HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2014 Planning Commission MinutesJuly 7, 20 14
Planni ng Commission M inutes
The Planning Comm iss ion met Monday, Jul y 7, 20 14 at 5:00 PM at th e C ity Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council C hambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperso n ; George Roberds, Vice-Chair; Bo b C lark ; Jenni fer
Fidler; Dick Charles; Councilmember Dian a Brewer; Hollie MacKellar; Jonathan Smith,
Planning Director; Nancy Milford, Planner; and Emily Boye tt , Secretary
Absent: Tim Kant and Bernie Fogarty
Chairman Lee Turner called the meeting to order at 5 :04 PM and announced the m eeting
is being record ed. T he minutes of the June 2, 20 14 meeting were consid ered and Dick
Charle s moved to accept the minutes with corrections and was 2nd by Jennifer Fidler.
Motion carried unanimous ly.
IR 14 .04 Request of David and Patricia McCully for an Informal Review of 213 Fels
Avenue, a proposed 2-lot re-plat, Seth Moo re. The property is located on the
northwe st comer of the intersection of Fels Avenue and Church Street. Mr. Smith gave
the staff rep011 saying the property is zoned R-2 Medium Dens ity Single Family
Residenti al District and is one parcel but 2 legal lots of record. The subject property at
211 Fels Avenue has an en croachme nt on to the property loc ated at 2 13 Fels Avenue.
The owner is requesting a realignment of the lo t line s to clear up the existing non-
conformity of the house bein g 7' over the property lin e but it will then create additional
non-conformities on both prope11ies. Staff reco mmendati o n is to provide in sight and
comments regarding th e proposed realignment of lot lines. Seth Moore addressed the
Commi ss ion saying the first residence was originally built over the lot lin e and the
second residence was built in 1996 . He stated the owner wants to clean up the lot lines in
order to se ll the corner lot. He explained that in order to be in comple te compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance the first re sidence would have to be torn down. Mr. Turner asked
how far over the property line is the e ncroachment and Mr. Moore responded 7'-6". Mr.
Roberds stated if the Co mmiss ion takes actio n then it will set precedence and he
suggested it should be heard by the Board of Adjustments. Mr. C lark, Mr. Turner, and
Mr. C harl es agreed thi s is a case for the Board of Adj ustments . Mr. Smith stated staff
will sign the pl at if it is a pproved by the Board of Adjustments.
UR 14.04 Request of WAV Architects for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of
the proposed construction of a Performing Arts Pavilion for Faulkner State
Community College, R yan Baker. The proj ect w ill be lo cated on the southeas t corner
of the park area of campus, at the northwest co rner of the intersection of School Street
and Morphy A venue . Mr. Smi th gave the staff report say ing the subj ect property is
zo ned R-2 Medium Density Single Famil y Resid en tial District and this is a State project.
The new pavilion has an approxim at e gross floor area of 850 sq uare feet a nd is
approx imately 30' in height. Staff recommendation is to approve the lo cati on, character
and ext ent of th e proposed Performing Arts Pavilion. R yan Baker of WA V Arch itects
was present to answer any questio ns. George Roberd s and Diana Brewer stated they are
abstainin g from thi s case due to conflicts of interest. Mr. Charles asked if this wi ll deter
any new parking for t he campus or the c ity and Mr. Smith a n swered the City has an
agreement w ith FSCC to provide parking and h e is under the impression th e use of the
pavilion sho uld not co nfli ct w ith classes. Mr . Turner had conce rn s with possi ble noise
is sues w ith the surroundin g re sid ents. Mr. Baker explained the site was designed to push
1
Ju ly 7, 20 14
Planning Commission Minutes
the noise toward the City to protect the neighbors. Mrs. Fidler stated it is a good design
and she likes they are saving trees . Mrs. MacKellar asked if the Methodist church has an
agreement to provide parking and Mr. Baker stated it is an informal agreement. Jennifer
Fidler mad e a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the location,
character and extent of the proposed Performing Arts Pavilion. Dick Charles 2nd the
motion and the motion carried with two abstentions by George Roberds and Diana
Brewer.
ZC 14.07 Public hearing to consider the request of Bobby Faust to rezone property
from R-6 Mobile Home Park District to R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
District. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Morphy
Avenue and Bishop Road. Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the subject property is
approximately 3.02 acres and approximately 16 to 22 mobile homes could be placed on
the site. The R-4 zoning district allows 7 units per acre. The adjacent properties are
zoned R-3 High Density Single Family Residential District to the north, east, and west;
unzoned to the south; R-3 PGH to the southwest corner; and R-5 High Density Multi-
Family Residential District to the northwest corner. Mr. Smith stated the applicant
contends the zoning change will bring the subject property to a zoning designation more
compatible with the surrounding properties. Staff recommendation is to approve as
requested. Bobby Faust, III addressed the Commission saying there are no plans for
construction at this time. He said they just want to open their options and get away from
the R-6 zoning. Mr. Turner stated the Planning Commission does not make the final
decision regarding zoning changes. He explained the Commission only makes a
recommendation to the City Council and they make the final decision. Mr. Turner
opened the public hearing.
Bobby Green of 415 Maple Street -He stated this same request came before the
Commission 3 or 4 years ago and it was denied. He said he wants to see a p lan before the
property is rezoned because the R-6 standard s are strict and we know what we are
getting. He said the surrounding prope1iy is low density and the previous p lan drained to
the north and that's the beginning of the Weeks Bay Watershed . He said if this zo ning is
granted, a ll of the drainage will have to be upgraded. He stated R-3 would be much
better and if they want to change it then that's what it should be.
Marion McKnight of 7 Sumac C ircl e -She stated co nce rns with traffic on Bishop Road.
She ex plained the Baldwin County Board of Education wanted a connection between the
sc hools so the buses would not have to get out on Hwy 98 and now it has become a
shortcut for re sidents. She stated t here needs to be a traffic study done before approving
entrances and driveways so they can be designed to have the least impact on the traffic.
Mr. C lark stated thi s is not the las t time this case will be heard. Mrs. Fidler exp lained the
R-4 zo ning will allow approximately the same number of units as the R-6 zoning dis trict.
Mr. Roberds stated the drainage will h ave to be addressed at the time of development.
Mr. Smith stated if a multi-family development is proposed then it will have to go
through the Multiple Occupancy Project review, which wi ll require drainage and traffic
to be addressed. Mrs. F idler asked if drainage is required for a mobile home park and
Mr. Smith responded yes .
Debra Green of 4 15 Maple Street -She asked where the adjacent R -3 PGH zo ning is
located and Mr. Smith responded to the southwest corne r of the subj ect property. She
asked Mr. C lark for clarification of his statement where he said "when it is approved";
Mr. C lark stated he meant to say "if it is approved". Mrs . Green said several property
2
July 7, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes
owners along N. Greeno Road recently came before the Commission requesting a PUD
zoning and Mr. Turner and Mr. Charles said they wanted to see a plan before the zoning
wou ld be granted. She asked why this blind zoning different and she stated there won't
be another chance to be heard. She said the highest density surrounding the subject
property is R-5 but most is R-3 and it is unfair to the neighbors to approve R-4 in this
location. She said she doesn't want the sl um s of Gay fer in this area and she doesn't want
that done to the residents of Fairhope here too . She said R-1 and R-3 are what is in the
area and if those property owners request the same then the Commission would have to
grant it to them. She said she would rather see a new trailer park then have this blind
zoning approved. Mr. Turner stated this request is regressive zoning and the N . G reeno
Road was increased zoning. He explained the R-4 zoning district has restrictions and
requirement just like the R-6 zoning district does. He a lso stated there are additional
concerns with a mobile home park due to hurricanes.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Charles stated that 10 years ago he and Mr. Clark pushed to get Bishop Road
extended and now that it has, it has taken a lot of bus traffic off of Greeno Road. Mr.
Clark stated it is very misleading to refer to this request as blind rezoning because the
Zoning Ord inance sets forth what uses are allowed in the R-4 zoning district. Mr. Smith
stated the site w ill have to be developed in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, as
we ll as the Tree Ord in ance, and the Subdi vision Regulations if a Multiple Occupancy
Project is proposed. Mr. Smi th referenced the N. Greeno Road properties and stated it
was only an Informal Review and no decision was made regarding the properties. He
explained the appli cants in that case were requesting a PUD which requires a plan to be
submitted and approved as part of the zoning change. He stated the properties are very
different. Mr. Turner questioned what review i s required for development of R-6
property and Mr. Smith responded there is less control with R-6 but a Multiple
Occupancy Review and a Land Disturbance permit would be required. Mrs . Fid ler stated
the number of trailers verses the number of units seem very similar, both require
drainage, and both require traffic studies so it seems the onl y difference is weather we
want brick and mortar or mobile homes and what is better for Fairhope. Mr. Roberds
stated the concerns the Commission had regarding the N. Greeno Road were because it
was a PUD and there was no plan, which i s required to show what the site would be
limi ted to and it was not turned down because it was informal. This site would be
restricted by the Zoning Ordinance and t he requirements set forth for R-4. Mr. Green
stated R-6 has lots of specifications such as 8' wall s and sidewalks. He stated very nice
people live in mobil e homes. Mrs. Green stated she received an e-mail from someone
across th e street from thi s site and there were a lot of details specified for the si te and the
plan they have. She said a PUD is not d i fferent and it is on ly the peop le involved and it
is not right to blindly rezone without the input from the community. Mrs. Brewer asked
if the owner or app li cant has a plan for the subject property and Mr. Faust responded no.
Mr. Roberds asked if the property is for sale and Mr. Faust responded yes. Mr. Roberds
asked if they have talked to anyone or seen a plan and Mr. Faust responded no. Mr.
Craig Hulgan, the applicant, stated they just want the zoning change in order to open up
their options. He sai d R-6 only allows a mobil e home park and the property has been for
sale for several years and there has been no interest. He explained the R-4 zonin g will at
least give som e possibil ities . Mr. Roberds stated the so uthwest co rner has a commercial
us e but it is unzoned in the County. Mr. Clark stated he feels th is request i s an upgrade
and it is not b lind zoning because the uses wi ll be restricted to the ones li sted in the
3
July 7, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes
Ord inan ce. Dick Charl es made a motion to accept the staff r eco mmendat io n to approve
the R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Re s id ential Di strict request and forward a favorab le
recommendation to the City Council. Bob Clark 2 nd the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
SD 14.05 Public hearing to consider the request of Preble-Rish, LLC for Final plat
approval of th e Villas at Point Clear, a 25-lot subdivision, Steve Pumphrey. The
property is located on the so uth side of Battles Road just west of the intersection of
Section Street and Battles Road. Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the property is
approximately 10.63 acres and 25 lots are proposed. He s tate d the infrastructure has
already been installed except for the sid ewalks and some of the landscaping. He s tated
the public hearing was he ld last month and the case was held over at the request of the
applicant. Staff recommendatio n is to approve, contingent upon the following
co ndi t ions:
1. The PUD pl an shall be re v ised to reflect th e approved maxi mum allowable lot
coverage.
2. The applicant shall execute the Operations and Maintenance document and the n
have the document recorded in probate. Staff s hall be provided a copy of the
recorded doc ument.
3. The current road test report and letter from th e en gineer shall be submitted to the
plannin g office.
4. Approval of the landscape plan by the City of Fairhope Horticulturist.
5. A satisfactory final inspection shall be required and any final inspection punch list
item s s hall be completed prior to s igning th e pl at.
6. The applicant shall prov id e one set of as-bui lt drawin gs w ith the correct approved
final plat.
7. The s ubmittal of a maintenance bond shall be required for all infrastructure being
accepted by th e City of Fai rhop e.
Steve Pumphrey of Prebl e -Ri sh , LLC was present to answer any questions. Mr. Turner
opened the public hearin g. Having no one present to spea k, he closed the public hearing .
Mr. Roberds asked w hy they pl anted 8" DBH li ve oaks because they w ill be too bi g
before lo ng. Mrs. MacKellar stated the s ite looks great. Mrs. Fidle r st ated the applicant
had to remo ve som e tr ees and had to rep lace them and they chose to u se live oaks. She
a lso mentioned the ditch is drainin g to Battles Road and Troy Strunk, land scape architect
for the applicant, stated the ditch has been regarded but still needs to be sodded. Andrew
Bobe of Preble-Rish, LLC stated they still have a little left to fini sh but they are almost
compl ete. George Roberds made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to
approve, co ntin ge nt upon the following condit io ns:
1. The PUD plan shall be r evised to reflect the approved m ax imum all owable lot
coverage.
2 . The appl icant shall execute the Operations and Maintenance document an d then
have the docum en t recorded in probat e. St aff shall be provided a copy of the
recorded document.
3 . The current road test report and letter from the engineer shall be submitted to t he
planning office.
4. Approval of the landscape plan by the City of Fairhope Horticultu rist.
5. A satisfactory final inspection s ha ll be required and any final inspecti on p unch list
items shall be complet ed prior to signin g the p lat.
4
July 7, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes
6. The applicant shall provide one set of as-built drawings with the correct approved
final plat.
7. The submittal of a maintenance bond shall be required for all infrastructure being
accepted by the City of Fairhope.
Bob Clark 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
SD 14.08 Public hearing to consider the request of Preble-Rish, LLC for Final plat
approval of Sedgefield, Phase 3, a 22-lot subdivision, Steve Pumphrey. The property
is located on the west side of Thompson Hall Road across from Derby Lane and
Chuckker Court. Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the property is zoned R-1 Low
Density Single Family Residential District and is approximately 9.3 acres with 22 lots
proposed. He stated the pond needs a little work and there have been concerns with sight
visibili ty on Thompson Hall Road. Staff recommendation is to approve, contingent upon
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit an updated Letter of Credit and associated subdivision
agreement for all three phases of Sedgefield Subdivision.
2 . The revised Operations and Maintenance Plan needs to be executed by the owner
and re-recorded.
3. The applicant shall call for a final re-inspection once the items are completed and
provide a letter stating all items are satisfied. All punch list items must be
approved by the City of Fairhope Department Supervisors prior to the punch list
being released.
4. A street light invoice sho w ing the lights have been purchased shall be provided.
5. The submittal of a maintenance bond shall be required for all infrastructure being
accepted by the City of Fairhope.
Stev e Pumphrey of Preb le-Rish, LLC was present to answer any questions. Mr. Turner
opened the public hearing.
Nancy Price of 400 Surtees Street -She s tated these revisions affect all of the residents in
the subdivision. She stated the Restrictive Covenants state driveways must be concrete or
pavement and the requirement for the driveways along Thompson Hall to be gravel will
devaluate the property and the existing homes. She stated concerns with the electric
transformers b eing on the ground and stated they are a danger. She said the trees on
Thompson Hall Road have a lot of unde rbrush around them and prohibit visibility. She
also stated there is trash and construction debris left from previou s phases which are
causing problems with snakes and rodents. Mr. Turner stated the Commission has no
enforcement of covenants and this is to verify the deve lopment has been built as it was
approved at preliminary plat.
Ramon Price of 400 Surtees Street -He stated the plat is wrong and the road is not
curved like the drawing shows. He said he unders tands the City wants to save trees but
the sma ll ones need to be cut so the people w ill be ab le to get into the garages.
Having no one e lse present to speak , Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr.
Pumphrey stated t he plat is correct and the right-of-way is what i s shown not the actual
pavement and he said the power boxes we re installed by the el ec tric provider which is
Baldwin EMC. Mrs. Fidler stated the driveways were required by the Commission to
help preserv e the trees o n Thompson Hall. Mr. Smith stated the City requires a 4'
hardscape from the pavement. Mr. Bobe stated the driveways could be p avers. Mr.
Turner as ked if th e underbrush can be cleaned for sig ht vi s ibility and Mrs. Fidler stated
the City will hand le clearing it out. Mrs. Fid ler said the small er t rees were left to let the
5
July 7, 2014
Planning Commission Minut es
homeowner decide which ones the y would like to keep. Mr. Bobe stated the pond had to
be modified to meet the current req uirements in the Subdivision Regulations and they are
just waiting on rain to verify it works properly. M rs. Fidler stated it is good to know it is
up to our current standard s. Mrs. Brewer asked what wou ld be done about th e
construction debris and Mr. Bobe responded he will let the owner know about it. Dick
Charles made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve, contingent upon
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall s ubmit an updated Letter of Credit and associated subdivision
agreement for al 1 three phases of Sedgefield Subdivision.
2. The revised Operations and Maintenance Plan needs to be executed by the owner
and re-recorded.
3. The applicant shall call for a final re-inspection once the items are completed and
provide a letter statin g all items are satisfied . All punch list items must be
approved by the City of Fairhope Department Supervi sors prior to the punch li st
being released.
4. A street ligh t invoice showing the li ghts have been purchased shall be provided.
5. The submittal of a maintenance bond shall be required for all infrastructure being
accepted by the City of Fairhope.
Jennifer Fidler 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimousl y.
LID (Low Impact Development) -Report of GMC LID Coast Evaluation from
Thompson Engineering, Christopher Baker. Mr. Smith stated the grant will expire
soo n and action needs to be taken. Mr. Baker gave a power point presentation of the
results and findings of the cost eval uation done by Goodwyn Mills Cawood as requested
by the Commission. Mr. Baker gave the following report:
6
July 7, 20 14
Plan ning Co mm i ss io n Minu tes
I ..
Ju ly 2, 2014
City of Fa ir hope ?farming Comm issi on
P. 0. 3o;,: 429
Fa i r l10pe, .6-l 36533
RE : Report o fGMC LID Co st Evaluati on
De ar Commission ers :
/.i.s you are aware Tho mpson Engi neeri ng is v,•o rkir1g rnllabcrative lv w rt r1 'fCU t o d eve lop
all owan ces fo r Low lmpacc Design 1LID J v,·rchi n t l,e Ci ty's exist i ng r e,gu latorv documents. In
Janu arv 2014 I m ade a present ati on co the Ccn·1miss ion t l,at oLJ tlined the 20 recomme nded LID
techn l ques t l,at ar e mos t suita bl e t o Fairhope. li'✓hile the boctv of kn c vv ledge is large regarding
LID , w e des i r ed t o 1iarro·.v t he m ethcds t o he u se d i n Fa irhope so that the~• are mo st suitaole to
our r ai n events an d Fai r r1oi::e'.s gener al soil types, t c pograpr1v and ot her e1wircnm ental
v ari ab les. Th is filteri ng c f suitab le me t hods i s b ased o n the con cep t t hat what works i n
Ma r~·l an d, Seattl e. o r .Atlal'rta ma•; not work in Fa ir hope and these i deas cannnc sim ply be
transferr ed . fa rr hc pe rm.ts! ha '✓e a "Fa i rh ope'-' sol uti on .
At the meeting i n Januar~· the Co mmission r equ este d that '{Ou r Cit',' St aff ge t a co st compari son
cf i mp le n en t ing LI D on given pr oject s. Si n::e t ha t t i me '{c ur staff en.gaged Goo.ctwvn, M i l ls, an d
Cawo cd (Gf\oK) to perform trie co st ana lys i s. You r sta ff autl,or ized GMC t o mc ve f or w~n:l i n
late A.pr il. Jonatr1an an d I me t w ith Gf\.'.C at tl1e outset of t he proje::t and di rected Gl\•K tc
pr epar e a co~t co mparts.on f o r hi gh and low density 1-esident i al and l ar ge and sma ll sca le
ccmmerci al dev elo pment. GMC was dir ecte d r.o use sites t h at they had deve loped i n the
recem pas t ar.cl adapt them t o Fai rhc,p;e•'s r egul ati ons so t l1e compa r iso n and resu lt i ng
es timates wou ld be an app les t o app l es an.a ll•·sis. Due to bud ge t l imitatio ns. t l1e cost
com par isons were p erio,r med •w ith out fu lr blown engi neering, dr ain age reports, and the li ke.
Howeve r, w h at ·w as provi ded i s base d on previous expe n enci::s, kn own costs, and go ,::id
enginee ri ng jui:l gment. 11'lhi l e t h e ac t1.1al constr ucted dol lar amounts may va r)' w ith a co mp lete
engrneefrng s,t udy t r1e estimated co sts pro•,;i dcd are a goc11:f bam f rom w h i ch the CcJmmissi on
can un derstand cost iirpl i cat ic,11.s o f LID.
In gener al terms t l,e depl oyment c f LID crea te5 some devel opm en t 5cv ings, vec, mo.~t ly LI O
r esu lts in :::o nstruc t ion cmt a.d cnt i ons . Tl1e eva lua t ion perform ed b'r' GM C wa s p r edi cate d on
ha r d :::omt r...1 ct icn number s an d d id 1101 incl ude sc ft cos1s e r va l ue -suer. as t l1e savi ngs t hat a
sm all er r e:cem fon pend wou l d rep r e5en t .. o r rr1e creati on add iti ona l b u.ii din g ar ea .
_::;;-: ::.cfl:"9E: }--11 r .:::>(J~ .:•i..HE-• 9:
'/o::IJ::, >,L ~t ·::c:
'2[ I t6:i.2L'-,:? pt· ·: :., (H36 (~22 "3:t
..: t·, tn .,,..,. ~'.:-~"',:~;,;tt,!''!<'}"'i; tY'
7
July 7, 20 14
Plann in g Com mi ss ion M inute s
'1.V i"H:it is mcist 'in t er est ing is t hat in the commercia f appli cahons UD t ech nlques w·ou l d be
p ri vate ly ma i nta i ne d. In the lc•V.' dens i ty r es ident~! app fi cations UD t ech1,rq 1es .are more likely
t o be in the R01,,N , v,1hicl1 me an s that !he CJt\' wo 1ld u ltimatel y bear the rna intenance
r e.s pons ibilit")'. This i5 an important cons iderati on that , rrnn fd~•, has ain unknown cost to the Cit•,r;
be cause the imp lementation of LID i n a re sidenti al a.p pH cati on i'5 •Je.r y si t e 5pec ific and r elies c,ri.
~ngini:e rl ng judgment and des ign for app ro p riate us e. The i111 pdicatio 11 h:e ne i s t h at, in a
r e51denti a f app li cat i on , the Cit~' w ill like l·f lnrnr rna1imenance respons ibll'ity of LID, but it is
i ,possible to ,es t i marc e 1Nnat t ho se costs are tod ay . I a t of the opiri in n t ha t th,i ~ i s ti11e reas,:in
ti e LID examp l es ,::ire mo.s t freq rently comme rdal ap p lkat ions and t he r esldent1a l exam pl es are
t•,•prca lly executed b')' the City at places and cles.igm of t he Cit ts ch oo:s i ng .
Atta-:hed p le,ase fmcl copi es of the m e plans ·l eve l oped bv GMC. A sum mary of their f ind i ngs i s
as fel lows:
La rge Retan : Th is examp le is a mu i-t enant .s hopp ing ce ter wit!"1 assoc iated par~ing. LI D
t echn iqu es user! ·we r e:
f!£j;~'£lli!.' £ PA VF:J.ti.Ji-: Z t5 7-E't( :::r:.~?.~ !;~,ii ~:e t; (V/F.P. ,rN:
,~[CU.!R£. E,1~ rs
PtDf../tf. P!Jj~;>.•J,-:: ··;:o n-;'f ~•f.1:X..-~~'tJ..':i ?S :'i $),'=',A ('2,"k
=~L -~f;►v~;JC·J(~~, -~?~Ct_S ••• -~~-~-.: 4!.t -~'":f~Yf:ti (°L~ vf~f!~lf~
,.#:!,'.,.W~-~-1_! ~£'.Yi :ilf.f) ·, _!·~?'.~_.f :::~~~ -•-~-'•-HOW ··--_ -· ~-~ -~
0~-f~:1:'•~~hf.~--{. -. 82;! ,!.(:
f.'-'':'.,'/1/ -:...~rRD£/.•:;: (K.:t) -_'tl!!..)!J :;r:·
.W.f.r. .PE: ... ·,,,fv~• 'p-t1.• .1 P.
l if-"4{} ~tr-' .~¼UA(."f. ~ -,..,'j,(J-4{?
. -~Je~.;>(-:L
_-;f1~.;;;,;,,L .. ,
.. J §f~~~ft (,r -,_f)~.22-f_."
J.:~VJ'ul_ ;,[ ':', $3.J., Mc;
rn:.1 .F'f:.~· s,· -11:.:1,h·;i
!1
In t h is e:·:.:arnple add 1ti onaf par fdng in excess of tr,e Cit/s r equi emen t s 1Nas not .a llowed .
Ad ditiona ll y, 3Cf~. oi t he p ar ki ng spa ce s are for compac t ca r 5 -whic l1 n ea11s t ha t the space:5 are
sma ll•er_ Fairl wpe, bv co m pari son , has pa.r king sp ace r equ ireme n t c f 10:-:20; v-; io:, i 5. larger t h an
nos, juri 5dictio m. t hroughout South .Ala bam a r equ ire. A titp1ca l comp act ,:ar par king space is
:8 :i; 15, 1.v l1i ch ls a 40 % re duct i on in pa rk i ng sp ace size. Thi= utrl iztion of a wet p:on d for
sw r mwa t i:r m anage m e:m is a nenero , due t he factthatfro a ccnstructron cost pe rs pective
t here is ,.,er y !ret ie cli ffere 11 ce between a we t and cl .ry po d. Tl1e t ota t r.esu lt , in t his sce nar io is
t hat t he rn 1 ·strcticw, co s;;: irn:rease5 'by $2 46 ,040 .00 whEc h i.s a 1 ad ditiona l $1 .66 pe r squa re foot
of l e:-as a.ble sp a,:: e.
Sma ll Reta i l: T h.i ~ exam JJ le i s a f re,e s.t an cl i ng drug store ·w ith a:sso d at ,ed J}a,ki ng.
med we re :
Tee inques
PERlfi:.A.BL[ /'-1,.l·f'Lff.":/' 5f'3 !E4.-f Pi]P =;,~i;;-,:5 O·{ll7f
)-,~-ct.,?P.C°!i}EN re
f~EO.t)i.:[ P.d8 ''N'JG 1'0 Th'E: ~£0J.J,-f?ff.) 5~ SP.4C'"_i
.J~1,i!J:k Ju~·-/_if' t;:.•,t..c-1:s ro ·Dr-rw.~7: 'cclu0,1cr ',i£rtiC1..rs
_21.:)sio'..iu".5 -.;r.9 d •• • ••
/,\!.,/1\J GARD.£1..:S -5% sr
, .$J<i40 Pf;/i 5{·'Af.."( ~r-t /ff.f.2 __ !I
j ')SJ ('£6 Sfl,1 Cf."'.. -,$,8,f5Q.,_:
$250 PE/? 5PA~'f :=-. -J.;-1.,"00
f M .. "190
8
July 7, 20 14
Pl an ning Com mi ssio n Minutes
Th is exam ple ;.all ows the same concept~-o • t e l arge r eta il me cioned above., \'lith, a parking
space maxi mum ;;;ind l JSe of corn pact par ing space s. This ex an pi e was a re de·,,e lo pment of a11
existi ng propert y an d ston w ater management was assumed to be eit rve r ., de r gmu d or not
r equir ed. le is im portant t c not e here th.at I be li eve that even ir il r ede ·,,•e l opment c ase ,
Fa i r l op e wc,u !d stUI re qu'ire a dherence t o rn:m wa te r rra 1 age ment re u iren erts.
Neve rthel ess, ti e const ruct1on cost fo r u::.i ng LID r es ilts in an ad d condi t i on tota li ng $48,860.00
whlch LS a I additi on.ai r $3.60 per squa r e fDoc of bu i lding area.
Hi gl1 [)emitv Resident iil l: In th1s examp l e G .,,,c used a t ow home t •,•pe development. This
\Vou ld be si m il ar ·,n size a nd sco pe to an apartment .. condo, o r retir ement •.iillage type
deve l opments. LID te;:t n i 1Jes used wen'!:
,I~~~:::·. -~~-,!.t , 1~'i{f"'. (\• .•V,.ll •,t
I (;,-V-{f~,ii W.4 y~;
i :,.-/;~u-~i-,.:: .. -;f~(}-r~:' /l}l,t ::1r:~v
~ti '1 ,}!, i1t.·f 1-1~!11-a' .... '(},\1:J--1 .,i~:_,: . -,.
.fj
$1 _S,f,f-i)
s ~.~1.xj ;..;f/5 ~;,,_;i_},:;,"-'s_:lr-J J.::{1j.:_j.7j
1.::
.~.1,-~ ,-;-r ~ f,rr5-~74. ?/.\::'
It ,s. ,mport:a 1t rn note t ha t most of the UO techniques used he re ar e net located i n che ROW .
Thus, LID m this appl icat i on rs mor e akin to a rnmmerc ia l t;l'pe of de·,1e lopment. It is ass um ed
that t r ,e 1.111de•,1e lo1,Jed portions of the pr op ,ert·t wo fd be unde r H!OP., control ancl thu.5
maintenance •Nc,uld be perfor med l:;.y the o·Nne r s, as i n a 1ow den,s.itv res i dential d e1.'e l opment.
In ti is examp le the cost im p !i cati orts t ott1e Ci t y t o impl ernent LID appearto be verv small. As
w ith [l,e p r e•✓i ous examp l es UO represents a rns t i nc r ease t o the p:ro -ect. The to t al c:on.strtJC tic111
ccs r irt-:rease is $2,386 pe r u lf t _
Low Demity Residentia l : In this final e);amp l e GMC utHiz.ed a co nvent fona ! re5i clentia f
devel ei oment th""t is nnu-c l li ke 'l'wu l d e seer in Fairhooe. J techn i ques 15,e(l we r e:
o•~·~Ai~:2Jt.t ~:~~~~/ t _';fr-ft.sf~,,.
1:?f,:ff,'.y_v,:t, />
i ~ 5 :c~·t"'r"A (r()N Of ;..1 ,.1t?1 --.,; .' f ••
·~,i•Ji .t:1-1-:.i ·:r !i 1~:.;.,,·_r:;i tt .ri::i o•1 y>, -~
.tt"~ ;:;,~tr ,\'~~~~~! __ -:~fl1i~;,'-<1t1 :·_;, .
.1ti·::p'l __ i:-r.,i;;_ ._:~f :"t !~_rJ. M(J:~:tt _6t)p / ._'f i; J ~~:5_~/~~:t'?_T~~
$ .~r"!t F'cJ?" PD("1-:·t t-/.., r~. {X?{}
$()
Please note that many, bu t not aB, or t he LID techni qu es a re in the '?.01.1•/ an 1.vou l d rep resent a
m ai tenance cost to tl,e Citv , as p revious lv dis cussed _ Redu~ed RO\N V.'idt lis 'We.r e ut Hi1ed i n
Ht i5 examp-le ancl w l1ile •his r epreser cs a 5ma l le area , ease1nents are sti ll required t,o f acilita.te
utiliy 1fr.t ri bt 1t lon throughcm the ~ite. The educe O.O'o/./ widths rep r esents t he fac t that l.ess
a ea ofthesite has to be clea red and d is t 1r bed. Th is ~ite Ian a lso co, ·.e r 1plat-=S r estoration of
a cree . o r wec lands ar ea. Vl l1i!e thi.5 ts a laudab le tre chn iq ue an d one thap certa1nly has a ben e it
lt wou ld not be ut ll i.z.ed very· ofcen unless trie US.li.COE req · ,ire d it. Tt1us ,. fo r purpc,5.es of co5 t
com i:J.ar r::;i on tlnc-sc nu rnb.ers have been de l eted. Tt e use cf LID i n tt i s setti g appea r s to be
9
Jul y?,20 14
Planning Commission M inutes
quite affor dab le f rom a consuuct ton cos t perspec t ive since it total s $39,000 which rep re se-nts
an acldi ttona ! co st of $692 .00 pe r lot.
Conc:l usior1:
It ls no smpn se t ha t 1he large r the proj ect the l ess costl 1; UO becomes. On commercial sites LID
is most f requent ly utilized. In a law dens 1t'{ cor.ventiona l r esidental application LID represents a
lov,• construction co st, yet a ma intenance ccncem for the City, snnce mos t of the imprnvemems
are i n the RO\.V.
Fundamen t al ·{ UD, from a const ruction per spective, do es incr ease ccs t .
Oec:i si on Po int:
At the Ju ly m eeting the Cornrnissicn needs t o give pl,il osphica l dlrectton as it relatesto LID and
how test to revise Fairr1o pe's ex i stin g regu l at o r\' f ra rnework . General cl ircct]on sttch as t o
si mplv re q L1ir e LID to be us.ed,. a certai n percan tage of the site to utili ze !O, or .ii..1st simpt•,, make
LID an opti on for t he deve lopment communlt'{ are opti ons for cons iderati on. four staff and
Tllompson Eng ineering nee d yc,u r phi1osph ica l di rect i on so we can pr oceed in making the
necessa t"{ re vi 5i ons and satisfy t he te r ms of the grant t hat e:<p,ires i n Augus t .
Respectfully ,
Christoph er D. Bake r .. AIC P, tvlBA
Director of Plann,in,g
Th c>mpson Engineeri n.g
10
July 7, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Baker summarized the report saying the use of LID techniques will result in
construction cost additions for the developer and that most are located in the ROW and
the City would be accepting maintenance when complete. Mr. Roberds asked if the street
wi II be used as part of the drainage and Mr. Baker responded it would depend on which
technique is used. Mrs. Fidler stated the taxpayers wi ll be paying for the maintenance of
these developments and we really need to start in the older developments that were built
in the 70's and 80 's where there is nothing. She stated the City needs to go in and put
these types of techniques in but we must have the emp lo yees to maintain them. Mr.
Turner stated the C ity Co unci l needs to be on this process because it will be the City
maintaining these areas and it will be a cost to the City. He also added these prices co uld
vary based on site and the soils in this area. Mr. Baker explained this is a very s ite
specific process and GMC did not do a full drainage design but overall LID is a cost add,
but it is cheaper the bigger the project. Mr. Turner asked if our parking requirements
could also be amended to help with the use of LID. Mr. Baker stated Fairhope c un-ently
requires a 1 0x20 parking space which i s the largest of any of the surrounding areas. He
stated staff needs guidance from the Commission as to how the draft should be written,
which is due by the end of August. He asked if the Commission wo ul d prefer LID be
required, a portion be required , or not require it at all and only give suggestio ns. Mr.
Turner and Mr. Roberds stated it should be required on all developments. Mrs. Brewer
said she understands the maintenance but if we require it n ow it w ill keep us from being
in this same spot in 10 years. Mrs. MacKellar stated Fairhope is growin g and it's not
going to stop so it's better to be proactive. Mr. Charl es stated Rock Creek pays for the
maintenance of their drainage faci lities. Mrs. Fidler said it is not fair for Rock Creek to
pay for their subdi v ision and for the rest of the City now too. Mr. Baker stated the LID
maintenance would be part of the O&M Plan which is already required so the City would
know what the m ai n tenance wo uld be. He added the Impact Fee does not go toward
storm water and requiring LID wi ll go a lon g way to sati sfy MS4 requirements which are
not getting any easier. Mr. Roberds agreed the federal requirements are getting harder for
storm water and it is better to get ahead. Mr. C lark stated this is something that has to be
done, storm water is an issue and it will have to be required if it 's going to get done.
Mrs. Fidler said this is a big step and fee ls that we should only require a percentage and
she recommended 60% and the developers w ill come up with a way to do it. Mr.
Roberds stated that as a developer he thinks it s hould be across the board and be required.
Mr. Baker said the census is that it should be required on all sites. He said thi s will not
be one document but tweaks to all of the ordinances and regulations that govern
development. Mr. Turner stated there w ill be a meeting on Mo nday, July 2 1, 2014 at
4:00 PM for the City Counci l to hear thi s presentation to keep them informed since it will
affect th e m and be a cost to the City. George Roberds made a motion to approve staff to
move forward to draft a plan that wi ll require LID techniques to be used for all
devel opments. Dick Charles 2nd t he motion and the motion can-ied unanimously . Mr.
Baker stated ther e will be add itional meetin gs before the amendments are made and there
w ill be town ha ll meetings and notices se nt to builders, contractors, and developers so it
won't be a surprise and st aff can receive their input.
Dick Charles made a motion to adjourn and was 2nd by George Roberds.
Having no furthe r business, the meeting was over at 7:23 PM.
11
Jul y 7, 20 14
Planning Commiss ion Minutes
Lee Turner, Chairman ------
12