Planning Commission — July 26th, 2022

This was Planning Commission’s monthly meeting.

The agenda is available online. At the time of writing, the meeting video hasn’t been finalized, but it should be up on HSV TV by the time you’re reading this.

I don’t summarize agenda items that passed without interesting discussion.

Of General Interest

I-7d: The Valley View development on north Memorial Parkway (10028 Memorial Pkwy NW) failed to receive rezoning approval with a 4-5 vote. A North Carolina developer (Pioneer Communities) petitioned for this property to be rezoned from R-1 to R-2 in order to take advantage of the less restrictive lot density requirements.

This development was fairly controversial in the community. Councilmember Keith hosted a meeting on the original development in early June to mixed reception. Many people voiced concerns about the build quality of the project (Pioneer intended to build some type of manufactured homes, although this plan was later scrapped because manufactured homes are not lawful to build in R1 or R2 zones), potential impact on property values in the area, and the long-term upkeep of the development.

Pioneer’s model was fairly unique. Originally, they intended to maintain ownership of their lot without going through the subdivision process, instead charging a lot lease fee while still selling buildings. This model contributed to property upkeep and resale value concerns. While I’m not privy to discussions that happened between the June community meeting and tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, it sounded like Planning staff were not very interested in this either.

As of the June community meeting, Pioneer had 1,138 units “under development” in Alabama, with 0 units occupied or ready for occupancy.

Public Comment

I-2: There were several concerns from the public about this preliminary layout approval for a development on Segers Rd (Google Maps):

• A concern was brought involging solids from the construction process making their way down to the creek to the South. The project’s engineer of record stated that this is “typical” on construction sites and should resolve after construction is complete.
• A concern was brought involving impact to the park and wetlands nearby. Nunez and the project’s engineer of record stated that this development does not extend to the wetlands and there should be “minimal disturbance.” Based on discussion between the engineer of record and Commission members, the subdivision’s park is platted as a common area, and any development in that area would likely need to go through the subdivision’s HOA (not necessarily through Planning Commission).
• There were several concerns brought involving traffic impact and ingress/egress points on this development, since the preliminary layout would result in greater than 200 lots, requiring two such points. Nunez stated that while no traffic study was performed, based on traffic counts that are available, there will be an impact of less than 1% to Segers Rd by daily trip count. There is also a second egress point for this subdivision already built to the East, although it’s not reflected on maps provided by city GIS and is outside of city limits.
• A concern was brought about some of the proposed lots lying within a floodplain. The engineer of record stated that these lots will have additional dirt added to raise them above the floodplain, and flood insurance will not be required for the eventual owners of those lots.

I-7e: Several folks were present to speak about this rezoning request, which changes 1.5 acres of a lot from Light Industry zoning to R2-B, with a plat restriction permitting only uses allowed in R1:

• There were concerns about a larger lot being rezoned from LI to R2-B, but these turned out to not be relevant — the rezoning request only covers 1.5 acres.
• There were concerns about multifamily development in this area. This cannot happen due to the plat restriction permitting only uses allowed in R1.
• There were concerns about traffic impacts, which seemed largely unfounded — Nunez estimates that this land could be subdivided into only 4 or 5 single-family lots.

Parliamentary Oddities

I-7f: This rezoning request (from R2 to R2-B) was initially approved with the understanding that there was an existing plat restriction permitting development only to R2-A’s density controls. However, at the end of the meeting, legal counsel and Nunez told the Commission that they also had to approve that existing plat restriction at the same time as the rezoning request in order for the restriction to be effective.

The chair made a motion to reconsider item 7f, then a motion to approve the item and the plat restriction together. Both passed unanimously.

Reference

People

• Nunez: Thomas Nunez, Manager of Planning Services.

Zones

• R1: Residence 1, a zone which allows detached single-family dwellings
• R2: Residence 2, a zone which allows duplexes and single-family dwellings (attached or detached).
• R2-A: Residence 2-A, a zone which allows multi-family development, along with everything R2 allows.
• R2-B: Residence 2-B, a zone which allows lodging (hotels/motels), office buildings, and assisted living facilities, along with everything R2-A allows.
• LI: Light Industry

Notation and Disclaimer

Agenda items are in bold.

The “Of General Interest” section contains information about Pioneer Communities presented in a fairly one-sided manner, sourced from my own notes across several community meetings. It certainly does not tell the whole story of the development process.

Accuracy of these notes is not guaranteed and any reliance on them is at your own risk. For corrections, please contact me via email.

Copyright

My work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. If you are a for-profit news organization and would like to use my work, please contact me using the methods listed here.