Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-1993 Planning Commission Minutes'_ TO: FAIRHOPE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Meeting of: 08 JUL 1993 1 Planning/Zoning Officer EASTGATE UNIT 5 - Application of Roberds Corporation for Preliminary Plat Approval and License to Construct, 12 lots abutting a cul-de-sac, which is to be a privately maintained street. The lots are to be used for patio garden homes, with the access off Bishop Road. The area is currently zoned R-5, which permits uses in other residential categories. The lots as delineated exceed the minimum frontage requirement of 40 feet and also exceed the minimum area requirement of 4000 square feet. The minimum frontage and area requirements for private streets generally, set out in Section 405.1 (e), should be waived by the Commission in the course of approval; since the requirement would not be compatible with the zoning district, the neighborhood generally or the intent of the patio garden homes provisions of the regulations. The landowner's endorsement is not on the plat at time of submittal, since the FSTC Council will not meet until after our meeting. This time, and this time only, I would recommend that the Owners signature be a condition precedent to preliminary approval and that license to construct be withheld until signature is obtained. See my further comments regarding notice to applicants in the matter of FSTC approvals.* Developer is also cautioned that final plat, when submitted, must fully conform to provisions of Section 405.1 regarding private streets, except for waivers herein set forth. Preliminary Plat Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. Signatures of FSTC officials appearing on plat PECAN TRACE, RE -SUBDIVISION OF LOT 15 TO TWO LOTS, Application of Kevin Boone and George Klumpp. The subject land is owned by FSTC and the same caveat regarding their approval applies at to East Gate above. The resubdivision mitigates what is now a lot of excessive depth and double frontage. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval is recommended subject to signatures of FSTC officials appearing on Plat. 19 JUN 93 26 JUN 93 ZOCOMM93.fPC BAY OAKS - Application for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Claude 0. Steele, Jr., Five Lots abutting on the north side of existing Buerger Lane off Scenic 98 at Battles Wharf. It is my understanding that the existing building on Lot Five which encroaches onto Lot Six is to be removed. Plat appears to be in order and Preliminary and Final Approval is recommended. The County Engineer's approval is a condition prerequisite to recording plat. THE COTTAGES, UNIT 4 - Application of Dr. Philip Gilchrist et al for Preliminary Plat Approval of 26 Lots for continued patio garden home development, as a re -subdivision of Lots 4-7 and 11-14 of Greeno Park Subdivision. This application was rejected and returned from the June agenda by reason of being incomplete at submittal. You will note that the Owner's Certificate does not correlate with the lots to be resubdiv.ided as shown in the legal description. Since the street is in place and there are no new utility mains to be constructed and since there has been one rejection already, the Commission may elect to grant Preliminary Approval conditioned upon the correction of the Owner's Certificate and corrected copies of the Plat being submitted to staff for filing. Since all lots abut the existing street, I do not perceive the private drives to be access controlling reserve strips as contemplated in Section 405.1 of the regulations. RIVER OAKS UNIT ONE.- Application of Dr. Roy Barnes to request a restatement of Preliminary Plat Approval for Unit One to be reduced to 21 Lots. Conditional Preliminary Approval was granted for 39 Lots at the February meeting. I recommend that the earlier approval be extended to this application, reducing the number of lots to 21 and subject to any conditions which have not yet been fulfilled, provided that the developer shall file with the City two copies of the revised and corrected Plat conforming to the regulations. BAY CHASE - Application of Lee Turberille for Final Approval of 3 Lots as a resubdivision of Block F, Volanta - a continuation of the hearing from the April meeting. It is my understanding that the Corps of Engineers has made a previous wetlands evaluation of the lands involved, but has been unable thus far to recover the files thereon. I would suggest that any approval granted by subject to the Corp's final determination. The stormwater runoff across this land, 19 JUN 93 26 JUN 93 ZOCOMM93.fPC which is considerable, will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The land is zoned as B3b and the frontages and areas shown for the lots conform to the requirements of the zoning district. Building setbacks will be determined by the least restrictive residential use permitted for the district, R-3 Single Family. All structures placed must conform to the requirements of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance as applicable. I recommend Final Plat Approval for this application. No building permits issued will allow any placement of fill or other activity which might be restricted or prohibited by the wetlands determination of the Corps. ARBOR GABLES P.U.D. - Unit One - Application of the Knight Company for Final Plan approval for the planned unit development of eleven residential buildings and support facilities. This application was given preliminary approval at.the March meeting. Approval of density was based on allowable building coverage, granting a waiver to required site density. The Planned Unit Development was established under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance during a public hearing convened by the City Council at its regular meeting on 11 April 1993, as Ordinance No. 931. At this writing, the written statement and final plan appears to be in order for final approval. However, time being a consideration in prompt transmittal of this general commentary to the Commission, I wish to reserve the right to further study the plan and offer further comments, if any I have, at the July meeting. * Form of Notice re: FSTC endorsement of plats: N O T I C E TO: ALL SURVEYORS, OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS involved in the subdivision or re -subdivision of leasehold lands of FAIRHOPE SINGLE TAX CORPORATION: FROM: Bob Lunsford, Planning/Zoning officer AUTHORITY: Fairhope Planning Commission Please take notice that the Fairhope Planning Commission will not accept or consider for approval any proposed subdivision plat which does not bear on its face a statement of intent to subdivide the land, which statement is signed by the LANDOWNER and properly acknowledged. 19 JUN 93 26 JUN 93 ZOCOMM93.fpc The executive council of the FSTC meets monthly, usually just after the Commission meeting. Unless you take this into account in formulating your plans, you may either have to request a special meeting of FSTC, or be delayed in having your submittals scheduled before the Commission. Please take notice and plan accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC HEARING Suggestion for adding two revisions to Subdivision this date: 1: other proposed changes to Regulations for Public Hearing Section 405.1 (e) currently requires a minimum frontage of 125 feet and a minimum area of 25000 square feet for lots abutting private streets. There have been other cases and there are two cases currently before the Commission requiring waiver of this provision. I submit that it would be very difficult to show a reasonable relationship of this provision to the public health, safety and welfare. If private streets are justified, they should be permitted for all districts. Therefore, I would recommend that the Commission revise Section 405.1 (e) to read as follows: "Privately maintained streets shall be permitted only as closed end streets serving the immediate development.. Other streets, whether minor, marginal access, collector, or arterial, shall be for public maintenance and shall be public thoroughfares. Areas and frontages for lots shall be determined by the requirements of the Zoning ordinance as to dist.rict and use without regard to whether or not the street is privately maintained_' 2: While the Alabama Highway Department does have exclusive jurisdiction over all federal and state secondary rights - of -way, we have been fortunate in securing their cooperation in a number of instances to protect the interests of the City and its residents. To the end of continuing to protect those interests, I would propose 19 JUN 93 26 JUN 93 ZOCOMM93.fpc adding the following language at the end of Section 507: "'Provided, however, that if any state right. -of -way or any improvement thereon is proposed to be changed or modified as a part of the development or in conjunction with the development, no plat shall be given preliminary approval and no License to Construct shall he issued until the there has been submitted with the application a detailed Highway Improvements Plan with the written approval of the responsible official of the Alabama Highway Department endorsed thereon. Such plan shall show all e.xist.ing features within the right-of-way and all proposed changes, including, but not limited to, changes in traffic patterns, markings, signs, curbs and barriers, neutral Zones, signals, warnings, plantings and landscaping. There shall be submitted with and as a part of the Plan a written statement setting forth means proposed for traffic control and safety during construction and for restoration of the site-" The Plan shall be a part of the.Preliminary Plat Submittals and its approval by the Commission shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of License to Construct and the construction of improvements or changes in strict conformity with the Plan shall be a condition precedent for Final Plat Approval. Any substantial deviation from the plan during construction or failure to provide for traffic control, safety and restoration of the site shall be grounds for immediate revocation of the Preliminary Plat Approval and any License to Construct which has been issued therewith. The Planning Commission shall have the power to reinstate Preliminary Approval when it is satisfied that conditions resulting in revocation have been mitigated. All of the foregoing shall also apply to rights -of -way controlled by the County, except that the County Engineer's approval shall appear on the Highway Improvement Plan to be reviewed by the Commission." As an item of general information, all Commissioners are reminded that, in general, detailed engineering plans which are a part of an application are not usually placed on the podium with the plats for meetings. This practice has helped to control large volumes of paper work before the Commission during meetings. It has been my practice to have a copy of engineering plans available on my work table during meetings. If the Commission wishes to change this practice, that, of course, is your prerogative. However, owing to the difficulty of handling large volumes of paperwork in session, it may be more productive to examine the plans in City Hall in advance where it can be 19 JUN 93 26 JUN 93 ZOCOMM93.fpc done'at your leisure. I will be glad to answer any questions or provide any information you need so that you may be well informed before the meeting. Plans will continue to be available at the meeting on my table in the event that persons present wish to examine them. I believe that it is a part of the duties of staff to keep the Commissioners informed by written review, while at the same time minimizing the amount of paperwork which the members must process, commensurate with the Commission's responsibility to conduct an informed review of the matters before it. STATUS REPORT Comprehensive Plan Revision: I have received the proposal fro Planning Commission for the Plan checking their submittals and ex to you at the August meeting; i it can be placed on the Council inclusion in the FY 1994 Budget, October. m South Alabama Regional revision. I am currently pect to have it available f your approve, I expect agenda in September for effective in early 19 JUN 93 26 JUN 93 ZOCOMM93.fpc 0300off—_ The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Thursday, July 8, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. at 161 N. Section Street Present: Richard Sanderson, Chairman; members Tim Kant, Cindy McBrearty William Lucey, William Richmond, Maxwell Killoch, David Bishop The minutes of the June 7, 1993 meeting were duly approved as written. A public hearing was held on the revised subdivision regulations. Jim Horner asked to speak from the floor and passed out to the commission members comments. He said he thought we had some real serious problems with runoff into Fly Creek, that we need a few more specifics in the stormwater manageme He said he had an engineer come and go with him to several of the proposed subdivisions that will empty in Fly Creek and based on his work he had some recommendations. He saw the 4 problems as: 1. referring to page 11 in his handout, a proposed addition of paragraph regarding "detention pond" 2. throughout the recommendation specify storm event detention be designed to control a 2 year - 100 year event. 3. On page 15, run-off co-efficients include this in ordinance, and 4. be more specific about stormwater and sediment control, page 16 - groundcover. He thanked Bob Lunsford for putting this together and said he hoped this was taken in a positive manner and included. Jack Salvie of Fly Creek also spoke saying he has seen the creek fill in due to storms and he agrees with what Mr. Horner said. Bob Lunsford said that he did not know if the city wished to take on the burden of specific designs that the city gives the engineer the responsibility to design and he certifys that he has designed right, then he has the responsibility and it takes the responsibility off of the city. Jim Horner said that without specified storm event you want engineer to design you do not have the "meat" it needs to be adequate. Cindy said that we were striving to have the designs adequate in general terms, and certainly protect downstream, shouldn't we be more specific about the time period if inadequate now. Bob was asked if what we are considering tonight is what the county has adopted, what Mr. Dorgan has authored, will it fit into the city's needs. Bob said the design specialist is to do it adequately, and on that basis we have 3-4 designed for 10 year if that is not adequate what we are trying to accomplish is greater protection with new criteria with a couple of addendum suggested here. Mr. Horner said this addressed clearly, who has liability for Rock Creek, Cambridge Court and Plantation Pines, that being designed for 10 year is questionable. That we are going to have a 50 year storm within the next 10-20 years, that we cannot stop it. If we insist on the design of the system to be adequate then we won't have to worry. Cindy asked Bob if he had a chance to look over Mr. Horner's comments and Bob said he looked over them while sitting there. Richard Sanderson said that we have prepared an ordinance that will bring our standards in line with what Baldwin County has, that we are considering the suggestions made by Mr. Dorgan, and that we need to act now, ours is not cast in stone. Cindy said she knows we have discussed this for 3 months and are just now to the point of asking for public input, if Bob feels these are good suggestions and Mr. Dorgan's recommendations - can't they be included. Bob related that these have not been published yet, and tl both Mr. Dorgan's and Mr. Horner's suggestions be included to the extent . that, proposals relate to and not- be duplicative. -of criteria already incor.poratec and that no proposal be included which would -tend to substitute the Commis- sions requirements for matters of professional judgment properly left to the engineer',s discretion in the course -of design commensurate with the, city's stated objectives, particularly related to the.selection of storm frequency selected for design basis. Cindy, McBrearty moved to adopt Bob's recommends tions inclusive with Mr. Horner's suggestion of the 2 yr.-100 year storm event formula 8 Mr. Dorgan's suggestion if they have merit. William .Lucey .secondec Tim Kant questioned whether we needed to study what presented tonight. It was thought this could be included where appropriate and published. Motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was also held on the Planning and Zoning by-laws, no comments were made. William Lucey moved to adopt as presented, Maxwell Killoch seconded and motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was held on R-4 zoning requests concurrent with annexation for the following: - !nt. iat Barry Booth, Ray Micsan, Jr. - Lot Lots 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 Meadowbrook brook 11; Sydney R . Prince, Lot 9, some 1.71 acres west side of Bishop 1 Meadowbrook 11; Ray Micsan, Jr. - I1; George W. Roberds, Lot 8, Meadow- Meadowbrook II 8 Willow Pond, Inc., Road. These were presented to the Planning Commission to establish zoning so when these come to the Council for annexation they can be acted on. Bob said the lots are planned in Meadowbrook II and there are some structure erected, that this use has been established as R-4 and he sees no conflict in extending as requested. That R-4 is what . Willow Pond wishes to establis also. Mr. Sanderson called for any comments. There were none. William Richmond moved to recommend approval of this zoning to the City Council when annexations presented. Tim Kant seconded and motion carried unani- mously. Bay Chase Application of Lee Turberville for Final Approval 3 lots as a resubdivision of Block F- Volanta. Bobs comments were studied. He said that he would have to conform to minimum requirements of R-3, that he understands that the corps of engineers has done a wetlands study but can't find the paperwork so another study will be done. He recommends final approval subject to corp's final determination. Patty Havard spoke voicing some concerns about erosion on that side of street and how this would affect the bay and beach, would his runoff affect this. She also asked if this would go into existing sewer system. Phil Rutherford said this would go into existing sewer, it is adequate to take what planned. Maxwell Killoch moved to finally approve subject to wetlands studly determin- ation. William Richmond seconded and motion carried unanimously. The Cottages Unit IV This was application of Dr. Philip Gilchrist for 26 lots for patio garden homes. Bob said all streets are existing and this is continu- ation of what there now, he recommended preliminary and final approval. Jack Lucey moved to approve as recommended, David Bishop seconded and motion carried unanimously. East Gate Unit V Preliminary approval was being sought on Eastgate Unit V 12 lots on Troyer Rd being developed by the Roberds Corp. This is a privat street, abutting a cul-de-sac. Mr. Roberds plans to put patio garden homes on these with access on Bihop Rd. Mr. Lunsford's comments were noted and Bob recommended preliminary approval subject to landowner's endorsement on plat(F.S.T.C. ). Cindy McBrearty moved for this approval, William Richmond seconded and motion carried unanimously. Pecan Trace A re -subdivision of one lot ( lot 15) into two. Bob had noted that this lot is of excessive depth and double frontage. He recommende preliminary and final plat approval subject to FSTC signatures on plat. Maxwe Killoch moved to approved as recommended, David Bishop seconded and motion carried unanimously. Arbor Gables PUD- Unit 1 Final plan approval was being sought by the Knight Co. this was for eleven residential buildings and support facilities. Preliminary approval was given at the March meeting. Bob had noted that fin plan was in order, but requested to further study the plan and offer further comments at August meeting if there were any. Tim Kant moved to grant final approval as recommended, William Lucey seconded and motion carried unanimously. River Oaks -Unit One Dr. Roy Barnes subdivision. He has requested to cut preliminary plat to 21 lots. David Bishop moved to approve as requested Maxwell Killoch seconded and motion carried unanimously. Bay Oaks A 5 lot subdivision located on Buerger Lane in Battles Wharf was up for preliminary and final approval. Land of Claude O. Steele, Jr. There were a couple of people who spoke wishing to convey that they wished the road to stay as it is. Bob said there is an existing building on one of the lots that will have to be removed on lot 5 that encroaches on lot 6. Both speakers said they had no objection to planned development but that the road had historic value and wished it to remain as is. Seth Moore spoke saying that he had redone plat to reflect a request from Planning Commission member Cecil Pitman who had requested a 20 ft. right of way, utility easement. Mr. Pitman was not present today. Mr. Moore said he would be glad to delete this from plat. Bob pointed out this is outside city limits and would be subject to County engineer's approval. Maxwell Killoch moved to approve subject to county's approval, Cindy McBrearty seconded and motion carried unanimously. Jim Horner asked to speak and said he had reviewed the publication of the subdivision regulations and there was some ommission. He told Commission what he thought was pertinent that was omitted. Bob related that in the regulations Section 804. 2.3 Design Criteria he addressed what Mr. Horner was asking about and it stated "c" values could be found in Table 21-16 Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers and the intensity "i" be established by utilization of the Steel Formula of the same publication. He said his recommendation would be that the regulations published and a certified copy already sent to the Probate Judge and available to the general public should* stand as is Dick said this is the most comprehensive regulations so far, more restrictive than the county. John Dorgan said he has critiqued it and possibly we could take county regulations and Fairhope's regula- tions and send to an expert in stormwater management for a review. It was pointed out that this was not set in stone and could be revised. John Dorgan said if, we can implement what there now and pass on to developers we will have made great strides. Jim Horner said under the circumstances he concurs with John Dorgan that we do have a leading edge in stormwater management regulations. Bill Payne spoke saying he had noticed the runoff from Rock Creek and was wondering if the regulations were tight enough. Bob said we have the machinery to prevent erosion, siltation but we don't know how to control "red water". It was mentioned that Don Brady would be present at the September meeting to talk about the proposal on updating the comprehensive plan. The date for the September meeting was changed to Thursday, September 9, 1993 due to Labor Day holiday. There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned.