Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2000 Planning Commission MinutesThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Tuesday, Decemberl2, 2000 at 5:00 PM at the City Administration Building, 161 North Section Street. Present: Larry Green, Chairman; members, Mayor Tim Kant, Dan McCrory, Debbie Quinn, Bob Clark, Dick Charles, Lee Turner, and Ed Brinson. Director of Planning & Building, Christopher Baker and Brenda Hoffren, Acting Secretary for Betty Rivenbark. Chairman Green called the meeting to order. He introduced newly appointed member Ed Brinson and welcomed him to the Commission. He then introduced the new City of Fairhope Building Inspector, Steven Erik Cortinas to the Commission and audience. The minutes of the November 6, 2000 meeting were duly considered and approved as written on motion by Dick Charles and second by Debbie Quinn. Unanimously carried. Chairman Green made an opening statement to the audience in regard to the Rules of Procedure. A copy of these are attached to these minutes as Exhibit A. ZC 00-18 Public hearing to consider new definition for building height in Zoning Ordinance Mr Baker gave his comments regarding the confusion in interpretation in the existing definition. He emphasized that this does not change any height requirement in any district. It only changes the definition for determining the measurement. Questions were called for from the audience. There were none. Mr. Charles asked if the measurement from elevation was after filling and Mr. Baker replied that the measurement was to be taken from the average natural front elevation of the lot, before any excavation or fill is done. Motion made to approve by Debbie Quinn. Second by Dick Charles. Unanimously carried. ZC 00-19 Public Hearing to consider the request of Craig Dyas for annexation contingent on the establishment of a Planned Unit Development Trentino. Mr. Baker gave his comments with regard to the history and procedure having already taken place in regard to this development. The concerns expressed by surrounding property owners are with regard to density, traffic, and zoning. Mr. Dyas has made arrangements to purchase adjacent property to provide 2 accesses, drainage has been addressed, and evergreen planting are to be provided at the Western boundary as screening. Chairman Green commented that with regard to all submitted developments, not just this one, the Commission struggles with the issues of density and sprawl. Increasing density helps to controls sprawl. Most of Old Fairhope is relative high density. 66 foot wide lots are common all over the City. The Planning Commission has been moving in the direction of Traditional Neighborhood Developments or TND's. It is a Catch-22 situation and the Commission has to balance this difficulty with each development. Chairman Green asked for comments from the presenter. Craigg' *as said they had gone to great lengths to make this a high end development They were creking lots of greenspace, keeping in mind environmental concerns, small streetscapes, parklike eVironment. There were 63 homes proposed on a total of 22 acres. This acreage included common greenspace and amounted to 15,000 square feet for 63 homes. Some lots would be 219 smaller than others, but all share the greenspace and common areas. He addressed his comments to the adjacent properties citing business uses already established and the smaller home sites not being placed adjacent to the existing residential. A straight annexation would bring them into the City as R-1 and this would mean access through Wild Oaks Subdivision as the economics would not leave the developer an option to purchase adjacent property to access Parker Road or use of Pearly Gaskin. Traffic study done in June of 1999 suggested that this development would help with getting the State to approve and install a traffic signal at Parker Road and US 98. He offered to answer any questions put to him by the audience. Chairman Green opened the Public Hearing and requested comments from the audience asking each one to sign in at the podium, state their name and limit their comments to three minutes. Jack Burrell, representing the Flying Creek Property Owners Association, submitted a letter signed by residents opposing the project. The key issue was that the development is not in keeping with what is there. Concerns for trees, the environment, and lot sizes. Proposed 5250 square foot lot sizes will not allow adequate building sites without cutting down trees. Street through Wild Oaks is not necessary. Traffic will endanger children who play there. This project will take away from the luster and appeal of Montrose. (Petition available in case folder) Melanie Hubley of Sibley Square Property Owners Association spoke saying their association is not as large and less formal than Flying Creek, but they also oppose the project. She felt there were errors made in the notification process. Residents should be here to have their concerns met. Parker Road is used by Sibley, Flying Creek, and Wild Oaks residents as well as others in the Montrose area as a way through from the 4-lane. The next direct access is North at Sibley. This project will only increase traffic on an already congested route. The high density concerns them, the proposed zoning does not meet Montrose standards and the zoning should stay as it is. Richard Lund of Sibley Square said there was some wrong thinking with regard to zoning. It should work to maintain existing historic characteristics and property values. The project should be done under existing R2A in Baldwin County or R-1 city zoning. The PUD doesn't answer this. Why should an exception for a PUD for Trentino be made? Fairhope is a crown jewel of the Eastern Shore, and Montrose is one of the gemstones. If we cut it up, we won't have a gem anymore. Adopting a resolution should be considered banning PUDs West of 98. Steve Lampier spoke saying that applying the density of Old Fairhope to the PUD does not apply to real homesites. Fairhope was a Summer home place in the beginning. It wasn't created as a place to live year round. The proposed lots are virtually townhome size. It is highly improper to consider zoning prior to annexation. Asking for conditional annexation is highly unfair. Questions to the Chair as to what kind of notice was required for annexation. Mr. Baker explained the requirements for annexation requests and for zoning and subdivision notification. James Hunter of Alice Lane in Flying Creek stated that he was born and raised in Mountain Brook in Birmingham. It is a lot like Old Fairhope, but as it grew, lots sizes changed to '/z acre. Is this sprawl, yes. But, it was managed and made beautiful and remains so today. In Atlanta, PUDs are everywhere. Allowing this PUD will open a Pandora's box in Montrose. This is no answer to sprawl. He respects the developers right to develop his land but this will exacerbate existing problems with traffic. Doing it under Current County zoning would make it a welcome addition. Suzanne Hicks of Sibley Square spoke with regard to density versus sprawl. She noted that PUDs such as Rock Creek, those South of the high school have adequate roads available to handle the increased traffic. Montrose does not have these roads. Approving this project will add even more traffic such as mail delivery, package delivery, trash trucks, service vehicles as well as the added resident traffic. This will disturb the quietness of the area. Density takes away beauty. Developer doesn't have to live with bringing in too many people too fast. The density gradient proposed by the developer doesn't apply as it is too small an area to gradient. Wants to keep zoning as it is now. Chip Fellers of Wild Oaks wants what is right. A thoroughfare through Wild Oaks is not wanted. It would be used by all to cut through to Scenic 98 as a way to stay off Parker Road. Tom McKinstry asked the Commission to call for a show of hands for those opposed to the development. Chairman Green called for a show of hands. Flying Creek 14 Sibley Square 11 Wild Oaks 10 and San Souci 3 Lisa Peters of San Souci spoke indicating that she only found out about this yesterday. Her neighbors had no time to arrange to be there in protest. There are other neighborhoods that will be affected by this besides Wild Oaks, Flying Creek and Sibley Square. Their concerns are for Rock Creek and traffic. Joe Reimer echoed the sentiments of everyone except Mr. Dyas. Even though the Commission says no access would be allowed through Wild Oaks for this development, over a period of time it will be necessary to open Wild Oaks. This project represents 3 times the number of lots present in other subdivisions of the same size in the area. Chairman Green called for any last comments from the audience. There were none. He then closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments or questions from the Commissioners. Debbie Quinn asked Mr. Dyas questions relating to the history of the development. What was presented in the sketch plan, Mr Dyas said they had started with 72 lots and had come down to 63. He explained the additional land they were to acquire and Pearly Gaskin Lane. Tim Kant asked about access through Wild Oaks. Why was this a consideration in the first place? 44 new homes could be built on the site without re -zoning to a PUD. Mr. Dyas said that connectivity had become an issue with the Planning Commission and the access was there for Wild Oaks. So they had planned for this. He likes trees and is on a mission to create a dynamite subdivision. He doesn't want to be on the front page of the paper. He wants these people to like his development. He stated that the value of the houses built there would be in the neighborhood of $110 per square foot. Debbie Quinn questioned the width of Pearly Gaskin as an access for subdivision . It Dick Charles questioned whether it was possible to reduce the number of lots again. Mr Dyas said he had gone as far as possible to make this a profitable endeavor. Buying the additional property for access cost them money. He had already had calls from prospective buyers wanting to reserve lots. And these were from individuals who live in the Montrose area now. Debbie Quinn stated that Montrose had fought for years for zoning to preserve their neighborhood. She made a motion to turn the submittal down. A second followed by Bob Clark. Larry Green and Ed Brinson voted no. Aye votes-3-Nay votes 2 ZC 00-20 Request of Trae Corte for Annexation contingent on the establishment of a PUD for Condominium Units at Honours Lane Mr. Baker read his comments with regard to the development. It is approximately an 8 'h acre tract located outside the City adjacent to and surrounded by Rock Creek. The developer wished to build 3 condominium buildings containing 4 units and bring it into the City. As this is located in the County the Units may be built without annexation or zoning. Chairman Green called for comments from the developer. John Avent of EDS spoke for owner Jim Tanner and project engineer, Trae Corte. Mr Tanner indicated a market demand for this type of development in Rock Creek. He stated that the facilities there were not being utilized fully by the residents of Rock Creek. They were looking for a way to make this area usable and profitable. Chairman Green opened the Public Hearing reemphasizing the need to follow procedure as before. He asked for a show of hands of those in opposition to the submittal. There were 16. Hal Brown of Rock Creek Property Owners Assn. said he was fascinated by the notions of a PUD. He had served as the Dean of a College of Urban Planning, so he had some experience with the field. He found that Rock Creek had phases in development over a period of time and it has never been a real PUD. He believes that Mr. Tanner has found a way to make quick bucks/ There is no indication in the original PUD for multi -family development. Access into it from Estate lots is a bad planning process. He has never received as many hostile phone calls as he has in regard to this, Harry Butler lives on clubhouse Drive. He moved here from Texas. Multifamily units were allowed into his neighborhood there and it decreased the value of their property. He doesn't want to see the same thing happen here. Rick Jackson as a property owner in Rock Creek says he received and listened to the sales pitch made to him by Rock Creek when he bought. He was once a Planning Commission member in another town and believed he knew what to look for. Unit 7 and the Condos weren't on any of the documents he was shown. He can't believe this piece can be surrounded by the City yet remain outside the city and the City can't control what goes on it. The original property owners thought the property was part of Rock Creek and the Clubhouse area. This would take away from the value of his property and the P.O.A. might consider suing the City if this happened. He X1 , 4,%0 feels the rules keep changing. James Goff of 150 Clubhouse says he is a 6 year resident. Was given all available informational the time of purchase and was assured that no multi -family lots and no businesses were allowed. Traffic is a growing concern. Please don't let this happen. Betty Runnels of 104 Cedar Pointe stated that the covenants require them to maintain closed garages. The condo units will have open garages. She feels this is not right. Terry Ogletree of 119 Chestnut Ridge owns 2 properties in Rock Creek. One of these is an estate lot. It is one of the highest valued pieces of property in Baldwin County that isn't waterfront. He never would have bought this lot if he had known multi -family was planned. An obligation to a planned community is to disclose . Unit VII should have been the last unit. Now we have Unit VIII with the Condos. Wink Chapman owns an estate lot. He said it is wrong to place multi -family at this location. He used to have to drive through a parking lot to get to his estate lot. Now he has to drive through a parking lot and possibly past condominiums to get to his very expensive lot. Don't let this happen. He wants his property values protected. Chairman Green closed the Public Hearing and called from comments from the Commission reminding them to address their comments and questions through the Chair. Dick Charles to Mr. Tanner. He lives in Rock Creek and is a P.O.A. member and wanted to know if any kind of need survey was taken for any other use for the property. Mr. Tanner stated that the fitness club is not utilized by the residents. He had put in additional playground facilities for the use of the residents. He cited Section 3.9 of the Rock Creek regulations which tells residents that property in question is a private facility. They signed it agreeing not to interfere with the running of the facility. Covenants and restrictions are notification. He has made a large investment in Rock Creek and wants only the best for it. He considers it the best place to live in Fairhope. Tim Kant to Mr. Baker. How does this keep growing if it was not in the original proposal. How many condos were allowed under the PUD? Mr. Baker explained that there was a master plan submitted for the entire development. This portion is not part of the PUD and they can build condos on this land through the County now, if they want. Dick Charles to C. Baker. What is the value of annexation? What benefit do they gain by bringing this parcel in? Mr. Baker answered that sewer fees are higher outside the City. $2000 per unit versus $600 inside. City services are available upon annexation such as lower water, sewer, gas and garbage and trash pick up. We also provide police and fire protection. Mr. Tanner responded that he felt it should be inside the City along with the rest of Rock Creek. And there is a need for this type of housing in Rock Creek. Debbie Quinn to Mr. Tanner. How many lots have been sold in Units VI & VII? Were owners notified of this development? Classification of the facilities on site? Mr Tanner responded that over 50% have been sold and yes the owners were notified. Lee Turner to Mr. Tanner. Is this the last unit? Why is there a difference in the requirements parking garages for residents in the other units versus this one. Trae Corte stated there is no requirement for closed garages. They have and allow carports in Rock Creek. Larry Green asked if these were covered parking spaces or an enclosure. He was told it was a covered space with no walls. Dan McCrory asked why on the review of the utilities they showed a "Y'connection on the condos for sewer when this is not allowed by the City. It was to be addressed and changed but was still on the plat. Mr. Tanner said there was a tree line they planned to save and having to run individual laterals was a problem John Avent stated that the separate laterals were no problem and could be taken care of. Tim Kant made a motion to deny the application. Dick Charles requested that they drop the PUD and just annex in. Mr. Baker stated that'was no need for them to come before the Planning Commission for straight annexation. Dick Charles amended his motion as a second to deny. Denied Ayes_7 Nays_1 Abstention_ SD 00-54 Proposed Amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to increase the width of sidewalks Mr. Baker read his comments stating that Baldwin County requires sidewalks in its regulations. The City is trying where possible to bring its regulations into compliance with the County. We had a requirement for 4' sidewalks and proposal is to increase to 5' to create similar regulations.. Though not a part of this Ordinance is the requirement to place sidewalks on both sides of the street in new developments. The regulations do not call for this. Do we want to make this change? There was some discussion with regard to tying in 5' sidewalks to nonconforming sidewalks in existing developments. We can't make them change what is already there. Motion by Lee Turner to approve 5' requirement. Second by Debbie Quinn Unanimously passed. Staff directed to look into and make a report regarding requirements for sidewalks on both sides of streets. SD 00-55 Request of Stark Irvine for a replat of Baldwin Square Professional Park Mr. Baker read his comments saying this is a replat of existing lots. All is in order and he recommended approval. Stark Irvine said he had some buyers who wanted larger lots than were available. This was a replat to accomplish this. Lee Turner made a motion for approval Bob Clark Second. Unanimously passed. Stark Irvine requested a moment to make a statement to the Commission. He asked that members of the Planning Commission meet with developers for some direction. They are killing the desire to develop property. He hears the same complaints every time from residents. They are forcing developers to do less desirable developments. If you are going to vote down PUD's or TND's, then developers need to do something else. Chairman Green thanked him for his comments. SD 00-56 Request of Selena Turnbull for Minor Plat Christopher read his comments saying this was a large tract division. Everything was in compliance and recommended approval. Peter Garsed and Mark Cramton spoke briefly about the parcel being part of acreage near Dominion Farms, but it was not and has never been part of Dominion Farms. Dick Charles made a motion to approve. Second by Bob Clark. Unanimously passed. Mr Garsed asked to make a statement to the Commission regarding density. He stated that there are 6 billion people on the planet right now. Most of the people in this room will live to see this figure double in our lifetime. Mr Green thanked him for his comments. SD 00-57 Request of Harry Johnson for a Minor Plat of Magnolia Court (Agron/FSTC) Mr Baker read his comments saying that this is a minor division, but the location and elevation of the property requires some special consideration with regard to drainage. The front of the lot has no curb & gutter as it is level with the street. The rear elevation will create drainage problems to the West if a solution is not worked out. Questions from the Commission were asked in regard to the turning radius at magnolia & Section. Is there a possibility of gaining property for City to modify turn? Need to put sidewalk back in at this location. Dick Charles made a motion to approve subject to drainage conditions being satisfied. Bob Clark Second. Unanimously passed. SD 00-59 Request of John McGill for Final Plat approval River Oaks Phase H Mr. Baker read his comments saying that all improvements are in to city specifications. A maintenance bond must be posted with the City and acceptance of streets and utilities by the City Council before permits are issued. Motion for approval by Dick Charles. Second by Dan McCrory. Unanimously passed. SD 00-60 Request of Richard Rowan for final approval of Point Clear Stables Mr. Baker read his comments indicating his recommendation for approval subject to the as builts being provided to the city. Questions were asked of the engineer by the commission regarding the entrance road going to the East. The engineer indicated that the county is working in conjunction with the developer to get this entrance upgraded. Dick Charles made a motion to approve subject to as builts being provided. Second by Dan McCrory. Unanimously passed. SR 00-08 request of Thomas Hospital for Site Plan Review of new Surgical Wing (Walcott - Adams) r Mr Baker indicated that drainage will be upgraded to comply with requirements. All other requirements have been met or agreed to. Dick Charles asked about the loss of parking 4V 227 spaces. He was told that Thomas Hospital has added many new spaces to the complex along Morphy and Greeno since starting their projects. Dan McCrory asked about conflicts with the existing water line that needs to be addressed to upgrade drainage. He was told that it would be taken care of . Bob Clark made a motion to approve. Second by Debbie Quinn. Unanimously passed. Under old/new business Mr. Baker asked the Commission to consider a sketch plan for Trae Corte. The commission agreed to hear it. Trae Corte asked for comments in regard to a gated community with access through and including a portion of the lots now located in The Woodlands. They were proposing private streets, no sidewalks, no curb & gutter, and no requirement for stub out to adjacent properties. Comments from the Commission indicated a problem with the gate, wanted some form of sidewalk even if it were a gravel/pebble walking area. No real indication of a problem with asphalt guttering or requirement for a stub out to adjacent property. As there was no additional business to discuss the Chairman adjourned the meeting.