Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2000 Planning Commission Minutes73 The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Monday, February 7, 2000 at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street at 5:OOPM Present: Dick Charles, Vice -Chairman; members Pauline Anders, Bob Gentle, Lee Turner, Thad Ingram Christopher Baker, Director of Planning & Zoning, Betty Rivenbark, Secretary The minutes of the January 4, 2000 meeting were considered and approved on motion by Bob Gentle, 211 by Pauline Anders and unanimously carried. The date for the March 2000 meeting was set for Wednesday, March 8t,. The Chairman explained that items 3 and 4 would be continued at the March meeting and that he would allow discussion tonight with a maximum of 30 minutes for these items and discussion would be continued in March. ZCOO-04 Public hearing to consider establishing R7 Traditional Fairhope Neighborhood District as a New Residential Zoning District. Christopher Baker in addressing the commission said that items 3 and 4 are intertwined but when they are considered for a vote for/against at the March meeting they should be voted on separately. However, for purposes of discussion they could be discussed together. He said in the ordinance that had been previously provided to the Commission establishing R7 Traditional Fairhope Neighborhood District and the one before them tonight there are three differences 1. The name change for the district; 2. Clarification of section 5.71.12 restoration of damaged buildings and new construction and 3. Inclusion of requirements for non -conforming lots of record, i.e., lots less than 66 feet wide. Staff recommended adopting this new zone into the zoning ordinance. He said there were two separate steps: creating the district and applying the district to an area of property. Mr. Charles asked him to also address the next item (rezone application) before he opened the floor up for the public hearing. Christopher further described ZCOO-02 a public hearing to consider rezone application request of Fairhope Bluff Neighborhood Association from R2 Single Family Residential to 1117-Traditional Fairhope Neighborhood District, the new district to a parcel of property. He showed a map encompassing the area to be rezoned. In opening up the public hearing the Chairman asked Mr. Mullican, President of the Fairhope Bluff Neighborhood Assoc. if he wished to make brief remarks to describe what they were trying to achieve. Mr. Mullican said the main purpose of the Fairhope Bluff Neighborhood Association has been social activities and community endeavors. He was now speaking on behalf of those who have signed a petition in support of the Fairhope bluff zoning plan. In his remarks, he went on to express how blessed they feel in having the neighborhood they have. However, they feel the neighborhood is now at risk because trend in neighborhood is redevelopment. Several homes under construction and several lots/homes for sale. He said the" at risk homes" are candidates for being torn down because they can't meet needs of family for today. Something will go in their place and this is natural but what goes in their place is key. Probably 20% of owners do not live Planning & Zoning Commission - Page two February 7, 2000 in neighborhood. These people are more likely to put their rental homes on the market presenting a quick turnover and this causes risk. What happens now will set the course, once structures are in place they will be in place for the life of the physical structure and for our lifetime. He explained how the association had come to be and who/what represented by petition. Mr. Charles asked him what percentage of the total population inside the bluff area have given their approval to rezone. He replied in excess of half of the homeowners in the neighborhood have signed the petition. At this time the audience(some 100 present) was asked to show a visual representation by standing and raising their hands, if they were for/ against what proposed. Several more spoke for and against: Kelly Malloy for- saying they appreciate greenspace, architecture, children protected in this are and like to see the neighborhood protected. Hank Brady, against, - certain objections about size of homes trying to restrict and seniors are entitled to whatever profit they can make off their land, no reason to change. Ken Slade, against - restrictions make it difficult to add second story, oppose. Michael Smith for, said the way in which 30 'height measured all now comply. Type of zoning proposed would not have any significant effect on area. Bay and downtown are major factors of neighborhood, that is not going to change and appreciates character of neighborhood in general. All the association is saying what built has to be in proportion to the lot. The legality of the proposal was questioned by opponents. Mr. Charles asked Christopher Baker if majority of lots meet R2 requirements now? He responded - No. Pat Brandon against, said he bought 5 yrs ago property for retirement. One shoe doesn't fit all feet. Height of building, problem, on his property he would be looking up at 41 ft. roof next door. His house would be 200-300 ft from street, will not be seen. That the proposal doesn't fit all lots in area. That we are trying to change rules late in 4th quarter, once neighborhood built don't change restrictions. He has five years of taxes behind him. Mr. Charles asked Christopher to explain grandfather clause - Christopher said, if ordinance passes there are some non conformities and that a legal non conforming structure may continue. Pauline Anders said we can look at it that the Zoning Ordinance was passed in 1975 but her house built in 1923. People coming in now and tearing down houses and building new ones that don't fit lots. Linda Moore asked what does Single Tax have to say, why fix something that is not broken. Mr. Charles asked Dean Mosher what Single Tax thought. He said he was here in unofficial capacity but FSTC as owner of most of land very interested, notified like everyone else. Bob Mullican remarked that the petition will identify homeowners representing majority of lots in neighborhood and residents in this area who have signed. A resident asked and Christopher responded, new Comprehensive Plan is a separate issue from this zoning proposal. The FSTC issue was raised again and Christopher said two entities can request zoning change: property owner and city initiation. This zoning request was made at request of Fairhope Bluff Neighborhood Assoc., the vehicle by which city can change zoning in the neighborhood. Dean Mosher questioned why FSTC was not asked to sign as land owner quoting section of our code. The answer given was legally they do not have to. At this time Dick Charles stated time was up and we needed to move on to other items, they were welcome to come back in March. 71 Planning & Zoning Commission - page three February 7, 2000 ZC00-03 - Public hearing to consider deleting Section 7.5 Patio Garden Homes in the Zoning Ordinance. Christopher Baker in his comments said this would not remove R3pgh out of ordinance, we will just not accept any further applications for this district. Starke Irvine asked what is the alternative. If do away how develop garden homes. He was asked how a developer could file and he said that they can do it through PUD requirements. Starke, asked what are the minimum requirements for PUD and was told currently 10 acres. That we are considering possible reduction. Starke asked couldn't this come together at one time, that patio garden homes are the highest demand in housing right now. That it doesn't make sense to delete, 10 acres high to require. Christopher said there are some concerns regarding how R3PGH has been applied in the City. subdivisions have been created. That plan is to come forth with revision of PUD ordinance, simplify it. Bob Gentle asked Christopher couldn't it be done simultaneously? Christopher said certainly, but no R3PGH zoning change applications made right now. That it could be clarified and brought back. Pauline Anders moved that this be done simultaneously, at the same time we look at changing of PUD regulations. Bob Gentle 2"d, and motion passed unanimously. SD99-58 Replat of Homestead Village - Christopher in his remarks said this is the second time this has come before us. That there were six villa lots platted originally in PUD but the owners of Homestead are now seeking to eliminate those lots and create one larger parcel and their plan is to build an assisted living facility. This is zoned as a Planned Unit Development and is located in the City. It is in conformance with the Comprehensive plan. There are no public improvements to be constructed with this plat, There is a note that no building permits will be constructed until a drainage study is performed on this property. Staff recommended approval. Allen Chapman, General Manager of Homestead Village, spoke saying that they wish to purchase these six lots and bring in for future development. Just asking for replat. That these lots have set vacant since originally developed. James Miller, a resident on Edwards Avenue, spoke against this replat. He said he was a resident three houses down from where they plan to buy the six lots. That these lots on Edwards were suppose to be a buffer from the Homestead. That from what he heard the rear of the assisted living facility will face Edwards and he does not want to face the rear of an institution as well as this will directly affect his property value. Mr. Chapman was asked did he know what the building would look like and was it planned to front towards buildings or Edwards? He said they did not have a plan yet, and yes, they planned to face it towards the buildings there now. He showed a drawing of the one in Foley, which was landscaped and very attractive from the rear. He said this was not a valid point to bring up tonight, that they are only asking for replat. He said property values have gone up since they have taken over and have 100% occupancy. Christopher Baker said they meet all the city's requirements. Pauline Anders moved that since they meet all the requirements and subject to results of drainage study meeting city requirements, approval be given. Thad Ingram 2"d and motion carried unanimously. SD99-63 Minor Subdivision Weeks Bay Estates located east of Maryann Beach Road Christopher Baker stated that this is outside the limits of the Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Commission - Page four February 7, 2000 Plan. No public improvements are to be constructed, there is an engineer's certification that it meets county drainage requirements. That they are requesting a waiver of the 15' easement requirement(10' is what asking). He went on to say that the city has a requirement that if a subdivision is within 300 ft. of water line that they must hook up. They are asking for a waiver of this requirement also. Staff recommended approval provided they meet 15 ft. easements and hook into city water. Ray Moore was present representing the owner. He said again the waivers that are being asked for and that the actual lots are about 1300 ft. from Baldwin Cty 27. He was asked what about quality of water issue? Have any test drills been done. He responded, no. The commission said we, as city, have to take into consideration people purchasing lots and having quality potable water. It was pointed out no fire protection would be provided. Thad Ingram moved to approve request subject to them tying to the municipal water system and providing 15 ft easement requirement. Bob Gentle 2"d and motion carried unanimously. SD00-01 Public hearing to consider amending subdivision regulations to require sidewalks. Christopher explained that as directed by the commission he prepared an amendment to the subdivision regulations requiring sidewalks. That it is very similar to what the county requires. We've made a few changes to fit our needs. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Charles called for comments from the audience or commission, there were none. Lee Turner moved to approve, Bob Gentle 2"d, motion carried unanimously. SD00-02 Minor Subdivision request to be known as Mac Acres located south of Cty Rd 32 and east of Cty Rd 27. Mr. Baker explained this was a 15.9 acre parcel to be divided into six lots. That it is outside the current limits of the comprehensive plan, they have provided proof of submission to the county. That they will have septic service and tie into existing water main. That the minimum lot size is 2.06 acres. That access is a concern and we are recommending that a mutual access easement be placed on every 2 lots. Staff recommended approval subject to mutual access easements. Seth Moore was representing the owner, Leon McGuin. There were some questions raised about the access by adjacent neighbors and this was explained on the map. Another adjacent owner questioned runoff. He said he has bad runoff problems now, a deep gully as a result of water being rerouted to his land. That he raises livestock. He questioned if calculations been done and Seth replied they have and perk tests on the rear of lots,. that it meets all regulations. A heated discussion followed, the residents asked where they could go for recourse and they were directed to the county, and told again that all tests had been satisfactorily performed by Moore Engineering. It was asked if there was anything to be gained by sending this back for more study. Further discussion led to Bob Gentle moving that we ask Moore Engineering to go back to County and affirm hydraulic engineering and sit down with the property owners to mend fences and explain. Subdivision approval contingent on results of meeting. Pauline Anders 2"d and motion carried unanimously. 67 Planning & Zoning Commission - Page five February 7, 2000 SDOO-03 FinaLPlat of Belle Chase Phase 4 located west of: -Boothe Rd.- Mr. Baker said this is the final phase containing 34 lots on approximately 6.45 acres. Staff recommended approval. There were no comments from audience or commission. Joel Coleman said he would answer any questions. Thad Ingram moved to approve, Bob Gentle 2"d and motion carried unanimously. SD00-04 Informal Review of a Proposed Development, Richard Rowan Christopher Baker in his comments provided had said that this contains approximately 26.5 acres and proposing 71 lots. Mr. Rowan is a partner in this proposed project and the property is located outside the city and west of Section Street. He said the issues relating to this were: access to the adjacent property - a future ROW has been provided. 2. Islands, the developer is proposing unusual island in the middle of the ROW. 3. Streets and alleys: the streets will be public but the alleys will be private 4. Lot sizes They are proposing 3 different lot sizes and 3 different setbacks. The proposal does not meet the requirement for lots outside of the city with water and sewer. The developer will be submitting under the experimental subdivision criteria. No formal action is required. Christopher deferred to the developer for comments. Jeff Kennedy, of EDS, spoke for the developer saying this is a unique piece of property. That a gaff courser drainage- ditch and road run through this- piece of property. That there is no zoning it falls in the ETJ. They had to develop master plan as to how best use property. Three product approach on plan A, B, C. 71 lots. Overall density is 2.71 units per acre. Less than 3 units per acre. 3.68 acres for greenspace 14% of the entire tract- Christopher at_this time_ said_ in his comments that he had recommended that the cul de sac shown be pushed to the south to end of property line. He cited Rock Creek problem and said this could create lot of confusion in future and islands in middle create potential problems in backing out in street. Jeff was questioned aboutmore parking spaces on one side than -other by Mr_ Charles. Jeff said he would make very clear on subdivision plat that this is right of way that may be opened and at looking at tax maps they found that it opens on Section Street. Jeff said that the greenspace is 40 ft wide. A lot of green area and the developer wants to landscape, a different concept It also serves a purpose for guest parking- Dick - Charles offered that lots on golf course would be more desirable. Jeff -larger lots on golf course. 50-60 ft. lots w/alleys behind. Jeff was asked what size homes planned - 2000-2400 sq ft homes. Comments from the commission were - Looks good, attractive, Mr. Charles said they should take into consideration Chris's comments, pushing the cul-de-sac to the property line and parking mentioned. SD00-06 Replat of lots 2, 3, 4 Point Clear Court(located north of Battles Road) Christopher in his comments said this is a simple repl.4 three lots into.two_ Mrs Prior is selling the lot and dividing among two other owners. This is in Point Clear Court. It meets all city requirements. Lee Turner moved to approve, Thad Ingram 2"d and motion carried unanimously. W-1 Planning & Zoning Commission - Page six February 7, 2000 SD00-08 Informal Plat Review River Mill Unit 4 (located north of Windmill Rd and east of Cty Rd 27) Christopher in his comments said the issues were: 1. Traffic calming. 2. Windmill Rd. 3. Access 4. Greenspace Craig Dyas spoke saying in previous drawings had lots lined up against Windmill Rd. They have done some layouts on Unit 4 another plan with cul de sacs facing all the land to the interior of the subdivision. Create a sense of community. Chris brought to his attention didn't like double faced lots, so he has gone back to dropping two cul de sacs and showing lots at bottom facing golf course. As far as greenspace issue - Currently we have got in Unit 3 2 acres, buffer zones, Unit 1 some greenspace. He would like some input, direction, greenspace cumbersome, increase cost. That originally approved master plan without greenspace. Hope that we will give some consideration on greenspace required. Dick Charles said it looks like they have gone back to original master plan. Christopher said that the second access River Mill Dr. is 900-1000 ft. should have some traffic calming. Craig responded he will put islands in and pointed out that they made loop as asked instead of cul de sac. Craig said he would like to come back next month with preliminary plat. Total percentage 5-10% of greenspace. Christopher issue is - this phase does not meet greenspace requirement - total meets 10% total greenspace requirement. Dick Charles told him to look very closely where can provide play area for unorganized sports for the neighborhood. There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned. 63