THE CITY OF DAPHNE
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 22, 2010
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL - 6:00 P.M.

Members Present: Fred Small, Mayor; Joe Lemoine, Frank Martin, Secretary; Victoria Phelps, Larry Chason, Acting Chairman; Cathy Barnette, Councilwoman; Chief James Bo” White.

Members Absent: Ed Kirby, Chairman.

Staff Present: Adrienne D. Jones, Director of Community Development; Jan Dickson, Planning Coordinator; Nancy Anderson, GIS Manager; Jay Ross, Attorney; *Ashley Campbell, Environmental Programs Manager; * Ms. Campbell arrived during the presentation of Caroline Woods Subdivision.

Staff Absent: Missty Gray, Attorney; Erick Bussey, Associate Attorney;

Others Absent: Rob McElroy, General Manager/Utilities Board of the City of Daphne; Danny Lyndall, Operations Manager/Utilities Board of the City of Daphne.

Mr. Chason: Please let the record reflect Mr. Kirby is not present

PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT REVIEW:

File SDPF10-04:

Subdivision: TimberCreek Golf Course

Zoning(s): B-2, General Business

Location: On the North and South side of TimberCreek Boulevard

Area: 240.40 Acres +, (5) lots

Owner: TimberCreek Investments, L.L.C. - Larry Waldrep, Manager

Engineer: Rester & Coleman Engineers - Joel Coleman

Mr. Chason: We will have Commission comments, and then we will open the floor for public participation. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions or comments?

Ms. Barnette: At the site preview meeting we asked if they would consider creating a conservation easement. I wondered if any further thought had been given to making Magnolia Pines an easement?

Mr. Chason: Who is here tonight to speak about the development?

Mr. Waldrep: My name is Larry Waldrep. I am the manager for TimberCreek Investments. Some weeks back we were looking at creating a conservation easement. We have been speaking with North American Land Trust which will meet with us next week. We will be looking at that to see if it will be financially beneficial to us.

Mr. Chason: Mr. Waldrep, while you have the floor, last time Mr. Joel Coleman was here to speak.

Mr. Waldrep: Joel is here.

An introductory presentation was given by Mr. Joel Coleman, representing Rester & Coleman Engineers, requesting preliminary/final plat review of an eleven-point four seven-acre subdivision consisting of two lots located on the south side of TimberCreek Boulevard three hundred and fifty-five feet West of Green Court. On behalf of the owner, TimberCreek Investments, I am here to answer any questions regarding the things we discussed at the site preview meeting.

Mr. Chason: I think we want to have on the record what the application is and what you are asking for.

Mr. Coleman: The application is for the subdivision of the golf course. The subdivision of the eighteen holes with their respective parcels with one out parcel  remaining.

Mr. Chason: Do any of the Commissioners have any questions or comments?

Ms. Barnette: The issue that has stuck with me since the work session is the illegal subdivision. We brought that section of the Ordinance up as well. I would like to discuss the fact this has been an illegal subdivision because the property has been conveyed, and the subdivision was not approved by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Coleman: Right. The application is presented in a format tonight to request approval of the subdivision.

Mr. Chason: Since we are going to have plenty of time for the Planning Commission to comment, we could move up into public hearing portion of this. We can let the people who are here speak on this matter speak, and that may raise new questions for us to ask. Since this is the second time, we have had a public hearing on this, I would ask that those of you which are here to speak listen to what others have to say. If your opinion has already been stated, then we really only need to hear this one time. If you have something new to add that is fine. We appreciate you coming, but the Planning Commission’s opinion cannot be based on the number of people for or against a project.

Mr. Chason: If you do have something to add, then we would like to hear your questions and comments. We will try to get you the answers you are looking for. Can I  lease see the hands of the number of people who wish to speak tonight? That is great. If you change your mind, and you would like to comment we will be glad to get you in. Mr. O’Hare.

Mr. O’Hare: Thank you, Mr. Chason for the opportunity to speak. I do not intend to repeat arguments which have already been made. I believe the Planning Commission is right. It has broad powers to look at the Planning Ordinance to see if this subdivision fits its long term vision for the City of Daphne. You do have the  discretion to deny the subdivision. We are very pleased to hear that the owner is considering converting it to a conservation easement. We had not heard that
before. Perhaps the subdivision could be denied until we have a more firm commitment. What most of this was about is the City of Daphne had this listed on a map as golf course/recreation for a long time although it has been zoned B-2. Maybe the Planning Commission can consider a zoning designation or classification that is for  a recreation area or for a golf course. That is certainly something that would be of interest to the City because it is important to have the green belt. That is really all I have to say. I thank you for the time and consideration you have given to this issue.

Mr. Chason: You are welcome. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

Ms. Boltz: My name is Patty Boltz. We have been living here for five years. My mother lives in Florida in a very large development community. I have seen it in the last twenty years go dramatically downhill since a commercial development was put in front of her subdivision. In my teens it was one of the most prime places to be. The developer came in and developed Walgreens and doctor’s offices, and you lost the stellar development feeling. The property value began to go down. One of the biggest concerns I have as a resident of our development is that is what I will see if the entire area of Magnolia Pines Golf Course is made into a commercial  development, then those who can will leave TimberCreek Subdivision. TimberCreek Subdivision for more than fifteen years has been able to maintain property values for a development as old as it is. It is hard to maintain that status. People tend to want to be where all of the new building is taking place. They have maintained the community. Property values have held their own or gone up. It is a nice community to be in, and it is one that people want to be in. My biggest concern is that will change. I have personally purchased commercial property on Alabama Highway 181. I had hoped to stay in TimberCreek. I would love for them to create a conservation easement. I think the rest of TimberCreek would as well. I do not know what the tax implications are for the developer or if that is something that would help them. TimberCreek Subdivision with young children, I dread the fact that property will be taken away.

Mr. Chason: Is there anyone else which would like to speak to this application?

Mr. Boltz: My name is Mark Boltz. When we moved here in 2005, this was a twenty-seven-hole golf course, and we were told it was to remain that way permanently. I am very disappointed about the plan that is now before you to develop the lower half as commercial. As many of you may be familiar with, Baldwin County just killed the plan to construct the service road at Interstate 10. I have not seen the plans, and I am not sure if there are any. I think that is very likely. Occupancy vacancies are very high at the Eastern Shore Centre and the Jubilee Shopping Center. There is no demand for that to be commercial. The effect is going to be detrimental to the residents there.

Mr. Chason: Is there anyone else?

Mr. Waldrep: I would like to remind the Planning Commission that the entire course is zoned commercial and has been since we brought it into the City. We could have applied for a permit for the other eighteen, but we put a conservation easement on it. The commercial zoning has been in place since the year 2000. You bought your house in 2005 and that was zoned commercial by the City Council in 2000. We have not changed any zoning, and we are not asking to change any zoning. All we did is we have sold two-thirds of our property and have retained one-third. We are leasing the remainder for five years. At that time, we will determine what we are going to do with this property. Again, it has been in place since the year 2000, and we have not affected it. If you change the zoning of the property, it destroys some of the value of the conservation easement. It works against the conservation easement. I know that he is determined, but I do not know if he understands the tax  implication and the way a conservation easement works. It has to have the proper value. Again, Ms. Barnette, you have mentioned we have made an illegal subdivision, but we intended to have a plat approved before the sale on March 1, 2010. We tried to do that in February. I do not remember the dates, but this is the fifth trip that I have made to get this done. As I said before, we are not doing anything different from what we have done before since the year 2000. I do not know where the rumors are coming from that we are planning to develop that next week. If we were planning to develop, then we would have to come back to this Board for a submission of a change from where we are now. As I said before all we did was sell two-thirds of our land and retained the portion that the conservation easement was not on. If we were going to change that wouldn’t we have to come back here, and then anyone would be able to comment on that?

Ms. Boltz: I have lived on the boulevard so it is not affecting me persay. It would indirectly if that were going to go commercial. Do the seventy or sixty something people it would affect know when they bought their house that it was zoned commercial?

Mr. Chason: Ms. Boltz, you will need to direct your questions to us.

Ms. Boltz: I am sorry, but he looked at me.

Mr. Waldrep: I did. I apologize. I was not a part of that procedure, but it was commercial the day it was brought into the City.

Mr. Chason: Mr. Waldrep, may I ask you something? You said you had a meeting that may have an impact of the decision or may bring us closer to being able to make a decision by knowing what your future plans are.

Mr. Waldrep: We have a meeting, but it will be very difficult for us to reach a decision in that meeting. The establishment of a conservation easement is a long drawn out process. It is very expensive for us because it costs a lot of money to do one. We would not have a decision next week. There is no reason for us to table this. All we are doing is splitting this property into two pieces. It is five parcels because of the roads. All we are doing is there is a twenty-seven-hole golf course. We have sold eighteen holes, and we are retaining nine.

Mr. Chason: Mr. Waldrep, if you wanted to wait to see what is the outcome of the meeting is, then we would not be back here in a week. We would be back here in a month.

Mr. Waldrep: All that I am trying to tell you is that we are going to meet to discuss it, but I cannot give you a guarantee.

Mr. Chason: Ok. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions or comments?

Chief White: I understand emotions in this situation are high, but I am not aware of any legal reason to deny it.

Mr. Chason: We will let everyone go ahead and speak. We will let anyone on the Commission wants to continue speak, and then we will work toward that. Anyone else have any comments?

Ms. Barnette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my concerns. I guess the issues I see with the approval of the subdivision is that Section 11-4, Daphne Land Use Ordinance, does not allow the conveyance of the property without the approval of the Planning Commission.  We also have Section 11-1, which states the development should have a master plan in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, the development and the public. Our water pollution sections are Section 18-2 and 18-6, a subdivision should not be approved until adequate storm water and/or flood water runoff has been addressed. This is an impaired watershed so the lack of the knowledge of what the master plan is for the development directly affects the water quality within an impaired watershed. Those are some of the concerns that I have as to why legally as to why this subdivision should be denied.

Mr. Chason: Anyone else?

Ms. Barnette: Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment. The other comment I have is there is a penalty although it is small for an illegal subdivision. I would like to encourage the Mayor who has the power to impose that penalty on them.

Mr. Chason: Joel, I wanted to go over that again. You have presented a lot of plats to this Planning Commission. Would you not agree that anytime you brought a subdivision plat that on the plat you would show your drainage structures, and you would tell us exactly how you plan to handle storm water runoff? I did not see that in this.

Mr. Coleman: All of the structures are in for the use that it is now. Everyone is speculating on a commercial site. We would have to come in with a plan for you to review at that time. I am getting confused. If there was a change in use to commercial, then they would have to provide a plan to the City of Daphne for review at that time. If there is not a change of use, then I would not submit a grading and drainage plan.

Mr. Chason: Well, I do not think you think you can argue that by dividing the parcel into portions in which you have a seventy-acre portion along a state highway, you would have concerns. At this point, you do not know if that will be one hundred and fifty small lots or what. It could be, and we are about to take the next step. Do you have any opinion on how that will be handled?

Mr. Coleman: I would say to if it were rezoned and become a residential subdivision, then it would be my responsibility to devise a drainage plan that would meet your storm water ordinance. It is my opinion that if there is no change in use, then I do not see the need for the submission of a drainage plan because it is already in place. However, if they do anything with that property, they would have to come back to you with a plan for you and the Public Works Department to review. You would look at it to decide whether or not it would be approved at that time. If there were any problems, then they would be addressed.

Ms. Barnette: Mr. Chairman, I think my concern or my rebuttal for the lack of a better word is it came in under the Baldwin County regulations and the storm water drainage calculations for TimberCreek are inadequate within that development. It is an impaired watershed with a specific restoration plan that is being created and finalized. There are five bodies of water within this impaired watershed. You say we do not need to look at storm water drainage. I feel like we do have a responsibility to at the subdivision level because it is a part of what our Ordinance requires because of its association with the previous development and its effect on downstream. The Planning Commission has to look at the future development and growth based on the information that they have. We have very quantifiable data that this is an impaired watershed with inadequate drainage as it is today. To move forward without tomorrow would be irresponsible on our part.

Mr. Coleman: I agree. That is a good question, but again you are looking at this as a possible use of the property. They have not submitted anything to change the use. If you deny this, you have the same drainage problems. If you approve this, you have the same drainage problems. If they change the use, they would have to come to you with a subdivision plat at that time. You would have new installation going on which would suggest they would provide to you a storm water drainage to accommodate the development at that time. If a change in use is being done, it is the engineer’s responsibility to come up with a storm water management plan to address more than what is obviously there. It would be my responsibility to submit those plans, and your responsibility to review those plans.

Ms. Barnette: I am sorry. Just one more comment, the only other comment I guess I would say is with all of the land use law updates and continuing education classes we have done has told us to address things as early in the process as possible. At the subdivision level if we know we have a problem, then we should address them at that point. If we don’t, then we move onto the next phase of the development with the expectations you would move forward with a site plan and a development plan. You would incur the cost of doing all of the things on the site checklist. You would not be aware at the subdivision of all of the problems that would be associated with it. It is always I was not aware this was a problem. I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on engineering plans and architectural drawings. We have been taught to address things early on.

Mr. Coleman: I will agree with that, but how are you going to address that now?

Mr. Chason: I can answer that. I think you are going to have to assume the worst. I think we need to address it before we approve a plat and put this one step closer to becoming whatever it could be a shopping complex or an automobile dealer. I think at the meeting we recall taking place a year or two ago regarding some of the changes that will be taking place.

Mr. Chason: There was a plan for an interchange and a hospital expansion on the table. There are some things that have come into those positions which are now gone. I understand you are saying we are not changing anything, but I think from my personal prospective we have a plat with no topographic or contour information. We do not have any information regarding the existing drainage system and how overburdened that may be. I play golf out there, and I have seen places that do erode in heavy rains. How stable that is I do not know. Mr. Waldrep wants to go forward so we are going forward. To me, there is information that we need to take the next step in the process. Those are questions that I personally want answered. It may not lead to an ultimate denial, but in my mind I am not ready to take the next step.

Mr. Coleman: I understand, but typically we address drainage when there is a change in use.

Ms. Phelps: Just to be clear, I echo those same concerns with this development. If we move forward with not knowing, the worst case scenario is that all types of businesses will be backed up to residential homes. I cannot believe that it is in the best general welfare for the development. I think we need to figure it out now.

Mr. Chason: Also, I would have to say if this property is under a five-year lease, then what is the hurry? You cannot change it unless both parties agree to terminate the lease. I will say if I lived there, then the fear of the unknown is a real problem. If these people have to deal with this for the next five years, then what is the value of what they have? How will it be impacted by this? The answer to that question is I do not know. For this or any other application for anyone in the City if we are going to throw it into, the I do not know category, then there are some questions that need to be asked and answered. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions or comments?

Mayor Small: If I could Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Waldrep a question or two. I would like to move back a few days or back to last week when the service road was proposed. If the service road would have gone through that would have raised the property values in that particular area of your property. The higher the value of the property makes it a lot more appealing for the dedication of a conservation easement.

Mr. Waldrep: Absolutely. There is access to the property now.

Mayor Small: That was the next question. You still have access to that property now.
 
Mr. Waldrep: That is my understanding. There is a county road that stops at our property.

Mayor Small: I am not sure what we are asking, but Mr. Chason hit on it briefly, especially for the property owners who abut this property which have found out the nine-hole golf course is zoned B-2. We do not know what is going to happen to it. The sooner we know what is going to happen to it, then we can move forward with a lot of things which would increase the value of the property there, as well as, the prosperity that has shut some things down.

Mr. Waldrep: Mayor Small, again that zoning category has been in place since 2000. We placed the conservation easement on the other eighteen hole golf course in 2006. No one seemed to have a problem when we did that. Like I said before, it has been there. For any home that was sold from 2000 to 2006, it was disclosed to the buyer because the property was zoned B-2 at that time. Like I said before it was there.

Mr. Chason: Do any of the Commissioners have any further questions or comments? If there is no objection, the Chair will entertain a motion.

A Motion was made by Ms. Barnette and Seconded by Ms. Phelps to deny the preliminary/final plat for TimberCreek Golf Course Subdivision based on the noncompliance with the following sections of the Daphne Land Use Ordinance: Minimum Standards and Required Improvements, Suitability of Land, Section 11-1, which requires the denial of a subdivision if it is not in the best interest of the public due to the lack of the submittal of a master and storm water drainage plan; Minimum Standards-Penalties, Section 11-4, the subdivision of land without the approval of a subdivision; Drainage-General, Section 18-2, Drainage-Effect on Downstream; and Section 18-6, a subdivision cannot be approved if it has not made adequate provisions for storm water drainage or flood water runoff since this is an impaired watershed.

The Motion carried. Chief White opposed.