Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-1986 Regular MeetingThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met September 9, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street, Fairhope, Alabama Present: Chairman Maxwell Killoch; members Barney Shull, Cecil Pitman, James P. Nix, Cindy McBrearty, Mary Doug Foreman, Tim Kant, Richard Sanderson and Jack Lucey. Jim Reid City Attorney, Bob Lunsford, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Betty Rivenbark, Secretary were also present. 'The minutes of the August 4, 1986 meeting were approved unanimously on motion by Jack Lucey, seconded by Richard Sanderson. Barney Shull moved to continue the Matt Dial discussion until the next meeting as Mr. Dial was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mary Doug Foreman seconded and motion carried unanimously. Mr. Killoch explained that the three public hearings scheduled for the evening will be heard starting with Mr. Corte's rezone request and then the Greeno Road property owners and then Mr. Dyas. That the proposals will be given and general discussion held for each case. He further commended Mrs. Fieldes for her article on the issues in the Courier. Mr. Starke Irvine came forward representing Mr. Julio Corte, Jr's request to rezone his property located on Edwards Avenue and Greeno Road from R-5 High Density Multi -family and R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential to B-I Local Shopping District. Mr. Irvine said this is a 10 acre tract that Mr. Corte has under option adjacent to the Plantation Pointe shopping center presently under development, this to be a shopping center of specialty retail nature. Mr. Irvine presented to the Commission an artist's rendition of shopping center and cited the credentials of the developer. He said that ultimately Mr. Corte would like to install a fence like what has been erected down at Magnolia Trace by the Grand Hotel to separate this from the Rosa Acres subdivision, that there would be a 20 ft buffer heavily landscaped. He pointed out at the east end on the drawing where the fence followed the building curve that a park was proposed in this area. No egress/ingress will be planned on Edwards Avenue. Mrs. McBrearty asked Mr. Irvine at the time of zoning would there be restrictions committed to in writing on this site plan. He remarked yes he had signed agreements from the developer. J.P. Nix asked what happened to 160 ft. green buffer dedicated on Greeno Road that was presented in last plans. Mr. Irvine said this was prime commercial frontage and was exchanged for buffer along Edwards Avenue. Mr. Irvine called on the planning commission to plan for change to meet growth in area. That if we did not plan for it we will lose its use, from an economic standpoint. Mrs. Foreman asked that the entrances%exits be pointed out. Four were planned for Greeno Road, none on Edwards. More questions were asked as to whether or not a restaurant was planned, and whether or not a market study was done to see if another grocery store is needed. J.P. Nix remarked that a year ago the 80 acres plat was re -zoned and plans submitted. He asked what happened to that plan. Mr. Irvine remarked that this is a different developer. This ended Mr. Irvine's presentation. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 - September 9, 1986 ' Larry Chason came forth representing the 13 re -zone applications from property owners on Greeno Road. He remarked that the I, legal description for Tom Brown was wrong(we published what was presented). Mr. Brown only wished to change the front part of the property not the total piece and Mr. Jansen's property B-3b at the corner of Dyer Road would have restricted uses. Food shops, delicatessens, grocery or Poat repair would not be allowed. He went over the history leading up to tonight's presentation. In the past, the individual applications had been rejected so the parties grouped together and have been meeting since February. They met with the Planning Commission in March and made an effort to inform them and the public what they wished to do and why. All parcels combined make about 25 acres. Mr. Chason quoted the highway department's traffic survey for '83 and '86 and the increase in traffic on Greeno for this time. He said that the owners broke up the applications to zones for best use for the community. When the comprehensive plan was presented there was no change in this area, it was still recommended as R-I. Mr. Chason mentioned several businesses that have moved out of the area, that the owners meant for the re -zone applications to be a means of working towards solving a problem that now exists on Greeno Rd. Mr. Chason further said that his clients are victims of economic obsolescence. and that his clients have been accused of "looking for the buck" but stated this is not true. That the value of their homes would be greater if they were located in a residential neighborhood, that the rezone requests are an attempt to get back the loss they have experienced from being located on a major highway. Mr. Chason quoted 191,6, of the people responding to the Mayor's survey about change in this area led him to believe that this is a significant number, that the geographical placing of this land makes it conducive to commercial. That as long as economic obsolescence exists, the longer it takes to straighten out. He had no further comments. Mr. Jesse P. Evans, attorney, represented Mr. Dyas' rezone request from R-I Low Density Single Family Residential and R-4 Low Density Multi - Family Residential to B-2 General Business and B-4 Business and Professional District. He had at different times asked that the Dyas application be considered separately and apart from the other two but he would bow to wishes of Commission. He was asked to proceed. He had data compiled by professional engineers, who were asked to study urban planning, not only the triangle; that they studied all the engineering aspects; a detailed study was done on traffic impact. He said that his client owns 39 acres that has been vacant for a number of years, and under the present zoning may never be developed. That it is not reasonable or practical under the present zoning. He introduced Bill Bondarenko, a land planner from Birmingham. Mr . Bondarenko said he had been asked to study the property with respect to land use and zoning relationships. He said in his study he looked at the ordinance, zoning map, community plan and reviewed comments in the newspaper -reviewed topography of site, reviewed traffic engineering, site engineering, market analysis and looked at the existant land uses adjacent to this site. He further said his study reflected Baldwin County would rank 5th among all Alabama counties in buying income by 1988. He noted that the daily traffic increased 21% between 1981-85. There is no competitive community shopping center in immediate area and Baldwin County is losing between 40/47million dollars annually in sales to Mobile and Pensacola. He pointed out the one thing he thought to be critical; that this property is surrounded by three major traffic arteries. He described what they proposed to build was an open campus type -low density -retail commercial and office with open space design. There would be substantial landscaping, surrounded by buffer of trees, lake with grassed lawn areas. No exposed areas on the property, providing internal on -site traffic circulation with a minimum number of access points to the existing roadways. That 2.3 acres at the north end of property would remain vacant. He further talked about buildings to be Carmel, Calif. like structures with a 30-35 ft. buffer planned all around property. He went on to say in his professional opinion it should be rezoned B-2 and B-4 because the property is not suitable ' to develop with present zoning becuase of encirclement of major highways; 8 the proposed development is compatible with adjoining properties; the engineering proposed does not pose any problems to adjoining properties or communites; the development is an Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 - September 9, 1986 office/commercial complex and is consistant with the changing land patterns in the general area and the property development is consistant with area wide growing demand for retail commercial and office space. He further stated that this is not spot zoning in his professional opinion. In answer to a question from Mr. Killoch who asked if this property could not be developed as high class R-I 'Mr. Bondarenko said it could but it is not reasonable or practical to be utilized for single family residential use. Mr. Bondarenko introduced Darrell Skipper who did a traffic analysis. Mr. Skipper said he examined the conditions present to see what impact the development would have, to determine what improvements would be needed. He explained his studies and how he got his figures. Mr. Lucey asked him if he had looked into how many accidents occurred at the intersection of Hwy 98 and Hwy 104.1 He said no. After his report Mr. Hack Sain, of Chas H. Sain & Assoc. a civil engineer addressed the members of the Commission. He reported on his studies and reports. He remarked that it would be necessary to installalift station; that water is ample and available. That they would develop to handle a 100 yr storm, and not permit any greater runoff than is occurring now during a 2 yr storm. Further that gas, electric, telephone is available to site. He cited i what was planned for landscaping, lighting, lake water content. When he was finished with his presentation Mr. Evans told the Conmission that "spot zoning: had two different meanings; one I meaning to Mr. Bondarenko as a planner and also a legal meaning. That in Alabama the legal meaning is that spot zoning occurs when a municipality remains unzoned. He said we have a community plan and zoned the entire city so we don't have spot zoning. In comments he stated again for record he wished that they were not included with the other presentations, that each has its identity and each is separate project with separate features. That the Planning Commission should think of the community as a whole, think about education, tax base, future development, the economic and social life of Fairhope and not be overwhelmed by a vast number of people. He said the Commission should base their determination on facts established instead of the wishes of persons who appear for or against the application, that the objections of large numbers of residents of an affected neighborhood are not sound basis for denial of the application, they should look at concerns of the community and not concerns of few. Mr. Shull asked if any studies were done on the number of residential lots could be utilized if developed R-I. They responded no. This was end of Dyas presentation. At this time the Commission took a fifteen minute break and when they re- turned they heard comments from members of the audience who wished to speak, hearing them in the order rezone requests made. Mr. Corte's first. Five were against - Mr. Illing, Mr. Catlin, Mr. Fralik, Pat Indorf, Elouise Lucassen. Mrs. Lucassen said she had a meeting of people in Rosa Acres and had 36 people there and all were opposed to any changes, only I family support change, thought the mult-family might be bad. Keep like it is now. The Chairman asked if the members wished to make a motion at this time and Dick Sanderson moved to recommend denial of re -zone request to City Council, Tim Kant seconded. Under discussion Mr. Sanderson said he had some remarks to make regarding this proposal and the other two and he wished them to apply to all ( copy of statement attached to minutes). A vote was taken and was as follows: For motion to deny - Kant, Pitman, Lucey, Sanderson, Foreman, McBrearty, Killoch, Ni: Mr. Shull abstain. Motion passed. Public comment was held on the Greeno Road property owners applications. Eleven people spoke, 6-5 against change. Comments included the statement that the City has a well thought out plan and should stick to it. Also, no clear need presented. Motion made by Cecil Pitman moved to deny application with Planning Commission having some control over architectural renderings for proposed development area. Larry Chason said they would be more than willing to have architectural control, but if denied tonight they would be putting these people off another year. This motion passed by 7-2 with Cindy McBrearty and Barney Shull voting against it as stated. Motion was later withdrawn and Mr. Pitman moved to deny the applications without prejudice and waive the year's waiting period so individual requests could be acted on when renderings presented. Mrs. McBrearty pointed out that year waiting period could not be waived. Motion died for lack of a second. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 - September 9, 1986 Further discussion about applications led to Mary Doug Foreman moving that in order to retain comprehensive plan and designated land use study to recommend denial of re -zone applications (all 13) to the Fairhope City Council. Mr. Sanderson seconded, motion carried with vote as follows: For motion as made - Lucey, Sanderson, Pitman, Killoch, Foreman, McBrearty, Nix . Against as made -Shull, Kant. Comments were taken on the Dyas re -zoning application. Jack Kilpatrick, Maud Van Eysbergen, H. Brunner, Dan Hamilton, Dave Beaudoin, Ed Gilmore, Bill Butterworth, all spoke against the application. Mr. Evans again spoke saying for the record he wished this was being handled separately. He again cited reasons for rezoning. Two from audience spoke for re -zone. Susan Smith made the suggestion the City purchase the property at fair market value. Mr. Killoch read a letter from a Helen Conwell who wished to vote against re -zone. At this time Cindy McBrearty commented that there were several reasons for denying application. First, that Mr. Evans stated that one reason for denying a rezone application is if there is "legitimate apprehension of an evil" both a decrease in property values to residents of Colonial Acres and the dilution of the downtown and existing business district would in her opinion be cause for legitimate apprehension. Also, that Colonial Acres exists well as residential and is surrounded by the same three traffic arteries and therefore the Dyas property could exist equally as well as residential, and last that this is a violation of the com- prehensive plan. Cecil Pitman said he was impressed with the professional expertise, but cited at least six vacancies in specialty shops from town South to the Grand Hotel, that he thought we could use a more posh residential district and this lends itself to this idea. Jack Lucey then moved to recommend denial of this application to the City Council, Richard Sanderson seconded, and vote for motion was as follows - Kant, Pitman, Sanderson, Lucey, Killoch, Foreman, McBrearty, Shull, Nix. Motion to deny passed unanimously. There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned. Box 541, Fairhope, Alabama 36533, August 31, 1986. Mr. Maxwell G. Killoch, Chairman, Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission, Fairhope, Alabama 36533• Dear Mr. Killoch: Because my husband and I will be out of town at the time of the hearing on the re -zoning of "the triangle" and hence un- able to speak on the question, I am taking this means of expressing our ideas on the subject. Please enter this letter as part of the proceedings. As residents of Seacliff Drive, we are deeply disturbed at the threat of changing the zoning of that area from resi- dential to business, with its concommitant paving of large areas for parking lots. The ability of the land to absorb rainwater will be destroyed, and there will be massive run- off of water at great velocity. The rains of August 1978 and May 1981 demonstrated that even with the triangle then undisturbed, there was severe flooding on the north side of Fairhope, and marked disturbance of the flow of water in Fly Creek, with heavy erosion of the stream banks. It is easy to imagine the results of such rains once the triangle is developed with shopping centers and vast ex- panses of pavement. In the five and a half years since my husband and I built our house on the creek side of Seacliff Drive, we have seen our property severely eroded at its creek border, at the same time that the creek, navigable to motor boats when we purchased it, has become barely able to float a canoe. It is frightening to know that the property for which we paid a premium, as being "waterfront" when we purchased it, is ceasing to be waterfront because of development upstream, and is decreasing in value as a result. We, like many of the other residents of Seacliff Drive, as well as those in Colonial Acres, are retirees who have commited the major portion of our life savings to our final home there. What is in store for us if the petitioners succeed in their quest for commercial development of the triangle? We respectfully submit that you consider the plight of the sub- stantial numbers of residents who will suffer if this threat to them is approved, weighing the damage to the many against the Planning & Zoning Commission September 9, 1986 Fairhope is a unique community that has gained national recognition as an ideal place to live. It has attracted sophisticated retirees from all over the country including many refugees from the urban sprall and congestion of Florida and Southern California. It is increasingly attracting young people who work in Mobile but prefer the serenity and security of Fairhope as a place to raise their children. Fairhope was founded by people who believed that land speculation was wrong and that the benefits of increased land values should be enjoyed by the general public. Their gift of parklands and the city's utilities are the nucleus of the beauty and financial stabi- lity of the city and testimony to their wisdom. The city now finds itself besieged by proposals for zoning changes that could destroy its attraction as a residential community in spite of a long standing but recently up -dated comprehensive plan that reflects the desires of its citizens. A primary purpose of a zoning ordinance is to protect property values - not to enhance the value of land owned by commercial devel- opers at the expense of residential property owners. It is claimed that the land in question is not suitable for residen- tial development but Colonial Acres is an excellent example of how it can be done. Another good nearby example is the ranch house type condiminium development in Point Clear that is seperated from Alternate 98 only by a fence and landscaping. Prices start at over a quarter of a million dollars. Fairhope does not have to be consumed by urban sprall. We are mid- way between the major shopping centers of Mobile and Pensacola. We have adequate property already zoned for business for the foreseeable future. What we do need is some inovative residential subdivisions, includ- ing an expensive one that would warrant the building of houses in the $250,000. to $500,000. bracket. The triangle would be ideal for that purpose. Richard L. Sanderson RICHARD L. SANDERSON, BUILDER 716 HOLLY DRIVE — FAIRHOPE• AL. 36532 205/928-0069 e r r r r — r r r_ r, r _ r r r r r ` r -• r — r r r - r e r r r r - - r - r r rr e desires of the few. Yours truly, Helen D. Conwell (Mrs. David M. Conwell