Planning commission carries over 77‑lot Franklin Park rezoning after fire, water and access questions

The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 9 carried over a rezoning request for a proposed 77‑lot addition to Franklin Park, citing outstanding technical questions about emergency access and water supply.

Commissioners voted to hold Z24‑0056 for one month so the applicant can provide documentation from Birmingham Water Works and the relevant fire department and rework the plan to address the commission’s 65‑foot lot‑width preference.

The rezoning would change the site from A1 to R7 and would add 77 residential lots served from Franklin Park Drive. Planning staff recommended denial, saying the proposal lacked demonstration of garage recessing or other measures to reduce on‑street parking, and that the proposal did not meet recently adopted county preferences on lot width and emergency access.

John Kane, with BBC Development, told the commission the developer reduced density by “over 20%” from an earlier proposal and offered to install residential fire‑sprinkler systems under the 2024 International Fire Code alternative for single‑family developments. “We’ve agreed to do [a] 13D compliant fire suppression system in those houses,” Kane said.

Several residents and the subdivision homeowners’ association objected to the plan’s traffic and safety risks. William Kilgore, a Franklin Park resident, said the development could multiply daily vehicle trips on his street from roughly 26 to “154 to 300 plus cars,” and called the likely increase “a major safety hazard for our children, walkers, runners, cyclists.” Kilgore also said construction traffic would damage recently finished neighborhood streets and raised a possible conflict with a City of Kimberly ordinance restricting construction vehicles on Franklin Park streets.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on whether the local water system can supply the pressure and flow needed to support home sprinkler systems. Kane said there is an 8‑inch main near the site and that prior water letters exist from Birmingham Water Works for earlier approvals, but he did not supply a current written capacity certification at the hearing. The applicant’s engineer said the proposed loop road could be sized with adequate corner radii for fire apparatus but acknowledged final details would come from engineering and fire‑marshal review.

Chair and other commissioners told the applicant the commission lacks the documentation necessary to consider the sprinkler alternative in lieu of a secondary access and asked for three items before the next hearing: a written capacity letter from Birmingham Water Works showing pressure/flow sufficient to support the proposed 13D sprinkler design; a written assurance or formal determination from the responsible fire department about coverage and apparatus access; and a revised plan addressing the commission’s 65‑foot frontage preference or other measures to reduce on‑street parking. The applicant asked to carry the case and said two months should be sufficient to assemble the information.

When the motion to carry over Z24‑0056 passed, commissioners did not approve the rezoning; they postponed formal action pending the requested documents and any plan revisions.

If the applicant returns with the requested documentation, the commission will re‑open the case at a future public hearing and may reissue a recommendation to the county commission for final action.