HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSummary of Request:
The applicant is seeking concurrent annexation and rezoning of eight parcels comprising approximately 22.6
acres +/-from unzoned Baldwin County to the City of Fairhope as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The
subject property is located approximately 0.2 miles west of AL HWY 181 on Twin Beech Road (Baldwin County
Road 44). The parcel abutting subject property immediately to the north (PPIN 15078) is zoned City of Fairhope
Residential/Agriculture District (R-A). All other parcels abutting subject property are located in unzoned Baldwin
County, however a series of parcels zoned City of Fairhope Medium Density Single Fam ily (R-2) are located
approximately 120' feet northwest of subject property as well as 320' southwest of subject property . A series of
parcels zoned City of Fairhope ~ow Density Single Family (R-1) is located approximately 240 feet south of subject
property. Two Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are located in close proximity to subject property: Stone
Creek PUD is located 0.6 miles southeast of subject property, and Firethorne PUD is located 0.5 miles northwest
of subject property .
Comments:
The subject property is comprised of one large (PPIN 77747) generally rectangular parcel and seven smaller
(PPIN 63250, 362501, 362502, 362503, 362504, 362505, and 362506) parcels fronting Twin Beech Road, a
paved publicly-maintained street. The supporting drawings included with the request for annexation/PUD
zoning request depict a future subdivision of 78 single family residential lots . Should the annexation be
approved, and the zoning classification be approved as a PUD, the future subdivision application will include the
afore-mentioned 78 single family lots, one full -access entrance/exit on the subdivision's east side along Twin
Beech Road, a right-in/right-out exit onto Twin Beech Road on the subdivision's west side, and two unopened
50 ' future access easements on the subd ivision's west side . The largest lot size is not included in the site data
table of the future subdivision; however, the minimum lot size is specified at 6,200 sf and the minimum lot
width is 52'. The development density of the proposed PUD, based upon the supporting document depicting a
future subdivision, will consist of 78 units/ 22 .6 acres, or 3.45 units/acre.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, Article Ill.A. provides the following purpose for the requested
zoning of the subject property:
PUD Planned Unit Development: This district is intended to encourage innovative development that
meets comprehensive plan goals and is tailored to the unique constraints and conditions of a
particular site. This district allows flexibility in uses, designs, and building layouts as opposed to
other zoning districts to better serve community needs.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, Article VI. Section A.4. further defines the requirements of
Planned Unit Development (PUD):
Ordinance and Site Plan Required -Each Planned Unit Development shall have an Ordinance that
establishes the development of regulations for the district. In approving a Planned Unit
Development, the ordinance shall reference the site plan, which shall prescribe development
standards. The site plan after approval shall become part of the amending ordinance. All
development shall be in conformance with the approved Site Plan and development regulations.
The site data table included with the supporting documents of subject application includes the
proposed dimensional standards summarized in the table below:
Case# ZC 18.02 Proposed PUD Dimensional Standards
District Min. Lot Sae Min. Lot Width Front Rear Side Max. Lot Max. Building
Setback Setback Setback Coverage Heigh t
PUD 6,200sf 52' 20' 15' 6' 55% 30'
The requested PUD for the subject property reflects the dimensional standards shown above. In
addition, 5' rear and side setbacks are required for any accessory structures located on the residential
lots within the PUD. Any accessory structures must be behind the rear building line of the pri nciple
2 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -February 5, 2018
structure, maintain 5' separation from the principle structures, and have lot coverage of no more than
25% of the required rear yard for each lot.
School Student Analysis:
The proposed PUD master plan for Twin Beech Estates contains 78 single family lots. Applying the student yield
factors (SYF) provided by the Baldwin County Board of Education listed below, the development is expected to
generate 30.42 (78 x 0.39) elementary school students, 8.58 (78 x 0.11) middle school students and 13 .26 (78 x
0 .17) high school students.
Development Nan Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF Expected Number
Students
Twin Beech Estate PUD request SF 78 Fairhope Elementary 0.39 30.42
II II II II II II Fairhope Middle 0.11 8.58
II II II II II II Fairhope High 0.17 13.26
Total Students 52.26
Allowable Uses:
The applicant provided a project narrative for the requested PUD and indicated "single family
residential" as the requested use type within the proposed PUD . No other use types are indicated in
the applicant's PUD request narrative .
Zoning History of Nearby Properties:
SD 15.08 (Preliminary) was a request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for preliminary plat approval of Twin
Beech Estates, an 8-lot subdivision located on the north side of Twin Beech Road (County Road 44) just
west of State Highway 181. A l l lot widths are at least 100' wide and all lots front upon a paved, publicly
maintained street or road as required by the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. SD 15 .08 was
approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission on April 6, 2015 however no request for annexation
and zoning establishment was submitted by the applicant and the lots created by SD 15.08 (PPINs
362500, 362501, 362502, 362503, 362504, 362505, and 362506 and remnant parcel 77747) remain in
unzoned Baldwin County. Matters involving sidewalks, building setbacks, and street trees were
reviewed and approved by the Baldwin County Highway Department in accordance with the County's
subdivision regulations.
SD 15.12 (Fina l ) was a request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for final plat approval of Twin Beech Estates,
more fully described in case number 15 .08, above. SD 15 .12 was approved by the Fairhope Pl anning
Commission on August 3, 2015. A maintenance bond for water and sewer utilities was received on
August 31, 2015 and the utilities related to SD 15.12 were accepted for maintenance by the Fairhope
City Council on October 26, 2015.
SD 04 .53 (Preliminary) was a request of Engineering Development Services on behalf of Elite
Development for preliminary plat approval of Woodlawn Subdivision located west of State Highway
181 and south of Twin Beech Road (County Road 44). The development is comprised of 81 lots
covering approximately 34.4 acres, for a lot density of approximately 2.35 units per acre . The proposed
75' lot widths and 10,500sf lot area was compliant with the City Fairhope Subdivision Regulations circa
2004. Additional review of subdivision requirements was provided by the Baldwin County Planning
and Zoning Department, as no request for annexation and zoning establishment was submitted by the
app l icant concurrent with the subdivision application and as a result the development remained in
unzoned Baldwin County. SD 04 .53 was approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission on September
7, 2004.
SD 06.19 (Final) was a request of Engineering Development Services on behalf of Elite Development for
final plat approval of Woodlawn Subdivision, more fully described in case SD 04.53 above. Case SD
3 ZC 18 .02 Twin Beech Estates -February S, 2018
06.19 was approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission on April 3, 2006. Staff noted in the minutes
of the afore-mentioned planning commission meeting the development location was now located in
City of Fairhope R-1 Low-Density Single-Family Zoning District, non-conforming.
Case number ZC 14.11 was a request of Prebble-Rish, LLC to estab lish initial zoning of R-2 Medium
Density Single Family Residential District concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of
Fairhope for Woodlawn Phase 2 and 3 (SD 14.17), located on the south side of Twin Beech Road
between Woodlawn Phase 1 and Summer Oaks Stables . Wood l awn Phase 2 and 3 is a continuati on of
Woodlawn Phase 1, with comparable sized lots. The smallest lot size included in the development
(SD14.l 7) is 10,500sf, the largest lot size is 14,147sf with a maximum lot coverage of 37%. All other lot
dimensions are consistent with R-2 Medium Density Single Family. The development consist s of 70 lots
over approximately 32 acres, for a lot density of approximately 2.19 units per acre. The Fairhope
Planning Commiss ion approved the conditional annexation to R-2 Zoning District on Novembe r 3, 2014
with final approval by the Fairhope City Council on January 26, 2015.
Case number ZC 04.10 was a request of Volkert and Associates on behalf of Rance Rh eel for a zoning
change from unzoned Baldwin County to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Stone Creek,
conditioned on annexation into the City of Fairhope . The 174 acre development is generally located
along State Highway 181 near the intersection of HWY 181 and Twin Beech Road (Baldwin County Road
44). Th e PUD consists of 226 residential lots and 4 commercial lots. Lot sizes range from 7,000 sf to 1
acre, with the majority of the lots in the 13,000sf to 18,000sf size. Residential over commercial is
allowed in the commercial areas, as well as 35 condomin ium units in the commercial areas. The
minimum lot width shown on the site plan exhib it is 50', with setbacks varying depending upon lot si ze .
Maximum lot coverage is 60% and 50% for residential and commercial lots, respectively with maximum
building heights of 35' and 40' for residential and commercial structures, respectively. The Fairhope
City Council approved the re-zoning/annexation request on December 27, 2004.
Case number ZC 14.04 was a request of Prebble-Rish, LLC on behalf of Chapel Farm , LLC for an
amendment to the Stone Creek PUD, original case number ZC 04.10. The Stone Creek PUD is genera ll y
located along State Hi ghway 181 near the intersection of HWY 181 and Twin Beech Road (Baldwin
County Road 44). The justification for the PUD amendment was based upon future ALDOT right-of-way
acquisition of portions of commercial lots 1-3 in the original PUD. The PUD amendment requested
commercia l lots 1-3 be converted to 13 residential lots, with commercial lot 4 to remain but with 18
condominium units in lieu of the 35 condo units included in the original PUD. The PUD amendment
also reflected a corrected lot count of 264 units, and a corrected acreage of 177.20 acres
(approximately 1.49 units per acre density). All other components of the original PUD remain as
approved in case number ZC 04.10. The Fairhope City Council adopted the PUD Amendment at their
May 27, 2014 regular meeting. The dimension standards of the Amended Stone Creek PUD are
summarized in the excerpt from the PUD amendment site data table below (lots 252-264 are the 13
new residential lots created from the area previously platted as commercial lots 1-3):
4 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -February 5, 2018
SITE DATA
1. Total acreoge is 177.20 oc.
2 . Total number of lots is 264
pr oposed density is 1.49 units per acre
3. Total amount of common area is 21.96 oc.
4. This site Is located Sec t ion 26, T6S, R3E.
5. Proposed Building Se t backs:
Lo ts 1-22, .3 4-46, 65-126, 164-204, 221-251
Front -30'
Rea r -20' (5' off wet l ands on Lots .34-4.3 &
30' off wetlands on Lots 90-99)
Si d e -10'
Street Side -20'
Lots 23-33, 47-64, 127-163, 252 -264
Front -20'
Rea r -20'
Side -s'
Lots 205-220
Front -15'
Rear -201
Side -5'
Cammerclol Lot 1
Fron t (Facing Alabama Hwy. 181) -20'
Al l Other Sides -10'
Swi m & Tennis Area -
1 O' Setback at Perimeter
Case number ZC 14.05 was a request of Prebble-Rish, LLC on behalf of Ralph Reynolds, Davis Pilot, Billy
Stimpson, Thomas Gross, and Nathan Cox to establish an initial zoning of Firethorne Planned Unit
Development (PUD) concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of Fairhope. The 126.37 acre
development is generally located along the east side of State Highway 181 south of Quail Creek Drive,
between Quail Creek and State HWY 181. Th e PUD consists of 228 residential lots, for a density of
approximately 1.8 units per acre. Approximately 83 lots are 15,000sf in size, with the sma llest lot at
14,422sf and the largest lot at 31,800sf. The average lot size is 17,000sf with setbacks as follows: 35'
front, 35' rear, 10' side, and 20' sides street. Maximum lot coverage is 40%, with accessory structures
no more than 25% of the required rear yard . The maximum building height for the development is 35'.
The Fairhope City Council approved the re-zoning/annexation request on May 6,2014.
Zoning Compatibility Analysis:
The term "compatibility" is typic ally defined as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in
relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is undul y negativel y
impacted directly or indirectly by another use or cond itio n.
Compatibility of land use is a fundamental princip al for planning and zoning. Land us e compatibi lity is also an
important decision-making element in the zoning process . On a macro -level it can maintain and protect
community chara cter and rais e the quality of development throughout the community. On the micro-le vel
zoning compat ibility maintains an appropriate development pattern and protects neighborhoods from ne ga tive
impacts of incompatible land uses such as:
• changing neighborhood character through inconsistent land use patterns
o in creased density through decrea se d lot sizes and reduced building setbacks
• intensity of uses out of character with the neighborhood
o poorly located comm ercial uses
■ negative externalities such as increased traffic, light, noise etc.
As a result, incompatible land uses may negatively affect property values and the quiet enjoyment of property.
5 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates - Fe bruary 5, 2018
The Code of Alabama, Section 11-52-72 provides the following purpose for planning and zoning: "designed to
lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers, to promote health and
the general welfare, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue
concentration of population, and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks, and other public requirements". (Acts 1935, No. 533, p. 1121; Code 1940, T. 37, §777.) Insuri ng
compatible development clearly fits into the scope of the Alabama enabling legislation for planning and zoning.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides criteria to be used in the re view and analysis of the rezoning
process. Article II., Section C.1.e. "Zoning Amendments" provides nine review criteria for the rezoning process .
Criteria 3, 8, and 9 directly relate to compatibility:
(3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
(8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts ,
and property values; and,
(9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property values.
The Zoning Compatibility Analysis examines both "surrounding neighborhoods" (subdivisions and other
developments one-quarter mile, or 1,320 feet from the subject property) as well as "adjacent areas"
(abutting properties including those directly across a right-of-way from the subject property as well as
properties with a physical relationship with the subject property such as properties along the same
street or road as the subject property). The surrounding neighborhoods to the subject property were
identified by drawing a 1,320' buffer around the subject property utilizing the 'buffer' toolkit within
ESRI ArcGIS ArcMap. The subject property is outlined in blue and the 1,320' buffer is depicted below
by the crosshatch pattern shown on the map excerpt below:
6 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -February 5, 2018
1989-1990. Though not a subdivision, this property's development density is calculated by dividing
one acre (converted to square feet) by the minimum allowable R-A zoning district lot size also
expressed in square feet:
(43,560 sf/ acre) / 3 acres * (43,560 sf/acre)= 43,560 / 130,680 = 0.3333 units per acre allowable
density
An area of approximately 22 parcels is located northwest of subject property in an area of R-2 Medium
Density Single Family Zoning District . This region contains Bay Meadows Subdivision and is believed to
have been annexed into the City of Fairhope during a mass annexation ci rca 1989-1990. This region of
approximately 35 acres is bordered by Thompson Hall Road to the West, Bay Meadows Avenue to the
north, PPIN 15078 to the east, and PPIN's 77560 and 14879 to the south. It appears this area consisted
of sixteen (16) original lots yielding an original actual development density of 0.46 units/acre, and an
existing actual deve lopment density of 0.63 units/acre. The existing actual development density is
based upon various re-subdivisions occurring in this area, and to provide a more conservative
alternative model for this region's development density, the development density is calculated by
dividing one acre (expressed in square feet) by the minim lot size in square feet to attain the allowable
deve lopment density for the R-2 zoning district:
(43,560 sf/ acre)/ (10,500 sf)= 4.15 units per acre allowable density
The remaining zoned areas fall within the surrounding neighborhood and consist of Woodlawn phases
1, 2, and 3, as well as the Stone Creek and Firethorne PUDs.
The actual development density of Woodlawn Phase 1 is 81 units divided by 34.4 acres for an actual
density of 2.35 units/acre. Wood l awn Phases 2 and 3 include 70 lots encompassing 32 acres , for an
actual density of 2.19 units/acre . The allowable density for Wood l awn phases 2 and 3 remains 4 .15
units/acre, as calculated similarly above for the previously-described portion of the surrounding
neighborhood zoned R-2. The al lowable density for phase 1 of Woodlawn, which falls within R-1
zoning district is as follows:
(43,560 sf/acre)/ (15,000 sf)= 2.9 units per acre allowable density
As previously stated in Zoning History of Nearby Properties the Firethorne PUD actual development
density is calcu l ated as 228 residential lots divided by 126.37 acres for a density of approximately 1.8
units per acre . Similarly, Stone Creek contains 264 lots divided by 177.20 acres for a density of 1.49
units per acre. The various zoned adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods are combined into
the zoning compatibility analysis chart below:
Twin Beech Estates Zoning Compatibly Analysis Chart
Compatib il ity Subje ct Recommende d M eth od Ana ly sis of Reco mmend ati on
Dwelling Unit/ Housing Type Adjacent Area: Proposed development requests 78
100% single family in zoned single family units
Areas (R-A)
100% Multi Family on one Proposed development is consistent
Unzoned parcel (PPIN 77562) with the surrounding neighborhood
and adjacent areas. All zoned un i ts in
Surrounding Neighborhood: the adjacent area and surrounding
100% single family in zoned neighborhood is single family, with only
8 ZC 18 .02 Twin Beech Estates -February 5, 2018
Areas (R-1 , R-2, and PUD). two, multi-family units occurring on two
unzoned parcels .
100% Multi Family on two
Unzoned parcels {PPIN 119346)
And 77562)
Dwelling Unit/ Housing Type All other unzoned
(continued) Parcels appear to be single
family
Building Orientation N/A Requested development application
Estab lishes PUD zoning for development
But does not include a subdivision
Application by which building orientation
may be evaluated . Building orientation is
not applicable for analysis at this time .
Building Setbacks Adjacent area setbacks: ProQosed develoQment setbacks:
Front-75 ' Front-20'
Rear-75' Rear-15'
Side -25' Side-61
Bui lding Setbacks (continued) Side Street -50' Side Street -not specified
(Per R-A zoning district) Proposed development is NOT
Consistent with adjacent area setbacks
Building Heights Adjacent area building height: ProQosed develoQment building height:
Max. Building Height -30' Max. Building Height-30 '
(Per R-A zoning district) Proposed development is consistent with
Adjacent area building heights.
Lot Dimensions Adjacent area lot dimensions : ProQosed develoQment lot dimensions:
Minimum Lot Width -198' Minimum Lot Width -52 '
(Per R-A zoning district) Minimum Lot Length -119' (approx .)
Longest Lot Width -73.7'
Longest Lot Length -143 .87'
Average Lot Width -not shown
Lot Dimensions (continued) Average Lot Length -not shown
Proposed development is NOT consistent
With adjacent area lot dimensions .
Lot Area/ Density Adjacent area lot density : ProQosed develoQment lot dimensions:
Circa 1989 Zoned Area
0.33 Units/ Acre
(Allowable R-A zoning district)
Surrounding Neighborhood
Lot density:
Bay Meadows Circa 1989 78 units/ 22.6 acres=
Zoned Area 3.45 Units/Acre
0.63 Units/ Acre actual Proposed development is NOT consistent
4.15 Units/ Acre With adjacent area lot density.
(Allowable R-2 zoning district)
Woodlawn Phase 2 and 3
2.18 Units/Acre actual density
4.15 Units/Acre allowable R-2
9 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -February 5, 2018
Lot Area/ Density (continued) Woodlawn Phase 1
2.35 Units/Acre actual density
2.90 Units/Acre allowable R-1
Firethorne PUD
1.8 Units/Acre actual density
Stone Creek PUD
1.49 Units/Acre actual density
Unzoned Areas
2.9 Units/Acre allowable
As previously stated in the comments section above, the proposed PUD is based upon a future
subdivision consisting of 78 lots built upon the 22 .6 acre site . Dividing the 78 lots by the 22.6 acres for
the site produces a development lot density of 3.45 units per acre, which exceeds the actual
development density of zoned adjacent areas to subject property and exceeds the actual development
density of all surrounding neighborhoods, with exception of the region of R-2 zoning northwest of
subject property annexed circa 1989-1990. The average development density of both surrounding
neighborhoods and adjacent areas has been calculated four ways:
1. Average actual density:
{0.63 + 0.33+ 1.8 + 1.49 + 2.35 + 2.18 + 2.90} / 7 = 1.67 units/ acre
2. Average actual density (less Firethorne and Stone Creek):
(0.63 + 0.33+ 2.35 + 2.18 + 2.90} / 5 = 1.68 units/ acre
3. Average density with allowable density where applicable:
(4.15 + 0.33 + 1.8 + 1.49 + 2.9 + 4.15 + 2.90} / 7 = 2.53 units/ acre
4. Combined actual and allowable density average:
(4 .15 + 0.63 + 0.33 + 1.8 + 1.49 + 2.9 + 2.35 + 4.15 + 2.18 + 2 .90) / 10 = 2.29 units/ acre
Calculation number "3" yields the highest average density of the adjacent areas and surrounding
neighborhoods, and as the most conservative (highest) average, is utilized for compatibility ana lysis .
The proposed density of 3.45 units/acre for Twin Beech Estates is approximate ly 36% greater than the
highest average density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods, and 106% greater than
the actual average density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods. If Firethorne and
Stone Creek PUDs are not considered, the proposed density is 105% greater than the actual average
density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods. Due to this disparity in the proposed
density vs. the actual and al lowable densities, the proposed zoning is found to be inconsistent due to
differences in density. Further, the compatibly analysis chart above indicates inconsistencies related to
lot size and building setbacks, which are also contributors to the inconsistency with the proposed and
existing development densities.
Fairhope Comprehensive Plan Guidance
The subject property is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Fairhope Avenue/Greeno
Road Village Node, and 2.03 miles southwest of the Fa i rhope Avenue/State HWY 181 Village Node.
The subject property does not abut the village nodes described above, and given the distance from the
nodes to the subject property, there is no conflict of compatibility between the types of use .
The applicant provided a supporting document received January 24, 218 whereby the applicant
provides additional narrative explaining the methodology for the request of the PUD for the proposed
development as well as the applicant's explanation of Comprehensive Plan compliance. The applicant
10 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -February 5, 2018
awgrass
CONSUlTING • A LLIANC( • PROPUtTIES
Introduction
The proposed Twin Beech Estate Planned Unit Development is 22.6 Acres more or less and consists of 8
parcels that are part of the Fairhope Single Tax Colony, are currently UNZONED in Baldwin County,
within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Fairhop e City and are identified in the Fairhope
Comprehensive Plan for residential use. It is the Owne r's intent to annex the following parcels into the
City of Fairhope contingent upon a PUD Zoning allowing the development of the property as described
herein. Said Parcels are id entified as:
Parcel Numbers:
05-46-05 -22-0-000-001.572
05-46-05-22-0-000-001.835
05-46-05-22-0-000-001.836
05-46-05-22-0-000-001.837
05-46-05 -22-0-000-001.838
05-46-05-22-0-000-001.839
05-46-05 -22-0-000-001.840
05-46-05-22 -0-000-001 .841
Intent
PPIN :
77747
362500
362501
362502
362503
362504
362505
362506
The Developer's intent for Twin Beech Estates PUD is to provide Single Family Residential housing for
the 55+, Active Adult Community seeking residency and the lifestyle that the City of Fairhope provides .
Said PUD will transform this agricultural property into a Private Gated Community inclusive of amenities
sought after by the 55+ demographic. This Residential Development is proposed to be developed in a
single phase that includes 78 lots and amenities that could include but are not limited to greenspace,
walking trails, pool, clubhouse and a common pavilion. All necessa ry Covenants and Restrictions and
Homeowner Associations will be created to guarantee proper management and maintenance are in
place .
Why a PUD
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides opportunity to apply for PUD Zoning in an effort t o :
• encourage opportunities for development innovation tailored to a specific site, that while clearly
furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan, could not explicitly be established by generally
applicable standards or guidelines;
• allow mixed use development which offer a greater variety in type, design, and layout of
buildings;
• encourage land conservation, and more efficient use of open spa ce;
• permit modifica tion of certain controls in a manner as to produce large area development
arranged to better serve community need s.
2 I I " , •
awgrass
C.ON.SUl,TING . ALLIANCE • PROPCATIU
Twin Beech Estates models the very criteria of a PUD as outlined in Zoning Ordinance with addi tional
compliance t o the 2015 City of Fairhope Compre hensive Plan . Some key points are as follows:
• Innovative Design
Tw in Beech Estates is a proposed 78 Lot, Sing le Family Residential Subdivision o n 22.6
acres. W ith a marketing sc heme specifically targeting the 55+ Active Adu lt Community,
this development must offer a m ore innovative approach to lots sizes, minimum squa r e
footages of dwellings, specific amenities and a sense of security different from the
"typical" sing le-fam il y res id ential subdivis io n seeking the "fam ily o f four, dog and t wo-
car garage". Sma ller lot si zes and houses, more amenitie s (green space, poo l, pickle ball,
clubhouse, etc.) as we ll as inclu sive la wn maintenance, create an enviro nm en t
cond ucive the 55+ Active Adult marke t sought after in t his development.
• Furthering the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan
Th e 2015 City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan does not actu ally provide a specific goa l,
bu t instead identifies several specific obj ectives wh i ch were divided in t o categories.
o Physical Image -Twin Beech Estates wi ll continue to mainta in the high leve l
of care and investment in the physical image of the City of Fairhope by
adhering t o the City's sig n and l an dscape ordinance as we ll as insuring
proper mainte nance of the development through a development w ide
l and scape/ma intenance contract for Common Areas and Sing le-Family
Residences alike. Ensuring socia l intera ction within t he comm unity via the
amen ities offe red t o its residents and ensuring the image of right s-of-way
w ithin the development through proper roadway co n struction, land sca ping
and m ai nte nance .
o Environment -Tw in Beech Estates consists of several natura l resou rces that
have been identified as environmental enhancements that w ill o nl y increase
the benefit of this development. Th e property's North, East and West
bounda ri es are full of large heritage trees that create a natural buffer
between the proposed development and the multiple adjacent properties.
Thi s natural buffer wi ll be designated as Open Space along with the la rge
Open Space areas that w ill provide r es id e nts of the development the
op po rtunity to enjoy outdoor recreation ac tivities and sociali zation with
li ttle no impa ct t o the ex ist in g site co ndi t i on s. In addition , existi ng si t e
con ditions (See Attachment "C"), City of Fairhope LID (Low Impa ct Design)
Regulations and min im u m design crite ria w ill ensure that all planned
improvements and resu lting storm water run-off will continue to uph ol d the
3 I I' 11 l '
awgrass
C ONSULTING •ALLII\NC( • PROPlRTIES
water quality standards required by the City. All requirements necessary to
provide Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water will be adhered to as well.
o Urban and Community Design -As shown in the attached layout (See
Attachments "C & D"), Twin Beech Estates is designed around a large central
greenspace inclusive of several other amenities. This centrally located
greenspace creates a focal point of the development that allows the
pedestrian experience provided in the sidewalks throughout, street trees
and landscaping, as well as other amenities to persuade the residents to
utilize this central point which in turn creates the "Sense of Community"
that Fairhope is known for.
o Development Framework -Per the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, it is the City
of Fairhope 's intent to guide commercial and higher density growth to
locations that can be efficiently and effectively served with utilities and
public services such as police, fire and public works. An advantage to the
location of the proposed Twin Beech Estates PUD is that access and utilities
are currently in place to serve the development. The Development Team
has met with Municipal Staff representing Planning, Public Works and
Utilities and discussed the framework of this proposed PUD and identified
potential upgrades to infrastructure that may need to happen . As
mentioned in the introduction, it is the Developer's intent to annex into the
City of Fairhope. With the area surrounding the property mostly being
properties that are currently unzoned in Baldwin County, this presents an
opportunity for the Developer to introduce a land use slightly different from
the areas identified by Planning Staff falling within the "Zoning Compatibility
Study". This additional use in turn promotes the very "Village Concept"
sought after in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan.
o Villages -The City of Fairhope's 2000 and 2015 Comprehensive Plan
specifically outlines the desire to promote the "Village Concept" in defining
Land Use. In the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, 4 "Village Concepts" were
created and subjected to public comment in an effort to devise an ultimate
concept that best suits the future land use for the City as defined by its
residents and business owners. Upon the completion of the public
involvement phase of devising the Comprehensive Plan, a final "Preferred
Plan Concept/Preferred Land Use Plan" was created and made part of the
2015 Comprehensive Plan (See Attachment "B"). This plan has identified the
area of the Twin Beech Estates PUD and surrounding areas as "Residential".
As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan , the area located South and East of
the City of Fairhope (inclusive of the Twin Beech Estates PUD) has been
4 I I' o1 i 1
Closing
awgrass
-CONSULTING• 1'Lll"-NCE • PROPUI.TIU
key factor of the development, the Developer is faced with more up -front costs which in
turn require a higher end home to assist asking a higher price point for lots and
dwellings. Current ly the area around the Twin Beech Estates PUD is made up of single
family residences constructed between a time period of approximate ly 1975 to present
date. That being said, property values are likely to be all over the board due to the
requirement to comp properties to other like properties that may or may not be within
the immediate area. It is highly unlikely that a dwelling constructed in 1990 built in Bay
Meadow, that falls within the 1320-foot zoning compatibi lity analysis area , will have any
positive or negative impact in value from Twin Beech Estates PUD nor would that same
1990 dwelling in Bay Meadow have any positive or negative impact on valu e to a new
dwelling in Twin Beech Estates because the end user would most l ikely not be the same.
Allowing modification to Staff's position that like density to the deve lopments that
mainly fall w ith in the fringe of the 1320-foot Zoning Compatibility Analysis area is
exactly what needs to happen to better se rve a community need .
Twin Beech Estates PUD, exhib its every factor required for a PUD as well as furthers the development of
the Village Concept outli ned in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan . Force fitting a project specifica lly trying to
meet a community need to one or two developments that barely fall within the area identified in the
Zon in g Compatibility Analys is and ulti mately taking a position of density to determine a deve lopment
"incompatib le" prohibits the ve ry initiative of the PUD process and Comprehensive Plan. In reality, the
majority of the identified developments on the Zon in g Compatibility Ana lysis are only compared
because they fall within the 1320-foot study area and not because they front along the same road w ays,
travel through the existing developments into this proposed site or will actually be a "next door
neighbor". These developments all exist and operate on their own accord with little to no impact to the
surrounding area or the proposed development in use or va lu e. The true immediate impacts are the
adjacent and contiguous properties that are nonregulated, unincorporated and unzoned . The se
properties have the greatest possibi lities to impact the surrounding areas in use, va lues and quiet
enjoyment. The desire to annex this property into the City of Fairhope to provide a community need
provides security to furthe rin g the Vi llage Concept that Fairhope is committed to create. Attached are
exhibits outlining the proposed uses, design requirements, lot layouts, etc.
8 I i c1 L ,
awgrass
CONSUlTING •AUIANCI •PflOP£RTlES
• Use: Single Family Residential (55+ Active Adult)
Proposed Size and Use Restrictions compared to adjacent areas
The Fairhope Planning Department is tasked with the duty to compare and contrast the impact of any
proposed use to the
Drainage and Detention
Twin Beech Estates wi ll be designed to make use of the natural topography in determining the logical
placement of the drainage facil ities and detention ponds whi le abiding to those requirements set forth
by the City of Fairhope. In addition, any applicable LID techniques wi ll be reviewed and taken into
consideration in the storm water design. Storm water detention will be constructed prior to
construction of infrastructure and any disturbance to the perimeter trees will be minimized when
determining the release point for storm water. Twin Beech Estates doe not have any environmental
hurdle, i.e . wetlands.
Streets
In ternal streets will be private and maintained by the Twin Beech Estates HOA. All internal streets will
be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Fairhope Standards for Roadway
Construction. Internal streets will meet the following criteria:
• 50 foot right of way
• Concrete sidewa l k along both sides adjacent to residential lots
• All utilities will be constructed within the right of way
• All street signs will meet the City of Fairhope standard for signage
• All street lights will meet the City of Fairhope standard for street lighting
Two access points will be provided to Twin Beech road, a full movement access for ingress and egress
and an exit only (egress only) access.
Landscaping
Landscaping and street trees will be provided in accordance with the City of Fairhope La ndscape
Ordinance for Subdivisions. In addition to the standard ordinance requirements, The PUD will require
the Home Owners Association to provide for the management and maintenance of the Common Areas
as well as provide landscaping and lawn maintenance for each Single Family Residential Lot.
PUD Site Plan
A PUD site plan will be submitted and contain the following information:
10 I I',:,. ,
awgrass
CONSUlTtNG • I\WANCE • PROPERTIES
• Setbacks for residential homes
• Setbacks for accessory bui ld i ngs
• Public street access from Twin Beech Road
• Ve hicular traffic, c ircu la tion, connections, and parking
• Screening and buffer zones
• Ho urs of operation if appl icab le
• Activities or uses pe rmitted on the property
• Building or structure heights
• Land scap ing
• Maximum lot coverage, impervious percentages
• Pedestrian circu lation
• Accessory buildings
• Dra inage
• Open spaces/common areas
A ll devel opment shall be in accordance w ith the Tw in Beech Estates approved PUD Site Plan and
deve lopment regulations and the City of Fairhope Regulations w here applicab le.
11 I I' A ,. ,
Battles Trace Subdivision Cases
Case Subdivision No. Submrttal PZ Reco rded No. Applicant Case Ty pe Name of Location Zoning Date PZ Date Decision Plat Lots
SD 06-Volkert/Daniel Minor Colony at 2 outside N/A 2/6/2006 Approved 5/15/2006,
05 Corp the 5/15/2006,
Grand -5/15,2006
triangle
SD 13 -HMR/Point Minor Colony at 3 Inside TR 7/23/2013 9/3/2013 Approved 12/17/12
12 Clear Partners Replat2, the Grand 3/5/2014
Replat 1 Sub ., Ph
lA
SD 10-HMR, LLC Minor Colony at 2 Inside TR 9/28/2010 11/1/2010 Approved 5/3/2011
03 the Grand 11/22/2011
SD -12 -Point Clear Preliminary Battles 66 Inside TR 7/24/2012 9/18/2012 Approved N/A
OS Partners/HMR Trace at
the Colony
SD -13 -HMR Final Battles 42 Inside TR 10/22/2013 12/2/2013 Approved 6/3/2014
18 Trace at
the Colony,
Phase 1
SD -16 -HMR, LLC Final Battles 24 Inside TR 11/24/2015 1/4/2016 Approved 1/29/2016
02 Trace,
Phase 2
SD-15-HMR/ RSA Preliminary Battles 43 Inside TR 9/22/2015 11/2/2015 Approved N/A
25 Trace,
Phase 3
SD-16-HMR, LLC Final Battles 43 Inside TR 9/27/2016 11/10/2016 Approved 1/20/2017
31 Trace,
Phase 3
SD-16-HMR Preliminary Battles 27 Inside TR 5/24/2016 7/5/2016 Approved N/A
15 Trace,
Phase 4
SD -17 -HMR Final Battles 27 Inside TR 7/25/2017 9/5/2017 Approved 10/10/17
22 Trace,
Phase 4
This application for Battles Trace Phase 5 was heard by Planning Commission on December 4, 2017.
The applicant voluntarily tabled the application for the applicant to work with the 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 Mr. Richard Peterson , PE, City
of Fairhope Director of Operations. No agreement was obtained between all the parties. On
December 13, 2017, the applicant has submitted a waiver (attached) request from the Standard
Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities, allowing the installation of low
pressure sewer main at Battles Trace Subdivision (Phase 5).
3 SD 17.29 Battles Trace, Ph. 5 -Feb . 5, 2018
School Impact analysis: The student yield factor (SYF) is calculated by dividing the number of students
by dwelling type by the total number of dwelling units in an attendance. For example, if we have 1,000
students occupying single family dwellings {SFD) in an attendance zone for elementary school, and the
attendance zone has 2,500 total dwelling units, we divide that by the number of single family dwellings
by the number of students residing in single family homes.
1,000 students-;-2,500 total number homes in the attendance zone= .40 students per single family
home.
Using these numbers, we can estimate the number of students a new 100-unit single family sub di visio n
could expect to generate would be 40 students. The same formula can be used to determine the SYF
for mobile home units, apartments etc.
The Baldwin County student yield factors for single family detached are:
K-6 -0.39 per unit
7-8-0.11 per unit
9-12 -0.17 per unit
The Preliminary Plat for Battles Trace, Phase 5 contains 73 single family lots. Applying the student yield
factors, the development is expected to generate 28.47 (73x.39) elementary school students, 8.03
{73x.11) middle school students and 12.41 {73X.17) high school students.
_ Development Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF
Name Type Type
Battles Trace
Phase 5
Final Plat SF 73 Fairhope Elementa1 .39
Fairhope Middle
Fairhope High
Total
.11
.17
Expected
Number
students
28.47
8.03
12.41
48.91
Green space: The applicant states that 7.53 acres of greenspace have been added in phase V
brings the overall Battles Trace development to a total of 34% green space.
Storm water: 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.
Operations and Maintenance Plan: The applicant is amending the existing Operations and
Maintenance Plan with the latest phase (phase 5) of deve lopment. The applicant shall record
the amendment at the time of final plat.
Wetlands: According to the applicant, no wetlands are located on-site.
5 SD 17.29 Battles Trace, Ph. 5 -Feb . 5, 2018
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.
BMP Plan: The applicant shall revise the BMP Plan to reflect two changes regarding 1) the silt
fence comment and 2) the 13-day rule comment as per the City of Fairhope Code Enforcement
Officer's comments.
Streets: The applicant has stated that street names will be included at the time of final plat
submittal. Road Maintenance is the responsibility of the homeowner's association as the 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 will 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 subdivision regulations as
per Article VII of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations . The applicant has provided a
written waiver request for an exception to the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary
Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities for using the low-pressure sewer system.
The applicant has submitted a narrative justification (see waiver request letter attached as
exhibit) for the six waiver standards, as provided in Article VII, Section A of the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations. Staff met with the City of Fairhope Director of Operations, Richard
Peterson, PE on December 18, 2017 to obtain a level 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 extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with the regulations due to
unusual topographic or other physical conditions of the land or surrounding area not
generally applicable to other areas.
It is staffs 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 staff's opinion that no extraordinary hardship exists pursuant to Division 2
Design Criteria, paragraph 8 of the City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specifications for
Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities 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 staff's 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
6 SD 17.29 Battles Trace, Ph. 5 -Feb . 5, 2018
Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities is to provid e gravity sewer service. De v iation s
from this will ha ve the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent of the City of Fairhope Sewer
Specifications .
4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the standard necessary to relieve the
hardship.
It is staff's position that a hardship does not exist and is therefore moot.
5. The waiver shall not have an adverse impact on adjacent landowners, future
landowners, or the public.
No specific plans were provided to demonstrate this hardship . If the applicant's assumption
that the adjacent property owners will have an adverse impact is correct, then this impact
should have been economically evaluated by the requirements as stated in Division 2 Design
Criteria, paragraph 8 of the City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specifications for
Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities.
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
While staff understands the subdivi sion ha s been built out to data, staff is requiring standards
City of Fairhope, Alabama Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities
and Water Facilities to be universally applied to for all development.
In summation, staff does not support the requested waiver for the reasons stated in the site
history section.
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.
Landscaping: No landscaping is proposed for this phase of development.
Lighting Plan : Lighting is not proposed at this time. Per the applicant, any lighting will be
privately maintained.
Pedestrian Paths: Pedestrian paths are proposed in the common areas located between lots
167 /168 and 173/174. These w ill connect to the existing path around Sweetwater Lake.
Financial Guaranty: Staff requests clarification from the applicant if the path is going to be
installed as part of construction for Phase V. If so, then a financial guaranty would not be
necessary.
Other: Any applicable outside agency permits shall be obtained.
7 SD 17 .29 Battles Tra ce, Ph. 5-Feb . S, 2018
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
8
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 .
3. The applicant shall provide economic data and supporting plans to support the justification for
the waiver, pursuant to Division 2 Design Criteria, Paragraph 8 of the Specifications for
Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities. Both the Director of Operations and The
Planning Commission shall have the economic data prior to rendering a decision on the waiver.
SD 17.29 Battles Trace, Ph . 5 -Feb . 5, 2018
4
The Minor Plat for Henshaw Subdivision contains 2 single family lots. Applying the student yield
factors, the development is expected to generate .78 (2x.39) elementary school students, .22 (2 x.11)
middle school students and .34 (2X .17) high school students.
Development Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF
Name Type Type
Henshaw Final Plat SF 2 Fairhope Elementa1 .39
Expected
Number
students
.78
Fairhope Middle .11 .22
Fairhope High .17 .34
Total 1.344
All Associated Investors: The sole investor is Ms. Lilia Caballero .
Lot Standards: The lots front a publicly maintained paved right of way as required per Article V
Section E.3. Easements have been added to the plat as per Article V Section E.5 .
Streets: The right of way (instrument number 1139407) encroaches into the proposed lots. The
applicant's surveyor, at the City of Fairhope's Public Works Director's request revised the plat to reflect
the apparent prescriptive right of way. Baldwin County Permit Division has prov ided verification that
the road is a publicly maintained single purpose road .
Traffic: The traffic was evaluated by the City of Fairhope Public Works Director.
Structures: There is one house which is currently being constructed on Lot 1.
Natural Features: The applicant's engineer, Scott Hutchinson, PE., ha s stated "The site contains
no Natural Features defined under the City's Subdivision Regulations (Article IV, Section C 1b
{18)) that need to be addressed."
Utility Letters: Utility letters have been provided as per Article V Section C 1.b.{B).
Water and Sewer: The City of Fairhope Operations Director, Richard Peterson, PE., suggested
the applicant consider using septic system. However, if the applicant chooses low Pressure
(grinder pump), the installation shall be approved by the City of Fairhope prior to Building
Permit. The applicant has chosen to use a septic system, therefore the sewer certificate on the
plat shall be revised to reflect the Baldwin County Health Department instead of the Sewer
Utility.
Flow Model: Mr. Scott Hutchinson, PE. of HMR, LLC is currently working on obtaining a flow
model for the subject property. The results of the flow model are pending. The flow model
shall meet the approval of the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Superintendent, Dan McCrory.
Recorded Plat: All conditions of approval shall be satisfied in a timely manner, so that the 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.
SD 18.03 Hensh aw Road Sub. -Fe b. 5, 2018
5
The subdivision regulations contain the followi ng criteria in Article /V.8.2. Approval Sta nda rds .
"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 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 subdivision appears to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's
zoning ordinance doe s not apply as the property is unzoned. Since the property is unzoned, plan s
designated within the corporate limits of Fairhope do not apply. The proposed subdivision appears to
be consistent with the minimum requirements for a minor su bdivision, with the exception of the items
that remain to be sa tisfied as conditions of approval. Staff is unaware of any pending issues related to
applicable state or federal laws and regulations .
Recommendation:
Staff recommend s approval of the application contingent upon the followin g conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a flow model meeting the approval of the City of Fairhope
Water and Sewer Superintendent.
2. The Utility Certificate on the plat shall reflect Baldwin County Hea lth Department, if that
is the chosen utility.
SD 18.03 Hen shaw Road Sub. -Feb. 5, 2018
2
Summary of Request: Public Hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble Rish , LLC for Final
Plat approval of Old Battles Village, Phase 3, a 41-lot subdivision. The applicant is Nathan Cox with
Battle Plan Capital. The authorized agent is Jason Estes, PE with Dewberry-Preble Rish, LLC.
The property is located west of Huntington Woods and north of Old Battles Village, Phase 1 and 2.
The total tract of the subject property is approximately 26.09 acres. The largest lot in the subdivision is
approximately 16,335 sf and the smallest is approximately 11,200 sf.
Comments:
Site History: In 2003, the development Oak Hill, (corresponding to Huntington Phase 1 & 2,
respectively). Huntington Phase 1 & 2 was conditionally annexed and approved as a Planned Unit
Development. The development went through some additional PUD amendment changes and
changed ownership. Ultimately, Huntington Phase 2 became the Old Battles Village PUD . Under
Riverbrooke Capital Partners, the Old Battles Village Phase 1 portion of the PUD was developed. The
ownership changed again and the subdivision was purchase by Truland Homes . Truland requested
another PUD amendment to address amenities staging and ultimately began developing the remaining
subdivision. According to the submitted Articles of Incorporation, Nathan Cox is listed as the sole
investor on this project. Old Battles Village Phase 3 is currently under final construction and the
applicant is requesting final plat approval of Old Battles Village Phase 3.
Attached for your review is a layout of the development phases thus far .
Zoning Cases:
Case PC Date PC Result CC Date Developme Applicant Ownet Request Address Ordina nce
Number nt Name Number
zc 03-03 4/7/03 approve d 6/9 /18 Oak Hill-Miles Jones Street Cond itional Old Battles 1171
Huntington Family annexat ion to @ Greeno
& Old PUD
Battles
Village
zc 04-04 7/6/04 na Huntington Huntington Miles Jones PUD Greeno wi t hdrawn
PUD Amendment -Road
Amendment Huntington
zc 04-06 8/2/04 ap prove d 10/11/04 Huntington Huntington Miles Jones , PUD Greeno 1 228
PUD eta I Amendm ent Road
for Side
Setbac ks
zc 05 -2 1 10/3/0 ap prove d 11 /28/0 5 Huntington HMR Riverbrooke change NW corner Ord . 1279
5 Capital Huntington of 98 and
Partners PUD Old Battles
RD
zc 16-3/7/16 approved 8/22 /16 Old Battles Preble-Rish, Truland PUD Old Battl es 1582
03 Village LLC Homes , LLC Amendment Road
SD 18.05 Old Battles Village , Ph. 3 -Feb. 5, 2018
4
Using these numbers, we can estimate the number of students a new 100-unit single family subdivision
could expect to generate would be 40 stu dents. The same formula can be u se d to determine the SYF
for mobile home units, apartments etc.
The Baldwin County student yield factors for si ngle family detached are:
K-6 -0.39 per unit
7-8-0.11 per unit
9-12 -0.17 per unit
Th e Preliminary Plat for Old Battles Village, Phase 3 contains 41 single famil y lots. Applying the student
yield factors, the development is expected to generate 15.99 {41x.39) elementary sc hool students,
4.51 (41x.ll) middle school students and 6.97 (41X.17) high school students.
Development
Name
Old Battles
Village Ph. 3
Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF
Type Type
Final Plat SF 41 Fairhope Elementar .39
Fairhope Middle
Fairhope High
Total
.11
.17
Expected
Number
students
15.99
4.51
6.97
27 .47
Errors and Omission Insurance: En-ors and Omission Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000
has been provided as per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article VI Section A.
However, the City of Fairhope h as not been listed on the ce1iificate. T he applicant shall provide
a conected certificate of insurance.
Drainage: A signed, sealed drainage plan was submitted a t the time of preliminary plat. The
City of Fairhope Public Works Director, Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, has approved the stonn
sewer video and all test repmis.
Operations and Maintenance Plan: As per Article V Section F, 3 a. 3, the applicant has
submitted and Operations and Maintenance Plan. The applicant shall execute the submitted
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement, and then have the document
recorded in probate at the time of final plat.
Engineer's Certification Letter: The applicant h as provided an engineer's ce1iifi cation letter.
Wetland Requirements : Wetlands are l ocated within this phase of the development. Wetland
buffer signs have been installed.
Water and Sewer Requirements: The appli cant has submitted the required tests, v ideo and
GIS as-builts. The Water and Sewer Superintendent has reviewed the video and the GIS as-
builts.
Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants are required at every intersection and every 450 feet.
SD 18.05 Old Battles Village, Ph. 3 -Feb. 5, 2018
5
Traffic Improvements: The applicant h as con-finned that traffic improvements along Old
Battles Road that wer e r ecommended in the original traffic s tudy have been completed.
Completion of Improvements: The final inspection was conducted on December 20, 2017.
The final punch list from the City of Fairhope has been sent under separate cover after the final
inspection. The fin al punch list shall be completed to the satisfacti on of the City of Fairhope
D epartmen t Heads.
Financial Guaranty: In accordance to the Fairhope Code Section 19-2 Sidewalks, Streets,
etc, The person or firm, including but not limited to contractors and subcontractors,
subdivders, developers, governing bodies, or other, shall furnish to the city a maintenance
bond guaranteeing the repair of all damage due to improper materials or workmanship for a
period of two (2) years from the date of acceptance of th e work by the city. The form of the
bond and the surety providing bond s hall meet the approval of the City. The Maintenance
package has been submitted to the City of Fairhope Planning Department.
In accordance w ith Article VI Section L,
L REOUIRE/11/ENT TO COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS:
Sub-divider shall be responsible for providing all required minimum improvements in the
subdivision. This may be accomplished either by (1) full installation of such
improvements before the Final Plat is submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval or (2) after 90% substantial completion of the total cost of the infrastructure
the subdivider may provide to the City a financial guarantee of performance in the form
of either a performance bond or a Letter of Credit. Any such performance bond shall be
in form and substance acceptable to the Planning Commission, with oblige riders in favor
of the City in the event the bond issued in the name of the subdivider's contractor, and
shall be issued by a surety that is licensed to do business in the State of Alabama and
having a Bes t rating of A-or better. In the event that the subdivision lies within the
extra-territorial jurisdiction, such guaranty shall be made jointly payable to the City of
Fairhope and Baldwin County, Alabama.
The applicant has provide d th e appropriate performance bond for sid ewa lks and street trees.
The subdivision regulations contain th e following criteria in Article IV.8.2. Approval Standa rds.
"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 City's Comprehensive
Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
SD 18.05 Old Battles Village , Ph . 3 -Feb . 5, 2018
6
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."
This application appears to be consistent with the City of Fairhope's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance as the Master Plan was approved by City Council on August 22, 2016. The proposed
subdivision appears to be consistent with the minimum requirements for a final plat subdivision. Staff
is unaware of any pending issues related to applicable state or federal laws and regulations and health
and safety.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a corrected certificate of insurance to the City of Fairhope.
2. The final punch list for Old Battles Village Phase 3 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
City of Fairhope Department Heads.
SD 18.05 Old Battles Village, Ph. 3 -Feb . 5, 2018
Summary of Request: Request of Deviney/ AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed
underground installation of approximately 1,987 linear feet of fiber optic cab le from 20670 County Road 13 to
the roundabout intersection with Gayfer Road Extension. This area of County Road 13 (CR13) right-o f-way
(ROW) has been dedicated to the City of Fairhope by Baldwin County.
Comments:
The portion of CR 13 related to subject application is located within the Fairhope extra territori al
jurisdiction (ETJ) as well as an area contiguous to CR 13 zoned R-1 Low Dens ity Single Family. Public
rights-o f -way are under the jurisdictio n of Th e City of Fairhope however the Gayfer Road Extension ROW
i s under the jurisdiction of Baldwin County. The comments below are typical general comments for City
of Fairhope right-of-way projects. The portion of the project affecting public right-of-way maintained by
Baldwin County shall require permits through the Baldwin County Highway Department.
Deviney Construction on behalf of AT&T proposes construction of the project in two segments:
Segment one will be a directional bore of approximately 1,304' of fiber optic cable in the east ROW of
CR 13 ROW beginning at an existing hand hole near 20670 CR 13 and proceeding north ending at an
AT&T easement near 20882 CR 13. Segment two will be a di rectio nal bore of approximately 683' of 4"
HOPE conduit and fiber optic cable beginning at an AT&T easement located at 20882 CR 13, crossing
underneath CR 13 to the west ROW of CR 13 then proceeding north to the intersection of the Baldw in
County ROW at Gayfer Avenue Extension, and includes placement of one 30"x48" handho le.
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.
Comments from the City of Fairhope Utility Superintendents and Department Heads are listed be lo w:
The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities.
City of Fairhope Public Works Director comments are as follows:
• Hand holes shall not be located within driplines of Heritage Trees (as defined by t he Tree
Ordinance).
• Any proposed trenching shall not be within the dripline of trees.
• If w ithin a tree dripline, consult w ith the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with
earth work.
• Trees shall not be negatively impacted.
The applicant shall provide drawings loca ting their utilities with other utilities and the sidewalks. Any
boxes/hand hole s cannot be placed in the sidewalk. The applicant shall review the sidewalk plan to
determine if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall coordinate work with Richard D. Johnson, PE,
Public Works Director, to resolve any potential conflicts.
All conduit/cable shall be placed at depth from existing grade per industry and/or County Standards. A
minimum horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36" must be maintained from stormwater
and utility infrastructures. No handholes, bo xes, or other above ground infrastructure shall be in sta lled
within drainage easements. Pedestals shall be placed in a manner as to avoid obstructing visibility of
motorists and to allow vehicles to exit the roadway during an emergency. No grade change shall result
from the utility installation. The applicant is to avoid any tree drip lines w ith handholes and equipment.
The material under the sidewalk shall be compacted and the repair work shall be to the satisfaction of
the Building Official or his designated representative . The applicant shall contact the Building
Department for inspection prior to plac ing concrete.
Kim Burmeister, City of Fairhope Code Enforcement Officer, had the following comments:
2
• The applicant, or subcon tractor, shall obtain a ROW permit from the City of Fairhope Building
Department prior to beginning work.
UR 18.01 AT&T -CR 13 -Feb. 5, 2018
• Subcontractors shall have a current business license with the City of Fairhope and shall have a
copy of the ROW permit available for review at all times, and shall be posted on site or in the
window of contractor's vehicles.
• Any ROW cuts shall be stabilized (covered) at the end of each day and disturbed areas shall be
re-vegetated with sod within ten (10) days of completion of the project.
• Mulch/ seed shall only be acceptable as temporary cover.
• Sod shall be watered as needed to ensure survival.
• Inlets shall be protected .
• If site is within 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc .}, no red soils/clay are allowed as fill material,
per the City's Red Clay/Soil Ordinance .
Erik Cortinas, the Building Official's standard comments for utility work are as follows :
• BM P's shall be installed at boring sites and trench locations.
• Ground conditions in the ROW's shall be returned to original preconstruction condition(s} or
better.
• All plans and permits shall be available for review at all times along with the City of Fairhope
permit application.
• If required, appropriate ALDOT or Baldwin County Highway Department permits shall be
obtained prior to the issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) permit.
• Contractor is advised to review and comply with the Building Official's best practices flyer.
Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Superintendent had the following comments:
• All existing utilities must be located , and proper separation shall be maintained between
utilities.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened by painting the equipment Munsell Green.
• Drawings have been modified to reflect Mr. McCrory's requirements for avoiding an existing 16"
water main near the proposed work site.
Robert Rohm, Natural Gas Superintendent had the following comments:
• Mr. Rohm observed the drawings in the application do not reflect the gas line locations
following re -location due to construction of the CR 13 roundabout at Gayfer Ave Extension.
o Drawings have been modified to reflect re-located gas lines.
• Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities.
The applicant shall be aware of the following:
• No work shall begin until a ROW permit is issued by the City of Fairhope Building Department or
other applicable jurisdiction (permit not valid until paid for and picked up by contractor).
• The ROW permit shall be kept with the contractor or subcontractor at all times during site work.
The ROW permit shall be posted on the job site or in the window of contractor(s) vehicle .
• All contractors/subcontractors are subject to City of Fairhope Business License procedures .
This site shall comply with all State, Federal and local requirements, including, but not limited to the
following City of Fairhope Ordinances:
1. City of Fairhope Wetland Ordin ance (#1370), which regulates activity within 20' of wetlands.
2. City of Fairhope Red Soil & Clay Ordinance (#1423), which prohibits the use of red soil/ clay within
100' of critical areas.
3. City of Fairhope Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (#1398).
State and Federal permits shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the
issuance of City of Fairhope permits .
3 UR 18 .01 AT&T -CR 13 -Feb. 5, 2018
JOINT USE/OTHER UTILITY INFORMATION: LOCA I !U N MAt-'~
TYPE 1 UTILITY NAME EMERGENCY PHONE I CONTACT NAME/PHONE NOTES AER IAL ANO BURIED I
"I I / / .x
EL ECTR IC RIVIERA U TI LITIES 251-626-5000 301 V TO ISKV PHASE TO GROUND
' CATV MEOIACOM I -800-239-841 1 } -NIA -
: WATER CITY OF F AIRHOPE . 251-928-8003 '
GAS CITY OF F AIRHOPE 251 -928 -8003 I 10 /II\"
SE WER CIT Y OF FAIRHOPE 251 -928-8003 • ELECTRIC CITY OF FAI RHOPE 251 -928-8003
I
co IEXIT .35AI 01
l/)
SYMBOL LEGEND
::i
ProJX)sed
I
Existing I Description -
AERIAL CAB LE -___J 0::
-a-@== -B-@--0 BURIED FIBER <l: l''J
0:: ..-
:,<'.'. f-0 0 --8---B BURIED CABLE D 0:: w 0::
NOTE: DRAWINGS REVISED TO SHOW w ro >-
* * POWER POL E GAS LINE LOCATION. ....J ~ f-~
W,M . -01/18/2018 en 0 z
~JOB ROUTE 0 ::i
[ ] □ ::i <[ 0 HAND HO LE J w u ADDED LOCATION OF WATER MAIN ~
D D ON DWG 2 AND UPDATED BORE · DETAIL MANHOLE -AND DEPTHS OF BORE CROSSING . GAYFER AV E
W.M. -01/22 /2018
--------· NIA BO RE
-~ ~D ~o(bV"1\11AL-
0
(24') N/A TREN CH DEPTH uR I fb . o I 0:: .....
CL
CON DUIT ~ r,:=i ,--;,;~ ~ [7" =--~ M 0
l I :r:
B~ L;~t~ 31018 b l/) -m
JJY :.~~K.. ..........
FAIRHOPE AV E
-
NOTE TO PLAC ING CONT RAC TOR :
PLEAS E SECURE CABLE BEFORE LEAVING JOB SITE SCOPE: DIR ECTIO NAL BORE APPROX~ 683' OF LI II TO ENSURE IT IS OUT OF VIEW OR OUT OF REACH. HOPE CONDUI T ,
EQ UIPPED WITH A FIBER OPTIC ~ABLE, BEGINNING AT
CABLE SHOULD NOT BE LEFT WITHOUT CONTACTING AT&T EASEMENT AT 20882 COUNTY RD 1 3 , CROSSING
THE CONTRAC T SUPERVISOR OR PROPER AT&T TO WEST SIDE OF COUNTY RD 1 3. AND PROCEED I NG
MANAGER TH AT CABLE IS IN AND READY FOR TE LCO . NORTH TO INTERSECTION OF BAL DWIN COUNTY RIGHT OF
WAY OF GAYFER RD EXT. ALSO PLACING 1-30"XLJ8"
HANDHOLE.
. ATTSE
CONSTRUC TIO N NOTES
IC I TY OF FAIRHOPE PERMIT REQUIRED I PROPOSED TE LE PHONE FACILITIES
l . BURY CAB LE MI NI MUM 35' DEPTH UN LESS IN DICATE D OTH ERWI SE. ON RIGHT OF . WAY OF
2. AL L PERM IT ·WORK WILL MEET OR EXCEED BALDWIN COUNTY SPECIF IC ATIONS .
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL OR BE TTER CONDITION CITY OF FA IR HOPE
UPON COMPLETI ON OF CONSTRUC TIO N WITH AT LEAS T A GOOD STAND OF GRASS CALL BEFORE YOU DIG SI LT FENCE, HAY, ETC., IN ORDER TO PREVENT EROSION. COU NTY RD 13 4. AN ONSITE REPRESENTATJVE WI LL HAVE ON HAND AT THE JOB SITE: NOTE ., -
A. AN APPRO VED PERM ! T AND PLAN. ..
B. A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN . LOCATE ALL EXISTING ' ffi ALABAMA
C. AN ER OS IO N CON TROL PLAN. UT I LS BEF OR E DIGGIN G Exc hange:
DIAL 811 ·or 5. AL L TRAFFIC CONTROL TO BE 1N ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 OF THE MANUAL I ' I ~o~~,~8~-~~~ FAIRHOPE
ON UNI FORM TRAFF! C CONTROL DEVICES ( MUTC Dl CURRENT EDI TI ON. Des igner: 6. LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND FA CI LITIE S PRIOR TO CO NSTRUC TION . MINIMUM
48 HOURS NOTIFICATION FOR LOC ATES IS REQUIRED. I DRAWINGS SCALE I -Mitchel l,Wode
NOT TO TWO FULL BUS. DAYS BEFORE YOU D IG Phone :
[T l S THE CON.TRACTO RS RESP ONSIBI LI TY TO CO NTAC T 251-471 -8361
UTI LI TY COMPANIE S PRIOR TO ANY CO NSTRUCTION AS
Authorization: THE LOCA TION OF UTILI TI ES SHOWN ON THI S PLA T AP.E
APPROXIMAT E AND POSSlB L Y INCOMPLETE . THEREFORE
CERTI FICATION TO n<E LOCATION OF AL L UN DERGROUND 81NO I034N UTILITIES lS WITHHE LD .
Owg. I of ll -
1/22/2018 6. 03. 09 PM