PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET November 2, 2017 Hello All, Enclosed please find your packet for the meeting of November 6, We have: Resurvey combining 1 lot with adjoining acreage Subdivision of 1 lot into 4 lots Zoning amendment regarding variance expiration Review of new PC Policy: standard fee in-lieu of sidewalk installation If you receive any citizen inquiries regarding these cases the plans may be viewed by going to: Government Other Meeting Agendas Planning Commission 2017-Nov-6 Planning Commission Agenda If you have any questions about these cases please don t hesitate to give me a call at or send me an at hazend@mtnbrook.org. Looking forward to seeing you on Monday! Dana

2 MEETING AGENDA CITY OF MOUNTAIN BROOK PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2017 PRE-MEETING: (ROOM A106) 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING: (ROOM A108) 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL, 56 CHURCH STREET, MOUNTAIN BROOK, AL Call To Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: October 2, Case P-17-18: Resurvey of Lot 216 Mountain Brook Estates Fairway Sector, as recorded in Map Book 18, Page 47, in the Office of the Judge of Probate, Jefferson County, Alabama, and acreage; situated in the SE ¼ of Section 5, Twp-18S, R-2W and the NE ¼ of Section 8, Twp-18S, R-2W, Jefferson County, Alabama 3019 Canterbury Road John Bryant. 5. Case P-17-19: Resurvey of Lot 1-A Lewis Addition to Brookhill Forest 9 th Sector, being a resurvey of a resurvey of Lot 48, Lewis Addition to Brookhill Forest 9 th Sector, amended map, as recorded in Map Book 105, Page 41, and Lot 1, Block 2. Lewis Addition to Brookhill Forest First Sector as recorded in Map Book 59, Page 52, all in the Office of the Judge of Probate, Jefferson County, Alabama; situated in the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 15, Twp-18S, R-2W, Jefferson County, Alabama 3040 Weatherton Drive Andrew Sink. 6. Consider an amendment to Section (Expiration of Variance) of the City of Mountain Brook Municipal Code to allow one year for implementation of an approved variance prior to expiration. 7. Consider a Planning Commission policy implementing a standard $25/linear foot for a fee-in-lieu of sidewalk improvements for subdivisions approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with the of the City of Mountain Brook Subdivision Regulations. 8. Next Meeting: Monday, December 4, Adjournment

3 1 MINUTES CITY OF MOUNTAIN BROOK PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2017 CITY HALL, 56 CHURCH STREET, MOUNTAIN BROOK, AL The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Mountain Brook, Alabama, was held in the City Hall Council Chamber on Monday, October 2, 2017, at 5:30 p.m. The roll was marked as follows: Members Present: Susan Swagler, Chairman Absent: Cay Alby, Secretary Alice Williams, Vice Chairman Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Also present: Dana Hazen: Director of Planning, Building and Sustainability Glen Merchant: Building Official Whit Colvin: City Attorney Tammy Reid: Administrative Assistant 1. Call to Order: Chairman Swagler called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., there being a quorum present. She announced that a registration sheet is passing through the audience for those who wish to speak regarding Case P-17-12, 3789 and 3790 Fairhaven Drive. 2. Approval of Agenda: Chairman Swagler presented the agenda for approval. Motion: Mrs. Williams, motion to approve the agenda as amended by moving Case P to the bottom of the agenda. Second: Mr. Gregory Vote: Unanimous approval. Chairman Swagler stated that the applicant for Case P requested to be removed from this agenda and placed on the November 6, 2017 agenda. Motion: Second: Vote: Mr. Black, motion to approve the movement of Case P to the November 6, 2017 agenda. Mrs. Williams Unanimous approval 3. Approval of Minutes: September 5, 2017 Chairman Swagler presented the September 5, 2017 minutes for approval. Motion: Second: Vote: Mrs. Williams, motion to approve the minutes as printed. Mr. Black Unanimous approval. V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

4 2 4. Case P-17-15: 3040 Smyer Road EXHIBIT 1 Williamson Resurvey of Lots 13, 14 and 15 Amherst; being a resurvey of Lots 13, 14 and 15 of Amherst as recorded in Map Book 178, Page 10, in the Office of the Judge of Probate Jefferson County, Alabama; situated in NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 17, Twp- 18S, R-2W, Jefferson County, Alabama. Ray Weygand (Weygand Surveyors, 169 Oxmoor Road, Homewood, Alabama) represented the property owner, David Williamson. The request is to combine three lots into two lots, partially in Vestavia Hills. Mr. Weygand presented a map indicating the boundary lines for Mountain Brook and Vestavia Hills. Chairman Swagler asked if the zoning district for the Mountain Brook portion was noted on the survey, as well as all required building setbacks. Mr. Weygand will bring a survey mylar for signatures with the above mentioned amendments. There were no comments from the Commission or the public. Chairman Swagler called for a motion. Motion: Mr. Gregory, motion to approve resurvey request upon receipt of an amended survey that indicates municipal boundaries and required building setbacks. Second: Mr. Black Vote: Ayes: Susan Swagler Alice Williams Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Nays: None 4. Case P-17-16: 2530 Watkins Road EXHIBIT 2 Hawkins Resurvey, being a resurvey of the North ½ of Lot 2, according to the survey of Mountain Brook Estates, Watkins Brook Sector, as recorded in Map Book 18, Page 2, and Lot 9-W, according to the survey of Mountain Brook Estates, Watkins Brook Sector No. 2 as recorded in Map Book 18, Page 78, Jefferson County; situated in the SE ¼ of Section 8, Twp-18S, R-2W, Jefferson County, Alabama. Property owner, Allen Watkins, presented the clean-up resurvey request. He did not have the survey mylar for Planning Commission signatures; he will bring it to City Hall. Mrs. Hazen will review for required corrections prior to Commission signatures. There were no public comments; Chairman Swagler called for a motion. Motion: Mr. Black, motion to approve the resurvey request as submitted, with corrections from the staff report to be noted on the final survey mylar. Second: Mrs. Williams V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

5 3 Vote: Ayes: Susan Swagler Alice Williams Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Nays: None 5. Case P-17-17: 2956 Pine Haven Road EXHIBIT 3 Resurvey of Lots 104 and 105 according to the map of Pine Crest, Map Book 18, Page 64, Jefferson County, Alabama; located in the NW ¼ of Section 9, Twp-18S, R-2W, Jefferson County, Alabama. Susan Nasca (2906 Cahaba Village Plaza, Mountain Brook, Alabama), applicant, presented the clean-up resurvey request. She is purchasing the subject property from Canterbury Methodist Church. Ms. Nasca stated that there is a multi-step process involved with this project; Lots 104 and 105 are to be combined and Canterbury Methodist Church is filing a quit claim deed to transfer part of the property at 2956 Pinehaven Road to lot 105. The presented mylar survey and application do not indicate the portion covered by the quit claim deed. Mrs. Hazen stated that the Commission can only act on the information submitted. The quit claim deed portion will need to be submitted at another time. Ms. Nasca stated that she needs approval of the presented application so that she can close on the purchase of the property. Mrs. Hazen checked the resurvey mylar for corrections; the mylar is correct. There were no public comments; Chairman Swagler called for a motion. Motion: Mr. Black, motion to approve the resurvey request as submitted. Second: Mr. Walker Vote: Ayes: Susan Swagler Alice Williams Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Nays: None 6. Case P-17-12: 3789 and 3790 Fairhaven Drive (respectively). EXHIBIT 4 Request to rezone parcels of land in the City of Mountain Brook from Mixed Use District to Residence-F District (3789 Fairhaven Drive) and Residence-G District (3790 Fairhaven Drive) for a multi-family development; And for approval of alternate exterior materials in accordance with Section (b)(5) of the Mountain Brook City Code; V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

6 4 And to amend Section of the Mountain Brook City Code (Village Maps, Overton Village Building & Regulating Plan) along the east and west side of Fairhaven Drive (abutting the subject rezoning properties) from Secondary Frontage to Residential (Neighborhood) Frontage. Ron Durham (3324 Stoneridge Drive, Mountain Brook, Alabama), managing partner of Overton Partners, LLC, addressed the Commission. He introduced Lauren and Brian Barrett, Barrett Architecture Studio, 2320 Highland Avenue, Birmingham, Alabama; Walter Schoel, Schoel Engineering, nd Street S, Birmingham, Alabama; David Eyrich, Environmental Design Studio, 1000 Providence Park, Birmingham, Alabama; and Tommy and Grant Brigham, ARC Realty, 4274 Cahaba Heights Court, Birmingham, Alabama. Mr. Durham gave an overview of the proposed project: This development will encompass approximately two acres directly behind the Magic Muffin strip shopping center, across Overton Road from Publix. Approximately 1/3 of the proposed development is in Vestavia Hills and 2/3 s is in Mountain Brook. The subject property is currently zoned Mixed-Use, which was granted by the City approximately 10 years ago. Since the project scope has changed to be fully residential without any mixed-use occupancy, a request is being made to rezone the property located at 3789 Fairhaven Drive to Residence F Townhomes for a four-unit townhome condominium building, and the property located at 3790 Fairhaven Drive to become Residence G Stacked Flats for a 27-unit condominium building. A portion of the property is located within Vestavia Hills and fronts on Poe Drive, which is also the subject of a rezoning request in that city from B-2 to the classification of R-9 Planned Residential. This rezoning request is being made to accommodate a single building of 10 condominium flats. The subject property is located within the Overton Village designation and all development will be subject to the Village Overlay Standards. Those standards include, but are not limited to, a density of units per acre, height restrictions, exterior facade materials, landscaping and buffers. The requested development will reduce the density of the previously approved mixed-use development from 60 residential units to 41 residential units, eliminates 15,000 sf of retail/commercial space as well as two levels of underground parking (approximately 200 parking spaces). There will be 31 condominium units in Mountain Brook and 10 condominium units within Vestavia Hills. There will be 82 parking spaces. These units will be designed to attract purchasers who primarily desire to downsize from larger single-family homes and those who are young professionals without children. There will be no amenities such as pools, tennis courts, clubhouses, or playgrounds on the development. This development will be an excellent transitional between retail/commercial space and single-family dwellings. V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

7 5 Chairman Swagler called for comments/questions from the Commission. Mr. Black stated that the presented design is beautiful and the scale appears appropriate. He addressed the narrowness of the road on Fairhaven Drive and that some of the guest parking is in the right-of way; this would limit any future improvement of widening the road. It appears that those parking spaces could be shifted onto the development property from the right-ofway. Walter Schoel stated that both Poe Drive and Fairhaven Drive have 40 rights-of-way throughout the entire length of the roads. Poe Drive is in poor condition; upon completion of the project, it is proposed to upgrade the road and to have the travel way with 11 lanes, which is a reasonably standard size. Parallel parking on the east side of Fairhaven Drive is partially on the Overton Village property. It is not proposed to change the right-of-way. Mr. Walker asked the current width of the road. Mr. Schoel stated that he believes it is a little less than 20. Mr. Mouron asked what the projected width of the road will be. Mr. Schoel said there will be an approximate width of 22 of paving. Mr. Black asked if that measurement meets the requirements for a residential road, with consideration of speed and traffic volume. Mr. Schoel said that he believes it will. Mr. Walker asked about the location of the dumpster. Lauren Barrett stated that at the larger building, there will be an attendant on duty during daylight hours. The attendant will take the trash in bins from the designed areas on each floor to a holding area. The bins will be pulled out on trash pickup day. A smaller-type truck will remove the debris from the property. Mr. Black asked about the type of units planned, in terms of number of bedrooms. Mr. Barrett said that in the townhome building there will be four three-bedroom units, approximately 2,000 sf each, with parking inside the unit. Building One, the larger building on Fairhaven, will have 10 three-bedroom units (approximately 1,700 sf each) that will be located at the corners; two-bedroom units (approximately 1,400 sf to 1,500 sf each) will fill in-between. There is one one-bedroom studio unit (900 sf). Mr. Black asked if the number of bedrooms per unit is based on a market study and what the anticipated market price will be. Mr. Durham said that the one-bedroom unit was initially a two-bedroom unit, but it was decided to use some of that space for a meeting room; he added that the larger building will have 10 three-bedroom units, 16 two-bedroom units and one onebedroom unit. Mr. Durham said that the projected market price will be approximately $300 per square foot. Mr. Black expressed concern about the possible impact on the school system. Mr. Durham stated that he discussed this issue with Richard Barlow (Superintendent of Mountain Brook Schools) and Billy Pritchard (Mountain Brook City Councilman). Mr. Durham feels that if 10 single-family detached houses were built at this location, the number of children would be substantially more than the number of school-age children generated by this development. Mr. Durham added that there will be no amenities such as pools, tennis courts, clubhouses, or playgrounds on the development to attract families with school age children. Mr. Walker asked about the privacy gate. Mr. Durham said that there are two gates. The entry gate off of Fairhaven Drive will be controlled by card/code entry. All emergency vehicles from V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

8 6 both cities will have access to both gates. Mr. Walker asked why access to the property was not considered from the Overton side of the property. Mr. Durham said that the topography of the property was a factor. Chairman Swagler called for public comments. Don Bemowski, 3768 Fairhaven Drive, Vestavia, Alabama, is concerned about traffic issues created by the additional vehicles. Karl Moor, 3163 Overton Cove, Vestavia, Alabama, is concerned about traffic issues; potential for serious accidents. Poe Drive is a dangerous road. He is thankful for the condition of the Mountain Brook roads in this area. Griffin Edwards, 3783 Poe Drive, Birmingham, Alabama, expressed concern regarding reasonable notice of this public hearing; he did not receive notice. He stated that the traffic study indicates there are traffic problems now and that they will worsen. He is concerned about the height variance granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment; he feels the variance was not granted based on a viable hardship. Allowing this development will add to the safety issue for children/adults walking on Poe Drive. This project does not affect Mountain Brook residents, but should matter to Mountain Brook. Jennifer Lysinger, 3767 Poe Drive, Vestavia, Alabama, feels that all of the affected residents are in Vestavia and that the neighborly act would be to let Vestavia s Planning and Zoning address this issue first because the sewer system, infrastructure and roads in the proposed area are deficient; if the City of Vestavia feels it can handle the effects of this development, then Mountain Brook could decide if it is in the city s best interest to allow high-density housing without imposing hardships on the residents of Vestavia. Mr. Black stated that he is satisfied with the data in the traffic study; the intersections at Poe Drive and Fairhaven Drive tested functional. He understands the condition of Poe Drive and the residents of Vestavia have an opportunity to address that issue at Vestavia s hearing regarding this project. He appreciates the sentiment of Mountain Brook being a good neighbor; as for which city addresses the issue first, someone has to be first. Ron Durham stated that he has talked with Mr. Downs and others at the City of Vestavia and it is their intention that Poe Drive will be resurfaced once the predominance of construction on the Poe Drive side is complete. He said that he understands that Vestavia would be open to the discussion of widening Poe Drive if property owners would be willing to give right-of-way for that road project. Mr. Black stated that there are sidewalk discussions occurring; the developer on Poe Drive has indicated that in conjunction with several houses that he has developed, he is planning to put a sidewalk on land that he controls; that developer approached the City about connecting to the Mountain Brook sidewalk network. Mr. Mouron asked if the right-of-way is the same on Poe Drive as it is on Fairhaven Drive. Walter Shoel affirmed that both are 40. Chairman Swagler asked for more information regarding sidewalks. Lauren Barrett said in addition to off-street parking, the development will provide sidewalks that begin contiguous V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

9 7 with the back of the Magic Muffin retail center and extend down the development property to the driveway on the northern end. The sidewalk will not extend to Overton Road. Regarding the townhome building, there will be a sidewalk in front of the building behind the parallel parking spaces on that side of Fairhaven; this plan will meet the City s requirements. Mrs. Williams asked for confirmation that the sidewalks will be 5 wide. Mr. Barrett affirmed. Mr. Mouron asked for clarification if the sidewalk will or will not go all the way to Overton Road; he said that in the rendering it appeared that it does. Mr. Barrett said that the sidewalk will not go all the way to Overton Road. Mrs. Williams said that the sidewalks will extend from property line to property line. Chairman Swagler asked about the proposed alternative materials for the building. Mr. Barrett explained that when they met with the Village Design Review Committee, the Committee was supportive of the presented colors, the base of the building to be constructed of brick/painted brick, and the siding to consist of board and batten or horizontal siding. Mockups are to be presented to the Village Design Review Committee if the development is approved. Brian Barrett, Barrett Architects, added that the original plan called for horizontal siding; to be more consistent with the neighborhood and fuse with the architectural character of the village, it was felt that a vertical board and batten application will be more appropriate; also, because the building is long, the introduction of a vertical element will be complementary. Mr. Mouron asked if the siding material will be hardie panel. Mr. Barrett stated they propose using hardie panel as the base with real cedar batten strips, which will give more depth. A mockup will go before the Village Design Review Committee for final approval. Lauren Barrett stated that 2/3 s of the building height is in compliance with height requirements. The height variance for the remaining 1/3 of the building is caused by the topography and the requirement to have a 1½ riser at building entrances. A landscape wall is introduced to give the appearance that the structure is not taller than it should be. Mr. Mouron asked Mr. Durham if he, as the developer, is concerned about traffic and other issues expressed by citizens. Mr. Durham responded that several months ago, a neighborhood meeting was held and issues were discussed. The road at Fairhaven is very narrow; some citizens expressed that they like the narrow road because they believe that it tends to slow motorists down. He believes that this development will not acerbate the existing traffic issues. Mr. Moor, 3163 Overton Cove, Vestavia, Alabama, stated that more cars will be pushed into the neighborhood and that poses safety issues; he is especially concerned for the children. Chairman Swagler called for a motion to recommend to the City Council to rezone parcels of land in the City of Mountain Brook from Mixed Use District to Residence-F District (3789 Fairhaven Drive) and Residence-G District (3790 Fairhaven Drive) for a multi-family development. Motion: Mr. Mouron, motion to recommend to the City Council to rezone parcels of land in the City of Mountain Brook from Mixed Use District to Residence-F District (3789 Fairhaven Drive) and Residence-G District (3790 Fairhaven Drive) for a multi-family development. Second: Mrs. Williams V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

10 8 Vote: Ayes: Susan Swagler Alice Williams Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Nays: None Chairman Swagler called for a motion to amend Section of the Mountain Brook City Code (Village Maps, Overton Village Building & Regulating Plan) along the east and west side of Fairhaven Drive (abutting the subject rezoning properties) from Secondary Frontage to Residential (Neighborhood) Frontage. Motion: Mr. Black, motion to approve amending Section of the Mountain Brook City Code (Village Maps, Overton Village Building & Regulating Plan) along the east and west side of Fairhaven Drive (abutting the subject rezoning properties) from Secondary Frontage to Residential (Neighborhood) Frontage. Second: Mrs. Williams Vote: Ayes: Susan Swagler Alice Williams Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Nays: None Chairman Swagler called for a motion for approval of alternate exterior materials in accordance with Section (b)(5) of the Mountain Brook City Code. Motion: Mrs. Williams, motion to approve the use of alternate exterior materials in accordance with Section (b)(5) of the Mountain Brook City Code as recommended by the Village Design Review Committee (VDR) and outlined in VDR case summary letter V Second: Mr. Walker Vote: Ayes: Susan Swagler Alice Williams Philip Black Jamie Gregory Michael Mouron Rob Walker Nays: None Chairman Swager stated that Vestavia s Planning Commission will hear this case on October 12, Next Meeting: Monday, November 6, Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting stood adjourned at 6:40 p.m. V:\Minutes & Agendas\PC\Minutes\2017\ October 2, 2017

11 P Address of Subject Property Zoning Classification Planning Commission Application PART I Project Data 38 /9 &A^~~~uLY ED Name of Property Owner(s) -T~HN R~YANF Phone Number Emai! Name of Representative Agent (if applicable) (4~ df~~uu~ Phone Number CL?- Name of Engineer or Surveyor f&y I,& 94 AND Phone Number & S S~SM - [X) Property owner or representative agent must be present at hearing I Plans 1 ~ D See applicable Section of the Zoning Ordinance for submittal requirements pertaining to your particular application. Applicable Code Section may be found in Part 11, list of application types. Contact City Planner with any specific I questions as to required plans submittal.

12 P Zoning MONTEVALLO RD SURREY RD 3013 CANTERBURY RD Zoning Legend 3010 <all other values> Clustered Residential Community Shopping CANTERBURY LN Estate Residence District Local Business District MXD Office Park District Professional District PUD Residence A District 3005 Residence B District Residence C District 3009 Residence D District Residence E District Residence F District Residence G District Recreation District RID Rec-2

13 P Resurvey in existing Residence A zoning Resurvey combining an existing single family lot (Lot 216) with adjoining unimproved acreage to the northeast. May be approved as a final plat; the following corrections for the final plat are required by the Subdivision Regulations, and are suggested as conditions of approval: 1) note zoning district (Residence A) on plat; 2) indicate all required building setbacks; Meets the Zoning Regulations for the Residence A district. Overall layout is acceptable, with the final plat to fully comply with all applicable requirements of the Mountain Brook Subdivision Regulations. No floodplain present. No relevant history or prior cases. Project Data: NAME: Resurvey of Lot 216 Mountain Brook Estates, Fairway Sector CURRENT ZONING: Residence A OWNER: John Bryant LOCATION: 3019 Canterbury Road

14

15 P Aerial CANTERBURY RD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

16 P Planning Commission Application PART I Project Data Address of Subject Property 3040 Weatherton Dr Zoning Classification Residence A Name of Property Owner(s) Andrew Sink (purchasing) Phone Number andy.sink@,colliers.com Name of Representative Agent (if applicable) Ray Weygand Phone Number ray@weygandsurveyor.com Name of Engineer or Surveyor Ray Weygand Phone Number ray@weygandsurveyor.com Property owner or representative agent must be present at hearing Plans 1 See applicable Section of the Zoning Ordinance for submittal requirements IX) pertaining to your particular application. Applicable Code Section may be found in Part 11, list of application types. Contact City Planner with any specific questions as to required plans submittal.

17 WILLIAMSBURG CIR N WOODRIDGE RD WESTMORELAND DR RYECROFT RD 2904 DUNBARTON DR P Zoning WARRINGTON RD WESTMORELAND CIR OVERTON RD WEATHERTON DR KNOLLWOOD DR LOCKSLEY DR Zoning Legend <all other values> Clustered Residential Community Shopping Estate Residence District Local Business District MXD Office Park District Professional District PUD Residence A District Residence B District 3801 Residence C District Residence D District Residence E District 3805 Residence F District Residence G District Recreation District RID Rec-2

18 P Lot Subdivision in existing Residence A zoning The proposal is to divide an existing single family lot into 4 lots (house to remain on proposed Lot 2). If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the proposed subdivision, it should be approved with the understanding that the plat will not be signed by the planning commission chairman and secretary until the existing tennis court (on proposed Lot 1) is removed, since an accessory structure is not permitted to remain on a lot without a primary structure. May be approved as a final plat; the following corrections for the final plat are required by the Subdivision Regulations, and are suggested as conditions of approval: 1) note zoning district (Residence A) on plat 2) indicate all required building setbacks Meets the Zoning Regulations for the Residence A district. Overall layout is acceptable, with the final plat to fully comply with all applicable requirements of the Mountain Brook Subdivision Regulations. No floodplain present. No relevant history or prior cases. Project Data: NAME: Resurvey of Lot 1-A Lewis Addition to Brookhill Forest 9 th Sector CURRENT ZONING: Residence A AGENT: Andrew Sink (buyer) LOCATION: 3040 Weatherton Drive

19

20

21 P Aerial DUNBARTON DR WEATHERTON DR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

22 CITY OF MOUNTAIN BROOK NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND OF PUBLIC HEARING THEREUPON Notice is hereby given that at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Mountain Brook, Alabama, to be held on November 6, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at Mountain Brook City Hall, 56 Church Street, Mountain Brook, Alabama, said Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to Chapter 129 of the Code of the City of Mountain Brook, as it pertains to Article XXVI as follows: Section Expiration of Variance A variance shall expire if it is not implemented within six months one year of the day it is granted. The board may, for good cause presented to it, extend the time for implementation of the variance for a period of six months, provided the request for an extension is presented to the board prior to the expiration of the initial six-month one year period. At the aforesaid time and place, all persons who desire shall have an opportunity to be heard in opposition to or in favor of adoption of the proposed amendment. For questions concerning the proposed zoning amendment, please contact: Dana Hazen, AICP, MPA Director of Planning, Building & Sustainability 205/ hazend@mtnbrook.org CERTIFICATION I, Tammy Reid, Administrative Assistant for the City of Mountain Brook, Alabama, do hereby certify that I have caused notice of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance and of public meeting thereupon set forth above to be published and provided in the manner specified by Article XXV, Sec , of the Mountain Brook City Code. I further certify that I have posted said notice in four conspicuous places within the City of Mountain Brook, in the manner and within the time permitted by law, said places being: Mountain Brook City Hall, 56 Church Street Gilchrist Pharmacy, 2850 Cahaba Road Cahaba River Walk, 3503 Overton Road Overton Park, 3020 Overton Road Tammy Reid, Administrative Assistant

23 from Dana Hazen to Local Architects and Design Professionals Hi! As you know (from experience!) variances expire 6 months from the date of approval, unless BZA grants a 6-month extension prior to the expiration. The first extension is typically granted without fanfare. This week, as we were adding yet another 2 extensions to the October BZA agenda I asked myself whether or not there is a compelling reason for a 6-month expiration as opposed to maybe one year? Over the past 10 BZA meetings ( in 2017) the Board has heard 40 new variance cases and approved 9 extensions. That's almost 25%! While I do believe that it is a good practice to have an expiration date for a BZA approval, I think perhaps one year would be better than 6 months. It would probably be a more realistic time frame for the process of final plan design and submital to the city, as well as permit issuance and getting started in the field! I spoke to a few architects at yesterday's BZA meeting, and they indicated that beginning construction within 6 months of a variance approval is very tight... and that if the expiration was amended to allow a one year start date then it would be a more realistic time frame and we would see far fewer extensions being requested. Also, I brought the subject up to the BZA members in pre-meeting yesterday and all seemed agreeable to the idea of a one-year expiration, but wanted me to poll some local design folks and get some additional feedback. Our Building Official is also on-board. Please let me know if you think a one-year expiration would be a more practical course of action (or if not, reasons why we should leave it at 6-months). If I get the green light from all of you then I will prepare a zoning amendment and take to the PC and the city council! Thanks for all you do to make our city a wonderful place!

24 In response to the sent out by Dana Hazen to local architects and design professionals regarding changing the expiration of variances from 6 months to 1 year: I am in favor of the 1-year period. Most often owner s do not invest a whole lot into the project (i.e. complete set of construction drawings, etc.) until they know they have the Variance granted. So most of the Project does not get underway until after the Variance. Also, this allows adequate time for financing of the project to be finalized. Depending on the complexity of the project, that could take time to evolve. -thanks Rob Walker, AIA LEED AP I agree with changing to a 12-month rule. The initial 6-month extension is an established precedent and making all involved go through the extension process seems unnecessary. Regards, David Camp I have to agree with David Camp and Rob Walker. James Carter I agree that the scope & feasibility of many projects depends on whether or not variances are granted, which creates a time crunch having to be started within a 6 month window. I don't see that extending the variance to a 12 months would hurt the process in any way & it would certainly help the Owner/Architect. Wayne Hester Thank You Dana!!!!!! I have had several instances where perhaps a hasty decision was made in awarding a job when up against the variance expiring. 12 months would also allow for more rebidding if needed. Carey Hollingsworth Great idea! Hank Long This sounds like a wonderful idea to me- there are so many things that can delay the project. Thank you for your work in updating city policies. Eric Dale Thank you for reaching out and letting us weigh in on this. I would say the 6 month is certainly tight for most of my projects. A year would definitely make the process smoother. Thanks, Carrie Taylor I agree with the previous comments. A one-year expiration would be a more realistic timeframe and would be very helpful change. Thanks again, Joe Ellis

25 I agree that 12 months makes more sense. Brian Barrett, AIA I agree to the 12 months Thanks! John Bryant Francis Bryant Construction A 12 mo. time frame seems much more reasonable. Laura Bartlett We do a year. CONRAD GARRISON City Planner, City of Vestavia We have a 6 month limit also but have put in that they can get another 6 months with a letter of request an extension to the secretary of the BZA. Vanessa McGrath City of Homewood

26 City of Mountain Brook Guideline for Planning Commission - Fees-in-Lieu of Sidewalk Installation Whereas in cases where the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Mountain Brook require the installation of sidewalks by the developer of a subdivision, Section of the Subdivision Regulations indicates that in the case of cul-de-sacs the planning commission may lessen or waive sidewalk requirements and may require a fee-in-lieu for sidewalk improvements on existing streets in the area surrounding the proposed subdivision, and Whereas the Subdivision Regulations indicate that such fee-in-lieu shall be equal to the cost of sidewalk improvements that would otherwise have been required; and Whereas the practice of the City has historically been to consult with the Public Works Department to determine an appropriate estimate for the fee-in-lieu of sidewalk installation on a case-bycase basis; and Whereas the planning commission has determined that a more equitable practice of determining fees-in-lieu would be to set a standard fee per linear foot; and Whereas the Public Works Department has indicated that a $25/linear foot fee-in-lieu is equitable in cases where the planning commission may allow a developer to pay a fee-in-lieu of sidewalk installation. Therefore a fee of $25/linear foot is the established guideline for a fee-in-lieu of sidewalk installation in conjunction with an approval of a subdivision where sidewalks are required by the city s Subdivision Regulations.