The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-04-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketlrGiw'I Wll:kih illi'JJW Rob,.n/o,_ D'll•" JJlk Bl.t.m:111 M:MO ~mOII' ~n)'tn 1'1)' [i,N)tn,,111 U.., ,I Haw~. IW.C mrr,,,.. llell:!mh .\. Smillt. er.I ~;,.g2a.z1:;. rn 92S,~17~ f~< r.\lW,i:JIJ!'I;.~~ r,..,. .. ~" t,rjiJi,1;,,tt.• 1. Call to Order City of Fairhope Planning Commission Agenda 5:00 PM Council Chambers January 4, 2018 2. Approval of Decembe r 4, 20 17 Minutes 3. Consid eration of Age nd a Items : A. Request of the City of Fairhope Plannin g and Zoning Department to accept Resol ution 2017 -03 amend ing Article V, Section F. Storm Water Standards of the Ci ty of Fairhope Subdivis io n Regu la tions. B. SD 17.28 Public hea r ing to consider the request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LlC for Preliminary plat approval of V<1n Antwerp Park, an 11-lot subd ivision. The property is located on the north ·si de of Pensacola Avenue between N. Secti on Street and N. Mobile Street. PPIN #: 18772 C. SD 17 .29 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Prelimin ary plat ap proval of Battles T race, Phase S, a 73-lot subdivision. The pro perty is loc;ited on the north side of Battl es Road, north of the Co lony at the Gra nd. PPIN #: 29244 and 372296 D. SD 17.31 Pub lic hearing to consi der the request of HMR, LLC for PreltmTna ry and Fihal Plat approva l of Camellia at the Colony, a 7-lot su bdivision. The property i s located on the west si de of Battles Road j ust south of Watershed South subdivision . PPIN #: 72845 E. SD 18.01 PubllchearTng to consider the requ est of Bra ndon Ba iley, PLS for Plat app roval of Cam ellia Bluffs, a 2-iot mihor subdivision. The property is located on the west side of Main Street dke ctly across from Rock Cree.k Drive . PPIN: 19502 F. SD 18 .02 Public hearing to consid er the request of S.E. Civil Engi neering, LLC fo r Multiple Octllpancy Project approva l of Bancroft & Pine Mixed Use Developme nt, a 23-unft project. The property is locate d on the southeast corner of the intersection of Banqoft Street and Pine Street, at 106 N, Bancroft Street. PPIN : 15402 G. SR 18.02 Request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC for Site Plan approval of Bancroft & Pine Mixed Use Development, a 23-unit project. The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bancroft Street and Pine Street, at 106 N. Bancroft Street. PPIN: 15402 H. ZC 18.01 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/ Preble- Rish, LLC for a PUD Amendment for Lo t 19 Fairfield, Unit VI. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Boothe Road and Norman Lane. PPIN #: 298888 I. SD 18.04 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/ Preble- Rish, LLC for Prel iminary and Final plat approval of Resubdivision of Lot 19 Fairfield, Unit VI. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Boothe Road and Norman Lane . PPIN #: 298888 J. SR 18.01 Request of Infirmary Hea lth for Site Plan approval of Thomas Hospital Parking Lot Addition Phase II. The property is located on the southeast corner of the Thomas Hospital campus . PPIN: 1682 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjourn • Discussion of ZC 17.20 -Request of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for a proposed amendment to Article IV, Section E. Parking of the Zon i ng Ordinance pertaining to Low Impact Development requirements and the Greeno Road Corridor parking requirements. December 4, 2017 Planning Comm iss ion Minutes The Planning Commission met Monday, December 4, 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 5:01 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) Review and Approval, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess stated the City operates under Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II General Permit Number ALR040040. The SWMP is submitted yearly and is a permit requirement. Assessment and public review of this plan is also a requirement, and is spec ified in the current plan as being evaluated by the Planning Commission. The Commission watched a MS4 video. Mr. Dyess stated the video is on the City's website as well as the SWMP plan. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the Storm Water Management Plan as presented. Ralph Thayer 2 nd the motion and the motion canied unanimously. ZC 17.17 Public hearing to consider the request of Community Bank Coast for a PUD Amendment to Lot of the Greeno Professional Village, Neil Polen. The property is located on the n01iheast corner of the intersection of Greeno Road (a.k.a. US Hwy. 98) and Edwards Avenue, at 200 N. Greeno Road. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying the applicant is seeking an amendment of the Greeno Professional Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The purpose of the amendment is to change the building orientation and parking area orientation and to allow 25 '-0" tall light poles for Lot 1 of the Greeno Professional Village. The Greeno Professional Village PUD was approved April 8, 2002 via Ordinance 1142. The development requirements of Ordinance 1142 require a site plan review and approval by the Fairhope Planning Commission and the Fairhope City Council before building permits may be issued for the various lots comprising the PUD. The as-built configuration of the acce ss road in the existing PUD as well as the building layout of the structure located on Lot 2 of the existing PUD do not match Exhibit "A" of Ordinance 1142. As a result, the orientation of the Community Bank facility to be constructed on Lot 1 as well as the layout of the parking areas of Lot 1 differ from Exhibit "A" and are adjust ments required to fit onto Lot I. Changes of configuration of building layout, parking layout, and access road path have occuned throughout the PUD and affect the layout of Lot 1 as the access road was not constructed in a fashion to allow the angled building layout included in Exhibit "A" of Ordinance 1142. The submitted building and parking layout and subject app lication allow Lot 1 to be utilized without re-configuring the existing access road. The subject request for PUD amendment further requests the use of area lighting utiliz ing 25' -0" li ght poles . It is likely the original intent of Ordinance 1142 was to prevent light pollution onto adjoining residential properties to the greatest extent prac t icable by creating a requirement more stringent than that of the City Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. As a result, Ordinance 1142 requires light poles be no tall er than the 8' shadowbox fence along the east property l ine. 1 December 4, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Staff recommends that the rezoning be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. The light standards shall be no taller than the fence to be constructed at the rear property line, i.e. the origina l lighting requirements of Ordinance 1142 shall remain in effect. Mr. Dyas asked how the original PUD was constructed not in conformance with the approved design and Mr. Dyess responded he is unsure and each site would have to be looked at to see what changes were approved administratively. Dr. Thayer stated 25 ' light poles would be overlooking the residential backyards. Mr. Dyess stated the applicant requested the 25' poles but staff does not support the request. Mrs. Bryant stated the original design has the road and parking in the rear and this proposed design has a drive in the front. Neil Polen, applicant, addressed the Commission saying they have worked with staff to present the best design. He stated they would like to have the 25' light poles for safety reasons but will agree to the 8' requirement. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Mac Walcott of 12330 Live Oak Street -He asked how the PUD was changed. Mr. Turner explained PUDs typically outline character, square footage , density, and uses but not necessarily building orientation. Mr. Dyas asked if parking and road reconfiguration are minor changes and Mr. Turner said no, but the angle of the building may have been viewed by previous staff as a minor change. Mr. Dyas asked who has the authority to make changes and Mr. Dyess responded PUDs are designed to be flexible and staff does have some authority to approve minor changes . Mr. Walcott asked what happens if staff deems the change as more than minor. Mr. Dyess stated a PUD amendment such as this would be done. Mrs. Bryant asked how the Commission can change the design when they don't know what was originally approved. Mr. Dyess stated the original layout is in the packet. Mr. Dyas asked if this will set a precedent and Mr. Dyess responded no, the scope of review is only applicable to this property. Mr. Turner stated this PUD is 14 years old. Mrs. Bryant asked if the drawings included with the PUD for approval are just for illustration and the site plan is where there is a firm design. Mr. Dyess stated the approved PUD shows enough information and the proposed design was significant enough to require this PUD amendment. Gary Gover of 300 Lincoln Street -He noted there is not a sidewalk proposed on the south side of the lot and he requested one be added to connect the site to existing neighborhoods. Mr. Turner stated sidewalks would be a function of the site plan and Mr. Dyess agreed. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Tmner closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the rezoning request with the following condition: 1. The light standards shall be no taller than the fence to be constructed at the rear property line, i.e. the original lighting requirements of Ordinance 1142 shall remain in effect. Ralph Thayer 2 nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. SR 17.03 Request of Community Bank Coast for Site Plan approval of Community Bank, Neil Polen. The property is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of Greeno Road (a.k.a. US Hwy . 98) and Edwards Avenue, at 200 N . Greeno Road. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying the applicant i s requesting site plan approval for Community Bmtlc, located on Lot 1 of the Greeno Professional Village PUD. The Greeno Professional Village PUD was approved April 8 , 2002 via Ordinance 1142, case number ZC 02.01. The development requirements of case number ZC 02.01 I Ordinance 2 December 4, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes 1142 requires a site plan review by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission as well as the Fairhope City Council before building permits may be issued within the PUD. The applicant provided a supporting document describing six (6) LID techniques to be used on the project and has requested a waiver of the remaining LID techniques. The waiver of the remaining LID techniques is acknowledged in staff's recommendation for the site plan review. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the site plan with the following conditions: 1. Acceptance of the applicant's request for a waiver of ten (10) LID techniques for surface drainage processing. The third-party engineer has verified that he submitted drainage system comprised of six (6) LID techniques removes 80% of the total suspended solids (TSS) from the site's drainage, and by submitting six LID techniques the applicant has complied with the spirit and desired outcome of the LID requirements. Further, staff is preparing an amendment to the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations , Alticle V, Section F.11., removing the required using often (10) LID techniques though retaining the use of LID techniques to attain 80% TSS removal. 2. Approval of Case ZC 17-17, a rezoning request of subject property to amend Ordinance 1142 allowing the changes to the building layout and parking layout in the subject application. Mr. Dyess stated there is not a sidewalk shown on the south side of the property, but staff would support one as a condition of approval. Mrs. MacKellar stated the sidewalk along Edwards is on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Turner opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to speak. Mr. Dyas asked if there is room in the right-of- way for a sidewalk on the north side of Edwards A venue to connect the existing subdivision to the east. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the site plan with the following conditions: 1. Acceptance of the applicant's request for a waiver of ten (10) LID techniques for surface drainage processing. The third-party engineer has verified that he submitted drainage system comprised of six (6) LID techniques removes 80% of the total suspended solids (TSS) from the site's drainage, and by submitting six LID techniques the applicant has complied with the spirit and desired outcome of the LID requirements. Further, staff is preparing an amendment to the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, Article V , Section F.1 1., removing the required usin g often (10) LID techniques though retaining the use of LID techniqu es to attain 80% TSS removal. 2. Approval of Case ZC 17-17, a rezoning request of subj ect property to amend Ordinance 1142 allowing the changes to the building layout and parking layout in the subject application. 3. A sidewalk shall be installed on along the south property line of the subject site on the north side of Edwards A venue. Ralph Thayer 2 nd the motion. Mrs. Bryant stated the sidewalk will not connect to anything because the existing sidewalk for Edwards A venue is on the south side of the street. Mrs. MacKellar asked if this project meets the new parking requirements for Greeno Road. Mr. Dyess responded those parking requirements are not in place at this time but no , it would not meet the proposed amendments. Mrs. Bryant noted this proposal has less parking in the front than the property to the north. 3 December 4, 2017 Planning Comm ission Minutes The motion carried unanimously. ZC 17.18 Public hearing to consider the request of the Annette Sanders to rezone property from R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District to R-4 Low Density Single Family Residential District. The property is located at 401 N. Mobile Street. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying the applicant is requesting a rezoning of 102'x 728' lot from the existing R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District to the R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. The subject property is nearest the North Village Node where the Publix is located. The development pattern around this village node is more dense as prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. However, the subject prope1ty is located well outside the area of dense development and is located in an area predominantly single family residential. The requested R-4 zoning will introduce a higher density and a housing type such as apaiiment/multi-family which is incon sistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This rezoning has the potential to dismpt a well-established single-family neighborhood and alter is character significantl y. The introduction of R-4 into an area predominantly comprised of R-2 Single Fan1ily residential would be out of character with the surrmmding properties. The R-2 zoning district does not allow short-term rentals. The proposed R-4 does allow short term rentals. The introduction of a short-term rental prope1iy into an area predominantly comprised of a traditional sing le family neighborhood would introduce a use and related impacts that are inconsistent with the character of the area. Staff is aware of a code violation case regarding the subject property related to short te1m rental of the subject property. The area of North Mobile Street is predominantly zoned R-2. The R-2 zoning is exclusively for single family homes, the proposed R-4 allows single family, two fan1ily, town houses and apartments. The introduction of higher densities and multi- family u ses ai·e inconsistent with adjacent prope1iies. Staff recommends the rezoning request be DENIED due to failure to meet the criteria provided in Article II.C.1.e. of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Sanders addressed the Commission saying she purchased the property in 2014 and built a guest house with garage for fanruy and friends. She provided pictures and a narrative to the Commission. She explained the long term rentals in the area are much more of a detriment than her shmi-term rental. She stated she helps Fairhope by paying taxes for a business and directs her clients to Downtown to shop and eat. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Rob Stankoski of 8335 Gayfer Road Ext. -He addressed the Commission on behalf of the residents in the adj acent neighborhood. He stated they are opposed to the accessory dwelling unit on the subject property. He explained the e xisting building is not what was submitted and approved by the City for construction. He said the applicant is adve1iising and renting the property on AirBnB as a short-term rental which is not an allow use in R- 2. He asked the Commission to deny the request. Terry Passman of 400 N. Mobile Street -He stated the right-of-way in this area is a narrow gravel drive and the increased traffic is a potential danger. Gail Diederich of 219 Perdido A venue -She presented a petition from the neighborhood to deny the request. She stated the area is a residential neighborhood and n ot a commercial area. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr. Dyess stated the City is aware of the illegal short-term rental and it is being pursued . Mr. Peterson stated he has enjoyed staying in AirBnBs in the past, but he also sees the 4 December 4, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes concerns of the neighborhood. Mrs. Bryant stated the accessory dwelling units are a different issue than the rezoning. She said short-term rentals are an enforcement issue. Mr. Dyess stated this zoning change is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Dr. Thayer stated New Orleans is over-run by AirBnBs. Mr. Dyess stated the City's regulations need to catch up to the new trends and we can look at strengthening our regulations to include best practices and establish appropriate locations. Mrs. Sanders stated she has already been to court for the zoning infraction and has paid all her fines. She stated she has received a business license to rent for 30 days or more. She also added the Police Chief conducted traffic counts on N. Mobile Street. Mr. Turner said this request if approved would put R-4 in the middle of all R-2 zoned property and that is spot zomng. Richard Peterson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to deny the rezoning request due to the failure to meet the criteria provided in Article II.C. l .e. of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance . Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. ZC 17.19 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC to establish initial zoning of TR Tourist Resort District conditional upon annexation into the City of Fairhope for property to be known as Camellia at the Colony, Tim Lawley. The property is located on the west side of Battles Road just south of Watershed South subdivision. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the subject prope1ty is currently unzoned and approximately 1.5 acres. The applicant desires to modify the previously approved Colony at the Grand Tourist Resort (approximately 186.2 acres) District to include the Camellia at the Colony parcel. The applicant proposes the additional 1.5 acres to be included in the low-ri se portion of the overall Colony at the Grand Tourist Resort Development. The additional acreage added is proposed to be Camellia at the Colony, which will be annexed into the City and consist of 7 single family lots that conform to the minimun1 lot and layout standards outlined in the TR District Regulations for the Colony at the Grand. The total acreage of the Colony at the Grand TR District development will be 187.7 acres after the annexation, per the engineer of record. The additional land is contiguous with the TR District; per the TR District provisions in the Zo ning Ordinance, the subject 1.5 acres can be added to the existing Land Use Map. Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The pending water and sewer issue infrastructure issues shall be resolved between the applicant and the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Department. 2. All aspects of the Colony at the Grand TR District shall remain as is, unless otherwise specified in the subject application. Mr. Dyess stated this is a rezoning request but there are concerns with the water and sewer. He explained this i s the first round of submittals since the moratorium and there are four cases where the City utility superintendents have not concurred with the applicant on design. He stated the Water and Sewer Construction Specifications are part of the Subdivision Regulations and gravity sewer is the preferred method. However, low pressure and grinder pumps can be approved but they must meet certain standards and they need a w aiver. He said the waiver must be advertised and it was not for these cases. Mr. Dyas said rules and regulations have obviously n ot been followed and we want to break away from how it's a lways been done and if the specifications state gravity shall be used then so be it. Mr. D yess said gravity is the preferred method and a waiver can be granted for low pressure if the criteria are met. Mr. Peterson explained gravity syst ems can help with our capacity issues and the criteria are not to restrict development but to 5 December 4, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes protect the city residents and property owners. Mr. Robinson asked if this case can be heard if the waiver wasn't advertised. Mr. Dyess responded the zoning case can be heard but not the subd ivision case. Mr. Lawley explained the required forms have been submitted and they meet the criteria to allow a low pressure system. He said this is his first time to be required to submit this information. Mr. Peterson stated he did not see the information and Mr. Lawley responded it is in the detailed report. Mr. Dyas asked the applicants to work with staff and the Commission while we get a grip on what's going on. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Ray Hammock of 525 Owl's Nest Place -President of Watershed HOA-He stated it is hard to separate the two cases. He said the TR District allows short-term rentals and they request the zoning be denied. Mac Walcott of 12330 Live Oak Street -He said the low pressure system is existing and it is the easiest way to provide sewer. He passed out an aiiicle to the Commission. He said the regulations are cleai· and if there is a sewer moratorium then the City should just say it. He stated a 22 unit apartment project was killed last week due to these rules. He said the developers cannot get comments or answers from the utilities. Mr. Dyas responded that just because the design meets the standards it doesn't mean the system can handle it. Mr. Dyess added these regulations are not new and maybe they haven't been followed in the past, but staff is trying to make sure they are followed now. He added it takes time to get a handle on the new requirements and processes. Dr. Thaye r asked why the Commission is voting on the zoning change and Mr. Dyess r esponded it meets the criteria. Effie Thompson of 18182 Woodland Drive -She said she was not notified of this meeting until earlier in the day. She asked if the prope1iy would be rentals and she stated concerns with water run-off. Mr. Turner stated the requested zoning is a special district for this specific area and is different than the touri st zonings Downtown. Shelly West of 159 Mulberry Lane -She asked if a traffic study was done and how the stonnwater will be handled. Ms. Milford stated the site did not meet the density requirements for a traffic study. Mr. Lawley explained the overall site was approved for 630 units but the final development will be under 400. Mr. Turner stated a traffic study only makes recommendations for improvements and is not a traffic count. David Lemons of 63 5 Caro lina Court -He said the depth of the lots will be limited due to the golf course. He also stated concerns with traffic and the multiple driveways onto Battles Road. Ann Miller of 18160 Woodland Drive -She asked why the applicant is requesting a tourist resort zoning if it w ill be residential houses. Ms. Milford said the property will be developed like the Azalea at the Colony subdivision and the zoning was the result of a court case. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff re commendation to approve contingent up on the following conditions: 1. The pending water and sewer issue infrastructure issue s shall be resolved between the applicant and the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Department. 2 . All aspects of the Colony at the Grand TR District shall remain as is, unless otherwise specified in the subject application. 3. The property shall be Low Rise Residential Zone. 6 December 4, 20 I 7 Planning Commission Minutes Ralph Thayer 2 nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, and Tim Simmonds. NAY -Hollie MacKellar and Richard Peterson. ABSTAIN -Jay Robinson. SD 17.31 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Preliminary and Final plat approval of Camellia at the Colony, a 7-lot subdivision, Tim Lawley. The property is located on the west side of Battles Road just south of Watershed South subdivision. The applicant requested to table the application. ZC 17.20 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department for a proposed amendment to Article IV, Section E. Parking of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Low Impact Development requirements and the Greeno Road Corridor Parking, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying the City of Fairhope adopted the mixed use village concept as early as 2001 and re-enforced this development concept in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan update. The 2015 Plan Update fwther clarified the concept by providing preferred sizes and locations for village centers and emphasized walkability. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Greeno Road corridor is comprised of two village centers. North Village, located at the intersection Greeno Road/US 98 south of Parker Road (location of the Publix Shopping Center), and the second village at the intersection of Greeno Road and Fairhope Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for two commercial nodes at the intersection of Twin Beech Road and Greeno Road and C.R. 32 and Greeno Road. The City Fairhope has adopte d a planning method where the Comprehensive Plan identifies the locations and sizes of village centers and the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision regulations provide the legal method to fulfill these planning goals. However, to date these districts have not been used on the zoni ng map. In order to effectuate the village development concept, the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance contains three Village Districts in Article VI.: 1. CVC Community Village Center which serves as a large walkable mixed-use community center of approximately 40 acres and 100,000 and 350,000 square feet of non-residential uses. 2. NVC Neighborhood Village Center is a smaller mixed-use center of approximately 5 + acres established to that supports the scale and character of existing neighborho ods within a I-mile radius. 3. VRM Village Residential Mix district intended to create a compact neighborhood with land use anangement compatible with the village cent ers. The predominant land use is residential. These three village districts are the "building blocks" of the Fairhope village concept. The CVC district is intended to be located at the intersection of two arterial streets , in conjunction with village locations and sizes prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. The village center designated for Fairhope Avenue and Greeno is currently developed in a typical suburban pattern with large parking lots dominating the streetscape with a low walkability. Overparking based on single use parking requirements is prevalent. This overparking creates a visual blight of property t hat could othe1wise be used for compact development purposes . The Fairhope village concept is typical of the rural to urban transect contained in the Smrut Code. The Smart Code is a form-based code that incorporates Smart Growth and New Urbanism principles. It is a unified development ordinance, addressing development at all scales of design, from regional planning on 7 December 4 , 2017 Plannin g Commission Minutes down to the building signage. The Greeno Road/Fairhope Village Center is clearly defined by both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. However, the areas beyond the village center aren't we ll defined and has created difficulty in the rezoning process. The cun-ent single-family residential zoning is not practical along Greeno Road due to the high volume of traffic and related adverse impacts. A better method to address this gateway must be developed. Pursuant to the 2016 Plan, the Development Framework, provides the following objective: "Guide commercial and high density growth to locations that can be efficiently and effectively served with utilities and public services such as police, fire, and public works." A strategy under this objective calls for the City to "Define the commercial growth of Greeno Rd. with edges, thus, ensuring an appropriate ending point." By defining the gat eway areas and the Community Village Center, criteria can be established to carry out the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by identifying centers and edges. The parking amendment is one step towards attaining that goal. The Greeno Road corridor is the primary entrance into Fairhope and serves as a "gateway" into the City. Gateways are an important placemaking and urban design tool. The serve to provide a sense of arrival, distingui shable from other roadways by its scenic and visual interesting quality. They also help define the village boundaries. Mr. Dyess requested the Commission hold the publ i c hearing tonight but wait until the January meeting to vote. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Anna Miller of 257 Westley Street -She asked if a commercial overlay is being proposed for Greeno Road and how the boundaries will be dete1mined. She said she agreed with the visual enhancement from Greeno Road but also wants to make sure the residential properties are protected for visual bli ght. She also recommended more public input be allowed as well. Mac Walcott of 12330 Live Oak Street -He asked if this amendment will affect the Comprehensive Plan redo . Bobby Green of 415 Maple Street -He said if this i s good idea for Greeno Road then why not apply it to every street in Fairhope. He said there are places on Greeno Road that may change to commercial and this will put the parking abutting residential prope1ties. Debra Green of 415 Maple Street -She asked if PUDs will be required to put their parking in the rear. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr. Dyess responded to the comments saying existing PUDs would govern their property. He stated this amendment would only apply to the estab lished corridor and villages, but staff can look for other ar eas to incorporate these same requirements. He explained the amendment would not have anything to do with the underlying zoning but be specific to the defined corridor. SD 17.29 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Preliminary plat approval of Battles Trace, Phase 5, a 73-lot subdivision, Tim Lawley. The property is lo cated on the n01ih side of Battles Road, north of the Colony at the Grand. The applicant reque sted to table the application. SD 17.30 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Preliminary plat approval of Fox Hollow, Phase 2, a 59-lot subdivision, Tim Lawley. The property is located on the south side of Morphy A venue, b etween County Road 13 and Thompson 8 December 4, 20 l 7 Planning Commission Minutes Hall Road. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying Fox Hollow Phases 1 and 2 received preliminary subdivision plat approval on June 6, 2016 (Case SD 16-11) and Phase 1 received final plat approval July 3, 2017 (Case SD 17-15). Subject application modifies the previously-approved phase 2 plat via addition of three lots as well as removal of a "stub" street in phase 2 to allow one of the additionally-request lots. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE the amended preliminary plat as requested. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mrs. Bryant asked if the stormwater ninoffs are calculated by the maximum allowable buildout for each lot and Mr. Lawley responded it is based of an assumed square footage for each lot as well as the roads and sidewalks. Mrs. MacKellar asked if the common areas are recreation or detention and Mr. Lawley answered they will be wet ponds, so they could be both. Mr. Turner commented they did a great job on the bridge and sidewalk along Morphy A venue. Ralph Thayer made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the amended preliniinary plat as requested. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. UR 17.06 Request of Southern Light for an 11.52.11 Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 708 linear feet of fiber optic cable. The project will run along the west side of Greeno Road and the north side of Nichols Avenue to service the Warehouse Bakery at 759 Nichols Avenue. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the Warehouse Bakery is within the City of Fairhope Planning, Pennit and Police Jurisdictions. The City owns the right of way in this location. Southern Light proposes to dig two (2) four (4') foot wide and twenty-four-inch deep (24") pits for bore machine and hand.hole placement. Southern Light also proposes installing two (2) one and one quarter inch (11/4") HOPE SDR 11 conduits or better. Fiber optic cable is proposed in one (1) of two (2) conduits and a twelve (12) gauge copper locate wire shall be placed in the remaining conduit. Southern Light will close any open trenches or holes overnight and properly flag/cone them during constmction. The applicant anticipates two (2) full days of construction. The City will allow some trenching with a vibratory plow as long as the 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 under roads, in proximity to trees, on finished lots, etc. Staff recommendation is to approve conditional upon the following: 1. The applicant shall follow the general comments related 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 with City Department Heads prior to issuance of a ROW pennit. Richard Peterson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve conditional upon the following: 1. The applicant shall follow the general comments related 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 with City Department Heads prior to issuance of a ROW permit. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion canied unanimously. 9 December 4, 20 I 7 Planning Commission Minutes Resolution 2017 -02 -P ublic hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Public Utilities to accept Resolution 2017-02 amending Article VI, Section F.C. and H.2. of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, Emily Boyett. Mrs. Boyett gave the staff report saying this amendment wi ll authorize the Director of Operations to revise the Construction Standards within the Standards Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities. Mr. Peterson stated the regulations contain design criteria and technical criteria that sets the level of service that is the expectation for the Planning Commission to review. He explained due to new technology, materials, and ways the design criteria can be incorporated into a project then the technical side of these things can change. He said this amendment will allow more options for the technical side of things and an easier process to insert language into the Construction Standards. Mac Walcott of 12330 Live Oak Street-He said he believes there is a process that is not being fo llowed. He asked if the regulations are changed tonight, then would a project that has a lready been submitted be required to meet the new standards and Mr. Turner said no. Mr. Walcott asked to see the changes highlighted. He also asked ifthere is a sewer capacity issue in Fairhope. Mr. Peterson responded yes , when it rains hard there is. Mr. Robinson asked who is this amendment taking the authority from and Mr. Watson responded the Planning Commission because it is part of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Robinson asked if the City Council votes on this and Mr. Watson said no, the Planning Commission is the authority for the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Mr. Turner said staff is bringing up applicable issues and are making sure things are not overlooked. He also stated Mr. Peterson is doing a great job reviewing each of these projects. Mr. Robinson said people want to see consistency. Mr. Dyess stated times change and staff just wants to make sure everything is done correctly even if that means things change from the way it was done in the past. Mr. Walcott asked if there are other mechanisms for recourse. Mr. Dyas said there are issues the Commission has to understand and it will take time. Having no one else to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to accept Resolution 2017-02 amending Article VI, Section F.C . and H.2. of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations authorizing the Dire ctor of Operations to revise the Construction Standards within the Standards Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facili ties and Water Facilities. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion c,mied with the fo llowing vote: A YE -Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Tim Simmonds and Jay Robin son. NAY -none. ABSTAIN -Richard Peterson. Resolution 2017-03 -Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department to accept Resolution 2017-03 amending Article V, Section F. Storm Water Standards of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying thi s amendment will simplify the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. He said the percentages will not change only how they are required to meet them. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one pre sent to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. 10 December 4, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Turner stated these changes do not have anything to do with the volume but only the treatment. He said the last rain event was 4 ½" and it acted like an 8 ½" event and the only difference is the County has opened all the culverts. Alt Dyas made a motion to table Resolution 2017-03 to the January meeting. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. 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 8:06 PM. Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary 11 RESOLUTION NO: 2017-03 A RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTION F. STORMWATER STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHEREAS, Ala. Code Section 11-52-31, expressly authorizes a municipal planning commission to adopt subdivision regulations governing the subdivision of land within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend the Subdivision Regulations as hereinafter provided. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, as follows: 1. Article VI, Section F. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised to read as follows: F. STORM WATER STANDARDS: 1. Purpose -These storm water standards shall implement the Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of tbe City by setting the location, character and extent of open spaces and facilities for waterways and stonn water nmoff, discharge , retention and detention. This design and arrangement shall promote the health, safety and general welfare, and promote safety from inundation and erosion caused by stonn water runoff. These standards shall promote the following goals in the Comprehensive Plan: (a) plan, provide and maintain efficient and effective infrastructure that promotes orderly growth and environmentally sound practices to meet the futme needs of the community and to support land use goals ; (b) promote a sustainable future that meets today 's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs ; and (c) encourage and develop connections between environmental quality and economic vitality. 2. Liab ility -The design criteria herein establishes minimum elements of design which must be implemented with good engineering and good construction practices. Use of infonnation herein for placement of any stmcture, for use of any land , or any design basis shall not constitute a representation , guaranty, or warranty of any kind by the City of Fairhope or its agents , officers or employees of the practicability, adequacy or safety of design . 3 . Submittal Requirements - a. Minimum R equirem ents -All proposed developments shall demonstrate compliance with this Chapter "X", these Regulations , and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations by submitting a min imum of two (2) hard copies and electronic files of the following plans and calculations: {1) Drainage Plan: adequate provision for stonn and flood water contl'ol by channe l, conduit or basin s , which accounts for the uhim11te or saturated development of the tributary area in which the proposed subd.fvision is to be located. and which includes but shall not he limited lo: (n) Contour map of proposed development areas, with both existing and finish contours at not greawr than two-foot intervals; (b) Existing dra inage systems, including any structures immedililely downstream that may be affected by the projec\; (c) Propose<l drainage system, including onsite and offsite draiuage areas ; (t.l) Structure location , type and size, slope, c ,t.s ., elevations of inlet and outlet, velocity, l1eadwaterele;,vation, tail-water e levation, etc .., relative to the overall subdivision ani:1/or staged phase of tho st1bdivisio 1t (e) Differential runoff calculations for pre-development and pOSl· devel.opmen t contliUons with hydrograpbs; (f) The effect of the development on existing upstream and downstream tacilities outside the area of the sub d ivision: and (g) Other pertinent iufohnation necessary for reyieW' of the drainage plans as may berequirtld by !he Commission. (h) A drrunnge narrative , lncl ud ing but not limited to , ll1e following: J. Any 1md all histotical and existing dh!.lmigc conditions. 2. Name, location, s ize of receiving watersheds and BC\Y special considerations required by the watershtld. J. The calculation mt:thod and ass111Dptions used. 4. Discussioll of adequacy of volume ofrel'entfon aml drainage design. 5. Met hod of discharge. 6. How tl1e desigu accounts (Sedion P paragraph 3 b) for tbe potential for adverse if.feel. (i) A color drainage map for existing and proposed conditions $bowing coverage , areas , time of conoentration, route, run-off coefficients , and any other supporting documents to as s:ist in mte:;rpreting the calculations. (2) An Erosion and Sediment Cnnh·ol Piao which includes, buLsbal l not be limited to : (a) Architectural and engineering drawing$., m<1ps, assumptions, calcul~tions, and narrativestatements as-required to accurately describe the development nnd m easures taken lo meet the objectives of stonn-water management; (b) Data 01Lhistorical mnoff, developed runoff, delentiCJn pon(ldetails, Rnd method of di scha rge. (3) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other stom1 water quantity and quality BMPs during development un<l doourueots providing for continued iuspecfion and maintenance alte r completion of development and sale or all l(l)t!r. sucb docurmmts running as a covenant with !he lands. (a) An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agree1nentsigoed by U1e developer and /or owner ror any required detention or retention facilities or other stom, water quautity and quality BMPs must be submitted witl1 the pfoposed plans. The agreement must contain a long •tem, maiaten1111ce p lan prepared by Lhe d esign engineer for each 13MP. The maintenance-plan must include a description of tl1c sto11n water conveyance system and its components, inspection priorities, schematic-s for each BMP, and inspection schedule for each water quantity tlJld quaHly BMP. The O&M Agreement must be recorded p1ior to fina l plans approval. lftbcfioal configuration of the stonn water system or BM.Ps d iffe~ from the original desig1 1 on the approved plans, the O&M Agreement uiusl be revised, fornlizcd, anil re recorded . Failure to follow the O&M Agreement could result i1t enforcement action . (b) TI1e long,terrn mninteoan"Ce plan within the O&M Agree111e11t contains lhe inSpeC:tioo prio1ities and schedule for th.e stomi water 13MPs. 111c owner is .responsible for inspecting I.he ~to nn water system and BMPs according to the sched ule a nd subm itti ng reports ro 'the Planning Director or his authorized representative every Jive (5) years to document that inspections have been completed and necessary ruaintenaoce has been perfonned. The first insp ection report is du e December 31 oftbe fifth year after construction has been completed . tns pection reports are tl1en cl ue by December 3 l of every third year fol iowi ng submlt(al of the first report. '!be Planning Director or his a uthorized representative must be notificd of any chan ge in ownershi p. fuil1,1J'(: to fi le1:he tive--year ins pection reports and perfoml required rnaiatellilnce activities could result in enforcement action. (c) Prior to tl1e fidl release ofthe-perfoTlT)ElllCe bond for any new ot subst.u,lially improved stom1 water facilities, an Alabama re-gislered Qngineer shall submit to the .Planning Director o r hi, authoriied cepresentattve certification that the 11roposed stt>m1 water managemc 11 l system sad BM.l's for the dcvelop rne11t are complete and functional in accordance with the app roved plans and shall also p rovide &~•built drawings for Lhc storm water management systems and BMPs.. (4) Basic Design Data and c-<1lcu lations including rout ing ca lcu latio n~ in legiQle t!ll:mlatec! fom1 <incl proof of adequacy of volume of retention .nnd s i1,ing computations fo r low flow structures. (5) Copy of notiae of coverage and stom, wa ter poll uti on prevention plan fot coverage under tJ,e Alabama Department of Elwironmentn l MaJ1ageme nt for issuance of NP DES Pennit or a Jetter from the develope r in cluded as a S\lppo 11[ng document acknowledging th at prior to issu11nce 0f n laud disturb ance pennit proof of 8Jl NPDES penn it ·will be requ ired in addition to a copyofthe stonn wal'er pollution prevention plan, 1md pennits from any other nscocy, where req u ired; and , Project Engineer Date Name of Project to which this Ce1iificate Appli es Plans which are ce1iified consist of Page thru --- each of which bears my seal and signature." ( 4) Tue calculations , constrnction plans , and plat shall have the following statement: "A propetiy owners association (POA) is r equired to be fmmed. The POA is required to maintain any and all storm water facilities and structures located outside of the publicly accepted iight-of- way'. The City of Fairhope will not accept for dedication any stonn water fac ilities and /or shuctures located in the public right of way. 4 . Sh·eam Buffers - a . An undisturbed streamside buffer (buffer) is an area along a shoreline, wetland, or stream where development and redevelopment is restricted or prohibited. The p1i mary function of the buffer is to physically protect and separate a stream, lake, bay, or wetland from future disturbance or encroachment. Buffers can provide stonn water management and sustain the integiity of stream ecosystems and habitats. Buffers can be applied to new developments and redevelopment by establishing specific preservation areas and providing management of the buffers thrnugh easements or homeowner's associations. For existing developed areas , an easement is typically required from adjoining landowners. Waivers in accordance with Article VII may be requested if the developer or landowner can demonstrate hardship or unique circumstances that make compliance with the buffer requirement difficult. b . A buffer layer in the City's GIS system has been developed to show buffer limits along streams within the City's plaimingjuiisdiction. The following Buffer widths used to develop the buffer layer for streams , are shown in the following table and are measured from the top of bank as defined in Article II of these sub-regulations . Buffer widths for ponds , Mobile Bay, jmisdictiona1 wetlands as detennined by the Alabama Department of Enviromnental Management and the Army Corps of Engineers, and ai1y lakes , pondsJ and isolated wetlands are also shown in the table. The buffer requirement applies to streams beginning at a point where the drainage area is 100 acres or greater. The Planning Director or hi s authmized agent. has administrative authority to modify the buffer widths depicted below as necessary to mo st appropiiately suit the development. 1. Stream boundaries including each buffer zone must be clearly delineated on all grading plans , subdivision plats, site plans and any other development plans. The outside limit of the buffer must be clearly marked on-site with pennanent signs placed every 100 feet prior to any land disturbing activities. Stream and buffer limits must also be specified on all surveys and recorded plats and noted on individual deeds. Buffer requirements mu st be referenced in property owner 's association documents and shall be labeled on the plat. J. When a landowner or his representative obtain permits from ADEM or the Army Corps of Engineers that results in impacting the buffer then approved mitigation of these impacts based on the permit conditions supersede the applicable components of the buffer requirements in areas covered by the pennit. The buffer requirements for areas not covered by the pennit shall be applicable to the remainder of the proposed development site. 5. Flow Control- a . Scop e of D esign -All subdivisions or other developments shall be pro v ided with adequate stonn water drainage facilities. The project engineer shall provide a design adequate to control stonn water peak flows, runoff volume and velocity in accordance with paragraph 7 of this section . In general , the project engineer shall use design stonn criteria based on the site-specific conditions that relate to protection of life and property. Culverts shall generally accommodate a 25-year stom1 frequency under arterial roadways; drainage systems within subdivisions should accommodate a 2 through 25- year stonn frequency; bridges shall acc01mnodate a stonn frequency of 50 years. When deemed necessary, the Planning Department may require a storm frequency design as great as 100 years. (1) There shall be no storm water pumps . b. D es ign Standards and Calcula tions -The method of detennining storm water runoff shall be as follows: for areas less than 200 acres the engineer may use the Rational Method for detennining inlet spacing, roadway spread, and the sizing of opened and closed pipe network and collection basins. The Kirpich Equation shall be the only method which may be used to determine the time of concentration. For area s greater than 200 acres , the engineer may use Regression Equations (rural or urban) or the SCS Method only. Runoff plans and designs shall be based on principles of good engineering practice and the followi ng standards: (1) Calculations shall be based on the Rational Method (Q = cia) for small basins , up to 200 acres , where: Q = estimated peak discharge in cubic feet per second c = coefficient of runoff ( from appendix XX XX) I = rainfall intensity, inches per hour, for a design storm derived from the time of concentration tc = time of concentration in minutes , developed from the Kirpic11 Equation from figme 4-13 of the Alabama Department of Transportation Hydraulic Manual, attached as Appendix D. a= drainnge,area in acres RcMnm1etlded vnlues for"<." may be found in tab le ·4-2 of the Alabama Department of Transportation Hydraulics Mau1Jal, ,11tnched as Appendfa E. lt is recommended that the intensity, "f" be obtained frou1 (he NOAA Alla~ 14 Pol nt Precipitation Freque11cy ES1imates -for Fairhope. Con~ull https://hdsc,nws.1\oaa.gov/hdsc/pfd s/pfds_map_conl.html for more infurm ation. (2) For areas greater tb8.l'l 200 acres or \Vheu lhe proposed development li es within a large watershed where flows from upstream drainage areas are p~ssing through tl1e prop9sed development where the combined a{eas are over 100 ac res, the engineer shall use Regression Equations (rural or w'ban) or SCS Method for detennining inlet spac ing, roadway spread, and the sizing of opened and c losed pipe network and col lection basins. 11ie Rnlio11t.1l Method is 110/fJl//'/1lilledfor11reas grenter than l00 ,1cres. Flow shall be.ca lculated using a 25 -year, 24-hourrainfall, the depth of which can be obtained from SCS Teclmical Release 55 (TR-55). This flow shaU be taken into account when designing detention outfall strut.iures if the upstream flt1w passes U1Iough lhe proposed d etention pond. The effects of (and oo) upstream and downstream ponds in the watet-shed shall be analyzed. (3) ALI proposed conduits or channels shall be of suffident cap.icityto accommodate. potential runoff from developed area, inclu1lirtg the entire upstream drainage area. The project engineershalJ i11clu dc in 1:us submitlals evidence that he has in ol uded in hi s design the tdbutary arews. ff an existiilg i;hailllel runs \:hl:ougb a proposed development, the engineer mu st cons idL"T this flow when designing detention and outfall structures , {4) In ge11er~I, inlets Shall be provided so 1hm surface water is not t,-arried across nny intersection, or for a distance qf more thau 600 feet in the gutter. When calculations indicate !hat guller capacities a re 111 max.imwn, catch basins sball be u~ed to i.11tercept the flow at llial point. (S) Open channels and ditches shall be so designed as not to crea te a traffic hazard or 10 C!!USe erosion. Ditch Lining shall be design~d based 011 lhe stormwater ve locity calculations. The longi tudinal grade shaU not be less than 0 ,3%, Maximum design flow velocities shall conform to the currenL edition oftbe Alabama Deprutment oFTri!n.sportation Hydraulics Manual (6) Clcanout access shall be provided at a maximum spacing of3.00 feel foe plpcs 24 inches or le~s in di ameter and 400 feet for pipes exceed ing 24 inches. C leanouts shall a lso be provided al each clJange 111 line and grade. (7) Coocrete box culve1ts shall be designed and constnicted according to reqllircments of the Alabama department of Transportation Standard Specifications li)r Highway Coostruct.iou, cun-ent, and the t\labanta Deprutmenl ofTranspo1tation Special Standard Highway Drawings. c. Sfte Facilities - (I) The developer shall be required lo carry away, by pipe or open channel, ,my spring 01' surface water existing pdor to or as a resu lt of the subdiv ision. Adequate provisi011s shall be mode within eacl1 su bd ivisio n fo r drainagi:: facilities required. (2) Where a public storm wlllcr system is available, the developer sl1all be required to connect his facilit ies thereto. Jfno p Ltbli c outlet exists, the project engineer shall recommend mew to adequately dispose of storm waler nmoff. (3) The sio1m and sanitary sewer plans s lmU be·made priorlo other utility p lans. (4) Theslonu water syi;tenl shall bo separate from und independent ofaoy sauitru:y sewer system. d. C(//1formlty with Other S/a11dard.v -All c!rninnge facilities sball be constructed in confonnity with s tate spedfication.s and all 01hcJ' s tate and federal laws and regu lations. e . Flood Prone &reas- (1) Low lying land s along watercourses subjec t to flood ing ur overflowing shall be included in lhe drainage and shall 11 01 be ava ilable for improvements except as speci 6ca11y authorized by the City's flood control ordinance. (2) Low areas subject to period ic inundation and areas subj ~c:t to excess ive erosion shall not-be developed or subdivided unless and U11ti l the Plao11i.11g Commission may est,tbli s hthat: The nature o f the land use proposed would 001 tend to be damaged appreciably by wutcr: The area may be filled or imp roved in such II manner as to prev ent period ic inuodntion; Minimum floor elevations may be established such as lo 11reven1 damage to buildings or structures ; There is adequate provision to ellm.inale sucl, flooding. 6. Erosion Control - a. Surtace water runo ff 01iginating upgrade of exposed areas shall be: comTolled to .reduce erosion and scdimeo( los·s duri1)gperiod or exposure. All land disturbing activitiei, shall be p lanned so as to minimize off-site sedimen tation damage. h. No grading o r earth moving operations shall commence u11til erosion !In•~ &edimen tation control measures shall bave been implemented. c. All disturbed ure.1s sha ll be stabilized as quickl y as is practicable witl1 pennanent vcgotatfon and erosion/sediment control measu res. Tue duration uf exposure to erosive elements shal l be kc:pl lo a minimum. ti. Detention ponds shall be stabjlized by mean s of grassing. sodding, ero~itm control nelting, or a combi nati on thereof. Sediment shall be remo ved from the pond prior to acceptance, and any disturbed areas shall be regrnssecl Tue use of red clay as a means of stabil izing detenti on ponds is prohibited. e. Telnporary vegetation and/or muJchln g shall be provided to prol1.,'0t exposei1 high-risk erosion areas during development. [ When the i11crense in peak rates and velocity of storm woter 111ooffresulting from n land disturbing aotivity is like ly to cause drun!.lgillg acceler11ted erosion of the receiving cbnnn.el, plans shall include measures to control ve locity and rate of release.so as lo minimize dnmnge LO the cl1l1nnel . g. No lai1d disturbing activity sha ll he pe1111itted i.it proximity to a lake, nalura.l waterMur~e ()r adjacent property uoless a buffer zone is pr0vitkd along the boundary thereof to· confine visible siltation itnd lo prevent eri)s1011; p.ovidcd, however, that this prohibition sha ll not prevent sucl1 activity undertaken os !l pmi of the construction of such -Jal<c or watercourse chanoe l. h. The angle for graded slopes and fills shal l not exceed that ,vbicb can be retained by vegetation cover or other adequate erosion contro l methods. Provision sha ll be made for planting or otherwise protccfo1g slopes within the shortesl po sSJ.l>le Lime from exposl1rc thereof. 1. Erosion and sedimentation control measures , struc tures and devices sball provide control from tbe calcu.lated pos(-<levelopmenl peak runoff. Runoff ratcs11J1d computations may be calcu lated from procedu res contained io tbc "National Engineering Field Manual fu r Conservation Practices" and shall be based on iainfall data p\UJlished by the National Weather Service for the area and/or official local records. J. fa1gineer shall provide for pennanem proteot ion of on -site.o r adjacent stream banks and c11am1els from the erosive efletts oftncreased ve locity and volume ofstonn-water rnnoff resulting from land disturbing activities. )J:. 6ros ion !lllfl ~edime nt control plans and details shall be based on the Cl1rrenl edition of1he-''Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sedi ment Control and Storm water Management on Construction Sites and Urban Ar~1s''. Erosion control plans shall be prepared hy a certified professional such as a Certified Professiona l in Erosion and Sediment Co ntrol (CPC!SC) ora professiona l engioeer-. 7. Detention and Rctentio 1t Facihlics - a. Scope of Design -The SCS Method will be tbe only accepted method used to detennine the sizing of sto nnwater detention/rcientioo areas. The Rc1tional Method will not be permitted for the sizing o/stor1m1·a/er d.ele11li011 /re te11tio11 areas~, b. Applicability• Tbe purpose of stonn water retent ion and detention is to protect downstream prope1ties frolJl increases 111 flood heights due to development. A comb ina tion of sto rage aud controlled Jelease of storm waler sh(l)l be required fot road constructio.o, aoo-resjdcntial developments, multi - family residential developments , and singlc-frunilydcvelopments <1flhree acres or more. The req1Jire1neotfor a com bi nation of storage and controlled release of stonn w11Jer ts notrcquJrcd fo nuinor subdiVisions ; however, if the Planning Department deems that the intensity of the deve lopment cou ld ca.use off-site $h,11m water -flow impacts during or after development, n com binati.on of storage nnd controlled release shall be required. (The effective acreage for a project is not limited to a fractional part of the total concept; even !bough dev eloped in ph11ses, it is the total aren of the conceptual plm,s which governs.) The tc tention or detention (whenevet detentio11 requiremeuts are addressed hy lhcse-regu lalions. requirements ;ilso app ly to retcotion fociHtles) f'acllitles must be designed to conlrol pealc flow from the outlet of the ~ite such that pos1-devclopmeut flows are equa l to or less than pre-t.levelnped peak ·flows for thc2-year, 5-year, I 0-yenr, 25-year, SO-year am! 100-yeDr design, storms. c. Downslrl!llm Analysis -Detaining the discharge.from a sire can sometimes exacerb:He tloodi11g downstream due to peak fl ow timing and/onhe incrensed volume ofruooffcontlng fforu a site. If detention facilities are ind iscriminately placed in a watershed and changes to the peak now t i1ning nre not considered, lhe d etention foc iHly may result in nn increaseoftbc peak flow downstream. Another impact of' new ueve lopmeot is llll iocrcase in th(: 1ot!ll runoff volume of flow , Thus, even if the t,cak i101v is effocti vel y attenuated, tl ,e.longer duration of higher flows due to the increased volume 111ay combine with downstream storm water conveyance systt1111s to increa&e downstream peak flows. Applicant must demonstrate through hydrologic analyses that the detention facility wil l not exacerbate flooding downstream. lo delennining doWnStreani effects frort1 storm water management sCruct11res and the development. hydrol ogic-hydrnulic en!'.ineering stud ies shall ex tend downstream to a point where the proposed development represcnL, luss than te11 {l 0\ percent oftbe total watershea draining ro that po inL d. Ownership• Such facilities shall 'be owned. operated and maintaine.d by U1c oeve1opment entities aod shall 1;1ot be accepted for inspection and maintena1Lce by the City of Fairhnpe. e. Detention fuoilities snail have on emergency overflow capab le ofhandli11g at least the lO0-year peak discl'1arge except wl1cire waived or altered by the Ph1rutlng Department. Design of the detention pond shall be lo ensu,·e that delcotion fac ilities will survive owrtoppillg oceu1Ting for any reason, including dogging of coQtrolled outlets for the I 00-year .storm eve111. Detenti(m systems must be coost111cted during the first phase of 111ajor developments to eliminate damage ro adjacent properties during construction. ln this regard, the detention systems s hall be d esigned to function as sediment traps and c leaned out to proper storage vo lumes before completion. l f deposiiion of sediment has occlJJTed. detention systl3ms must be restored to thei r design dimensions after oonstl'uction is complete and certified as p!lft of the :is-built submittal. f. Detentlon fuoilitles sball be provided with obvious and e l'foi::tive control strnctures. Plan view, sections and.deta ils oflhe~truct uresh ull be inclucleo rn submit1als, Sizing of the low How pipe shall be by inlet conlrtll or hydniulic gnidien( requirements. Low flow pipe.soc orifices smaller thnn cigl1t 1nches 111 diameter, ex.cept in parking lot and roof retention where the size shall be desi&'lled for tbe pruticnlar application as approved by the Commisslon, shall provid.e a means to pi0.von1 clogging. g. The overflow opening or spfllway shall be des igned to accept tl1e total peak runoff of the improved tributary area. Proper engineering judgment, sh.all be exercised in secondary routing of discharge greater than the basic design stonn for the protection of downstream properties . h. Aerators are required for all retention ponds . The Planning Department shall approve the specifications for said aerator . 8. Post Development Water Quality Best Management Practices (Low Impact Design)- a. Stonn water quality BMPs for new development and significant redevelopment are required for projects requiring detention or retention as detennined by the engineer of record or subdivisions with four or more lots. (The effective acreage for a project is not limited to a :fractional pmt of the total concept; even though developed in phases, it is the total area of the conceptual plans which governs). The BMPs must be designed to achieve the goal ofremoving at least 80% of the average annual post-construction total suspended solids (TSS) load. The storm water quality BMPs will be considered in compliance with this requirement if; (1) BMPs are sized to capture and treat the water quality treatment volume, which is defined as the runoff volume resulting from the first 1.8 inches of rainfall from a site; and, (2) Appropriate structural storm water BMPs are selected, designed , constructed, and maintained. St01m water quality BMPs may be required on smaller projects if it is detennined by the engineer of record that the intensity of the development could cause off-site stmm water impacts dming or after development. b. The stonn water quality treatment goal is designed to capture 85% of the annual storm water nmoff. Storm water quality BMPs must be designed to treat the runoff from the first 1.8 inches ofrainfall. Each site's storm water quality treahnent volume is also based on its percent impervious cover. The treatment standard is the same for all sites unless other secondary pollutant reduction goals are established by ADEM; for instance, through the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The storm water quality treatment methodology to detennine treatment volume is as follows: WQv = P x Rv x (A/12) Where: WQv = water quality treatment volume, acre-feet P = rainfall for the 85% stonn event (1.8 inches) Rv = nmoff coefficient (see below) A = drainage area in acres Rv = 0 .05 + 0.00921 I = drainage area impervious cover in percent (50% imperviousness would be 50) c. This stonn water quality treatment goal is designed to give the developer flexibility in meeting the 80% TSS reduction goal on each site. BMPs may be water runofrgenerated by the I-year, '24-hour ra.inFall event (4 .5 inches) to l?rotect downstream channels. TI1e required vo lum e for extended detention is referred to as the Streambank Protection Volume (SPV). 'fhe reduction in the frequen oy and duralion of bank full flows through the controll ed release provided by extended <ldootion of th e SPV will rc<lrn;e the baok scour rate and severity. 1. Ston11water BMPs with eith;:r 11 p emrnnen t· pool of water or that will hold stonn water tbr ru1 extei:;ded pe1iod of time can potentially p rovide mosqu ito - breeding habitat. However, i r structural BMPs are 'j)roperly desigued, iMtalled , a_nd ma intai11ed, mosquito problems can be mini mi ½ed. BM.Ps with ope n water (such as storm water ponds) sha ll req u[re aeration for mosquito control. The Planning De paitmen t shall approve the sped1ications for lhe aerator. 9. Location and Easements - a. Drain -ways, vihethcr conduit or open c hannel, shaJI be located within the r[ghL-of-way [nsofor.ns is practicable. b. Where topography or o th er conditio ns render hnpractica'ble the inclusion of drainage with in road rights -o f~way, perpetua l unobstructed easements not less tbrui fifteen (15) feet in width shall be provided across the 11roperty with access to Lhe road right-of-way. Such easements sh a ll be clearly delineated on th e pla t as,a:reas dedicated to public use·as drainage easeme nt s, with provision fo r maintenance by the la11dowr1ers. The City $hilll not maintain such casements. c. Off premises drainage easements and imp rove111ents lying 0lltside th e prop osed subdivision may ·be required of the. Owner to handle runoff into a n&tural drainage channel. d. Where a subd ivision or developmevl is traversed by a watercomse, drain-way, channel o r stream, U1ern shall be 1,rovided a slonn-waler easement con fo rming s ubstru1tiall y Lo the lines ofsqeh ~\later course and of.s uch widt h and construction as is adequate fo.r lbe lntendod purpose. iricludiog maintenance operations. e. No storm water deteotion shall be lotated. [n public righ.t-of-way for a ny private development. I 0. Maintenam:e - IL Acceptance for mainteaancc by the public oflakes o r ponds which cons1itute a part ofsform water draU1agee<'111trol i~ generally prohibited by stonn water provisions 'here in. Auy decisio n lo the contrary must originate wiil1 tJ1e City Councll. b. Main Lenanc~ mltside the street righl--Of-wny shall be the respoosibilit:y of the legal e11t:ity established by tlmdcvcloper for the ct1ntinued ·maintennuce of oomruon areas. No forma l iicccptnnce o f streets and utilities shall be made by U1e C ity Cow1eil an d ml building pennits shall be issued until dcve1oper has made provisions for cootin ued maintenance of such common areas, including uff-street drainage and detention. As part of the fin al plat submittal, tbe owner/developer shall verify in writing that a legal entity shall be responsible for continual maintenance . In the extra-tenitorial jmisdiction where sh·eet acceptance is the County's responsibility, the County Engineer may decline to sign approval for recording of plat unless maintenance provisions meet his approval. c. All erosion and sedimentation protection facilities shall be regularly maintained as required to ensure that they function effectively. d . Means for perpetual and periodic maintenance of the facilities shall be established by the awner of the development as a condition prerequisite to approval of the development by the Commission. 11. Required Use of Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques for Stonnwater BMP's - Attest: a. The use of LID techniques is required and is to be determined from an entire site development perspective by the engineer of record for the project. The design and integration of LID techniques shall promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and shall be designed to work in a complimentary fashion with the drainage plan for the proposed development. The LID techniques are required within the municipal limits of the City of Fairhope and the planning jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope based on the rain events experienced in the area, geology, slopes, and other natural features. b. The use of LID techniques is required in any and all proposed developments where the stormwater r egulations apply. The design engineer shall rely on verifiable professional engineering judgment on which LID techniques to deploy in each proposed development based on the particular characteristics of the subject property. Planning For Stormwater, Developing a Lo w Impact Solution , a publication of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, provides information on a number of LID tec1miques that may be used for stonnwater BMP's. A proposed development may use multiple LID tec1miques as appropriate . DULY ADOPTED this_ day of ______ _, 2017. Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary F. STORMWATERSTANDARDS: 1. Purpose -These storm water standards shall implement the Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City by setting the location, character and extent of open spaces and facilities for waterways and storm water runoff, discharge, retention and detention. This design and a1Tangernent shall promote the health, safety and general welfare, and promote safety from inundation and erosion caused by stmm water runoff. These standards shall promote the following goals in the Comprehensive Plan: ( a) plan, provide and maintain efficient and effective infrastructure that promotes orderly growth and enviromnentally sound practices to meet the future needs of the community and to support land use goals; (b) promote a sustainable future that meets today 's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs; and (c) encourage and develop connections between enviromnental quality and economic vitality. 2. Liability -The design criteria herein establishes minimum elements of design which must be implemented with good enginee1ing and good construction practices. Use of infom1ation herein for placement of any structure, for use of any land, or any design basis shall not constitute a representation, guaranty, or warranty of any kind by the City of Fairhope or its agents, officers or employees of the practicability, adequacy or safety of design. 3. Submittal Requirements -a. Minimum Requirements -All proposed subdivisions deve lo pments shall demonstrate compliance with this Secti on F., Chapter ''X'' these Regulations, and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations by submitting a minimum of t wo (2) hard copies and electronic files of the following plans and calculations: (1) A Drainage Plan~ adequate provision for stom1 and flood water control by channel, conduit or basins, which take s in to account~ fo r the ultimate or satw-ated development of the tributary area in which the proposed subdivision is to be located, and which includes but shall not be limited to: (a) Contour map of proposed development areas, with both existing and finish contow-s at not greater than two-foot intervals; (b) Existing drainage systems, including any structures immediately downstrea m that may be affected by the project; (c) Proposed drainage system, including onsite and offsite drainage areas; ( d) Structure location, type and size , slope, c.f.s., elevations of inlet and outlet, velocity, headwater elevation, tail-water elevation, etc., relative to the overall subdivision and/or staged phase of the subdivision; ( e) Differential runoff calculations for pre-development and post- development conditions with lw droru:aphs ; (f) The effect of the development fil!bclivision on existing upstream and downstream facilities outside the area of the subdivision; and (g) Other pertinent inf onnation necessary for review of the drainage plans as may be required by the Commission. (h) A drainage narrative, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Any and all historical and existing drainage conditions. l. N~me-, locatiou, size-o f receiving watershed$ and any special considerations required by the watershed . ,. The r-<1 lculation method and asswnptions tiscd . ~-Oisouss ion ofaclequacyofvolumeofretention and drainage desigu. 5, Method of dischargu . 6. A-HE! !!ow lhe design ~akas imti accoun~ (Sootion F paragraph 3 b) for fhe potential for adverse t,J}ect. (.QA cploL drainage map for e,i,tinu ~nd ptpposed conculi0ll< shawi111, ~overage, ru·.:as . time ofo.m,cenlrnlhl n, ro,,1c. nm-off coefficientA, :ind any 01 l1ur sur>N.11t inl'. Jucumonb to assist in i11temre1ing the ca ltulalions. (2) AJ1 Ero&iou and S(dtm(.)t1t Control Plan which includes, but sball nol tru limiled to; (a) Atclritecmral and engineering dr.\wiogs. maps, assumplions, calculations,.a nd ~amnive statements as required to accuraiely describe the deve lopment and measures taken to meet the objeclives of storm-wuter management; (b) Dala on historical ,unotl; d~vc!oped runoff, detention pond details, iJDd tnethod of discharge. (3) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Pino and Agreement for maintenance of deJention facilities and other stonn water quantity and quality BJ\fPs during development and documents pmviding for continued inspect ion and maintenance after completion of development and sale of a.11 lors. such documents 1·tuuilng a~ a covenant with lhe lands. (a) An Operations-and"tvlaintennru;c (O&M) Agreement signed by thl! ~cvcloper ancVor owner lbr any requ ired detention ur 1'11Lcotion fac ilit ies o r other ;;tonn water quantity and quality BMPs mus! he Sµblllitled '" ith (he pniposcd plans, Th,; agreement must coma in a loog-tcrm main tenance plan prepai-ed by the <lesigll engineer for eaoh 13MP . T he mainlenaoce plao. must include a descriptio n of rh e stonn water conveyance system and irs components, inspection priorities , $chcma1 ics for each BMP , and inspection schedu le for eac h water quantity and qual ity BMP. The O&MAgreemeni must be recorded prior ro .final plans approval. If the fi11al co11-6guration of ll\e stonn water system or BMP;;. differs from Lhc original design oo the ~pp rovoo plans, the O&M Agreement must be revised, fmalizccl. and rerecorded. Fa iluro to follow the O&M Agreement could result i.o rmforcerne□l action . (b) The long-tern, moiolcnance plan witJun tl)e O&M Agreement con tai ns the inspection Jlrforitic&ancl schedule for the stonn water 13MPs. The: owner is responsible for inspecting I.he sro nn water fiy ~tein a11d BMPs acoo1di.11g. to the schedule ancl submitting reports lo the !'Janning DirectQr or l1is authorized represenfalive every--tlll'et' ~ five ( 5 I years lo document that inspections have bccu co mpletc.,d and necessary maintenance l\as been performed . Tile firs li11spcclio1.1 report is due December 31 of the lffif6 lilih year afier construction h:~ been completed , lnspealion reports are then due by December 31 of every tb.ird year following $ubmittal of the first report . The Plannl 11g Dtrec1oror bis authorrted representative mus1 be notified of any c,h;mgein ownership. Pailure 10 file lhe fllree 11w year iru;pectiun reports and perfom1 required m~i111ennnet: ac1fvi1ies could resul 1 in enforccmenc ac1io11. ( c) Prior to I.be full release of the perfonnance bond for any new or ~ubstMtia!I )' improved storm water facilities, al\ Alabama regi~lcnid engi neer shnll submjl 10 the Pl anning Dirc'Ctor or rus authorized re presentative c,ertifiontion t hnt lhe proposed s1onn wa ter tn:magement system and BMPs for the development are complete and functional i n accordance with tl1e ~pproved plaru; and !;}m il also prov ide as-built drawings for Lhe stom1 water management systems and BMJ's. (4) 13asic Design Daw and caloulut'ions including routingcalcula1 ions in legible tabulated fonn and pcoof of adcq_®cy Qf volume o f retention nnil slzi.og co01pt1 1 M ions for low tlbw st:JUc tw·es. (5) Copy of notice of cover,1ge and s1om1 water pollution p_r_l.l v_J[ll\QD pl.an for oovoruge under the Alabama Depann1ent ofEnv!ronmc:□tal Management for issuance of NP DES P~nrul or~ lctler fr om the d evel,mer included ps !1..§!!liponing d ocuJ\1eni acknowlctlging that prior to iss uance o f a laml dislu1·bone,: permit prot,fof an NPDES pemtjl will be rec1ui red in adJil iou l,l n cc,py Qfthe s to nn w111e1· pollut1o n preveu1 iou pl !!!!, and pennils fro1.n any other agenoy, where requtl'ed ; and, (6) MY add itional engineering i11fonn11tion U1e Pl)l1min.g Qe pamneru G,,~imi deems necessary 10 lllake a dceision on subdivisions an<l other dovelopmel\l Where adequacy of draif)age is re;isouably quest iout!cl, b. Adver.re qjec1,1 -Wl1ere 11 can be reaso1\ably autidpat~d Lhat a(!dl tional qu,mtily or velQcii,Y ofnmofffrom development ot"ll SL1bd ivisfo □ will 11verload ex isti11g do1vnst ream drainag<.:" focilities, approva I shall be wilhhe ld uolil 1J1e re is submitted Lo the Conunissio11 a plan to mitig;llti damnge 10 tlo,~nslicam prope1t)' whlch would or mighl re~ult fro-I'll. tbe subdivision under considerarion. Downsn-ean, drntnar,,c strucllm:s should be considered when sizing detention out foll Mructur~, wflh proof of this suilmillt.-d to th,, Commissio,1. The hydraulic elevations resulting from channel detentio11 sbaU noL adversely affect adjacent properties. c. Addi1io110/ £ngineeri11g Plans 0111/ Ca/c11/atio11s - ( 1) ln every case where new streets are to be. CQo~tructcd , and in cases where subdivisions provide frontage only upon exi"s ring right-of-way and lh= exis1s in the opi11io11 of tbe Commission the potential for damage from 1JJ1Controll<!d stonu-water runoff, the p1'0ject engiueer shall include in.his plans th~ desigr, and calculations required for adequate control of stonn- water. (2) ~rojeeb; ne kt1'.'<.>eee~,aere5. reufuig-ea~~~ leg$k.,"-H!a!ila'8<li00rm . ~Pit~tmey-e ~a~01Hittil ~~lie Bttef--1~111l-l><H;t-tb a1i11ea. filr ~s @~ee<!El~ef\.•!;;+t-1.,. t!Bgill~all 19rovide detailea; i1e-11h!<l...,,..Ftfiea#etttlf'-a!le,i½!ai:J/-~- (3) No proposals for under-sizing shall be suhmtltcd e.xccpl With plans aml profi les of the entire w1dcrsized downstream area with convincing evidence that 1he hydraulic grndiems proposed will not 11dversely-affect cxistlng facilities mainlaincd by I he City or County. app1'Qval ~ writte.11 requfll>t and site plan showing the oxteni ofLhe im pa ct of I.ht buffc.r ou t he proposed p rojecLand ijpecity ~ p1vposcd buffer mitigatioJ1 plan. T he Plartnlng Director ur Iris authorized rep!'esenLative will review and render a decision on the buffer encroAclm,cnt and proposed mitigalion within 30 days :iller receiving the request. 111 no oase shall !he redttcc<l ,~idth oft be buffer be Jess thau :!() e fo(;I. AQ plicanLs can appea l lh.: de..-,j,sio n of the P lanrung Directdr or his aul.horiied represen1ative's decision Lo the Planning Commission. h. In order to maintain the funotionel valuo of lh!l buffer: dead, diseased, or dying trncs that -are in danger of falling and causing dnmngcto dwe ll ings or other s(fUch,Jres may t,e removed at the discrelion or the landowner; debris in tbe buffer that is & rcstdt of Slom1 damage may be.removed; and , invasive [llant species may be removed if1bcy ,m~rcplaccd by n.alive species. A buffer restoration plan must be approved hy 1he Plant1l ng D irocLor or hi s a uthorized reprcscntat iVt:, i, Stream bow1.daries incl uding cacll bl.lfTer zone musL be clearly delineated <in all grutling plans, subdivtsion plats, site plrui~ an(! any other cJevclopmenl plans. The outside limit of the buffer must be c lci:<rly marked on-s ite with pWUJancnt signs plac~d every 100 feet prior 10 any land 11isturhi11g activiliell . Strca111 and buffor limits must also be sp~dfied on all surveys and recorded plats and noted on individua l deeds. Butler reqt1iNments must be rcforenced in property owner's association documents and shall be l~beled on the plat. j. When a landowner or his representative obtain pcmuts from ADEM or the AmJy Corps of Engin~'tlrs thal results in impacting lhe buffer then approved 111iti g.11tioo of 1hese impacts based on the permit o-o ndi1io11s supersede lhe applicable components of the bu.ffer reqlJiremcJtts in ar11as covered by the p~rmil. The bufftr req uitemenls for areas not covel'ed by the pcnoit shall be ap1ilicablc to theremaiuder of the proposed clcvclopm~ol site. 5 . Fl ow Control - a . Scope of Design -Al I subd.ivisipos or other developments shall be provided with adcqua1e sLorm water drainage faci lilies. ·r he projecL engineer s11all provide a des1gn adequate to control stoan w-,llerpcak flows, runoffvolwne and ·wlocity in accordance wt1h paragraph 7 of this secllon. fn general, the, projCl:t e.11gim.'C.-r shall use design storn, criteria based on 1he site-specific. cc,oditioos that relate lo protect.ion of life 1111d property. Culverts shall gener.1Uy accommodate a 25-year storm frequency under arterial roudways: drainage systems wfrhin St~Jdivtsions should accommodatl! a 2 through 25- year storm frequency; bridgus shall acccmimodate a slonn frequency or 50 yean;. When deemed ncccssnry , UteJ>lanning Depn11men.l Gemffilssii!R may require a stonn frequency d esign as great as 100 years. ( 1) There.shall be no s torm Water pumps. b. Design Stamlards and Calculations -The method of determining s1onn w11ter ruuoff s ha ll be as foll nws: fo r areas leSs than 200 acres tl1~ en e ine>'!l' nr.it u~e th e RMt ibnul M CI.hull I.or deremuning inl et 3paci11g, 1•03dw ~v s1m:,ml. and lhe si7.tn l!. o( ap<ll\ed a ,,d ,d osetl pipe m;twork an u co ll eel ion ha.,i11s. T he Kiro iclt L qua tion sh all he tbe 011lv met h,1d wbh!h ma, be u,-cd 1,; 1.lt:lcmunf:' lhe llme ofconccm rruion. forw:AA• greptcr than 2(1() m:n::;,. ~h " .:n e.in ecr rtmv use Reerci.-.,;itm Eq un1 io11s tnu11 I or urhau l ,,r che SCS Met hO u pttl y. Rtto11 0'plons and des igns shall be based on principles of good enginee,ing practice and the following standards: (1) Calculations shall be based on the Rational Method (Q = cia) for small basins, up to +-00 200 acres, where: Q = estimated peak di scharge in cubic feet per second c = coefficient of runoff (from append ix XX XX table below) I = rainfall intensity, inches per hour, for a design stonn derived from the time of concentra tio n tc = time of concentrati on in minutes, developed from the Kirpich Equation from figure 4-13 of the Alabama D epartment of Transpo11ation e-f Hydrauli c Manual, attach ed as Appendix D . a = drainage area in acres Recommended values for "c" may be fou nd in table 4-2 of the Alaba ma Department ofTranspo11ation Hydraulics Manual, attached as Appendix E. It is recommended that the intensity, "I" be obtained from the NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates Intens;,ty Dw·ation Frequency curve for Fairhope Mobile produced by the Nationnl Wenther Sen'i.ce . Consult https://hclsc.ows.noaa.gov/11dsc/pfcl s/pfds map cont.html for more information. (2) ¥.'hen the proposed developu-:.en t lies within a large \vntershed where flows from upstream drainage areas nre passing through the proposed 4-we-J.opment, n rainfall nrnoff model such as the Soil CoRSeFVatiefl Ser:ice (SGS) technical release 20 (TR 2Q) should be used to calculate offaite flow. For areas grea ter than 200 acres or when the proposed development lies within a large watersb.ecl where flow s from upstream drainage areas are passi ng through the proposed development where the combined areas are over 200 acres. the engineer shall use Regressio n Equ ations ( rural OT urban) or SCS Method for detennining inler spacing. roadway spread. and the sizing of opened and closed pipe network and collection basins. The Rational Method is no/ permitted (or areas grearer than 200 acres. Flow shall s-hffi±l.a be calculated using a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall, the depth of which can be obtained from SCS Technical Release 55 (TR-55). Thi s flow shall be taken into account when desi gning detention outfall structures if the upstream flow passes through the proposed detention pond. The effects of ( and on) upstream and down stream ponds in the watershed shall be analyzed. (3) All proposed conduits or channels shall b e of sufficient capacity to accommodate potential runoff from d eveloped area, including the entire upstream drainage area. The project engineer shall include in his submittals evidence that he h as included in hi s d es ign the tributary area/s. If an existing channel runs t hrough a p roposed d evelopment, the engineer must consider this fl ow when designing detention and outfall structures. ( 4) In general, inlets shall be provided so that surface water is not carried across any intersection, or for a di stance of more than 600 feet in the gutter. When calculations indicate that gutter capacities are at max im um, catch basins shall be used to intercept the flow at that point. (5) Open channels and ditches shall be so designed as not to create a traffic h az ard or to cause erosion. The minimum slope for paved ditches shnll 1,e, tl.S pareent a!!El for 1lt11t-f!a-,,~0-d-t~e..-;;bmll ~e ane ~e reeAL l)i1d1 l..iuh lc s lmll bt: ik o:4,'11,-<l b.~ell...Q.U lhe ,Ln nnwa lc-r vdoc,h .:akulati<Ulli. Ti t<' longiludinu l ,mid~ sha l1 nol bi:kss than 0.,3"1,,. Maxim1>m desigu flow velocities shall contbnn 10 1he current edition of the Alabama Hit<~ Department of fmnsoonntion Hydraulics Mnnual. (6) Cleanou~access sh~ll be pruvided at a maximum spacing of 300 feei for pipes 24 inches or less in diameter .u 1d 400 foe t f'ot pip~ exc11etliJ1g 24 inches. Clcanou1s shall a lso be provided at each change in lioe ancl grade, (7) Conerefe box culverrs shall be designed and cons1nictcd hccotd in g to r1.,-q11ire01ents of th!:' Alubuma depa11me11L of Transportation Standard Specifications for tlig]iway Const ruction, cuu-cm, and the Alabama DC]Jllrtment of Transportation Special Standard Hi ghway Drawings .. c. Site Fa cflitles- (1) The developer shall be required lo carry11way, by pipe or open channel, any spri 11g or swface water existing prior to ,or as a resull oftlie subclivi'sio a . Adequate provisions sball be made within each subdivision for draiJ1age fllcfliLies required . (2) Where a pubHa storm water system is available , the deve loper shal l be required to com1eo1 hi. facilities thereto, Ifno publicoutler e~is1s, 1he project engineer shall recommend mca11s 10 adequately dfaposeofstorm walCJ runoff. (3) The stonn and snnftory sewer plruts shall be made prior to other util iry plans. (4) Tue scoonwatcr system shall be separate from and indepe nd cm of uny s,u)ilary sewet syste111. d. Conformily with Other Stwulnrds -:A.II dr,ii,nage faciliLii;::; ~halJ be consln1c1ed i1l confonnity with Sti,le specifications aod all other SUlte und federal lows and rei,>ulations . c. Flood Prone Areas f. (I) l,QW lYi11g land~ along W,llercourses ,u bj t!Ct to Ooocling or overflowing sbaU bf included in the drailu1ge an.d slia ll 110\ bo avuilable fo r irt1provemcn1s .:xccpr as spt:eilicaJJy autho ,ized by the City 's nood control ordinance. 0) Low areas subject lo pe1iodio inundation and areas subject to exce,ssi vc erosion $hall not be developed or subdivided un less-and unti l the Planning ComJliissio a may eslllblisb that: 'f he 1111t ure of Jhc land use proposed would !"IOI 1ead10 bedamaged appreciably bywater;Thc;u-ea may be filled or improved in -such a manner as to prevent periodic inundatiou; 'Mltlimv.m Ooorelevatlons may be established such as to prevent da,n;ige 10 builclings or structures; The.re is adequate provi si on to eliminate such flooding-. l 1 0 ·' ' F W' I 1 ·-·' • --'-' • • .,,_., ___ ,.,. ,R//ti.,~1/S-.'(tt. /,lc/fyr1H.rrrhle-~,'(~ffi-!A!~=-jtil"-!S=-,,.....,..,,,e !itii-Fli~~g C enurussiM;-lllh..>agi!1 eefi11g tw.lfl!l-611all-be-st!ajeeH=&-a!e mefe;es1:rie;iv" f6<1~elil~l'<l"4sie~lilwln Ce~fll~ S\'ernl W.ater !MaAag;aA½ellt Plan . In IJ;ooe areas .1116'Qmu1~~t1ee-r'.1 revie •n· ooe-~plele&11<acl-lti~ew-shaJ.kieeGR!f>'\~:»llflS Sttbmi!red 10 the CemmissioR. Th,..fGU&W±flg-011!11fle is ~ro>,iele~ te helfl ~eflai.ff-effii~lea1ents ofd~+g!Hlfe--in....'81llpU011e.,.with Ebe eejtie1~f.Elest!!}r. t I l Vel<HH<:?-vf re~emiafl for ijf:il-tf'e-jlr-oje~f (21 I rwtllary (Q) jleBkA±11off lt1-eas+A (3) Balanced maximum outflow rate from low tl ow structure (1) Ratios of infl ow to outflow (differential rat es) (5) Sizing of overflow facilities (6) Stability of dikes (7) Safety fe attu·es (8) Maintenance feamres 6. Erosion Control - a. Surface water rw10ff originating upgrade of exposed areas shall be controlled to reduce erosion and sediment loss during period of exposure. All land disturbing activities shall be planne d so as to mininnze off-site sedimentation damage. b . No grading or earth moving operations shall commence until erosion and sedimentation control measures shall have been implemented. c. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized as qu ickly as is practicable with pennanent vegetation and erosion/sediment control measures. The duration of exposure to erosive elements shall be kept to a minimum. d. Detentio n ponds shall be stabilized by means of grassing, sodding, eros ion control netting, or a combination thereof. Sediment shall be remove d from the pond prior to acceptance, and any disturbed areas shall be regrassed. The use of red clay as a means of stabilizing detention ponds is prohibited. e. Temporary vegetation and /or mulching shall be provided to protect exposed high-risk erosion areas during development. f. When the increase in peak rates and velocity of storm water runoff r es ulting from a land disturbing activity is likely to cause damaging accelerated erosion of the receiving channel, plans shall include measures to control velocity and rate of release so as to minimize damage to the channel. g. No land disturbing activity shall be pennitted in proximity to a lake, natural watercourse or adjacent property unless a buffer zone is provided along the boundary thereof to confine visible siltation and to prevent erosion; provided, however, that this prohibition shall not prevent such activity undertaken as a part of the construction of such lake or watercourse channel. h. The angle for graded slopes and fill s shall not exceed that which can be retained by vegetation cover or other adequate erosion control methods. Provision shall be made for p l anting or otherwise protecting slopes within the shortest possible time fr om exposure thereof. 1. Erosion and se dime ntation control measures, structures and devices shall provide control from the calculated post-development peak runoff. Runoff rates and computations may be calculated from procedures contained in the ''National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" and shall be based on rainfall data published by the National Weather Service for the area and/or official local records. J. Engineer shall provide for pem1anent protecti on of on-site or adjacent stream banks and channels from the erosive effects of increased velocity and volume of sto m1-w ater runoff resulting from land di sturbing activities. k. Erosion and sediment control plans and det ails shall be based on the cun-ent edition of the "Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control and Storm water Management on Constrnction Sites and Urban Areas ". Erosion control plans shall be prepared by a certified professional i.n erosion and sed iment control such as a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC) or a professional engineer. 7. Detention and Retention Facilities - <1. Scope of D esign -The SCS Method wi ll be Lh e only accepted method used lo de ten nine the sizin g of storrnwater detention/retention areas. The Rational Method 1-vi!l 1101 be permitted /(Jr th e s1'.::ing o[sto rmwater clerention l rete11tio11 U/'l?l1S. b. Appli cability -The purpose of storm water retention and detention is to protect downstream properties from increases in flood heights due to development. A combination of storage and controlled release of storm water shall be required for road construction, non-residential developments ef-BB.e acre or more, multi-family residential developments of one acl'&e'F tnere, and single family developments of three acres or more. The requirement for a combination of storage and controlled release of sto1m water -is not required for minor s ubdivi sions; however, if the Planning Commission Department deems that the intensity of the development could cause off-site stonn water flow impacts during or after development, a combination of storage and controlled release shall be required. (The effective acreage for a project is not limited to a fractional part of th e total concept; even though developed in phases, it is the total area of the conceptual plans which governs.) Storage and controlled r e lease facilities may be nJquired on smoller projects if it i.s determined in the Planning Gemmisst~iseretior1 that the intensity of the deYelopment could cause e#site stonn water flow impocts during or after dev e lop ment. The retention or detention (whenever detention requirements are addressed by these regulations, requirements also apply to retention facilities) facilities must be designed to control peak flow from the outlet of the site such that post- development flow s are equal to or less than pre-developed peak flows for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25 -year, SO -year and 100-year design sto n11S. c. Downstream Ana lys is -H owever, D etaining the discharge from a site can sometimes exacerbate flooding downstream due to peak flow timing and/or the increased volume of nmoff coming from a site . If detention facilities are indiscriminately placed in a watershed and changes to the peak flow timing are not considered, the detention facility may result in an increase of the peak flow downstream. Another impact of new development is a n increas e in the total runoff volume of flow. Thus, even if the peak flow is effectively attenuated, the longer duration of higher flows due to the increased volume may combine with downstream stonn water conveyance systems to increase downstream peak flows. Applicant must demonstrate through hydrologic analyses that the detention facility will not exacerbate flooding downstream. 1n determining downstrea m effects from stormwater mana gement structures and the deve loµment, h vclrologic-hvdraulic engineering studies shall extend downstream to a point where the proposed development represents less than ten ( I 0) percent of the tota l watershed d raining to that point. cl . Ownership -Such facilities shall be owned, operated and maintained by the development entities and shall not be accepted for inspection and maintenance by the City of Fairhope. The h arden shall be on the developer and his engineer to provide evidence in support of any proposal t o a lter or modify the requiniment for detention. Stom1 water runoff from nev; developm e nt or significant r edevelopi,nent must no t 11E1¥er~-ffaet-tleWt1~~fflll"rt1~s. J.a determu,ing whelher ru~tH-!hl'-f!e_w. l~l<'Vtill'!JID'lefll.-eHiigai+ie.1~a!lll.itffil-e&l¼5tl.; ffil ad•,.eFSe i111pact; tha follo!w i1\g t,f0\ll!clllres.-wiJ1..[;~ (-l~A½h1R'-f)oo+-a~,"'1'!1-ff~~"'ebruo,ges ta a le\'eH!fJ1 10 a,,eeecl--t11t1 i,FtH.4!welei;meaH-lise.~es-f-eHhe l year \hRi>ll'6h I !J(} year ree,lfl'<!aee iu1e1",als. P-}--1-~Re -'teA peFGeAt'' rule , ~l~~!i~~liaH!HI pei~11SI.R!um ef a Elei.·elef'F!Je~1tsi1e Wtt<!J'e, thtt-m½J,og~ 11roo ,ab,,ve ~~~eel-e;-leas .1hae the tffiilkl,:ailmge anea,111-11 f'6ittkl@'l'flsl-R!am ,.r 1!1e de1'eWlf)meiirt-{l~H+HflaetttelaWd 1e s!oEm wm:a;1· ru11ofJ' !'rem 1h!Hlevel-epmml-!ire mi11imal !i1)t1Hllis;,ei-Al uBWEl!l!'fe/11,L fhis rule reee gai;,es 1htll-ttt-aclaK-ief¼-w-eGRlrtillicng 1he fleak-Eli5eJ.1a~£enHl.1e-ellllet af a detent'ia~ili~se-fu~i-lil-ies chaage !ho li1ui11g nf [he-el'\~u~At>W-l1"Sfegrnpl, fer I.he stTewll er r!ve, ia CitJ€5tl~8l'e-i~ijliifeei. ehitt1tH!H'OUI iAg .u1li!»lal'leM-m11St ~ed dew11Sl'l't'ffiM 1t1 a eaa-llt11!Flee> peiil1 wheff the clra.i!lRg,e areia being ~~f!!sem;;.btffi J¾eree,it er les5 ~f llJ~t~age urea . .'\L Hll;; i,e~'-T-~J:..1l1.,.l¥fElgl'aplHeffieEl-tlm,l~1 1he fl •'!lpesea stel'6ge fo<...jli,(y-c,n 1he clew1llllraam h)·Elregni1a11,t-i,,-a;;s~El sli0w1t not-ta ~lk>WH<w:l~\/'fl5!R.,.,m-ltj'ar(Jgfl1i,lls, eleleA!ffifl-€ll~'HlerW8W<'<.t,-Jf »M!F€ill5€<l4W.1'5-,ete.J;.>tteJcl.4~ft-flit0l<W,tl<!F ealettlali e us aP.tJ cle~ioo~T<lf! &f4!~lel-ttl:ieBB fur the area;; Ernp~<:~ecl 0~· itltf13a5e8-tl~fil~ ~~~l;,;re-.leWil5l·F•!am-imwease~ i11 ~eult flew,; er...J:~ ~i--e-sh-,ae1-eF1~m1-wl-ll-btHeijture,~ ea sfle EB at1em,a1t1 ~ffi:l-Wl!lt!f1S\if)(.\{f.fi:0011jes1-~~~-e e!evelepmell.H,llf e,;,..ln lft"'e.,.e11t tll;!t the Cit:,: lnt.ffl\'tlL.-petl-o-Gemf.1.RheFl!ii.',e Phm fer the ar01h fhtl-r~atieas wilhiu U1~rn~c;;-v~l~la~e req111 r~lll<l'lHrffl raet-Elfl \i-ea:-+b~i±i~ the ri.;;/lt-½sl-f;,('f1:1+re tlels:Ht-iatHIHlreas-ei:kf1aw11 tlaedlag,-wlJee deteRLiell will Hat ~ic-el'ba¼e ~awm:1,eati1-H~1!? (J l The rel.ease rate frem &flj' (1'1t,!fll-iee-lileility slle11ld Gf)tlf&1'm!ate lllill f>f 1+i ~ilef'RtJ!'-l.e-tli~e;;eel .ie,,~feµruem for the:! yeor-thn,i,gh I !J~ yeaf--Sh'JFIH e•,'etjlS, c Odcntinu l;u:ili1i1,s ~bull have :m wttll emergency over□ow capable ol' band ling at leasll he-10<)-year p1:ak disQharge except where. waived or altered by th~ Planning Depa11111elll ~l'\11. Desigµ of th e detention pond shoU be lo insut~ t hat dete ntion fa.i;ilities wiJJ survive overropping occurring for any reason , including clogging of controlled ouili:;lS for the 100 year storm event. Detention systems m11s1 be construcled during the fitst phase of majo r developments to eliminate dainage 10 adjuC<:n.l p rt>pcriiesduring co11structiou. !J1 this regar.d. 1he detention systems Sha ll be designed to funclio n as sediment rraps au(! ck<tn cd out lo proper storage vo lumes before compktion, If deposition ofscdimem has occurred. detimtion systemsmusl be restored 10 their design c!Jmensions after coQSlruc tion i s complt:l (; :i.nd eerti.fied as pmt of the as-buUt submittal I. Oetenlion faciH 1ies shall be provided w ith obvio us and e/'feclive control struc.twes . l'lan view, sections a nd detai ls of the s1rncture shall be incl11tkd i_n ~ubmittals, Sizing of the l ow fl ow pipe shal l be by inlet control or hydraulic gradient requ irc111en1s . Low flow pipe~ tl r urilice,; s ltttll•l,.,.11('1 smaller lban eight Inche5 in diaineler, except in pnrking Im and roofro1cmiou where U1e size sl.t11ll be designed for the particular application as approved by the C ommission, s hall pnll<idi: a ml!<ms IQ prcvcnl clom.!it1!!. g. The overflow openil1!,? or spillwny shnll be dc;,11,'lled lo accept U1e total peak nm off o f 1he improved tributary area. Proper engineeringjudgmeo1, w;11r2-,-t.. ~0-:,,~t\tf.eHleti~eAei<'s-.a,m;;i~, s1iall be elterdsed in sc:condary .rou~ing of discharge: greater than th~ basic design stonn for the prolection of downstream prop~rties . h. Aerators are required for all n:te11tio11 ponds. The J).,.bli&Wi>!'~~ Pla1111i 11 g Dtparlm~u l slw ll approve lhe specification$ for said aet111Qr, 8. Posl Deve lopment Waler Quality Best Management l't':lCllc~,s I Lmv lmmict Pes!fill)- 11. Storm waler quality BMPs for new developmem and significant redevelopm~11\ are rec1uire<l .for pl'Qieots 1'.jlyu1nng dele11l10111:,r r.,tt:,ltinn ;b tlelmnined IW th,; em!ioeer o[ rec9r<l ~ tlis1ttr-b-ll,r<:!M.;1,.-s-•1Msere or subdiVislons wftb four or more lols. (!be effective acreage tbr a project i, not limited 10 n Fractio nal part oftbe 101al concepl; even lhough devc l9pcd iu pbase.s, it is lhe total area of the conceptual Jllans whicl1 govc nisJ . Tht' BMPs m11St bedllliigncd lo achieve tho goal of removing at least 80% of' t he average ann ual post-construction total s uspe1\ded sol ids (TSS) lo.ad , Th~ stonn water quallf:)' BMPs willbeconsidcrcd i n compliance with thi s requirement i~ {I) DMPs are sf;,:ed 10 capture and t reat the water quality trea tment volume, wbi.ih is defined as lhe ru no ff vo lu me resulting from the fil'St 1.8· inches ol'fllinfall from a site; and, (2) Appropriate structural storm water BMPs are selected, designed, coostn.,cLcd, and maintained . Stonn water quality BMPs may be required On smaller projects if it is det,m:nined b )( lhc onl!ineer of recol'J fn the Rl111;11~1+.lftiissian'.5 ei<;eFe ,i81l lha1 tile inleusity Qf lbe develo pment could Clluse off.site. s to ,m water im pacts duringol' after development.. b. The swrm water quality ln:atmem goal is ,desigued to c~pturc $5¾ of the annual stonn water runoff. Storm wa11.!r quality .BMPs must be de-sig1Jed ro \real the runoff from the first 1.8 inches of rainfall. Each ·sllt:'s steillli watt:r qualiLy treatmenl volume is also b ased on its perceol impervious cover. The treatment standard is th,; snme for l!IJ sites Ul'\less other secondary polJUlant reductfon goals ore established by ADEM; for instance. throu.g[1 ~he es tablis hm ent ofTotal Maximum Oafly Loads (TMDLs). The $l'onu water ([uality lrt:almunl m~U1odology to dete011i11e trearmenl vo lume is as Follows: Wb~; A WQv=P x Rvx - 12 WQv ~ water quality tremment volom~. ac re-foet, P: rainfa ll for the 85% storm event ~I .8 im::hcs) gcne111ted by the I -year, 24-hour rainfall event (4.5 inches) to protect downstream cha1tnels , The ,uqulred volwne for extended detention ls referred lo as the Strea mb ank Protec(ion Volume (SPY), 1'he reduction in the frequc,,c_y IJod duralioll or bankfull Dows lhrongh the controlled release provided by extended deteolfon of the SPV will red uce the bank scour rn(e aud severity, Stom1water BMP s wllh eliher a per111a-.icn 1 pool of wate r or that will hold stonn wa lGr f'or a11 extended period oftimeoao potentially provide mosqulto- breeding habital However, if stroc1ur<1l BMPs are properly designed, Instal led, aud maiilla.incd, mosquito problems c~11 re mit1imized. BMPs with open water (such as stonn wat<:r po lids) shal I require ae1qt ion for mosquito contro l. 'J'he Plannin g DeUlJJ]J]o;!l! -~fk'!r-Sifl.'lllGF shall approve the speci ficalio11s ror the aeralor- 9. r.ocacfon and easements - a . Drnu,-ways, whether ~cinduit, c,r open channel, sbaU be localed withlJ1 the r igl1t-0t:wt1y insofar a~js practicable, !, Where tnrograpl\y or 01 her conditions r~nder impracticable the inclusion of drainag1:: willun road righ\S-of-way, pe)llettJ~I 11uobstnictcd ,t:'<1sements not less than fifteen ( 15) foet in wldtb s bal l be provided across the property with access to Lhe road right-of-way. Such ea~cments sball be ckarly delineated Oll lbe plat as areas dedicated Lo public use as drai na ge easements, with proYi~ion for mai ntenance by the landowner.;, The C ity shall not mai ntain su.;b easemen ts. c_ Off premise~ drainage easements and improvements lying outsi<le the proposed s ubdivision maybe required oft he O 1\lrte r l'ohandl c runoff in to a oa tural drniu~gc cb11nnd. d.. Where a subdiv ision or clevelopmb~l l is trllvorsed by a watereourse, dmi11- way , channel or stream, there sball be pr(lvided a. stonn-waler casemenl confot111iilg subs tantially to I.be lines of such water couJ'Se ru1d of such 11>i(lth and co nsiruction as is adequate for the in1eaded p!lrpose, including maintenance operations. e. No s101111 wijter detention shall be locar.-tl in public right-o f-wa y for any private development. l0. Maintenance - a , Acc~ptance for mainlenancu by the pub I ic of lake.,; or ponds wltich constin.1tc a parl of StonJ1 wa t~r drainage con1rol is geuerally prolubited by storm water 1>rovisions herein_ Any decision to I.be contrary must origi.uate w(th the City Council . b. Maintenance outside the street ngbl-of-way sball be the respon~ibi lity of th,;- lcgal entity established by the developer ror the continu~d maintenance of C0Jll!11on areas , No fo1111al acceptance or streets and utilities sl1all be made by the City Counc;il and no bu.i.ldi.ng penuit~ shall beissuccl until developer has made provisio ns for continued maintenance of snclt COlll.UlOll areas, inc luding off-street drainage and detention. As part of the fina l plat subnutt~I, the owner/d eveloper shall verify in wnlins that a legar entity sha ll be responsible for continual maiute1Jancc. lo 11:i~ l'Xtra -te rritorialjur isdto t1nn whe re meet acceptauoe is tJ1e County's responsibility, the, Count y Engineer may decline lo sign approval for reco rding of plat wlless maintenance provisions meet his approval. c. All ero s10n and sedimentation protection facilities shall be regu la rly maiul11ined as required to insu re that they li.mc tion eft'ecrively. d. Means for perpetua l and periodic mainte nance of the fac il ities s hall be established by th e owner of the development as a condition prereq uisite to apprnval of the deve lopment by the Comm issio n. 11. Required Use of Low fmpact Development (LID) Techniques for Stonnwater BMP's- a, Tbe use of me eel.-,w LID techniques is r equired and is to be dete rmined from an entire site development perspecti ve by the e ngineer of record for the project. The des ign a nd integr at ion of the belew LID techni ques shall promote the hea lth, safety, and genera l welfare of the co mmunity and sliall be designed to work in a complimentary fashion with the drainage plan for the proposed development. The LID techniques are required within tl1e municipal limi ts of the City of Fair hope a nd the p lanning jurisdiction of the City of Fa irhope based on the rain events experienced in the area, geology, sl opes, and other natural features. The eesign engi~ eeeeurngee le sul;llli1 Aaelilie11aJ bLD based teel11liE[t1e s la he u~ilii!i!El ifl the jlreposea eevelepmenl. b. At a miuinu,1,m The the use of -14 (Een) efll,e below LID techniq ues is req uired in auy a 11d all proposed developments where the stonn wa ter regulations apply. The design engi neer shall re ly on ve rifiable professiona l engineering j udgment on which LID techniques to deploy in each proposed develop ment based on the part icular characle.rist ics of the s ubject propedy. Plmming For Swrmu:att?·. De ,-c/oping" lo11· !111pac1 So/111io11. a publication of1he Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, r>rovidcs i 11 fonnmion on a number of LID techniques that may be used for stonnwater BM P's. A proposed develop meJ1t may use multiple mere thali IQ (reaj LID techniques as ap propriate. e,-If a prejeet, clue ta tile lli1H11,al ellilFne1eristies of lite 13ref)eFt)·, ea1met sueeessfuil)' i11i1JlemE!J'lt I{) (te1t) of the LID teellfli(llles below tlle-<!pjlOO(\l½Hti~bmil a waiver ~1<!Sl-fe-11si4!ffi1Heir.-TI!e wah·er reE[uest shall be submitted at the-1:i,me.ef-lhe Oflfllieatien a11d provide Yerifiable 011gieeerirt~m1e11ta1i011 tl,at l{) (ten) LID 1eellflit'j11es eeooot be u sed . The Ci,ty shall R!l'/e (Re right. 0lll AOI the el;l-t<J,'IHOO;-le ei~gage saeh third pafty eflgi,leer+,-ee11sulio111s anel ether prefessioiials as neeessery afld appre!)riate te advise tbe City es le wl<telllor a pAFlieular R!)plieatton eoffl!)lies wifk.etl8-is--el-heiwise ifl eeneei~ wi!h this suaseetioA IQ (a '•Thinl Pa,-ty PrefessieRal'·). IR the e,·ent the City ell;;;ages a ThirEI Part)' Prefessienal in G8Rlieetiou witit ii pAftieuler OflplieatioH, the Cit;· will la-..,,·ard all applieat-ieli marerials to tile Th inl Pa11)· Professianal along with a req1c1est fer a east esti1Nete lj·om the Tliinl ?arty Prelessional for llis,q1er rele in the 1,wiew-E>H11eh ap13liea1ioA. Upen preseatatien 8)' u,eThffd-ll-at~y Prafessienal of a eost estimate to the Ci Ly. 1-l,oQ!y shall praviee same lo the apf!lieant, and tllo-tlppffet11±!-shall eeposit with the City a <>flS&6tlll.l•equel i£t amo1mt to the eost estimate eftlle Thi•d PaFly Prefessiooa41-he "Gash Deposit''). U!)eA eempletion efall wei:k by rlie Thin! PaFly Prefess ie,111I relatiYe to sueh apjllieatien nnd payment b)· t,he City of all fees-end e:1pe11ses efthe Third Pa,~y Prefessionel frem 1h~h-Qeposir. ifaay portion efthe Cash Det>OSit re1flaifls, the City sha ll refHml it te the applieaut . If the Cash De13osit is ins11ffieie11t le f)&y-1-he-f'!le~ls ef tl:e Thirel llarty Profes sienal, the applieent tihal l irnmeeiAtely reR-'lit to the City saeb RmE!s as are flOeeSSQf)" 10 mel,e u13 nn~· shmtfall. El. The Tliir0J>ar1y PFefessiona l sliall sub111it a fo1eli11g "'J:l8Fl ta ti!~ Gi l)' PlafllliHg Oeptlt1me1it. The Cily PlaRBiilg Depa11men1 shall furwanl a e01i;· efthe linEliag -«i the a1i1J liear11 er Lile applieant ·s agent. The City Plnlil1Hlg DepaF1a1e11l shall i11elt1Elc; as part efthe Ojljllicarie 11 materials te the Planning Ce1Hllli-sSielH!-fe<.'-Om1neadalioo l'Ogt\l'elitlg tno waiwr. I• 1,5 dae-emalieiA, • • ~der Ille wail'er, tile 11p13 ,eae 1-ie The Planning Cemm1s~10R sha~-~.'1 e City Plam1ing Departmem reeammett00 A e. • ·El flllfl J>refess,eeal fi11 m., an . . es1, ~~:ea ~RAI d~'l1lffi1i<ffil~Hils-le the WOl'o'CI rnqu . • lieAHls giv~a lhe paF!ieulaF a • • are a,·ailable ~r ~~P. f :rhe follewmg LID leelm,~u~s. • . . eel subEl iY1 s1en: • ~ '"taae es ane eaamelenst1es et the prOfle·~-• L-eeftts er wet llasi11s are, amo,1g etreuFfo G' • f Els the p8l%....,..,., lffl•> ( I ) 'Vet Basins: The 11-:r 11 '. • !all 8 .,1 efs1ermwater, e11ell!la c-. ' ~ , II n •inrt see11nemat1ee 18 . I H\¥aler ~uahly. oilier IICIHS, a e" 0 • • • 1d iFRplWAAg I le S1811 • • ""'"""""™"lffiltSjffl'at1en. di. +laws, ASSISl1n., -· ~ • .. ,,_ . • • El· .. ater ele,•aliens. laFge S\lrleee Speeiakle,;ig&eellS-ideralions are . gi 0~~::i<l-be .;iYeR in pei-.•ious soil, areas aFe eeeo11rageEI, siie_e,al ~~l~~::::e aeeo11 11t n11tFie,11 leeein? ~en1 Su•l<lee area efthe basna sl,01,1 J : ·e··e SIOFRWlaler Ejliaht) to lhe u • Ele.-te-t-rea1-111,1,.... mp1 • . · Ele6-!e IAWllS feF eirnmple ll:l ~r . l" tl¼at 8A aeleEJliOte base Aaw IS t)~Yl . • • um e"tellt pess113le. ensurn"' I et a e eeAstn1e 1eEI tn aA IH max1'l>l_ • ' • • • I • t-hey-are nat FeeamH1enc e e . Eloo- mainta1:1i water le, e •• 1_ i.e af forebays Are ,eeef!lmet1 . · T tT~e l e)'·· sleiies t le '· I lesioa 111 Lilie faeuty, ti 11 " . • hall lie eensiclereEI in He~ 5 a ·'01.•r1wlFeam a1 eas S ttpslf<!am-mi,.... " = aeee1'l'lanee with Fai Fhepe srnaElar.!s, n---·-.. --.. -'-•~ftlele,,..,.1~~ . I . . . . .:,+·M~re;,-:i:.i.e 81313 Foaeh s lopes sh=s.; === ·a I es3·1orless(belowt1ewe . , "!2" ara1Hacl the t-J8Fie,eter. SI e 5 or . ; llelew water ele.,•atien ~4. w1ele, 6 - tl,e sofety be11el1), safely llene_1 Jl!S lering tbe l!osia, eaa be e1<e&'<'atee! dee13), energy i3 elissipared flF18F to en bele·» the eF011ae-st!ffil- " -• • the ate1-Jtial lleaelits efmi11 gaFE!et½S-ftre; C .) Raia GaRlens: The C11y fouls! fl ~--atlem1atien . infillrat ie11, li:m iieEl . -rui:~Hief-i.lerns. sFRall sea e Ori ~Ira eEI EIBEi waten1uahty • a~s••1Fa•·1en ellewing sedunerH-H flP • e•laflO,F rt P ' . Efeelfileet . • • .. + ieally smaller areas an~n~ Siieeial clesig11 eens1Elemllens a, e •. -~ eeia l allentien sl<le,lld Ile g.-·e1:1 tll llf<!.15-llre-tt"M I-OF rain garde11 des1g,i , .•Ill •El~e-seil !ffet,ps A aed B, 11al • • soils reeo,nn1ended fer use ,a17 " e-perv1011s · • . 1 ;eeenlffieRded in high swell s01 s. . • • • SA·all seele aiia ff'oe![H8ttl 11se i,1 clffunage .ReeemmeaEleEI eharael:nslle~ ~:a;erlals sai l mi?(, MEI other e~~Fa~~~ area5,-1~ieiee oflaa sea131n". d , Raia oar-0%S eae be aigh Y vIs1 • I es · ef a ra111 oar .... e11. ., are eraeial !e l le SHee-• . . " PFBflOSed ele\·el8Jl1HenL n;1£I ulilciled as a visual tHneail')• lfl a • I Ii aetils of • The City fiilEIS !he petenlioe . (J ) 12effileabl<:> Pi1veFRe11t S~·stems. o ewer items , flow atten1,1at 1e11, • ~.i.._.~l-symems are, aFReH,, r-e!ll~s-aee pvrm=~= • f: term•··aleF. There nr e IBAtty-p . l i11 tihFBlio11, aae ·filtralle~1.o s el •; C ity is e!)eA to l lle use ef•,an ec . lmtegies th~ Ile 111iJ.i~eEI a11 t ,e . emmeadatiOD!l. Ce11saltat 10H 5 • ·El ioe u •11h Rl8Rt11ileltlf-• · oces ted proeuels 111 aes?' a, ''., flhe rodaet te 1,e 11tihled JS S.•= · , ••• ,1 ll,e eity pner te elem on e ll <\Id ·1 , • • • • e· Use iA areas with llydFa~ie se ,. gre~s h Special Eles,gn eans 1~e1 n11 01i ar .e i '"e1i in l)er,iaus eenE1 111eas, 1101 alld B spe~ial aHen~1en sheal? b g "n .15 grmu,d water t ail l e,; should net , • ·*1 High swe set-. reeeinme ,i<led ll1 ere.'\S-Wl i 1iiplll\H11~Hit;--~•F-t~1ile. !he ,tech.nHJ\ie-Wf!WM~H-lew slef3em /4,+,SaflEl-l>i-her+---Tue-Gi174inihl-lllel-l-e"1Jt,l-ea!-~ fillers are , !lmnRgce!lli!Htenis, fl-1-Bl'llllltioo,-;1+(;.llffl~&,-r-tlt!Hein.; s~dlirn!At-elien. ane pftWiding-a!R'fltieiH>( slenu w;iter. Speetul eesign e~dera#01.ls arer Bes1 used il, 6m~1vtt't<'\~e.~<leial 11tle!llle>ll,{;!ltlUM4J~•,t~m-il!"flttP>'¼Ell!Se59i.ls . reeommeooeel use in areas witi1 Sf>ilir11rith geed p~rmeabili~~fil!;,,gje•,I seil .,'rnlq3S A !ltld 13 , nF.I! ,.eo1l'lm e11~l<!d-i-i1-rn<J11 swelJ sails, !5.)0rass Sv,ale.i: The Gil)' fincls-ffial tlie f'Olenlial he;10fil5 af grass S'fffli~ &rne,~!11.,,-ftem.,, in <Stfl!i11i~rmw«t....-~lla!i-4¥ \f<!a~a,,, while p1'G1·1tli11~1e-rneJafflk,'-f!-f\Uftt-ie1r. Speeiel design ooas-i~e;1Uy wark. l;esl llh,malk>PE!l~ al'l!as ,,,J,ere "ew&Ml ana reduec,t s13eeia I ~011.'iidi,ff'O{ien sho11lel be gt"<·en in ~-~mend~~~l~hoold ha,~ lew &lopes. a.ija11en1-a-nEI laye11Hlloole be sensl&'feE!-HH-1¼&4.':llg1r.c St;ggesteEI erulfeele1fatie!; w¾-te1,egru1ihy. s0i~le~mi1 "'-~akl<H}13en-elJlllmels-aaEl-5J™:.:is s!!elflel Ile eonsiEler~l as a sigaifioant i:li' ii flfttll~tel"..m¥tHf!Hlfltweyml,lt,, (!!.I Grass Buflerr.+l:te-Gtly-fiii<l&-lb;JMhc-fl<'l\eH~!iHl~~H-A'-e-.te: ~•nm1g ether i 1en,s. ifl sll'ai,iing :<£el'fflWlf!efn)Fe"taui~tl'lliwd-![Heltlj' ll.'t,&\illellt;i , ,..,J\il~ 11f9•,ia1ig soffie lllilElefaJe fie\\· atleaaat-ie>tr •E-is-klesign ee11:;i~ns are: Typi<mYy wtlflHJ&.;H~<lr-.ifeim,!:O lli-etl6--Wfl-h1-1r-~J.1el!<kt1t!ei~ti£i~e~~Hl:I ~erviElRS sails, lleHe<l91'Ha~ed with higI1-5Well-soilS;-S!N:!t+lEl-a,~e Jew slep~eet!f!~~~areEl tA th@ (jesig,1. '\lu~stetl el'Hli'il<=k."fl5lies where I apegreflll)', ,oils . .Mitl-slE>~AA 1 ege1uled e)'!eti-el-ei<KIDC,kiiaces should be eens1!lerea m;, a signifiean!-Etr-6 ~'!aly-meaas er s1enawal<!F-ee.-ve~·11nee. (7.) Canstrnetea v, et-lalltkMlltlt!~weH!lflc+.r.-+h~es-llml-lh~1'effl.ia! ~,•iwfils ,if eeASuuctea wetland-t4taF!llt!ls er weH!l!lds-al'e:--ame11~el,IA<:l' ,1eu'tll. AO' .. ,' :11 !01\tl;llii>tl,-buffe~ood~'S.I;. evrl)l.l'tfaHOflUP.(iaA= se,jj 1He1111ltioH, a11E! F:ei!l:1HeA1 aHll'61''1l'I/AI 8f-~'7, Sj,eciol de:ign eeMi~"'~"; are: >lel-r{l,mm1±1,,1lll~ ,lo~-',-foFl!il~~-AEl~f-fmi!l7~belli!~~IIU1tml-f<!ffieVal~et -¼l~~~_iaeet1K\f\O<-M1il~"6!-!5l<l~es½a, (~!~ool-StE!ffi¼WBH!r C011Yeyenee S111oJeEHres: 1·1ie Cil:)· tinds41,ia~ jlael-s!SffflW!lt<'POOfl-\ley!ltlOO Sifllell!r~ mu)· aHe'flli01e sl<!rmwaterfl&WS; t~il-fal-f<ltl:;pitaEie,1, redt1ee s-edime!iHi'a&.;fl&fl;illla-wat«'-q<1alliy tfi!aii'R- Sjleeiul-4e,;i;l;I, ao1'1l;l+la11i-ieas-e1--e: Net reeoR1tllel\.k<!l-it~kei+.r. \Eijaee11t areas shA~H<-1-e<Hllk-te-eea!;i,leF;~n or!ler t-0 ensure h,ng ~enH ,~obi!i¼~"'fl-iiae~res ana a,:1j-oe,;i~1,1,ui, ~ll-Hf!l!-Sl-OfRlWll~l~~Gf!Y ifflds41mHn-um, sl~ruge may 13ra,•1rl-? "'6,..,;!i'<lfllilliiOIHlfl~<!ffill·-lwR, S~~<ie1,alieHs ai'e'. De;,i-,,:IIOO-\He-self.<.>le11aing where 17essml&-er-S1ii111i:>l~1-1Weess is pro•l'ielod aeti Elesigae<i tme rb.e ,sys~esigrled-ttrS1welm,,g8-R811~rwe11"'-"IS-w.iiJ'Hle-4;lt1;t•l,iug-i.a ~,~a,11g lo1S;-Affti~1'Gt~ieally o.:e111>ied spaee.s. f+IH-SiHHlt--,;ig,,-fo,-.Jmbi!a!, "eUooe, and wa~enseAA'IBeAl--T-li&C-.itrftt1tfo 14m~esi~~Of81'6s-1iw•fli\Hlfftl ~lUres af the prapeny eaB l!el11 IEHlltnirrui!e eFOOiw-aml-fcdmie sa,e,;s oo-allttmtl-wol!!r<!e•weym1ee flc□il a!l@AHBl;..,11~y-i;ff'St!f'fffig a flalllral •,•egetm-eek~-l'lB~!lilfS, wal~r eew-seS', aoi:I Aeeel ~ref\~- Stigge.s!eEl-ellflaaem~ie!rarei-+ke-k!~!mi~Rjaoc...ie!Hl'illi Hi;, ... til;' 's plaoo~Hk~~•lt--er village 11ttbcltw.iia&pl'8~e f.W!lpese a!t~mat1v~Ha:r9tl¼!:11eEl .aeoig11 se Lhal-ifn~At-1 ~F-i.JHpn:wenl!!<nls are sites.with a..,, R>gllf.l-ie-#11S1a\-;lra~lemffll!Hl~e t'<'~ Speeial-dt>s~5".d~-alien;;: T!il eoo;,illeF-~ in 111 ,; Elo9igu sinee t,:fllla,inn, 11atW'llH°i!&l11.es-H.at mili.e this L-~i~e often extend:rj)Ml flf"Pen~· !wes er the rhsses ef pfep,':;ed-.ievelepfll<lflt, ~on efHilhi---Wefltlrul'HlfJ1J, . .Wawr Beeies: l'he eity fimls t,hat 1he f~kM<ilie1Hlf..heffllawF-W-efla~El-warel'-bmlie!r£<1!l lio f,1'£>iklel+v~ ie:l~r01·e I Ile \!IJ'o'iret1111ee~~~Fesi8fl-a!1d-reelueiag stress •~n elll'ill&HW!HlF-C:8BVe,·a,iee aad a!!ent,;;i,i,:t!ttysi<!al!HJj'-~FrIBg 11 1'!awtal ~lc;lt,eE!-s~atl-,,..,.JJlanlS. waler eewser. a,-;d~ed i,reAe are1;s. S11g;;es1ee el1arwk!Fi5t~~~HiEjtls may be asee! l<1 eatljooeaEHi w+l£!~!aMeel-wlikleV<!•1t'nl er village subdi¥i~~ pr~.;e e!temal.4·,e slreeHa~·011,,s ane-a~tl'leHffij3dM~d Qt ller ffapro•-eint.'lJl!Hlt'I! s!hid wilh dll~TeJlml te Elle aah.s'a l elemenls ,ef.lhe ~rt'.r, V:e. e1!ly-fla~A&iil-l!ie~,;eleptl'!efil-FJ'06ess R11cJ lake spaeial ee~n1.ta11-1~-esfer~01'1!, ef tke sile. lfl pred~l>J,ffit'lll-fla!t¥a eeelegieakt}mru...mi~-F-bedi&.HlE-Wetla11d5 •.•,·iili Allli'~l'l-i.fl~lit, d-lE\tlm~nt fee~ s,,.eeiul design-£ew.ii~rali..11,r.-+tl-eoll5ifleH1~iji,.?o;aHH-eas in ltle ElesigasiAee ,f,1lj-Wfl-i½tlM-1tttttml--fffil'l¼fe5 Ulal-t1Jil.j;!,e..l.lli!rbJ'.fl-t-eei½ai<1~1l~ prepeny lir1e,1 er~f-t~f<J~seE!-.i~ru<'Ri (~ GA:,,;,~va~e-Gi1)' !£Bes lhal greeaways f.!l1l',ide far hemifieial 11.a af.h© A-if..petffitially aetiWN!flEl-~-eF•a~~~el±fe ia!emt'IE>i,;,-:r.JJJ;;-~miEt11e aUews for the-erea~itlk.-graiia<Ht1- 1kwel<.f)ffleffi-VFe~hl!H~~HJ-ly-fu~~REH'-AlllilftH-t1f reereaffflR sysreR'!s ~-ft!fl4'BSHI\Erfl""~~~-i~ll-jlliefl06l.od ll~epmt!Hh ~~tet'kma~leri:aies: Ty~kally-gree>Rl'OyHU,_si<eP-l&•iflle!!ralC ima a (~epmeel-t'ft1f1%0km-1aFgeH1~J:.key-are-l'reEJlleH!lj'-l-J! i l.iP.eil us l,ine11r ~arlrn aml e ftdA inc-Jooe-,;e,1!;ili ,·e w~tttit1ti-ereas;-steeJHi~e:,;-gu!J.ies-ef at,l;er-m1£llrol Je 11e feFms, eraeL-.;, an.El Uf¼iEJf1e-Wtitl-i+liHltle ilft~H!61...d fit>e.;ies, ~ ~ltli~llg-('-tl{ltlftt'I-M0fl)l1el~d-:i>la«-!faU.:W1et-ie>r.-+he-~*1r.4k11t fe!l!oriP.g ehanael marpj;.,.Ja~ealHtS¼~&tt-p;,,wides-fuH:fow o-mi,rn,-mf.!¼mtiallrll~~eAtal'iBll, &pe.ml eal!Si!leFalJolr.Hlfe: [ypieal+y-w&l'ks ma.1r offeetiH.°fy"i!rl•ll'g<'r !l~~~ttlf.t•'•'(l,Su1i>sllUlt-ia~-foo~g.eJ•ttHJRel can be R!S!erod. Jt is 1mpaflllt~>™"0~tilfl1ct-t!tl-ee11'illn•fe<!.l'IHlllffi'ffi and fult;F<1>4lh!!Rllll<lfist-i.i~ae ef lal!d ase i A aeeaw1ted for i11 \he e.si;,q1, \ J -1. )J:l ia. Rete±11lan: The Gily l'ii,o:l,4~-hie-~ar}13fe¥tEies-!oc-9ew a!4<ffiatll'iaa iRFill'mliieA,l+miteEI e1·ap01.fllllSJlU'a<i~i\.>eEl~~jmealaliaR. lttltHlleR~l~llG~~- ~,gt'Slii!'a eoo,ae!effl;ties are: +e-e.H1s~betlH1--met11wn11er anEl n~lllt!l1y ~y-iltFeug}10a~l-0pmea~eaak1tettl-ietJ-$oolJ.l.1e 1,.~t!-j¼la,1H¼Bd-gnn111a eav-asi.l\i'Iil~ll5 gh·en tkti-¥OhiffhN<llil .lw-et-ieA-eAii<Hl~ea-s.rea,uwater. ~peeiel..J.-sigu ee nsi~em1 tens afe: T)'j'1ieRll) wt'lrk ·b<!Sl--i-.a+H!Fll+J1~-e Ol'e<IS'Wit+..+il."iJ.ttell\-ll',;&-arnhlislFilwi-ioa;-5fl<!(>iel:,:iHeR.ies-i:rreEjl¼lffiHH ~"1'¥i-ils ans shaHla ~e -d il'Hl-:rwWritigli,,pt!fmeae~ ~41'91egl8 soils grBUJ!S J\, aREl B). eel reeom~ ~igk sweH loils, t-!¼.l-hewl-&f,readeF.-+k~il) fiads that l~feilfre1'S eaA be-~llliw.-teel {t> e,·eAJy Elisrribi;te 1'leW1Htt~Gi'ellU'B--V0htHle-ekeleei!y-t-e-a ~1-eae,,ele~attlll'l-pllW!-.~fffllii«aEK!ffll<tW-!i!t'F-Slfitttimg aml-wekef-<11:1tilily-itepfl.'l¥- ..l;ub,g1:1St¥!EI i!lffiF11t11eiisriin are: Le·,el Gf}re~fe'-it1temlecl Io werk ill 8 eomJilli111e,m1Jj' fasil ie" witll-e.tt<ll'-l...-©-lt!elmiEtties-stt~fl; .saAE! filters aR£1 gra~ ~ial ll<!;;ign 6<lll!iidill'll½ill$i!f&!-'.'.f7~~...el-sprea<lei'w-9l'<H¥.letl tlewttsweem eran e1:1tfo.lJ~~-law-slei;e-wi~ilh:ed Atle •,.!g~tatt,i,l buffiirs lletk UfH,ltttl-tiawA.l;lfeam,--:r-1tey4;'!)iG01lj' ar~ mslel~>tilahle EiisraHce ffaff! 1 l,e prapeny Ii 1i~~>-theHlttw-t>ae~ 1,H$fi1llla:l,-ai'lil~~~af"d€¼eFi$1',K\!Klre-<JefH~lltla, ~eti.l-e&R5ideRll~mtld 13e gi,•~fl le w·eru, wilb hlghl; ere,!Hlle-setllr. Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC for approval of Van Antwerp Park, an 11-lot major subdivision. Subject property is generally located near the intersection of North Mobile Street and the unopened Pensacola Avenue, and is owned by Van Antwerp Park, LLC consisting of 11.29 acres+/-. The smallest of the 11 lots is 0.25 acres+/-and the largest lot size is 0.47 acres+/- with an average lot size of 0.33 ares +/-. S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC serves as the engineer or record (EOR) for subject application. The EOR provided a supporting document clarifying there are no planned future phases above and beyond the future phase shown northwest of lot 11. Comments: Article II -Definitions, "Major Subdivision" □N/A ~Accepted □Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments : Subject property consists of five {SJ or more Jots and by definition is a Major Subdivision. Richard D. Johnson, PE, Public Works Director -Mr. Johnson provided a supporting letter dated November 29, 2017 indicating the stormwater management design and roadway design are in compliance with City of Fairhope Standards. Richard Peterson, PE, Director of Operations, Fairhope Public Utilities -Article VI. Section H.2. of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations states the following: All sanitary sewer systems constructed within a subdivision and all sanitary sewer systems constructed outside of a subdivision but servicing a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with those certain "Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities" which is on file at the City of Fairhope Water & Sewer Department. Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities section A.8. states the following: 2 Sanitary sewer collection systems for multi-customers shall be gravity systems in accordance with the standard specification parameters. Low pressure (multiple grinder pumps) systems shall only be acceptable within the Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction where access for proper maintenance to sewer mains is impractical and cost prohibitive. Cost prohibitive shall be defined as a condition where the estimated cost of a gravity sanitary sewer system is more than 500% of the cost of a low-pressure system. The entity constructing the facilities shall provide the Fairhope Sewer Superintendent actual cost proposals for both systems for review and determination of the accepted alternate by the Fairhope Sewer Superintendent. Cost proposals shall be representative of the current local costs for materials and installation. Sample cost proposal forms are included herein as an appendix. For new developments, the cost comparison shall itemize all necessary items as appropriate per system, and related erosion control measures and paving items. The exclusion of these items in the cost comparison shall not in any way relieve the entities responsibility from meeting all local standards and regulations relating to these items. SD 17 .28 Van Antwerp Park-Jan. 4, 2018 The applicant has provided two sa nitary sewer concepts for the proposed subdivis ion labeled concepts "A" and "B". Concept "A" proposes a 2" low pressure force main, connected to an existing sanitary sewer manhole in the existing paved portion of Pen saco la Avenue . Concept "B" utilizes a combination of low pres sure and gravity sewer lines to service the subdivision. Specifically, grinder pumps will be used to collect waste water from each lot and pump the waste water to an 8" gravity sewe r main in the ROW along Pensacola Avenue. The waste water will flow through the gravity main to a proposed lift station to be located at the dead end of N. Mobile street and then flow from the lift station via 3" force main along N. Mobile Street, then follow the newly opened Pen sacola Avenue and connect to an existing manhole in the exist ing paved terminus of Pensacola Avenue. Staff and the Engineer of Record (EOR) have not attained concurrence on the allowance of a low-p ressure sewe r system vs. a gravity system. Though Concept "B" incorporates gravity sewer, and the sewer main in the ROW is a gravity sewe r main, the lots comprising Van Antwerp Park are still reliant upon grinder pump s to collect and convey wastewater to the gravity sewer main . The EOR submitted a su pporting letter to the subject application dated Novemb er 14, 2017 further-clarifying the EOR's request for a lower pressure sewer system . The EOR's November 14, 2017 letter is included with this staff report as a supporting document. Staff's interpretation of Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities {Specifications) is that approval authority of sewer systems deviating from the Specifications resides with the City of Fairhope Public Utilities Director of Operations and if concurrence ha s not been attained with the Director of Operation s, a waiver shall be requested by the applicant for allowance of a low-pressure sewer se rvice . The EOR provided a su pporting letter dated December 13, 2017 requesting a waiver from the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities, which is incorporated by reference into the Subdivision Reg ulations via Article VI Section H.2. Article VII "Waivers" of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations provides the followin g waiver sta ndards: 3 Waivers may be granted where the Planning Commission finds that the following conditions exist: 1. An extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with these regulations due to unusual topographic or other physical conditions of the land or surrounding area not generally applicable to other land areas. 2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider. 3. The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent of the regulations, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan. • Remarks : the intent of the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Fa cilities is to provide gravity sewer service. If the requested waiver is granted, the intent of the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities is nullified. 4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship; SD 17.28 Van Antwerp Park-Jan. 4, 2018 • Remarks: an excerpt of Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities Division II, Section A.8. is included in the "Comments" section above. The engineer of record's afore-mentioned letter of November 14, 2017 provided a cost estimate indicating a gravity sewer system is "cost prohibitive'' because the cost of a gravity sewer system is more than 500% greater than the cost of a low-pressure sewer system. Based upon the cost information provided for a low pressure vs. a gravity sewer system, staff is unable to determine if the low-pressure system submitted is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship. 5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public; • Remarks: ifthe waiver is approved, allowing low pressure sewer service to the residential lots of the subject application, future landowners may experience the future adverse effects related to operating and maintaining grinder pump systems. 6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done. The EOR provided a supporting letter dated 12/XX/2017 addressing the six conditions of a waiver listed above . That supporting letter is included as an attachment to subject application. Staff does not support approval of a waiver from the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities. Erik Cortinas, LEED AP, CFM, Building Official -The subject property falls within an area labeled "AE" and "AE, FLOODWAY" according to the latest 2017 Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Office of Water Resources flood maps, as shown below. Applicant is advised the Building Official may recommend the City of Fairhope be held harmless for any damage to structures caused by flooding in the subject development. 4 SD 17 .28 Van Antwerp Park -Jan . 4, 2018 Approval Standards City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article V Section B.2. provides the following Approval Standards for evaluating a subdivision application: Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the following : 6 a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable • Meets the criteria. b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program • Meets the criteria, subject to the "conditions of approval" listed under "recommendation", below. c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations • Meets the criteria. d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations • Meets the criteria e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the planning jurisdiction of the City • Meets the criteria subject to the "conditions of approval" listed under "recommendation", below. SD 17.28 Van Antwerp Park-Jan. 4, 2018 ( 3. Article V.F. -Stormwater Standards - a. The entirety of the SWM system designed will be built at th e time of subdivision construction. Developed lots will be "builder ready" with SWM in place . b. All SWM facilities will be installed and functioning at time of Final Plat and are contained within private common area property or within defined easements. c. The revised stormwater management design is compliant with City standards. If you have any questions or concerns, due not hesitate to contact me. Yours, RDJ Novemb;:,-14, 20(7 Mi-. \Vsyne Dyess,A1 CP Plalllll.ng and ,Zoning Pirector City or Fairhope SSS S. Section Strecl Vnirhope, Alabama 36532 R e: Van Antwerp Puri-S!!b<lMsion -Sewer Dear Wayne: Civil l would like lo ri,q11cst thal you help guide us lhrough the sewer issue that we ourreatly find ourselves in. As yo u are aware, per RJc b,ards 011rnil 011 November 141\ 2017 (attached), wedo not liave a resolution to the sewer on this project nnri he.recommends letting tbe Planning Commission decide, To date we-have oot b~en givon a specrnc reason why the low pressure sewer will nlll ho al lowed as designed. We have _priced the low pressure-system and the gravity system (attached). Per our bids, 1he l ow pressure system is over 500 percea l mote than !he gravity system. Bdow is a comparison of the numhets: Low Pressure -$51,850 Gravity Sewer w/ Lift Station -1260,890 Percen111ge Difference -503% On the topio of the 500¾ role, Richard rect'IJ!ly staled that he believed lhat tbe cost comparison sboutd .not only include Uie develo)')~rt.:.~asibiJjty. but the grinder pumps loo. I bave spokeu with the several I ocal engineers to detennlne if this has been done U1 the pa-st. All concurred tbarthis has never been tb e requirement and that lbecos\ comparison only included the infra.~lructure that U1e developer is responsible for. By adding the grinder pomps into th" equation, you arc placing au additional lot cost of $10,51)0 oa the consumer ($2 100 x 5). Yes this js a cost th~t is boc:ne by tlie developer, but all cost funnel through to lhe eod user, the cit izens. If the new standard of care i$ going to include the cost of the grinder pump, then maybe the 500 percent threshold needs to oo revisited . [f we look at the cost comparison based upon the way that it bas always been done (not ineludiog tbe grinder punlJl) you bavc the followins number,: Low Pres~uro • $28,750 Grovi1y Sewer w/ Li ft Station • $260,890 Percentage Difference -907% 'T'o date we have looked at six (6) diffcrcnl schemes. All but one, the low pressure sewer sys tem, ha~ beenelimitiated due to the reasons allowed Within the regulations (cost prohibitive andimpractical). Selow are the different schemes und ideas that have been looked al : Scheme I -Gravity io the bottom to lbe cxis (iog-lift station at Stctipo. 'Ill.is scheme did not workdu~tc,, sew,a,r depth. I S. School Street Fairhope, A labnmn 3.653 2. 251-990-6566 Sc,herne 2-Gravfty the bonom o a proposi!d lift station tba t putttped back to the: e.x:isting Im rntiQa ac e-0tion . This sc:h.erue did ut worlc due lo b ing impractical e:ad d lo c L. Scheme 1 -Low Pressnre "'Ol"Clc' Main iVTlh Gdnder PL1mps. Thi .\i) tt.-m Uo\ th Lots ta be developed a aU w d by . ~ng and tn ets th-e ~ olw· r the sped wa ions . Tb:iB scbeme lso.h s the ler.st sit d _ elopmenl impact. -cbeme 4 -11clionN.iiC\:lu:m System nlong Pens c laMtl Mob~te_ .. his syste111 did not work due to being rmprac.tical and due to oost. Snl1ome 5 (new) Tliis is th sc .eme:ltichard requested which nlypm 'des gr.i: Jty sl!We.rfor the «urst1 I fthel 0us-C1. TI \t,JWf;lrlev 1 ;,,-hieh ·1 onsist oflllllltip~e bedrooms filld ba htoon'I ~ viii b si rved by a grinder pump . A half bathroom in any aocessocy strt1ol1.11'(l \\18U1d b s~ eel by grinder pump. men tl1ti$e lols are developed as allowed'. by zoning, Thi scheme does nt>t get -Us away :fro grinder pumps. 1f these grin er pumps . were added to thtH: • Qf lh gnivity . ~iwer aud I' ft station (as tber snould l,o be co,uislerlt with. our m"°deling). i L wow d be o er 5 00% more than the low pt sur1;_ sy t . • lh refon:: this ib me (10 l'1 w rk due. to oos:t aod bl:in~ imprac 'inal. Scbeme 6 {m:w)-Thi. i the, scb.eme ·wh e th . 'ty .sewer dqilh was set by the I lower' Jevel finishe.d floor eleyation which . woul ow lh~ hom;es to be buil t as alltlwed by zoning. ha fballu:o m in ::my acmessory structlll' would be l!erved by pump. ~ is : ~bt:m p d!! ewer depths tnat 11fe not r onabte, fuerefore Jthis c !mle does oot wor In both ·cheme~ 1m· ch(;m1 6, a 11anitaryse:werlift. station wouldb re,quirt:d long ibil • ~. Th k:igical. loc tio111 for ·~ to :$erve all of the lots wou1 , • wi hin llie llt:H.:ipaned right t way of lvtobile trri.,~ . Has consideration. bee.11 gi ~ o the . resiclc!nces along fuis stretch of Mobil lr t? T am nol \Jf lh will \Vru\t I c noise odon, and \Ii U!\l impacts £ a H:ft: station on lbeir street. There h.nve aJso been dtscussious cf futur tnti1s ore pedestrian bridg o conn :o.l Mobile ,l:f and Volant Avenu . Also/ ch me 5 and Scheme 6 "Will reguir • remo a oflbroo ~ at we w~e attemplin] lo sav; T ose oak trees ha.Ye a DBH of36'' 24'\ and 18'1 I 1UJ,de:rstand Richard's _ esir to look o: 'lhe Cly infm ·truttu '\ n makiD,g dcc:istom; on ne v n . uucture and JIUlk:i.qg sure :ure devel opment1s impw::t is consid~ 11 llT at Che imd c,f n de-acl ~.ml i;:olld , The to pograp J)' ])r vents. the extension of Mo bile Street. bu e eo if jt w~te wnended 1 tltere would bal! n n w t ts along Mobile, b c: m; lhe:la:nd b ab-ady boorJ, developM on tll ,e ot1mr 11l ~ of he right,o ,f-way, Therefore du~, er infr.1s1ruct11re fot· this project would only .. ~e lols within th.ii; dev 1apu1'l::nt. al o want point cml that ''11 il!ting infrastmcture on Mobile tree and .Pensacola . l1:l:ll1e in nt of , ur sire is 1 w pressure. W:ith tli .e emting in:frastrocmre b lng law pre~ ure and any upgrade th syst o,nly impacting th~ proposed 1 l lo , then staying wi h lhe low pressur · ici _ d lo ~cal concluiSioo. 1 beli v -W1: have met tb inten:L and requir ents of the cum:nt Ol'dinance ,:vith cheme 3~ which 1s me low pr ~lire. se, er system. Toe other m thods liave been. ruled out by ost ,and b being impra tical, l S-cbool Street Fairhope:? .Alabama 6532 251~99 -6566 Larry Smith From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Larry, Richard Peterson <r ic ha r d.peters on@fairho pe al.gov > Mond ay, November 13, 2017 3:29 PM La rry Sm ith Buford King; Wayne Dyess; Mac Wa lcott RE: Van Antwerp Sewer I suggest you ta ke it up with the Plann ing Commission . I am of the opinion that a gravity system can be utilized in a cost effective application where lower level plumbing, if any, can be pumped to the gravity latera I of the primary l iving space of the main floor. After all, doesn't every site come with certain constraints? Building setbacks, parking, height restrictions, etc. all come into play when you design a use for a specific site. Why is sewer any different? We are talking about a standard Fairhope has accepted to ensure a certain level of service for future property owners to enjoy. I doubt we will be ab le to reach an agreement on th is matter. If you believe a hardsh ip has been imposed on you regarding sewer service to this development, you should follow whatever recourse is available to you (I assume through the Planning commission) to get this resolved. Richard From: Larry Smith [mai lto :larry@ secivil.pro] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:00 AM To: Richard Peterson <richard.peterson@fairhopeal.gov> Cc: Buford King <buford.king@fairhopeal.gov>; Wayne Dyess <wayne.dyess@fairhopeal.gov>; Mac Walcott <mac@wavarchitects .com> Subject: Van Antwerp Sewer Richard, Attached is Scheme 5 and Scheme 6 for the sewer. Below is a brief recap of the other schemes or ideas that were looked at and a description of the two new ones: Scheme 1-Grav ity in the bottom to the existing lift station at Section. This scheme d id not work due to sewer depth. Scheme 2 -Gravity in the bottom to a proposed lift station that pumped back to the existing lift station at Section. This scheme did not work due to being impractical and due to cost. Scheme 3 -Low Pressure Fo rce Main with Grinder Pumps. This system allows the lots to be developed as allowed by zoning and meets the thresholds per the specifications. Scheme 4 -Suct ion/Vacuum System along Pensacola and Mobile. This system did not work due to being impractical and due to cost. Scheme 5 (new) -This is the scheme you requested which only provides gravity sewer for the "first" level of the house. The lower level which will consist of multiple bedrooms and bathrooms will be served by a grinder pump. A half bathroom in any accessory structure would be served by a grinder pump. When these lots are developed as allowed by zoning, this scheme does not get us away from grinder pumps. If these grinder pumps were added to the cost of the gravity sewer and lift station, it would be over 500% more than the low pressure system, therefore this sche me does not work . Scheme 6 (~ew)-lb1s 1s the scheme whe r e the gravity sewer deptli was s~t by the "!owe,• level f in1shed floor elevati on which wou ld allow the houses to be built as allowed by zonlhg. A lialf bathroom In any accessory structure would be mved by a pump. Thfs scheme provides sewer depth that are notreasonable, t herefo r e this scheme d0es not work. Also, the grav ity sewer schemes will r eq u ire the removal of three t rees t hat we were attempting to save. Those oak trees have a OBH of36'', 24 ", and 18". I believe we have met the intent and r eq uirements of t he design with Scheme 3, which i s the IQW pressure sewer syste m. The other methods have been ru led out by cost and by bein~ inipract lcal. Please review the sketches and ler mecknowlf yov concur. We wou ld like to get this resolved ASAP so we do not get b uniped off the Decem b er agenda . Urry Smith, P£ I S, School Street l'nirhope, Alabama 36532 251-990-6566 phone 25 I -928-6045 fax ·~ --- MJNC ---- - VAN ANTWERP PARK SUBDIV .ISION FAIRHOPE 1 AL --,,._ ·=· -,_ ---·--~ -"GRAVITYSEWER i ------· If -.. 3• FORCE MAJ N 1280, l LF s 13.75 ! 8" GRAVITY SEWER 740 LF s 42.50 48" DIA MANHOLE 0-6' 8 EA ~ 2,575,0D 48" DIA MANHOl..E 6'-8' 1 EA $ 2 ,B9O))0 LATERALS 1',1 ,1 EA. $ 1,250 .00 WEfVll'Ell 1 LS $ "165,000 .00 ACCESS ROAD 1 LS $ -9.000.00- TOTAL GP.A Vl!Y SEWEI I . s s s s _S s $ $ -_,=, --17,600.00 31,450.00 20.eoo.oo • 2,990.00 1J,7S0.00 Ul;i ,000.00 9 ,500.00 • .260•,890,QI) . . ' ' Sl\'ID G 8ooor R.""(t A, Bro<Yll il<k BW«U, At.\\u pmn\),' Conyt:t'li Ill' !ld>lnsm U..A tla\il'.s, MML f.l.ya.,,t ll<l.,xah /\, Smflh, Cl',\ O'fr,~iiltr rmt .... ~ Afil\1Ulii 3o~;; l$1 -9Z3•Zl>li ZJHl2.5tf10 f'ilX ,~-wr~l•lwpe,il-\(01 ' ,,-.1,•J."' rt.,YdY.;v,""" V'.I A E-M A IL ATTAClli\1E1''1"T Oe7ember 7, 2017 Mt. Lany Smith, PE S.E. Ci.vii Engineering, LLC I S, School Street Fairhope, AL 36532 SD l?.28 Van Antwerp Park The purpose of this Jelle r is to Tespood to vai;ious e -mails and verbal coacs-pondence related. to fue City of Fairht1pe Phtnni.ng aod'Zoning Department's r eview of the sewer service required for Van Aotwet)J Park, cascmrmber SO 17.28 , lii general, staff believes additional altematives are available for provi dit1g gravity sewer servrce lo Van Antwerp Park. The City of Pairbope's STANDARD SPEClFIC4TIONS FOR CONSTRUCJTNG SANITARY SEIVER FACILITIES, Division 11, Design Criteria, Par~graph "A" ( W(ller a11d Sewer Specificatio11s) state..: Tb.e purpose of these guidelin.es is to establish technica 1 and clesign specifications for the City ofFai:rhope and oth~ et!(ities proposing sa11itary sewer facilities BJ1 u/O r water distn'butionfacllilieswitbin_ the planoing j urisdiction of the City of Fairhope . l 'he required criteria have been est;iblished to assiit with ensuring quality conslnlction for all sanitary sewer and water distribution facilities. within th e City of Fairhope plaruiing juriodiction and uniformity for facilities accepted for ma~te naoce by the City of Faicbope . Any deviation from tlte criteria contnl11ed hereiii slta/1 be evaluated by the Fairhope Sewer S11peri111e11dent for approval bosed on complimwe wit/; appra,,ed operation mid maintenance requirements. Plans and speciflcatloos shall be prepared aad certifi~d by a professional t:ngineer registered in the Stal~ of Alabama. ln paragraph 8. Th~ Water and Se1\1e/· Speci/Jcq1io1is further state: Sanitary sewer collection systems for multi-customers shall be gm,,ify systems in ~c~rdance with the st!IJldard specificat ion parameters. Low pressure (multiple grinder pump~) systems sbaJJ only be acceptable within the Fairhope Pl anning Jwisdietion where access for proper maintenance to sewer mains is .impraclical aucl cost prohibitive. Cost prohibitive sball be defined as a coudition where 1hc estimated cost of a gravii;y sanitary ~ewer system is more than 500% of the cost of a low -pressure system. The entity constrncting tbefecilities shall prov ide ll:te Fair.hope Sewer Superintendent actual cost proposals for both systems fo r review !lnd detemii:nation of Uie accepted alternate by the f'airbope Sewer Sup~riotcndent. Cost proposals shall be representative of the current local oo:1t; for materials and installation. Sample c.ost proposal fom1s are included herein as M\'ln G. Boo~ J>;k fWn<II, ~CMO ""'1Q' Con;<m la~ l\oUn.,on lt, A, lt"11<;, AIA)C (l'.Q<~A 11<1\,rnl> A. Sn>llh. C:J!A d!)t~IJr(!I 161 ,'i.'<!11 Sl.<!hln 6c,«L ,.o vra~tr H9 ~ . .\l£.:a1~:-os5~ :..Sh9Jl lr;,,t, .1Sl•!J!S.bi76 Pll ,,.~ f.\l;hopl,l,gc n,.,(,'!1'-'ff,wt,'N.+- r.n appcadL~ For new developments , the c.ost comparison shall itemize ~II necessary items a~ appropriate per sy-stcm, and related erosion control meaS\l.rc:s nod paving items. The exclusion of these items in th<' cost comparison shall not iu any way reUeve Ille entities responsibiUiy (rom mllllting all local s1nndards lll.ld reg\llations relating to rhcse h ems. Based upon these C:}:'(Cerpts of the Water and Sewer Specifications, it is staff's iote.µretationtbe-approving autho1ity for any deviations to the Water and Sell'er Specificmions is tl1e Direclor of Operations ofFairhopePliblic Utilities. The specific sewer issue tbal has bedn discussed ad oaoseum is low pt<lssurn sewer, using grinder pumps for each lot, versus gravity sewer. The gravity sewer option proposed in the initial subdivision application, and updated in supporting letters dated November 7lh and November 141b, 2017 includes n new Ii.ft station to belocated near the d ead-end ofN. Mobile S!{eel with a foi:ce main connectiilg lo the existing lift $l~tion on Section Street. Thi s was the ouly gravity sewer opti011 propOS<:!d and its cost as-submitted exceeds the 500% cost thresholu desctibed above. to consultation with the Public Utilities Director of Operations, staff believes that in order to fully vet the low pressltl'e vs. gravity sewer conundrnm, any o ther less-expensive gravity sewer options must be idea.trfied and cons!dei-ed before a. lo,v-pressure sewer system is recommended fot approval to the Plaa.ning Co1lllllission . Based upon an evaluation of the, gra vity vs. l ow pressure sewer proposals _previously-submitted, staff req1,1ests the fullowi11g infomia ti on: • Wl1~t are oilier alternatives that will allow a.more cost-effective gravity Sewer system? o Instal lation ..:osts of the mainline and service lnter.i ls maybe Ti!duoed by considering: • Depth of cul • L ocation ofthe gravity main o Alternative e qu ipment paclc;ages for the lift station • Possible deviation from the design criteria in The Water f!Jld Sewer Speci.ficatioos t l 1at will allow a smaller lift station that serves tbe d evelopment In response to Mac's E-mail of 11 /28/2017, SD 17.28 will b e beldoveruntil the January 4, 2018 Planning C0IJ1missioo meeting. Due to the Christmas.and New Year's bolid11ys, staffmust bave the P lanning Commission packets prepared by Friday December 22ud. As a resull, if it is the desire oflhe applicant to proceed to the January 4th Pla11ni.11g Comm.issfon meetii1g with the low-pressure sewer design as currently-submitted, a waiver from the gtavity sewer requirements of the fJTat er and Sewer Specifications will be roqui.red . Please advise by 4:00PM oo Thursday, December l 4'" if a waiver is desired so that proper advertisement oftbe \vaiver for the January 4-u, Plauoing Commission meeting will occur. t wil l work wtth you for any addit iona l infonnation presented to slaEf after December 14•h lhat may t,ddl111~1I, ACMO jlmil)Y Cony<!> i'<)' R<lltlnsoo Lisi h H,inle, M/,\C ~•t:k»k Oi.'1ICl"•h A. Sm4U1 (fl,. t-©' 1MU:lfff P,0, O~Wfr <I 29 fitrii~. Al3b.t!I\<\ 36533 l.11 9l6 ll36 2)1·92S•b7it! fJ.'t \\ ,nt failtlope:il.w,\' ,,,,~..,,,...._,r.Jo.t1•~ be desired by the applicant to be verbalized into the record durlng the January 4, 2018 Pla1u1ing Commission meeting. [n sununary it is staff's desire as welJ as the intenl of the Water anti Sewer Spe cificntio11s to provide gravity sewer service to the maximum exteot practicable, so that a residentinl home is not depeodenl upon a grinder pump for sanitary sewer service unless absolutely occessary. As a Tesult, the infonnation requested above is needed so that staff may folly vet gravity vs. low pressure sewer sel'Vice options for Van Antwerp Park and provide an -infonned and appropriate recommendation to the Plnnn.i.ug Commission. Please do nothesitate to contact me-with questions and J'm happy to meet personally to dJscuss in greater derni.1. Rr,itlly, /~~~:~King tEEDi,QCI City Planner City of Fairhope, A.L Attucl:tments CC: \VayneDyess, A ICP .Planning Di rector R.Jchard Peterson, PE Direc1or ofOperatioru,, Fairhope Publiu Utilities Richard D. Johnson, PE Public Works.Dircc1or Bu.ford King Ftomr: Sent: To: Cc · s ubj ect; Mac Walcott: < mac@wav-a rchitect.s.oo m> Monday, December 04-, 2017 2 ; 8 f'M Wayne. Dy ,ess ; Buford King Lany s mi h, P .E,; L e t umer S017.311 vs SD17 .2-8 Wayne/Bu □rd: In r,evlew!ri~ tne ~g1wda for to lte's m • ting 1 l was pleasantly surprised lo s.ee that SD 7-31 haHeteived .an 11approv~d w.tl, cond i "ions ·11 rewmmeodation. W.e understand ha t they are ,□ ne of four projects th a we r.r~ on "he agenda for oni e tha · each ha e1risti11g low prns$ure sewer .5)'5 ·ems at thel property ,rants hat the Uti lity Department has so far refused c:onnectior, to . We are au for the approval of SDJ 7.31, but would Uke to note the following ~ 1. We. have seen the memo where N,ancy re ues ted th a·t he app l.icant r,eqoesl a 11Wa l ver" .regard ing the sewer servke . Was this waiv,er reques. made arid acce pted during the last week'? 2, We rec Jv,ed a request {witlh a 4p deadlfne) last wee to submi a 1'w aiver" req,ues for he sewer ssues a, Van Ant erp P'ar k (S01 7.28) Since we didn't receive answe rs to ou r question:s about th e 'waiver" and ecause we are scare · ~o d~a ho· Mr. 'Watsof'!'s autho r ft y (when he chose.s • o use it) we pul led ou r project frorn c-0 nsidera ion tonfgh , to be heard 1n Ja uary Four quesfons, Answer them wl1en you can. A. How dl,d • ¥JO d ifferent rev e\wers{N:ancy and Bufonl} get two v~ry dlffenm outc o mes fo r very sl milarsewer cond it ions? Is there some rn ormation we are not privy to? . Did the 5017 .31 atto ey co t act the PCAttorney7 c:. Whathap,pe,ns afterth e ''approved with co11 di ions" status is approved or no approved tonight, and should 5D17,28 have received the same treat ent? D,Are we naw chumps for not leaving ou,rcase on the ag.en.da for ton ight? Than s for your 11,elp See you .so0 . A L O _ Waloott Adams V rn euille Archftsd .s On South School .Si re \ Fei moper , AL 36$32 Phone 25HY.!&-604~ Fax 251 -9'28-6045 Wll\l'l'/.wavarc Reci.'l .oom 1 Buford King From! Sent: lo; ,c,: Su'bject: Mac w~,kott <mac@wava chitec: s.com> 1esday1 Nov mber 28 1 2017 3:.59 PM Buford King Wayne Dyess; Larry Sm ith , P.E. Re : SD 17.28 Van Antwerp Park DRAFT staff emmmenda 1,011 Buforth We wou ld lll¾e to hold ov!'!r our SD 17.2$ untU he Janua ry me-et ing with the .i;pecific expec~atrori th~ t he rolf □wing wiU be done. by the.dty dl1ring th. eos•Jln_g 30+ d.iys: 1. Tha the city will te.11 u.s in specific 1errns how cur .sewer des,ign "does not meet he Standard SpedficCJtiansfor Constructing Som'tarv .Se11t1er r,nd Water Facil!tfes as pef Artide VI Section H.2 u 10 'th-at we can specifically re5pond. 2. Tha we are. given adequate. ime to provide: any add itronal informa1tfon required fo,r our specific t :Spouse to the .sewer ;ssue. What we thiflk this mec1ns (in simp le tiums) is that the Utility Director should provide the requir,ed response- in the ne:xt two week5, {if not sooner), rather tJ,an the 7 days before th,e hearing, as occurred this time. We thfr1~ his ·s a fair r.eques . f . he city c:an1 t perform on its end during this de.lay ,caused by the city, then th's ne t30 days wiU luwe been another waste oflime, and I guess we wUI know more e;:learly then that there ls a de f; cto la w- pressur,e sewer maratorhHn in place and wnijt the oity's reat i::ml icies :are for slowing growth ·., our co1111l')unlty , Thanks MAC \iV • LCOTT Walro(l.Adems Vernw1Ue' A.fc hltects One sout'h Scnoo l Strest FaTrt ope1 AL 36532 Phol'la ·251-928-GO 1 Fa:ic 251 .9:rn.51145 ww..v .wavarchilecls .com On, Nov 28f 2017, at 12:02 PM 1 Mac Wako -.cmac@Wa\larch'itect:s..rnrn> wrot~ Th nks Buford; nl let you know our p ef.erenc~ ater today. I . oak forward to seeing he ans.wers to our quest io ns. Mac From: Mac Walcott (mailto:mac@wavarchitects.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:28 AM To: Buford Ki ng <buford.king@fairhopeal.gov> Cc: Larry Smith, P.E.<larry@secivil.pro>; Wayne Dyess <wayne.dyess@fairhopeal.gov>; Ri chard Peterson <richard.peterson@fairhopeal.gov>; Lee Turner <Lee@Pitmaninsurance.com>; j nr@frazergreene .com; Mayor Karin Wilson <karin.wilson@fairhopeal.gov> Subject: SD 17.28 Van Antwerp Park DRAFT staff recommendation Buford; Larry and I were just reviewing the draft review comments for VAP. I have several questions for us all before we finalize our response. 1. Where, specifically, do you see that our sewer design "does not meet the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities as per Article VI Section H.2 "? 2. Where is the "Waiver" methodology addressed in the ordinances, as it relates to our case? 3. What purpose/opportunities would leaving it on the agenda, and then pull ing it before the public hearing serve? (your option 2) 4. Is there any other wri tten communication from the Util ity Di r ector regarding our sewer subm ittal that you can share with us? All we have is the vague email to Larry (which was i ncluded and addresse d in Larry's response). In most reg ulatory environments we work in, we get specific responses, related t o specific parts of the ordinances, so that we can speci fically remedy our submittals, if needed . We have not gotten this from t he Utility Director regarding our proposed sewer design. 5. If we chose to submit a waiver request, will that turn your recommenda t ion into an "approva l subject to sewer waiver approval by Planning Commission", or will your recommendation continue to be "denial"? 6. Since we don't have a specific response from the Utility Director, and think we have met the ordinances, how should we structure our waiver request? In other words, a waiver from what? An incomplete respon se from the Utility Department? 7. What is your deadline this week for submitting our "waiver" request (if we choose to)? 8 . Is Ke n Watson okay with the PC granting a waiver regarding the sewer, or will this provoke him to invoke/burden the PC with the "on advice of legal counsel. .. " 9. If we hold over a month, what specifica l ly could/should we expect to happen during this 30 day delay caused by the Planning/Util ity Department? As you know, if y'all had made this requ es t two weeks ago,when it should have been mad e, this would be an enti re ly different issue (much easier to resolve without a delay). 10. The Utility Director mentioned last n ight at the work session that h e will be i ntroducing some ordinances at the PC that could affect our submittal (lift nation requir ements, in particular). If the PC changes its technical specs after we have 3 submitted and responded to the eurrene regs, is it lega l to change t he rules mi dstr earn, partlcularly afte~our submittal haS' been "s low-walked " on the Utility side? 11. Since we can only infer from your draft t hat the Lltillty Department ha!r chosen to take a vague "non-conformance" stance rega r ding our sewersub rnittal, and has not yet provided a specific response (which we believe the Or dinance requires) shouldn't the Utility Di r ector recuse himself f rom the vote on1:his matteO In otl1erwor ds, i f the Utility Di r ec to r ch ooses to not respond to our su b mit ta ls in a timely m anner and t hen argues his position at the hearing with a different set of facts or arguments that we have riot seen from h i m, wouldn't that be a bit u nfair? We have done a huge amount of legwor k at his direction {(;i different sewer scenarios have been studied ), and havegetten very littl e f-e edback from him (our work ha.s mostly been ignor ed). Is it fai r for him t o vote on a waiver that he seems to be bia$ed agal nst1 has n ot responded to, and may also h ave the fina l auth ority fo r imp lementation? We are sugge sting t his on ly because of the unusu al na t u re of the Util ity Director's role on the PC, and wouldn't suggest this o n other p roject s that come b efore him at the PC (Un less they are getting the same treatmen t !), We are aware of at leas t three o t her p r ojects that are belng given-a similar res ponse regardi n g low pressu r e sewe r systems. Is ther e now a de facto "low pressu r e sewer mora to rium" In Fai r hope becau.se of the way the lJtHlty Oepartmentis slow- wal~ing the Utility responses to PCsubmittals? ,hanks for you r help. Larry and I w9uld l ike to co rnpilment you, Richard Johnson, and Wayne for t he cla r1ty i n which you addres sed the Issues In .your part of our submittal. It is our hope that.this same level of service and cl arity Will soon be available from the Utility Department. One last bit of contexl reg arding the calendar for this project; After the fiasco of our minor su~bdivis ion app lications, and With everyone on the PC and staff heartily encourag i ng us, Larry wor ked very ha r d to nave o u r major submittal to you.so that Tt cou ld be heard at the November PC meeting, We submitted 1t t he day the mo rato r i u m expi r ed . (and h op ed everyo n e wou ld be good to thelr wordl). As We now know, ou r submittal sat in a stack for many weei\s, and we w ere notified a few weeks before the November meeti ng that lt woul d/could not b e heard. So m uch for good fai th and good customer secrvlce ! The excu se of everyone being "new" can only l ast for awhile longer ...... I hope y'all can fi x t h is soo n. ordinance. The comprehensive plan shows this area as r esidential, so we are in confonnance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship. We have provided seven (7) different sewer scenarios. Only two of them will work. Neither of them willfully meet the intent of the regulations. One scenario is low pressure sewer a11d the other is a gravity system to a pump. Both systems will require a grinder pump at the house in order to get the sewer to the sewer system in the right-of-way. See item #3 for futher clarification. 5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the publ ic. The approval of gravity sewer with the ability to use grinder pumps will not have an adverse effect on the adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public because the existing sewer along Pensacola Avenue and Mobile Street immediately in front of our developed lots is already low pressure sewer with grinder pumps. The approval of this waiver would be no change from the existing condition. 6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done. This waiver is required so that lots can be developed as allowed by zoning. By not approving the waiver, these lots cannot be developed as allowed by zoning and that would be a substantial injustice. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Larry Smith, PE larry@secivil.pro 1 S. School Street Fairhope, Alabama 36532 251-990-6566 Civil Occember'l0, 20J 7 Mr. J. Buford King, !:;EEO AP li',urhope Planning Depnrtni~nt S55 S. Ser.lion Sh-cet Fatrltope, Al3bama 36532 Re: Van t\J\lwcrp l'ark Subdlvision Wuivcr Request -L9w Pressure Seiver Denr Buford: Per the applica1ion pacbge we are requesting a wai ver from the Subdi v isio o l{egulations Article Vl, Section H.2. We are proposfog to .-C.1)1oce the ex is ti ng low pressure sewer I ine along PenSJ!CQ lij Avenue with a largec low pressure sewer lioe to serve the new lots. We are also proposi11g to connect the lots I.bat fro nt Mobile Street lo the existing low pressure sewer ip M obile Street, Bel ow are the justilic;ilioos: 1. An extraordi11a1y hardsl1ip may result from stricl compliance with these regulijtioos due to unu sual topographi c or olt,cr pl,lysicnl conditions of the land o r SlllTOumUng area not generally applicable lo other land arl"BS. Due ta the topogrnphy, the homes will be 11111/ri-fe1,e/with II developed lower level, lfwe sh"ict(y adhere ta the ,·e_q11irem€Jlts, i11 order lo prm,,i/e gravity seI11ice IQ t h e entire house, Ih a sI111i11Iry sewer along /li e road woulil hnve to be oi•er 2 3 f eet deep. ]11/s ts c/11~ lo the wa,v tlte /o/s slope away Ji-om the existilig rlght-of-wo;,,. 2, The condition is beyond 1h e. conlrol of the sui;>-divider. Th e existing 'lopography and tJie l!.t1sli11g righr,of-way are the. co,istr(li1us and both of them a,e beyond t/,e comrol of the .rub-divi der. 3. 'fhe reg11c::sted waiver will not have the effect of nulli ~viug the purpose and inteo t of the regula tions, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan. ])11ueque.rted wa iver will 1101 nullify t hep111pose or intent o.flhe r egufati(l11.v, the Zoning Ordinance, or th e Compre/t e ,,sive Plan . The reg11ltttions hnve low pressure sewer as a means to sei,1i, lots that c a1111ot be served by c<111ve111ional'gmvity ~el\'er -due to cost or being inrprocti~·a f. This sewer method uri/1 nctual(y allow {he lots l o be d eveloped as allowed by zo11 ing, 711/s .1~1lu/ivisicm is in o reside11tia l dis11-/c11111d the lots 11-W meet 1/11t ~oni/lg ordina11ce. The comprthensivep/on shows this. a,·ea a,, r e.ftle111ial, so we ar e in cml[omwrtce wtlh the Comprelre,wi,•e Phm . 4. The waiver is the 1ni.uimwn d eviation from lh~ rcq_uired slandard necesSllry to relieve lhe hardsh ip. W~ have pro11idet/ se:1·1t11 (7) different sewer scenarios. 0fll)' two of th en, Will work. NeUl,e r of them w /11 fi1lfr meet the intent of the regu/atio11s. 011e~ce1101·io iJ low pressure sen'er and thf' other i!l (t g,·(Jvi (y system lo a pump. Both systems will requir e,; grinder pump at the /rous e in order lo gel the seivet to the sewer system in th e right-o/.wm ,. I S, School Streer Fairhope, Ala bama 36532 251-990 -65 66 5. The waiver sha ll not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future l andowners, or the publi c. The approval of low pressure sewer will not have an adverse effect on the adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public because the existing sewer along Pensacola A venue and Mobile Street immediately in front of our developed lots is already low pressure sewer. Th e approval of this waiver would be no change from the existing condition. 6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial j ustice is done. This waiver is required so that lots can be developed as allowed by zoning. By not approving the waiver, these lots cannot be developed as allowed by zoning and that would be a substantial injllstice. If you h ave any questions, p lease l et me know. Sincere ly, Larry Smith, P E larry@seciv il.pro 1 S. Sch ool Street Fairhope, Alabam a 36532 251 -99 0-6566 Battles Tracie .Sub d iV s1an Cases, --I ~ "'" I ecprded I Case S!J,J bn1V"Jtoq No.1 SUtimitfa I 1, pzi I a , I App il:j'lnt ¢.ase,Type. of tccauon zanj~~ PZDat N·ame • Date Dl\'.C St~1D Plat I I ~O\s I I -~ ISD 06-!Vol kert/Da nlel Minor Colony at 2 outside N/A 1 2/6/2006 Approved 5/15/2006~ ~5 Oo .rp the 5/15/200~ Grand -5/15,2006 triangle so 13 · HMR/Po int Mino Colony at -~ lmikle TA 7/23/2013 9/3/20: 3 Appmv~d U/17/ 1 112 Clear Partners Replat2 , the Grand 3/5/20 4 Re plat 1 !Sub . Ph lA so 10· HMR , lLC Minor Colony at 2 llnside TR 9/28/2010 11/1/2010 Approved 5/3/201 03 the Grand 11/22/2011 SD-12-Point Clear Preliminary Ba ttles 66 In ide TR 7/24/2012 9/18/.2012 Approved 1N/A 05 Partners/HM R Trace a the cotonv SD'-.13 ~ HMR Flnal Battles 42 rislde TR 10/22/2013, 32/2/2013 Approved 6/3h014 18 fri)c.e at thecolonvi Phase 1 SD-16-HMR, LLC Finn i Ba les 24 Ins ide rR 11/24/2015 '1/4/2016 Approv,ed 1/29/2,016 02 Trace, Pha.se 2 SD ~l S-HMR/ RSA Pre.Uminary aaules 43 lnstde il"H 9/22)2015 11/2/2015 Approved N/A 25 Tr-ac e, Phase3 SD ~16 -HMA , LLC Anal Batt!es 43 lnsidl'! ~rn 9/27/2016 11/10/2016 Approved 1/20/2017 31 Trace, Pha,se 3 S0-16-HMR PreUm niaryfr· attles 27 1nsid TR 5/24/2016 7/5/2016 Approved N/A 15 ra,ce; Phase 4 SD -17-HMR Final Battles 27 Inside TR 7/25/2017 9/5/2017 Approved 10/10/17 22 TraceJ P 1ase 4 This applica t ion for Battles Tr.ace Phase S was heard by Plannln,g Commission on December 4, 20'17, The applicant voluntairilytabled the applicafon for he appltcant to work with the Director of Operatjons, Mr. Richard Peterson , PE, o the pending sewer issue , A meetrng was ht!ld on Oe 1cember 121 2017 between RSA Representatives, Mr. Tim awley, P , HMR, and Mr. R chard Peterson , PE, City of Fairhope mrector of Operations. No agreement was obtained between all the parties. On December 13 , 2017 the applkant has submitted a waiver {attached) .request from the Standard Specifications for Con~n.1ctingSarnitary Sewer and Wate Facilities, allowing the installat ion orf low pressure sewer main at B,attles Trace Subd ivision (Phas.e. S). 50 17 .29 Battles Tracef Ph , 5 -Jan , , 2018 'Us1ngthese numbe , we can es 1mate the number of students a new 1 □0-unit rn,gle family ubdi.vls on cou:1d ellCpect to g_enerate would be 40 studrents. The s3me for nu la can be us,ed to determine tt,e-SVF f,or mobile home units, apartments, etc. Th Baldwin County itudent yield faictors for slngle ram.Uy detached are· K-6-0.39 per unit 7--8-0.11 per unit 9-12 -0_17 per unit Tne Preliminary Plat for Batt es nace1 Phase 5 contains 73 single fami y ots . Applying the student yteid factors, the developm nt Js e)(pecte-d to generate 28 .41 (73x .39) elementary school students.; 8.03 {73x .11) middle school students and 12 .41 (73X. l 7} hlgh school studen .s. D,eve1a:pme1J iam.e ApnHoatio TyP,e Hous rrg Tot,I Un ts Attenda ce lo e s:Yi; TyJi!e E ~ec:ted Nu lie Battles Trace Phases flnal Plat 73 Fairhope El em enta1 .39 s udents 28.47 Fai1r'ho pe Mid die , 11 8.03 Fa rhope High .17 2.4 • Tota · 48.91 Green space: The applicant ta es hat 7.53 ac: es of g . eenspace have b en added i phase V brings he. overall Bnttles ra ,ce develo,pmerre. 'to a tota of 34% green space. $'.tCJrm_ water: Accordin~ to the City of Fai hope's Engineer, Jr chard Johnson, the storm water management system is designed for and constructed slJch to mee all the applicable sto,rrn water management and post-development treatment standards. OperotJons and Maintenance Plan: The applicant is am nd ng the existing Operations and --- Maintenance Plan With the Ja:test phase (phase S) of development. The app llh::ant shall record the amendment a:tthe time of final plat. Wetlands: Accordiog to the .applicant, no wet and are located on -si e. Storm Sewer: Storm :sewers are private . The Clty of Fairhope will not maintain1 private sewer. Drainage infrastructure maintenance 1s the responsi bility of the homeowne t5, assa,ciation , BMP Plan: The -app Jean sha1H revjse the BMP Plan to 1:eflec two, cha,nges regarding 1) the Ht fence commen and 2) the 13-day rule.comment as per the City o:f Fairhope Code nforcement Officer's comments. 5 SD 17.29 Battle· Trace , P . 5-Jan . 4_, 1018 Streets; The applicant has stated that street names will be included at the time of final plat submlttal. Road Maintenance is the responsibility of the homeowners association a_sthe roads are private. Water and Sewer: Water and sewer shall meet the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Specifications. There are pending water and sewer issues that wil l need to be addressed between the applicant and the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Department. Waiver Requests: An application is required for any waivers to the subdivlsion regulations as per Article VII of the City of Fairhope SubdivlsTon Regulations . The applicant has provided a written waiver request for an exception to the Standard Specific;ition!i for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities for using the low•pressur~ sewer system , The applicant has submitted a narrative justification (see waiver request letter attached as exhibit) for the six waiver standards, as provided tn Article VII, Section A of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. Staff met wlth the City of Fairhope Director of Operations, Richard Peterson, PE on December 18, 2017 to obtain a l evel of analysis With regards to the sewer waiver standards. Based on this conversation, below is the analysis of how the six waiver standards are being met: 1. An ext;oordfnary hardship may result from strict compliance with the regulations due to unusual topographic or other physical condWons of the land or surrounding area not generally applicable to other areas. It is staff's position that the only hardship in this case would be an economic one. The applicant has not submitted the economic.evaluation to verify that an economic hardship exits, therefore it ,Is staffs opinion that no extraordinary hardship e1<ists pursuant to Division 2 Design Criteria, paragraph 8 of the City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specificotionsfar Constructing Sanitary Sewer Foc11/ties and Water Facilities. 2. The condition is beyond the control of the subdivider. It is staffs position that the choice of gravity sewer is Within the subdiVider's control. 3. The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and Intent of the regulations, the zoning ordinance, or the comprehensive plan. It is staffs position that the intent of the regulations as stated in Division 2 Design Criteria, paragraph 8 of the City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Foci/it/es and Water Facilities is to provide gravi ty sewer service. Deviations from this will have the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent of ti'le City of Fa i rhope Sewer Specifications. 4 . The waiver is the minimum deviation from the standard necessary to relieve the hardship. It is staff's positi on that a hardsh i p does not exist and is therefore moot. 6 5 0 17 .29 Ba t tles Tra ce, Ph . 5 -Jan . 4, 2018 S. The waiver shall not have an adverse impact on odjocent landowners, future landowners, or the public. No specific pl an s were provided to demonstrate thi s hardship, If the applicant's assumption that the adjauent property owners w i ll have an adverse impact i s correct, then this Impact should have been economically eva l uated by th e requirements as stated ln Division 2 Design Criteria, paragraph 8 of the City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Foell/ties. 6. The w uiver is necessary so that substantial Justlc:e Is done. Whil e staff understands the subdivision has been built out to data, staff is requi ring standards City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Fae/I/ties to be universally applied to for all development. In summation, staff does not support the requested waiver for the rea.sons stated in the·site history sectfon. Flow Model; A flow model has been submitted, reviewed ancl approved by Dan McCrory. Fire Hydrants : FTre hydrants shall be located at every intersection and every 450 feet. Landscaping: No landscapi ng is propos ed for this phase of development . Lighting Plan: lighting is not propesed at thfs t i me. Per the applicant, any lighting will be privately maintai ned. Pedestrian Paths: Pedestrian paths are proposed in the common ar,eas locatec;l between lots 167/168 .ind 173/174. These will connect to the existing path.around Sweetwater take. Financiol Guaranty: Staff req uests clarificati on from the applicant if the path ls going to be installed as part of construction for Phase V , lfso, t h en a financlal guaranty wou l d not be necessary. Other: Any applicabl e outside agency permits shall be o btaine d. Recommendation: Staff recommends.ipproval con tingent upon the followi ng conditions: 7 1 . The applicant sha ll record the O&M amendment at t h e time of final pl at. 2. The City o f Fa i rhope requests clarification on the constru ction of the Pedestrian Path . 3. The applicant sha ll provide economic data and supporti ng plans to support the justification for the waiver, pursuant to Division 2 Design Cri teria, l'aragraph 8 of the Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities. Both the Director of Opera.tion s and T he Planning Commi5,5ion sha ll have the economic data prior to renderi ng a decisi on on the waiver. Sb 1 7 .29 Batlles Trace, Ph. S -Jan . 4. 2018 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of Camellia at the Colony, a 7-lot sub divisio n. The property is located on the west side of Battles Road ju st south of Watershed South subdivision. While this is a 7-lot subdivision, the applicant is requesting the application be processed simultaneously as preliminary and fina l plat due to no improvements being proposed. The subject property is approximately 1.5 acres. The largest lot is approximately 8,859 sf and the smallest lot i s approximately 7,169 sf. Comments: Site History: The Tourist Re so rt District (approxim ately 186.2.1 acres currently) with a total allowed density of 637 units which was approved in 2010 with multiple development zones, including a recreational zone, a low-rise zone, li mited commercial zone, a mid-rise zone, and a high-rise zone which were presented in a land use map . Updated land use maps are attached to this staff report. In 2015, the applicant added Azalea at the Colony, in the same manner as they are currently requesting to do for Camellia at the Colony. In 2016, the applicant requested an amendment to the TR district land use map rearranging the percentages of the various zones and reducing the designated high-rise land u se area. At the time of the amendment, the staff cover letter for the amendment reports the applicant anticipates the number to be well below the maxim um allowed 637 units at final build out. With the addition of Camellia at the Colony, the total development acreage will be 187.7 acres. This application for Camellia at the Colony was heard by Planning Commis sion on December 4, 2017. The applicant voluntarily tabled the application for the applicant to work with Director of Operations, Mr. Richard Peterson, PE on the pending sewer issues. A meeting was held on December 12, 2017 between RSA Representatives, Mr. Tim Lawley, PE, HMR, and Richard Peterson, PE, City of Fairhope Director of Operations. At this point in time, the applicant is planning on a gravity sewe r/lift station approach for Camellia at the Colony pending approval on the lift station design from Richard Peter so n . The applicant has obtained a copy of the lift sta tion spec ifications late yesterday afternoon. The applicant is revising their plans and specifications and is working on a design to meet the approval of Mr. Richard Peterson . The applicant is not submitting a waiver on this subdivis ion . 2 SD 17 .31 Camellia at th e Colony-Jan.4, 2018 Storm water: The applicant provided a drainage narrative. According to the City of Fairhope's Engineer, Richard Johnson, the storm water management system is designed for and constructed such to meet all the applicable storm water management and post-development treatment standards. Storm Sewer: Storm sewers are private. The City of Fairhope will not maintain private sewer. Drainage infrastructure maintenance is the responsibility of the homeowner's association. Operations and Maintenance Plan: An operations and maintenance plan for detention is not proposed as there are no proposed drainage improvements (storm water ponds) to maintain. BMP Plan: The applicant states that less than 1 acre of land will be disturbed for this development. ADEM registration is not proposed. Wetlands: The applicant states that no wetlands are onsite. Point Clear Creek is 500 feet away from the development. Hydric soils are not present within the proposed development area. Streets: There are no streets are proposed. The applicant has provided common driveways with a 10'X15' access easement. Water and Sewer: Water and sewer shall meet the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Specifications. The applicant is proposing gravity sewer and currently working on a lift station design. Flow Model: A flow model has been submitted, reviewed and approved by Dan McCrory. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be located at every intersection and every 450 feet. Pedestrian Paths: Sidewalks are being provided. Staff would like clarification whether a financial guaranty is being provided for the sidewalks. Staff has some concern that the sidewalks may get damaged during construction. Landscaping: Street trees and landscaping are not required as part of the TR District. Lighting Plan: Lighting is not proposed. Any lighting installed will be maintained privately. Other: Any applicable outside agency permits shall be obtained. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions: 4 1. The applicant shall record the O&M amendment at the time of final plat. 2. The City of Fairhope requests clarification on the construction of the Pedestrian Path with regards to a financial guaranty. 3. The gravity sewer installed shall meet the City of Fairhope Standards. SD 17.31 Camellia at the Colony-Jan. 4, 2018 Water and Sewer : The applicant is proposing City of Daphne Water Utilities and individual septic tanks will need to be approved by the Baldwin County Health Department. In accordance with Article VI Section H.3, Individual septic tank type systems that have been approved by the Baldwin County Health Department and the Fairhope Public Utilities Sewer Department may be utilized. Flow Model: Per the City of Fairhope Operations Director, Richard Peterson, PE, no flow model is required by the City of Fairhope as the water utility is provided by the City of Daphne . 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 . Other: Any applicable outside agency permits shall be provided . Consistency with Plans, Regulations, and Laws: The City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations contains the following criteria guidance in Article V.B.2 for Consistency with Plans , Regulations, and Law s. I . Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the following: a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable; b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program; c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations; d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations; or e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the planning jurisdiction of the City. The proposed project is county zoned, therefore the City of Fairhope Zoning requirements will no apply. The project does not appear to be inconsistent with ap plicable criteria for the City of Fairh ope . Recommendation: Staff recommend s approval of the subdivision application. 5 SD 18.01 Cam ellia Bluffs - Jan. 4 , 2018 Summary of Request: Public hearing to cons ider the r equest of S.E. CiVil Engineering, LLC for Multiple Occupancy Project approval of Bancroft and Pine Mixed Use Development, a 22-unitproject. The property is owned by Mr. John S. Wise Ill. Mr. l!arry Smith, PE, of SE CMI Engineering, LLC is the authorized agent on the project. The subject property Is l ocated on the southeast corner of the Intersection of Bancroft Street and Pine Street, at 106 N. Bancroft Street. It ls approximately 0,3 acres In slze and will have a 100% lot coverage by a single 3 story building, as allowed w ithin the Central Business Distflct, The first floor ls7770sf (tommerclal) with the remaining area as pa r king, the second floor is 12,508 sf, and the third floor is 12,508 sf, for a total project of 32,786 sf (representing the heated a.nd coaled space per floor). The bJ,.1 il dingfootpri nton the lot is 14,357 sf, which 1nctudestheJialconles overhanging the sidewa l ks. Comments: Site History: The proposed project is in the same location as the previous Fairhope Auto and Marine Business which has lleen In operation in Fa i rhope since 1981 . The current .ind previous zoning of the praperty is B-2 (General Busi ness Zoning Dls-trict). The properties to the north •of the subject property are zoned B-4 (Business and Professional Distfi ct). to the south east and west is B-2 zoned property. Multl-Occupdncy Review Requirements : This application is being processed as a multi-occupancy review due to the proposed project containing more than three occupied units, as per Article IV Section H. H. fl{ULTIPLTi 0CCIJ1'ANC Y PH(UECTS: I . Any project that will In volve or otherwise-result in three (3) or more units (whether contiguous or otherwise) being constructed on real property for occupancy, regardless of the form or type of use of said units, unless otherwise regulated 1/y these RegulotionsJn another Article and/or Section hereof, shall comply with the following t erms ond conditions of this Section H. Associated Investors: The property is owned by Singl e Tax and leased by the sole investor in the project, John S. Wise. Iii. Lot standactls; The property is located in the current Central Business District. In accordance with Article V Sedion B.4.a, all dimension standards for the underlying districts shall apply Ill the CBD overlay except as follows: a. Non-residential buildings in the CBD shall be built at the right-of-way line, unless a courtyard, plaza or other public open space is proposed. Streets-and Lanes: No streets-are being proposed for thls development. Pedestrian Plan: In acco rdance with Artie.le V Section B (Central Business District Overlay).4.e, sidewalks shall be .i minimum of eight feet (8') in width for all new construction. The applicant is propos i ng-oalconies over the sidewalk. The City of Fai rhope requtres hold harmless agreements for balco nies over Ci ty of Fairhope right-of-ways. Traffic Study: The app licant has provided a traffic narrative. The !TE Trip Gene~ation Report, the proposed Multiple Occupancy project with 20 res iden tial units and 3,885 sf of office space , SD 18.02 Ba ncroft & Pine Mi)ced Use Developme nt-Jan. 4 , 2018 3 indicates the number of peak hourly trips is estimated to be 22. The project is below the requirement for a traffic study. In accordance with Article IV Section C.1.h., A traffic study shall be required for all applications that will generate an average daily traffic (ADT) count of 1,000 trips or more, or which will generate 50 trips or more during any peak hour period. A traffic study shall be required for all applications that will generate an average daily traffic (ADT) count of 1,000 trips or more, or which will generate 50 trips or more during any peak hour period. Erosion Control: Ms. Kim Burmeister, City of Fairhope Code Enforcement Officer, commented that the BMP plan (Erosion Control Plan) appears to meet the City of Fairhope minimum BMP requirements (mentions phasing, and indicates a Type A silt fence and construction entrance). Kim also mentioned that the site is in the Big Mouth Gully watershed. Water and Sewer: All City of Fairhope Water and Sewer specifications shall be met. Dan McCrory will allow a single meter; however, the applicant shall pay tap fees for the multiple units. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be provided at every intersection and every 450 feet. Flow Model: A flow model has been submitted and approved by Dan McCrory, City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Superintendent. Landscaping/Trees Survey: According to the applicant, there is only one tree and it does not meet the threshold for being on a tree survey. Article V Section D.9 states "An inventory of all live trees greater than 24" DBH on site shall be protected and indicated on a tree preservation plan. Storm Water: Comments from the Public Works Director, Richard Johnson, PE., are as follows: 1. General Commentary-Three-story mixed-use development {MUD), work down/live up, development in the central business district (CBD). The zoning in the CBD allows for a "Village Center Design" with the assumption of existing road networks, parking, drainage and utilities to support the development. 2. This MUD is proposed on the southeast corner of Bancroft and Pine -the site of an existing metal building with gravel parking. The new development's footprint will consume the entirety of the parcel. 3. Article V.D. -Street Standards-a. Proposed plans include 6 perpendicular on-street parking spaces on Pine Street. b. Proposed plan in cludes a driveway apron on Pine Street al lowing ingress and egress to the 1st floor covered parking. c. Proposed plan includes building frontage sidewalks on the north, west and south side s. d. Proposed plans include a brick paver, circu lar, ADA landi ng at the corner. e. Concrete curb/gutter is proposed on both street frontages . 4. Article V.F . -Storm water Standards - a. General Commentary-in the CBD there are no requirements for SWM, LID Methodologies or PDSW Treatment. The applicant must discharge storm water runoff to existing systems and protect against adverse effects. b. Rooftops are capture and drained via scuppers and downspouts and are plumbed by conduit into the existing public drainage system at the northwes t corner of the site. c. Bancroft Street is captured by curbing and flows to the inlet a prior to the intersection at Pine Street. SD 18.02 Bancroft & Pine Mixed Use Development-Jan . 4, 2018 4 Add notes in the plan that describes the size/material ofthe existing cross drain at Bancroft Street and that the contractor shall insure that all sediment/debris is removed/cleaned from the inverts of the conduit and junction/inlet boxes. e. The new parking spots and apron on Pine Street appear to drain east -this runoff is unaccounted for and there is no existing curb/gutter along Pine Street (eastward) to capture or convey the runoff. It is unknown how this runoff will terminate into the natural drainage way(s). Due to the fall of the land, it is not feasible to capture this discharge and direct it back to the west to the existing public storm sewer system. f. Under the premises that the predevelopment site currently discharges entirely to the east, the post development sites non-captured runoff (direct discharge) should be equal to or less than predevelopment. If the Design Engineer would affirm the assumption via calculation, then the drainage would be considered compliant. Operations and Maintenance Plan: An Operations and Maintenance Plan was not provided, as no detention has been provided due to the subject property being located in the Central Business District, which allows building to the right-of-way line. Utilities: The applicant has provided utility letters for all service providers. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be placed at all intersections and every 450 feet. Water and Sewer: Water and sewer shall meet the requirement of the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer specifications. Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Superintendent, confirmed that a single meter can be used; however, the applicant shall pay tap fees for the multiple units . Other: Any applicable outside permits shall be submitted . The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards. "2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the following: a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Citys Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable; b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program; c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations; d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations; or e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the planning jurisdiction of the City." Staff has reviewed this application and found it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the standards, goals, and intent of the zoning Ordinance and applicable zoning districts. SD 18.02 Bancroft & Pine Mixed Use Deve lopment -Jan . 4, 2018 2 Summary of Request: Request of Mr. Larry Smith for Site Plan Approval of Bancroft and Pine Mixed- Use Development, a 22-Unit project. The property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax and leased by Mr. John 5. Wise Ill. Mr. Larry Smith is the authorized agent and engineer of the propose d project. This application requires a site plan review due to its location in the Central Bu siness District (CBD) overlay, its gross floor area being greater than 10,000 square feet, and it being a mixe d-use project with a height of 35 feet. Article II. Section 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 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. VI. However, applicants for rezoning to the village districts may elect to use the special review The property is approximately 13,250 square feet (±.3 acres) and located at the southeast intersecti on of Bancroft and Pine. The applicant is requesting site plan approval for an office-based mixed use. The first floor is 7770 sf (commercial) with the remaining parking, the second floor is 12, 508 sf, and the third floor is 12,508 sf. (representing the heated and cooled space per floor) for a total building project of 32,786 sf. The building footprint on the lot is 14, 357 sf, under roof, which includes the balconies overhanging the sidewalks. Comments: Site History: The subject property is the location of Fairhope Auto and Marine Business which has been in operation in Fairhope since 1981. The current and previous zoning of the property is B-2 (General Business Zoning District). The properties to the north of the su bject property are zoned B-4 (Business and Professional District), to the south east and west is B-2 zoned property. The property is in the current Central Bu siness Overlay . SR 18.02 Bancrotf & Pine Mixed Use Development-Jan. 4, 2018 4 • Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; • Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; • Overall benefit to the community; • Compliance with sound planning principles; • Compliance with the terms and conditions of any zoning approval; • Any other matter relating to the health, safety, and welfare of the community; Staff has reviewed this application and found it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the standards, goals, and intent of the zoning Ordinance and applicable zoning districts. The Comprehensive Plan states (page 35) that downtown is to remain the dominant Village Center. The location of this mixed use will provide updated infill development to the Central Business District, provide vehicular parking for the residents and is located within the business district to provide pedestrian experiences and bicycle mobility of residents to the downtown center. This project meets the Comprehensive Plan Implementation goals and tasks as stated on page 45, "Ensure that all new development is reflective of the Fairhope physical image and appropriately connected for people, bikes and cars." It also encourages, promotes, and simplifies high quality development practices that support the scale and character of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, as stated on page 45 of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is an improvement of the existing property, updating the building and use of the property to be more consistent with the surrounding character of the neighborhood . The building is multi-story and taller than some of the immediate adjacent properties, but it is consistent with the height of the surrounding mixed-use properties within the block and the allowed height within the Central Business District. While there may be additional traffic, the applicant has provided for adequate parking for the residential units under the building. This development did not meet the trigger for a traffic study. The sidewalk will be improved to be an 8-foot sidewalk, as required for all new construction within the CBD (Article V Section B.4.e.) 2. Property boundaries with dimensions and setback lines; Article 2 Section C.2.d.12 Site Plan The balcony appears to be over the sidewalk, which requires a hold harmless agreement with the City of Fairhope. The applicant is working with the city on the appropriate agreements for the balcony. 3. Data to show percentage of lot covered with existing and proposed buildings: Article 2 Section C.2.d.14 The site data table appears to be 100% lot coverage. The applicant has clarified that the trash storage is located under the balcony from above. The entire site is covered by building and balcony. 4. Building Height and elevations: In accordance with Article 2 Section C.2.d .15, elevations have been provided. The height shall be 35' until the new regulations for the Central Business District changing the height is approved by City Council. The applicant has revised the elevation drawings to show the current allowed building height of 35'. SR 18.02 Bancrotf & Pine Mixed Use Development -Jan. 4, 2018 5 Article V Section B 4. Dimension Standards -All dimension standards for the underlying districts shall apply in the CBD overlay except as follows: a. Non-residential buildings in the CBD shall be built at the right-of-way line, unless a courtyard, plaza or other public open space is proposed. b. No side-setback is required for non-residential buildings in the CBD, except that corner lots shall have the same building line on the side street as is on the front street. c. Building heights for all non-residential structures shall not exceed 35 feet. 4. Screening, lighting, fencing and landscape material: Article IV Section B.2 Screening. The applicant has shown that the trash cans will be screened with 6-foot fencing, which is the only fencing that will be provided by the project. 5. Parking: Article IV Section E.6 Pervious Parking requires twenty five percent 25% of all parking spaces shall be constructed of a pervious material. However, the CBD allows building to the property lines and the parking area is •covered by building and is not pervious. According to Article IV Section E.3 Parking Dimensions and Size, parking spaces shall be 10' by 20' as per the City of Fairhope parking requirements. The applicant has provided 6 compact sized parking spaces which are a part of the Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance for site design. 6. Sidewalks: In accordance with Article V Section 8.4.e, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet (8 1) in width for all new construction, which has been provided on the site design drawings. 7 . The locations, intensity, and height of exterior lights: Article IV Section 8.3 3 . Parking Lot/Open Area Lighting. The applicant is not providing any pole lighting. One City of Fairhope street light pole is being relocated. 8. The locations of mechanical equipment: Article IV Section 8. 2. Screening. The mechanical equipment is placed on the roof and screened by the roof parapet wall. 9. Landscaping plan in conformance with the City of Fairhope Landscape Ordinance: Sec. 20.5-4. -General landscape requirements. (a) Applicability. All rules, regulations, and requirements set forth in this section are applicable to the following: {1} Any new development or construction, except single family residences and development or construction in the Central Business District (without off-street parking} that falls within the police jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope. This includes all public use buildings (i.e. churches, clubs, etc.) as well as city and private property. (13} Tree Credits Lands Adjacent to the following roads: U.S. Highway 98, Alabama Highway 104, North Section Street (Excluding any properties within the Central Business District}, South SR 18.02 Bancrotf & Pin e Mixed Use Dev elopme nt -Jan. 4, 2018 6 Section Street (excluding properties within the Central Business District), South Mobile Street, Parker Road, Volanta Avenue, Gay/er Road, Gay/er Road Extension, Fairhope Avenue, Morphy Avenue, Nichols Avenue, Middle Street, Twin Beech Road and Cbunty Road 32. All lands within twenty {20) feet of the boundaries Pf U.S. Highway 98, Alabama Highway 104, Nrirth Section Street (excluding any properties within the Central Bvs/ness Distrfct), South Section Street {excluding properties within the Central Business District/, South Mob/le Street, Parker Rood, Vo/onto Avenue, Goy/er Rood, Ga_yfer Road Extension, Fairhope Avenue, Morphy Avenue, Nichols Aven.ue, Middle Street, Twin Beech Rood and County Rood 32. within the corporate limits of the City of Fairhope, in all zoning district$, ore hereby required to be reserved by owners or developers of such land as greenspoce and tree protection zones, such lands being required to ,onform to all applicable provisions of this chapter. Provided, however, that the greenspace shall be landscaped os follows: • Where no vegetption, other than grass exists, new landscaping and plantings shall be installed within the twenty-foot strip as approved by the city hort;culturist; otherwise the following shall apply: • Forfrontfacing structures, the reserved area may be: a. Left in its natural state; b. Natural growth retained, but enhanced with addition a/trees and shrubs. It Is staff's i nterpretations that the landscape plan will not apply for the proposed project. In totality of all the regulation s being cons fdered, staff believes that tlie "without off-street parking" In the CBD language refers ·to off-street surface parking adjacent to a building not parking i ncl uded within the building. It is clear that screening and "greening" of parking areas in Fairhope are of great importance and ,an uncovered off-street surface level parking lot in front or be side a building wou ld be des ired to be landscape d h ence the langµage 14, Dumpster location and.screening: Article II Section C 2.d.24 The dumpstedor construction and port-a-let appears to b e on Ci ty of Fairhope Rigt)t of Way. Please confirm If this is the case. If so, special permission will need to be obtained from the City of Fairhope Public Works Department. 15, Storm water: Article V Section B 4. Dimension Standards. -All dimension standards for the underlying districts sho/1 apply In the CBD overlay except as follows: o. Nan-residential buildings In the CBD shall be built at the right-of-way line, unless a courtyard, plaza ar other public open space is proposed. Within the Central Business District, the building can be built to the right of way line. No storm water detentron is proposed forth is project. However, the City of Fairhope Public Works Director, Mr, RichaFd Johnson, PE, did review and make comrnerits to the drainage. The applicant made the requested ch anges . 16. Location and size. of all .signage ; Article II Sedian C 2 .. d.25 Signage shall b e addressed under a separate permit and shall be in compliance SR 18,02 Bancrotf & Peine Mixed Use Development -Jan. 4, 20l.8 7 17. Water and Sewer: Article II Section C 2 .d.12 (Any other matter relating to the health, safety and welfare of the community) Mr. Richard Peterson, PE, Director of Operations, has reviewed and approved the Water and Sewer for this project. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the appropriate hold harmless agreements, meeting the approval of the City of Fairhope, regarding the balcony over sidewalks. SR 18.02 Bancrotf & Pine Mixed Use Development -Jan. 4, 2018 The requested PUD amendment the subj,ect property refled-s the dimens·t1nal standards shown above In add]ticm , an additional 101 common area a. lD, landscape buff.er west of the subject property shown on the eKi s:tJng PUD master plan is 3lso reflected in the PUD an,endmeti't .survey drawi ng. School Student AnOl'l,sis: The proposed PUD amendment maste plan fo .r lot 19 of' ·he Fa rrfleld Subd:lviston c.on t ain s fifteen (15) sine.le fami ly lot.5 . The 11 t ownhomes 1' In the exi stin g PUD are detached un its , and therefore f eated as-s ingle family unt s-, AFlply:ing the :student Yield factors (SYF) prov ldd by he Baldwin County Board of Educetioo listed below the. deve lopment is expected to genera t e SA:15 115 0.39) elementary schoo] students • .1.65 (15 ll. 0.1 ) midd le school sl4Jdents and 2.55 (15 0.17) high sc:hao ! s ·udents, De.wl'op,rrteti Apprca on Ho sililg . Tdtal Unrts ~tt,en dance 'Zoi,e 5Yf" E11peGted u rr:yee Type umber of' Name. Ii I siuaents Lyons Fi n-al Plat SF lS Fairhope 0.:39 5.85 Su bd ivlston Elemen'f.a ry ~ {( " fl .,. " fa.i rhope. Mid d!e 0.11 1.65 " j/ N {/ II II f'airhope High 0;.17 2.65 Total students 10.1 5 AUawable Uses: Ordinance 1308 specifies 11 reside:nt1'a .1"1 as the only lowab l e use w·thlin the PUD. The subJ~ct PUO amendment does not r-equest any cl:tange-in usage and on y reflects the depicted ,on he included survey to be incorporated rnto the PU D's master plan Zoning History of Ne,arby Properties: Ca s,e number ZC 00 .12 was a re<ruest c Paul Mon roe o r a zon ng change ii om R-1 Si ng e Fam"ly R,esident]al to R-3 Single Fam11y Resident ial 011 Mult pie ot in Fairfie ld Subdivision . The property is generally located at Boothe Road and Tw i n Beech Road. : ,e Fairhope Gty Council considered the re--zoning request on July 10, 2000. Case riumberZCOS 15 was a request of Fa i rfie ld FinanC:al ,, L Cfor a Zoning C. ange,from R.-3 High Density Singte Famil'y t o Pl~1111ed Unit Devefapment {PUD). The prop ,erty is generaHy located at th~ northeast comer of Twh1 See,ch Road (County Road 44) and Boothe Ro,ad. The F-airhope-City Council adopted the zoning change a . their November 28 , 2005. Case numbe:r zc 06 .10 wa a request of Hu chinron, Mo,ore, and Ra.ugh , LLC, to amend the e>:is-tl ng Fairfield Unit Vl PUD ordrnance . The property ·s genera By located at the northeast c:omerofTwil1 Beech Road (County Ro.ad 44) and Boothe Road . The Fairhope Ci y Counci adopted the PUD amendment on July 10, 2006 . F;Jjrhope CamprehenJi~ ve Plan Guidahce The subject property is located approx1mateiy 1 .S miles southeast of the Fairhope Avenue/Greeno Road ½llage Node1 and 2.03 miles southwest of he. fairhope Avenue/State HWV 1.a1 V1 lage Node. ,, The.sub]ect ,ptopertv does not abut the village nodes de sc:ribed abov,e, and given the distance fro:m the nodes to the subject property j there is no conflict of comp .at1billty between the uses . 3 zc 18 .01 Lo 19 Fai rfiel d 1 Unit VI :ruo Am endment -Jan . 41 2018 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry I Preble-Rish on behalf of Anil K. Vira (lot 19-A), Stephen B. and Korokay Christensen (lot 19-B), Gale Majors (lot 19-C), and BCL&L Acquisitions, LLC (lots 19-D to 19-0) for approval of the re-subdivision of Lot 19 in the existing Fairfield Subdivision. The re- subdivision will establish lot lines for the three structures currently existing on Lot 19 (to become lots 19-A, 19-B, and 19-C) as well as establish lots for the remainder of Lot 19 resulting in a total of fifteen (15) lots. Subject property is generally located on Boothe Road one block north of Twin Beech Road with access via Norman Lane, a paved, publicly-maintained street. The subject property is 3.11 acres in size and the average size of each lot after subdividing will be 0.15 acres+/-. The largest lot is 0.16 acres and the smallest lot is 0.14 acres in size. Comments: • Lot standards: The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD case number ZC 06.10 was adopted by the Fairhope City Council on July 10, 2006. Lot 19 was established by subdivision case number SD 06.26 and approved by the Planning Commission on June 5, 2006. Both case numbers ZC 06.10 and SD 06.26 reference a map of the property labeled "Exhibit A" outlining the various residential uses allowable in the PUD. Allowable uses are twelve (12) garden homes, twenty (20) town homes and five (5) single family residential homes. Exhibit "A" depicts fifteen (15) of the 20 town homes allowable within the PUD comprising subject property. Currently, the Baldwin County Department of Revenue tax parcel map reflects individual lots for each ofthe 12 allowable garden homes. Exhibit "A" reflects a 10' separation between the garden homes when scaled from the Exhibit "A" drawing. Further, the record drawing of subject property dated 1/3/2007 reflects 35' front building setbacks, 10' rear building setbacks, a 10' common area as well as a 10' landscape buffer. Subject application requests creation of individual lots labeled 19-A through 19-0 from the existing lot 19. Based upon the current survey of the site, the proposed new lots continue to reflect the afore-mentioned 10' rear building setback lines, 10' common area as well as the 10' landscape buffer. In addition, utilizing the current survey of the site, the proposed lots include 15' front setback lines combined with a 19' common area/ingress egress easement. In addition, the side building setback lines of 5' provide a 10' separation between buildings that mirrors the existing 10' separation of the garden homes. As a result, the proposed subdivision of subject property maintains the setback characteristics of the existing PUD. • PUD Amendment: PUD Amendment case number ZC 18.01 has been submitted concurrently with subject application to amend the PUD to reflect the requested lots created by subject application in the PU D's Master Plan. No other changes to the PUD or the existing subdivision(s) are requested by subject application other than the creation of the afore- mentioned lots. • Recorded Plat: Applicant is advised that 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 Article IV, Section D. 7. Approval Standards City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article V Section B.2. provides the following Approval Standards for evaluating a subdivision application: Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such 2 SD 18.04 Resub. of Lot 19, Fairfield Unit VI -Jan . 4, 2018 land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the following : a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable • Meets the criteria. The proposed subdivision is consistent w ith the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in which it is located. b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program • Meets the criteria . The proposed subdivision is consistent with and located within an existing PUD. Further, a PUD amendment has been submitted concurrently so that the existing PU D's Master Plan shall reflect the requested lots of subject application. c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations • Meets the criteria. d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations • Meets the criteria e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the planning jurisdiction of the City • Meets the criteria Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision application. 3 SD 18.04 Resub . of Lot 19, Fairfield Unit VI -Jan. 4, 2018 Summary of Request: Subject property is owned by the Baldwin County Eastern Shore Hospital Board and the facility is operated by Thomas Hospital/Infirmary Health. Hutchinson, Moore, and Ra ugh, LLC (HMR} is the engineer of record (EOR} and is serving as the authorized agent for the applicant. The subject application is a Site Plan Review, and is necessary because the proposed project is for a parking lot addition to Thomas Hospital consisting of impervious parking surfaces covering 70.4% of the site. An existing building was demolished on the site and a new building is not proposed in the subject application, and due to the impervious surface area greater than 30% of the site, a site plan review is required. "Article II. Section 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 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. VI. However, applicants for rezoning to the village districts may elect to use the special review Comments: Staff prepared a detailed checklist of the various requirements of Article II, Section C.2. of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance related to site plan review. Excerpts of the afore-mentioned checklist are listed below reflecting staff's evaluation of the application: Article II, Section C.2 .d.{1} Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan □N/A ~Accepted with comments, □Revise and Resubmit per no response required comments Comments: Page 15 of the Comprehensive Plan states: "The (Thomas) hospital is one of the region's largest employers and is a significant economic engine for the City . In addition to the economic benefits of the hospital, it is also a vital asset in providing a high quality of life to the citizens of Fairhope." The Comprehensive Plan further states on page 21 of Vis ion, Goals, and Objectives "Continue to support Thomas Hospital as an important economic engine for the City". Subject application supports the activities ofThomas Hospital and is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Article II, Section C.d.{6) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values . ON/A ~Accepted with comments, □Revise and Resubmit per no response required comments 2 SR 18.01 Thomas Hospital Parking Lot, Ph . II-Jan. 4, 2018 Comments : Subject property is the location of a building that was demolished and is immediately adjacent to an existing medical service building as well as close proximity to the Thomas Hospital Wellness Center. A parking addition was recently completed immediately west of the subject property. The additional parking area will provide forty (40) additional parking spaces to a site that is heavily-congested with parked vehicles and is not expected to significantly impact the criteria referenced in section C.d .(6). Further, subject property is located within the Medical Overlay District, where parking for various medical facilities is a !Iowa ble. Article II, Section C.d.{8} Overall benefit to the community. ON/A ~Accepted with comments, □Revise and Resubmit per no response required comments Comments: Subject application provides additional parking at an outstanding medical facility that provides highly-beneficial health care services to Fairhope and surrounding areas . Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer -Ms. Burmeister advised any sign age visible from the public right of way must be separately submitted for approval in accordance with the City of Fairhope sign ordinance. Subject application does not depict any signage however signage is noted here in the event a project sign or other signage is desired. Richard D. Johnson, PE, Public Works Director -Mr. Johnson accepted the civil and stormwater design and concurred with the planning staff as indicated in a review letter to the EOR dated December 14, 2017. An excerpt of the relevant civil/stormwater checklist is below: Article II, Section C.d.(4}Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City ON/A ~Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: The City of Fairhope Public Works Director examined the storm water calculations related to Ordinance 1550 requiring Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for parking facilities. In addition to the brick pave rs included on drawing 4 of 8 a rain garden is included on the site to comply with the LID requirements of Ordinance 1550. The Public Works director found the storm water calculations and site civil to be acceptable . Further, please note on drawing 7 of 8 Type" A" silt fence is required. (Type "A" silt fence is shown on the drawing, please label it type "A" on the "for construction" plans) Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Superintendent -Mr. McCrory advised any sewer laterals discovered during construction shall be cut and capped. Joe Wolchina, Electric Superintendent -staff reviewed the application with Mr. Wolchina and advised Mr. Wolchina the existing overhead power supplies traversing subject property will not be affected by the project. Robert Rohm, Natural Gas Superintendent -staff reviewed the application with Mr. Rohm and Mr. Rohm verified an existing natural gas regulator in the area of the project has been re-located and a safety barrier has been erected around the regulator as seen in the photos below. 3 SR 18.01 Thomas Hospital Parking Lo t, Ph . II -Jan . 4, 2018