HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-2017 Planning Commission Agenda PacketKari n Wilson
M,ryor
Council .I/embers
Kevin G. Boone
Roben A. Brown
Jack Burrell. ACMO
Jimmy Conyers
Jay Robinson
Lisa A. Hanks, MMC
Ci{J' Clerk
Deborah A. Smith, CPA
Ci{J' 'ThYISllf<'f
161 Nonh Section Srreet
P.O. Drawer 429
Fairhope, Alabama 36533
25 1-928-2136
251-92S-6776 Fax
11~1w.fairhopeal.go\'
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
Council Chambers
November 6, 2017
2. Approval of October 2, 2017 Minutes
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. ZC 17.15
B. ZC 17 .16
Public hearing to consider the tequest of the City of
Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for a proposed
amendment to Article II, Section C.2 of Ordinance #1253,
known as the Zoning Ordinance regarding Site Plan
Rev iews.
Public hearing to consider the request of the City of
Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for a proposed
amendment to Article II, Section C.1 of Ordinance #1253,
known as the Zoning Ordinance regarding Application
Procedures for zoning amendments.
C. SD 17.27 Public hearing to cons ider the request of HMR, LLC for
plat approval of Point Clear Village, a 3-lot minor
subdivision. The property is located on the south side of
County Road 32, one parcel east of the intersection of
County Road 32 and Scenic Hwy. 98.
PPIN #: 213429 and 19994
D. UR 17.04 Request of Mediacom for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and
approval of the proposed underground installation of
approximately 11,306 linea r feet of CATV cable . The
project will run throughout The Waters subdivision.
E. UR 17.05 Request of Mediacom for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and
approval of the proposed underground installation of
approx imatel y 13,525 li near feet of CATV cable. The
proj ect will run throughout the Fairhop e Falls subdivision .
4. Old/New Business
• Resolution 2017-01 to amend the Planning Comm ission By-l aws regarding
Outside Communication .
• Election of Officers
• 2018 Agenda Schedul e and Deadlines
5. Adjourn
October 2, 201 7
Planning Co mmi ssion Minutes
The Planning Commission met Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Charles Johnson; Richard
Peterson; Ralph Thayer; Hollie MacKellar; Jay Robinson; Wayne Dyess, Planning
Director; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City
Attorney
Absent: Buford King, Planner
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:04 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded. Mr. Turner announced the proposed rezoning on Manley Road for
Pinewood Subdivision is not on tonight's agenda and Item H. SD 17.20 has been
withdrawn by the applicant. He also stated Item L. SD 17 .24 will be heard first.
The minutes of the September 5, 2017 meeting were considered and Ralph Thayer moved
to accept the minutes as corrected and was 2nd by Charles Johnson. The motion carried
with abstentions by Rebecca Bryant and Jay Robinson.
ZC 17 .14 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning
and Zoning Department for a proposed amendment to Article Ill, Section D.9
Accessory Dwelling Units of Ordinance #1253, known as the Zoning Ordinance,
Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying this amendment was continued
from the September meeting and the purpose of this amendment is to allow accessory
dwelling units (with kitchens to make a bona fide dwelling unit), subject to locational
requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The benefits of acces sory dwelling
units are many including having the ability to age in place, affordable housing, and the
ability to have family stay close such as young adult relatives starting careers or elderly
parents. These serve not only economic benefits to a family but al so social benefits.
Staff recommendation is to approve as proposed.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing .
Dr. Thayer stated lots of accessory dwelling units are manufactured and #11 states
manufactured homes may not be us ed . Mr. Dyess stated he was addressing specific
concerns. Mrs. Bryant said prefabricated elements may be more appealing to some
residents and she suggested tying the restrictions to the building code and not just
eliminating manufactured homes . Mr. Turner stated any structure will have to meet the
building code and s aid the important thing would be to make sure the wind requirements
are met. Dr. Thayer asked what the parking requirements are for a principal dwelling and
Mr. Dyess responded 2 spaces and 1 additional space would have to be added for an
accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Turner asked for clarification regarding the term "family."
Mr. Dyess explained it would prevent accessory dwelling units from being rented by
multiple people. Mr. Peterson asked if RVs would b e considered a manufactured home
and allowed as an accessory dwelling unit and Mr. Dyess responded no. Mr. Robinson
asked ifthere is a definition of a manufactured home in the ordinance and Mr. Dyess
responded ye s. Mrs. Bryant stated there are manufactured homes that meet t11e building
code and not just the watered-down HUD requirements. Mrs . Bryant said she thinks this
is a positive amendment.
1
October 2, 20 I 7
Planning Commission Minutes
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to approve the proposed accessory dwelling unit
amendment with the following conditions:
1. Consolidate number 1 and 8 into one requirement regarding size restrictions.
2. Number 11 be tied to the building code and not completely prohibit manufactured
homes.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
ZC 17 .15 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning
and Zoning Department for a proposed amendment to Article II, Section C.2
regarding Site Plan Review of Ordinance #1253, known as the Zoning Ordinance,
Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess requested this case be heard for comments only and continued
until next month for consideration. He explained the purpose is to allow more focus on
planning aspects of site plan review rather than the detailed engineering. He stated this
will shift the review from engineering to compatibility and site integration with the
surroundings .
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Turner asked if this will require any commercial rezoning request to have a site plan
and Mr. Dyess responded yes. Mr. Dyess explained this will allow staff, Planning
Commission, City Council, and the community to know what will be constructed and
what it will look like when there is a zoning change. Mrs. Bryant asked if this
requirement will only apply for properties rezoning from residential to commercial and
Mr. Dyess answered no, it will be for all rezonings. Mr. Turner expressed concerns that
this will be a deterrent for annexation. Mr. Turner and Mr. Robinson questioned the
requirement that all major subdivisions will have to go through the City Council. Mr.
Dyess stated this requirement would only be for subdivisions requesting a zoning change.
Mrs. Bryant said it seems the purpose is to eliminate detail and expense at the beginning
but the submittal requirements still mandate full architectural drawings. Mr. Dyess
explained there is an accompanying amendment corning next month with additional pre-
application procedures. Mrs. Bryant suggested also allowing some flexibility for
changes. Mr. Peterson asked the difference between a PUD and this site plan review.
Mr. Dyess stated PUDs allow for flexibility and waivers to the regulations and a site plan
does not allow any deviations from the regulations. Mrs. MacKellar asked if there will
be a sunset clause for site plans and Mr. Dyess responded yes, a 1 year expiration with
possible extension granted by the City Council. Mr. Dyas asked if site plan expires
would the zoning revert to the previous zoning and Mr. Dyess stated that could be one
possibility or the zoning could remain but a new site plan would have to be approved.
Mrs. MacKellar stated she liked the expiration clause and said we need to be prepared for
the effects of our decisions. Mr. Turner stated h e likes the proposed amendment and
thinks it will help with Greeno Road.
SD 17.25 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for Final plat
approval of Pinewood Subdivision, a 7-lot division, Tom Granger. The property is located
on the south side of Manley Road between Saddlewood Subdivision and the Fairhope Municipal
Soccer Complex. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 9.7
acres and 7 lots are proposed. The property is w12oned in Baldwin County but is surrounded by
City of Fairhope R-1 Single Fami ly Residential District zoned property. Staff recommendation
is to approve w ith the following conditions:
2
October 2, 2017
Plan ning Commission Minutes
1. The applicant shall install the water service for the lots facing Manley Road.
2. Approval of the 10 ' right-of-way dedication by City of Fairhope City Council.
3. The applicant shall submit GIS As-builts for final approval by the City of Fairhope Water
Department when completed.
Mrs. Milford stated the City Council has already accepted the 10' right-of-way dedication
and that condition can be removed.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. MacKellar asked what will be done with Lot 7 and Mr. Granger responded nothing
at this time. He noted the applicant is contemplating a Phase 2 but nothing has been done
so far. Dr. Thayer asked if the soccer complex can handle the drainage and Mrs. Milford
stated there is a letter from the engineer of record for the soccer complex verifying the
drainage facilities are sufficient. Mr. Dyas asked if Lots 1-6 will each have a driveway
onto Manley Road and Mr. Granger responded yes.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall install the water service for the lots facing Manley Road.
2 . The applicant shall submit GIS As-builts for final approval by the City of Fairhope Water
Department when completed.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
SD 17.26 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC for
plat approval of Main Street at Montrose, a 3-lot minor subdivision, Steve
Pumphrey. The property is located on the east side of main Street between Ledyard
Street and Ecor Dechene. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying the property is
approximately 2.55 acres and is the first phase of the Montrose Preserve PUD. Staff
recommendation is to approve with the fo llowing conditions:
1. Make corrections to the preliminary/final plat certificate blocks to reflect The
Utilities Board of the City of Daphne (Daphne Utilities) as the drinking water
provider to the subject property.
2 . Make corrections to the preliminary/final plat certificate blocks to reflect Riviera
Utilities as the ele ctrical provider to the subject property.
3. Finished Floor Elevations shall be reflected on the plat prior to recording.
4. Submission under separate cover and approval of a fire flow model for the subject
property is a condition of approval. Indicate the location of the nearest fire
hydrant on the plat prior to recording.
5. Make corrections to the preliminary/final plat to reflect 15 ' drainage and utility
easements as required by City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article V,
Section E. 5. a.
Mr. Dyas stated only condition number 4 is still outstanding at this time. Mr. Dyas asked
for some details of the PUD since most of the Commissioners are new. Mr. Turner stated
the app licants worked with staff and the residents of Montrose to come up with a plan
that everyone was happy with. He added the applicant designed the project to keep the
existing trees and not tie into the narrow streets in Montrose. Mr. Dyas asked if this is
the entire project and Mr. Dyess responded no, the overall project is much larger. Mrs .
Bryant questioned the drainage on the rear of the lots and Mr. Pumphrey responded the
drainage area is not on the lots but behind them. Mr. Dyas asked if the PUD is
completely residential and Mr. Pumphrey responded yes. Dr. Thayer asked about the
3
October 2, 2017
Planning Commission Minutes
conservation easement and Mr. Pumphrey stated nothing has been done with it to date but
it will be included with an additional phase of the project.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. MacKellar thanked the applicant for working with the residents to design a project
they were all supportive of.
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve with the
following condition:
1. Submission under separate cover and approval of a fire flow model for the subject
property is a condition of approval. Indicate the location of the nearest fire
hydrant on the plat prior to recording.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
Old/New Business
Mr. Dyess introduced Richard Johnson as the new Public Works Director. Dr. Thayer
stated half of the complaints the Commission hears are about drainage. Mr. Johnson said
he is looking forward to working with the Commission and staff to help the fix the
drainage issues not just move them around.
By-Laws Discussion -Art Dyas -Mr. Dyas explained he would like to propose an
amendment to the Planning Commission's By-Laws regarding outside communication
and transparency. He stated it will provide guidelines for the Commission to disclose
whether there has been any outside communication to allow for everyone to be privy to
the same information prior to the case being heard. He added it will allow
Commissioners a "way out" when they are approached outside of meetings. Mr. Peterson
asked how it will affect him in regard to working with the utilities and Mr. Dyess
explained he will just disclose anything at the meeting . Mr. Turner, Mr. Robinson, and
Mrs. Bryant agreed this is something that is needed and were in favor of the amendment.
Having no further business, Art Dyas made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Thayer 2nd the
motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 PM.
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
4
MEMO
Date: October 30, 2017
To: Fairhope Planning Commission
From: Wayne Dyess, AICP
Planning Director
Re: ZC 17.15 Site Plan Review Amendment
******************************************************************************
The attached is a proposed amendment to the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article II. Section C.2.
regarding site plan reviews. Below is the current language and the proposed language is attached as a
"draft".
Th intent of the proposed site plan review language is to focus more on the planning aspects of site plan
review rather than the detailed engineering. This will shift the primary focus of a site plan review being
heard by the Planning Commission and City Council from an engineering review to a planning review
where compatibility and site integration with the surroundings will be the primary focus. However, all
projects will still receive a thorough and detailed engineering review based on City ordinances and
standards, but only after site plan approval is given by the City Council. The proposed language also
contains several footnotes which provide some context for the changes.
This proposed amendment was presented at the October 2nd Planning Commission meeting for
discussion and comments. Staff has incorporated the Commission's comment into the attached draft.
The current language contained in Article II. Section C.2. is as follows:
2. Site Plan
a. Initiation -Review of (preliminary) site plans accompanying a zoning map amendment shall be
reviewed according to the zoning amendment procedures. (Final) site plans that do not accompany a
zoning map amendment shall be reviewed according to this section . Site plan approval is required when
any commercial building(s) located in a business-zoning district (industrial zoning excluded) or in the CBD
overlay:
(1) Has a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or greater; or,
(2) More than 30% of the lot (excluding the building) is impervious; or
(3) All applications for zoning map amendments to rezone property to any of the Village Districts in
Article VI . However, applicants for rezoning to the village districts may elect to use the special review
procedures in Article VI, Section D. for review of the rezoning application and site plans associated
with a village development.
(4) A mandatory site plan review application for all mixed-use projects electing to build to 35 feet height
with 33% residential, regardless of whether or not it triggers site plan review approval, must make
application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.
b. Application -An application for site plan review shall be submitted on the application form provided by
the Director of Planning and Building. The application shall include all information requested on the
application form. Preliminary review with the Director and the Planning Commission, prior to a formal
application is encouraged. If the application is not complete, the Director shall notify the applicant in
writing indicating necessary steps to cure the incomplete application. The application shall be submitted
with drawings showing the location of the site and all existing and proposed buildings with sufficient
information to evaluate impacts on adjacent properties. Sheet size shall be large enough to document all
physical features and shall be suitable for public record. The application does not require public notice
nor public hearing.
c. Review -Site plan review shaJ/ occur according to the following:
(1) A complete application shall be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building.
(2) Applications shaJ/ be submitted according to the published Planning Comm ission schedule. The
Planning Commission shaJ/ consider the application and take one of the foJ/owing actions:
(a) Approve the site plan;
(b} Approve the site plan, conditioned on specific revision s;
(c) Deny the site plan; or
(d) Continue discussion of the application for further study. An application shall only be continued one
time without the applicant's consent before the Planning Commission shall take one of theabove actions.
An applicant may agree to more continuances.
(3) The City Council shall consider the site plan only after review and recommendation from the Planning
Commission . The City Council shall have the final authority on site plan approval.
d. Criteria -The application shall be reviewed based on the following criteria:
(1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
(2) Compliance with any other approved planning documents;
{3} Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance and applicable zon i ng districts;
{4} Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
(5) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
{6} Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts,
and property values;
{7} Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values;
(BJ Overall benefit to the community;
(9) Compliance with sound planning principles;
(10) Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval;
{11} Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community;
{12) Property boundaries with dimensions and setback lines;
{13} Location of proposed buildings and structures indicating size s in square feet;
{14) Data to show percentage of lot covered with existing and proposed buildings;
{15} Elevations indicating ex terior materials;
{16} The locations, intensity, and height of exterior lights;
{17} The locations of mechanical equipment;
{18) Outside storage and/or display;
{19} Drive-up window locations (must be away from residential uses/districts and not in front of
building);
{20} Curb-cut detail and location(s);
(21) Parking, loading, and maneuvering areas;
(22) Landscaping plan in accordance w ith the City Landscape Ordinance;
(23} Location, materials, and elevation of any and all fences and/or walls;
(24} Dumpster location and screening; and
(25} Location and size of all signage.
e. Effect and Limitation on Approval -Site plan approval stands for 365 days from the approval date. If
the building permit has not been issued within this time, the site plan approval shall be null and void. The
Council may consider a request for extension of this time up to 180 additional days for good cause. The
site plan may be amended, but amendments shall be subject to the same procedures as a new site plan
approval.
f. Modifications -Modifications in substantial conformance with an approved site plan may be approved
by the Director of Planning and Building if they meet the following conditions:
(1) The modification addresses actual site conditions that were not anticipated in the reviewed site plan;
(2) The modification meets the intent of the site plan standards in an equivalent or improved manner
than the original site plan; and
(3) The modification results in no greater impact on adjacent property than the approved site plan.
g. Nullification for Misrepresentation -Any site plan decision that is based in any part on testimony,
plans, studies or other support that is later found to have been a material misrepresentation may be
summarily nullified. Summary nullification shall require evidence of the misrepresentation at a formal
Council meeting and the concurring vote of 4 members of the City Council. It shall not require a formal
site plan review process because the initial Council action will be determined null and void due to the
material misrepresentation.
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
1 City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance
2 Article II. Section C.
3 2. Site Plan Review
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
This section enables the City and the developer to collaborate in the processing of certain
development approvals and to enhance the planning process .Ii{ providing timely, integrated
processing and review . The site plan process is intended ~~::pf bvide an overview of the
applicant's proposed land development. In this context}tn~:~site plan will be used to determine ..... ;.... ·:• ....... , .. ·,•
compliance with ordinances, statutes, regulations and ·b tiier ap·plinable requirements and
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. • ::~:::::
A. Applicability. A site plan review is req uired in accordance with the following: -.-.-.. ·.-
1. Zoning Map Amendment1, when:
a. The amendment is an .-office, retail, or service us e as described iri-"Article Ill, B.
Table 3-1; :~(.··<·•:· •
b. The amendment is a tw~_;fa mi.ly 1 multi-fam ily; apartment or mixed use project.
2 . Central Business District (CBD)2 \.vh en:
a. Gross floo r~;afe a.,exceeds 10,000 squar e fe et;
b. The im6:~:ft/g ~,~::;~H}face ratio (ISR ), excl uding:building footprint, exceeds .30;
3. Village Distri 2{~~::when: ···:~,. • •
a. Site pla Mfa view shall be in accord ·ance with Article VI. Section D.
'•'":::)).
1' ~
B. .R~fo f~w Procedu res. .J',~.•;•~·-. .. •
1. :tJ?:f e -application co nference . All applicant m ust first attend a mandatory pre-application
c·aht er.ence with City '.sta ff in ac co r dance with Article II, 8 .14 .
2. Com ~uhity Meeting. -P~ior to ~-ak.in g application for site plan review the applicant must
conduct a-:~_ommunity m_eet ing in accordance with Article 11, 8.2 5 . At the time of
application,.tft'e followi_ng __ ~ust be provided:
i. • dopy of not ice mailed to neighboring properties for t he community
m~~Hnr{stating date, time, location, nature and subject of the meeting.
ii. Copy of site plan or other descriptive information discussed
iii. Attendance sign in sheet.
iv. Meeting minutes
v. Written comments in leu of attendance if provided
1 This pr ocess is si mila r to the cur r en t language i n Article II, Section C.2. Site Plan ., w he r e i t calls for a "preliminary"
rev i ew of site plans when rezoning prope rty.
2 This language is the same as current requirements in Article II, Section C.2 . Site Plan .
3This language is t he same as current requi re ments in Article II , Section C.2 . Site Plan .
4 This process is a proposed requi rement and does not currently exists in the ordinance .
5 This process is a proposed requirement and does not currently exists in t he ordinance.
Page I -1 -
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
so
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
C. Submittal Requirements and Format of Development Plans.
1. Name of Development. Every development shall be given a name by which it shall be
officially known. The name of the development shall be indicated on every page of
the application and supporting documentation submitted for review.
2. All plans shall be drawn no smaller than to a scale of one inch equals 100 feet (1" =
100'}, unless the Director of the department of planning and zoning determines that
a different scale is sufficient or necessary for proper review of the proposal.
3. The plans shall be 24 inches by 36 inches (24" x 36") in size with 1 set in the 11x17
format.
4. If multiple sheets are used, the consecutive sheet number and the total number of
sheets must be clearly indicated on each sheet ::·:::::·.
5. Unless a format is specifically called for bel &~(the information required may be
presented textually, graphically or on a ·m.ap, plan, aerial photograph, or by other
means, whichever most clearly conv.~W~~he required info.i-i~ration. It is the
responsibility of the developer to ~HB~mit the information in ,{form that allows ready
determination of whether the requir·~:m:ents of thi§~Code have 6.e.eh met. In cases of
uncertainty, the developet:.·should cons~:ifmitli~l ii:~":;:Director of the D~partment of
Planning and Zoning. Ap
0
6'itt~hts shall also sJ &Afrt an electronic copy of all submitted
,-:,••;•. ❖, • -❖• ,;,.:r•~i•,
materials Adobe pdf forma't al~_ng':\Nith the appli'tation.
'❖,: •• -~~t
D. General Information.
.,:► ·:.:; •
~ ,.
1. The name .. atii:1 address ·of each owner of.:the property::Where a corporation or
company is the~:0wner of the ·property. tne· name and address of the president and
secretary of the e·rif ity shall be shown. • ••• . ~ -~ .,
·:•
2{:A ,fomplete.legal descr1ption of the property.
• " .. '• ·.-: ... -
·: 3 }rhe name and business address of the individual(s) responsible for preparation of the
draw1ng(s). Each sh~et of the ·pfan(s) shall contain a title block including the name of the
deve1~·6ment, the graphic scale,~-n'brth arrow, the date of preparation of the plan, and
dates of ~~vision(s). :,: •
4. A general vicinity or location map showing the position of the proposed development
and the position dfthe:principal roads, city limits, and other pertinent orientation
information.
5. Identification and depiction of the boundaries of the property as determined and
certified by a registered professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Alabama with
a legal description.
6. The area of the property shown in square feet or acres.
Page I -2 -
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
7. Identification of the land use designation(s) and densities of land areas adjacent
to the proposed development, and an indication of the relationship of the
transportation systems of adjacent development to the proposed development.
8. A development schedule setting forth the approximate date construction of the
development, and stages of the development, can be expected to begin and to be
completed.
9. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to future sale or lease of all
or any portion(s) of the development (such as particular land areas, dwelling units,
and commercial facilities).
C. Current Condition Information.
1. A topographic survey, certified by a land::~:urveyor registered in the State of
Alabama, of the existing project site wh.i ch shall includ~~ at a minimum, two-foot
...... : .··•:•··". . .• -~
contour lines, and the mean high-wate·r line where applicable .
2. The location, width, and name ck~Yl-existing or previously"platted streets,
railroads, and utility rights-of-way. ·\~:
3. The location and depth::bf existing sanitary and stormwater sewers and manhole
locations, water and gas ::Mt~i hs; culverts, and underground facilities within the
property, contiguous prope:h:ies and•:right-of-way, indicating pipe sizes. grades, . ,•,
manholes, and location. '·, :•.
4. The 100-year~flood elevatiori•, boundaries of the 100~year floodplain, and
minimun:r:Mtuired floor: elevatio ~-~ if app.li.cabl(.fr om current FEMA FIRM maps.
5. A depicft;;;~_?f existing-surface water bodies, wetfands, streams, and canals, within
the proposed::aevelopment site and within 100 feet of the proposed development
site.;;~which depictidn .~hali' i'iic1~·ae the ~o~ndaries and elevations of any jurisdictional . . . ··~--.· ~ .. .. ..,. . -. . ,'\. ......... )· ~-,
,.(\. '.or isolated ·wetland(sn~cluding but'n·ot limited to ponds, lakes, Fish River, Mobile
•:•;-: •. ~--.. •,.
·,::_ •-:Bay, and Othe·r,Watersheds.
Page I -3 -
·6(;:l:opographic sb'f~eys for 'proposed subdivisions which have lots of four acres or
mo f~:may show con·t ours at (5) five-foot intervals.
D. Information on Proposed Development Activities and Design.
1. StructureL Each a·pplication shall include building plans indicating, at a minimum:
(a) The locatiori,.dimensions, gross floor area, and proposed use of each building,
consistent with the Article Ill, Use Table typology,
(b) The total number and type of residential units. categorized according to number
of bedrooms, and total number of residential units per acre (gross density)
calculations for the project;
(c) Floor area, height and types of office, commercial. industrial and other proposed
nonresidential structures and uses, with floor area ratio calculations for each such
structure and use;
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
3.
(d) Total area, and percentage of total site area, to be covered by impervious
surface(s);
(e) Conceptual architectural or engineering sketches of all sides of each building
except one-or two-family dwelling units;
(f) Building setback distances from property lines, abutting right-of-way centerlines,
and all adjacent buildings and structures; and
(g) Location, size, type and lighting method of all proposed sign age,
(h) Construction phase lines.
2. Transportation . Each application shall include draWing(s) of streets, parking areas, ' .• .-
loading areas, and other vehicle and pedestrian t raffic-ways and areas, which shall
indicate: ··:: ..
(a) The site plan layout of all streets, bike ~paths, and driveways, with paving or other
surface material noted and drainag~;W~h s and proposed areas of access for ingress
or egress to existing rights-of-way ·f&f.~~11 public and private s'tr.~ets and paved areas ;
(b) A parking and loading plan showi ~~fil~-e totaLn J mber and di M~nsions of
proposed parking spaces c spaces reserve ~~'.fd r:.ha i:fHi capped parkin g; ioading areas,
proposed ingress and egf~~s-:I~n cluding prop:d~~~d public street modifications), and
the projected onsite traffi ~:iffow%na :::• ,~~:~-
•• ·!-.•.·
Utilities. Eac lf;app.licati ci n shall include -infdrma'f°ion·h ~lating to and drawing(s) depicting
utilities, whi~~:~hall indicate :
a. Letter of ava i lability fo r-service from .each utility;
/ b\-.;.focation of the fl ea.r est a'v ailable p~b °fi c water supply and wastewater disposal
.•. •,•. • • ,._ .. _ ·" w ,_._ ...... ~. -••• •• ~ .. -... -:-
}_;;:~:;·r:i~ syste·m,c1nd the proposed tie-in .p9ints, or an explanation of alternative systems
•,;
proposed to be used;
e. A conceptual c'611ection ·-and_ conveyance storm water management plan
.depicting:
·'.:
i.
ii.
iii.
_ Location _b f .existing and proposed types of all conveyance systems and
storm drain structures such as grass channels, swales, storm drains,
re t~Kt i ~-ri:··~nd detention areas, and outfalls .
Conceptual selection, location, and size of proposed structural storm
water controls.
Conceptual limits of proposed clearing and grading.
iv . Total proposed impe rvious area (square footage).
v. Proposed Low Impact Design (LID) techniques and their locations.
d. Location of all site lighting and photometric plan including description of the
illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors, poles ;
Page I -4 -
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
e. Location specifications and screening of any proposed garbage dumpsters and
other facilities or structures intended for garbage collection;
5. Landscaping and Grading. Each application shall include information relating to
and drawing(s) depicting proposed landscaping and grading for the development
site, which shall indicate:
(a) Location and dimensions of proposed buffer zones and landscaped areas,
including buffer zones adjoining shorelines;
(b) Description of plant materials e xisting and to be planted in buffer zones and
landscaped areas;
(cl Conceptual Grading plans, specifically incll.i'ding perimeter grading and significant
cut and fill, noting minimum slopes, locatioht 6t r~t~i ning walls and approximate
retaining wall heights; and
(d) The percentage of land surface .that fa covered by vegetation that will be
removed by the proposed develop:Afifnt. ••
6. Preliminary covenantsi::Easements, ani:f°Dedications. Each application shall include
information relating to, ~Wdt a'f.a wing(s) depictin.g (where appropriate), proposed
covenants, easements anlcfedi~~t .ions applicable.to the proposed development,
which shall indicate : ·,:, •
(a) Location,•o'f all land to be dedkated or reserved for all public and private uses
including::r.igM~-of-way;-easements, special reservations, and the like;
',,❖jo•,··
(b) Restrictfv:e .. covenants which reflect restrictions pertaining to the type and use of
existing or prcipcised improvements, waterways, open spaces, building lines, buffer
strihs and walls, -~-~~i:-other restrictions of similar nature, and which shall be
:;::;. sGbmitt~a =with the fi~al developrr1e~t plan for recordation.
D. Additional Submittai ·Reguirem·ents for Site Plans.
1. Mast er Plan for Phas~d Develo'pment . A master plan is required for any major
develo'p"!lent which js.fo be developed in phases, which shall provide the following
information for the entire development:
2. A development plan for the first phase or phases for which approval is sought;
3. A development phasing schedule, including: the sequence for each phase;
approximate size of the area in each phase; and proposed phasing of construction of
public recreation and common open space areas and facilities;
4. Total land area, and approximate location and amount of open space included in
each residential, office, commercial, and industrial area;
5. Approximate location of proposed and existing streets and pedestrian and bicycle
routes, including points of ingress and egress;
E. Criteria of Review
Page I -5 -
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
189 The Planning Commission and the City Council, in the exercise of their authority granted
190 herein, shall the Site Plan based on the following criteria:
191 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan;
192 2. Compliance with the standards and intent of this ordinance and applicable
193 zoning district(s);
194 3. Compliance with any other approved planning or related ordinances or
195 standards;
196 4. Adequacy of Public Utilities to serve the proposal. Where existing utilities are to
197 be replaced, or new utilities are to be installedK~6hstruction shall comply with
198 this code and with the City's Standards an~_-:s:~:~gifications;
199 5. General compatibility or appropriatenes~'.~f{fi;fa:l.jacent properties and other
200 property in the vicinity with special co~~id'eratioR::given to the proposed hours of
201 operation, noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potentiafib~ysical impacts, and
202 property values.
203 6. Adequacy of ingress and egress td property and proposed structures with
204 particular regard for a~tomobiles and pedestrian safety and co n venience, traffic
205 generation, flow and::~ontrol and emergency-access.
206 7. Potential adverse impacts to the environment resulting from development.
207 8. Overall benefit to the community;
208 9. Consistency with sound pla n ning principles;
209
210 F. Approval
211 At the City Council's discretion, conditions of approval may be imposed to address
212 compatibility, pubnc safety·and other relevant issues. Once approved, development
213 ac:t;.cfoes subject to the approval shall conform to the approved site plan and any
214 -fii~ditions or re·strictions. Any deviations from the approved site plan and related
215 ~Wh d_~_tions or restrictions must be approved in accordance with Section H below.
216
217 G. Recording of Approval
218 The site plan and related documents shall be maintained in the files of the Planning
219 Department and shall be recorded with the Baldwin County Judge of Probate.
220 H. Detailed Development Plan
221 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development requiring Site Plan approval,
222 a fully-engineered, Detailed Development Plan must be submitted to and approved by
223 the Director of Planning and Zoning. The Detailed Development Plan will be reviewed
224 by the Development Review Committee, consisting of the Utilities Operations Manager,
225 Public Works Director, Building Official, and Planner of Record for subject application.
226 The Development Review Committee shall make recommendation of approval or denial
227 of the Detailed Development Plan to the Director of Planning and Zoning. Detailed
Page I -6 -
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2 . Site Plan Review
228 Development Plans must be consistent with prior Site Plan approval and any conditions
229 given by the City Council. A Detailed Development Plan shall be prepared by a
230 professional engineer licen se d in the State of Alabama (unless otherwise specified) and
231 in addition to the requirements of the Site Plan shall include:
232 1. Demolition Pl an (if applicable)
233 2. Overall Site Plan
234 a. Location and footprints of all buildings
235 i. Building square footage(s)
236 1. For each type of building use for multi-tenant or multi-
237 purpose buildings
238 ii. Building height(s)
239 b. Waste and recycling facilities with scr:eening
240 c. Open space/ commons areas
241 d. Pedestrian circulation plan ..
242 i. Sidewalk plan
243 e. Site Signage
244 3. Paving, Grading and Drainage Plan including post-co nstruction storm water drainage
245 system designed to the s·pJ ~:ifications of Article V, Section "F" of the City of Fairhope
246 Subdivision Regulations
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
a. All drainage calculations
b. Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan
c. Sto'rhlwater Maintenance Agreement ..... •.
4. Street Plan and Profiles
a. Layout and width of existing streets and/or intersection s
.•
b. Configuration of proposed driveways with widths and distances between
driveways
c. Propo sed turn lanes and median s
5 . Erosion and Sediment Control /Best Management Practice s Pl an
6. Land sca pe Plan prepared by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Alabama
a. Tree Protection plan in accordance with City of Fairhope Ordinance number
1444, "Trees and Landsc aping"
b. Turf areas, tree types and sizes, planting schedule
c. Irrigation plan
d . Existing wooded areas
7. Utilities Plan, including:
a. Fire Protection Flow Model
b. Fire Hydrant Locations
i. Existing and proposed
c. Building Service Locations
d. All existing and propose d utilities
8. Topographic Plan
Page I -7 -
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
a. Include topographic overlay of aerial photograph of subject properties(s)
9. Traffic Study (if required)
10. Site Lighting
I. Site Plan Expirations
1. Site Plan Expiration . A development permit shall be valid for a period of one year
from the date of approval. If a final site development plan is not submitted within
one year, the site plan shall be considered expired and invalid. A site plan may be
extended by the City Council, on a case-by-case basis. A request for written reque st
for extension, providing the circumstances causin~ .. the project delay and a projected
start date, must be submitted prior to site plan expfration. A site plan extension is
valid for a period of 1 year. An expired site plan is not eligible for an extension.
2. Detailed Site Plan Expiration. Upon the.Development Review Committee approval
of a detailed site plan, the develope 11~i,~f1 have one yea /fo begin construction . The
»,,C::x,.
development permit shall not expif ~~:if,a building permit has been issued and
development has commenced and c~:nti•nuing in good faith according to the
•.•. ..,
approved site plan.
J. Site Plan Modifications and Amendments
1. Minor Modifications. Mino;·~odification·s may be·gr anted by the Planning Director,
,.•~•-:,.~"':•,.,,:•.. .... • .... ··.···-. ..
with the assistan:ee::o.f directors-.of other affected departments, when the
-:-'····· x~--•• ,.;,,-.• ;-:-.._• .-. .• •.
modificati.6 rt:ifs consicfe r-ed "minor.". J(modific·atibn or amendment to a site plan
-.... ~ .... ~--/.·.•, •'
may be allo~e.d if the frfrent and design concept of the approved site plan is ~~-~---. .-.•.
maintained sul:>ject to the-following: •-
:~_:·:--There is -~';;::~ob st~nt i ~I. change to. the approved land use patterns or the .... ;,·,•. . -~:-· .. •,•, . . -·
geheral locati'on:of streets and driveways; provided however, that
"sub ~t a ~tial changes" for this s~ction shall not include changes in locations of
building~/'rd ads, st~e~ts, driveways or amenities required by a state, federal
or judicial r~gulatory r ~l,ng issued after original approval of the subject site
-~ .•.
2. Minor changes in building foot print and orientations may be considered as long as
no increase )n ··gross:floor area, impervious surface or lot coverage is made;
3. The alternative -~lroposed to the standards contained herein is based on sound
engineering practices;
4. The alternative is no less consistent with the health, safety and welfare of abutting
landowners and the general public than the standard from which the deviation is
being requested;
5. The granting of the modification is not inconsistent with any specific policy directive
of the City of Fairhope, any other ordinance of the City;
6. There are no increases to the density,
7. There are no increased in the height of structures ,
Page I -8 -
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
Proposed Language Article II. Section C.2. Site Plan Review
8 . There are no new uses and land usage is in conformance with the original site plan,
9. The approved floor area of non-residential structures is not exceeded by more than
five (5) percent.
10. The approved lot coverage is not exceeded by more than five (5) percent,
K. Substantial Changes .
Substantial changes to the approved site development plan shall mean any of the
following:
,•
a. A change in the number or sequence of phases; if any;
b. Increases in the density. .l
,,::;.:.. ... ~:-... .. ~
c. Increases in the total floor area of all -~o~'i:esidentia~ buildings exceeding five (5)
percent, .
d. Increases of lot coverage more,;t fi'~n -'five (5) percent;
-.;,;❖;.;,t, ..
e. Increases in the height of any o·i:Jilding;
'"-."··~ f. Changes of architectural style that w ill make the project less compatible with
neighboring uses; ,:,· '':;:;•: .-:-· • ·=::··:,
g. Changes in ownership g·atterns or stages of construction that will lead to a . .. ..,
different development concept;
•.·.· .. ·
h. Changes in ownership patterns or stages of construction that will impose
substantiailW~~-e·ater loads ci·n·streets ~nd •• other p~-Klic facilities;
-~••❖'~❖~ .... ~ u•,_ .•. • .,.;,.-: .. .;.,. .• • .... :,.• '•A•'•!:,• .. ,
i. Decrea s'e1fof any-setback equal:to.or.~:m ore tti~rHive (5) percent;
j. Decr~~:~~'swf areas 8evoted to.op~:~,•space equ~(to or more than five (5) percent,
or the su HWantial rel i:kation of such -areas;
--~-J tfanges of t~affic-br circ.ula
0
t'ion patterns that will affect traffic outside of the
.pro.jetf.:6:;ounda.i-fe~; •• •
•,;❖!❖'❖ ·•. • ,.
Modification··or removal of conditions to the site plan approval;
Changes to th~:water ·d r :·sanitary sewer plans that impact these utilities outside
• •• •the project bo~°fi daries. •
n. o ~aeases of an /p:~ripheral setback between zero (0) and five (5) percent;
o. Dec~~~ses of areas -devoted to open space between zero (0) and five (5) percent.
•,
341 L. Amendments
342 Changes that are not considered Non-Substantial Administrative minor
343 modifications are considered substantial changes and will require an amendment to
344 the site plan. The amendment process is the same as the original site plan approval
345 except that only the proposed changes which are the subject of the amendment will
346 be considered.
Page I -9 -
MEMO
Date: October 30, 2017
To: Fairhope Planning Commission
From: Wayne Dyess, AICP
Planning Director
Re: ZC 17.16 Application Procedures for Zoning Amendment
******************************************************************************
The attached is a proposed amendment to the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance Article II. Section C.1.
regarding application procedures for zoning amendments. Attached is the current language and the
proposed language in a strikethrough format labelled as "draft".
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance
Article II Procedures C.1.
c. Notice -
(1) Notice of Planning Commission Hearing
(a) Published Notice -Notice shall be published once , at least 15 days prior to the hearing, in a
newspaper of general circulation. The notice shall include the following:
(i) A provision that the application will be considered by the Planning Commission;
(ii) A copy of the proposed amendment or application is available at City Hall; /:
(iii) The time and place that the application will be co~~.l~~red by\()~ Pli3nn,1ng Commission;
(iv) All persons shall have an opportunity to be heari l ~-J ppositiori,:t~-cfr•in.favor of the
amendment;
·\. '• •:•::· ,,:
,•
(v) In the case of a zoning map amendment, a general des~ripti.on of any property1 lncludi.ng any
;:: ... : .
common name by which the property is known .
(b) Mailed Notice-The applicant shall furnish the City.the names andT1;1ailing addresses mail notice of .. .•:··
application to af all persons owning property,~6r-.fo3s lea s·ehb ld interest i n.'prbperty within 300 feet of
~~-:::··· . ~-·· >. . :,• ·,
any specific property that is the subject.9f the ·~·pplicati9.n. Names,.~nd addresses shall be from the latest
records of the county revenue office :~·(i:d ;ccuracy ofth !;? 'iist shall b~:the applicant's re sponsibility.
-:>'· ·:· -~ J.: :'-. . '
1Nhere land within 300 feet invofil~~foasehold property, t~:!'! na~e'~ and addresses of the landowner and
the leasehold.!mP.·fp~!!;?·n:,~nts shall be '•provided to the Cit~/.•:.
•.• ·::::-~:· •• •• <· •:: -:-,•. ' .•:❖,
(c) Post.~~t&oti.ce -The applicaf1t.~_h'.3II post on :~he property being considered for a zoning change a
sign tha·t~i~es.-public notice . This si~n shall be ·poste·d adjacent to a publicly dedicated street. The ·-:~-...... •. .
sign shall be f ti~.1\lsh.ed by the City at th'e time of application. The sign shall be posted no later
than 15 days bel~r~ ~he Planning Co ~mission meetings and shall remain posted until after final
action by the City Co~\,d f:::Tqe app.).ic;:~t shall remove the sign from the property and return it to
the City within 2 days of ;inal· ~-cti~fb:~ the City Counci l. It is the sole responsibility of the .... '•
applicant to post the sign in accordance with these regulations. Failure to post this sign may result
in nullification of the zoning change decision and application.
(d) Upon determination of a complete application, notice of the application will be published and/or
mailed. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs of notification and filing fees .
(2) Affidavit of Compliance -The applicant shall provide to the City, a sworn affidavit for posting sign and
a sworn affidavit for notification of property owners no less than three working days prior to the
advertised meeting date: (a) Reflecting the nature, means, and dates of notice(sl provided under this
subpart, (bl Including a listing (by name and address) of each person or entity to whom notice has been
CODING: Underscore indicates additions; stril~ethrough indicates deletions.
34 provided with certified mail receipts; (cl Including a statement certifying that such notice(s) in fact
35 comply in every respect with the notice requirements set out in this subsection; and (d) Attaching for
36 reference a copy of each notice provided under this subpart.
37 (~J) Notice of City Council Hearing -Prior to the City Council hearing, two notices shall occur in a
38 newspaper of general circulation in the City, or where no such paper exists, in four conspicuous places
39 in the City . Each notice shall be at least 15 days prior to the date when the City Council will consider
40 the application .
41 (a) Initial Publication -The initial publication shall be acc9rding tq.the folio-vy ing : .-:~-· ·•:; .•,•.
42 (i) The text of the proposed amendment in full or the :~P.Plication;
43 (ii) The time and place that the application will be co~}!~:~red by tH i <::ity Cq1;1ncil;
:::;-'.': ,, ' •
44 (iii) Notice that all persons shall have an opportunity to I:>'~ neard in' opposition to or in favor of the
45 application.
46 (b) Second Publication -The second publication shall be according to the following:
47 (i) A synopsis ofthe proposed application;
48 (ii) The date and name of the newspaper or l9Jations of the first publication ;
❖Y ., ..
49 (iii) The time and place that the applic.ation will be con.~idere d by the review body;
.:~ /
50 (iv) Notice that all persons shall havef an ·opportunity to be heard in opposition to or in favor of the
51 application .
52 (3) Compliance-wltli U:iw7 }he foregoing.requirements are intended with applicable law relating to
53 notice.
54 To the J~tel)t that such requireme'nts do not so ·comply with applicable law or in the event any ~-,.
55 applicable fa¼' i s hereafter altered, arn~nded or otherwise modified, this section C.1.c. shall be
56 construed so as·to comply with such altered, amended or modified law.
CODING: Underscore indicates additions; strikethrough indicates deletions.
Project Name:
Point Clear Village
Project Type:
Minor Subdivision
Project Statistics:
Project Size: 1 acre
No. of lots: 3
Jurisdiction:
City of Fairhope Planning,
Police, and Permit
Zoning District:
Baldwin County
District 26: RMF-6
PPIN Number: 2
13429 and 19994
General Location: South side
of County Road 32, one parcel
east of the intersection of
CR 32 and Sc. Hwy. 98
Engineer: Hutchinson, Moore
& Rauch, LLC
Owner: Point Clear 98, LLC
School District: Larry J. Newton
Elementary School
Recommendation:
Approval
1
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission
November 6, 2017
Case: SD 17.27 Point Clear Village
SD 17.27 Point Clear Village -Nov. 6, 2017
Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for plat approval of
Point Clear Village, a 3-lot minor subdivision. The property is located on the south side of
County Road 32, one parcel east of the intersection of County Road 32 and Scenic Hwy. 98.
Comments:
Site history: The subject property is zoned RMF-6 in Baldwin County. The total acreage of the
subdivision is 43,728 sq uare feet (just over an acre}. The largest lot is approximately 17,710 sf
and the sma llest lot is approximately 13, 005 sf.
Site Photos:
Point Clear Village: View from Hwy 32 looking south. Point Clear Village: View looking toward Scenic 98.
School Impact analysis: The student yield factor (SYF} is calculated by dividing the number of students
by dwelling type by the total number of dwelling units in an attendance. For example, if we have 1,000
students occupying single family dwellings (SFD} in an attendance zone for elementary sc hool, and the
attendance zone has 2,500 total dwelling units, we divide that by the number of single family dwellings
by the number of students residing in single family homes.
1,000 students+ 2,500 total number homes in the attendance zone= .40 students per single family
home.
Using these numbers, we can estimate the number of students a ne w 100-unit single family subdivision
could expect to generate would be 40 st udents. The same formula can be used to determine the SYF
for mobile home units, apartments etc.
The statistica l factors below were based on county-wide a nalysis spec ific to Baldwin County.
The Baldwin County student y ield factors for single family detached are:
K-6 -0.39 per unit
7-8 -0.11 per unit
9-12 -0.17 per unit
2 SD 17.27 Point Clear Village -Nov. 6, 2017
The Minor Plat for Point Clear Village Subdivision, contains 3 lots. Applying the student yield factors,
the development is expected to generate 1.17 (3x.39) elementary school students, .33 {3x.11) middle
school students and .51 (3X.17) high school students.
0evelopment Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF Expected
Name Type Type number student
Point Clear Final Plat SF 7 Newton Elementary .39 1.17
Village Sub.
Fairhope Middle .11 .33
Fairhope High .17 .51
Total 2.01
All Associated Investors: The associated investors of Point Clear 98 LLC are Dan Lovell and Jeff
Barnes.
Lot Standards: All lots front on a publicly maintained right of way. The front setback for lot 3
appears different than other two lots. According to the applicant lot 3 increased slightly to
achieve the minimum lot width of 60 feet at the setback. According to the applicant, the
setbacks are per the County requirements.
Wetlands : A wetlands delineation has been provided.
Sidewalks: No sidewalks are being proposed at this time.
Traffic: According to the applicant, two units are allowed per lot, based on county zoning, for a
maximum of six units. Therefore, according to the engineer of record, the subject property will
not meet the requirements of Article IV Section C 1 (h) for the average daily number of trips of
1000 triggering a traffic study. No traffic study is required.
Storm water standards: According to the engineer of record, the drainage flows to the south
and is not subject to periodic inundation or ponding. The most current FEMA flood zones are
shown on the plat and noted. The applicant has indicated that during construction, standard
type "A" silt fences .along the west, south, and east sides will be installed as necessary to
protect the wetlands to the south.
Fire Flow: A flow test was conducted on October 12, 2017. The results are as follows: County
Road 32 and Highway 98-1000 gpm, 101 psi static, 82 psi residual. Dan McCrory has reviewed
and approved the fire flow test.
Water and Sewer: The applicant shall comply with all City of Fairhope Water and Sewer
Standards.
Recorded Plat: All conditions of approval shall be satisfied in a timely manner, so that final plat
may be recorded within a 60-day time frame, per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations.
3 SD 17.27 Point Clear Village-Nov. 6, 2017
Other: According to the applicant, the property is not Single Tax property. Any applicable
outside agency permits shall be provided .
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision application.
4 SD 17 .27 Point Clear Village -Nov . 6, 2017
Page 5 of 10
APPLICATION FOR SUBDMSION PLAT APPROVAL
Application Type: O Village Subdivision
D Prel.imin ary Pl at
KJ Minor Subdivision O Info rmal (No Fee)
D final Plat D Multiple Occupancy Project
Attachments : D Articles of Incorporation or List all assoc iated investors
Date of App li ca ti on: ________ _
Property Owner / Leaseholder Information
Name of Property Owner: Point Clear 98 , LLC Phone Number: 251-975-8222
Addre ss of Property Owner: _P_O_B_o_x_7_29 ________________ _
City: Montrose State: AL Zip: 36559
Proposed Subdivision Name: __ P_o_in_t_C_le_a_r_V_il_la_g_e ______________ _
No. Acres in Plat: __ 1_-0_3 _______ No. Lots/Units: 3 Lots
Parcel No: o5-56-03-31-o-ooo-016 .001 Current zoning: __ R_M_F-_6 ____ _
05-56-03-31-0-000-016 .000
Authorized Agent Information
Plat must be sign ed by the p roperty owner before accep tance by the City of Fairhope
Name of Authorized Agent: Hutch inson , Moo re & Rau ch , LLC Phone Number: 251 -380-8744
Address: PO Box 1127
City: Daphne State: AL Zip : 36526
Contact Person: Scott A. Hutchinson
Surveyor /Engineer Information
Name of Firm: Hutchinson , Moore & Rauch, LLC Phone Number: 251-380-8738
Address: PO Bo x 1127
City: Daphne State:
Contact Person: Stuart L. Smith
Plat Fee Calculation:
Reference : Ordinance 1269
Signatures :
I certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of
submit this plat to the City for review. *If property is
authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this
Jeff Barnes
Property Owner /Leas e holder Printed Name
q_lJ31!1
AL Zip: 36526
e above described property and hereby
wned b y Fairhope Single Tax Corp . an
·cation .
NIA
Date 1 I Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (lf Applicable)
SEP 2 6 2017
t[8
Project Name:
Mediacom-The Waters
Project Type:
Utility Review
Project Scope:
11,306 linear feet of CATV
and 48 pedestals.
Jurisdiction:
City of Fairhope
Zoning District:
PUD
General Location:
West side of State HWY 181
approximately¼ mile north
of State HWY 104
Applicant:
Mediacom
Owner:
City of Fairhope Right-of-way
Recommendation:
Approved with Conditions
1
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission
November 6, 2017
Case: UR 17 .04 Mediacom -The Waters
UR 17.04 Mediacom -The Waters -Nov. 6, 2017
Summary of Request: Request of Mediacom for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed
underground installation of approximately 11, 306 linear feet of CATV cable . The project will run throughout
The Waters subdivision.
Comments:
This project will provide service to 89 exi sting homes in The Waters subdivision as well as provide cable
for future construction. The information presented below is for the entire project. Approximately
11,306 linear feet of new CATV cable will be installed throughout the subdivision as well as placing forty-
eight (48) pedestals 68 pedestals as a part of the project.
The Waters is located within the city limits of the City of Fairhope and therefore is located in the
Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction. Any public rights-of-way are under the jurisdiction of The City of
Fairhope however any work on State HWY 181 will require permitting through the Alabama Department
of Transportation (ALDOT). The comments below are typical general comments for City of Fairhope
right-of-way projects. If the public right-of-way is maintained by Baldwin County, the applicant shall be
required to obtain permits through the Baldwin County Highway Department.
Mediacom proposes to begin the project at the subdivision entrance on State Highway 181 and install
service in all currently developed ROW . The applicant states they will follow the existing power layout
within the subdivision It appears all proposed utility work will be contained within the ROW following
the existing power utility layout and installed via directional bore. Bingham Cable , Mediacom's
contractor, corrected notes on the drawings included with the application and removed referenced to
stitch boring, or "S-Bore" as described on their drawings. There is no indication that any utility
easements on lots will be impacted.
The City will allow some trenching with a vibratory plow in the subdivisions as long as th e utility work is
at the very back of the ROW and if a lot is not built out. Vibratory plows leave no open trench. No open
trenches shall be allowed . Directional boring shall be used in sensitive areas, such as unde r roads, in
proximity to trees, on finished lots, etc.
Comments from the City of Fairhope Utility Superintendents and Department Heads are listed below:
The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities.
City of Fairhope Public Works Director comments are as follows:
• Hand holes shall not be located within driplines of Heritage Trees (as defined by the Tree
Ordinance).
• Any proposed trenching shall not be within the dripline of trees.
• If within a tree dripline, consult with the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with
earth work.
• Trees shall not be negatively impacted.
The applicant shall provide drawings locating their utilities with other utilities and the sidewalks. Any
boxes/handholes cannot be placed in the sidewalk. The applicant shall review the sidewalk plan to
determine if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall coordinate work with Richard D. Johnson, PE,
Public Works Director, to resolve any potential conflicts.
All conduit/cable shall be placed at depth from ex isting grade per industry and/or County Standards. A
minimum horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36" must be maintained from stormwater
and utility infrastructures. No handholes, bo x es, or other above ground infrastructure shall be i nstalled
2 UR 17.04 M ediacom -The Wate rs-Nov . 6, 2017
within drainage easements. Pedestals shall be placed in a manner as to avoid obstructing visibility o f
motorists and to allow vehicles to exit the roadway during an emergency. No grade change shall re sult
from the utility installation. The applicant is to avoid any tree drip lines with handholes and equipment.
The material under the sidewalk shall be compacted and the repair work shall be to the satisfaction of
the Building Official or his designated representative. The applicant shall contact the Building
Department for inspection prior to placing concrete.
Kim Burmeister, City of Fairhope Code Enforcement Officer, had the following comments:
• The applicant, or subcontractor, shall obtain a ROW permit from the City of Fairhope Building
Department prior to beginning work.
• Subcontractors shall have a current business license with the City of Fairhope and shall have a
copy of the ROW permit available for review at all times, and shall be posted on site or in the
window of contractor's vehicles.
• Any ROW cuts sha ll be stabilized (covered) at the end of each day and disturbed areas shall be
re-vegetated with sod within ten (10) days of completion of the project.
• Mulch/ seed shall only be acceptable as temporary cover.
• Sod sha ll be watered as needed to ensure survival.
• Inlets shall be protected.
• If site is within 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc.), no red soils/clay are allowed as fill material,
per the City's Red Clay/Soil Ordinance.
Erik Cortinas, the Building Official's standard comments for utility work are as follows:
• BM P's sha ll be installed at boring sites and trench locations.
• Ground conditions in the ROW's shall be returned to original preconstruction condition(s) or
better.
• All plans and permits sha ll be available for review at all times along with the City of Fairhope
permit application .
• If required, appropriate ALDOT permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a right-of-way
(ROW) permit.
Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Superintendent had the following comments:
• All existing utilities must be located, and proper separation sha ll be maintained between
utilities.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened by painting the equipment Munsell Green .
Robert Rohm, Natural Gas Superintendent had the following comments:
• A 2" polyethylene (PE) gas main is located throughout The Waters subdivision located in the
same ROW where CATV is to be in sta lled .
• Mr. Rohm provided a drawing as a supporting document to this review indicating the
appro ximate location of the existing gas main.
• Contractor hall provide proper separation from the ga s main and all other utilities .
The applicant shall be aware of the following :
3 UR 17.04 Mediacom -The Waters-Nov. 6, 2017
• No work shall begin until a ROW permit is issued by the City of Fairhope Building Department or
other applicable jurisdiction (permit not valid until paid for and picked up by contractor).
• The ROW permit shall be kept with the contractor or subcontractor at all times during site work.
The ROW permit shall be posted on the job site or in the window of contractor(s) vehicle.
• All contractors/subcontractors are subject to City of Fairhope Business License procedures .
This site shall comply with all State, Federal and local requirements, including, but not limited to the
following City of Fairhope Ordinances :
1. City of Fairhope Wetland Ordinance (#1370), which regulates activity within 20' of wetlands.
2. City of Fairhope Red Soil & Clay Ordinance (#1423), which prohibits the use of red so il / clay. within
100' of critical areas .
3. City of Fairhope Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (#1398).
State and Federal permits shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the
issuance of City of Fairhope permits .
The applicant shall provide as-built profiles of the installed lines, showing the e xact depth. The applicant
sha ll provide full size plans (24"X36") for this application and for future applications .
Recommendation:
To approve conditional upon the following:
4
1) The applicant shall follow the general comments re lated to utility work, as stated above.
2) All mechanical and locator equipment shall be painted Munsell green.
3) Contractor shall attend a pre-construction meeting w ith City Department Heads prior to
issuance of a ROW permit.
UR 17.04 Mediacom -The Waters-Nov. 6, 2017
0 0
23134
22855
23134
0 22725
0
0
0
0
0 9591
22 3
0 0
22353
~13 :17 621
li1I
li1I
0
22353
"2310
0
0 • 0
0
0
0
ight Way I ti ity
l"1~taUation Appli~at;o
F;l(,'/V1 ~uJA::k12-) Vv'HERE Property Addres s
ROW Locati o n
WrlO
Owner of Property
Contract or Doi ng \/✓ork
Utilities Name
Utility being wNked on
WHEN Date to begin
Date of completion
(provi de copy of Alabama Ge neral Contractors Lice nse )
Phone (~ Electric Gas
Water Sewer Other ----
WHY Reason for disturbance ~ Repa ir Remove
Linear feet installing
WHAT # of Handholes/ Peds
• • • f work
7i1 1b,//. ~~ -,,a,_'~/712 . cv# Vl,)
~~~~~~~~~~~~ (-
(
I agree to ho ld the City of Fairhope h mless from any and all liab ility , claims, costs
and expenses whatsoever arising out of or related to any loss , damag e , or injury , that
may be sustaine ,..,...,-V ,•l/Vork commencing in the Right of Way at or nea r
Po.·; h /lr-;I, & 6f i1
j~/-91/-f-&JUJ-
Project Name:
Mediacom Fairhope Falls
Project Type:
Utility Review
Project Scope:
13,525 linear feet of CATV
Cable and 68 pedestals.
Jurisdiction:
Planning Jurisdiction Only
Zoning District:
Unzoned
General Location:
The property is located
on the south side of State
Highway 104, just west of
Fish River
Applicant:
Mediacom
Owner:
County Right-of-way
Recommendation:
Approve with Conditions
1
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission
November 6, 2017
Case: UR 17.05 Mediacom -Fairhope Falls
UR 17.05 Mediacom -Fairhope Falls-Nov. 6, 2017
Summary of Request: Request of Mediacom for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the
proposed underground installation of approximately 13, 525 linear feet of CATV cable. The project will
run throughout the Fairhope Falls subdivision. The following is the requirement for an 11.52.11 review
by State Code:
Section 11-52-11
Proposed construction of streets, public buildings, utilities, etc., to be submitted for approval of
commission after adoption of master plan; overruling of commission.
Whenever the commission shall have adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more
major sections or districts thereof, no street, square, park, or other public way, ground or open space
or public building or structure or public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be
constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location,
character, and extent thereof shall have been submitted to and approved by the commission;
provided, that in case of disapproval the commission shall communicate its reasons to the council,
which shall have the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two thirds
of its entire membership; provided further, that if the public way, ground, space, building, structure, or
utility is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions
governing same, fall within the province of the municipal council, then the submission by the planning
commission shall be to the board, commission, or body having such jurisdiction and the planning
commission's disapproval may be overruled by said board, commission, or body by a vote of not less
than two thirds of its membership.
The failure of the commission to act within 60 days from and after the date or official
submission to the commission shall be deemed approval. (Acts 1935, No. 534,p. JJ26; Code 1940, T.
37, §794.)
Comments:
This project is an upgrade to provide service to the Fairhope Falls Subdivision. The information
presented below is for the entire project. Approximately, 13,525 linear feet of new CATV cable
will be installed throughout the subdivision to service the residents of Fairhope Falls.
Mediacom will also install 68 pedestals as a part of the project.
Fairhope Falls subdivision is within the City of Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction, but not within the
City of Fairhope Police or Permit Jurisdiction or within the Corporate Limits. If the subject
Rights-Of-Way (ROW) are public, they are under the Jurisdiction of The Baldwin County
Highway Department. The comments below are the general comments that the City makes for
our typical Right-of-Way projects. If the subject ROW is public and maintained by Baldwin
County, then applicant shall be required to permit through Baldwin County Highway
Department.
Mediacom proposes to begin the project at the subdivision entrance on State Highway 104 (at
Yosemite Boulevard) and install service in all currently developed ROW . Note: any utility work
on the ROW of State Highway 104 will require permitting through the Alabama Department of
Transportation (ALDOT). It appears all proposed utility work will be contained within the ROW
2 UR 17.05 Mediacom -Fairhope Falls-Nov. 6, 2017
following the existing power utility layout and installed via directional bore . There is no
indication that any utility easements on lots will be impacted.
Comments from the City of Fairhope Utility Superintendents and Department Heads are listed
below:
The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities.
Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Superintendent had the following comments :
• All existing utilities must be located and proper separation shall be mainta i ned between
utilities.
This site shall comply with all State, Federal and local requirements.
The applicant shall provide as-built profiles of the lines, showing the exact depth . The applicant
shall provide full size plans (24"X36") for this application and for future applications.
Recommendation:
To approve conditional upon the following :
1) The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated above .
3 UR 17.05 Mediacom -Fai rhope Fall s -Nov . 6, 2017
ight f Way / Utility
I" stallati n A licatio
V✓HERE Property Address
ROV\J Lo catio n £~h°!:,6c~~~ "* Fin~ &//2
WHO
Owner of Property
Contractor Doin g Wo rk
Utilities Name
Utility being worked on
(provide copy of Alaba ma ~era\ Con t rsdors Li cer.sa )
Phone ~ Electric Gas
'Nater Se vver Other ----
0 ')
WHEN Date to begin / e &Jl1,v--; / ~1.., L
Date of complet ion i 3 -c{ Wa_,fc GP CsNJ#..ucl~
WHY Reason for disturba nce ~ Repa i r Remo ve
Linear feet instal li ng J;j s / 0 , S ~ ,,. i.o-&-/ j
WHAT # of Handholes/ Peds fi./C: /
~,..<14Al:~"---"""'+---,l-.L./-!-~~~~--1.l-~---¥,-.<:,-H---f-'-'-,f--l-£L=~~ ex 0 t l /
5f?JUtCC,
I agree to ho ld the City of Fai rhope harmless from any and all liabil ity , c ai ms , costs
and exp e nses whatsoever ari ing out of or related to any loss , damag e, or injury , tha t
may be susta in e c.i::i ·ng in the Right of W ay at or near
f3 ;7~¥ Llblo
;2 S'I -9, b{--b )DJ_
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01
WHEREAS, the objective and purpose of the City of Fairhope Planning Commission,
located in Baldwin Count y, Alabama is to promote the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of present and future residents, to bring about the coordinated and efficient
development of the City of Fairhope, and to provide assistance to the Mayor and Council
in the preparation and maintenance of a comprehensive plan for the city; and
WHEREAS, the powers and duties of the Planning Commission shall be as set forth in
Title 11 , Chapter 52, Code of Alabama, 1975 , as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope Planning Commission adopted By-Laws on April 6,
2009;and
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope Planning Commission proposes to amend Article IX
and Article XI of the aforementioned adopted By-Laws to insert the following:
Article IX. Collduct of Meetillg
(b) Disclosure of Outside Communication.
Article XL Code of Collduct
9. Outside Communication
The Commission desires to conduct all proceedings fairly, openly, without
pre;udice, with all debate occurring in a public forum. This will also create a
record of all evidence upon which recommendations and decisions were made,
and to prevent the appearance of undue influence on its recommendations and
decisions. To this end, a member of the Planning Commission shall not
voluntarily and knowingly engage in outside communication.
For the purposes of these rules, outside communication shall mean oral or written
communication, direct or indirect, which occur outside the public meeting forum
(off the record) ben11een individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the
Planning Commission and individual members ofthe Planning Commission in
which such members discuss the merits of any matter which may or will be subiect
to the Commissioners vote. Such communications include, without limitation,
meetings with pro;ect proponents or opponents, residents, property owners,
citizens or other interested parties separate from Planning Commission meetings,
telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioners opinion on
a matter which may or will be sub;ect to the Commissioners vote. Members may
communicate with staff and legal counsel, at any time, without limitation.
Outside communications shall not include the following:
1. Written communications delivered to City stafffor distribution to all members
ofthe Planning Commission as part of each members public meeting packet and
which will be available to all interested parties and constitutes communication
with the public meeting forum: or
2. The conduct of site visits by members o{the Planning Commission provided
that all such members conduct such visits for the specific purposes ofgathering
physical facts and data, and without any unnecessary contact with any proiect
proponents or opponents, residents, property owners, citizens or other interested
parties, or any of their prospective representatives.
Situations may arise where outside communication, although unsolicited by a
Commissioner. occurs despite the efforts of a Commissioner to avoid such
communication. In such instances, the member involved will disclose, at the
public hearing, the name ofthe person(s) with whom the application was
discussed, and the nature and substance of the communication. In the event that
such communication is in writing. the Commissioner must promptly provide a
copy of the writing(s) to staff so that it may be reproduced to the entire Planning
Commission, disclosed to the public at the public hearing held on that
application, and incorporated into the record. Prior to the public hearing for
each case. the Chairman shall provide the opportunity for a member to disclose
outside communication.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, that the Planning Commission approves the proposed
amendments to the Planning Commission By-Laws regarding Outside Communication.
DULY ADOPTED THIS DAYOF ____ ,2017
Lee Turner, Chairman
Attest:
Emily Boyett, Secretary
FAIRHOPE PLANNING COMMISSION DEADLINES 2018
AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date 5:00PM Submittal Deadline 9:00AM
January 4, 2018 Thursday November 28, 2017 Tuesday
*Moved due to New Year’s Holiday
February 5, 2018 Monday December 19, 2017 Tuesday
March 5, 2018 Monday January 23, 2018 Tuesday
April 2, 2018 Monday February 27, 2018 Tuesday
May 7, 2018 Monday March 27, 2018 Tuesday
June 4, 2018 Monday April 24, 2018 Tuesday
July 2, 2018 Monday May 22, 2018 Tuesday
August 6, 2018 Monday June 26, 2018 Tuesday
September 6, 2018 Thursday July 24, 2018 Tuesday
*Moved due to Labor Day Holiday
October 1, 2018 Monday August 28, 2018 Tuesday
November 5, 2018 Monday September 25, 2018 Tuesday
December 3, 2018 Monday October 23, 2018 Tuesday
January 7, 2019 Monday November 27, 2018 Tuesday
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
FAIRHOPE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX AT 161 N. SECTION STREET
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SEE THAT ALL SUBMITTALS ARE MADE IN A
COMPLETE AND TIMELY SEQUENCE AND TO HAVE THE CASE PRESENTED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AT SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
**INCOMPLETE SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. **
CITY OF FAIRHOPE
MORATORIUM
REPORT
Mayor Karin Wilson
Leadership Team:
Wayne Dyess, Planning
Sherry-Lea Bloodworth Botop, Community Development
Richard Peterson, Operations
Richard Johnson, Public Works
CITY OF FAIRHOPE MORATORIUM
AN OPPORTUNITY TO EMBRACE RESILIENCE
The moratorium period led us to explore solutions for many issues. We learned that citywide
functions are interconnected and that by using resilience techniques, we were able to
determine the most effective ways to address these issues. The “resilience wheel,” pictured
below, demonstrates the intricacies of departmental responsibilities from information
technology to emergency response, community development to sanitation, environment to
transportation. Actions taken by one department can have a large impact on the productivity
and efficacy of all departments. The lessons learned during the moratorium exceeded the
initial scope. The result is a new way of working together for our community that will have a
lasting, positive impact.
. .
. .. • • . , • . .
.. - < 11· · ••• . . .
,
..
GOALS, FINDINGS & ACHIEVEMENTS
The City of Fairhope has experienced unprecedented growth during the last 5 years. In fact,
the City has realized a 26% jump in population during the past 5 years alone. Central to the
City’s success, and the resulting demand and growth, is its small-town ambience and
excellent City services. However, rapid growth and development has begun to strain the
City’s ability to provide the high level of services City leaders and residents desire, provide
infrastructure to appropriately serve new development, and above all maintain the small-
town charm citizens and visitors alike have enjoyed. In general, Fairhopians’ quality of life
was at risk.
While the moratorium began with the idea that planning was the primary focus, we found
that responsible growth is not solely the purview of planning. Managing a city’s growth is
complex and requires a comprehensive approach and coordination of all municipal services.
Essentially, the Planning Department needed to move away from a permitting only mindset,
to a focus on planning for new development in an organized and orchestrated fashion. This
necessitated the evaluation of all City departments as part of this new planning process.
Initially, it was clear that our infrastructure was overburdened and quickly becoming more
so, but how critical was it? It became evident that it was time to evaluate the City’s sewer,
natural gas, water and electric systems to determine if they were meeting our current and
projected needs based on growth. These systems were analyzed with the goal of creating
more efficient, safe and environmentally responsible processes. In order to achieve this, a
stronger coordination between Public Works, Utilities, Economic and Community
Development and Planning, as well as public engagement in the development process was
needed.
In response to these challenges, City officials realized a critical juncture in the life of the City
was rapidly approaching. The tipping point was near, and action needed to be taken. The
current path was clearly not working and the quality of life and the environment were
beginning to show signs of stress.
Growth and development have far reaching and sometimes permanent consequences. The
moratorium affected only major projects of five or more subdivision lots and multiple
occupancy permits. Instituting a limited moratorium seemed drastic to some, but a
temporary pause was required to identify the issues and define solutions. The moratorium
provided City staff with the appropriate time to evaluate the issues, and identify and propose
alternatives.
ISSUES
What Led City Leaders to Enact a Moratorium
The primary issues that led city leaders to enact a moratorium were: extraordinary growth,
infrastructure capacity and quality of life. The following outline the initial focus of the
moratorium:
• Evaluate all city regulations and ordinances relating to planning, building, services as
they related to growth
• Review community and economic development needs and identify opportunities
related to citywide operations and plans
o Identify funding sources, partnerships and other strategies to help address
deficiencies
o Evaluate downtown traffic, parking and pedestrian safety
• Evaluate Building and Permitting regulations
• Evaluate Public Works and stormwater issues
• Evaluate waste water system including:
o Design standards
o Transmission capacity
o Next steps
• Review stewardship and operational efficiencies for:
o City leases
o Franchise agreements
o Revenue sources
o Evaluate departmental efficiencies and adequacies
o Address inefficiencies in 2018 proposed budget
o Provide improved government transparency to citizens
o Review staffing levels vs needs
GOALS IDENTIFIED & ACHIEVED
Planning
The Planning Department’s overall goal is for the City of Fairhope to be nationally
recognized as a leader in innovative planning techniques and design while upholding the
legacy of Fairhope and its environmental stewardship. To attain this goal, a new path must
be chartered beginning with a more integrated and inclusive comprehensive planning
approach to city growth and development.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan must be more comprehensive in nature, integrating future land
use, urban and community design, conservation and natural resources, infrastructure capacity
(roads and utilities) into one visionary but action-based document. Additionally, a
comprehensive planning approach is important for monitoring, evaluating and managing
storm water appropriately. It provides for the orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities
and services with a view to securing the physical, economic and social efficiencies, health and
well-being of our community. This important document requires clear and detailed
implementation methods. To that end, the Plan should contain an implementation
element. The implementation element will describe how and when the Plan should be used
and updated and by whom. This will insure that the Plan is used regularly and consistently
thereby increasing its effectiveness.
As part of the City’ efforts, we applied for funding to create an updated Comprehensive
Plan, a Land Use Plan (the first for Fairhope), and recommendations to implement form-
based code where appropriate. Additionally, this funding would support an ordinance audit
of all planning ordinances by a nationally recognized planning organization.
Form-Based Code
Form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable results in the built
environment and high-quality public space by using physical form (rather than separation of
uses) as the organizing principle for the code. Form-based code is a regulation, not a mere
guideline, adopted into city, town, or county law and offers a powerful alternative to
conventional zoning regulations. This is a practice that will be recommended by the Planning
Department to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Form-based code addresses the relationship between building facades and the public realm,
the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets
and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based code are presented in both words
and clearly drawn diagrams as well as other visuals. They are keyed to a regulating plan that
designates the appropriate form and scale and, therefore, character of development, rather
than only distinctions in land-use types.
This approach contrasts with conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and
segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and
uncoordinated parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, setbacks, parking ratios, traffic
LOS), to the neglect of an integrated built form. Not to be confused with design guidelines
or general statements of policy, form-based code is regulatory, not advisory. They are drafted
to implement a community plan and they support the achievement of a community vision
based on time-tested forms of urbanism. Ultimately, form-based code is a tool; the quality of
development outcomes depends on the quality and objectives of the community plan that
the code implements.
The recommendation is to first implement this practice for Greeno Road, which can serve as
an example for other areas of Fairhope. This will give neighborhoods the opportunity to
understand and provide input to the development of their neighborhoods instead of leaving
it to developers to define.
Ordinance Recommendations and Changes
Several ordinances and regulations were identified and revisions have been recommended.
Central Business District (CBD) Height Restriction - to encourage reinvestment in property, mixed
use to allow for more activity downtown, and provide more architecturally appealing design
without overpowering the streetscape.
Central Business District Expansion – a walkability analysis was applied to our Central Business
District. The recommendation was made of a quarter-mile radius/five-minute walk from the
center of downtown. This included from the intersections of Fairhope Avenue and Section
Street and areas that were determined to fit the scope of the CBD. Several of these sites that
do not have public parking are required to undergo a parking analysis. This expansion does
not infringe upon established neighborhoods.
Building Heights – measurements for required building heights have been updated to reflect
International Building Code (IBC).
Application Procedures – the application process has been updated with the intent to streamline
the current arduous requirements. A mandatory meeting with the developer and all city
departments is now being conducted to identify and discuss solutions to issues prior to an
application being submitted. Following the initial meeting, a mandatory meeting with
adjoining property owners within 300ft is required to discuss concerns prior to the site plan
development’s completion and the application submission.
Site Plan Review – site plan review is focused on planning efforts with detailed engineering
required only after approval and review by city engineers. This refocuses and emphasizes city
efforts on planning and compatibility issues with detailed engineering required only after this
initial approval.
Accessory Dwelling Units – a recommendation to allow this opportunity which can benefit
homeowners who have elderly parents, adult children and others. Having an accessory
dwelling unit on a homeowner’s property can be an asset for those families who may be
caregivers. The principal dwelling must be owner occupied.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Sub-regulations for Storm Water and LID Requirements - the
purpose of this amendment is to remove the mandatory requirement of ten (10) Low Impact
Development (LID) techniques from the subdivision regulations and specify a total
suspended solids reduction (TSS) of 80%, and allow the engineer of record to specify LID
techniques that are a best fit for a particular site.
Development Impacts on Our Schools – reporting the impact of a new development on schools to
the school board is now required. The school board’s responsibility is to take the appropriate
steps to accommodate any student population growth.
Online Zoning Map Viewer with Current and Proposed Project Locations – this technology will allow
the City’s zoning map, planning and police jurisdiction, flood zones, aerial photography
(including Google Street View) and new development project locations (with site plans and
relevant projection information) to be posted on an online interactive mapping format
available to the public.
Greeno Road Corridor Overlay –Greeno Road is an important gateway into Fairhope. A realistic
and practical approach for development along Greeno Road is a necessity. As such, high
quality development is desired and expected on this important corridor. To achieve this goal
staff is evaluating an urban transect-based planning approach based in a form-based code
development technique.
Unified Land Development Code – this will consolidate and replace the zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations, and other development-related regulations and ordinances. The new
code will combine all land development related regulations into one succinct document. This
will aid in the City’s enforcement of its regulations as well as provide an easy to read set of
regulations for the public and developer alike. The result will be two documents, a
Comprehensive Plan and a Land Development Code which will clearly articulate the City’s
vision of development and include technical development standards.
Additional Planning Recommendations
It was determined that becoming part of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) will help
reduce flood insurance premiums for our citizens. The Planning Department is working with
our Building Department to implement this program.
During the moratorium review process, the need to closely coordinate and integrate
economic development into the planning process was identified.
Community Development
During the moratorium, the need to closely coordinate and integrate community and
economic development into our planning process was identified. Working in partnership
with the City of Fairhope Planning Department, the Community Development Department
works on related economic development as part of our citywide processes in the following
ways:
• Identify and analyze opportunities for redevelopment including undeveloped
properties and vacant buildings, especially those in highly visible areas and blighted
properties;
• Work with potential investors for specific types and sizes of properties in specific
areas;
• Create and offer business retention and expansion assistance;
• Shepherd through the permit process or provide information on allowable type uses;
• Create a database of grant or loan programs;
• Maintain an inventory online of sites for commercial or industrial properties;
• Work with local businesses to understand employment needs and help find solutions
(i.e., restaurants need chefs, work with Coastal Alabama Community College culinary
program to assist in job placement);
• Maintain contact with existing industries and businesses;
• Provide assistance to merchants in an effort to maintain a viable Central Business
District;
• Work closely with other federal, state, local and private economic development
organizations that are able to make resources available for businesses and industries.
Community Engagement
Addressing growth related communications and outreach is an important part of managed
growth. During the moratorium period, the Community Development Department began
coordinating outreach to Fairhope residents regarding concerns exacerbated by rapid growth
and development. Methods of outreach include community meetings, social and other media
and topical town hall meetings.
Finally, the Community Development Department began leading efforts to identify and
apply for funding to improve environmental, transportation and infrastructure related strains
and conditions. Since the moratorium began, the department has applied for over $48M in
grants and has been awarded nearly $700K in grant funding and technical assistance. Grants
received to date are focused on stormwater management, quality of life and environmental
stewardship.
Downtown Traffic, Parking & Pedestrian Safety
Downtown traffic and parking plays a key role in Fairhope’s growth. People don’t go where
they can’t move around easily or find convenient parking. Growth has exacerbated
congested conditions in downtown Fairhope, the heart of our economic prosperity and
social fabric.
As part of ongoing efforts to identify grant opportunities to ensure deficiencies and needs
are addressed, grants were pursued and awarded to address public transportation and
parking in downtown Fairhope. A new BRATS hub will be built at the parking deck between
N. Section and Church Streets. With grant dollars, the parking deck will be renovated, traffic
around the parking deck will be redirected, and the alley area will be improved by adding a
safe pedestrian walkway. BRATS will provide easy access to downtown Fairhope , dropping
off passengers within convenient walking distances to local merchants. Grants are also being
pursued to fund electric vehicles that will move people without adding more cars.
A planning grant also awarded to the City will allow for wayfinding signage to be designed
and locations identified. This will help drivers find their destinations, thus easing some of the
burden of traffic and helping to protect pedestrians.
Working with various committees, existing and proposed bike racks have been mapped and
evaluated as part of moving the Complete Streets initiative forward. This effort will allow
people to more easily ride bikes in town and have a place to secure them while dining or
shopping. Providing this infrastructure is one of the strategies to reduce congestion
downtown.
-
Building & Permitting
Ordinance 1398 (Erosion and Sediment Controls)
Several sections were revised to cover sites with multiple buildings and to address
stabilization of roadways.
Ordinance 1370 (Wetlands Protection)
A meeting was held in late August with several wetland consultants and City staff to discuss
the ordinance and received multiple suggestions for possible revisions and clarifications. A
follow up meeting is scheduled for mid-October.
Ordinance 1586 (Building permit fee schedule)
Amended the permit fee schedule to address fines and penalties for builders that are
scheduling repeated inspections without having performed the work or corrective actions.
A Builders Summit meeting was held in January and invited builders and developers to
discuss the permitting and inspection process to help reduce delays and problems for
everyone.
A Flood Map Open House meeting was held for the public to display the new FEMA flood
maps and answer questions.
A Homebuyers Due Diligence checklist was created for prospective buyers to know what
questions to ask before purchasing a property. These questions include zoning regulations,
subdivision restrictive covenants, drainage concerns, possible flood zones, etc.
A revised Building Permit Checklist was created to provide builders and owners a detailed
list of requirements and submittals needed for building projects.
A Frequently Failed Items List was created for building inspections to identify the most
common items that fail inspections for each phase of work.
A Flood Zone Construction checklist was created for a builder or owner who is considering
building in a Special Flood Hazard Area/Flood zone.
A revised Building Permit Card was designed to allow a grid for inspector sign-off on
approved inspections in addition to the paper inspection reports left on site.
The Building Department has begun the process of joining the FEMA Community Rating
System (CRS) program for flood zone development. Membership in this code-plus program
will allow for flood insurance discounts based on the enforcement of Federal regulations and
the City Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
-
Both the City Building Code Supplement and City Electrical Code Supplement are being
revised in preparation of adopting the 2018 International Building Code series in mid-
2018. The 2012 I-codes are currently being enforced.
All recommendations for ordinance and regulation changes go before the City Council for
approval.
Public Works
Stormwater issues have been at the forefront of the moratorium objectives. To provide
constant attention to this issue, stormwater will be addressed from an existing system
maintenance as well as in-house design review for new development. To carry out this
objective the City has hired an experienced Professional Engineer (P.E.) as Public Works
Director to provide guidance and expertise in this endeavor.
Development Review
By working within the planning and zoning development process, including updating land
use codes, Public Works will insure that ecological impacts to the environment by future
development are minimized through appropriate design, landscaping, erosion control,
stormwater management and proper planning. It must be foremost for the City of Fairhope
to protect valuable natural resources, the natural environment and the quality of life for all its
citizens. To preserve the integrity, stability and the value of land, the City of Fairhope will
continue to employ the use of innovative, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED-certified) and/or other “green” practices as a component of development
design. Any new application for development or redevelopment must evaluate the drainage
globally. Inadequate drainage systems must be recognized and mitigation measures put in
place at time of development. The developer and his engineer(s) must evaluate upstream and
downstream and design for no offsite impacts and the accommodation of in site
conditions. Many of these requirements are already incorporated in existing code or are
currently being updated. The key to success in stormwater management for new
development is the review process. The proposed process involving predesign meetings,
community information meetings and in-house engineering will afford the City of Fairhope
the highest level of coordination and review. Most potential drainage problems can be
addressed and mitigated through good design, oversight, review and code compliance.
The City’s existing stormwater system must be evaluated and an internal plan developed to
address its state of repair and inadequacies. This will need to be addressed almost like a
strategic plan that is comprised of identified benchmarks leading to an overall objective.
Benchmarks should include, but not be limited to:
o A complete inventorying and evaluation of existing drainage systems within
the City of Fairhope
o Mapping the City Stormwater Management System (SWM) in detail in GIS –
details should include pipe material & size, inverts, junctions, nodes, inlets,
outfalls, etc.
o Acquire and become competent in the use of drainage design software such as
StormCAD, PondPack and CulvertMaster. This will allow complex design of
SWM facilities “in-house”
o Modeling each of the City’s watersheds using Gridded Surface/Subsurface
Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) to identify problem areas and areas for future
regional SWM Facilities
o Create an “in-house” prioritized drainage project list that can be implemented
and constructed by Public Works personnel – set a goal of what number of
projects are to be completed by Fiscal Year End
o Create a prioritized capital SWM Project list and identify funding
opportunities – this capital improvement plan should be a 5, 10 through 25-
year consideration
o Establish a comprehensive SWM Plan for the City with clearly defined goals
and objectives
If these steps are undertaken simultaneously, noticeable improvements in the City’s
stormwater management will occur.
Utilities & Infrastructure
Design Standards
It didn’t start last month. It didn’t start a year ago. The City was warned in 2011 when the
City’s water reclamation plant (WRP) was upgraded. “The development of a comprehensive
sanitary sewer collection and conveyance management plan is an important element to
consider in planning future operational and maintenance budget needs.” (Technical
Memorandum 6; CH2MHILL; November 7, 2011) The City has had no plan. CH2MHILL, the
firm that conducted the 2011 review of the WRP, recommended that the next phase of the
2011 study ‘…should be to examine the city’s wastewater collection system (underground
piping, lift stations, etc.) – which have been subject to overflow in recent years.”
The City of Fairhope is in one of Alabama’s most complex and diverse watersheds – the
Mobile Bay Estuary. That alone is reason enough to be vigilant and proactive about our
waste water transmission capabilities. It’s the responsible thing to do. It is not enough to
have an award-winning water reclamation plant. If we can’t get the waste water to the plant
safely, what have we achieved?
We must ask ourselves: Where do we want to be 20 years from now? If we don’t act now,
then we must get use to the idea that unnecessary sanitary sewer overflows will be a part of
our everyday lives. That is unacceptable. In 2011, we were advised to perform analyses that
would be used to develop a Facility Plan which would present infrastructure improvements
recommended to meet the City-endorsed short- and long-term planning goals. Short-term
improvements were those required during the next 5 years (2011-2016) and included
improvements required to meet EPA redundancy and reliability criteria. Long-term
improvements were those required between 5 and 15 years (2016-2026) and included
planning goals that would be assessed every 3 to 5 years to track flows and loads, to consider
current regulatory environment, and to adjust the long-term improvement implementation
schedule as needed. The City never endorsed planning goals.
Well, that was 2011. It’s 2017 and our waste water transmission lines are the same as they
were in 2011. Meanwhile our population has grown 27% and we hook up hundreds of new
homes and businesses each year. In fact, permitting to date has increased 57% since 2000.
We don’t need to go into the details of our growth. Everyone feels it every day. ALDOT is
enlarging State Highway 181 to 4 lanes between Daphne and State Highway 104 and will
possibly extend the four-lane to County Road 32. When complete development along HWY
181 will accelerate. It’s already accelerating along HWY 104. The Comprehensive Plan
completed in 2015 showed the same growth pattern yet still there is no plan for sewer.
Growth will not stop. The City has not been looking forward. Now it cannot afford not to.
Our sewer system must keep pace with our growth now and our growth in the future.
Transmission Capacity
The Capacity Study for Gas, Water and Sewer Utilities conducted by Goodwyn, Mills & Cawood,
Inc. (GMC) was delivered to our Utilities Department in early October 2017. Following is a
synopsis of their findings.
GMC says Fairhope is “…facing a significant landmark in the life of its sewer system.” The
City can “…allow the system to continue to function with its current intent and convey all of
its sewage to trunk lines through the central business district and old Fairhope. These major
pump stations and gravity lines have reached the end of their useful life and need substantial
upgrades to continue serving the residents of Fairhope.”
Further, “It is recommended that the City make the critical infrastructure improvements
indicated in the report herein to continue providing quality sewer service to its existing
customers. Major pumps stations and gravity lines need immediate (emphasis added)
attention. Investment into the sewer system is vital to extend its life.”
GMC also recommends that the City develop a sewer model which then may be used to
create a Sewer Master Plan that meets all the objectives of the City and provides avenues for
growth.
Recommended Immediate Wastewater System Improvements
• Recommend an immediate and complete replacement of the 4 major lift stations –
S. Section St., N. Section St., Thompson Hall and Doghouse.
• Recommend significant improvements of major gravity outfall lines which are
carrying flows greater than their design capacity and are approaching total capacity:
o Doghouse Pumping Station line runs down Fairhope Avenue to Fernwood
o S. Section with 2 additional stations; if all 3 stations are pumping
simultaneously, the line they share is consumed and could create sewer
surcharging in the manholes
o Thompson Hall discharges into an 8” gravity main behind the Winn Dixie
store near Greeno Road and then combines with a line that the East of Sun
Pumping Station discharges into and then flows to the Doghouse Station; the
invert of the gravity line with both stations pumping is above design capacity
and on the verge of exceeding its total capacity
• Recommend an aggressive sewer collection system (Closed Circuit TV and Cured -in-
Place Pipe) to address aged infrastructure in the older portions of town where clay
pipe is prevalent; this repair entails 6 miles of pipe per year for the next 10 years
Sewer System Expansion Alternatives
• Upgrade 4 pump stations and related lines and continue to send all the sewer to the
existing waste water treatment plant
o First update S. Section Street pumping station
o Second update Doghouse pumping station
o Third update Thompson Hall pumping station
o Fourth update N. Section Street pumping station
• Same as Alternative 1 above but:
o Treat upgrade to S. Section Street differently by emptying into a 12” gravity
line on Church St and upgrade current undersized 12” line on Church St to
18”
o Upgrade Doghouse pumping station
o Upgrade Thompson Hall pumping station
o Upgrade N. Section St. pumping station
• Alternate 3 is the most significant increase in sewer capacity. We can improve the
existing infrastructure to meet the service area requirements; the “…expected growth
and corresponding sewer system would be collected and directed to a location to be
determined on the East side of US Highway 98. A site may be selected for treatment
and discharge that meets the approval of ADEM through required NPDES [National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permitting.”
Next Steps
• Evaluate rate increase to invest in capital improvements for rehabilitation
• Increase treatment/transmission connection fees to invest in capital improvements
• Evaluate all policies and procedures
• Apply long-term planning to projects to evaluate future growth and capacity needs
• Review material and equipment standards for modernization
Fiscal Stewardship & Operational Efficiencies
Review City Leases, Franchise Agreements, Revenue Sources
and Recommend Updates
A review of all city services, rentals, leases, and franchises was completed; all were compared
with neighboring municipalities and their offerings and pricing. The various departments are
adjusting pricing structure to remain competitive.
The 30-year old lease on the marina expired October 14, 2017. A thorough research of city-
owned and operated marinas along the coastal United States was conducted and it was
determined that it is in the best interests of the City to assume control of marina
management. This is probably the most positive and exciting singular decision the City has
made in years. Fairhope Docks will be renovated and become the Water Gateway to
Fairhope.
Other leases are targeted for review as their expiration dates come up. Leases will be
reviewed in their entirety so they are as beneficial to the City as they are to the lessee and will
go before the Council for approval.
The City Franchise Agreement is being presented to Council for update to include electrical
charges to vendors and conditions relevant to food vendors which were not previously
addressed.
Rental facilities were reviewed and compared to like municipalities in the area. Pricing
changes for our rental facilities are being recommended to the Council to remain
competitive.
With the removal of the AT&T cell tower, and the bidding process completed, painting of
the water tower will begin. This is important to preserve the tower and extend its life span.
The City website is in the final stages of complete redesign featuring more information and
user-friendly links to all areas of city government, events and news.
Evaluate Departmental Efficiencies and Adequacies, Revenues and
Expenditures
Personnel needs were identified as well as equipment needs –modernization needs – and the
fiscal year 2018 budget was developed based on the findings. We also identified where our
revenues can be enhanced simply by enforcing ordinances already on the books. It is not
inexpensive to run a city and offer the services at the level of quality offered in Fairhope. A
high level of services is something we want to maintain which means not only increasing
revenues but also cutting wasteful expenditures. The fiscal year 2018 budget addresses these
issues.
-
2018 Proposed Budget Presented on 9/25/17
2017’s budget is focused on cutting wasteful spending and separating the financials for the
City and Utilities. The result has already demonstrated a path for a more financially
responsible government. We exceeded revenue goals and were under budget on expenses
which not only saved millions of dollars over previous years, but greatly reduced the city’s
reliance on our utility profits.
The Utility subsidy came in the form of transfers into the City’s operating account and by
directly paying City operating expenses as you can see in the graph above. After separating
out City & Utility financials, Utilities no longer pay for City expenses such as phone,
computer, community development among many other expenses. Utilities will continue to
make up the shortfall for the City but only in a transparent transfer and only for the amount
needed until infrastructure is updated.
In 2017, the Utility transfer exceeded the City’s need showing a surplus. The actual subsidy
should have been $1,787,671, which is substantially lower than previous years.
UTILITY SUBSIDY TO THE CITY
2015 2016 2017
Utility Tran sfers to City $1,826,575 $2,951,081 $2,885,000
Operating Expense s Paid from Utility $2,442,631 2,797,227 Zero
Total Utility Dept Paid $4,269,206 $5,748,308 *$2,885,000
• Actual Transfer Should have Been $1,817,567
Utility Subsidy to City
SUBSTANTIALLY $6MM
DECREASED $5MM
UTILITY SUBSIDY $4MM
2015 $4,269,206
2016 $5,748,308
2017 $1,787,671
$3MM
$2MM
$1MM
Here is the net City deficit and when compare to the last two years, the City’s reliance on
Utility assistance has greatly reduced and well on its way to being self-reliant.
In 2017, the City did not use any cash reserves as in years past either. While we transferred
more than what was needed from Utilities, this is the first surplus in many years. Now that
expenses are properly appropriated, we can manage utility subsidy and even plan for the
correct amount the city should be getting to better serve its citizens.
Because less is being transferred out, Utilities’ profits have increased. With 2018 projected
profits, we can start immediately on upgrading the urgent needs in the sewer department.
ACTUAL CITY DEFICIT
BEFORE TRANSFERS
City Deficit Without
Utility Subsidy
2015 ($6,899,023)
2016 ($7,010,820)
2017 ($1,902,671)
CITY SURPLUS {DEFICIT)
AFTER TRANSFERS
2015
Total Revenue 21,911,228
Total Expenditures -28,810,252
Impact Fees ZERO
Cash Reserves 5,044,601
City Operating Paid out of Utilities -2,442 ,631
Utility Transfer to City 1,826,575
Surplus (Deficit) -2 ,470,479
UTIUTY SURPLUS
Utility Totals
$7MM
$6MM
$5MM
$4MM
$3MM
$2MM
$1MM
2016
24,043,399
-31 ,054 ,220
ZERO
200,000
-2,797,227
2,951,081
-6,656,967
2017
26,905,014
-28 ,843,650
115,000
ZERO
ZERO
2,885,000
1,061 ,364
2015 2016 2017 Budg et 2018
Total Revenue 38,285,807 37,647,995 38,681,607 40,804,345
Total Expenses 27,927,264 27,939,656 29,610,054 29,743,041
City Operating Expenses Paid 2,442,631 2,797,227 zero zero
Net Operating lncome/(Loss) 7,915,912 6,911,112 9,071,553 11,061,304
2015 & 2016 Utilitie s paid Cit y Opernting Expem;l!S In Addition to TronJ.fers to General fund
2018 projected with all city opera ting paid by city and proposed rote increases to pay for utility
infrastructure
Since 2010 the City of Fairhope has grown in population almost 27% while the total number
of Full-time City employees has decreased almost 4%. The shortage has been a long-term
problem but has been particularly exasperating now due to rapid growth. We must fill in the
holes to bring better services, become more efficient, capitalize on revenue opportunities
and greatly reduce overtime.
The budget also includes 2% fund for merit increases based on performance. By eliminating
the standard cost-of-living raise, we can afford to raise employees for exceptional
performance. The increase will happen on the anniversary date rather than all at once after
the budget passes.
Total debt with 2020 projection is as follows: The City debt will be paid down to just under
$2MM, but Utility and Airport debt are long term. Utilities have also held debt which
should have been under the City such as the settlement/purchase of the “Triangle” property.
We can no longer co-mingle expenses and revenue or we cannot properly manage the areas
that need attention.
PERSONNEL STATS
Full-Time Employees
2010 20 17 Cha nge
Em p l oyees 281 270 -3.90%
Ci t y Popu lation 15,326 1 9,421 26.60%
2014 2015 2016 20 17 2018
COLA 328,661 273,871 :2 14,609 200,226
MERITS/PROMOTIONS 189071 147 30S _:2S6 3 52 244 844
TOTAL INCR EASE 517,732 421,176 4 70 ,961 200,2 26 244,844
COLA/MERITS % OF SA L 4% 3% 4 % 2% 2%
TOTAL DEBT Total Debt
16,000,000
14,000.000
12,000,000
2017 2020
10,000,000
Total City Debt 7,679,616 1,825,576 3,000,000 L Total Utility Debt 14,885,000 12,389,040
Total Airport Debt 7,370,629 6,695,629 6,000,000
Tot al $29,935,245 $20,910,245 4,000,000
2,000,000 -
City Utility Airport
One of the big reductions in 2017 was excessive engineering expenses. We saved $341K+
by hiring the Operations Director who is a Professional Engineer (PE). The 2018 budget
includes a new engineering department which will be a shared expense in all departments
which will include SCADA, mapping and GIS services. This department is a critical need to
solve sewer leaks and quality water concerns.
Fiscal 2017 began with 234 passenger vehicles. We were paying more in mechanical
expenses than the vehicles were worth and paying unnecessary liability insurance. We are
beginning 2018 with ~142 passenger vehicles.
When new vehicles were purchased, the old ones were handed down. New purchases must
replace old equipment unless we are adding a person.
The 2018 budget includes leasing larger equipment so we are not having to pay the whole
purchase up front. There will be no surprises on capital outlay each year, full warranty and
maintenance included with lease and turned in for new equipment. This process will save
money (mechanical, overtime, efficiency).
CIVIL ENGINEERING EXPENSE
PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL PROJECTS UTILITITES
2017 Expenses $35,036 $31,513 $46,955 $81,421
Avg Last 4 Yrs -$39,000 $149,000 $13 1,000 $217,000
Estimated Savi ngs $3,964 $117,487 $84,045 $135,579
Average Spent Last 4 Years
$536,000
Total Spent in 2017 $195k
Total Savings $341,075
FLEET MANAGEMENT
MISC SAVINGS
• Annual Savings Transitioning Utility Billing to Munis $73,110/year
• Tree Lighting Contract Labor, ideas for future
• Credit card payment savings switching in April after contract
• Encouraging people pay online save postage
• Travel use city vehicle or rent vehicle .
• Manage Overtime by Hiring in Needs & Purchasing Reliable Equipment
• Fleet Management: Decrease Excessive Mechanical and Liability
Expense
• Internal Safety Training will Decrease Workman's Comp Expense
Provide Improved Government Transparency for the Citizens
In an effort to better inform citizens, the number of live-streamed committee and
department meetings on Facebook and YouTube have been increased.
Town Hall Meetings were initiated to meet with citizens on important subjects that are key
to government operations.
‘Ate at Eight’ was launched as an informal monthly breakfast at alternating local restaurants.
This was created to provide citizens an opportunity to talk with the mayor one-on-one.
We are using all means of communication available to the city at this time to inform citizens
about what is happening in Fairhope. This includes events, emergencies, critical meetings,
good news, recognition to outstanding employees or citizens, and more.
A full-time communications position has been proposed to the City Council so we can
further improve our conversations with our citizens. All our communications would filter
through this position assuring concise, quick, and accurate information.
Of course, no number of updated ordinances and policies and regulations will do us any
good if we don’t have the proper staffing to review them, enforce them or keep them
updated as time goes on, or if we don’t have the modern equipment to help us complete
these ongoing tasks efficiently.
2018 BUDGET
CITY OF FAIRHOPE BUDGET FY 2017-2018
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
SURPLUS (DEFICIT)
TRANSFERS FROM IMPACT FEE FUND
CASH RESERVES
NET PROFIT/(LOSS)
UTILITY TRANSFERS TO CITY GOVERNMENT
TOTA< SURPWS (DEFICIT/ AFTER UT/tlTY SUBSIDY
___ Bud~ct20 IH
Utility .Rc_!_c nuc Income
Gas Fund
Electric Fund
Water Fund
26•79s,945 Sewer Fund
32,352,404
(5,556,459)
To tal Reve nu e
745,820 U .1. E
2 030 OOO ti It r X CJISCS
(2'.1so:639) ~as Fund
l,BlS,OOO Elcctnc Fund
3 41361 Water Fu nd
Sewer Fund
Total Expe nses
Net O >Cratin, Income/ Lo ss
Pro scd Transfer Lo Cit
6.729.500
2 1,23'1.5 45
7,947.300
4.888.000
40.804.345
4.732.424
17.159.905
3.659.764
4.190.948
29.743.04 1
11 ,061,304
(2.8 15.000)
IN CONCLUSION
Fairhope is at a crossroads. The City must do what it can to celebrate our past, preserve our
present and secure our future. “We’ve always done it that way” is not sufficient justification
for making decisions. Past practices must be replaced with more innovative and modern
approaches. Technology can assist us in our efforts to build a sustainable waste water
system, develop stormwater solutions and implement resilience practices. Moving in this
direction will ensure that the quality of life for which Fairhope is recognized continues well
into the future.
To that end, overarching goals in line with the findings of the moratorium are being
developed. Each department will be asked to establish departmental goals that will support
and help achieve what is in the best interest of the City as a whole. The moratorium period
revealed the importance of integrating cross-departmental workflow in order to effectively
operate. This all-inclusive approach to governing the City of Fairhope will result in better
government and stronger ties with our residents.
While these things may not be achieved overnight, steady progress is being made. Some of
the findings from the moratorium period have already resulted in positive change and these
efforts will continue as we work together to protect and preserve the City of Fairhope.