR 23.06, subject to staff recommendations. Hollie MacKellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. UR 23.07 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 15,391 LF of l .5'' conduit in the City ROW in the Fairfield and Founders Subdivision. Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of AT&T for a utility review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 15,391 LF of 1.5" conduit in the City ROW in the Fairfield and Founders Subdivision. Mr. Simmons showed an aerial of the proposed installation with the standard conditions. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 4 I L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes l. A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the City prior to issuance of any pennits. 2. Consultation with the City's horticulturalist, to determine if the required depth of bore must be increased so that no trees are impacted by the project. The contractor is responsible for any damaged trees. 3. At all street crossing locations, conduct potholing to determine exact location and elevation of existing utilities. Reflect the exact elevation of utilities and GPS coordinates of the pothole locations on a set of as-built drawings. 4. An additional right-of-way pennit may be required for the potholing procedures. 5. Follow-up activities below required by staff and the applicant: 6. Upon satisfactory review and approval by ROW Construction Inspector, as-builts will be submitted to the mapping technician for inclusion in GIS utility maps as needed. 7. Provide draft door hanger for approval at time of pre-construction. 8. Provide a Traffic Control Plan to ROW Inspector prior to commencement of any work. 9. Ensure enough space for proposed work is available within existing easement, if not applicant is responsible for either expanding existing easement or acquiring an additional easement. l 0. Applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities (750ft max per day). 11. Utilities boxes shall be concentrated near existing boxes. 12. For permitting purposes, applicants shall provide subsurface utility engineering quality-level C, unless otherwise required by the Fairhope Building Department. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to recommend approval of UR 23.07, subject to staff recommendations. John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. UR 23.08 Request of Mediacom for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 3,078 LF of coaxial cable in the City ROW in the Tracery subdivision. Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that UR 23.08 is being withheld until the July meeting. UR 23.09 Request of Mediacom for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 3,60 l LF of buried fiber cable in the City ROW in the River Mill subdivision. Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that UR 23.09 is being withheld until the July meeting. 5 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes IR 23.02 Request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, for an Infonnal Review of Hill Top PUD, Lot 29. The property is approximately l.14 acres and is located west of South Section Street and north of Hyacinth Street. PPIN #389630 Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented an Informal Review of Hill Top PUD, Lot 29. This requested was initiated due to the property being unzoned. The area is mostly residential and has been annexed into the City within a PUD. Mr. Simmons showed the PUD site plan with Lot 29 in the lower right-hand comer. Lot 29 had not been considered for development due to it being a remnant of the highway construction setback from the unzoned and unincorporated subdivision. There are a couple of plans that will be shown that meet the 100' setback, but the main issue is the need to amend the PUD since the l 00' setback made it into the PUD and was approved by City Council. There are some wetlands towards the front. Looking south of the project there are subdivisions with 30' setbacks. Staff agrees with amending this PUD to include a 30' setback instead of the 100' setback. Trey Jinright, Jade Consulting, explained that the project is a PUD which gives the City more flexibility than a commercially zoned property. This PUD has a commercial use, but Jade has not researched how the property should be used. Now that the developer, Mr. Tickle, is ready to move forward, Jade is requesting input on what the City would like the property to look like and be used for. The property has the potential to be a cornerstone area. Mr. Jinright asked the Planning Commission if they had ideas for design criteria. Mr. Jinright stated that the 100' construction setback is too much because the chances of the road being built out that much is slim. He believes the area could become a nice pedestrian zone and sidewalks have already begun being built in the project to the south of this project. Mr. Jinright shared some proposed renderings that show what the area could look like. Trees were included in the renderings to show that the buildings would be shaded by new or existing vegetation. The vehicles would park to the side and rear of the structure. The renderings meet the requirements of the PUD. Rebecca Bryant was curious about the uses. She stated that prior suggestions were community building, guest house and hospitality. Mr. Simmons stated that nothing has been proposed yet, but there are limits to the uses. Mr. Jinright explained that he believes it may end up being a marketplace with maybe a wine and cheese shop. Chairman Turner believes the area has a lot of potential and he is concerned with the height. He stated that the closer the building to the road, the less scale he would like to see, but likes the renderings. Mr. Jinright stated that he will stay within the residential height restriction. Mr. Simmons stated that below the property is the TR district which include a 30' landscape buffer. Ms. Bryant liked that the parking was to the side and back. SD 23.19 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Trae Corte, acting on behalf of the Owner, Sena, Inc., for Multiple Occupancy Project Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Belle Vie. The property is approximately .40 acres and is located on the northeast comer of Fairhope Avenue and North Bayview Street. PPIN #15283 Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of the Applicant, Trae Corte, acting on behalf of the Owner, Sena, Inc., for Multiple Occupancy Project Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Belle Vie. Mr. Simmons addressed an e-mail that the Planning Commission received regarding the Tree Committee meeting and whether the meeting was advertised properly and after checking with the City Clerk, it had been. The intent for this project is to create four condominium lots with single family homes. Mr. Simmons showed the aerial of the property. Because this application is 6 ( L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes for four or fewer units and requires no installation of public infrastructure, the Applicant may submit for simultaneous preliminary and final approval. The Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces per unit. Eight spaces will be required with six provided. The Applicant proposes creating two parking spaces in the N. Bayview Street right-of-way. The Fairhope Electrical department will require a 10'xl5' easement for an electric transformer and gutters will be required to tie into the drainage system. An O&M Plan is required, but has not been received. There are two Heritage Magnolia Trees, 30" and 36" in diameter, that the Applicant proposed to remove. The City's Horticulture Supervisor, Jamie Rollins, denied the removal of the trees. Mr. Rollins consulted with the Tree Committee who voted to allow the two trees to be removed with the condition that two 12" dbh live oaks are planted in the N. Bayview Street right-of-way. During the Tree Committee meeting, the Applicant stated that there is also a tree on the comer that may be partially in the right-of-way. This tree is not shown on the plans, but City employees measured a cedar tree at 22" dbh and suspected that it is within the right-of-way. The location of this tree may conflict with the proposed drainage basin. A tree survey submitted with a previously proposed project illustrates another 22' cedar and 19" oak that are not shown on the plans that were submitted with this application. The City employees measured the oak tree and found it to be 20.5" which would make it protected as well. There are some conflicts between the two tree surveys. Chairman Turner asked if there is supposed to be a landscape plan submitted with the application. Mr. Simmons stated yes, and that Heritage Trees are protected in the CBD. The City does not allow the clearing of trees in the CBD from lot line to lot line. The Planning Commission could deny the removal of the trees and the only recourse is appealing it to a court. It is challenging to approve a project without all the required information. Mr. Simmons shared the revised tree protection and removal plan and believes that every tree on site being removed and two crepe myrtles in the right-of-way. Mr. Simmons stated that a sidewalk exists on Fairhope A venue, but neither a sidewalk, nor a sidewalk easement are provided along N. Bayview Street. The Applicant may agree to install a sidewalk along N. Bayview Street, or the Planning Commission may allow an easement in lieu of an installed sidewalk, but if neither a sidewalk, nor an easement is provided, a waiver is required. A waiver request needs to be advertised and it was not advertised for this meeting. John Worsham asked how a sidewalk would fit along N. Bayview Street with the parking. Mr. Simmons stated that it could happen but would be a challenge due to the trees and the landscape plan did not include the two 12" oak trees as the Tree Committee recommended. An accurate landscape plan is needed to show how all of this would work. The proposed buildings are zero-lot line units, which require unique considerations regarding building codes. Although single-family is an allowed use within the B-3b zoning, there are other uses allowed, either "by right", subject to special conditions, or available on appeal within the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. To avoid confusion for future landowners, staff would be in favor of a note added to the MOP plat stating any use permitted by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance is allowed on either of the 4 condominium lots. Staff recommends denial of preliminary and final approval of Belle Vie MOP SD 23.19, based on the following reasons: l. Provide a proposed Landscape Plan as required by Sec. 20.5-3.2 of the Municipal Code prior to any land disturbance activity. Plan shall show all Heritage Trees and adjacent right-of-way trees. Final Plans shall be approved by the City of Fairhope Planning Department and Horticulture Department. 2. Other mitigation may be required for removal of any other protected trees, whether a Heritage Tree or trees within the right-of-way, as determined by the City's Horticulture Department. 7 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes 3. A Final Landscape plan shall be provided that includes any mitigation that may be required, as well as new landscaping as required by the Tree Ordinance prior to any construction activity on the subject property. 4. A preliminary MOP plat shall be submitted that illustrates setbacks, condominium lots, building footprints, common areas , a site data table, Engineer's Certificate, as well as any notes to address comments within this report or included within the Subdivision Regulations. 5. A preliminary Condominium Plat that includes the legal boundaries, easements, common areas, etc . a. A IO 'x 15' easement shall be included for the Electric Department transfonner. 6. The MOP Plat, Condominium Plat, Re-plat and O&M plan shall not be recorded until the project receives final approval from the Planning Commission. 7. If approved, construction plans shall be provided for any Land Disturbance activity such as, but not limited to, drainage installations, demolition, and grading. 8. A Tree Removal pennit will be required for any removal or pruning of any Heritage Tree . 9 . A Tree Removal permit, and a right-of way pennit, will be required any removal or pruning of any tree within the City of Fairhope right-of-way . l 0. Roofs are to be guttered and tied to the drainage line. The system will need cleanouts installed. 11. An Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to provide long-term maintenance of the drainage system. 12. The Planning Commission has approved the installation of two (2) parking spaces in the N. Bayview St. right-of-way for credit of one onsite parking space; and either allows credit for two existing nearby spaces for the other required onsite parking space, or an alternative, such as bicycle parking is approved . 13. A sidewalk shall be installed on N. Bayview St., an easement for a future sidewalk shall be provided inside the property line that does not conflict with other requirements, or the Planning Commission grants a waiver to not provide either at final approval. 14. A waiver is granted so that the Applicant does not have to provide drainage easements. After consulting with Public Works, Staff would support this waiver. This condition is included to ensure the Applicant knows to ask for the waiver at time of final approval. 15 . Applicant consults with Erik Cortinas, the Building Official, regarding fire codes and building codes to the extent condominium lots can be finalized. 16. Use cannot be restricted to single-family residential. 17. If approved, a Right-of-way permit will be required for the parking pads and walkways on N. Bayview St. 18. A land disturbance permit will be required to install the drainage infrastructure. A grading and BMP plan shall be required prior to an application for permit. Drainage infrastructure shall be installed prior to final approval. 8 [ L June 5. 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Trae Corte proposed building four single family homes on two lots. Mr. Corte spoke about the prior hotel proposal and the issues that the neighbors had with that proposal. He believes that he can address those issues in his project, and it is a better use of the property. He wants to face all four units onto Fairhope Avenue and to do that there is only one driveway in the back to service all of the homes, which happens to be exactly where the existing driveway to the house is now. Mr. Corte discussed the tree removal and how leaving one of the trees will cause two of the parking spaces to be parallel to the buildings with the tree in between. Mr. Corte agreed to install a sidewalk along N. Bayview Street if needed. There is 20' between the paved road and the property line where a sidewalk can be installed. The parallel parking spots will take 12' with 8' remaining for a sidewalk. Mr. Corte explained that there are three trees that were omitted from the landscape plan. They were omitted because his surveyor reported that they were less than 20". When looking at the hotel site plan, it shows a 19" oak in the northeast corner which does not fall within the Tree Ordinance, but Mr. Corte agreed to leave that tree. The cedar tree was omitted because it does not have any limbs on it. The cedar on the corner is approximately 50 % in the right-of-way. Mr. Corte agreed to leave that tree. Mr. Corte addressed the difference in location of the magnolia tree. There are two historical lots that measure 66' wide by 132' deep. The two magnolia trees are in the center of the comer lot which makes that lot completely useless. One of these magnolias has grown into the foundation of the house so once the house is removed, the tree could be killed. Mr. Corte admitted to accidentally not submitting a landscape plan with the two live oaks but agreed to add them to his plan. He proposed removing the crepe myrtles and replacing them with a 12" live oak. Originally a wall was proposed for the drainage structure, but to avoid any liability, they will build a curb to keep the gravel in with two benches, a fountain, and flowers. Staff stated that the drainage structure needs to be complete prior to final approval. Mr. Corte requested that the preliminary plat be approved and once the drainage structure is complete, he will return for final approval. Mr. Corte explained that the condos were proposed due to not being able to do a 4-lot subdivision. The site plan that was submitted is not part of a MOP submittal, it was added as an example of what he would do. Mr. Corte explained that he is building a land condo not a building condo, so the condo docs will not show the buildings, they will only show the lot. Mr. Corte stated that his surveyor would sign off on the MOP since there is no engineering component of it but agreed to have an Engineer sign it. Mr. Corte believes that the MOP is complete, and the boundaries are as the condo docs will show. Mr. Corte stated that he and Erik Cortinas met to discuss fire walls between the condo lines and that will be addressed. Mr. Corte did not agree with not restricting the project to single family use but will not argue that point. Mr. Corte acknowledged that he still needed several pennits. He has no problems with the roofs being tied into the gutters. Mr. Corte agreed to the electrical easement. John Worsham listed all the items that are missing from Mr. Corte's request and asked what they were being asked to approve. Mr. Corte stated that his MOP plat was complete. Mr. Simmons stated that the MOP plat needs to show the buildings and a condominium lot shows the land. The Engineering stamp on a MOP plat states that everything will be built as designed which holds them accountable for monitoring the construction. The land condominium plat just shows the legal boundaries. Mr. Worsham reiterated that the landscape plan was missing. Rebecca Bryant stated that it must be approved by a landscape architect. Mr. Corte stated he could have one stamped in a couple of days. He stated that he did not do that because he was unsure whether this project would be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Corte explained the cost associated with these items. Ms. Bryant stated that the staff is also spending a lot of time and energy on this project with the number of conditions due to an incomplete application. Mr. Corte does not believe his application is incomplete and that many of the conditions can be fixed in days. Mr. Bryant reiterated the number of conditions. Mr. Worsham stated that as an Engineer, they just do not blind stamp. Mr. Simmons stated that the drainage plans must be 9 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes designed by an Engineer per regulations. There were continued discussions regarding what was missing from the application and the plans. Mr. Corte continued to state that his application met all criteria and asked the Planning Commission if they are opposed to this development. Chairman Turner stated that the City has done a lot to help with the plan and acknowledged that Mr. Corte does great projects, but is concerned about setting a precedent of approving a project with so many conditions. Chairman Turner listed the different plans that Mr. Corte has provided for this project to comply with the regulations which, at times, create other issues. Chairman Turner listed some of the issues that are still outstanding on this project along with stating that it looks difficult to be able to fit four lots on the property. Chairman Turner continued that there would need to be a lot of exceptions to make this project work and he does not want to start setting precedents. Mr. Corte reiterated that leaving the magnolia tree in the middle of the lot keeps that lot from being used. Mr. Simmons suggested leaving the houses and using them for some type of bed and breakfast or four units. There is the possibility of the garage being turned into the fourth unit. Those could tum into four short term units. The house is considered a contributing structure as far as historical preservation goes; however, the City currently does not have a historical preservation ordinance and the fate of the contributing structure is the sole prerogative of the owner. Staff looks at what could be done on the property and what alternatives could be considered. Mr. Simmons stated that he is not opposed to this plan but believes there are alternatives where the trees could be saved. Mr. Simmons explained the time it takes staff to review all the complete applications and that Mr. Corte's application was not complete. Mr. Simmons is concerned about a precedent being set that applications do not need to be complete in order to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Worsham also stated that the plan is not a terrible plan, but would like to have the missing items submitted. Ms. Bryant stated that there have been many conversations among the Planning Commission about not accepting projects with large amounts of conditions. Ms. Bryant asked what a drainage plan means if it is not tied to the land coverage and roof area. Mr. Simmons stated that there are two plans stating different things . Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 6:22pm . Julie Pate, l ON. Bayview Street, stated that this project will have a significant impact on overcrowding and drainage. There is a lot of water that comes from that way and does not believe a pretty fountain can handle it. She believes that the project needs to be developed in accordance with what is around there and does not believe that anyone would be able to breathe with four houses on that property. She would like it to be developed in a way that everyone can enjoy. Alison Knight, 50 N. Bayview Street, has a concern about the parking. She believes that if the project requires eight parking spaces, they should be incorporated into the building. She agrees with Mr. Simmons about leaving the property as is. Len Young, Bluffs neighborhood, has several issues beginning with why a vote has not been taken yet. With all the conditions and if the protocol is to wait until all of the issues are addressed, then procedure should be followed. He believes that this being a substandard lot, there is no room for four houses. He believes that the trees should be left and stated that his house is sitting on top of a huge magnolia that will end up winning the battle against the house because he speaks from personal experience. This project is in a historic part of town and will disrupt the fabric of the community. He stated that a line should be drawn to retain the flavor of the historic part of the community and that historic designations need to be revisited. [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes James Prestwood, 54 Fairhope Avenue, has two issues with this project. One is the density. The property is .4 acres, and the request is for four single family residences. It is too tight. The second issue is parking. During Fairhope events, parking on Fairhope is a nightmare and then to consider adding more parking spaces will only make it worse. The public hearing was closed at 6:28pm. Jack Burrell asked if any of the parking credits been issued to any surrounding developments. Mr. Simmons answered that there is not a cumulative list. Staff would have to review all the minutes from previous meetings. Mr. Burrell stated that the City does not have an infinite number of parking credits. Chairman Turner stated that when looking at parking credits, it was not necessarily for single family residences, they are more for hotel and overflow parking. Mr. Cortinas stated that his office issues the right-of-way parking permits and that it started to be limited because throughout the Fruit and Nut district, people have built as big a house as possible with a garage, then want to pave the whole front for parking. What his office began doing was requiring a pervious surface which limits the amount of concrete. This project is not dissimilar to that, but at the same time, when looking at it as a building permit, he would not accept an application that is missing six different documents that he would need to make an accurate assessment. Mr. Cortinas stated that he does not ever remember a project that had this many conditions and that his staff are the ones that must track the conditions. It becomes extremely difficult to track that many conditions prior to issuing a building permit or a land disturbance permit. Many of these conditions are based on City regulations that could get missed when there are this many conditions. Mr. Cortinas requires a clean set of documents to review so that the project moves along smoother. When missing so many documents, it is hard to ensure that the regulations are being met. Chris Williams, City Attorney, outlined the Planning Commission's options. Now that the public hearing has been opened and closed: 1) the Applicant can agree to table the project until the next meeting or a certain time to clean up these conditions and submit a project that meets more of the conditions. The Planning Commission cannot table the project, it would need to act now; 2) the Planning Commission can approve the preliminary plat or final plat together as one or separately approve the preliminary plat by itself with certain conditions and deny the request for final plat; or 3) the Planning Commission can deny everything outright. Mr. Williams asked, though, if the Planning Commission were to deny the preliminary and final plat, that they list the reasons why. If the preliminary and final plat are denied, the Applicant has 180 days before a new application can be submitted, unless the Applicant works with staff to remedy the deficiencies. Mr. Corte requested that the project be tabled but asked the Planning Commission if the project would be denied when he returns. Mr. Corte addressed the parking issue again stating that the two on street spaces are spaces that he added within his project. Mr. Simmons stated that if a project has two on street parking spaces, there must be four off-site. That section also allows bicycle parking. These options may give the project the required amount of parking. Mr. Williams reiterated that with the public hearing being over, the Planning Commission can agree to table the project, but they do not have to. If Mr. Corte had asked for the project to be tabled before the public hearing, the decision would not be up to the Planning Commission. Chairman Turner feels that there are too many conditions and with the combination of the density, the trees and the on-street parking, there are a lot of things that he does not like about the project. Chairman Turner acknowledged the price of Fairhope property, but believes this project would change the character of the area. Mr. Simmons stated that he receives many one-page applications asking for approval and that the reason for all the pages in the regulations is to ensure that staff is vetting all the goals which is hard to do when all the documentation is not included. Chairman 11 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Turner stated there is a lot that he likes about the project, but there are just too many conditions right now . Mr. Corte again requested that the project be tabled to allow him to work through the conditions. Mr. Simmons stated that the conditions with the landscape plan are not minor. The Tree Ordinance must be followed. Mr. Bryant stated that by keeping the single-family residences separate, the project is destroying more area, instead of using duplexes or quadplexes which require a smaller footprint. Mr. Burrell asked about the sidewalk waiver. Mr. Corte stated that he is not asking for a waiver, he will install sidewalks on Bayview. Mr. Burrell asked if the project had to be tabled for 30 days or could it be until the conditions are met. Mr. Williams stated that if they choose to table the project, it should be with certain conditions, for instance, the next Planning Commission meeting or a future Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Worsham asked if they could leave the time frame open. Mr. Burrell suggested that it be left open until the Planning Director and Applicant are satisfied that the project is ready. Holly MacKellar stated that a time frame needs to be agreed on. Mr. Williams stated that it should be a time frame or a criterion of conditions. Mr. Worsham suggested that the project be tabled until the application is complete. Mr. Simmons clarified that the Tree Ordinance requires a landscape plan by a landscape architect. Mr. Cortinas suggested that the item be placed on the August agenda or no later than the September meeting for a decision. Ms. MacKellar stated that she believes there were guidelines for the timeframes . Mr. Williams stated that once the item is on the next agenda, the Planning Commission will have to act on it. Mr. Simmons stated that he would be more comfortable giving the project more time. Ms. Bryant asked for clarification that if the project is tabled, would it be the same application if it is substantially different. Mr. Simmons stated that if the Planning Commission tabled this project tonight, then the Applicant could still change the project without a new application. Motion: John Worsham made a motion to table SD 21.19, at the request of the Applicant, until no later than the September 2023 meeting. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. SD 23.20 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Ronald E. Johnson, for resubdivision of Lot 13, Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Johnson Subdivision. The property is approximately .62 acres and is located in between Middle Street and Fairland Avenue, east of Mershon Street. PPIN #46343 Summary: Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the Johnson 2-lot minor subdivision, preliminary and final plat approval. Ms. Melton shared the site plan and the original plat from 1942. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: l. Add note on Final Plat regarding using the then current setbacks at the time an applicant applies for a land disturbance and/or building permit. 12 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes 2. Final Plat shall have a l O' sidewalk/pedestrian easement along Middle Street and Fairland Avenue. 3. Final Plat shall have the required 15' utility drainage easement on the rear and sides of the lot. 4. Add the FFE note to Final Plat as stated in report above. 5. Lots on the Plat shall be labeled 13-A and 13-8. 6. Engineer/Owner shall provide an Agent Authorization Letter. Mr. Burrell asked for the size of the smallest lot. Ms. Melton stated that it is 11,262.26 sq ft. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 6:50pm. Sally Burns, owns property on Middle Street, asked about the fire hydrants. She wondered if the owner will be responsible for adding fire hydrants. Chairman Turner stated that there is a fire hydrant located within the required number of feet from the project. The public hearing was closed at 6:52pm. Motion: John Worsham made a motion to recommend approval of SD 23 .20 subject to staff recommendations. Hollie MacKellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. SD 23.21 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, S.E. Civil, acting on behalf of the Owner, FST and Drexel E. Boothe, for Final Plat approval of Morphy Place. The property is approximately 0. 75 acres and is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of Morphy A venue and Bishop Road. PPIN #243093 Summary: Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the Morphy Place 3-lot minor subdivision, preliminary and final plat approval. Ms. Melton shared the site plan and aerial of the project. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: l. Change Subdivision name. Alternative name shall be approved by the Fairhope Planning Department. 2. Add 15' utility/drainage easements on the Final Plat. 3. Change signature block to Planning Commission on Final Plat. 4. Add FFE's for each lot on the Final Plat. 5. Add note: Access to Lot-3 shall come from the north 1/3 of the lot adjacent to Bishop Road or any joint agreement with owners of Lot-2. 6. Install sidewalks along Morphy Ave. 13 L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Burrell asked if the Fairhope Single Tax District had to approve this. Chainnan Turner stated no and continued that as President, he signs any application that comes up due to the Fairhope Single Tax being neutral on any subdivision and zoning. The only reason that they sign the applicants is for bank purposes. Aaron Collins, S.E. Civil, was there to answer questions. They agree with all conditions of the project. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 6:58pm. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed at 6:58pm. Chairman Turner asked that the aerial slide be presented and asked for Ms. Bryant's input at the next meeting about the setbacks being 35' on Bishop and 20' on Morphy. In this case, all the houses facing Morphy will have a 35' setback but this project will have a 20' side setback on Morphy. This should be considered when approving new subdivisions. Mr. Simmons asked Mr. Collins if he would see if his clients would consider a larger setback on Morphy. Mr. Collins agreed. Mr. Simmons stated that the sidewalk is going into the property also. Mr. Burrell asked about the sidewalk requirement on Morphy, but not on Bishop. Mr. Simmons stated that there is already a sidewalk on Bishop. Ms. Bryant acknowledged that there is a good opportunity to improve the side street setback which makes sense if it is a primary street and a side street, but if they are both primary streets, it is odd to have the house shoved up against it. It is a good opportunity to improve the regulations in the future. Motion: Rebecca Bryant made a motion to approve Case SD 23 .21 with staff recommendations along with adding the new name. Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. SD 23.04 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Goodwyn Mills Cawood, acting on behalf of the Owner, Gayfer Village Partners, for Preliminary Plat approval of Klumpp PUD. The property is approximately 75.85 acres and is located north of Fairhope Avenue and west of State Highway 181. PPIN #236701 Summary: Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented Klumpp, a 15-lot PUD for preliminary plat approval. Mr. Jeffries shared the site plan and aerial of the project along with the wetlands. There are some sidewalk conflicts, but the Water and Sewer Department will work through that with the Applicant. There was a traffic study performed for this project and states that there are no recommended traffic improvements to the Gayfer Road Extension with the exception of a very high traffic generator on one of the comer properties, such as a gas station. Mr. Jeffries acknowledged the large number of conditions for this project, but stated that the difference between this project and Belle Vie is that this request is only for preliminary plat approval and the project will have to come back to the Planning Commission for final plat approval. Mr. Simmons added that many of these conditions are federal requirements with ALDOT that require outside Corp permits. This is also an 80-acre mixed use 14 [ L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes development, not .4 acres with four homes. The City of Fairhope Utilities Department has ten standard conditions that are included with all similar projects. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: l. Traffic improvements and /or drainage improvements recommended by the Traffic Study and/or ALDOT will be installed by the Developer prior to application for Final Plat. 2. Drainage updates per Neel-Schaffer requests shall be provided prior to building pennit application. 3. Approval for the constructed wetland/north detention is subject to any recommendations or modifications that may arise from the third-party review from Wetland Resources. 4. Final placement, capacity, and aid to construction costs for all utilities shall be approved by the respective superintendent. Aid to construction costs shall be determined prior to application of building permit. 5. All sidewalks and street trees are required to be installed prior to final plat application. 6. Uses in Unit 3 shall be limited to those specified within the TIS. A revised TIS may be required. 7. All existing buildings and structures must be removed before final plat application. 8. The landscape island inside the roundabout shall be shown and labeled "Common Area" on the plat with a note that clearly states the Owner is responsible for the maintenance. 9. Revise note 6 on the plat to read PUD Ordinance #1764. l 0. Provide a sidewalk handicap ramp detail at time of building permit to be reviewed and approved. Truncated dome shall be wet set. l l. Correct the O&M Plan to reflect 5-year inspection schedule prior to recording. 12. The schematic layout of sidewalks has known conflicts and shall be resolved prior to submittal for building permit. The EOR shall monitor construction ensure additional sidewalk conflicts do not arise or are remedied in a way that still complies with ADA. Any changes shall be designed by the EOR and submitted for approval by the City of Fairhope. 13. Revise site plan to show where boardwalks will be in place instead of sidewalks and include a detail for the proposed boardwalks to be reviewed and approved by the City of Fairhope. 14. Revise landscape plan to include landscaping and sod near detention pond. 15. Add a map of the north and south drainage basins to the Drainage Narrative. 16. New digital submittal package containing the items referenced under "General Comments". Scott Hutchinson, GMC, is available for questions and appreciates the thoroughness of the staff conditions. Mr. Hutchinson acknowledged the mixed uses of the project and the variety of reviews that the project will go through. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 7: l 8pm. Gary Gover, 300 Lincoln Street, met with school administrators who stated that they had not been notified about the impact of the growth in the area. Mr. Gover explained the need for safe routes for the children and bicycles and stated that the City should take a leadership role to address these issues. Another issue is school busing for the schools which will increase their pickup and delivery of the children. He believes this should be included in the plan for the development and should be coordinated 15 ( L June 5, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes in advance with the schools. Mr. Gover believes that traffic studies should include pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Chainnan Turner stated that Bay Minette does include those figures in their report. He is unsure if the information makes it to the schools. He continued to state that the sidewalk across the street on Fairhope Avenue was a Fairhope Sing)~ Tax project that predates him and that backs up to Idlewild and may be the least used sidewalk in Fairhope. Ms. Bryant asked Mr. Gover if he had an example of anyone that has a good pedestrian study, parallel to the traffic study. She has never seen one and states that it would be good if there was a precedent that Fairhope could follow. Mr. Gover stated that he was familiar with complete street studies and smart growth and other states have done successful studies, but Fairhope is still in the queue. The public hearing was closed at 7:23pm. Mr. Burrell confirmed that this was preliminary approval. Chairman Turner stated that this will not go to City Council due to this being the first round to the subdivision and that the final plat approval will be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cortinas commented that the project includes a detailed constructed wetlands on one of the lots. This plan has been sent out for third party review and has not been received back yet. Mr. Cortinas asked that staff verify that Lots l and 2 be open ended until the report has been received. If for some reason, the wetland must be increased, the road may need to be pushed back which would intrude into Lot l, which will not be known until the report is back. Ms. Bryant asked for confirmation that the constructed wetlands are to satisfy the Corps and the City, and that the third-party review is for storm water treatment. Mr. Cortinas replied that it is for the treatment and to satisfy the capacity and he just wants to make sure that the constructed wetland plan fully meets the City regulations. Chainnan Turner asked if Mr. Cortinas was comfortable with condition #3. Mr. Cortinas is, but wants Mr. Hutchinson to know that the report could impact Lots l and 2, if something must change. Mr. Hutchinson acknowledged Mr. Cortinas' concerns. Mr. Cortinas then addressed the number of conditions and the difference between this case and Belle Vie. He stated that there are four items that are corrections to documents that have already been received and all the other conditions must follow the Traffic Information Study which has also been submitted. With no disrespect to Mr. Corte, the difference is that these documents have been received and his have not. Mr. Simmons added that these conditions are instructions to future staff in case the project is not developed right away. Motion: John Worsham made a motion to approve Case SD 23.04 subject to staff recommendations. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar, and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. 16 [ L June 5. 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Executive Session -To discuss pending or potential litigation pursuant to Alabama Code Section 36- 25-7(a)(3). Attorney Chris Williams made a declaration to move to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. He does not anticipate any action needed following the Executive Session. Chainnan Turner asked if there should be an estimate of how long the session will be. Mr. Williams stated that it should be a short session. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to close the public meeting and move to Executive Session and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. The Commissioners left the dais at 7:29 p.m. The Commissioners returned to the dais at 8:06 p.m. Chainnan Turner reconvened the public meeting. Adjournment John Worsham made a motion to adjourn. Rebecca Bryant seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Jack Burrell, Rebecca Bryant, John Worsham, Harry Kohler, Hollie MacKellar and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. Adjourned at 8: 12pm. ;gt Lee Turner, Chairman ~~ Cindy Beau&eau, Secretary l7 ST A TE OF ALABAMA ) COUNTY OF BALDWIN ) DECLARATION AND OPINION My name is Christopher S. Williams . I am over the age of nineteen (19), and I make this Declaration and Opinion based upon my own personal knowledge, information and belief. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama and have been duly appointed Attorney for the Fairhope Planning Commission for the City of Fairhope, Alabama ("Commission"). I am offering this Declaration and Opinion in compliance with Section 36-25A-7 of the Code of Alabama (1975). On the _5th day of June, 2023, at a meeting of the Commission, there was a motion calling for an executive session to discuss with the Commission's attorney the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending or future potential litigation pursuant to Alabama Code§ 36-25A-7(a)(3). Prior to the Commission voting to convene the executive session, I offered a Declaration and Opinion for the purpose of stating that Section 36-25A-7 of the Code of Alabama (1975) is applicable to the planned discussion, and requested that this written Declaration and Opinion be reflected in the minutes for said meeting. I further advised the Commission that if any deliberation begins among them regarding what action to take relating to pending or threatened litigation based upon the advice of counsel, the executive session shall be concluded and the deliberation shall be conducted in the open portion of the meeting or the deliberation shall cease. This Declaration and Opinion shall not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Dated this 5th day of June, 2023. Attorney for Fairhope Planning Commission City of Fairhope, Alabama