Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2023 Planning Commission MinutesL August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes The Planning Commission met Tuesday, August 15, 2023, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Jack Burrell; Clarice Hall-Black; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; 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: Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Rebecca Bryant Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, explained that since the Chair and Co-Chair were absent, the Planning Commission Secretary would need to call the meeting to order. Secretary Beaudreau called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. Chris Williams, City Attorney, explained that a quorum is present with the five members so the meeting may proceed and that any vote would require at least four of the five members. If an action were approved with a vote of 3-2, the action could not go forward since any vote requires at least four members. This will include the vote for the Chairperson. Mr. Simmons stated that due to the absence of the Chair and Co-Chair, a Chairperson would need to be elected. Eric Cortinas nominated John Worsham and Jack Burrell seconded that nomination. The vote was unanimous. Approval of the Minutes July 6, 2023: Jack Burrell made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 6, 2023, as amended. Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Jack Burrell; Clarice Hall-Black; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Erik Cortinas NAY: None. Old/New Business: • SD 21.41 Aldi Subdivision-Request of FST Aldi, Inc. of Alabama, for a one-year extension for Preliminary Approval of Aldi Subdivision, a 5-unit Multiple Occupancy Project Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request for a one-year extension for preliminary plat approval of Aldi Subdivision. The Aldi store is currently open and just needs a little longer to complete the preliminary plat. Staff supports this request. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to approve SD 21.41, a one-year extension for preliminary plat approval of Aldi Subdivision. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: [ L August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes A YE: Jack Burrell; Clarice Hall-Black; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Erik Cortinas NAY: None. Consideration of Agenda Items: UR 23.08 Request of Mediacom for an l l .52. l l 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, explained that Mediacom is not in attendance and requested that UR 23.08, UR 23.11, and UR 23.12 be moved to the September 7, 2023, meeting. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to table UR 23.08, UR 23. l l and UR 23.12 to the September 7, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Jack Burrell; Clarice Hall-Black; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Erik Cortinas NAY: None. SD 23.23 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owners, Robert J. and Renee A. Writt, for approval of North Lot Subdivision, a 2-lot minor subdivision. The property is approximately .59 acres and is located on the northeast comer ofN. Bayview St. and Blakeney Ave. PPIN # 14416 Summary: Mr. Simmons stated that this is a subdivision request that has certain requirements for this property. There has been some misunderstanding that the City is putting sidewalks in or requiring easements from every property owner in the neighborhood. There are no plans to install sidewalks and it would not be feasible for the City to require easements from property owners. This is a requirement when someone subdivides land and creates new lots. This request is a subdivision ofland that has certain requirements within the Subdivision Regulations. When Staff began reviewing this request, there did not seem to be a need to install sidewalks on this property. The Subdivision Regulations state that the Planning Commission can waive that requirement but shall require an easement. The Planning Commission has been consistent with that action. Mr. Simmons wanted to clarify because there may have been some misunderstanding of what is happening with this request and reiterated that sidewalks are not being placed around the neighborhood. The Applicant, Mr. Writt flew in last week for the meeting. Since there was not a quorum, a decision was not able to be made and, in an effort, to accommodate Mr. Writt, who could not attend this week, his presentation will be shown from the video last week. Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, shared the aerial and zoning map of the property showing the property zoned as R-2 along with the surrounding properties being zoned R-2. The first waiver is a modification to the utility and drainage easements. Lieb Engineering provided a drainage study with the application. The second waiver is to not provide an easement for a sidewalk. Mr. Jeffries showed the site plan with the modified drainage easements. 2 [ L August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Staff supports the drainage and utility easement waiver request with a note referencing this case SD 23.23 to ensure the drainage plan is further reviewed and followed at time of building permit. Staff does not support the sidewalk easement waiver but does support an easement in place of the sidewalk as permitted by the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations allow for the Planning Commission to allow for a l O' sidewalk easement in lieu of installing sidewalks due to the absence of other sidewalks in the proximity of the subdivision. Staff recommends approval of SD 23.23 -350 N. Bayview with the following conditions: l. Planning Commission approval of the Drainage/Utility Easement modification waiver. 2. Adding a 10' sidewalk pedestrian easement along the property lines adjacent to the ROW's. 3. A solution to the fire flow is reached between the City and owner. 4. Add note to the plat "At time of permitting refer to Planning Commission Case SD 23.23 for drainage requirements". Mr. Worsham asked if the waiver requests for the sidewalk could be divided into two waivers. Mr. Simmons stated that a waiver is not required to not require installation of the sidewalks. Mr. Simmons stated that prior to adding the waiver option, the Planning Commission spent a lot of time discussing installation of sidewalks. The legal requirements for getting that waiver oftentimes put sidewalks where we did not necessarily want them because the Applicant did not want to wait a month. The Subdivision Regulations were amended to save time by allowing the Planning Commission, without a legal waiver request, to make this decision. So, what is being asked today by Mr. Writt, is a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations from installing sidewalks or granting an easement. Mr. Jeffries shared five examples from 2019-2023, along the same area on Morphy Avenue where there were either a l O' or 15' sidewalk easements granted and even a 15' pedestrian easement where the sidewalks were required to be installed. Mr. Worsham asked for confirmation that the Mr. Writt has a choice to either install the sidewalks or put in an easement. Mr. Simmons stated that, most of the time, the applicant will provide an easement so there is no discussion with the Planning Commission. Staff may add this as a condition of approval. Mr. Jeffries stated that a general comment is added to the plat that an easement has been added in lieu of installation of sidewalks. A video presentation by Mr. Writt was played from 5: l 8pm through 5:36pm. Mr. Worsham asked if there was a legal representative present on behalf of Mr. Writt. There was no one attending on behalf of Mr. Writt. Chairman Worsham opened the public hearing at 5:37pm. Chris Knight at 50 N. Bayview Street stated that he has been a resident of the Bluff neighborhood for about 12 years. He believes that the existing rights-of-way are adequate to install a sidewalk if there were ever a need for a sidewalk, being the property of the City and would meet the sidewalk requirement. If sidewalks were ever to be built in the neighborhood, Mr. Knight believes that the sidewalks would be 3 l L August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes built on the west side of Bayview Street since the City owns all the property and it is a park with plenty of room for sidewalks. It would be silly to build sidewalks on the east side of a totally developed neighborhood. Mr. Knight asked that the waiver be granted. The public hearing was closed at 5:40pm. Mr. Burrell stated that there is no requirement to build a sidewalk. He agrees that there is plenty of room to build the sidewalks in the right-of-way, but the easement should be granted to keep a precedent from being set. Mr. Burrell asked Mr. Simmons and Mr. Williams for the repercussions of not granting the easement. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff is reviewing a project where the right-of-way may have changed, and Staff wishes an easement had been granted. With all the technology that is being installed in the right-of-way now, future Staff may need easements on properties. Mr. Williams stated that the Subdivision Regulations require installation of sidewalks. The exception was created so that, where sidewalks did not make sense, the property owner shall be required to grant an easement. If the Subdivision Regulations said may rather than shall, the Planning Commission would have some discretion. A waiver requires an extraordinary hardship. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide that having Mr. Writt put the easement on a piece of paper, when a sidewalk may never be installed, is an extraordinary hardship. Erik Cortinas stated that this easement has no impact on Mr. Writt's ability to build and no impact on the aesthetics of the house that will be built. The area will remain greenspace but does allow for latitude in the future to make some adjustments and changes, if necessary. Mr. Cortinas reiterated that there were areas where he wished that the City had easements just for flexibility down the road to do something if it needs to be done. Mr. Cortinas has spoken multiple times with Mr. Writt and does not understand the argument against the easement because it has no practical effect on what will be built. It is there just in case. Mr. Cortinas also spoke about evenly enforcing the regulations and being consistent helps in legal cases since you do not have to think back to what occurred, you know what occurred. From his standpoint, with the rapid redevelopment of subdivisions, around town, there is no way to know what Fairhope will look like in 30 years. There is no way to know what future Planning Commissions and Staff will have to deal with. Mr. Cortinas does not want to make things more difficult for Mr. Writt and in his opinion, this is not making it more difficult. Mr. Worsham stated that had Mr. Writt decided not to subdivide this property, which triggered the Subdivision Regulations, we would not even be here. There would never be an easement, never be a sidewalk. Mr. Writt triggered this action when he decided to subdivide his property. Mr. Kohler asked why the sidewalk easement could not be inside the drainage easement. Mr. Simmons replied that the drainage easement is a separate issue and per the Subdivision Regulations, a property owner is allowed, if they choose, to hire an Engineer to figure out an exacting drainage plan to request a reduced drainage easement. If they choose not to do that, we use the term "halo easement", a drainage easement, around all property lines. Many times, on a plat, the sidewalks will be in the same space. It may be called a public access, utility, and drainage easement. Mr. Writt is putting drainage improvements in the rights-of-way, so there is not a drainage easement there and Staff supports the waiver for the drainage easement. The sidewalk easement is l O' inside of the property line. Every rights- of-way is different. Streets are the paved surface; rights-of-way are the City owned property and easements are access easements for utility access and drainage that reside on the private property. 4 ( L August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minu1e s Mr. Burrell stated that he was confused in the past and did not realize there was so much City property from the edge of the road to the property line. Mr. Burrell also stated that he would fight to keep the sidewalks in the right-of-way in the Bluff neighborhood. The easement does not preclude the City from placing the sidewalks in the right-of-way. Mr. Simmons stated that it would be a public process to installation of sidewalks of this scale. The City typically wants sidewalks in rights-of-way, not easements. There are instances, though, where the City runs into situations where the sidewalk needs to be curved around a tree. Mr. Williams stated that if a sidewalk were installed in the right-of-way, Mr. Writt could ask the City to release or extinguish the easement since it was no longer needed. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to approve the modified drainage and utility easement waiver. Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Jack Burrell, Harry Kohler and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. Motion: Erik Cortinas made a motion to deny the sidewalk easement waiver. Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote : A YE: John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Jack Burrell, Harry Kohler and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. Motion: Jack Burrell made a motion to approve case SD 23.23 with conditions #2-4, modifying #2 to read "Adding a IO' sidewalk pedestrian easement along the property lines adjacent to the RO W's in lieu of installing sidewalks". Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Jack Burrell, Harry Kohler and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. ZC 23.03 Public hearing to consider the request from the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department, for various proposed amendments to the City of Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance. Summary: Mr. Simmons presented page 22 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to covered walkways . The proposed language will clarify that a breezeway is no wider than eight feet, is not enclosed and is not heated or air cooled. It shall be perpendicularly attached to the principal structure and shall fall within the required side setbacks for the principal structure. Mr. Simmons shared an example of a recent breezeway that had been enclosed and had become a closed in part of the home. 5 r [ L August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Clarification was added to the swimming pool section proposing that swimming pools shall not count against the maximum total lot coverage by accessory structures in Table 3-3. Mr. Simmons shared an example of a swimming pool that has been required to be placed to the rear of the principal structure and where a pool can be located with the proposed language. The proposed language would allow a residence to accommodate a pool and an accessory structure. Proposed language for accessory structure lighting would state that the lighting shall be constructed to direct the beam below the horizontal plane of the fixture and shall reflect away from any abutting property. Said fixtures may not extend higher than IO feet. Proposed language for comer lots included setbacks. The proposed language states that accessory structures and pools, some of which may be 5 feet from adjacent property line, align with the front setback of the neighboring property, and naturally changes with the adjacent front setback. For example, if adjacent property had a variance to reduce the front setback, accessory structure may align with "new" front setback. Page 35 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be modified to ensure consistence with the Tree Ordinance. Proposed language for fencing and/or walls states that fences and /or walls constructed at or near property lines shall not disturb neighboring properties without the express written consent of the affecting neighboring property owner. Also proposed is that any fence and/or walls forward of the front building line, or located in a Street Side Yard, shall not be higher than 4 feet. Alternative language to consider is, during construction of walls/fences at or near property lines, construction activities shall not physically disturb adjacent properties without the express written consent of the affected property owner. Mr. Simmons explained the options to the Planning Commission regarding these changes. The Planning Commission could recommend approval to the City Council. The Planning Commission could recommend approval with changes to the City Council. The Planning Commission can deny the changes. The Planning Commission can ask staff to go back to the drawing board and come back in September with explicit language and any changes that are made. The Planning Commission can tell staff to scrap some of it and bring back the rest. Mr. Cortinas explained that the 1 O' measurement for pools speak to 1 O' from the aquatic vessel not from the edge of the deck. Mr. Simmons confirmed Mr. Cortinas's statement. Mr. Burrell suggested adding language (or the IO' measurement stating that it is IO' as measured from any water line within the vessel. Mr. Burrell suggested changing language regarding breezeways that it must be open on two sides. Mr. Cortinas suggested removing the words "contains no more than two walls". Mr. Cortinas asked about the lighting. He asked if shielding the light was permissible. Mr. Simmons stated that the lighting amendment may not be ready to send to the City Council at this time. 6 L August 15, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Worsham opened the public hearing at 6:20pm with no one present to speak, closed the public hearing at 6:20pm. Motion: Clarice Hall-Black made a motion to recommend ZC 23.03 to the City Council removing the lighting amendment, defining the measurements of an aquatic vessel, and the breezeway revision. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Jack Burrell, Harry Kohler and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. Adjournment Jack Burrell made a motion to adjourn. A YE: John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Jack Burrell , Harry Kohler and Erik Cortinas. NAY: None. i;'~---- Lee Turner, Chairman ~L Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary 7