Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2001 Planning Commission Special Meeting MinutesThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Tuesday, October 2, 2001 in a special meeting at S:OOPM at the City Administration Building, in the Council Chambers. Present: Larry Green, Chairman; Tim Kant, Dan McCrory, Pauline Anders, Bob Clark, Dick Charles, Lee Turner, Ed Brinson, Jean Wilson, members; Christopher Baker, Director of Planning & Zoning, Betty Rivenbark, Secretary ZC01.13 The special meeting held tonight was to consider a re -zone application of the Dyas Family from R1 Single Family and R4 Low Density Multi -family to a Planned Unit Development(Generally located west of Greeno Rd and east of Scenic Hwy 98 and north of Hwy 104) Mr. Green opened the meeting by going over the rules of procedure and then asked Mr. Baker for his comments. He stated that the property in question is the "triangle" area containing some 108 acres. And that they have submitted for a zoning change from R-1 and R4 to a PUD. He introduced Glen LeRoy of Gould, Evans and Goodman, Assoc. of Kansas City who helped us develop the Comprehensive Plan adopted last year. Craig Dyas addressed the commission saying he has worked several months to come up with a plan that fits within the comprehensive plan a neighborhood village for this property he owns with his family. He introduced Sean Davis of LDR International out of Maryland. Mr. Davis gave a lengthy presentation, showing the masterplan of Village North and detailing each portion lying therein. He said they walked through the planning process, ordinances, looked at the City Comprehensive plan, looked at the framework to see how the city views this property and believes what presenting fits the criteria perfectly. For all these reasons he recommends that we develop as village center. He said the developer worked diligently to fit completely the PUD requirements, be in compliance with all ordinances and strived for high quality. In the public hearing portion people speaking to the issue: Paul Smith of Hancock Rd. said that the traffic is a problem now and would be a nightmare, objects to commercial abutting Colonial Acres. Mary Warren, said the setbacks seem close, but there are good possibilities. Dan Stankowski of Main Street said he has problems everyday getting out of his driveway, very busy road with heavy traffic now, he does not like change from single family to high density with 5 ft setback. He asked which way the houses will face and was told - public streets with alleys and there would be a 40 ft. buffer. Mr. Stankowski said he owns other property in town and respects the zoning laws. If lot was not right he said he looked further, not changed laws. Urged to turn this down. Jack Burrell of Alice Lane said he hopes it fits the comprehensive plan. That Fly Creek watershed is a problem now, the drainage and stormwater runofff. Mr. Davis said the detention ponds are amenities, will hold water, more than just a drainage ditch. Mr. Burrell also asked has a study been done to see how this will affect the downtown business owners? Betty Martin of Main Street said that Fly Creek is her major concern. That it is fragile, flows into Fairhope Yacht Club, there are logs that block the creek now. She is not opposed to anyone developing property but wonders what down the road, hope it is Planning & Zoning Commission - Page 2 October 2, 2001 looked into thoroughly. Seth Moore of Main Street said his main concern is the amount of traffic that will increase the already heavily traveled roads. He said this will increase by 3-4 times what already there. He also has a problem with runoff now in Fly Creek, it is a raging river when heavy rains. Tom McKinstry of J.V. Cummings Drive said his property backs up to Fly Creek. He said big rains flood back yards and dam up the creek. Mr. Davis answered that the development will capture the runoff and release it slowly, that residents will not even know the development is there, there will be a 100 ft. buffer along the creek. That they would not be responsible for dredging out the fallen logs. Daryl Horne of Main Street said he had similar concerns about traffic. The public hearing portion was closed and Mr. Baker was asked to respond. He told of the steps he had gone thru once he received the proposal. He also said he provided a letter to the developer about some issues and received a revised site plan as of September 20. He said in review he requested a traffic study to be performed, that in the application the total retail is 300,000 sq ft with 455 residences with the single family being slightly smaller than our R2. He said the proposed building height is 45 ft, he has concerns about being that tall. Dick Charles asked Christopher about the commercial now in the Central Business District and he said 800,000. Dick said they are proposing to add 300,000 which is about 37.5% and it took Fairhope 100 years to develop to where we are today. Dick Charles said they are talking about 75 new stores, how can they add these without making Fairhope destitute? Mr. Davis responded that the comprehensive plan allows for 180,000 sq ft and they are within the comprehensive plan. He said that this will be a 10-15 year development. Mr. LeRoy said that even though the 180,000 is called for it is lumped together in this proposal. He said city would have to determine what is enough to maintain downtown. Lee Turner asked if the retention areas would be done at the beginning of the project. Christopher Baker said each would be done as phases come forward, the applicant will submit a subdivision plat and everything would be looked at and each application will depend on the other. Craig Dyas said the demand would be driving force, sum of parts,+ have a goal and put in front of the city and see development over the next 5 - 25 years. It will have its own identity, that they will do their finest for the community. Pauline Anders asked if they would do a market study to see that this would not damage the downtown. Mr. Davis said that this would support downtown, that this would serve the village, not compete with downtown. He said the uses would be completely different. She made a suggestion as to connectivity from the rear residences to the retail area. Mr. Davis agreed. Larry Green asked how many units in condos. Mr. Davis said 8 or less. Mr. LeRoy commented that this does meet the comprehensive plan and agrees with Mr. Davis about spacing. That this does meet neighborhood village concept. Christopher Baker said he had mentioned the traffic concerns to applicant previously, that should this be approved we should work in conjunction with the family on a traffic study, not change the character of the two lane roads - Hwy 98, Section St, and Hwy 104. If roadway improvements needed be done by developer not city. He mentioned the Planning & Zoning - Page 3 October 2, 2001 building height and said our requirements are 35 ft commercial and 30 ft residential. Also, require garages face alley and corner lot designed differently. And, not have commercial adjacent to residential. Mr. Davis said commercial is internal not on outside. The parkland was discussed and Mr. Davis said in the 36 acres that the dark green shown on masterplan is active recreation and the green passive(includes 6 acres for institution). Bob Clark expressed his concern about the commercial square footage and how it might affect downtown Fairhope. Mr. Davis said the uses would not be competitive, service area within a mile radius. Mr. Davis was asked if they would put in the residences first and he said yes. Dan McCrory was asked if the present sewer lines would support this system he said not totally said that new work would have to be done, have its own sewer line. Tim Kant asked Mr. LeRoy what made this the right parcel other than one B-2 parcel available and he said a number of reasons, better access, flow of traffic, have much better control, and that there is no proposal on the B2 site. Mr. Kant said further biggest concern is downtown Fairhope. How address uses. Mr. LeRoy said we would have to make that determination. Think long and hard how much is appropriate and how much too much. Tim Kant said we could adopt something give it a try, do by trial and error, limit now and then amend when the need arises. Christopher Baker read a list of items saying he would suggest approval subject to: Meeting City of Fairhope Lighting Requirements Meeting City of Fairhope Landscaping Requirements Meeting City of Fairhope Sign Requirements One hundred thousand square feet of commercial (office and retail) north of Section - no more than 60% of either use Right in/out @ egress across from Plantation Pines Four sided architecture -pedestrian friendly Garages must face alley Eight foot trails along perimeter roads(i.e. 104, 98, etc.) Maximum size of any single retail space of 10,000 sq ft. No breaching of setbacks(buffers along 98, Section St, Hwy 104, 4 lane) . 40' buffer on Hwy 104 .50' buffer on Greeno Rd .40' buffer on Scenic 98 .100' buffer on Fly Creek Remainder of property to be developed using similar residential ratios Q' residential bldg height measured according to building height in Zoning Ordinance 35' commercial building height measured according to building. he 1t in Zoning Ordinance 25' building height on north side of Section (bldgs. 5 & 16) Overall traffic study performed by agent of city but paid for by developer Cannot change essential 2 lane character of Hwy 98, Section St, Hwy 104 Improvements required be paid for by developer, i.e. turn lane, pedestrian refuge Planning & Zoning Commission - Page 4 October 2, 2001 Meet Subdivision Requirements Detailed site plan to P/C and CC with each phase Market study to ensure viability of downtown if developers wants to change 100,000 Sq ft. - to be paid by developer Shared parking evaluated in site planning phase, along with setbacks, dumpsters & screening Uses provided for(attached) He said further, he agrees in concept with conditions above but not to specific site planning issues, i.e. setbacks, location of dumpsters. After Mr. Baker finished Lee Turner said he agreed with everything except he would remove the market study request. Further discussion led to a motion by Lee Turner to approve rezone request subject to staff recommendation with removal of request of market study and conditions as outlined above. Dan McCrory 2"d the motion and it carried unanimously. There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned.