Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCity of Fairhope Planning Commission Agenda 5:00 PM Council Chambers March 5, 2018 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes  January 4, 2018  February 5, 2018 3. Consideration of Agenda Items: A. ZC 18.02 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC to establish initial zoning of PUD (Planned Unit Development) conditional upon annexation into the City of Fairhope. The property is located on the north side of County Road 44 (a.k.a. Twin Beech Road) just west of State Hwy. 181, to be known as Twin Beech Estates PUD. PPIN #: 77747, 362500, 362501, 362502, 362503, 362504, 362505, and 362506 B. ZC 18.03 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble- Rish, LLC to establish initial zoning of PUD (Planned Unit Development) conditional upon annexation into the City of Fairhope. The property is located at the south end of Hemlock Drive, to be known as The Village at Firethorne PUD. PPIN #: 366931 and 366945 C. SD 18.06 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble- Rish, LLC for Plat approval of Kendrick Place, a 2-lot minor subdivision. The property is located on the west side of Bayview Street, directly across from Atkinson Lane. PPIN #: 23548 4. Old/New Business  SD 17.31 Camilla at the Colony – Plat Extension  Planning and Community Engagement Meeting o March 14, 2018 at the Fairhope Public Library in the Giddens Conference Room o 3:00 – 5:30PM 5. Adjourn January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 1 The Planning Commission met Thursday, January 4, 2018 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; Tim Simmonds; Wayne Dyess, Planning Director; Buford King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; and Ken Watson, City Attorney Absent: Jay Robinson and Emily Boyett, Secretary Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. He stated agenda Item A will be moved the end of the agenda. The minutes of the December 4, 2017 meeting were considered and Ralph Thayer moved to accept the minutes as corrected and was 2nd by Richard Peterson. The motion carried unanimously. SD 17.28 Public hearing to consider the request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC for Preliminary plat approval of Van Antwerp Park, an 11-lot subdivision, Larry Smith. The property is located on the north side of Pensacola Avenue between N. Section Street and N. Mobile Street. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the subject property is generally located near the intersection of N. 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 acres. The applicant provided a supporting document clarifying there are no planned future phases above and beyond the future phase shown northwest of lot 11. The applicant has provided two sanitary sewer concepts for the proposed subdivision 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 Pensacola Avenue. Concept “B” utilizes a combination of low pressure 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 sewer 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 Pensacola Avenue and connect to an existing manhole in the existing paved terminus of Pensacola Avenue. Staff and the Engineer of Record (EOR) have not attained concurrence on the allowance of a low-pressure sewer system vs. a gravity system. Though Concept “B” incorporates gravity sewer, and the sewer main in the ROW is a gravity sewer main, the lots comprising Van Antwerp Park are still reliant upon grinder pumps to collect and convey wastewater to the gravity sewer main. The EOR submitted a supporting letter to the subject application dated November 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 has not been attained with the Director of Operations, a waiver shall be requested by the applicant for allowance of a low-pressure sewer service. The EOR provided a supporting letter dated December 13, 2017 requesting a waiver from the Standard Specifications January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 2 for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities, which is incorporated by reference into the Subdivision Regulations via Article VI Section H.2. Staff recommendation is to approve the subdivision request subject to the condition(s) below: 1. Staff does not support the request for waiver from the Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Facilities incorporated by reference into the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and recommends the waiver not be approved as a condition of approval. The recommendation for non-approval of the wavier is based upon criteria three, four, and five of the six conditions of a waiver. Larry Smith addressed the Commission explaining the waivers. He stated many low pressures systems have been approved and installed in Fairhope but now gravity is the method the City wants to use. He said the rules haven’t changed but the interpretation of the rules has with new staff. Mr. Smith said in this case low pressure is the most practical method since it is already existing in the area. Mr. Smith stated there is not much difference between the proposed wavier Option B design and the staff recommendation to deny the waiver. He explained their concern is the homeowners will want to utilize lower levels and a ginder pump will allow them. He asked the Commission, if they accept the staff recommendation, to consider adding the caveat that each individual lot owner may elect to convey all their sewage to the new gravity sewer system via a single pump system. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having on one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Dr. Thayer asked if there would be a reduction on flood insurance if Option B is approved. Mr. Smith stated the buildable footprints are not located in any flood zone. Mr. Dyas stated most of the Commissioners are new to the board and even if things have been done differently in the past, if there are rules that haven’t been adhered to it needs to change and the regulations need to be followed. Mr. Turner said he would like to see the regulations changed to have grinder pump costs included in the development costs for subdivisions. Mr. Dyas said everyone needs to be on the same page and the Commission be consistent whether the regulations are amended or not. Mr. Peterson explained this standard has been on the books for years but never followed. Mr. Dyess said the regulations are very clear that gravity sewer shall be used. Mr. Smith noted the regulations do state “shall” but also gives reasons such as costs and impractical locations where low pressure systems can be approved. He said he feels this project meets those criteria. He added Option B even provides gravity sewer and the homeowners have a choice of using gravity for their homes. Mrs. Bryant asked about stormwater and maintenance of the stormwater structures and Mr. Smith stated the City’s regulations have been met and an O&M Plan will be recorded with the plat. She also asked how the individual lots will implement the correct stormwater methods and Mr. Smith responded there is already a conceptual design and the covenants will require the owners to use S.E. Civil to oversee the implementation. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the subdivision request subject to the condition(s) below: 1. Staff does not support the request for waiver from the Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Facilities incorporated by reference into the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and recommends the waiver not be approved as a condition of approval. The recommendation for non-approval of the wavier is based upon criteria three, four, and five of the six conditions of a waiver. January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 3 Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – Ralph Thayer. 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 located on the north side of Battles Road, north of the Colony at the Grand. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying 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 submitted a waiver request from the Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities, allowing the installation of low pressure sewer main. Staff recommendation is to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 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. Mr. Dyas asked for further clarification regarding the economic data the applicant shall perform. Mr. Peterson responded that during the discussions with the applicant they did not reach the point where they would know what a gravity sewer system would look like. Mr. Dyas and Mrs. Bryant said they want to have all of the information prior to voting on something. Mr. Turner stated he spoke with Scott Hutchinson regarding this application and the letter the applicant provided. Mr. Lawley distributed a document and addressed the Commission giving a brief history of the site and subdivision. He stated every phase has been developed with a low pressure sewer system as part of the master plan that was approved and it is stubbed out to connect this phase as well. Mr. Lawley explained it is approximately 3,200’ to the closest gravity line and would require extensive work around the existing utilities to install. Mr. Peterson stated there has not been enough investigating to know whether there is an easier path for installation. Mr. Dyas asked how the original development was approved with a low pressure system in 2005 if gravity was required then. Mr. Peterson responded he does not know and he is not here to second guess the decisions of the staff during that time. He added the applicant and himself have not worked through enough details to say whether a gravity system is feasible or not. Mr. Dyas questioned how the Commission is supposed to decide on this application without that pertinent information. Ms. Milford stated she wrote the staff recommendation to allow the applicant a chance to provide the data if they so desired. Mrs. MacKellar asked if there is a timeframe for the data to be submitted and Ms. Milford did not know. Mr. Turner said the applicant wants to tie into the existing system with a phase that is in the middle of the overall development instead of starting from scratch with the fifth phase. Mr. Turner asked if the Commission would be outside of its January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 4 authority to approve the waiver for this phase due to the existing conditions. Mr. Watson responded if the data is provided to conclude a waiver is warranted then the Commission can approve a low pressure system but at this time the data has not been received by staff to make that determination. Mrs. MacKellar and Mrs. Bryant asked if the application can be tabled for 30 days to allow the applicant time to provide the required data. Mr. Lawley explained this development is very different from most, due to very narrow rights-of-way and the utilities being located under the roads to maintain as many trees as possible. He said the low pressure system was approved by the previous utility superintendent and it is impractical to dig up the road to install a new system. He said the waiver was already approved and the system constructed to connect to this phase. Ms. Milford and Scott Hutchison stated the roads are private and the homeowners are responsible for the cost of repair to the roads for maintenance of utilities. Mr. Dyas asked if this is the last phase of the development and Mr. Hutchinson responded no, but it is the last phase that needs low pressure sewer. Mr. Lawley explained the remainder of the development can be designed with a gravity system and be constructed from the outer edge in. Dr. Thayer reiterated the Commission and staff needs the economic data to review before a decision can be made. Mr. Hutchison said they will prepare the numbers and come back. Mrs. MacKellar stated this phase is an additional 73 lots and she would like to see the information to compare. Mrs. Bryant said the Commission is also trying to be environmentally conscious and protect the possible overflows from the grinder pumps. Mr. Watson suggested the applicant voluntarily table the application so the information can be provided to staff and heard at the next meeting. Mr. Lawley requested the application be tabled to the next Planning Commission meeting. 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. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 1.5 acres and 7 lots are proposed. The applicant has petitioned a zoning change concurrent with annexation to Tourist Resort District. Staff recommendation is to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 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. Mr. Lawley was present to answer any questions. Mr. Turner asked if a sidewalk exists along the property and Mr. Lawley responded one is proposed. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Mac Walcott of 12330 Live Oak Street – He said the city has 63 or so lift stations and only a few have generators. He asked if the City has more generators coming. Mr. Peterson stated the Council is looking at two dry prime pumps for this month as well as more generators. Mr. Walcott also asked the Commission to publicize the cost for the new interpretation of the regulations. Jim Edens of 517 Owls Nest Place – He had concerns with ingress/egress for the lots directly onto Battles Road. Mrs. Milford stated the City’s Public Works Director, Richard Johnson, reviewed the sight distance and approved it. January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 5 Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 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. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Ralph Thayer, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. SD 18.01 Public hearing to consider the request for plat approval of Camellia Bluffs, a 2-lot minor subdivision, Brandon Bailey. The property is located on the west side of Main Street directly across from Jubilee Lane. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 8.21 acres. This site is located along Scenic 98 and has an existing low stone wall marking its entrance. The applicant is providing a 60- foot wide utility and access easement and intends to have one entrance point and then provide an access drive to Lot 2. The applicant met with Baldwin County and according to the applicant, the County suggested the easement due to the existing wall and to limit the number of access points on Main Street. Staff recommendation is to approve the subdivision application. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Ralph Thayer made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the subdivision application. Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Ralph Thayer, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. SD 18.02 Public hearing to consider the request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC for Multiple Occupancy Project approval of Bancroft & Pine Mixed Use Development, a 22- unit project, Larry Smith. The project is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bancroft Street and Pine Street, at 106 N. Bancroft Street. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the site is approximately 0.3 acres in size and will have a 100% lot coverage by a single 3 story building, as allowed within the Central Business District. The first floor is 7770 sf (commercial) with the remaining area as parking, 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 and cooled space per floor). The building footprint on the lot is 14, 357 sf, which includes the balconies overhanging the sidewalks. Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following condition: 1. The applicant shall provide the appropriate hold harmless agreements, meeting the approval of the City of Fairhope, regarding the balcony over sidewalks. Dr. Thayer asked how far over the sidewalk will the balcony extend and Ms. Milford deferred to the applicant. Mr. Smith addressed the commission saying the balcony will be somewhere between 5 to 6 feet. He stated there will be parking provide for the residential units under the building. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Richard Davis of 7520 O’Hara Drive – He spoke on behalf of Dale Zuehlke of 454 Pine Street to object the site plan. He explained concerns with lot coverage, the solid eastern wall, privacy, January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 6 building height, possible encroachment onto adjacent property, setbacks, and buffers. He requested the Commission deny the request or table it for 30 days to resolve the referenced issues. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr. Dyas asked for clarification regarding the setbacks. Ms. Milford stated the subject property is zoned B-2 and the front setback as defined is the Pine Street frontage. She explained the adjacent property is also zoned B-2, even though a residential building was constructed on the property. Mr. Turner stated have a commercial use abutting a residential home is to be expected when you build in a commercial area, specifically in the Central Business District (CBD). Mr. Dyas stated the adjacent property is not in the CBD. Mr. Turner asked how the eastern wall is designed and Mr. Smith explained a portion of the wall will be inset to allow the windows to be installed in accordance with the fire code. Mr. Peterson asked the setback of the adjacent house and Mr. Davis responded 4’. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following condition: 1. The applicant shall provide the appropriate hold harmless agreements, meeting the approval of the City of Fairhope, regarding the balcony over sidewalks. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. SR 18.02 Request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC for Site Plan approval of Bancroft & Pine Mixed Use Development, a 22-unit project, Larry Smith. The project is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bancroft Street and Pine Street, at 106 N. Bancroft Street. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the site is approximately 0.3 acres in size and will have a 100% lot coverage by a single 3 story building, as allowed within the Central Business District. The first floor is 7770 sf (commercial) with the remaining area as parking, 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 and cooled space per floor). The building footprint on the lot is 14, 357 sf, which includes the balconies overhanging the sidewalks. Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following condition: 1. The applicant shall provide the appropriate hold harmless agreements, meeting the approval of the City of Fairhope, regarding the balcony over sidewalks. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following condition: 1. The applicant shall provide the appropriate hold harmless agreements, meeting the approval of the City of Fairhope, regarding the balcony over sidewalks. Hollie MacKellar 2nd the motion. Mr. Peterson asked how the small parcel between the properties will be maintained and Mr. Smith responded the neighbor has 4’ between her home and the property line. The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. ZC 18.01 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC for a PUD Amendment for Lot 19 Fairfield, Unit VI, Richard Davis. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Boothe Road and Norman Lane. Mr. King gave the staff January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 7 report saying the subject property is 3.11 acres in size and the subject PUD amendment will modify the exiting PUD’s master plan to reflect the establishment of lot lines for the three structures currently existing on Lot 19 (to become lots 19-A, 19-B, and 19-C) as well as reflect the establishment of lots for the remainder of Lot 19 resulting in a total of fifteen (15) lots. A re- subdivision application (case number SD 18.04) has been submitted concurrently for the re- subdivision of Lot 19 of the existing Fairfield Subdivision, Unit VI. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following condition: 1. Approval of case SD 18.04, Re-subdivision of Lot 19, Fairfield Subdivision Unit VI. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. George Wilson of 19242 Fairfax Drive – He stated concerns with additional drainage and stormwater erosion in Fairfield Place. He also asked the relationship between Fairfield Pointe and Fairfield Place. Mr. King responded all the infrastructure is already in place for the site. He explained this request is to allow individual lots for the previously approved structures. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mrs. MacKellar asked if there will be a new homeowner’s association for this subject property and Mr. King stated was not aware of any changes from the original development of the subdivision. Ralph Thayer made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve with the following condition: 1. Approval of case SD 18.04, Re-subdivision of Lot 19, Fairfield Subdivision Unit VI. Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. SD 18.04 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry/Preble Rish, LLC for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the Resubdivision of Lot 19, Fairfield, Unit VI, Richard Davis. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Boothe Road and Norman Lane. Mr. King gave the staff report saying 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 15 lots. 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. Staff recommendation is to approve the subdivision application as requested. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to approve subject to the following condition: 1. City Council approval of the zoning change case ZC 18.01 Lot 19, Fairfield, Unit VI PUD Amendment. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. SR 18.01 Request of Infirmary Health for Site Plan approval of Thomas Hospital Parking Lot Addition, Phase II, Scott Hutchinson. The property is located on the southeast corner of the Thomas Hospital campus. Mr. King gave the staff report saying January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 8 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. Staff recommendation is to approve as requested. Mr. Dyas asked why we don’t require more pervious materials to be used for a parking lot this size. Mr. Turner responded Fairhope was the first to require any pervious parking but maybe it is time to revisit our requirements. Mr. Peterson questioned the proximity of the turnouts and Mr. Hutchinson stated the exits are existing. Mr. Peterson suggested removing one of the turnouts. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve as requested. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. Old / New Business SD 17.27 Point Clear Village – Request for a 180 day extension for final plat recording, Scott Hutchinson. Mr. Dyess stated the applicant has requested a 180 day extension to record the final plat due to litigation. Staff has no objection to the request. Art Dyas made a motion to approve a 180 day extension for final plat recording. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Tim Simmonds. NAY – none. 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 Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Low Impact Development (LID) requirements and the Greeno Road Corridor parking requirements, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess stated this was previously discussed at an earlier meeting and with several public comments. He noted staff is currently reviewing and revising the amendment based on the public input. He requested this discussion be continued to the February meeting, due to the number of cases and the length of the meeting already. Resolution 2017-03 – Request of City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department to amend Article V, Section F. Storm Water Standards of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyas stated he has numerous revisions and would like to review these proposed changes with staff prior to hearing this case. Mrs. Bryant agreed she would like to see the Resolution cleaned up a bit more before presenting to the public or the Commission for a vote. Mr. Dyess stated staff has no issue with revising the proposal. He requested the Commission meet with staff one on one to make sure there is not a quorum. Mrs. Bryant suggested have a work session to discuss these changes. Mr. Turner added he would like to invite the engineers, developers, and City Council to attend as well and Mrs. MacKellar agreed. January 4, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 9 Having no further business, Richard Peterson made a motion to adjourn. Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 PM. ____________________________ ________________________ Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary February 5, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 1 The Planning Commission met Monday, February 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Charles Johnson; Richard Peterson; Ralph Thayer; Hollie MacKellar; Tim Simmonds; Jay Robinson; Wayne Dyess, Planning Director; Buford King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attorney Absent: Rebecca Bryant Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM and announced the meeting is being recorded. The minutes of the January 4, 2018 were tabled until the March meeting. ZC 18.02 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC to establish initial zoning of PUD (Planned Unit Development) conditional upon annexation into the City of Fairhope, Ercil Godwin. The property is located on the north side of County Road 44 (a.k.a. Twin Beech Road) just west of State Hwy. 181, to be known as Twin Beech Estates PUD. Mr. King gave the staff report saying 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 request for annexation/PUD zoning request depicts a future subdivision of 78 single family residential lots. Mr. King explained 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 proposed density of 3.45 units/acre for Twin Beech Estates is approximately 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. Due to this disparity in the proposed density vs. the actual and allowable densities, the proposed zoning is found to be inconsistent due to differences in density. Further, the compatibly analysis chart indicates inconsistencies related to lot size and building setbacks, which are also contributors to the inconsistency with the proposed and existing development densities. Staff recommends the requested conditional annexation to Planned Unit Development (PUD) be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting for further study, to allow the applicant to re-evaluate the development density, lot dimensions, and setbacks more fully described in the compatibility analysis. Staff believes it can support the proposed annexation to PUD if consistency with adjacent area and surrounding neighborhood development densities are achieved. Mr. Dyas asked if this process will be used for every case and how will the developers/engineers be made aware of this new procedure. Mr. Dyess responded staff will notify the development community with a memo explaining this new procedure. Mr. February 5, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 2 Dyas stated this takes the subjectivity out of rezoning and makes it fair for everyone. Dr. Thayer stated Mr. King’s analysis is one of the best he has ever seen. Mr. Turner asked how many lots the difference in density actually means and Mr. Dyess responded approximately 55 would be allowed at 2.5 units per acre. Mr. Godwin addressed the Commission saying the applicant is proposing something different from what is existing to market to a different demographic. He explained the small clustered lots, gated community, and amenities are geared toward older, active adults. He stated the PUD request was to do something different than the surrounding area. He added he has worked with Richard Peterson regarding the lift station. Mr. Godwin stated the applicant wishes to keep the design as proposed. Mr. Dyess explained the difference between a Village Center and a Commercial Node and the higher density would be seen closer to a Village Center. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Gary Gover of 300 Lincoln Street – He said if this area is considered a commercial node, we need to make sure it will be successful and thrive. He asked how this development will affect the area. He suggested it may be better to move this project closer to a village center. Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr. Dyess said if the applicant is not willing to reduce the density, then staff recommendation will be for denial. Mr. Robinson asked what the timetable is if the application is tabled and Mr. Watson said it can be heard at the next meeting. Mr. Peterson asked what density is allowed for county unzoned property and Mr. King responded 2.9 units per acre. Mr. Godwin said the applicant is set on the lot size but could possible reduce the number of lots. Hollie MacKellar made a motion to table the application to the next meeting. Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Tim Simmonds, and Jay Robinson. NAY – none. 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 located on the north side of Battles Road, north of the Colony at the Grand. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying this case was tabled by the applicant at the January meeting to resolve sewer concerns. She stated the applicant has worked out a solution to the sewer issues with Richard Peterson, Utility Superintendent. Staff recommendation is to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 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. Mr. Lawley addressed the Commission saying he met with Mr. Peterson and they have been able to revise the sewer design to provide gravity sewer for 66 lots and only have 7 February 5, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 3 lots on low pressure. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mr. Dyas asked Mr. Peterson if this revised design is acceptable and Mr. Peterson responded yes, it will be better for everyone. Richard Peterson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following conditions: 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. Mr. Turner asked if the developer would consider adding sidewalks along Battles Road since the pedestrian gates seem to always be closed and locked going into the Colony at the Grand. Mr. Lawley said he would pass along the request. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Tim Simmonds, and Jay Robinson. NAY – none. SD 18.03 Public hearing to consider the request of Lilia Caballero for plat approval of Henshaw Road Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division. The property is located on the south side of Henshaw Road just west of Twin Beech Road. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the total tract of the subject property is approximately 2.1 acres. Each lot is approximately 1.03 acres. The site has an existing building which is currently under construction. The applicant has an interested party in purchasing the remaining lot. Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following 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 Health Department, if that is the chosen utility. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon the following 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 Health Department, if that is the chosen utility. Hollie MacKellar 2nd the motion. Mr. Peterson recommended a fire hydrant be installed at the intersection of Henshaw Road and Twin Beech Road. Art Dyas amended his motion to include the following condition: February 5, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 4 3. A fire hydrant shall be installed at the intersection of Henshaw Road and Twin Beech Road. Hollie MacKellar amended her 2nd and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Tim Simmonds, and Jay Robinson. NAY – none. SD 18.05 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, Steve Pumphrey. The property is located west of Huntington Woods and north of Old Battles Village, Phase 1 and 2. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the subject property is approximately 26.09 acres and 41 lots are proposed. Staff recommendation is to approve 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. Dr. Thayer asked about the wetland buffer signage and Ms. Milford responded they are required to be installed along the 30’ buffer and say “wetland buffer”. Mr. Dyess added the City has a wetland ordinance which protects the wetlands from being disturbed. Mr. Dyas asked if wetlands are allowed to be platted as part of a residential lot and Mr. Turner responded these are not. Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing. Mrs. MacKellar asked if the street stub-out on the west side of the subject phase will eventually tie into Section Street or does it adjoin the Brodbeck’s property and Mrs. Boyett responded the phase will tie into the next phase 4 of Old Battles Village. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve 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. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Tim Simmonds, and Jay Robinson. NAY – none. UR 18.01 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 1,987 linear feet of fiber optic cable. The project will run along County Road 13 from 20670 County Road 13 to the intersection of County Road 13 and Gayfer Road Extension. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the portion of CR 13 related to subject application is located within the Fairhope extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) as well as an area contiguous to CR 13 zoned R-1 Low Density Single Family. Public rights-of-way are under the jurisdiction of The City of Fairhope however the Gayfer Road Extension ROW is under the jurisdiction of Baldwin February 5, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 5 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 handhole near 20670 CR 13 and proceeding north ending at an AT&T easement near 20882 CR 13. Segment two will be a directional bore of approximately 683’ of 4” HDPE 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 Baldwin County ROW at Gayfer Avenue Extension, and includes placement of one 30”x48” handhole. 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 in the Staff Report. 2. All mechanical and locator equipment shall be painted Munsell Green. 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 in the Staff Report. 2. All mechanical and locator equipment shall be painted Munsell Green. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Tim Simmonds, and Jay Robinson. NAY – none. Old / New Business Sidewalks, Lee Turner – Mr. Turner said he would like to review the 2 year sidewalk requirement and bonding again. He stated there are several subdivisions that still do not have sidewalks installed after the 2 year period. Ms. Milford explained many of the bonds are being extended. Mr. Turner said the sidewalks either need to be built at the time of final plat or the bonds need to be called. Richard Johnson, Public Works Director, stated this is an ongoing problem and there is not an easy solution. Mr. Dyess said staff will look at the options and see what can be done. Comparison Analysis, Hollie MacKellar – Mrs. MacKellar thanked staff for the detailed research and suggested we educate the citizens as well as the development community regarding how it works. Jack Burrell, Councilman, applauded the data and information. He suggested staff weigh the densities to keep the information from being skewed. Stormwater Amendments, Art Dyas – Mr. Dyas suggested a meeting with the development community and interested parties to discuss the proposed amendments prior to Commission adopting them. He said he would like to get feedback on the proposed changes. Mr. Dyess stated it has already been done but it can be done again. Mr. Turner February 5, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 6 suggested the Council also be invited. Mr. Dyess said it could be held in 2-3 weeks so it can be advertised properly. Having no further business, Ralph Thayer made a motion to adjourn. Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30PM. ____________________________ ________________________ Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please continue. Thanks. Ercil E Godwin, PLS 251-234-0229 l\t4JQkJ~n'dy31 ~Fort.A.I..*~ 1!15N.JJdC•l1$S!nrc.l fCU"f,.Al..36$:l!, Ercil Godwin <egodwin@sa w grassllc.com > Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:06 PM Buford King Emily Boyett RE: ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates Con t inuation to April 2nd meet ing PhcM:'.:(~S1 )~.a ,'7!1CO F~•: (451) 9f~19ii0 From: Buford King [mailto:buford.king@fairhopeal.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 22 , 2018 3:40 PM To: Ercil Godwin <egodwin@sawgrassllc.com > Cc: Emily Boyett <emi ly .boyett@cofairhope.com> Subject: ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates Conti nuation to April 2nd meeting Good afternoon Ercil , As discussed via telephone, case number ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates will be continued to the April 2, 2018 Planning Commission meeti ng w ith your concurrence. Please reply to verify concurrence and staff will request to continue the case to the April 2nd Planning Comm ission meeting. The item wi ll appear o n t he agenda, and will staff will advise the commission of the continuation. Thank you , J. Buford King LEED AP, QCI City of Fairhope, AL Planning and Zon i ng Department 555 S. Section Street P.O. Box 429 Fairhope, A L 36533 (251) 929-7436 (25 1) 990 -2879 fax bufo rd .king @fa irho pe al.g ov 1 Project Name: The Village of Firethorne PUD Owner: Nathan Cox, Ralph Reynolds, Davis Pilot, Billy Stimpson, Sands Stimpson, and Tom Gross Site Data: Number of lots: 23 Lots Total Acreage: 6.28 Acres Project Type: Rezoning Request from Unzoned, Unincorporated Baldwin County to Planned Unit Development PPIN Number: 366931 and 366945 General Location: North side of Twin Beech Rd. ½ half mile east of St Hwy 181 School District: Fairhope Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Engineer of Record: Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC Report prepared by: Wayne A. Dyess, AICP Recommendation: APPROVAL 1 Planning Commission March 5, 2018 Case: ZC 18.03 The Village of Firethorne PUD SITE R·l ·iiledMn011'1 Mfi ~w,~arMy Legend CITY OF FAIRHOPE ZONING Zon in g ~ TR Tounst Reson 1111 R-4. Resiaen1111 /AQna.i lt ure O~na R-1 LowOens,ry S11;1e.fam ,y I R l [O) LJ R l (b) Rl[c) R-2 l,leaium Oens;tyS r1 gle -Fam11y R-3 Hig h Oensey S1ng1t-F am l y R-3 POH Pa1lo/Garoen 5 .,gJe Fllmlly ~ R-3 TH To~·.nnoust Sin gle Fam l y 1111 R--' LowOensity1.1u11.f11mi ly R-S High Denstly Owe l11 9 Resldenba l R-6 Mobil e Home Pal\" OiSlfld 1111 B-1 Lo cat snopp1ng 01s1na B-2 Genera l Bus.nes.s D11tna 1111 B-Ja iouriSI Resort Loc,g.,g Oistno BuS1ness anef Prolessional D1s;nct 1 Light lndV!otna ! o,~rlct Parl(l'lg PUD Planned Un• o,,.~10pmen1 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 Summary of Request: The applicant is seeking conditional annexat ion and rezoning of 23 parcels comprising approximately 6.28 acres from unzoned Baldwin County to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is located at the sou t h end of Hemlock Dr ive (Firethorne Subdivision). The properties immediately adjacent to the subject property are zoned as follows: • To the north-PUD (Firethorne Subdivision) • To the south -PUD (North Village at Stone Creek Subdivision) • To the west-unzoned property • To the east -R-2 Medium Density Single Family District (Quail Creek) Comments: 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 Dis t rict Min. Lot Size Min. Lot Width Front Rear Side Max. Lot Max. Building Se t back Setback Setback Coverage Hefght PUD 7,500 sf 50' 25' 30' 5' 40% 35 ' 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 principle 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 amended PUD master plan for The Village at Firethorne contains 23 additional single -family lots. Applying the student yield factors (SYF) provided by the Baldwin County Board of Education listed below, the 2 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 development is expected to generate 8.97 (23 x 0.39) elementary school students, 2 .53 (23 x 0.11) middle school students and 3.91 (23 x 0.17) high school students above and beyond that of the existing Firethorne Development. Development Appncat ion Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF Expected Name Type Type Number of Students PUD SF Fairhope 0.39 8.97 request Elementary I( II II II II II Fairhope Middle 0.11 2.53 I( I( II II II I( Fairhope High 0.17 3.91 Total Students 15.41 Allowable Uses: The applicant provided a project narrative for the requested PUD amendment which explained the proposed development is essentially an extension of the existing Firethorne PUD, which contains "single family residential" as the use type. No other use types are above and beyond single family residential is indicated in the applicant's PUD request narrative. Zoning History of Nearby Properties: 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). The 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 condominium units in the commercial areas . The minimum lot width shown on the site plan exhibit is 50', with setbacks varying depending upon lot size. 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 generally located along State Highway 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 commercial 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 3 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 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): SITE DATA 1. Total ocreoge is 177 ,20 ac. 2. To ta f number of lots is 264 proposed densi ty is 1.49 units per ac re· 3. Total amount of common area is 21.96 oc , 4. Thi•s site is l ocated Section 26, T6S ► R3E , 5 . Proposed Bui lding Setb•ocks : L.ots 1-22., 34-46, 65-126; 164 -204i 221-251 Front -3 0 ' Rear -20 1 (5' off weHonds on Lo ts 34 -43 & Si1de -10' 30' off wetlan ds on Lots 90 -99) Street Sf de -20' l ots 23-33, 47-64, 127 -1 63, 252-264 Front -20 1 Rear -20' Si de -5J Lots 205-220 front -15' Rear -201 Side -5' Comm er cia l Lot 1 Front (Facing Al!abama Hwy. 181) -20 1 Al l Other Sides -1 O' Sw i m & Te nn is Area - 1 O' Setback o t 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. The 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 smallest 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. 4 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 Zoning Compatibility Analysis: The term "co mpatibility" is typically defined as a condition in which land uses or co nditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over t ime such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. Compatibility of land use is a fundamental principal for planning and zoning. Land use compatibility is also an important decision-making element in the zoning process. On a macro-level it can maintain and protect community character and raise the quality of development throughout the community. On the micro-level zoning compatibility maintains an appropriate deve lopment pattern and protects neighborhoods from negative impacts of incompatible land uses such as: • changing neighborhood character through inconsistent land use patterns o increased density through decreased lot sizes and reduced building setbacks • intensity of uses out of character with the neighborhood o poorly located commercial uses ■ negative externalities such as increa se d traffic, light, noise etc. As a result, incompatible land uses may negatively affect property values and the quiet enjoyment of property. 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 .) Insuring 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 review and analysis of the rezoning process . Article II., Section C.l.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, inclu ding a ny 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 noi se, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. The challenge encountered by staff when evaluating subject application involves the approach by which the subject application's zonin g compatibility was evaluated. The development proposed by subject application is clearly an expansion of the Firethorne development and all amenities enjoyed by the existing Firethorne inhabitants will be enjoyed by the Village at Firethorne. Adding 23 units and 6.28 acres to the existing Firethorne development increases the overall development density of Firethorne minimally, raising the development density from 1.8 to 1.88 units per acre, calculated by diving 248 lots by 132.2 acres. However, the subject application concentrates an area of high density into a confined and as a resu lt it was very important for staff to carefully eva luate the proposal's impact on the adjacent properties and surround neighborhoods. The subject application requ es ts 23 5 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 lots on 6 .28 acres, for a development density of 3.66 units per acre. This is considerable disparity between the density of the subject application and the existing Firethorne development. Staff implemented an evaluation methodology to determine if the subject application functions as stand- alone development incorporated into an existing development, or if the subject application is a continuation of an existing development requiring an amended PUD. In order to acquire data necessary to make the "stand alone" vs. "continuation" determination, a Zoning Compatibility Analysis examining both "surrounding neighborhoods" (subdivisions and other developments one-half mile, or 2,640 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) was utilized. The surrounding neighborhoods to the subject property were identified by drawing a 2,640' buffer around the subject property utilizing the 'buffer' toolkit within the KCS Fairhope Map Viewer. The subject property is outlined in blue and the 2,640' buffer is depicted below by the black outline shown on the map excerpt below: 1.8 Units/ Acre 4 .15 Units/ Acre Allowable R-2 0 .85 Units/ Acre Actual R-2 Baldwin County 2.90 Units/ Acre allowable N The existing actual as well as allowable development densities of the developments surrounding the subject property are shown above as labels on the 2,640' (half mile) buffer map. The narrative that follows explains how the actual and allowable development densities of adjacent area and surrounding 6 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 neighborhood properties was calculated. Unzoned areas were calculated en masse, and zoned areas were calculated as a function of their development, as applicable. In order to arrive at an average development density for all adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods, a weighted average is utilized so that though the actual or allowable development density remains constant, the weighted average will be in terms of the actual acreage of the development within the buffer area. The weighted development density shown in each inset map label is for example purposes and is calculated by multiplying the actual land area in acres by the actual and/or allowable development density of the development under consideration. Weighted development densities are summarized and tabulated near the "conclusions" section of this staff report. Lot area/Density PPIN 80716 R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DENSITY PPIN 80716 is approximately 790' west of subject property and zoned R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District, denoted by the dark brown fill. Though not a subdivision, this property's development density is calculated by dividing one acre (converted to square feet) by the minimum allowable R-2 zoning district lot size also expressed in square feet: (43,560 sf/ acre)/ 10,500 sf= 4.15 units per acre allowable/ actual density For the purposes of this evaluation, the development density shown above is both actual and allowable as this is one piece of property and there is not an existing subdivision of this area of R-2 property within the buffer area for which to calculate an actual development density. The entirety of this property falls within the 2,640' buffer as shown previously and in the inset map below. The area of PPIN 80716, as indicated by the Baldwin County Revenue Commission ISV tax parcel viewer is 5.4 acres. Weighted Development Density for PPIN 80716: (Acreage)*(allowable or actual density) = raw units 5.4 acres* 4.15 units/ acre= 22.41 units actual 5.4 acres * 4 .15 units/ acre= 22.41 units allowable EXISTING FIRETHORNE PUD DEVELOPMENT DENSITY As previously stated in Zoning History of Nearby Properties the Firethorne PUD actual development density is calculated as 228 residential lots divided by 126 .37 acres for a density of approximately 1.8 units per acre. The actual acreage of Firethorne PUD falling within the 2,640' buffer is show below in light green and calculated by KCS Fairhope Map Viewer to be 4,112,606.3sf, or 94.41 acres: 7 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 STONE CREEK PUD DEVELOPMENT DENSITY Weighted Development Density for Firethorne PUD: (Acreage)*(allowable or actual density)= raw units 94.41 acres * 1.8 units/ acre= 169.94 units actual 94.41 acres* 1.8 units/ acre= 169.94 units allowable* *Frethorne's density wa s established during the PUD approval process and as a result it's actual and allowable are equivalent. Stone Creek PUD contains 264 lots divided by 177.20 acres for a density of 1.49 units per acre. The actual acreage of Stone Creek PUD falling within the 2,640' buffer is show below in light green and calculated by KCS Fairhope Map Viewer to be 6,367,045.9sf, or 146.17 acres: ___,,,., I ./ feet 0" .9i Feet I I I I 1,-l_LLJ-'-~-:=::;;:=;--;:::: , 8 Weighted Development Density for Stone Creek PUD: (Acreage)*(allowable or actual density) = raw units 146.17 acres* 1.49 units/ acre= 217.79 units actual 146.17 acres * 1.49 units/ acre = 217.79 units allowable* *Stone Creek's density was established during the PUD approval process and as a result it's actual and allowable are equivalent. ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 QUAIL CREEK ESTATES DEV ELOPMENT DENSITY Quail Creek Estates contains 316 lots divided by 373.03 acres for an actual development density of 0.85 u nits per acre . (Note the cro ss refe r ence in the inse t map legend r efer r ing to a previous example of allowable density calculation for the R-2 zoning district, in which Quail Creek Estates is contained). The actual acreage of Quail Creek Estates falling within the 2,640' buffer is shown below in light green, calculated by KCS Fairhope Map Viewer to be 1,607 , 740.8sf or 36.91 acres : QUAIL CREEK ESTATES VILLAS DEVE LOPMENT DENSITY Weighted Development Density for Quail Creek Estates: (Acreage)*{allowable or actual density)= raw units 36 .91 acres * 0.85 units/ ac re = 31.37 units actual 36 .91 acres * 4 .15 units/ acre= 153.17 units allowable* *The all ow ab le density of 4 .15 units pe r acre is standard for R-2 zoni ng . See PPIN 807 16, ab ove fo r an ex ampl e of t he al lo wab le de n sity ca lcu lation for an R-2 district . Quail Creek Estates Villas contains 116 lots divided by 29 .91 acres for a density of 3.88 units per acre . Quail Creek Estates Villas falls within the R-3 PHG High Density Single -Family Patio/Garden Home Residential District and therefore its allowable development density is calculated as follows: (43,560 sf/ acre)/ 4,000 sf (min. lot size)= 10.89 units per acre allowable development density The actual acreage of Quail Creek Estates falling within the 2,640' buffer is shown below in light green , calculated by ArcMap to be 829,498 .5 sf or 19 .04 ac r es: 9 Weighted Development Density for Quail Creek Estates Villas: (Acreage)*{allowable or actual density)= raw uni t s 19.04 acres * 3.88 units/ acre= 73.89 units actual 19.04 acres * 10.89 units/ acre = 207.37units allowable* *T he al lo wab le density of 10 .89 u nits per ac re is sta n dard for R-3 PGH zoning an d is ca lcul at ed by dividing o ne acre (43 ,560sf) by th e minimum R-3PGH lot size of 4,000 sf to yield 10.89 units/ are . ZC 18 .03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 20 18 WOODLAWN SUBDIVISION PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY The actual development density of Woodlawn Phase 1 is determined by dividing 81 unit by 34.4 acres for an actual density of 2.35 units/acre. The allowable development density for phase 1 of Woodlawn , which falls within R-1 zoning district is calculated as follows: {43,560 sf/acre)/ {15,000 sf)= 2.9 units per acre allowable density The actual acreage of Woodlawn Phase 1 falling within the 2,640' buffer is show in light green below and calculated by the KCS map viewer to be 27,889.3sf, or 0 .64 acres: Feet Weighted Development Density for Woodlawn Subdivision Phase I (Acreage)*(allowable or actual density)= raw units 0.64 acres * 2.35 units/ acre = 1.5 units actual 0.64 acres * 2.9 units/ acre= 1.86 units allowable PPIN 15078 R-A RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY PPIN 15078 is northwest of subject property and zoned R-A Residential/Agricultural District, denoted by the dark green parcel fill. This single large parcel is believed to have been annexed into the City of Fairhope during a mass annexation occurring circa 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/ actual density For the purposes of this evaluation, the development density shown above is both actual and allowable as this is one piece of property and there is not an existing subdivision of this area of R-A property within the buffer area for which to calculate an actual development density . The actual acreage of PPIN 15078 falling within the 2,640' buffer is show in olive green below and calculated by the KCS Fairhope Map Viewer to be 86, 724 .0sf, or 1.99 acres: 10 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 Weighted Development Density for PPIN 15078 (Acreage}*(allowable or actual density}= raw units 1.99 acres * 0 .333 units/ acre = 0.66 units actual 1.99 acres * 0.333 units/ acre= 0.66 units allowable UNZONED PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT DENSITY The uses of the unzoned parcels located within the 2,640' buffer area appear to be primarily single family or undeveloped, with a small cluster of commercial uses near the intersection of HWY 181 and Twin Beech Road. The City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article V., Section E.2.b.(1) states the following with regard to unzoned parcels w ithin the Fairhope extra territorial jurisdiction: b. Land not Subject to Zoning - 1) Lots not subject to zoning shall have lot areas of not less than 15,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 100 feet; The development density of the unzoned surrounding neighborhoods as well as unzoned adjacent areas is calculated by diving one acre (expressed in square feet) by the 15,000 sf minimum lot size for land not subject to zoning, as defined above: (43,560 sf/ acre)/ 15,000 sf= 2.90 units per acre allowable density For the purposes of this evaluation, 2.90 units per acre represents both the actual and allowable development densities of the unzoned adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods by representing the development density as if the entire unzoned area is subdivided. The total area of the 2,640' buffer, as determined by the KCS map viewer is 28,354,139.2sf or 650.92 acres, shown below in olive green: 11 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firet horne -March 5, 2018 Subtracting the acreage of the zoned areas described previously, as well as the acreage of the subject property, yields the total area of the unzoned parcels within the 2,640' buffer (all units in acres): 650.92-6.28 (subject property)-5.4 (PPIN 80176)-94.41 {Firethorne)-146.17(Stone Creek)- 36.91{Quail Creek Estates) -19.04(Quail Creek Villas) -0.64(Woodlawn Ph . 1) -1.99{PPIN 15078) = 340.08 acres The allowable/actual weighted density of the unzoned parcels, is therefore 340.08 acres * 2 .9 units/ acre= 986.23 units WEIGHTED DENSITY CALCULATION To determine the weighted actual and allowable development densities in the 2,640' buffer area, the total allowable and total actual weighted units described above are summed and divided by the total acreage of the buffer area, less the subject property. As stated previously the total area of the buffer, as determined by KCS Fairhope Map Viewer 650.92 acres. Subtracting the 6.28 acres of subject property leaves a net buffer area of 644.64 acres. The actual weighted density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood is as follows: 12 ZC 18 .03 The Village at Firethorne -Ma r ch 5, 2018 {22.41 (PPIN 8071) + 169.94 (Firethorne) + 217.79 (Stone Creek) + 31.37 (Quail Creek Estates)+ 73.89 (Quail Creek Villas)+ 1.5 (Woodlawn Ph . 1) + 986 .23 (Unzoned Baldwin County)+ 0.66 (PPIN 15078) units}/ {(650.92 acres (total buffer) -6.28 acres (subject property)}= 2.33 units/ acre actual The allowable weighted density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood is as follows : {22.41 (PPIN 8071) + 169.94 (Firethorne) + 217.79 (Stone Creek) + 153.17 (Quail Creek Estates)+ 207.37 (Quail Creek Villas)+ 1.86 (Woodlawn Ph. 1) + 986.23 (Unzoned Baldwin County)+ 0.66 (PPIN 15078) units}/ {(650.92 acres (total buffer) -6.28 acres (subject property)}= 2.73 units/ acre allowable The average development density of both the actual and allowable densities is therefore: (2.33 + 2.73) / 2 = 2.53 units/ acre Development Density Conclusions As stated previously, the requested development density of the subject application is 3.66 units/acre, approximately 45% greater than the average development density of 2.53 units/acre indicated above. The half-mile, or 2,640' buffer identifying surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent ares included a portion of Quail Creek Estates Villas, that contain an actual development density of 3.88 units/acre and an allowable development density of 10.89 units/acre, and these very dense development densities were a function of the average calculated as 2.53 units/acre indicated above. If the lots indicated in the subject application were dispersed throughout the development, or included as an initial phase of Firethorn's Master Plan, staff would be able to justify examining the subject application as a stage of development that though locally dense, is a contributor to an overall development density of 1.88 units per acre. However, from a development density standpoint, the development proposed by the subject application appears to function as a stand-alone higher-density development added to an existing development. Dwelling Unit/ Housing Type Subject property is located immediately adjacent to unzoned parcel PPIN 367005 to the we st , the existing Firethorne PUD to the north, Quail Creek Estates to the east, and Stone Creek PUD to the south. PPIN 367005 appears to minimally developed but its use will likely remain single family residential. The subject application seeks single family residential within a PUD to become of the Firethorne development, and therefore the requested dwelling unit/ housing type appears to be 100% consistent with the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods. Building Orientation Architectural renderings of the front and rear facades of the homes proposed for the development were included with the application, and when exam ined with the typical lot for the subject application as shown on the Master Plan dated 1/15/2018, all buildings appear to front upon the various streets within the proposed development identically to the adjacent area. Building Orientation appears to be 100% consistent. 13 ZC 18.03 The Vi llage at Fi rethorne -March 5, 2018 Building Setbacks and Building Height Adj acent Area De v e lo p men t Front (ft) Rear (ft) Si de (ft) Build ing He ight (ft) Existing Firethorne 30 30 10 35 Quail Creek Estates 35 35 10 35 Stone Creek Lots 1-22, 34-46, 65-126, 30 20 10 35 164-204, 221 -251 Stone Creek Lots 23-33, 47-64, 20 20 5 35 127-163, 252-264 Stone Creek Lots 205-220 15 20 5 35 Proposed Village at Firethorne 25 30 5 35 The chart above lists the setbacks of the subject property as well as the setbacks developments adjacent to the subject property. The average front setback line is 24', the average rear setback line is 25 ', and the average side setback line is 8'. The proposed development's front and rear setbacks exceed the average front and rear average setbacks of the adjacent areas and are therefore consistent. The proposed development's rear setbacks are less than the average rear setbacks of the developments in the adjacent area and are therefore inconsistent, however the proposed rear development setbacks are greater than the existing rear setbacks of Stone Creek Lots 1-22 and 23 -33, which are less than 500 ' from subject property. The building height of all adjacent developments is 35' for an average of 35'. The proposed development's 35 ' building height is therefore consistent with the adjacent area developments . Front and Rear Lot Dimensions Adjace nt Area De ve lop ment Fro nt (ft) Rea r(ft) Si d e (ft) Existing Firethorne 100 100 150 Quail Creek Estates 80 80 180 Stone Creek Lots 1-22, 34-46, 65-126, 65 65 150 164-204, 221-251 Stone Creek Lots 23 -33, 47-64, 65 65 150 127-163, 252-264 Proposed Village at Firethorne so so 150 The chart above lists the front and rear lot widths and side lot lengths of the subject property as well as for the deve lopments adjacent to the subject property. The chart above is not an exhaustive representation ofthe lot sizes of the adjacent area developments. Some developments such as Quail Creek Estates and to a lesser extent Stone Creek contain lot sizes that vary considerably, and the chart above is staff's most reasonable representation of typical lot dimensions. The average front and rear lot width is 64', and side lot length is 157 .5'. As a result, the proposed 50' front and rear and 150' side lot dimensions are inconsistent with the adjacent area developments . As described in the building setback line discuss i on (above), the nearest existing lots to subject property are lots 1-22 and 23-33 of Stone Creek PUD, at less than 500' from subject property. Lots 1-22 and 23-33 of Stone Creek PUD are 150' in length, matching that of subject application, and 65 ' in width, approximately 30% w i der than the proposed lots of subject application. 14 ZC 18 .03 The Village at Firethorne -Ma rch 5, 2018 Fairhope Comprehensive Plan Guidance The absence of any intended physical form (lack of a plan) of a city causes a disjointed development pattern, ineffici ent municipal services, conflicting land u ses and negative externalities for bu siness owners, property owners and residents. In general, the lack of a pl an and negative externalities create poor livability conditions. Providing an "intended physical form" is land u se planning. A ''plan" provides a meaningful and well-thought-out development pattern where a desired physical form outcome i s stated with provisions and methods to achieve the desired outcome. Ultimately, the succes s of the plan to achieve the desired outcomes depends on how the plan is administered over a series of years and many development decisions which together shape the physical form of the City. Beginning in 2001, the City of Fairhope expre ssed its intent for the physical form of the City to be in the "village" development pattern. The 2006 Comprehen sive Plan , incorporated by reference into the 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, was developed by Gould Evan s Goodman Associates, LLC. The Plan , in Section 5. Form, Function and De sign (pa ge 45-48), provided clear direction on village types, locations and the transitioning of land uses, specifically in terms of intensity and density of the villages and their environs. Section 5.4 Neighborhood s, states the following: The "village pattern" is the basic planning unit of the city and i s characterized by a center, supported by a neighborhood and transitioning to an edge. Higher density residence s should be located more closely to village centers or fronting major street corridors. Lower density re sidences should transition to edges, and rural areas . Thi s concept is reaffirmed in the 2014 Plan Update where guidance was provided through the following : "The immediate area around villages are to be more dense and then transition to lower density development pattern s" (2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, page 34). The 2014 Comprehen sive Plan Update provided the Preferred Land U se Plan . Thi s Plan provides a village center/node at Fairhope Avenue and State Highway 181 and a commercial node at Twin Beech Road and State Highway 181 (2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, page 33). The Fairhope Av e nue/State HWY 181 village center is approximately 1.52 miles northwest of the subject property . Further, the separation distance from subject property to the State HWY 181/Fairhope Avenue Vi llage Node removes the subject property from the "immediate area " and influence area of a village center where higher den sities would be appropriate and expe cted. Therefore, the compatibility analysis only considers the weighted densities of the surrounding properties described in the compatibility analysis. If the subject property was considered in the "immediate area " or in an influence area of the village center, higher density would factor into the compatibility analysis . As a result, the higher density proposed by the subject application would pos sibly b e contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies 4 village centers and 6 commercial node s throughout the City and its environs. The subject property is loc ated approximately 0 .4 5 miles ea st of the Twin Beech Road/State HWY 181 commer cial node contemplated by the 2014 Comprehen sive Plan update . Commercial nodes typically will occupy between 2 to 30,000 square feet per corn e r (2014 Comprehensive Plan, pag e 34). Further, the Comprehensive Plan call s for commercial 15 ZC 18.03 Th e Vill age at Fireth orne -M arc h 5, 20 1 8 nodes to be commercial convenience uses such as a gas station (non-repair), bank, small shopping center, drug store, and restaurants (page 38}. Essentially, the commercial nodes are commercial uses intended to serve the daily commercial needs of nearby residential developments at a scale, character and intensity compatible with neighborhood uses preferably in a walkable format. The Plan does not support increased density around the node. An excerpt map from the Comprehensive Plan depicting the Twin Beech Road/State HWY 181 commercial node is depicted below: r 7 .... - ~-.Ta .- :I! ,. .... Lllllr. At the macro level staff believes, and the compatibility analysis reveals that a continuation of the Firethorne development with an area of concentrated higher development density than currently exists within the existing Firethorne PUD is allowable. However, at the micro level staff must consider adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods in its analysis. As a result, staff utilized both actual and allowable development density calculations to arrive at the average weighted development density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods and found the proposed development to have a development density of 45% greater than the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods. However, if the proposed development is considered a routine continuation of the Firethorne PUD, the overall development density of the Firethorn PUD increases minimally, from 1.8 units per acre to 1.88 units per acre, or 74% less dense than the 2.53 units per acre weighted average development density of the surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent ares. A development density of 74% less than the weighted average of the surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent areas counteracts a development density 45% greater than the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods if evaluated as a stand- alone development, and therefore staff believes the proposed development should be evaluated as a routine continuation of the Firethorne PUD . In addition, the subject property' development design includes compatibility measures to mitigate impacts to the immediate adjoining properties. These measures include: 16 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 1. The subject property is entirely bordered on the east side by the Quail Creek Golf Course which i s considered open space and contains no existing development or potential development. 2. The subject property is bordered on the north side by green space and a retention pond which creates a buffer from the adjoining platted property. 3. The subject property is bordered on the south side by a 60' wide power line easement creating a 60' buffer between the subject property and adjoining developable property. Site Photos: Looking South from lot 63 Looking south along property line along common Area 14 17 ZC 18 .03 Th e V illage at Firethorne -M arch 5, 2018 Recommendation: Staff recommends the requested conditional annexation to Planned Unit Development (PUD) be APPROVED. Staff believes the proposed development functions as a continuation of the existing Firethorne PUD and the inhabitants of the Village at Firethorne will enjoy and utilize all the amenities of the existing Firethorne PUD. The development densities calculated in the zoning compatibility analysis support consideration of the Village at Firethorne as a continuation of the Firethorne PUD more significantly than treatment of the Village at Firethorne as a stand-alone development. Further, the proposed development also contains the appropriate buffering mitigation measures to increase compatibility with surrounding properties. 18 ZC 18.03 The Village at Firethorne -March 5, 2018 Page 4 of 6 APPLICATION FOR ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE Property Owner / Leaseholder Information Name: Firethorne Development LLC Phone Number: 251-625-1198 ------------ Street Address: 29891 Woodrow Lane , Suite 300 City: Spanish Fort State: AL Zip: __ 3_65_2_7 _____ _ Applicant / Agent Information ff different from above. No t arized letter from property owner is req uired if an agent 1s used for representatlon . Name: Firethorne Development LLC Phone Number: 251-625-1198 Street Address: 29891 Woodrow Lane Suite 300 City: Spanish Fort State: AL Zip: ___ 3_65_2_7 ____ _ Current Zoning of Property: _U_n_z_o _ne_d _________________ _ Proposed Zoning/Use of the Property: _P_U_D _____________ _ Property Address: _N_o_ne ______________________ _ Parcel Number: 05-46-06-23-0-000-004.449 Property Legal Description: _S_e_e_a_tt~a~ch~e~d ________________ _ Reason for Zoning Change: Adding this site to the existing Firethorne PUD Property Map Attached @ NO Metes and Bounds Description Attached ~ NO Names and Address of all Real Property Owners within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached . ~ NO Character of Improvements to the Property and Approximate Construction Date: ____ _ Proposed 23 lot single family development with supporting infrastructure (utilities. roadway, drainage , and landscaping) Construction to begin approximately June 2018 Zoning Fee Calculation: Reference: Ordinance 1269 I certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and here b y submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Co~:;;:m~e-Tc:;sentative shall sign~ Property Owner /Leaseholder Printed Name Signature 1o~a~1,, Date ' 7 ! i · ,, "' t i' i:' , I ~ i i ll. r-·-··-~· ... ·7 ~j j ~ I 01 [ __ ..,. .. , __ j cot.r COURSE .OS 6ttl ;u1,ll..DOfi 2 I !I ~ ,, E i I I ..., =: • I !I ' ii I ii : f !, : ·1: 0 .\1fnl 1JC 1 Project Name: Kendrick Place Property Owner I Applicant: Thomas Hospital Foundation General Location: West side of Bayview Street, directly across from Atkinson Lane . Project Type: Minor Subdivision (inside the City of Fairhope corporate limits and permit, police and planning jurisdictions .) Number of lots: 2 Project Acreage: 2.88 Zoning District: R-2 (medium density single family district) PPIN Number: 23548 Engineer of record: Dewberry/ Preble Rish , LLC School District: City of Fairhope Elementary, Middle and High Schools) Report prepared by: Nancy Milford, Staff Planner, EIT, CAPZO Certified Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Planning Commission March 5, 2018 Subdivision Approval Case: SD 18.06 Kendrick Place I 1 1>·1 • 1, "~-.,, SITE I I Legend •---• SuDitCIParc:e l Onk S l I . i -I i CllY OF FAIRHOPE ZON ING Zon in g ~ TR Tc,notRe,on ! -R-ARcsldcn1ia1 /Aqn0.11turc01S1 na ! R-1 Low OenstySingte-Fam iy llllill •t l•> LJ Rl (b) R1 (C! -R-2 Lltd-.im Oen,itySIIQlt-f1m1ly -R-3 Hi!lhDens1tyS1ncie-.Fa m1y R.'.l PGH P111o/Gaicien Sr1 g:\e F1 n:•y (::J R-3 Tli iO\'A'll'ICU!le Srig:le fitm~y -R·-' LowOonuy Uu11.f am 1f'{ R-5 High Oen~ty O\•.e hig: Res}jentia l 8-2 Gt ner1 1Bwine,a 015tna -8-31 Toun51 RtsortL04Qt19 Oi,,tna -B-3D Touri!IIRnortC\lmmer01 I Serv1et0i,tna -a....; Bu si ne,-, and Proteuon al o,sna -I.I-I L19h11n<1u s1na!01sne1 ... , .. ~., PUD Pianne!I UnilOtvtlopm enl SD 18 .06 Kendrick Place -March 5, 2018 2 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC for Plat approval of Kendrick Place, a 2-lot minor Subdivision . The property is located West side of Bayview Street, directly across from Atkinson Lane. The authorized agent is Mr. Steve Pumphrey with Dewberry Preble Rish . The total tract of the subject property is approximately 2.88 acres. Lot 1, is approximately 1.40 acres and lot 2 is approximately 1.49 acres. Comments: Site History: The applicant is requesting a simple two lot minor subdivision. The subject property has an existing drive and brick wall. The property is owned by the Thomas Hospital Foundation. Site Photos: Kendrick Place View of the property, looking toward the bay. property. View of the right of way and School Impact analysis: The student yield factor (SYF) i s 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 fam i ly 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 subdivision could expect to generate would be 40 students. The same formula can be used to determine the SYF for mobile home units, apartments etc. SD 18.06 Kendrick Place -March 5, 2018 3 The Baldwin County student yield factors for single fam i ly detached are: K-6 -0 .39 per unit 7-8-0.11 per unit 9-12 -0.17 per unit The Minor Plat for Kendr i ck Subdivis i on contains 2 single family lots. Applying the student yield factors, the development is expected to generate .78 (2x.39} elementary school students, .22 (2x.11) middle school students and .34 (2X.17) high school students. D evelo pm e nt A ppli cation Ho us in g Total U nits Attendance Zone SYF Expe ct e d Number st ude nts N am e Ty pe Type Kendrick Place Final Plat SF 2 Fairhope Elementa1 .39 Fairhope Middle Fairhope High Total .11 .17 .78 .22 .34 1.344 All Associated Investors: All associated investors have been provided (Article IV Section C 1. B (3}}. The property is owned by the Thomas Hospital Foundation, which has multiple board members. The list of Board Member s is attached. Lot Standards: The property is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Single Family Residential District) Setbacks appear to be in compliance with R-2 Area and Dimension Standards . The side setbacks have increased to meet the ISO requirements, due to the low fire flow in the area. Natural Features: The applicant shall provide site data and all applicable permits relative to items such as soils, wetlands, flooding, drainage, natural features and potential archeological features . The applicant has confirmed there are no natural features. The existing bluff appears to be predominately on adjacent property. A small section of the bluff, used for pedestrian access is located on the subject property. Sidewalks: In accordance with Article V Section D. 6. "All streets shall include a pedestrian area comprised of a planting strip and a sidewalk, according to the standards i n Table 5.3 in Appendix A." The applicant's letter requesting an exemption to the standards is forthcoming. Exceptions to the sidewalk standards as provided in Article V Section D 7 (Exemptions to Street Standards) SD 18.06 Kendrick Pl ace -March 5, 2018 4 7. Exceptions to Street Standards -Subdivisions may be approved with exceptions to the standards of Article V., Section D. according to the criteria in this section, at the Planning Commission's discretion . Any plat approved with exceptions may include conditions to assure that the purposes stated in section D.1. are achieved. a. Natural Features -Blocks abutting natural or topographical features may be approved with exceptions to the blocks and street layout standards of Article V., Section D., subject to all of the following: (1) construction of the grid according to the block and street layout standards must be impracticable in that the applicant would incur substantial and unreasonable additional costs in designing streets across the natural or topographical feature or modification of the grid is necessary to preserve important environmental features such as streams, wetlands, animal habitats, or other conservation areas; figure 5.15. ·~. j . L LG,;..~ --_-: -. 0 -~-=~~-:.:=-....--"-TT7Tw_TI f ._. , I I T,\· l t i 11 ·I II. • L 1I Lill" r-· r ~-r.._ 1 __ rn . · .rr·n=-n .' < ,.· LJ _Ll ! tjj-L.Lll__i ~ ..._ • "rwrrih-l1T1rrn 111 Figure 5.15 -Sue.et layou t exception due to 11aru..r.tl , topo,graphicaL or envirnnmen.tal fe ati.rran ca11Sing intarnptions in the street ne twork . Tue exception to the .:1treet stand.:ud still maintaiw the stre et cmmec:lions and m.uimum block [ilru ts. (2 ) Modification of the grid shall not alter the minimum block length or block size, except that the distance of the property line along the natural or topographical feature creating the need for the exception shall be omitted when calculating the perimeter of the block. Additionally, public access easements to any natural or topographical features which SD 18 .06 Kendrick Place -Ma r ch 5, 2018 5 can be used for active recreation may be used as the perimeter of a block; and (3) Cul-de-sacs or "loop" streets may be approved where connections with a through street would intersect with the natural or topographical feature. "Loop" streets are preferred to cul-de-sacs wherever practicable. Cu-Ide-sacs shall not exceed 660 feet and loop streets shall not exceed 1300 feet. In this particular case, the lot has road access on lot 2. The subject property has no adjacent sidewalks and the neighborhood is well established. No connections exist and are not anticipated in the future. There is a naturalized buffer along the east side of the property and on the right-of-way. Staff would like the applicant to clarify if any of the buffer on the east property line could be saved. Traffic: The City of Fairhope Public Works Engineer, Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, has provided supporting narrative regarding trip generation of the subject property as it relates to the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulation submittal requirements (Article IV Section C 1 (h)-Traffic Data and Traffic Study. Per Mr. Richard Johnson, the trip generation does not support any further study or submittal. Easements: Drainage and utility easements are shown as a note on the plat . Storm water standards: In DRC, Richard Johnson mentioned that this area does not have public drainage and there is a great deal of water traversing the property. Richard Johnson requested a note on the plat regarding drainage during the DRC meeting held by the City of Fairhope. Mr. Johnson has reviewed the note and was satisfied. The applicant checked the new FEMA flood zones and there are no changes for this location. Sediment and Erosion Control: No red soil or clay will be allowed as per the Red Soil & Clay ordinance, attached. Per the Code Enforcement Officer, Kim Burmeister, the subject property falls within a "Coastal Bluff" area, as it is on the bluff overlooking and adjoining North Beach Park. According to Ms. Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer, the site is located in the Stack Gully Watershed. Utility Letters: Utility availability letters shall be provided. The Director of Operations, Richard Peterson, PE, has provided an email regarding available water, sewer, and gas service. Applicable aid-to-construction charges will apply once construction drawings are submitted . A 7.5' X 285' utility easement, as shown in the attachment, will be required from each lot for service . SD 18.06 Kendri ck Place -March 5, 2018 6 Water and Sewer: The applicant shall comply with all City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Standards. The Director of Operations is concerned that an additional water and sewer services will be required above and beyond the cost the City would typically be required to install and believes that cost should be born by the applicant and not the City of Fairhope. The City's current collection system does not include the costs it will take to provide the water and sewer services to this location. There are additional road work costs and installation costs to get services to the additional lot. All costs to install the water and sewer for the additional lot shall be paid for by the developer, not the City of Fairhope. Flow Model According to the Water and Sewer Superintendent, this area does not have enough fire flow. Setbacks shall be set to the minimum ISO fire flow requirement or the buildings shall be sprinkled. A note shall be placed on the plat if minimum setbacks are required. The Director of Operations, Mr. Richard Peterson, PE is hesitant to allow sprinklered (single family residential) buildings outside the fire district; however, he said that he will try to accommodate this if the setback requirements that are otherwise required too restrictive. The applicant shall provide the engineer's recommendations and engineer's signature on the flow model conclusions. 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. Approval Standards: The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.8.2. 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 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 Jaws and regulations; or SD 18.06 Kendrick Place -March 5, 2018 7 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. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission approval of the sidewalk exemption. (Staff supports exemption of a sidewalk in this area. There is merit to the exception due to the lack of existing sidewalk connections and none are anticipated.) 2) The Director of Operations recommends the applicant be responsible for the cost of water and sewer service to the additional lot, as there will be some road cutting and additional expense getting the service to the new lot. 3) The applicant shall provide the engineer's recommendations and engineer's signature on the flow model conclusions. 4) A 7.5' X 285' utility easement, as shown in the attachment, will be required from each lot for service. SD 18.06 Kend rick Place -March 5, 2018 I Dewberry· I PREBLE-RISH February 22, 2018 Ms. Nancy Milford City of Fairhope 161 North Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Re: Kendrick Place SD 18.06 Minor Subdivision Application Dear Nancy: Dew berry Engineers Inc 251 990 9950 9949 Be llaton Av enue 251.990.9910 fa x Daphne, A L 36526 www dewb erry.com On behalf of the property owners, we would like to request an exception to the requirement of a sidewalk on the above referenced subdivision. This is an established neighborhood in the City where there are no existing sidewalks on Bay View Street and the area within the right-of-way in front of the subject property is heavily vegetated . We respectfully request that the Planning Commission take this under consideration and grant an exception for this subdivision. If you have any additional questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, z;_r~;;;•-Rhh Steven Pump ey Senior Planner Cc: File 50099852 Page 1 or 1 Pumphrey, Mark From: Sent: Jeana Barnes <jeana.barnes@infirmaryhealth .org > Wednesday, February 14, 20 18 2:48 PM To: Pumphrey, Mark Cc: Subject: Thomas Gross (tg ross@battleplancap ital.com); Kathy Baugh Listing of the Thomas Hospital Foundation Boa rd of Di rectors This message originated from outside your organization 4t. nd . JS?rrr~t ~✓o -u atwn Board of Directors 2017-2018 Chairman : Governance: Finance: Mr. Kerry J. O'Connor Mr. Derek J. Thomas Mr. C. Thomas Gross Advisory Council: Development: Mrs. M. Scott Coleman Mr. W. Russell Buster IV Mrs . T. Austin Auner Mrs. M. Scott Boone Mr. W. D. Chase Chandler Mrs. Scott H. Cooper Mr. Gary D. E. Cowles Dr . Scott D. Friedman Mr. Gregory 0. Gipson Mr. Jason M. Gross Mr. Thomas W. Gulledge Mrs. Cary S. Helton Mrs. Bret T. Henderson Amy Hollimon, PhD Dr. Jessica L. Jones Mrs. Jonathan M. Lieb The Honorable Huey "Hoss" Mack Mr. Edward B. "Champ" Meyercord Mrs. Clifton C. Mosteller Ms. Linda Ricks Mr. Timothy P. Simmonds Mr. Ty J. Thompson Mr . Nick 0. Wilmott 1 Par;e Sor 10 APPLICATION FOR SUBDMSION PLAT APPROVAL Application Type: 0 Village Subdivision D Preliminary Plat [29 Minor Subdivision D lnfonnal (No Fee) D Final Plat D Multiple Occupancy Project Attachments: IBJ Articles of Incorporation or List all associated investors Date of Application: -'1-'·2;;;.;3;...·""'18;..... ____ _ Property Owner / Leaseholder Information Name of Property Owner:Thomas Hospital Foundation lncPhone Number: .Z.i~ -/-;12.. Address of Property Owner: .... e .... o ..... o"""ra=w .... er...,9 .. 2...,9 ______________ _ City: Fairhope State: AL Zip: 36533 Proposed Subdivision Name: ..1.K;,.,,e...,n.,,.daw·c...,k._..P .... la.,.c..,e.__ ______________ _ No. Acres in Plat: --=2-=88.......,Ac,...r .... es=--------No. Lots/Units: Parcel No: 05-46-03-37-0-006-008.000 Current Zoning: .....,R"""-2 ______ _ Authorized Agent Information Plat must be signed by the property owner before acceptance by the City of Fairhope Name of Authorized Agent: Dewberry Phone Number: 929-9797 Address: 9949 Bellaton Avenue City: Daphne State: AL Zip: ~36~5=26 ____ _ Contact Person: Steven Pumphrey Surveyor /Engineer Information Name of Firm: Dewbea:y Phone Number: 929-9785 Address: 9949 Bellaton Avenue City: Daph ne State: AL Zip: 36526 Contact Person: David Diehl Plat Fee Calculation: Reference: Ordinance 1269 Signatures: I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this plat to the City for review. *If property is owned y Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this applic \4~ ~,li Property Own~seholder Printed Name Si \ I u-e I , & Date r r Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable) r~, ;:; ,;a --w! Ir\ B~:~=1-et .... :J Emily Boyett From: Nancy Milford Sent: To: Friday, February 16, 2018 2:43 PM Emily Boyett; Wayne Dyess Cc: Tim Lawley Subject: FW: Camellia at the Colony Wayne and Emily, Please see the request below for putting the Camellia at the Colony on March's PC Agenda. Nancy From: Tim Lawley [mailto:tim@hmrengineers.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:56 PM To: Nancy Milford <nancy.milford@cofairhope .com> Cc: Wayne Dyess <wayne.dyess@fairhopeal.gov> Subject: Camellia at the Colony Nancy, We received preliminary/final plat approval for Camellia at the January PC meeting . If the requirement of 60 days to record the plat is applied to this project, then we need to request a 180 day extension. This is to allow for county permitting, construction of the minor improvements, city inspection/approval, etc. We would like to be placed on the March PC agenda for this extension request if it is necessary. Please advise. Thanks, Tim D. Lawley, P .E . Vice President WE HUTCHINSON, MOORE & RAUCH, LLC ENGINEERS ♦ SURVEYORS ♦ LAND PLANNERS P.O. Box 1127 Daphne, AL 36526 Tel : 251.380 .8746 Fax: 251 .626 .6934 The information contained in the electronic message is confidential, proprietary, and intended only for the use of the owner of the e-mail address listed as the recipient of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying of this communication, or unauthorized use is strictly prohibited and subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. DO NOT ACT UPON, FORWARD, COPY OR OTHERWISE DISSEMINATE IT OR ITS CONTENTS 1