Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2001 Special Meeting2766 STATE OF ALABAMA )( COUNTY OF BALDWIN )( The City Council, City of Fairhope, met in Special session at 5:30 p.m., Fairhope Municipal Complex Council Chamber, 161 North Section Street, Fairhope, Alabama 36532, on Monday, 19 November 2001. Present were Mayor Timothy M. Kant, Councilmembers: Robert C. Gentle, Michael A. Ford, Debbie W. Quinn, Pauline Anders, and Cecil Christenberry; City Attorney Marion E. Wynne, and City Clerk Geniece W. Johnson. No one was absent. There being a quorum present, Mayor Kant called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and Councilmember Cecil Christenberry, gave the invocation. A Public Hearing was held as advertised on a proposed ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance No. 557. Councilmember Ford introduced the proposed ordinance to rezone property owned by the Dyas Family, from R1-Low Density Single Family Residential and R4-Low Density Multi Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). This property is located at the intersection of North Section Street and U.S. Hwy 98. The property is known as Village North, aka The Triangle. Mayor Kant called on the Developer Craig Dyas to explain the proposal for Village North. Mr. Dyas called on Mr. Sean Davis with LDR Internationals to explain the proposal for Village North. Mr. Davis explained the master plan for Village North and concluded that the developers are trying to create a traditional neighborhood design. Mr. Davis further expressed that the developers feel strongly that Village North has met the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will reflect the quality of Fairhope. Mayor Kant called on Planning and Building Director Christopher Baker to report the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the project with some conditions. Mr. Baker read all conditions listed in a letter to Mr. Craig Dyas, dated 8 October 2001. The Conditions areas follows: 2768 19 November 2001 ❑ Meet City of Fairhope (COF) Lighting Requirements ❑ Meet COF Landscaping Requirements ❑ Meet COF Sign Requirements ❑ 100,000 sq. ft. of Commercial (Office and Retail) North of Section— No more than 60% of either use ❑ Right in/out at egress across from Plantation Pines ❑ Four Sided Architecture on all buildings so they are pedestrian friendly ❑ Garages must face alley ❑ 8' trails along perimeter roads (i.e. Section, 104, Scenic 98 etc...) ❑ Maximum size of any single retail space of 10,000 sq. ft. ❑ No breaching of buffers along US 98, Section, 104, Scenic 98) 40' Buffer on 104 50' Buffer on Greeno 40' Buffer Scenic 98 100' Buffer on Fly Creek ❑ Remainder of the property to be developed using the same residential ratios ❑ 30' Residential Building Height measured according to height definition in Zoning Ord. ❑ 35' Commercial building height measured according to height definition in Zoning Ord. ❑ 25' Building height on North side of Section (Bldg 15 and 16) C Overall traffic study to be performed by agent of the City but paid for by developer — Cannot change essential characteristics of Scenic 98, Section, 104 — Required improvements paid for by developer (i.e. turn lane, pedestrian refuge, etc..) ❑ Meet Subdivision Regulations ❑ Detailed site plan to Planning Commission and City Council with each phase ❑ Shared parking evaluated in site planning phase, along with setbacks, dumpsters, and screening ❑ Allowed uses are attached ❑ Agree in concept with these conditions but not to specific site planning 'sues that will be resolved with each site plan (i.e. dumpster location etc...) Mayor Kant called on the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson Larry Green. Mr. Green stated that the Commission has made recommendations and the City Council should accept the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Green further stated that nine (9) P& Z members voted on the issue, and another group has made changes to the recommendations and he did not agree with the changes. Mr. Green also stated that the Commission made a mistake in not insisting on a market study for this project. Mayor Kant opened the floor for the Public Hearing. The following persons addressed the City Council with concerns regarding this project: 1. Dan Stankoski — 22283 Main Street — Opposed to re -zoning this property. 2. William Payne — 305 Miller Avenue —Would like to see more control with water runoff to Rock Creek. 3. Clay Harvard — 125 Volanta Avenue — Concerned with traffic on the Round —About 2769 19 November 2001 4. Fran Slade — Showed pictures and gave brief history of the grocery stores in Fairhope, and do not think 300,000 sq ft for retail and business offices is a village concept. 5. Paul Smith — 616 Handcock — Resident of Colonial Acres — Concerned with traffic, and do not want to live next to a gas station. 6. Tom Perrine 753 Handcock — Resident of Colonial Acres — Expressed concerns with traffic and the apartment complex. 7. A J Taylor — 859 Lafayette Drive — Approves of the original proposal without the filling Station, and concerned with utility services in Colonial Acres. It was explained that the filling station is not proposed for the Triangle. The filling station is proposed for Section G of the development. 8. Hop Allen — Does not approve or disapprove the proposal. Mr. Allen explained of a town with structures that blended in with the neighborhood. 9. Leonard Motykiewicz — 414 South Section Street — concerned with the number of people living in Village North, and can the City provide services to this area. 10. Michelle Doyle — 670 Colonial Drive — concerned with traffic. Mayor Kant expressed that a traffic study will be done before developing each phase. 11. Curtis Gordon — 319 Fairhope Avenue — concerned with grocery store size. 12. Cindy McBrearty — 561 Morphy Avenue — In favor of having a Public School on this site. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m. Mr. Sean Davis read from a letter to Christopher Baker, dated 17 October 2001, listing all conditions that the developers agreed to and disagreed to: 1. The applicant agrees to meet the City of Fairhope ("COF") lighting requirements. 2. The applicant agrees to meet the COF landscape requirements. 3. The applicant agrees to meet the COF sign requirements. 4. The applicant does not agree to the limitation of 100,000 square feet of retail and office uses. It is the applicant's view, and the view of the applicant's planner, that the square footage of retail and office contained in the original master site plan, 151,900 and 149,400 respectively, are amounts that are not only consistent with the COF's recently adopted comprehensive plan, but are also necessary to create the critical mass that a successful neighborhood village will demand. 5. The applicant agrees to right in/right our egress across from Plantation Pines if determined to be appropriate by the traffic engineer contemplated in item 15 below. 2770 19 November 2001 6. The applicant agrees to four-sided architecture on all retail, office and high -density residential (i.e. apartments) buildings. The applicant agrees that garages must face alleys. 8. The applicant agrees to connect the development to the trails contemplated along the development's perimeter roads (Scenic 98 and Alabama Highway 104). The applicant does not agree to the 10,000 square foot maximum size of any single retail space. 10. The applicant agrees that there should be no breach of buffers along U.S. 98, N. Section St., Alabama Highway 104, and Scenic 98. However, the applicant believes that changes to the vegetation within such buffers should be permitted upon submission of a landscape plan for the affected buffer and approval of such landscape plan by the Commission. 11. In light of applicant's position with respect to item 4 above, the applicant does not agree to the condition relating to the residential development of the property affected by the reduction in the retail and office square footage. 12. It is the applicant's view that the building height limitations contained in the Application facilitate architectural diversity and flexibility, and result in the preservation of green space within the development. The applicant is concerned that a reduction in the residential building height limitation contained in the application will have an adverse effect on the development without any corresponding benefit. Thus, the applicant does not agree to the 30' residential building height limitation. 13. For the reasons set forth in item 12 immediately above, the applicant does not agree to the 35' commercial building height limitation. 14. The applicant agrees to the 25' building height limitation for buildings 5 and 16. Please note that this Condition references buildings 15 and 16. It is the applicant's understanding that building 5 and not building 15, was intended. 15. The applicant agrees to the traffic study Condition subject to the following provisos: A. The traffic engineer will be selected by the City but paid by and work for the developer. B. The applicant agrees not to change the essential characteristics of Alabama Highway 104, N. Section St., or Scenic 98. The inclusion of accel/decel lanes and turn lanes shall not constitute changes to the essential characteristics of N. Section St., Alabama Highway 104, and Scenic 98. C. The applicant agrees to pay for improvements required by the traffic study contemplated under this item 15. 16. The applicant agrees to meet the COF subdivision requirements. 17. The applicant agrees to submit detailed site plans for each phase of the development only to the Commission for its consideration and approval. 2771 19 November 2001 18. The applicant agrees that shared parking, setbacks, location of dumpsters, and screening shall be evaluated by the Commission as part of the detailed site planning referred to in item 17. 19. The applicant agrees to the list of permitted office and retail uses subject to the following changes: A. Veterinary Clinic (no outside overnight boarding) B. Professional Offices (business and professional offices, beauty and barber shops, agencies and headquarters including the following types of businesses: doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, chiropractors, real estate, insurance, financial institutions and similar types) C. Banks (with or without drive thrus) D. Gas Station (no major automotive repair) E. Grocery (without 10,000 square foot limitation) F. Include "tavern" to list of retail and personal service uses G. The addition of uses to the list of permitted uses shall be deemed a slight modification of the planned unit development ordinance where such additional uses are substantially similar to and are not different in character from the uses contained in the list of permitted uses. H. Restaurant (without incidental alcohol sale limitation) 20. The applicant does not understand the intent or meaning of this Condition. Mr. Davis expressed that it was clear that the square footage was the most important of the conditions. Therefore, Mr. Davis has recommended to the Dyas family to reduce the commercial square footage to 225,600, proposing 117,000 square foot for retail, and 108,600 square foot for business and professional. After a lengthy discussion, Councilmember Gentle inquired about the time line of developing this site. Mr. Davis stated that the property would be developed in this order: Residential Single Family detached, Townhouses, Apartments, the core of section G — retail, and residential above buildings # 2 & building # 3. This project could take 5 to 8 years or 10 to 15 years depending on the market. Each City Councilmember was allowed to address Mr. Davis with their concerns, after which Mayor Kant called on Mr. Glen LeRoy with Gould Evans Goodman Associates, LC, Kansas City, Missouri, to address the City Council's concerns. Mr. LeRoy addressed the concerns of the City Council, and expressed that the City Leaders chose the village concept as part of the 2772 19 November 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Now it is time to define the City's Comprehensive Plan by making both a difficult and serious decision on the City's first village. This meeting was called to recess at 7:55 p.m. and resumed at 8:10 p.m. Once the meeting resumed the City Council discussed the conditions that were not agreed on by the Dyas family. After discussion, the City Council reached an agreement on the following amendments. ❑ Building 15 on the site plan may be a maximum of 36,000 sq. ft. with one tenant having no more than 18,000 sq. ft., and the remaining square footage may be divided for additional tenants. The square footage for the additional tenants shall not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. for each tenant. ❑ At least one tenant in Building 15 shall be a grocery store ❑ Building 6 may have a maximum of 15,000 sq. ft. ❑ Building height 35 feet on parcels A and B measured from the average between the eave and the ridge from grade level of the building ❑ Building height of 25 feet for building 5 and 16 measured from the finished floor to the average between the eave and ridge of the roof. ❑ Building height of 35' for all other buildings measured from the finished floor to the average between the eave and the ridge of the roof. ❑ Buffers as approved by Planning Commission for the entire 108 = or — acres may not be breached unless there is a landscape plan approved by the City Horticultural ist. ❑ Professional Office uses are the same as listed in the B4 zoning district. ❑ Uses approved by the Planning Commission stand except as amended below: ❑ Veterinary clinic with inside boarding only. ❑ Gas Station (no bays) not in building 5 or 16 ❑ Tavern with prepared food service ❑ Banks with drive thru limit of 2. Drive thru only permitted with bank. Drive thru must be located at most remote location from ROW. If bank in building 5 or 16 then drive thru located away from the central park. 2773 19 November 2001 After the lengthy discussion, Councilmember Ford moved to amend the proposed ordinance to allow the following: ❑ 200,000 sq. ft. for commercial usage, 117,000 sq. ft. of the 200,000 sq. ft. being used for retail. o Leave the footprint for their other office space, and change according to the market if needed. ❑ And all agreed amendments listed above Mr. Davis identified buildings on the Site Plan as Reserved: ❑ Buildings # 2, #12, #15, ( Building # 15 modified from 40,000. sq ft to 36,000) # 19, #20, # 21, #22, #23, #25, #26 all reserved. ❑ Building #5, & #16 change from retail to office. Councilmember Christenberry seconded Councilmember Ford's motion. The motion died due to a tie by the following votes: AYE -Ford, Kant, and Christenberry. NAY -Gentle, Quinn, and Anders. Councilmember Gentle moved to amend the proposed ordinance to allow the following: ❑ 180,000 sq. ft. for commercial usage, 117,000 sq. ft. of the 180,000 sq. ft. being used for retail, with the ability to come back at anytime to ask for more. ❑ And all agreed amendments listed above. Councilmember Quinn seconded Councilmember Gentle's motion. The motion did not pass due to lack of majority votes. The following votes were recorded: AYE -Gentle, and Quinn. NAY -Ford, Kant, Anders, and Christenberry. Councilmember Anders moved to amend everything agreed upon except the square footage for commercial usage. Seconded by Councilmember Gentle. The motion passed by the following votes: AYE - Gentle, Kant, Anders, and Christenberry. NAY -Ford and Quinn. Mr. Davis stated that the total retail and office space on the site plan equaled 197,400 square foot. Councilmember Anders moved to adjourn. Councilmember Anders withdrew her motion to adjourn. 2774 19 November 2001 Councilmember Ford moved to amend the commercial square footage to 197,400. Seconded by Councilmember Christenberry. The motion died due to a tie by the following votes: AYE -Ford, Kant, and Christenberry. NAY -Gentle, Quinn, and Anders. Councilmember Anders moved to adjourn. Meeting was duly adjourned at 9:43 p.m. c VIA. Ti by M. ant, ayor Geniece W. Johnson, Jerk