Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-1992 Planning Commission MinutesM E M O R A N D U M To: Fairhope Planning Commission Meeting of 06 OCTOBER 1992 TEXT REVISION - Sections 5.12 and 70.51, Zoning Ordinance Those changes proposed were reviewed at the study session of 18 September 1992. The first revision would permit bed and breakfast uses as uses permitted on appeal and subject to action of the Board of Adjustment. The second revision would effectively repeal special setback of 50 feet on Greeno Road after right-of-way acquisition. I recommend that those revisions be forwarded to the council with Commission's recommendation for adoption. TEXT REVISION - Zoning ordinance requirement for formal acceptance for advertising public hearing for zoning considerations. It is requested that the Commission and the Council consider text revisions to eliminate the formal acceptance, with the Executive Secretary and the Planning Officer authorized to advertise for public hearing any application that otherwise conforms to the ordinance requirements. That change will effectively reduce the time required for final adoption of zoning changes by about one-third. A similar acceptance requirement for the Council was rescinded several years ago by the Council. MOSS OAK VILLA - Application of Dennis Ledbetter by Fairhope Title and Survey for Preliminary and Final Plat approval. As was discussed on informal review at the August meeting, these five lots are being developed under the concept of privately maintained streets per Fairhope Subdivision regulations and will require waiver by the Commission of minimum frontage and area requirements. Considering the peculiar size and shape of the property, the fact that there is no street outlet and the alternatives for development, I believe there is much to recommend consideration of a privately maintained cul-de- sac and approval of the layout subject to the regulations governing private street development, with the necessary waivers granted. Approval should be conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a financial guaranty for improvements to be installed. 088-18 2/17/92 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3/16/92 4 / 1 / 9 2 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7 / 7 / 9 2 7 / 1 5 / 9 2 7 / 3 0 / 9 2 8 / 2 9 / 9 2 9/2/92 9/29/92 9/30/92 CAMBRIDGE COURT & FAIRHOPE NORTH - Application of Michael and Judy Barry for informal sketch plan review, 17 lots of R-2 Single Family west of North Bon Secour Street and 20 Patio Garden Homes east of North Section Street. Land is currently zoned R-2. Cambridge Court lots appear to generally conform to regulations. Recommend that consideration of Fairhope North be continued until disposition of proposed zoning text changes with regard to R3Pgh uses permitted as set forth in separate submittal herewith. UN -NAMED SUBDIVISION - sketch plan review request by Peterson Associates on behalf of Dr. Barnes, some 171 lots west of Booth (Bishop) Road. Information supplied is rather vague, but lot layouts appear generally to conform. It should be noted that the sewer designated "Fairhope Sewer Line extension" is not in place and will not necessarily be located as shown - location is yet to be determined by City. Certainly, more information will be required to adequately evaluate a project of this size. The Homestead of Fairhope - Public Hearing to consider the Homestead as a Planned Unit Development under provision of Article VI of the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance and forward report of same to City Council as a special zone as provided in the Ordinance. Further, to consider the merits of the submittals as a general development plan to be refined to the Preliminary Plan as provided by the Ordinance. Further to consider The Homestead One, the single family part of the P.U.D., within the scope of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations as provided by the Ordinance. Further to consider staff recommendations for continuing review and continuation of public hearing for such further review as may be required. Review by staff will separately address the subdivision regulations for Homestead One from the plan requirements for Homestead Two and Three: HOMESTEAD ONE: Preliminary Plat review: Julia Avenue - the eastern half (30 feet) of Julia Avenue should be shown in its entirety from Plantation Boulevard 0 8 8 - 1 8 2/17/92 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3/16/92 4 / I / 9 2 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7 / 7 / 9 2 7 / 1 5 / 9 2 7 / 3 0 / 9 2 8 / 2 9 / 9 2 9/2/92 9/29/92 9 / 3 0 / 9 2 to Edwards Avenue upon the Plat as a dedicated street. That part of Edwards Avenue lying within the boundaries of the P. U. D. should be shown upon the Plat as a dedicated public street. For that part of Edwards to be constructed upon existing right-of-way outside the P.U.D. lands, a waiver should be granted and the location of the street be adjusted to provide for future right-of-way acquisition and the accommodation of existing utility lines. Developers are cautioned that acceptance for maintenance of public streets by the City will require a two-year maintenance bond from date of completion as provided in Chapter 19 of the Fairhope Code of Ordinances. Side setbacks of four feet and rear setbacks of ten feet as shown on the plan will require a decision by the Commission that such is complies with the P.IJ.D. intent. Owners' acceptance should be executed and acknowledged. Reference to P.U.D. must be shown of face of plat as required by Section 6.874 of the Ordinance. Preliminary approval of the subdivision plat should be considered concurrently with preliminary approval of the P. U. D. of which it.is a part. Homestead Two and Three: The commercial/apartment portion of the P.U.D. has been considered by staff on a section -by -section basis under the Ordinance provisions. Staff has summarized review categorically with respect to waivers required, plan deficiencies, etc. Section 6.1 - the plan, as a whole, appears to be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the planned unit development concept. Section 6.11 - uses proposed are appropriate under provisions of the P.U.D. Section 6.12 - Proposed is a fixed unit development of some 18.5 acres. Single ownership needs to be demonstrated and identified. Section 6.2 - General Regulations: 6.21 - To be designated a Planned Unit Development as a special zone 6.22 - Project appears to be in conformity with the comprehensive plan, provided commercial uses bear a reasonable relation- ship to developed residential facilities. 0 8 8 - 1 8 2 / 1 7 / 9 2 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3/16/92 4/1/92 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7 / 7 / 9 2 7 / 1 5 / 9 2 7/30/92 8 / 2 9 / 9 2 2 9/2/92 9/29/92 9 / 3 0 / 9 2 6.23 - For commission finding upon review 6.24 - For commission finding upon review 6.25 - Basis for waivers within the spirit and intent of the P.U.D. and provisions of the comprehensive plan. 6.26 - Separately addressed in review of S/D 6.31 - Basis for waiver as in Section 6.25 6.32 - Total density is calculated at just over 12 units per acre 6.33 - Whereas there are no such buildings within Homestead Two/Three, provision does not apply herein. 6.34 - 6.341 Plan does not show sufficient detail 6.343 - Plan appears to meet requirement 6.344 - All streets except Julia Drive and Edwards Avenue are private - plan appears to meet requirements, but easements should be clearly delineated. Section 6.4 - Uses permitted Plan conforms Section 6.42 - Commercial covers about three percent of total area. To conform to the intent of the Ordinance, at least two structures will be constructed for occupancy at opening of commercial use, which would result in a service scope of about 20 percent of total estimated occupancy. Section 6.51 - Plan appears to conform to intent of section. Section 6.52 - Open Space, Site Size, Density: (1) Site exceeds 18 acres and conforms (2) Density of under 12 units per acre, conforms (3) Perimeter setback of 20 feet requires waiver (4) Calculations should be furnished by developer (5) Plan conforms Section 6.6 Special Requirements: 6.61 - conforms 6.62 - waiver required for Victorian (3 story) 088-18 2/17/92 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3/16/92 4/1/92 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7/7/92 7 / 1 5 / 9 2 7/30/92 8/29/92 9/2/92 9/29/92 9/30/92 T 6.63 - not applicable 6.64 - basis for waiver 6.65 - statutory and procedural due process requirements previously met on initial plan review and ordinance adoption Section 6.8 Special Procedure: 6.81 - conforms 6.82 - conforms 6.83 - preliminary under review 6.84 - in process (1) letter received but no endorsement by present land owner (2) site plan under review w/prelim 6.841 - generally conforms as applicable Section 6.86 - Plan is being examined for compliance with preliminary plan requirements to extent information has been supplied by developer. Section 6.861 - Map Content: (1) Complete boundary survey with legal description not submitted on Homestead two/Three (2) topo map received (3) proposed land use and location map received (4) calculation of density not shown (5) underground electric optional (6) dimensions of open space not calculated (7) landscaped and recreational areas not clearly shown (8) not applicable (9) provision for parking shown (10) impervious surface calculations not shown (11) needs refinement (12) phasing shown but not scheduled Section 6.862 - Written Statement ;1) description furnished ,2) description furnished ;3) description furnished ;4) financing by cash ;5) ownership of land not presently that of developer 6) described 8) implicit in adoption of ordinance, this project 9) future action 10) developers attention is directed to this section WAIVERS REQUIRED FOR PLAN UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. Right-of-way considerations, Edwards Avenue 2. Perimeter setbacks ((6.52 13}) 088-18 2 / 1 7 / 9 2 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3 / 1 6 / 9 2 4/1/92 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7/7/92 7/15/92 7/30/92 8/29/92 S 9 / 2 / 9 2 9 / 2 9 / 9 2 9 / 3 0 / 9 2 3. Building Height (6.62) PLAN DEFICIENCIES FOR PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION: 1. Ownership must conform to requirements and be clearly shown (6.12) 2. Common open space should be clearly delineated with amount calculated with relationship to total area (6.34) 3. Easements for ingress/egress of service and emergency vehicles should be clearly shown (6.344) 4. Minimum open space and the relationship to site area should be calculated by developer (6.52 141) 5. Ownership if other than developer requires endorsement of present land owner (6.84 {1}) 6. Need boundary survey with legal description on Homestead Two/Three (6.861 {1}) 7. Calculate density of proposed buildings with relation to site area (6.861 141) 8. Schematic of underground electrical (6.861 {51) 9. Indicate and calculate areas, landscaping and recreational use (6.861 {71) 10. Calculate areas of impervious surfaces (6.861 110)) 11. Show all drainage calculation's (6.861 {11)) 12. Indicate schedule of phased development (6.861 {12)) PROCEDURAL ORDER: 1. Public hearing before Commission for preliminary consideration of P.U.D. as special zone, with report to City Council (06 October 1992) 2. Review and approval of Final Plan as requested by developer and upon submission of required documents. (02 November 1992, or subsequent meeting) Concurrent approval of Final Plan by Commission and City Council may be by joint meeting. 3. Completion of all dedicated streets and acceptance for maintenance shall be accomplished by or before the Date of Project Completion specified by developer in the Final Plan. 4. Recording of Final Plan following approval of Council and acknowledgement by the Mayor. 5. Recording of Subdivision Final Plat following final approval by the Commission, signed by Secretary. 6. Except within the subdivision, Building Permits may issue as provided at developer's risk within the P.U.D. after preliminary approval and any attached conditions. 0 8 8 - 1 8 2 / 1 7 / 9 2 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3/16/92 4/1/92 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7/7/92 7/15/92 7/30/92 8/29/92 9/2/92 9 / 2 9 / 9 2 9 / 3 0 / 9 2 6 No building permits may issue for subdivided lots until all dedicated streets have been constructed and accepted by the City Council for maintenance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: HOMESTEAD ONE: (subdivision) Grant preliminary approval subject to: 1. Required signatures appearing on plat 2. Note on plat with reference to P.U.D. 3. Dedication of right-of-way appearing on plat 4. Dispensation regarding Edwards Avenue right-of-way S. Dispensation regarding side/rear setbacks HOMESTEAD TWO/THREE (Victorian and apartments) Grant Preliminary Approval subject to list of deficiencies set out above. Respectfully submitted, Robert Lunsford Planning/Zoning Officer CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 0 8 8 - 1 8 2 / 1 7 / 9 2 2 / 2 3 / 9 2 3/16/92 4 / I / 9 2 4 / 6 / 9 2 4 / 3 0 / 9 2 5/4/92 6/1/92 6/27/92 7 / 7 / 9 2 7/15192 7/30/92 8/29/92 �iy 9/2/92 9/29/92 9/30/92 _/ Fair* eSingles� Corporation September 14, 1992 Mayor James P. Nix City Council Members Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Area Development Dear City Officials; We all have a vital interest in the infrastructure items of storm drainage sewer/sanitary treatment/handling and major street placement associated with subject matter. Accordingly, we have established a special committee to work with you with a goal of establishing guidelines and needed projects to assure an effective implementation. In addition to the undersigned, Claude Arnold, John Parker and Leslie Stejskal are the major members. We need to start this effort Be soon Be possible. May we hear from you soon? Re r C arles B. Inger oll President 336 - 340 Fairhope Ave. • Fairhope, Alabama 36532 • Phone No. 928-8162 "All good things come from the land." Addendum to Application for Zoning Change - City of Fairhope, Alabama The applicant is the owner of property located within the B-4 zone and also within the R-2 zone. Applicant desires to construct within the B-4 zone, a building for business -professional use (financial institution), and requires the use of the R-2 portion of the property. Therefore, as an amendment to the application for re -zoning the R-2 area for B-4 use, the applicant proposes and agrees to the following as conditions prerequisite to granting a request for zoning amendment: Applicant proposes and agrees that part of the area now designated on the City's Official Zoning Map as R-2 being, (Lots 1 and 12 of Block 12, Ingleside Highlands Subdivision) will be used exclusively for parking and access, and no encroachment thereon by buildings, now or future, will be permitted. 2. That screening along Pleasant Street and Michigan Avenue (the west and north boundaries of area re -zoned) will be provided as follows: (a) a tight evergreen hedge not less than six feet in height at planting and forming a solid, unbroken visual barrier shall be provided, or (b) in lieu thereof, a solid wall or fence six feet in height, to be provided with plantings to enhance the visual appearance of such wall or fence. 3. That all vehicles using the premises shall exit therefrom only to Morphy Avenue, that no egress to Greeno Road shall be permitted and that there shall be no ingress or egress for vehicles to or from Pleasant Avenue. It is understood and agreed that the consideration of the within proposals and agreements by the City shall not in any way waive or alter other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or other regulations of the City. January 25, 1984 BALDWIN COUNTY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION Date of Application amended Name of Applicant Q By:(Sigh t PRES I D�4d Tit e The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Tuesday, October 6, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street. Present: Chairman Richard Sanderson, members William Richmond, James P. Nix, Tim Kant, Maxwell Killoch, Betty Rivenbark Secretary and Bob Lunsford, Zoning Enforcement Officer The minutes of the September 8, 1992 meeting were approved as written with one addition in discussion of Ingleside Terrace, Tim Kant commented... and all water goes to Greeno Road. At this time Mr. Sanderson said that an election of officers for the coming year is required in October. William Richmond moved to table this until a full commission was present for voting, Maxwell Killoch seconded and motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was held on a text revision to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Section 5.12 Uses Permitted on Appeal ( residential districts) and Section 70.51 Special Setback of 50 ft. on Greeno Rd(U.S. Hwy 98) repeal on acquisition of new right-of-way for widening of Greeno Rd. Bob had commented that these had been discussed during the study session and all commission was well acquainted with what proposed. Mr. Sanderson called for any comments from the audience. There were none. Bob explained what changes were. William Richmond moved to accept changes as recommenc and pass on to City Council for their action. Maxwell Killoch seconded motion and it carried unanimously. A public hearing was held on The Homestead/The Partners, Ltd. to consider the Homestead as a Planned Unit Development under provision of Article VI of the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. Further to consider the merits of the sub- mittals as a general development plan to be refined to the Preliminary Plan. Further to consider The Homestead One, the single family part of the PUD within the scope of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. Further to consider staff recommendations for continuing review and continuation of public hearing for such further review as may be required. Bob had set out recommendation: as follows: Homestead One: Preliminary Plat review: (Mr. Lunsford's comments are to be included in the minutes to convey complete action recommended for each section) Mr. Lunsford did address the audience and say that they met the requirements in general except as set out. His recommendation was to grant preliminary approval on Homestead One(subdivision portion) and preliminary approval on Homestead Two/ Three (Victorian and apartments) subie( to 1. required signatures appearing on plat; 2. note on plat with reference to PUD;3Dedication of right-of-way appearing on plat; 4 Dispensation regardim Edwards Avenue right-of-way; 5. Dispensation regarding side/rear setbacks. James P. Nix moved to grant approval as recommended subject to items set out, Maxwell Killoch seconded and motion carried unanimously. Moss Oak Villa Preliminary and final approval was being sought for this 5 lot S/D off of Pier St. Bob had commented that this should be a privately maintained street and approval subject to the regulations governing private street development with the necessary waivers granted. With condition that the applicant furnish a financial guaranty for improvements to be installed. There was a lady present who asked what planned for oak trees. Claude Arnold responded saying they plan to save as many as can. He had a layout of the subdivision which he shared with the lady. Another question was asked regarding where the utilities will be installed. Mr. Arnold responded that they will go up the center line of the street and be on the south edge of the pave- ment where the existing sewer is, further that the contractor doing the work will have to handle the street boring. A brick street was shown on the plan at Mr. Arnold said that once the developer heard of the expense involved that he might have to change his mind about brick street. Bob had recommended preliminary and final approval subject to the required improvements being installed and letter of credit being furnished. Maxwell Killoch moved to grant approval subject to Bob's recommendation, Tim Kant seconded and motion carried unanimously. M Page Two - Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 1992 Cambridge Court An informal sketch plan review of 17 lots was presented by Michael and Judy Barry on North Bon Secour Street and 20 Patio Garden Home lots east of North Section Street. Bob had said that Cambridge Court portion meets minimum requirements of subdivisions but Fairhope North had problems with the sewer that needed to be worked out. Mr. Sanderson commented that this is patio garden homes and we are working on that now but this is sketch plan review. Further discussion led to James Nix commenting that the sketch plan portion on Cambridge Court was acceptable as it meets zoning and lot size requirements. Ack Moore asked what should they do about Fairhope North. Bob had recommended that it be continued until disposition of proposed zoning text changes with regard to R3PGH uses be handled. It was pointed out in review that they had more units than allowed in sketch plan . That the number of units is limited - can have 6 but no more than 12. It was recommended that they get with Bob and refine the plan, that the zoning change can go on. At this time Bob asked the commission for permission to go ahead and review zoning requests for public hearings and if in order be able to go ahead and advertise without coming before commission for formal acceptance. Maxwell Killoch moved to allow this review as requeste James P. Nix, seconded and motion carried unanimously. Mr. Forsman addressed the commission at this time and asked them what about his bed and breakfast proposal. He was told that the zoning amend- ments are in the works and has been recommended to city council for adoption and portion of this includes bed and breakfasts. Bob brought to the Commission's attention that in 1984 when Baldwin County Savings 6 Loan(letter in file) built their building at Greeno Rd. and Morphy there was an agreement made with them that no traffic was to egress/ingress on Pleasant Avenue. Now, several years later, they are coming back and with the proposed 4 laning requesting a review of agreements made at that time to see if we would reconsider initial commitment not to use Pleasant St. Bob had advised that he knew of nothing they could do without pursuing it further with the city council. Mr. Sanderson told him that was right thing to do or they could pursue through the Board of Adjustments 6 Appeals. James P. Nix offered that this one of objection s made by neighbors at the time the building was built; that it would be hard' to go back on this promise now. It was asked if they would have problems only having one egress/ingres and it was consensus that many businesses have to use only one, no harder than it would be on anyone else. There was no further business to come before commission and it was duly adjourned.