Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission Regular - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to our June 4th Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Call us to order. At this time, if you will, stand with me. We'll have a prayer and a pledge of allegiance. Father, we're thankful to you for this day, but we're thankful to you for this great county we live in. We're here to conduct business about our county. We pray, Father, that you'll help us to be good stewards of this great place that we live. May we conduct ourselves in a way that shows respect to each other and honors you in what we say and do tonight. We pray all this in the name of Jesus. Amen. Okay, at this time I'll call our roll. Brandon Bias, Scott Schamburger, Michael Mullick, Greg Seibert, Michael Fletcher, George Waters, Reed Key, and Doug Lipscomb. Okay, we have a quorum. You guys had a copy. The minutes were sent to you for our May 7th meeting for our work session and for our regular meeting. If there are not any changes, I'd entertain a motion that they both be approved.

So moved.

All right, Greg Syvers made a motion to approve. Do I have a second? I second. Mr. Lipscomb has seconded the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chairman votes aye also, so the minutes are approved. All right, we have two items that we talked about in work session that we have on our consent agenda. And so at this time, we have the first item is PER 26-15 Redhill Mobile Home Park Extension and PER 26-16 Iron Horse Subdivision Phase 2 and 3 Extension. So I will move for a motion on our consent agenda.

I'll make a motion that we approve items P.E.R. 26-15 and P.E.R. 26-15.

All right, Mr. Mullick's made a motion to approve our consent agenda items. Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Mr. Seibert seconded the motion. Any questions? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Chairman votes aye also. All right. We'll go then to our Items on our regular agenda. Do you want to say anything? Short agenda, I think we can explain this one as we go.

Yeah, with a short agenda, I think we're good. Just please keep in mind the public hearing guidelines.

All right. So we have four items that will be on our public hearing tonight, so we'll go through those. Am I going to get a – do you know if I'm going to get the pad with the – I'm glad I reminded her. She's bringing it to me. So I will call on you if you signed up to speak as soon as I get my notepad up here. And with that, though, our first item on open public hearing for case number CPD 26-01 and SV 26-09, the Cooper boat and RV storage. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this item? Okay. Ms. Waters? Thank you, ma'am.

There we go. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stated, this is case CPD 2601 and the subdivision variance 2609 for Cooper boat and RV storage. The request in front of us today is a commission plan development approval for an eight boat and RV storage buildings that will be constructed in a single phase. The subject property is located in Planning District 14. It is zoned RR for rural district. And the subject property is located west of West Boulevard and north of State Highway 104 in the Silver Hill area. As I stated, the proposal is for eight buildings with 74 total units. The public utilities provided are going to be water through the town of Silver Hill, sewer through Baldwin County Sewer Service, and electrical through Riviera Utilities. There are no wetlands present on the property and the drainage narrative was accepted by the planning and zoning permit engineer. The applicant is requesting a commission plan development approval for a commercial development consisting of eight building housing a total of 74 open boat and RV storage units. The subject property is approximately 5.3 acres in zone RR. No wetlands are located on the property. In a variance from the usable open space requirements of section 0.144 of the subdivision regulations has been requested, as this is a commercial use. The request meets the requirements of the Baldwin County subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. Here is your zoning map and your site map. Images of the adjacent properties and your site plan. Your site plan enlarged. grading and drainage plan, and your landscaping plan. And with that, I am happy to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions for staff? Okay. With that, Mr. Granger. There he is. Okay. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Granger? He's the engineer representing this. Apparently you're okay, Tom. All right. Any questions at all? I know this is over by the county barn, and you guys are probably as familiar with this property as about anybody, which we all know that it knows anything over. It's had drainage issues around that area. Even the county has a large pond over there. You guys looked at this, and you're comfortable with it?

We are comfortable with it.

Drainage.

Okay.

All right.

I'll just ask him one question. Will they be addressed before or after the site is completed? I mean, I know how it floods because I'm in that area, and it just backs up to the north. And is this going to cause any more water to be added into the west side of West Boulevard in that drainage ditch there? Because that's where it backs up to the point where it floods houses.

Right. Well, the drainage issues, any maintenance that's needed, will be performed prior to any of this work being done. commenced the drainage system itself is designed to actually retain more water than what's coming off the site today so i don't see this having an adverse effect on the existing drainage system but if there's any maintenance due it'll be completed prior to this project being okay started thank you mark all right this is the only one i had signed up to speak no one else wanted to speak on this item

All right.

Well, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing. You can still ask questions if you'd like, but if not, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve case number CPD 26-01 and SV-26-09. Do we need to separate those in this case? Okay.

Given this particular variance is a standard variance that we have to do on these, we're just going to leave these together then. All right, Mr. Mullick has made a motion that both of those be approved. I have a second.

Can I make one statement before that second? And it may follow up with Mr. Waters. You know, I look at this site plan and it's we're turning it into a bunch of impervious surface. You know, I know that know we're going to hopefully collect it but it's uh it's going to add some maybe some stress on those ditches so it's it looks like and one more comment is it look eight buildings on 5.37 acres i mean that is you know it's stacked it's stacked thicker And, you know, I guess I wasn't catching it until just now with this variance with usable open space. And, you know, does this need to be a concern, question mark?

Well, that doesn't have anything on the open space. It's just one of those flaws in our regulations that we all know has got to be corrected. It's not applicable to this commercial property. So that's why we're having to ask for it every time we have a commercial site.

That's right. We inadvertently, when we wrote the open space requirements and subdivision regulations, that it included commercial PUDs like this one. It was never intended to include this type of project for usable open space.

It is eight buildings and 74 units on, you know, it's not a big footprint. Just something to be mindful of some of this as we, quote unquote, plan density. That was it.

All right, your motion still stands the same? My motion still stands. I thought you were talking yourself out of it for a moment. No, thank you. All right, motion still stays the same. Do I have a second?

Seconded.

All right, Mr. Seibert, second the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so we got one opposed. Motion approved. All right, open public hearing now for our next item, which is case number SC26-16, the resubdivision of parcel one of the case and stringer subdivision. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this item? No? All right, Ms. Mosler.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

This is for SC26-16, resubdivision of parcel one, case and stringer subdivision. It's in Planning District 6. It is unzoned. Its location is west of Phillipsville Road and east of U.S. Highway 31. The request is for a residential parcel 1 case and stringer subdivision, two-lot residential subdivision. The smallest lot will be 10.78 acres. A drainage letter prepared and stamped by On Point Civil, David Harrell, P.E., was accepted by the Vaughan County Permanent Engineer. Here's our location. Aerial map. Site map. History. This is the recorded flat of case and stringer subdivision, recorded September 8, 2016. Proposed subdivision. Enlarged. The request is for a two-lot residential subdivision. Aldot was contacted for comments and verified additional permits from Aldot will not be required at this time. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for case number SC-2616, resubdivision of parcel 1, case and stringer subdivision, be approved with conditions subject to compliance with the Baldwin County subdivision regulations. Specific conditions, any future improvements will require all applicable local, state, and federal permits and will need to adhere to the Baldwin County Access Management Plan. Any questions?

Any questions for staff? Thank you, ma'am. All right. I only have one person signed up, Sarah Lyle. Do you want to speak? Okay. Okay. Okay. Anybody have any questions for Representative? Is there anyone else that didn't sign up to speak that wanted to speak on this? Tonight I'll do that since we have a short agenda, but typically I require you to sign up and that's it. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing. Either have a question or I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we approve case number SC26-16. Okay.

Mr. Mullick has made a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Mr. Waters seconded the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Our next item, I'm going to open the public hearing for case number SV26-08, Charles Roberts Subdivision Variance. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this item? Ms. Waters?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stated, this is for case SV2608, the Charles Roberts subdivision variance. The request in front of us today is the applicant is requesting the subdivision variance from section 9.3.2 of the Baldwin County subdivision regulations as it pertains to the minimum lot area required for the development of a planned unit development or an RV and boat storage. The planning district is District 18 and it is unzoned. The subject property is located west of the Baldwin Beach Express and north of County Road 36 and south of County Road 38 south. Staff analysis is that the applicant provided documentation showing that prior to the 2009 right-of-way acquisition for the Baldwin Beach Express. The subject property contained approximately three acres and staff acknowledges that the right-of-way acquisition reduced the size of the property and created a hardship related to the roadway improvements. Staff supports the applicant's hardship claim as the reduction in the property area resulted from a governmental right-of-way acquisition rather than an action of the property owner. The subject property is located within the municipal planning jurisdiction of the Town of Somerdale. Therefore the applicant will be required to coordinate with the Town to ensure that proper development complies with both the Baldwin County and the Town of Somerdale subdivision regulations. Here is your site map and the municipal planning jurisdiction map. This is a right-of-way acquisition exhibit of the acquisition in 2009. Supporting documentation that recorded the acquisition from the county. At the time, the property owners was Ben and Julie Simons and not Mr. Roberts. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision variance with the following specific conditions. Approval of this request shall be limited to the specific hardship created by the 2009 Baldwin Beach Express right-of-way acquisition and shall not be interpreted as a waiver of all other applicable subdivision requirements. And that should the Planning Commission wish to approve this, the applicant shall apply for a PUD site plan application for the review of the proposed boat and RV storage. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions for staff?

You have a question? So, the right-of-way, it's not just that lot, it's the adjoining lots that had to go through the same

I would expect most of these properties right here off the Beach Express would have experienced similar acquisitions.

Okay. So back in 2009, this is the section of Ball Beach Express from Foley Beach Express at the I-10. All this right away on that whole corridor, if you guys remember, that used to be the County Road 83 corridor, right? That used to be County Road 83. Obviously, that was a much smaller right-of-way. So that entire stretch of properties had a right-of-way acquisition to that whole area, all the way up to I-10.

So this is just for variance for the .3 that they took?

Yes, our subdivision regulations require that you have a minimum of three acres to develop a Plains Unit Site Plan.

Right, so this is for the... The variant zone.

That's right.

It looks like the property just south of it has a storage. They're storing all kinds of vehicles there. I don't know if they're the same size. I am not sure.

I am not sure what kind of operations they have going on on the southern property.

Well, when I zoom in on it, it looks like they got 20 cars, a couple trucks.

stored there parked there so just an observation it looks mark and i look at the area that looks to be just personal use with just boats and equipment and stuff it's not a business

Bobby, I think that as we discussed the work session, the thing that really came to light was that the acquisition took place on a previous owner.

Yes.

The person making the application tonight, when they bought it, it was already two point whatever acres. That's correct. They didn't give the right of way up, they bought it that way.

That's correct.

Okay. All right, any other questions for staff? All right, I only have one. Ms. Wilson, are you the representing, are you? Oh, okay, did you want to say anything? You'll have to come up to, unfortunately you'll have to come up to the front if you want to speak.

To the podium.

But I don't want to discourage you. Okay, all right. So is there a representative here for the project? Good evening. How you doing? I guess that what we were looking at in work session, and I'm going to speak for the group, then they can chime in, or you may want to answer this, that we were concerned about was that the hardship is really not, the hardship would have been on the original owner if he had still owned the property and that land had been taken from him and he was trying to do something. It would be one thing, but... whoever the owner of the property is now, that land had already been acquired. You bought it knowing it was only 2.6 acres. So really, the acquiring of that right-of-way doesn't have a bearing on you now. That was past owner. So it doesn't... It doesn't mean you can't do anything on the property. We're finding an issue and granting a variance for this particular, giving you this based on this particular request because you need that three acres for this type of development you're proposing to do. Right. And so that's what we were looking at in work session, basically.

Well, I mean, I don't understand it all, but, I mean, it was unrestricted and unzoned, and that's why I was going for it to – To try to make it.

Yeah, even as being unrestricted is not really the case. Unzoned, you're right, but there is a three-acre requirement for the use that you're proposing. Yes, sir. And unfortunately, I get what you were saying, but unfortunately that three acres, when you bought it, was only 2.6 now. And so we have to go with what you bought, not what the previous person had.

Yeah, but if the county wouldn't have took it, it would have still been three acres, what I was looking at. and I can do it then, I mean.

Yeah. All right, anybody else have any questions for the applicant? You guys got anything else you need to?

When did they change the, my name's Matt Byrne, by the way.

I'm sorry?

My name is Matt Byrne.

Okay.

And I'm looking at doing the storage units there. So they made a change for the county unzoned. So originally, if it was county unzoned, you could have done it. And then they put it in now when they did all the zoning to do boat and RV has to be a PUD. When did that change?

Jay, you want to explain that process, what happened there?

So the regulation has actually always been there. So the PUD requirement, well, I say always, for many, many years. And what's happened over the last few years is that by state law, the state gives us the laws we have to go by. a subdivision of properties any division of property for you know sale lease or building occupancy you know for basically any multi tenant multi-unit thing is a form of a subdivision so what was going on in years past is that site plans were were not were not some some site plans like art you know rv stores and many stores and stuff that were not following the code of alabama that that is a type of subdivision so the regulations always been there we just cleaned up and got and and started basically going by the state law of what that is and so and so if things like this happen to pass for less than three acres it was just it just was not following the definition of the state law of what they subdivision was so now where everything's going by with the state law Yeah, like I said, because it is unzoned. Yes, it is unzoned. So zoning regulates land use. Subdivision regulates basically land development, like how it's developed. So we can't tell you what use to have, but we say, hey, if you choose this use, you have to meet these requirements. So in this case, if you choose a use that requires a PUD in the subdivision, you have to meet those PUD requirements. So if you want to use, you can choose, your land use is unlimited as long as you meet the technical requirements. And lot size is one of the technical requirements for PUDs.

It's just yeah, there's certain things that triggered that three-acre What I'm saying is really it's almost 2.7 acres that you have left and they took away you had just over Three point zero zero two I mean, nobody's going to build anything out there anyway next to the road. Personally, I don't see a problem.

Okay. All right. Anybody else have any questions? Thank you, guys. Thank you all.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we did receive several emails in opposition from the adjacent property owners that could not be here against the variance request.

Okay. Michael, I hear what you're saying. I guess my issue is if it was the original owner coming in, the county had acquired that right-of-way, then the hardship was put on him because the county bought that right-of-way from him. He did not buy it. The county did not buy it by these guys. So they don't have a... a hardship that I see it. And in fact, when you read the response to the hardship conditions, they actually say it was originally 3.3 acres. Well, that's not true. They have to refer to the response to the property that they own, not to what it used to be. And so when they bought it, it's actually 2.6 acres. And so they haven't explained the hardship to me. So that's me. That's all I have signed up to speak. No other questions? I'm going to close the public hearing. Unless you have any other questions, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we do not approve case number SV26-08 based on that it does not meet the minimum acreage requirement. And like you stated, the current landowner was not the one that had the problem.

Okay.

So Mr. Lipscomb has made a motion that we deny the variance request. Do I have a second?

Seconded.

Mr. Seifel seconded the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Request is denied. Alright, last item is open to public hearing for case number CSP 26-13. This is the American Factory Direct Furniture Store. Does anybody need to declare prior communication on this?

All right, this is case number CSP 2613, American Factory Direct Furniture Store. Corey Rhodes prepared this report. Here's where the subject property is located in Baldwin County. It's located on the State Highway 181 north of Milton Jones Road in Daphne. It's located in Planning District 15 at Zone B2, Neighborhood Business District. The total acres is 3.65. The applicant would like a commission site plan approval for 34,063 square foot furniture store. We have not received any public comments or LETTERS OR E-MAILS IN ON THIS CASE. HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PITCHER AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. Locator map and the site map the property to the north is zone b2 and is used as commercial The property to the south is zone b3 and used as commercial and the property to the east is in the city of Daphne It's planned unit development and it's being used as agricultural and the property to the west is in the city of Daphne and it's zoned b3 professional business and being used as agricultural and The proposed site plan for the 3463 square foot furniture store complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. According to the future land use map, the subject property and the surrounding area is designated as either mid density or moderate development. The subject property is located within the urban mixed use center, which is intended to incorporate high density mixed use development, multifamily residential uses, in regional and small retail and commercial centers and other employment-related uses. The property is located along State Highway 181, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Here's the flume map. The majority of the parcel is mid-density development. with a small amount being moderate development. Here's the site plan, the grading and drainage plan, the erosion control plan, the utility plan, and the landscape plan. Staff finds that CSP 2613, American Factory Direct Furniture Store application should be recommended for approval with the following conditions. I'll go back to any slides or answer any questions that you may have.

Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. I have a couple people signed up. Mike Saucer.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Mike Soche, I'm president of Gulf States Real Estate and Development, and I'm here today representing Mr. Bob and Billy Como, who came in from their corporate offices in Covington, Louisiana. This is their first venture in Alabama, but they do operate several stores in Louisiana and Mississippi. They are a third generation company, almost 90 years old. That is not the third generation, that's the second generation. there, but I did want to acknowledge them. My company's done business with American Factory Direct for about 20-something years, and they asked me several years ago where should they look to invest, and since I've been here in this area for now about 10 years, I said you need to come to Baldwin County and do what you do very well over in the other areas that I'm very aware of what they do. So obviously we have our engineers here with Dewberry that can answer any technical questions, but I did want to introduce you to them and give you an opportunity to ask any questions you might have.

Okay. Do either of you want to speak? You don't have to, but it's up to you if you've got to. All right. Maybe you want to wait and see if we have any questions, or are you...

Bob Cummings. That's my wife, Billy.

We've been in the furniture business, like Mike said, for a long time. I'm second generation. And they say, well, why at age 77 would you want to venture into something like this? Well, we have factory reps that cover Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and some of them even go up into Arkansas. And for the last six months, they've been just saying, boy, what we could use, this area's been growing, but what we need is a better quality retail furniture store. And that's what we think we can bring to the area because we have lines like Flex Steel, Bernhardt, Hooker, Century Furniture, which is a step above Rooms Go and Ashley and some of those stores. And we think it's a good fit. My wife's a fantastic designer, so the store is going to look fantastic. If I invite any of y'all to come to our flagship store, which is in Vanderbilt, Louisiana, to get a preview. of what it's going to look like. It's going to be beautiful. And we just look forward to coming to this area. We've been many times to the Grand Hotel, and this is a great place to have a new furniture store.

Thank you, sir. All right, that's all I had signed up to speak. Logan, did you all need to say anything? All right. Does anybody have any questions? Let me do it that way. We can call them up if you do. Nobody? All right. Then I'm going to close the public hearing. If you don't have any questions, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. We approve case number CSP 26-13, subject to staff conditions.

All right. Mr. Syvers made a motion that we approve. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Mr. Mullick seconded the motion. Any questions on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, that was the last of our agenda items, other than, I don't know if we had anybody signed up for, anybody signed up for public comments? I didn't see them. All right. Any Planning Commission comments? Okay. All right. Jay, you got anything you want to say tonight?

No.

You going to let us go home early?

Yeah, we're going to get to go home early today. So I think I covered pretty much everything in the work session that we had going on.

Well, my wife's going to be surprised. I have one quick comment. When I first saw this furniture store, I was like, where are we going to be? Is this where they're going to be building furniture or selling it? Well, I came to figure out they're selling it. One of the things, and this is in regards to, I'll say it's there in Loxley with the metal recycling. And I know we're using it. It's zoned, I think, light industrial. One of the things I just noticed the other day was, I would call it a fragrance that is, you know, hey, I'm driving down the road and it's a... It was a difficult smell. I guess it's the metal or the smelting or whatever. And, you know, I know that company has come with some, you know, the neighbors have been quiet. We came and did some, maybe beefed up our landscape buffers to reduce the noise. And it's just an... out-of-the-box kind of thing, but wherever that aroma is coming from, sometimes you can, if there's a more vertical screening or if we can create some wind draft, it was just a difficult smell that I rode by in what this we call is a light industrial district that we haven't, the neighbors have been quiet, but it was just, it's something As we get into the manufacturing, that there in particular carried an unpleasant fragrance. So just something to think about. We think about noise. This was something different.

Yeah, just to let you know, typically how that's handled, and I'm pretty certain it was the same way with that recycling facility, is Most of those are approved by conditional use permit, which allows us to give some special consideration if they're near residential or different things. And that did have a pretty substantial landscape buffer. I think all that landscape is still pretty young right now, and it has some maturing to do. But one thing that... A lot of industrial uses, when it's near or in close proximity to residential uses, that's when we start really paying attention to how you buffer that. Because there's a lot of other things besides smells. Noise, light, there's a lot of other things that come into play. But typically with buffers and things like that, and I know ADEM does get involved with a lot of air quality things, but I don't think it's to the level that it's an ADEM issue at all. I think it's... There are a lot of factors to that.

And one other question. I mentioned at the last meeting, I think it was about at County Road 55 and 24 that had the, I call it, excessive lighting. Did we get a chance to look at that?

I don't know. I can find out an update for you guys, but I know that we had a list to go take a look at.

I would say working at the landfill. The landfill's a little fair distance, and I could, boy, it's just like a glowing beacon from, I would say it's more than a mile away, so that's just one. Yeah, because...

As you all know, we do have lighting standards, and it's like they have to have a one-foot candle, and it can't leave the side.

I would venture to say they're above some of our minimums. It's something that needs to be looked at. Right, yeah. I'll follow up on that and see where we're at with that.

Okay. Anything else? I would just remind everyone that our next meeting is not the first Thursday of the month. It is the 9th. So the calendar was set beginning of the year, so knowing 4th of July as it was. So just remember, you'll get a notice from me, but our meeting will be on the 9th of July. All right. Thank you, staff. Appreciate all you guys do. And with that, we are adjourned.