Planning Commission approves Edgewood Manor development, Edgewood Boulevard subdivisions

by

The Planning Commission's June 6 meeting saw contention from residents on multiple issues around home development and historic preservation.

Edgewood Manor

Kessler Homes appeared before the Commission again tonight with amended plans for their request to develop property on Carr Avenue and "Short" Saulter Road. Kessler brought an initial proposal to the Commission in April, where both the preliminary development plan and the request to rezone from Neighborhood Preservation District (NPD) to Planned Residential District (PRD) were denied by tied votes.

The new plans Kessler brought fit within the property's existing NPD zoning restriction, changing the plans from 12 single homes to eight, each with accessory structures and a larger footprint, though with lower roof heights.

The primary purpose of the new plan, based on Kessler's presentation, appeared to be making the original request for PRD zoning appear like the more neighborhood-friendly option. They noted that PRD has tighter requirements on the amount of a lot that a home can take up, leading to smaller homes.

Compared to the nearby Broadway "triangle" development, Kessler said their original plans for 12 homes would feature more garage space for parking, larger lots, more trees and underground power lines.

Kessler also got a letter from Dr. Bill Cleveland stating that the addition of the homes would not cause strain on the school system, and they offered to have a local resident be part of the design process for the homes.

If Kessler moved forward with the eight-home plan that fits NPD zoning, on the other hand, they said they would not be able to do as extensive of stormwater sewer work, which a resident later in the meeting called a "veiled threat" to impact surrounding homes if they didn't get their requested rezoning.

As in April, residents came out in large numbers and sent around 30 to 40 emails to Commission members, most of them opposing the development. Opposition to Edgewood Manor centered around density of the houses, whether they would blend with the neighborhood in size and appearance, impact on traffic and the perception that developers don't have to play by the same rules as residents when building or renovating.

Several residents noted the time the city has spent refining its NPD ordinances, and that they shouldn't be set aside in this instance.

“It’s going to be developed. It should follow the rules that anyone else in the neighborhood would follow,” one resident said.

One resident, who lives next to the proposed development, spoke in favor saying he would like to see new homes and families rather than an abandoned house and empty field.

City Council liaison Britt Thames noted that three of the lots in Kessler's proposed NPD zoning plan did not meet minimum width, which was 50 feet based on a calculation of at least 85 percent of the average of surrounding homes' lot widths. Commission members also asked Kessler if lots could be redesigned with larger setbacks of 10 feet on each side between the homes and the lot lines.

If denied the rezoning, Kessler could redesign to meet minimum lot widths and, as long as they complied with all relevant zoning ordinances, develop without need for approval from the Planning Commission. This includes building homes up to 50 percent of the lots' footprint, which on some of them could equal 4,000-square-foot homes or larger.

The home designs in the original PRD plans were in the 2,200-3,000 square foot range, Kessler said.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to send Kessler's original PRD development plan to the city council to consider, along with the rezoning. However, the approval hinged on several proffers to keep the development closer to NPD standards, including: homes must be no more than 1.5 stories and meet NPD height and side setback limits, lots must be a minimum of 50 feet wide and the development will not include accessory structures or gates blocking access to the road planned on the development.

"Secret Garden" home

Discussion of the aesthetic and historic value of the so-called "Secret Garden" house at 214 Edgewood Boulevard raised a lot of passion from residents, but ultimately could not factor into the Commission's decision to approve a subdivision of the lot into five parcels.

The Edgewood Boulevard house was built in the 1920s and many residents spoke about a desire to spend more time trying to find a way to preserve the house. It was purchased in 2004 and owner Patrick O'Sullivan intend to develop five single-family homes. The parcel was originally a set of six lots combined for the single house.

“The neighbors in this area are at a loss for words,” one resident said about the possibility of the house being torn down.

“When are we making choices in order to preserve history?" another said. “When do we say no?”

In addition to aesthetic and historical protests, residents also noted the addition of new homes would crowd parking on an already tight street.

After a lengthy public discussion, however, Higginbotham noted that state laws confine the Planning Commission's decision-making process to whether a proposed resurvey of the property meets all city zoning codes. In this case, the request does meet those codes, and the Planning Commission cannot consider the property's appearance or historic nature in the case.

With the exception of Thames, the rest of the Commission voted to approve the resurvey of the lot.

O'Sullivan said the "Secret Garden" house needs extensive repairs and the lease for its residents, who were the previous owners and have taken care of the garden for decades, will end in January. Between now and the end of the lease, he said he is willing to meet with residents with ideas or offers for other alternatives for the property.

O'Sullivan said he doesn't have plans created for the homes yet, but said they will not be "cookie cutter" and he will try to avoid cutting down mature trees on the property.

A similar request across the street, at 217 Edgewood Boulevard, was approved to divide a parcel into two lots. There was no public comment from residents, and plans for two new houses on the property have not been created. The Planning Commission approved the resurvey, with Thames opposing the decision.

U.S. 280 Hotel

The site where Bricktop's is under construction on U.S. 280, at the former Mountain Brook Inn location, is being considered for a six-story, 120-room extended stay hotel to join the restaurant.

Property owner David Arrington brought a development plan for the Marriott Residence Inn proposal, as well as a request to resurvey the lot into two parcels. He said he felt an extended stay hotel in the Homewood/Mountain Brook area would fill a gap in the market.

“We felt like this was the best fit to capture that market,” said Rakesh Patel of Aum Enterprises, who is part of the development.

No residents spoke on the subject, but Commission members had a number of concerns, including: the height and proximity of the building to nearby homes; whether parking could meet daily visitor and staff needs or would require a variance; traffic patterns since the property can only be accessed by right-in, right-out turns; and whether there is enough of an unfilled market for the hotel to be successful.

The development is anticipating $18 million in construction costs and healthy lodging and sales tax revenue for the city once the hotel and Bricktop's open, but they had not done a traffic study about possible options for the site to be accessible.

The Planning Commission approved both the lot resurvey and the development plan, contingent upon the Board of Zoning Adjustments approving their parking variance. Thames and Commission member Jeffery Foster voted no to both items.

Highland Road redevelopment questions

The owner of 912 Highland Road was left with some uncertainty on whether his request to divide his parcel into two lots would be grants.

Jason Kessler said he plans to build two homes on the property, one of which his family would occupy. The plans meet height and setback requirements but did not meet the minimum lot width requirements as determined by the average of surrounding homes.

Kessler said this contradicted previous information he had been given by city officials, and he would not have bought the property had he not been assured he could subdivide it.

He asked the Planning Commission to carry over the discussion to allow a more precise measurement of surrounding lot sizes, as the current minimum he must meet may have been rounded. If Kessler's plans meet the re-measured minimum, he can proceed with the resurvey. If not, he'll have to go before the BZA to request a variance.

Building, Engineering and Zoning Department official Greg Cobb said after the meeting that the department is taking steps to prevent situations where property owners like Kessler are given contradictory data. He did not specify what those changes were.

“We’re trying to fix all these little things that we’ve seen happen," Cobb said. “There have been some mistakes made and we’re trying hard to fix that.”

Zoning Changes

Lastly the Planning Commission approved a set of changes to the zoning book to send to the City Council for approval.

Major changes the Council will consider include removing references to measuring half or full stories on homes, as Cobb said the city only regulates by overall height measurements and doesn't look at ceiling height or stories of the home.

To keep homes' setbacks from property lines more consistent with their neighbors, the Planning Commission also approved a change to the way average setbacks are measured. Instead of comparing a home's setback to homes with a 250-foot radius, Cobb said the new rules compare homes only to others with 100 feet on the same side of the street.

Under the new rules, a home can be no closer to the front property line than any other house within that 100-foot area. They also cannot be farther away from that property line than 10 percent of the average setback of other homes in that radius.

For instance, Cobb said if the average setback of homes in a 100-foot area was 40 feet, a new house could be no more than 44 feet from the property line.

The goal is for rows of homes on each street to look consistent in how they line up with the road.

“You don’t want it to look like a straight edge, but you want it to be close,” Cobb said.

The zoning changes also include removing wording that did not allow masonry or concrete in fencing; removed tobacco shops from accepted uses within the C3 Community Shopping District; removed both tobacco and bridal shops (which are already covered under clothing stores) from accepted uses in the Mixed Use district; and stated that corner lots are considered to have two front property lines and must meet setback rules for both of them.

The Planning Commission meets the first Tuesday of each month at 6 p.m. at City Hall.