HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketKarin W~son
Mqyor
0111,cil Members
Kevin G. Boon e
Robe rt A. Brown
jack Burrell , ACMO
llmmy Conyers
Jay Roblnson
Lisa A. Han ks. MMC
CiO' Clerk
Michae l \/. Hinso n, CPA
Ciry 7i"eawrer
16 I North Section_ Street
PO . Drawer 429
Fa irho pe, Alabama 36533
251-928-2 136
251-928-6 776 Fax
11~vw. fairhopeal.gov
l'n,,ccd .:m n.•qdcd papt'f
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
• April 2, 2018
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
Council Chambers
May 7, 2018
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. SD 18.14
B. SD 18.15
Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry Engineers,
Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of Anthem Oaks, a 9-lot
subdivision. The property is located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of County Road 32 and Mandrell Lane.
PPIN #: 24011, 27146, and 325126
Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry Engineers,
Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of Phase 5 of Greenbriar at
Firethorne, a 30-lot subdivision. The property is located on
the west side of Quail Creek Estates, The Villas.
PPIN #: 362656
C. SD 18.16 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry Engineers,
Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of Phase 6 of Golden Oak at
Firethorne, a 26-lot subdivision. The property is located on
the west side of Quail Creek Estates, The Villas.
PPIN #: 202889
D. SD 18.17 Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry, LLC for
Preliminary Plat approval of The Village at Firethorne, a 17-lot
subdivision. The property is located at the south end of
Hemlock Drive and on the west side of Quail Creek Estates,
The Villas .
E. ZC 18.02
PPIN #: 362656
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
F. ZC 18.05 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass
Consulting, LLC to establish initial zoning of R-2 Medium
Density Single Family Residential District conditional upon
annex ation into the City of Fairhope. The property is located
on the south side of Manley Road between Saddlewood
Subdivision and the City of Fairhope Soccer Complex , to be
known as Pinewood, Phase 2.
PPIN #: 230553
G. SD 18.18 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass
Consulting, LLC for Preliminary Plat approval of Pinewood,
Phase 2, an 18-lot subdivision. The property is located on
the south side of Manley Road between Saddlewood
Subdivision and the City of Fairhope Soccer Complex .
PPIN #: 230553
H. SD 18 .19 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for
Multiple Occupancy Project approval of a New Bank and
Retail -Ecor Rouge, a 6-unit project. The project is located
on the west side of Greeno Road between Edwards Avenue
and Fairhope Avenue .
PPIN #: 15439
I. SD 18.20 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for p lat
approval of Ecor Rouge Condo, a 6-unit condominium
development. The project is located on the west side of
Greeno Road between Edwards Avenue and Fairhope Avenue .
PPIN #: 15439
J. SD 18.21 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for
Multiple Occupancy Project approval of Old Battles Place, a
95-unit project. The property is located on the northeast
corner of the intersection of Old Battles Road and S. Section
Street.
PPIN #: 21511
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjourn
School Impact analysis: The student yield factor (SYF} is calculated by dividing the number of
students by dwelling type by the total number of dwelling units in an attendance. Far example, if we
have 1,000 students occupying single family dwellings (SFD} in an attendance zone far 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.
The Baldwin County student yield factors for single family detached are:
K-6 -0.39 per unit
7-8 -0.11 per unit
9 -12 -0.17 per unit
The Preliminary Plat far Anthem Oaks Subdivision contains 9 single family lats. Applying the student
yield factors, the development is expected to generate 3.51{9X.39} elementary school students, .99
{9x.11) middle school students and 1.53 (9 X.17} high school students.
,·Development Applica tio n Housing Total Units Attendance Zon e SYF Exp ected
Numb er
students
N ame Type Type
Anthem Oaks Preliminary SF
Plat
Comments:
9 Fairhope Elementm .39 3.51
Fairhope Middle .11 .99
Fairhope High .17 1.53
Total 6.03
Re-Plat: As staff understands it from the applicant during DRC, the applicant has re-plated the
property through Baldwin County, but not through the City of Fai r hope . The applicant expressed
concern about the Parcel Bon thei r original submittal with regards to access requirement that all lots
front a publicly maintained R-0-W. The applicant stat ed in DRC that he would get back with the client
regarding whether the application would move forward or not. The engineering firm came back to the
City with a proposal for access Parcel B and the City responded back to the applicant regarding their
proposal (see attached). Staff requested clarity from the applicant to get a definitive decision as to
whet her the application was going forward based on the City's comments.
3 SD 18 .14 Anthem Oaks -May 7, 2018
The applicant had some unexpected staffing issues during the course of this submittal. Staff wanted to
work with the engineer's and proceeded to provide a review letter without the requested clarification.
Since that time, the applicant has revised the original plat (showing only 8 lots) and added a 9th lot to
the original plan . This 9t h lot encompasses parcel B. With the addition of the 9 th lot, staff requests the
applicant state for the record that this application is not a phased development. If it is a phased
development, the applicant shall show all phase lines.
Per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations Article IV Section C Preliminary Plat:
Where a phased development is proposed, the preliminary plat shall include all phase lines and a
master plan showing the continuity of development proposed for the entire project. Each phase shall
satisfy the requirements of these regulations individually.
All Associated Investors: The applicant has submitted a list of investors in the project which includes
Geoff Lane, Nathan Cox, and Allan Cox.
Aerial/construction drawings: A revised aerial and construction drawings showing the new layout
shall be submitted .
Building Setbacks: The property is unzoned in Baldwin County . The applicant has provided the
construction setback for County Road Hwy 32.
Lot Access: Lot 9 has 50' of road frontage. As per Article V. Section E 3., Lot Access: Except as
provided in Section D.6., al/ lots shall front upon a paved, publicly maintained street. Lot 9 has road
frontage.
Lot Width: Lot width is defined as "the horizontal distance between sideline of the lot when measured
parallel to the street right-of-way at the building set back line." This lot has approximately 463 feet at
the front building setback line.
Sidewalks: The applicant has not provided sidewalks for the lots and is requesting a waiver to the City
of Fairhope sidewalk requirement of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. The applicant
provided the hardship as follows: "There are no existing sidewalks within miles of this development."
This hardship is not listed in the waiver standards as a hardship condition. If the applicant can show
that their request for waiver meets one of the waiver below, then staff recommends granting the
waiver; otherwise, the waiver request does not meet the waiver standards. While not specifically
written in the waiver standard, documentation from the county stating they would not allow sidewalks
in this area would be a reason for a waiver as the sidewalks would be located in Right-of Way owned
and maintained by the County.
Article VII-Waivers
A. WAIVER STANDARDS:
4
Waivers may be granted where the Planning Commission finds that the following
conditions exist:
l . An extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with these
regulations due to unusual topographic or other physical conditions of the land or
surrounding area not generally applicable to other land areas.
SD 18.14 Anthem Oaks-May 7, 2018
2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider.
3. The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent
of the regulations, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan.
4 . The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to
relieve the hardship;
5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future
landowners, or the public;
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
B. PROCEDURE:
I. Waivers must be requested in writing at the time of preliminary plat submission.
This is required so staff can understand the implications of the waiver. The
waiver request will be considered by the Planning Commission at the time the
plat is considered.
2. Any waiver granted must be entered upon the minutes stating the grounds for
the waiver.
3. Letters to adjacent property owners shall include a description of any waiver
requested.
C. CONDITIONS:
In granting approval of a subdivision with a waiver, the Planning Commission may in its
judgment, require such conditions to secure the objectives and interests of the City and
the purposes of these Regulations.
Article V Section D 6-Planning Design Standards:
6. Pedestrian Area Design Standards -All streets shall include a pedestrian area
comprised of a planting strip and a sidewalk., according to the standards in Table 5.3
in Appendix A.
The developer may have the flexibility to construct the sidewalks within 2 years of final
plat approval. A Jetter of credit guaranteeing the construction for 125% of the
engineer's estimate is required. At the end of 2 years, all sidewalks shall be completed
by either the developer or City, using the Jetter of credit.
The areas in which the sidewalks will be poured shall be graded and compacted at the
time the subdivision infrastructure is constructed.
The pedestrian area shall be designed according to the following minimum standards:
5 SD 18.14 An them Oaks-May 7, 2018
a. All streets supporting residential land uses shall have a minimum 5-foot wide
sidewalk on each side of the street with the back edge of the sidewalk being the
edge of the right-of-way.
Traffic and streets: Article IV Section C.1.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study -Applications shall
include trip generation data showing the projected average daily traffic (ADT) in a 24-hour period
and projected peak-hour traffic generated by the development in the subdivision application. Peak
hour traffic shall generally be the hours between 7 A.M. and 9 A.M. for morning and 4 P.M. and 6
P.M. for the evening and include the consecutive GO-minute segment in which traffic counts are
projected to occur. In instances where the proposed application will have peak periods that differ
from the general peak periods above, the Planning Commission may require that the analysis be
conducted for the alternative peak periods. Trip generation data shall be based on the most recent
edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual or actual data about similar
developments in Alabama with the same types of uses and site conditions.
The applicant has not provided any data to verify that a traffic study is not required. While it is
common sense that a 9 lot subdivision will not likely generate the 1000 trips or more, the regulations
do require the submittal of data to justify no traffic study is required. The applicant has not provided
that data.
The applicant responded 11The previously approved subdivision for this site had 23 lots and a traffic
study was not warranted . Now there are 4 lots accessing County Road 32 and 5 lots accessing
Mandrell Lane . The applicant shall provide the required data as specified in the City of Fa irhope
Subdivision Regulations Article IV Section C lh.
Fire Flow: Fire flow model has been submitted. The Operations Director's {Richard Peterson 's, PE)
reviewed and approved the flow model, but requested a 11 required flow statement on the flow model.
This would be ba se d on setbacks being proposed for the subdivision.
The applicant responded "The Engineer of Record who prepared the Water Model has been out of the
office for over a week and will not return until next Monday, at which point he will address this item .
The existing fire flows would require building spacing from 20' to 30'. The proposed side se tbacks
within this development are 20', which will provided for a minimum building spacing of 40'.
The engineer's conditions for adequate fire flow shall be noted on the plat, unless otherwise
determined by the Director of Operations, Richard Peterson , PE .
Easements : Article V Section D indicates a requirement of easements not less than 15 feet in width
along side and rear lot lines. The applicant has placed a note on the plat reflecting the required
easements.
Article V Section D
5 . Utility Access and Easements -
a. Except where lanes are provided at the rear of lots, easements not less than fifteen feet in width
along side and rear lot lines as required for drainage and utilities. On interior lots, the easement may
be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots. On perimeter lots, no part of the required easement shall
lie outside the platted lands. Easement placement and widths shall be approved by the Planning
6 SD 18 .14 Anthem Oaks -May 7, 2018
Commission. No half easements will be approved unless adjacent property owners dedicate the other
half of the easement at time of approval.
Erosion Control: Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer, commented that the project site is
located in a priority watershed which drain s to Cowpen Creek which drains Weeks Bay.
The Erosion Control Plan was not in the original submittal. The applicant ha s since submitted the
required Erosion Control Plan and submitted their ADEM regi stration which i s required on sites greater
than one acre. The Erosion Control Plan appears to meet BMP minimum requirements.
Utility Letters: The utility letters for the City of Fairhop e are p ending Richard Peterson's r evie w of
water and sewer.
Water and Sewer: Water and Sewer specifications and requirements of the City of Fairhope sha ll be
met. The applicant is propo sing Bald w in County Sewer Servi ce in unzoned Bald w in County and the
Director of Operation s ha s sai d "no economic justification is required with this preliminary plat
application . "However, he has requested the applicant provide a ce rtificate on the plat for the Bald w in
County Health Department to accommodate septic systems since the lots are so large .
The applicant responded "The de ve loper ha s made a financial commitment for Baldwin County Sewer
Service to prov ide sewer service to thi s development. If a future lot owner chooses to not conne ct to
Baldwin Count Sewer Service and instead prefers an on site septic t ank and fie l d lines, they can
certainly make application with the Baldwin County Health De partment. We do not feel it i s th e
d eve loper's responsibility to in cur the additional ex pense to provide this option."
Staff met with the Director of Operations and h e was made aware of the applicant's r espo n se. No
comments were provided .
Drainage: Staff is in receipt of drainage drawings an d a brief na r rative from the engineer of record . The
drainage plan was revie we d by the City of Fairhope Publ ic Works Director, Mr. Ri chard John son, PE .,
who requested th e applicant contact him to di sc u ss the drainage. The Public Works Director di d not
h ave enough information to revi ew the application. Also , the applicant shall discu ss and address LID
issues with the drainage di sc u ss ion .
Plannin g Staff commented that per Article V Section F 3 d. (4) The calculations, construction plans,
and plat shall have the following statement: "A property owners association (POA} is required to be
formed. The POA is required to maintain any and all storm water facilities and structures located
outside of the publicly accepted right-of-way. Staff requ es ted the applicant add the required note .
"T he en gineer's response letter state d the following: Th ere are no proposed stormwater d etention
facilities or structures locate d outside of the ex isting public ri ght-of-ways for this developm en t and as
suc h a POA i s not n ecessa ry . "
Richard John son reviewed th e applicant's response letter and the drain age pl an . Th e applicant ha s not
included lot 9 in th e drain age ca l culation s, nor provided any drain age data to make a case for no
stormwat er det ention . Th erefore, the drainage i s considered incomplete at this tim e.
Landscaping: The applicant ha s not sub mitted a land scape plan. According t o the applicant's
en g ineer,"There is no clearin g of property proposed since there is no on -site co nstruction. Th ere are
no common areas and as such no land scap ing proposed ."
7 SD 18.14 Ant h em Oaks -May 7, 2018
Staff ha s re ce i ved an existing tree survey. The property has some significantly large trees. Staff
requested the applicant give consideration for any tree preservation buffers and tree preservation.
However, the applicant provided no response to protecting any of the trees . This site is outside th e
police jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope and the City of Fairhope's tree ordinance w ill not apply.
Tree Preservation Plan : Article V Section D Sa.{9}
(9) An inventory of all live trees greater than 24" DBH on site shall be protected and indicated on a
tree preservation plan. Said preservation plan shall reflect tree protection in the diagram in
Appendix G and verbage below.
Erecting Barriers is essential to protecting trees during construction. The applicant shall provide
construction fences around all significant trees. Allow one foot of space from the trunk for each inch
of trunk diameter. The intent is not merely to protect the above ground portion of the trees, but also
the root systems. The fenced area shall be clear of building materials, waste, and excess soil. No
digging, trenching or other soil disturbance shall be allowed in the fenced area.
Fines for not complying with the City of Fairhope's ordinance 1193, tree protection, will be levied in
accordance to the City of Fairhope's restitution table.
Fire hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be placed at every intersection and every 450 feet.
Operations and Maintenance Plan: A copy of the recorded Operations and Maintenance Plan h as
been not been submitted. The engineer's respon se letter stated "As stated above, there is no
stormwater detention propose d and as proposed and as such no O&M Plan is needed ."
Lighting: Per the en gineer of record , no lighting for th e subdivision i s propose d .
Other: Any applicable outside agency permits shall be obtained.
Approval Standards:
The subdivision regulations contain the following crit eria in Article IV.8 .2. Approval Standards.
112 . 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;
8 SD 18.14 Anthem Oaks -May 7, 2018
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or
federal Jaws and regulations; or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
The subdivision as proposed is outside of the City of Fairhope Corporate Limits, Permit Jurisdictions
and Police Jurisdiction. Baldwin County owns the right of way in front of the subject property.
Fundamentally, the proposed layout of the subdivision appears to meet the applicable requirements
for the City of Fairhope, with the exception of the sidewalk requirements. With regards to traffic and
drainage, staff is requiring the applicant to submit the r eq uired drainage and traffic documentation to
have a comfort level that the decisions being made are supported by the appropriate data.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
9
1) The applicant shall provide the required data as spec ified in the City of Fairhope Regulations
Article IV Section C 1h, Traffic Data and Traffic Study.
2) The engineer's conditions for adequate fire flow shall be noted on the plat, unless otherwise
determined by the Director of Operations, Richard Peterson, PE .
3) Utility availability (utility letters) shall be acknowledged by the Di recto r of Operation s.
4) The applicant shall include lot 9 in the drainage plan and provide drainage calculations to
support the case for no storm water detention/LID, to m ee t the approval of the City of Fairhope
Public Works Director, Mr. Richard John so n, PE.
5) The applicant shall provide clarification on this being a phased development. If this i s a pha se d
development, then pha se lines shall be shown.
6) Th e applicant shall show the reque st for waiver m ee t s one of the waiver standards or the
applicant shall show documentation from the Baldwin County (owner of the right-of-way) that
sidewalks would not be allowed in this right of way and the Planning Commission grants the
waiver.
7) The applicant shall revi se the d rainage, bmp, and other construction drawings to include the 9t h
lot which ha s been added to the subdivision plat so there is consistency between docum ents .
SD 18.14 Anthem Oaks -May 7, 2018
2
Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the reque st of Dewberry/Preb l e-Rish, LLC fo r
Prelimina ry Plat approval of Phase 5 of Greenbriar at Firethorne, a 30-lot subdivision. The
property is located on the west side of Quail Creek Estates, The Villas. The property is owned
by Nathan Cox, Ralph Reynolds , Davis Pilot, Bi lly Stimpson , Sands Stimpson, and Thomas Gro ss.
Th e applican t 's au t ho rize d agent i s Dewberry, LLC. The subject property is approximately 13.90
acres and 30 lots are proposed. The smallest lot is approximately 15,000 sq. ft. and the largest
lot is approximately 24,670 sq. ft. This proposed project is being addressed as a major
subdivision as it consi st s of more than 4 lots, as per Article II, Definitions in the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations:
Major Subdivision: a major subdivision not classified as a minor subdivision, including but not
limited to subdivisions of five (5) or more Jots, including remnant parcels, or any size subdivision
requiring any new street, drainage, or other public improvement.
Site History: The existing PUD deve lopment, known as Firethorne was originally proposed with 228
lots . The Firethorne PUD is a 126.37 acre residential development is located on the east side of
Alabama Highway 181, south of Quail Creek Drive and north of North Village of Stone Creek PUD. The
proposed subdiv ision was a phase that was in the ori gi nal master plan . The existing Firethorne PUD
has had a reduction in the tota l number of lots and currently stand s at 225 lot s. Attached is a layout of
the overall development including all phases.
Firethorne Subdivision Cases:
Case Appl ica nt Cas e Typ e Subdivisi on Name Number of l o ts Zo ning Submittal PZ Dat e PZ Deci sio n Nu m be r Date
SD-14-09 Preb le-Ris h, LLC Pre limi nary Firethorne - Phase 79 PUD I 6/24/201 4 8/4/2014 Approved
1A & 1B
SD-15-21 Preble-R ish, LLC Fin al Firethorne -Phase 79 PUD 7 /28/2015 9/8/2015 Approved
/ Fire th orne 1A&1B
Dev.
SD-16-17 Dewberry/ Pre limina r y Phase 2 of 29 PUD 6/28/2016 8/1/2016 A pproved
Preble-R ish Silverleaf at
Firetho r ne
SD-17-10 Dewbe rr y/ Final Phase 2 of 29 PU D 2/28/2017 4/3/2017 Approved
Pr eb le-Ris h Si lverlea f at
Firet horne
SD-1 6-26 Dewberry/ Preliminary Phase 3 of 30 PUD 9/27/2016 11/10/201 Approved
Preble-Rish Gre enbriar at 6
Firethorne
SD-17 -23 Dewbe rr y/ Final Phase 3 of 29 PU D 7/25/2017 9/5/2017 Approved
Preble-R ish Gree n b ri er at
Firethorne
SD-16 -35 Dewberry Pre li mi nary Pha se 4 of Go lden 31 PUD 10/25/2016 12/5/2016 Ap pro ved
/Pr ebl e-Rish Oak at Fi r ethorne
SD -18-15 Dewberry LLC Pr elim in ary Phase 5 of 30 PU D 3/27/2018 5/7/2018 TBD
Greenbriar at
Firethorne
SD-18-16 Dewber ry, LLC Pre li minary Ph ase 6 of Golden 26 PU D 3/27/2018 5/7/2018 TBD
Oa k at Fir ethorne
SD 18 .15 Pha se 5 of Greenbriar at Firethorne -May 7, 2018
4
Comments:
Building Setbacks: The proposed setbacks appear to be consistent with the PUD approval.
Traffic and streets: A traffic study was performed in the original phase of the overall project.
The recommendation applying to Phase 2 is as follows: Based on the heavy traffic volumes on
this 2-lane, high-speed roadway, it is recommended that this intersection be re-evaluated (for
signal warrant purposes) at the full build-out of construction Phase 2, Phase 4 & Phase 6, so
that once the traffic volumes at this intersection reach the required minimum levels, a signal
can be promptly installed. According to the Engineer of record, all traffic improvements will be
completed after Firethorne Phase 4 construction . ALDOT requires a signal warrant analysis
after the 139t h home is completed.
Fire Flow: Fire flow model for the entire development at the initial phase of the development.
It was submitted and reviewed by Dan McCrory, Water and Sewer Department. Since that
time, the applicant has performed a flow model for the PUD amendment for the Village of
Firethorne. According to the engineer of record, the flow model for the Village at Firethorne
also addresses the fire flow for Firethorne at Greenbriar Phase 5 and Firethorne of Golden Oak
Phase 6. The Operations Director's (Richard Peterson's, PE) review and approval is pending,
Easements: Notes 4 of the plat indicates a 10-foot utility easement on all lot lines and
common areas adjacent to the right-of-ways and a 5-foot utility easement on each side of lot
and common area lines. Note 5 indicates a 15-foot drainage easement along the rear lot lines
of all lots and a 10 foot drainage easement along all side lot lines (5 foot off each side lot line).
Article V Section D indicates a requirement of easements not less than 15 feet in width along
side and rear lot lines.
Article V Section D
5. Utility Access and Easements -
a. Except where lanes are provided at the rear of lots, easements not less than fifteen feet in
width along side and rear Jot lines as required for drainage and utilities. On interior lots, the
easement may be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots. On perimeter lots, no part of the
required easement shall lie outside the platted lands. Easement placement and widths shall
be approved by the Planning Commission. No half easements will be approved unless
adjacent property owners dedicate the other half of the easement at time of approval.
The applicant provided the following response: "The 5' general note concerning easements
along the side lot lines are added as a requirement by the Utility Companies so that they have
legal access to their service meters and transformers, etc . They will not sign the Plat without
this note. These easements do not exist to provide a Utility main that extends the length of the
side lot line. In those cases, a proper utility easement is provided, which is the intent of the
regulations." Staff discussed the engineer's response with the Director of Operations, who did
not agree regard i ng the intent of the City of Fairhope Subd ivision Regulations. The easements
shall be as stated in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations.
Erosion Control: Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer, commented that the project site
is located in a priority watershed, which drains to Cowpen Creek which drains Weeks Bay. Kim
requested the applicant verify their ADEM registration number, which the applicant has since
SD 18.15 Phase 5 of Greenbriar at Firethorne -May 7, 2018
5
provided. BMP Plan do es not reflect BMP minimum requirement s (Type A silt fence and cons t ruction
exit locations are not noted on C2).
Utility Letters: The utility letters for the City of Fairhope are pending Richard Peterson's review
of water and sewer.
Water and Sewer: Water and Sewer specifications and requirements of the City of Fairhope
shall be met. The City of Fairhope Operations Director has been provided the construction
drawings which are currently under review and approval is pending. The applicant is proposing
gravity sewer; therefore, no economic justification is required with the preliminary plat
application .
Drainage: Staff is in receipt of a signed, sea l ed drainage plan from the engineer of record. The
drainage plan was reviewed by the City of Fairhope Public Works Director, Mr. Richard Johnson ,
PE., who had the following review comments:
• Lot numbers on plat do not match lot numbers on drainage plan ( drainage ea sement 91 &
92 drainage plan doesn 't match drainage easement 90 &91 on plat---which i s coITect ?)
• Planning Staff commented that per Article V Section F 3 d. (4) The calculations,
construction plans, and plat shall have the following statement: "A property
owners association {POA) is required to be formed. The POA is required to
maintain any and all storm water facilities and structures located outside of the
publicly accepted right-of-way.
The applicant has revised the drainage construction drawings to reflect the lot numbers
from the plat. However, the correction needed to go throughout the construction
drawings to the other sheets. The applicant corrected the issues related to drainage.
Staff met with Mr. Richard Johnson (April 25, 2018) regarding the applicant's response
letter and corrections. Mr. Richard Johnson provided his verbal approval of the
drainage corrections and overall drainage plans and calculations.
Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which has been approved by Paul
Merchant, City of Fairhope Horticulturist. No trees shall block site visibility (25' within any
intersection).
Signage: Per Kim Burmeister, subdivision signs will require separate permitting .
Firehydrants: Fire hydrants shall be placed at every intersection and every 450 feet.
LID Requirements: Staff's understanding is that the applicant worked with the previous
Director of Planning and it was determine no lid review would be required as the master plan
was in process prior to the establishment of the LID ordinance .
Operations and Maintenance Plan: A copy of the recorded Operations and Maintenance Plan
has been submitted. Staff understands that the master Operations and Maintenance Plan was
prepared in Phase 1 of the Firethorne Development and the Operations and Maintenance Plan
will be a master for entire development.
SD 18.1 5 Phase 5 of Greenbriar at Firethorne -May 7, 2018
6
Pedestrian Connections and Streets : A ll si dewa lks shall be ADA compli ant and t ac til e strips
are require d .
Lighting : If the development w i she s for th e City of Fairhop e to assume t he m o nthly se rvice
cha rges for th e roadway li ghting, th e fixtures to be installed must be L.E .D "acorn st y le"
fi xtures.
Other: Any applicable outsid e agency p e rmits shall be obtained.
Approval Standards :
The subdivision reg u l ations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards.
"2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and laws -The Planning Commission shall
not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such
land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the
following:
a . The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City
including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle
Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d . The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or
federal laws and regulations; or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
The project doe s not appea r to be incon siste nt with the applicable crite ri a of the City of Fai rhope .
Recommendation:
Staff re com m ends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
1. Fire Flow and utilities shall meet t h e approval of the Director of Operations .
2 . Utility availability shall b e acknowledged by the Director of Operations.
3. Easemen t s shall be as p e r the City of Fairhope Regulation s as per the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations Article V Section D 5. Utility Access and Easements.
4. The lot number correction s sha ll be revised throu ghout th e construction drawings .
5. BMP plan shall reflect the minimum requirements (Type A si lt fence and construction exit).
Th ese r equirements shall be reflected on she et C-2.
SD 18.15 Phase 5 of Greenb ri ar at Firethorne -May 7, 2018
2
Summary of Request: Public hearing to cons i der the reque st of Dewberry/Preb l e-Ri sh, LLC for
Preliminary Plat approval of Firethorne of Golden Oak, Phase 6, a 26-lot subdivision. The
property i s located on the west side of Quail Creek Estates, The Villa s. The property is owned
by Nathan Cox , Ralph Reyno ld s, Davis Pi lot, Billy Stimpson , Sands Stimpson and Thomas Gross .
The applicant's authorize d agent is Dewber r y, LLC. The su bject property is appro ximately 12 .68
acres and 26 lots are proposed. The smallest lot is appro ximately 15,000 sq. ft. and the largest
lot is approximately 31,950 sq. ft. This proposed project is being addressed as a major
subd ivision as it consis t s of more than 4 lots, as per Article II, Definitions in the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations :
Maior Subdivision: a major subdivision not classified as a minor subdivision, including but not
limited to subdivisions of five (5) or more lots, including remnant parcels, or any size subdivision
requiring any new street, drainageJ or other public improvement.
Site History: The existing PUD deve lopment, known as Firethorne was originally proposed with 228
lots. The Fi rethorne PUD is a 126.37 acre residenti al development is located on the east side of
Alabama Highway 181, south of Quai l Creek Drive and north of North Village of Stone Creek PUD . The
proposed subdivision was a phase that was in the origina l master plan . The ex i sting Firethorne PUD
has had a reduction in the total number of lots and currently stands at 225 lots. Attached is a layout of
the overall development includ i ng all phases .
Firethorne Subdivision Cases:
Case Applicant Case Type Subd ivision Name Number Zo ni ng Submittal PZ Date PZ Decision Number of lots Date
!SD-1 4 -09 Pr eb le-Ri sh , LL C Pr el imi na ry Fi ret horne -Phase 1A 79 PU D 6/24/2014 8/4/2014 Approved
! & 1 B
iSD-15 -21 Preb le-Rish , LLC / Final Fi rethorne -Ph ase 1A 79 PUD 7/28/20 15 9/8/2015 Approved
i
i Firethorne Dev. & 1 B
!SD-16-17 Dewberry/ Pre li minary ]Phase 2 of Si lver leaf at 29 PUD 6/28/2016 8/1/2016 Approved I : Preb le-Rish, LL C Firethorne L
!sD-17-10 Dewberry/Preb le-Final Ph ase 2 of Silverleaf at 29 PUD 2/28/2017 4/3/2017 Approved
i Rish Firethorne
!sD -16-26 Dewberry/P reb le-Preli m in ary Ph ase 3 of Greenbriar I 30 PUD 9/27/2016 11/10/2016 Ap pr oved
I Ri sh , LLC at Firet horne I
!SD -17-23 Dewberry/Preble-Final Phase 3 of Greenbrier 29 PUD 7/25/2017 9/5/2017 Approved
Rish, LLC at Fi rethorne
l
:sD-16-35 Dewber ry/Preb le-Prelimi nary Phase 4 of Golde n Oak 31 PU D l 10/25/2016 1 2/5/2016 Approved
i Rish , LLC at Firethorne
JsD-18-15 Dewberry/Preb le-Pre li minary Phase 5 of Greenbriar 30 PUD 3/27/20 18 5/7/2018 TBD
' Rish, LLC at Fi retho rn e I
iSD -18-16 Dewberry/ Prelim i na ry Phase 6 of Golden Oak 26 PUD 3/27/20 18 5/7/2018 TB D
i Preble-Ris h, LLC Firet horne !
SD 18.16 Pha se 6 of Golden Oak at Firethorne -May 7, 20 18
4
Since that time, the applicant has performed a flow model for the PUD amendment for the
Village of Firethorne . According to the engineer of record, the flow model for the Village at
Firethorne also addresses the fire flow for Firethorne at Greenbriar Phase 5 and Firethorne of
Golden Oak Phase 6. The Operations Director's (Richard Peterson's, PE) review and approval is
pending,
Easements: Notes 4 of the plat indicates a 10-foot utility easement on all lot lines and
common areas adjacent to the right-of-ways and a 5-foot utility easement on each side of lot
and common area lines. Note 5 indicates a 15-foot drainage easement along the rear lot lines
of all lots and a 10 foot drainage easement along all side lot lines (5 foot off each side lot line).
Article V Section D indicates a requirement of easements not less than 15 feet in width ·along
side and rear lot lines.
Article V Section D
5. Utility Access and Easements -
a. Except where lanes are provided at the rear of Jots, easements not less than fifteen feet in
width along side and rear lot lines as required for drainage and utilities. On interior lots, the
easement may be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots. On perimeter lots, no part of the
required easement shall lie outside the platted lands. Easement placement and widths shall
be approved by the Planning Commission. No half easements will be approved unless
adjacent property owners dedicate the other half of the easement at time of approval.
The applicant provided the following response: "The 5' general note concerning easements
along side lot lines are added as a requirement by the Utility Companies so that they have legal
access to their service meters and transformers, etc. They will not sign the Plat without this
note. These easements do not exist to provide a Utility main that extends the length of the side
lot line. In those cases, a proper utility easement is provided, which is the intent of the
regulations. The 10 feet along the front is for similar access, and coupled with the Right-of-Way,
well exceeds the minimum required width." Staff discussed the engineer's response with the
Director of Operations, who did not agree regarding the intent of the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations regarding the intent of the easements. The easements shall be as
stated in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations.
Erosion Control: Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer, commented that the project site
is located in a priority watershed. Kim requests the applicant verify their ADEM registration
number. The BMP Plan appears to me.et the minimum requirements (Type A silt fence and
construction exit).
Utility Letters: The utility letters for the City of Fairhope are pending Richard Peterson's review
of water and sewer.
Water and Sewer: Water and Sewer specifications and requirements of the City of Fairhope
shall be met. The City of Fairhope Operations Director has been provided the construction
drawings which are currently under review and approval is pending. The applicant is proposing
gravity sewer; therefore, no economic justification is required with the preliminary plat
application.
SD 18.16 Phase 6 of Golden Oak at Firethorne -May 7, 2018
5
Drainage: Staff is in receipt of a signed, sea led drainage plan from the eng in eer of record. The
drainage plan was reviewed by the City of Fairhope Public Works Director, Mr. Richard Johnso n,
PE., who had the following review comments:
• Drainage easement between Lots 42 and 43 show on Preliminary Plat and center drainage
easement on pipe.
• Check box GG invert (88.50 pipe 39; invert is 90.00)
• Check box LL invert {88.50 -Bottom is 1 .5' below pipe)
• Planning Staff commented that per Article V Section F 3 d. (4) The calculations,
construction plans, and plat shall have the following statement: "A property owners
association (POA) is required to be formed. The POA is required to maintain any and
all storm water facilities and structures located outside of the publicly accepted right-
of-way.
The applicant corrected the issues related to drainage. Staff met with Mr. Richard
Johnson (April 25, 2018 at 9am) regarding the applicant's response letter and
corrections. Mr. Richard Johnson provided his verba l approval of the drainage
corrections and overall drainage plans and calculations . The applicant has updated the
plat with the required POA note.
Landscaping: The app licant has submitted a landscape plan which has been approved by Paul
Merchant, City of Fairhope Horticulturist. No trees shall b lo ck site visibi li ty (25' within any
intersection).
Greenbelt easement: Staff understood that the greenbelt easement was created for the
protection and preservation of the tree line in that area. The PUD ordinance states that there
shall be a 20' tree preservation buffer along the rear of lots 25-39. The PUD ordinance also
states fences shall be allowed within the Tree Pre se rvation Buffer on Lots 25-39 but
construction sha ll not damage the trees. Staff requested the applicant provide a note on the
plat clarifying the purpose of the greenbelt ea se ment, so that the tree line wi l l be protected.
The applicant responded "Two lots were removed from the original PUD which showed the
greenbelt easement along the rear of lots 25-39. The current PUD shows the greenbelt
easement along the rear of lots 23-38. A note has been added to the plat and the sheet (C&G
(Clearing and Grading) Plan ) explaining the greenbelt easement.
Signage : Per Kim Burmei ster, subdivision signs will require separate permitting.
Firehydrants: Fire hydrants shall be placed at every intersection and every 450 feet.
LID Requirements: Staff's understanding is that the app li cant worked with the previou s
Director of Planning and it was determine no lid review wou l d be required as the master plan
was in process prior to the establishment of the LID ordinance.
Operations and Maintenance Plan: A copy of the recorded Operations and Maintenance Plan
has been submitted. Staff understands that the ma ster Operations and Maintenance Pl an was
prepared in Phase 1 of the Firethorne Deve lopment and the Operations and Maintenance Plan
will be a master for entire development.
SD 18.16 Phase 6 of Golden Oak at Fi rethorne -May 7, 2018
6
Pedestrian Connections and Streets: All sidewalks shall be ADA compliant and tactile strips
are required.
Lighting: If the development wishes for the City of Fairhope to assume the monthly service
charges for the roadway lighting, the fixtures to be installed must be L.E.D "acorn st yle"
fixtures.
Other: Any applicable outside agency permits shall be obtained.
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 laws and regulations; or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
The project does not appear to be inconsistent with applicable criteria for the City of Fairhope.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
1. Fire Flow and utilities shall meet the approval of the Director of Operations.
2. Utility availability shall be acknowledged by the Director of Operations.
3. Ea seme nts shall be as per the City of Fairhope Regulations as per th e City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulation s Article V Section D 5. Utility Access and Easements.
SD 18.16 Phase 6 of Golden Oak at Firethorne -May 7, 2018
Comments:
Article IV, Sect ion C.1. b. (7) B ui !ding set back lines shal I be shown on the plat as required by the
zonmg
ordinance or in absence of zoninf, as required bv deed restrictions.
□NIA IZlAccepted with comments IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Rear setback line has been reduced from 30' depicted ill ZC 18.03 to 25' in subject
application. Please see cover letter for a request for narrative explaining the mod~fications to the
number o_f lots and lot sizes. The revised master plan/or Firethorne e-mailed 4/5/2018 reflects 30'
rear setbacks on the typical lot for the Village. Please clarify/revise as needed to reflect the requested
setbacks. All rear setbacks in the 4/17/2018 follow-up submittal have been revised to 30 ' as shown
on the site data table on drawing 1 of 1.
Article IV, Section C.J.b.(8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utilities with connections
(8) P lan and profi les of a ll proposed utility with connections to existing utility system and all proposed
improvements. Approval of private utility connections for water and sewer shall be subject to the
standards of
A1iicle VIII , Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and Chapter 12
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fairhope. The applicant shall s ubmit one copy of utility letters
stating availabi lity of service. Utility letters and layout must be submitted from electric, water, sewer,
phone, trash provider, and gas (if applicable), stating the propetty may be adequate ly served by such
utility.
□ IZI Review pending, IZl Acce pted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
N IA please see comments. comments
Cross Reference : Approval of private utility connec tions for water and sewer shall be subject to the
standards a/Article VIII, Sections E. and G., r espectively of the Fairhope Subd;vision Regulations, and
C hal){er 12 of the Code of Ordinances of the C ity of Fairhope.
Comments: Availably lettersfurnisltedfrom AT&T and Baldwin EMC. Water mu/ Sewer currently
under review -please coordinate review with Mr. Richard Peterson. Also, please advise if natural
gas service is desired and contact Mr. Terry Holman/or an availability of service letter. The
narrative included with the follow-up submittal of 4/1 7/2018 i11dicated natural gas service is not
desired/or subject development and therefore a will-serve letter from the gas department is not
required. As a condition of approval please provide a will-serve letter for water and sewer service
prior to land disturbance.
Article IV, Section C.J.b .(18) Applicants shall provide site data and all applicable permits relative to
items such as soi ls, wetlands, flooding , drainage , natural features and potential archeological features .
□NIA IZl Accepted with comments ~ Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comme11ts: Wetland sig11age is shown on tlze plat but not identified, please illclude callout
idelltijiers. Please see Article IV, Section C.J .d.for commellls related to the 2017 flood maps.
Callouts for wetland signs added to preliminary plat as requested and included in 4/17/2018
follow-up submittal.
3 SD 18.17 The Village at Firethorne-May 7,2018
Article JV, Section C. l.d. Drainage p lan prepared by professional engineer, including proposed method
of storm water detention and means of controlling erosion during construction . Any portion of the land
in the proposed subdivision subject to periodic inundation by storm drainage, overflow or ponding
shall be c leady identified on the plat. Lands lying within the flood plain , V or A Zones , shall be clearly
identified on the plat. Storm-water detention facilities shall be shown in the plans and calculations
provided.
□ ISi Review ISi Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
NIA pending, please see comments
comments
Cross Reference: Article V, Section F.3 .a., b., and c.
Comments: Please coordinate with Richard Johnson, PE, Public Works Director, regarding any
questions or concerns he may have. Subject property is not located within a "V" or "A" zone per the
2017 flood maps as shown below. The drainage plan has been accepted by the Public Works
Director.
Article IV, Section C. J.f Phased development: where a phased development is proposed, the
preliminary plat shall include all phase lines and a master plan showing the continuity of development
proposed for the
entire project. Each phase shall satisfy the requirements of these regulations individually.
□NI A IZJAccepted with comments ISi Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: A revised Master Pfau for the Firethome development was submitted under separate
cover 011 4/5/2018, however the typical lot for the Village depicts 30' rear setbacks whereas the plat
unique to the Village indicates 25' rear setbacks. Please clarify the desired setbacks and revise the
master plan and or Village plat to reflect the setbacks to be approved for both the zoning case and
the subdivision case. The follow-up submittal of 4/17/2018 included revisions to the site data table
of the preliminary plat revising the rear setbacks to 30', which is coordinated with the master
plan of the development and also reflects the master plan of the pending annexation to PUD to be
considered by the City via case ZC 18.03.
Article IV. Section C.J .g . State or County ROW detailed highway improvements plan:
If any state right-of-way or any improvement thereon is proposed to be changed or modified, a detailed
Highway Improvements Plan, with the written approval of the responsible official of the A labama
Highway Department, showing all existing features withLn the rights-of-way and all proposed changes,
including, but not limited to , changes in traffic patterns , markings , signs , curbs and baITiers , neutral
zones, signals, warn in gs , plantings and landscaping. There shall be submitted with and as a pati of the
Plan a written statement setting fo1ih means proposed for traffic contro l and safety during construction
and for restoration of the site. All of the foregoing shall a lso apply to rights-of-way controlled by the
County, except that the County Engineer's approval shall appear on the Plat to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
□NIA ISi Accepted with comments, D Revise and Resubmit per
please provide follow-up conunents
required by another section
Comme/lts: Please see Article IV, Section C.l.!1. Traffic Data and Traffic Study.for documentation
requested by tlte Public Works Director related to tlte previously-submitted traffic stu<(v . See Article
IV, Section C.1.h. for commentary related to this item, the necessary correspondence was
included with the 4/17/2018 follow-up submittal.
4 SD 18.17 The Village at Firethorne -May 7,2018
Arti cle I V, Section C.I .h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study (Excerpted)
App l ications shall include trip generation data showing the projected average daily traffic (ADT) in a
24-hour period and projected peak-hour traffic ge nerated by the deve lopm ent in the subdivision
application.
□NIA ~Accepted with comments IZIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Tlte public works director request!1' a statement from ALDOT regarding the status of the
traffic study related to the Firethome Developmelll. Please coordinate witlt Richard Johnson
regarding any questions or concerns he may have. The 4/17/2018 follow-up submittal included
copies of correspondence between the EOR and the Public Works Director and the necessary
information related to this matter has been furnished to cure the revise and resubmit condition .
A rticle V, Section F. 11 . a. j. Reguired Use of Low linRact Develoi;1ment (LID) Technigues
□N IA ~Accepted with c01m11ents ~Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please include a narrative describing the LID techniques used/or subject development.
I/ten (10) LID techniques are not included in the project, please request a waiver of the ten LID
techniques i11 the requested narrative. The narrative must be properly advertised to be considered by
the Planning Commission as a condition of approval. If the incorporation of LID techniques is a
function of the PUD establishment for the Village, please advise so that the LIDs may be reflected in
the PUD establisltment to be considered by the City Council in caseZC 18.03 . The 4/17 /2018
follow-up submittal included correspondence indicating "We worked with the previous Director
of Planning and it was determined no LID review would be required as the master plan was in
process prior to the establishment of the LID ordinance". Further case SD 16.35, Golden Oak at
Firethorne, was approved without LID techniques and the staff report of SD 16 .35 clearly
reflects the absence of LID techniques. As a result the revise and resubmit condition is cured by
the 4/l 7 /2018 follow-up conespondence.
Article V, Section C.2. ARRlicability and Reguirements: the regulations in this Section C. shall apply to
any development as dense or denser than the City R-1 Residential Zon ing District, whether or not in
the City Limits. Greenspace shall be provided as follows: 10 % Greensi;1ace is reguired.
□NIA ~Accepted with conm1ents, □Revise and Resubmit per
please provide follow-up comments
information
Comments: Common area total of 1.65 acres is approximately 26% of proposed development,
however common area includes both wetlands and a wet pond retention area. See Article V, Section
C.3, below for more information. Follow-up submittal of 4/17 /2018 noted that the total greenspace
requirement of the entire PUD is 13%, exceedin2 the 10% requirement of this section.
5 SD 18.17 The Village at Firethorne -May 7,2018
Article V, Se ction D.5.a. (9) Street Standards -Street Design -General Requirements -Street Trees
(continued)
An inventory of all live trees greater than 24 " DBH on site shall be protected and indicated on a tree
preservation plan. Said preservation plan shall reflect tree protection in the diagram in Appendix G and
verbiage below. Erecting Barriers is essential to protecting trees during construction. The applicant
shall provide construction fences around all significant trees . Allow one foot of space from the trunk
for each inch of trunk diameter. The intent is not merely to protect the above ground p011ion of the
trees, but also the root systems. Tl1e fenced area shall be clear of building materials waste, and excess
soil. No digging, trenching or other soil disturbance shall be allowed in the fenced area. Fines for not
complying with the City of Fairhope 's ordinance 1 193 , tree protection will be levied in accordance to
the City of Fairhope 's restitution table.
□NIA IX!Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Ordinance number 1444, Tr ee Ordinance
Comments: The Landscape Plan, drawing LPJ00, was reviewed and approved by the COF
horticulturalist. Tree protection fences and tree protection details are notetl 011 drawing LPJ00.
Article V, Section D. 6. Street Standards -Pedestrian Area Design Standards
All streets shall include a pedestrian area comprised of a planting strip and a sidewalk, according to the
standards in Table 5.3 in Appendix A. The developer may have the flexibility to construct the
sidewalks within 2 years of final plat approval. A letter of credit guaranteeing the construction for
125% oftbe engineer's estimate is required. At the end of 2 years , all sidewalks shall be completed by
either the developer or City , using the letter of cred it. The areas in which the sidewalks will be poured
shall be graded and compacted at the time the subdivision infrastructure is constructed. The pedestrian
area shall be designed according to the following minimum standards:
6
a. All streets supporting residential land uses shall have a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each
side of the street with the back edge of the sidewalk being the edge of the right-of-way.
b. All streets s upporting public institutions and public facilities land uses shall include a
minimum 5-foot wide sidewa lk and 8-foot wide p lanting strip on each side oftbe street.
c. All streets suppo11ing non-r esi dential land uses including commercial , office , and mixed-use
villages, shall have:
(I) a 111 inimum 15 wide sidewalk, with tree wells according to Article V ., Section
O.5 .a .8.(e) on each side of the street; or
(2) a minimum IO' wide sidewalk and minimum 6-foot wide planting strip on each side of
the street.
d . Sidewalks shall include curb ramps meeting accessibility requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities act at all intersections and any non-grade dri veway or land intersecting the
sidewalk.
e . Sidewalks shall be constructed of a minimum 4" concrete swface meeting City construction
standards. W11ere applicable , sidewalk materials shall be used and constructed to encourage
maximum tree preservation.
f. Streets in rural and agricultural subdivisions me eting all requirements of Aiticle V., Section
O.7.c. and d. are not required to prov ide sidewalks.
g. Where applicable, sidewalks shal I be configured in a manner that provides for ma x imum tree
preservation.
□NIA IX!Accepted wjth comments
Cross Reference: Article V Section D.5.a.8.(e) and D. 7.c and d.
IX!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Commellfs : The required 8 ' pla11li11g strip required by Table 5.3 in Appelldix A is showu as 7' wide
011 drawing B2. Please revise to comply with Table 5.3 ill Appendix A oftlte subdivision regulations.
Included with the 4/17/2018 follow -up submittal was a revised drawing B-2 which now reflects
the planting strip as 8'-0" wide, curing the revise and resubmit condition of this section.
SD 18.17 The Village at Firethorne -May 7,2018
Article V, Section D. 7.a. Street Standards -Exceptions to Street Standards
a. Natural Features -Blocks abutting natural or topographica l features may be approved with
exceptions to the blocks and street la yout standards of Aiticle V., Section D., subject to al l of
the following:
( l) construction of the grid according to the block and street layout standards must be
impracticable in that the applicant would incur substantia l and unreasonable additiona l costs in
designing streets across the natural or topographical featu re or modification of the grid is
necessary to preserve important environmental features such as streams , wetlands , animal
habitats , or other conservation areas;
(2) Modification of the grid sha ll not alter the minimum block length or block size, except that
the distance of the prope1ty 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 can be used for active
recreation may be used as the perimeter of a block; and
(3) Cu l-d e-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 l-d e-sacs shall not exceed 660 feet and lo op streets shall not
exceed 1300 feet.
□NIA IZI Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article V Section D.
Comments: Subject application does not propose access to adjacent property due to two existing
buffer conditions: 1) an existing powerline easement immediately south of subject property, and 2)
the wetland area indicated in Common Area 2. Further, allowing tlte cul-de-sac preserves a wetland
area, and an existing connection occurs in the "Silverleaf' section of Phase 2, connecting to the
existi111t Stone Creek Subdivision.
Article V, Section E.5 .a.-c. Lot Standards -Utility Access and Easements
7
a . Except where lanes are provided at the rear of lots , easements not less than fifteen feet in
width a long the side, and rear lot lines as required for drainage and utilities . On interior lots ,
the easement may be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots . On perimeter lots , no pa1t of the
required easement shall lie outside the platted lands. Easement placement and widths shall be
approved by the Planning Commission. No half easements will be approved unless adjacent
property owners dedicate the other half of the easement at time of approval.
b. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse , drainage way, natural channel or stream ,
there shall be provided an easement conforming substantially to the li mits of such water course
plus additional width as necessary for maintenance and future construction .
c. Lots and easements shall be so arranged as to eliminate unnecessary jogs or off-sets and to
facilitate the use of easements for power distribution , telephone service, drainage , water and
sewage collection services
□NI A [g]Accepted with comments ~Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please re-word ge11eral 11otes 4 a11d 5 011 the plat to correctly reflect the easemeuts
described in section "a" above. The 15' easemem may be divided 011 interior lots to allow 7.5 '
easement either side of adjacent lot lille!J". As a component of the 4 /17/2018 follow-up submittal the
15 ' easements on front and rear lot lines have been reflected in general notes 4 and 5 on the plat,
however due to the 5 ' side setbacks on the desired lot , the 15 ' (7.5' on each side of the lot line)
will be 10', and 5' on each side of each interior lot line. The subject development is a PUD and
the lot sizes requested are a component of the PUD and the utility easements reflected by
pr eliminary plat are a reflection of the lot sizes comprising the PUD.
SD 18.17 The Village at Firethorne-May 7,2018
Article V. Section E. 6. Lot Standards -Buffer Strips
In residential districts , a buffe r strip at least ten feet in width , and in addition to the minimum required
lot depth , may be required by Planning Commission adjacent to all existing incompatible uses, such as
railroads , limited access highways , a1terial streets and commercial/industrial developments . Such
buffer shall be a pait of the platted lots , but shall be designated on the face of the plat as an easement
by imprinting on the plat the following: "This sh•;p is res erved for planting of h'ees or s hrubs by owner;
placement olstructures hereon is prohibited. "
□NIA □Accepted ~Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: It appears a buffer as described in this section occurs south of Lot 12 betwee11 the
southern lot line of lot 12 and the property line of common area 2. If it is the intention for this area
to serve as a bu,ffer against the power line easement, please include the statement ill the section
above 011 the plat. The follow-up submittal of 4/17/2018 included an additional note on the
preliminary plat describing the addition buffer strip between lot 12 and the adjoining property.
The vegetation in the buffer is to be retained and construction of structures is prohibited,
however additional ve!!etation mav be added to the buffer.
Article VI, Section E. l. -8. Construction Standards-Storm Water (Excerpted)
□NI A ~ Review pending, ~Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
please see comments comments
Cross Reference: A labama D eparhnent of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway
Constructions , current edition
Comments: Drainage system currently under review by the Public Works Director. Please
coordinate with Richard Johnson regarding any questions or concerns he may have. Drainage
system has been accepted by the Public Works Director.
Article VI, Section H Construction Standards-Sanitary Sewerage
I . All subdivisions shall have sanitary sewer service. The sewer service shall be provided by either the
Fairhope Public Utilities or an approved sewer service.
2. All sanitary sewer systems constructed within a subdivision and all sanitary sewer systems
constructed outside of a subdivision but serv icing a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with
those ce1tain ''Standard Specfficationsfor Co11structi11g Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities" which is on file at the
City of Fairhope Water & Sewer Department.
3. lndividual septic tank type systems that have been approved by the Baldwin County Health
Depaitment and the Fairhope Public Utilities Sewer Oepaitment may be utilized .
□NIA ~Accepted with comments ~Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Standard Specifications for Consh'uctin g Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities
Comments: The application included witlt Standard Seeci{lcatio11s (pr Constructing_ Sanitar'l!., Sewer
Facilities and Water Facilities was not submitted with tlte subdivision t1pplicatio11. Please furnish so
that Mr. Peterson may evaluate the applicatio11 a11d provide the "will-serve" letters as required by
Article IV, Section C.l.b.(8). Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities
and Water Facilities was submitted with the 4/17/2018 follow-up submittal and has been
furnished to Mr. Peterson. As a condition of approval, please furnish the required '"will serve"
letters required by Article W, Section C.1.b.(8) under separate cover prior to land disturbance.
8 SD 18.17 T he Village at Firethorne -May 7,2018
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City
including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle
Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
• meets
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
• meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City. 11
• meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
10
1) City Council approval of case number ZC 18 .03, conditional annexation and rezoning to PUD of
subject property
a. The Planning Commission is adv ised the number of lots in case ZC 18.03 was originally
23, but has been reduced to 20 to accommodate the size of the wet pond retention
area .
2) Prior to land disturbance, submission of "will serve " letters for water and sewer utilities as
required by Article IV, Section C.1.b .{8).
SD 18.17 The Village at Firethorne -May 7,2018
Summary of Request:
The applicant is seeking concurrent annexation and rezoning of eight parcels comprising approximately 22 .6
acres+/-from unzoned Baldwin County to the City of Fairhope as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The
sub j ect property is located approx i mate ly 0.2 miles west of AL HWY 181 on Twin Beech Road (Baldwin County
Road 44). The parcel abutting subject property immediately to the north (PPIN 15078) is zoned City of Fairhope
Residential/Agriculture District (R-A). All other parcels abutting subject property are located in unzoned Baldwin
County, however a series of parcels zoned City of Fairhope Medium Density Single Family (R -2) are located
approx i mately 120' feet northwest of subject property as well as 320' southwest of subject property . A series of
parcels zoned City of Fairhope Low Density Single Family (R -1) is located approximately 240 feet south of subject
property . Two Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are located in close proximity to subject property: Stone
Creek PUD is located 0 .6 miles southeast of subject property, and Firethorne PUD is located 0.5 miles northwest
of subject property .
Comments:
The subject property is comprised of one large (PPIN 7?747) general ly rectangular parcel and seven smaller
(PPIN 63250, 362501, 362502, 362503, 362504, 362505, and 362506) parcels fronting Twin Beech Road, a
paved publicly-maintained street. The supporting drawings included with the request for annexation/PUD
zoning request depict a future subdivision of 72 single family residential lots . Should the annexation be
approved, and the zoning clas sification be approved as a PUD, the future subdivision application will include the
afore-mentioned 72 single family lots, one full-access entrance/exit on the subdivision's west side along Twin
Beech Road, and one unopened 50' future right-of-way in the subdivision's northwest corner . The applicant has
made extensive modifications to the site's master plan since first appearing on the February 5, 2018 Planning
Commission agenda. In addition to reducing the number of lots from 78 to 72, and therefore reducing the
development density from 3.45 units per acre to 3.19 units per acre, the lot sizes of the development are more
varied and strategic placement of the various lot sizes has greatly improved the development's compatibility
with adjacent areas and the surrounding neighborhood. The typical lot size (and virtually all lots were this size)
in the initial submittal as 52' wide, 120' long, for an average lot area of approximately 6,200sf. The current
application contains lots as large as 100' wide and 120' long (12,000sf) along Twin Beech Road, 75' wide and
120' long lots (9 ,000sf) around the outer perimeter of the development, and 52' wide by 120' long (6,240sf) lots
along the inner perimeter of the development. If approved the development will the largest lots along Twin
Beech Road buffered by an open space area required by the Twin Beech Road ROW setback transitioning to
smaller lots on the outer perimeter with the smallest lots in the center of the development and farthest away
from existing developments.
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
2 ZC 18 .02 Twin Beech Estates -May 7, 2018
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 w ith the supporting documents of subject applicat i on includes the
proposed dimen si onal st andards summarized in the tab l e below:
Case# ZC 18.02 Proposed PUD Dimensional Standards
District Lo t ~s Lo t Sizes Typical Front Rear Side Max. Lo t Max. Buildin g
(minimum) Lot Width Setback Setback Se tback Coverage Height
PUD 5-10
27 -30 6,200 sf 52 ' 20' 15' 6' 55 % 30'
44 -72
PUD 11 -26 9,000 sf 75' 20' 15 ' 6' 55 % 30' 31-43
PUD Lot 1 10,200 85' 20' 15' 6' 55% 30'
PUD 2-4 12 ,000 100' 20 ' 15' 6' 55 % 30'
The requested PUD for the subject property reflects the dimensional standards shown above. In
addition, 5' rear and side setbacks are required for any accessory structures located on the residential
lots within the PUD . Any accessory structures must be behind the rear building line of the principle
st r u cture, ma in tai n 5' separation from the pri nciple structures, and have lot coverage of no more than
25% of the required rear yard for each lot.
School Student Analysis:
The propo se d PUD mas t er plan fo r Twin Beec h Estat es co ntains 72 singl e family lo t s. Applying the student yi eld
factors (SYF) provided by the Baldwin Co unty Board of Education listed below, the development is expected to
gene rate 28.1 (or 72 x 0.39) e lementary school stud ent s, 7.92 (or 72 x 0.11) middle school students and 12 .24
(or 72 x 0.17) high school students.
Dev e lop me nt Appli cati on Housin g Tota l U nits Attenda n ce Zon e SYF Exp ecte d
N a me Type Type Number of
Stu dents
Twin Beech PUD SF 78 Fairhope 0.39 28.1
Estates request Elementary
II II II II II II Fairhope Middle 0.11 7.92
II II II II " II Fairhope High 0.17 12 .24
Total Students 48.26
Allowable Uses:
The app licant provided a project narr at ive for the requested PUD and indicated "single family
residenti al" as the requested use type within the proposed PUD . No other use types are indicated in
the applicant's PUD request narrative .
Zoning History of Nearby Pr operties:
3 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Est ates -May 7, 2018
SD 15.08 (Preliminary) was a request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for preliminary plat approval
of Twin Beech Estates, an 8-lot subdivision located on the north si de of Twin Beech Road
(County Road 44) just west of State Highway 181. All lot widths are at least 100' wide and all
lots front upon a paved, publ i cly ma i ntained street or road as required by the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulation s. SD 15 .08 was approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission on April
6, 2015 however no request for annexation and zoning establishment was submitted by the
applicant and the lots created by SD 15 .08 {PPINs 362500, 362501, 362502, 362503, 362504,
362505, and 362506 and remnant parcel 77747) remain in unzoned Baldwin County . Matters
involving sidewalks, building setbacks, and street trees were reviewed and approved by the
Baldwin County Highway Department in accordance with the County's subdivision regulations.
SD 15.12 (Final) was a request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for final plat approval of Twin Beech
Estates, more fully described in case number 15 .08, above. SD 15.12 wa s approved by the
Fairhope Planning Commission on August 3, 2015. A maintenance bond for water and sewer
utilities was received on August 31, 2015 and the utilities related to SD 15.12 were accepted for
maintenance by the Fairhope City Council on October 26, 2015 .
SD 04 .53 {Preliminary) was a request of Engineering Development Service s on behalf of Elite
Development for preliminary plat approval of Woodlawn Subdivision located west of State
Highway 181 and south of Twin Beech Road (County Road 44). The development is comprised
of 81 lot s covering approximately 34.4 acres , for a lot density of approximately 2.35 units per
acre. The proposed 75' lot widths and 10,SO0sf lot area was compliant with the City Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations circa 2004. Additional review of subdivision requirements was
provided by the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department, as no request for annexation
and zoning establishment wa s submitted by the applicant concurrent with the subdivision
application and as a result the development remained in unzoned Baldwin County . SD 04.53
was approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission on September 7, 2004.
SD 06.19 (Final) was a request of Eng i neering Development Services on behalf of Elite
Development for final plat approval of Woodlawn Subdivision, more fully described in case SD
04.53 above. Case SD 06.19 was approved by the Fairhope Planning Commission on April 31
2006. Staff noted in the minutes of the afore-mentioned planning commission meeting the
development location was now located in City of Fairhope R-1 Low-Density Single-Family Zoning
District. non-conforming.
Case number ZC 14.11 was a request of Prebble-Rish, LLC to establish initial zoning of R-2
Medium Density Single Family Residential District concurrent with conditional annexation into
the City of Fairhope for Woodlawn Phase 2 and 3 (SD 14.17), located on the south side of Twin
Beech Road between Woodlawn Phase 1 and Summer Oaks Stables. Woodlawn Phase 2 and 3 is
a continuation of Woodlawn Phase 1, with comparable sized lots. The smallest lot size included
in the development (SD14.17) is 10,500sf, the largest lot size is 14,147sf with a maximum lot
coverage of 37%. All other lot dimensions are consistent with R-2 Medium Density Single
Family. The development consists of 70 lots over approximately 32 acres , for a lot density of
approximately 2.19 unfts per acre. The Fairhope Planning Commission approved the
conditional annexa t ion to R-2 Zoning District on November 31 2014 with final approval by the
Fairhope City Council on January 26, 2015.
4 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -May 7, 2018
Case number ZC 04.10 was a request of Volkert and Associates on behalf of Rance Rhee I 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 sfto 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 portion s 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
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):
5 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -May 7, 2018
SI TE DA TA
1. Total ocreage is 1 77.20 ac.
2. Total number of l ots Is 264
proposed density is 1.49 un its per acre
3, Tota l amount of common area is 21,96 ac.
4. This site is located Section 26, T6S, RJE.
5. Proposed Build in g Setbacks :
Lots 1=22, 34-46 1 65-126, 164 -204, 221 -251
Front -30 1
Rear -20 1 (5' off wetlands on Lots 34-43 &
Side -10'
30' off wetlands on Lots 90 -99)
Striset Si de -20'
Lots 23-33, 47 -64, 127=163, 252 -26 4
Front -20'
Rea r -20'
Side -5'
Lots 205-220
Front -15'
Rea r -20'
Side -5'
Commercia l Lot 1
Front (raci ng Alabama Hwy. 181) -20 1
All Other Sides -1 O'
Sw i m & Tenn is Ar,eo -
10' Setback at Perimeter
Case number ZC 14.05 was a request of Prebble-Rish, LLC on behalf of Ralph Reynolds, Davis
Pilot, Billy Stimpson, Thomas Gross , and Nathan Cox to establish an initial zoning of Firethorne
Planned Unit Development (PUD) concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of
Fairhope. The 126.37-acre development is generally located along the east side of State
Highway 181 south of Quail Creek Drive, between Quail Creek and State HWY 181. 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 l argest lot at 31,800sf. The
average lot size is 17,000sf with setbacks as follows: 35' front, 35' rear, 10' side, and 20 ' sides
street. Maximum lot coverage is 40%, with accessory structures no more than 25% of the
required rear yard. The maximum building height for the development is 35'. The Fairhope
City Council approved the re-zoning/annexation request on May 6, 2014 .
Zoning Compatibility Analysis:
The term "compatibility" is typically defined as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist
in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly
negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition .
6 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -May 7, 2018
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 -l evel zoning compatibility maintains an appropriate development pattern and protects
ne igh borhoods from negat ive 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 increased 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 compat ible 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.1 .e . "Zoning Amendments" provides nine review criteria for the
rezoning process . Criteria 3, 8, and 9 directly relate to compatibility :
(3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
(8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values; and,
(9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property values .
The challenge encountered by staff when evaluating subject application involves the approach by
which the subject application's zoning compatibility was evaluated. The properties surrounding the
subject property are a patchwork of zoned, unzoned, developed, and undeveloped properties and all
must be examined in terms of the subject application. The Comprehensive plan contemplates a
"neighborhood" as one-half mile, or 2,640' area noted on feet on page ................................ The Zoning
Compatibility Analysis applied to subject property examines both "surrounding neighborhoods"
(subdivisions and other developments one-half mile, or 2,640 feet from the subject property) as well as
"adjace nt areas'' (abutting properties includ ing 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 2,640' buffer around the subject property utilizing the 'buffer'
toolkit within KCS Fairhope web viewer. The subject property is outlined in blue and the 2,640' buffer
is depicted below by the black circular border with light gray fill shown on the map excerpt below:
7 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates-May 7, 2018
acreage of the buffer area, less the subject property. As stated previously the total area of the buffer,
as determined by KCS Fairhope Map Vi ewer is 750 .9 acres. Subtracting the 22 .6 acres of subject
property leaves a net buffer area of 728.3 acres.
The actual weighted density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood is summarized in the
table below :
DEV . TOTAL AREA Density Weight ed Actual
DEVELOPMENT NAME OR PPIN ZONING l•cresl BUFFER ACRES {un.i u per acre) (un;ts)
15078 R-A Rc5ldential/Agriculture, 38 38.00 0.333 12.65
214135,15244,14765 R-A R.2..Sldential/Agrku lture 12.6 12.60 0.333 4.20
15 192, 14349, 2.26928, 15467, 15385 R-2 M edi um De nsltySingle Famlly N/A 5.70 4.15 23.66
Sed gefield Subdivis i on R-1 Lo·w Den.,;;ity Si~l e Family 58.35 35.80 1.82 65.16
Bay Meadows Subdivision R-2 Me!fium DertEity.S in~le Family 35 35 .00 0.63 22.05
Bay Meadows Eas t Subdivision R-2 M:d ium D~r..sit"fS.ingl~ Family 5.88 5.88 1.02 6.00
Bay Mea dows West Subdivision R-2 Medi um Deru·itySingle FamilV 10.8 10.80 2.04 22.03
Wood lawn Phase 1 R-1 Lo w Den.;it:ySi ngl e F:arnil y 48 .15 48.15 1.68 80.89
Woodlawn Phases 2 and 3 R-2 Medium De.nsicySing!e f3 mil', 32 32.00 2.19 70.08
Firethorne {not includingVill•;;•i PUD 126.37 87.87 1.B 158.17
77751 R-E Mobil==:Home P3rk 46 .3 28.70 0.8 22.96
Stone Creek PUD 177.2 88.10 1.49 131.27
Ca llaway Place R-3 Hiigh DenzityS-inglcF3 rn lly 4.98 4.98 2.01 10.0.1
R-3 PG H -High Dens itV Sir._gl::::-
F:ami lyP;nioGardEn Horn;;
Qua i l Creek Estates Villas Ri2:-ide hti:il Dis-trict 29.87 1.60 3.88 6.21
Unzoned PPIN 34272 Un;:oned 8.3ldv,in County 1 1.00 21 21.00
A.II Other unzoned Un:zoned Ba ld~·;in County 292 .12 292.12 2.9 84 7.15
The sum of the weighted actua l units is 1,503.47 units . When divided by the net buffer area of 728 .3
acres, the actual weighted density is calcu l ated as 2.06 units per acre.
Similarly, the allowable we ighted density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood is
summarized in the table be l ow :
DEV. TOTAL AREA Density Weighted Actual
DEVELOPMENT NAME OR PPIN ZONING (acres) BUFFER ACRES {units per a.ere.) (unit>)
15078 R-A REs:-id ential/Agriculturc 38 38.00 0.333 12.65
214135, 15244,14765 R-A Re.s id c.ntial/A~ri cu lture 12.6 12.60 4 .2 52.92
15192,14349,226928,15467,15 38 5 R-2 r,,,tedi1Jm De.ns ity Sln~l 2 Famil y N/A 5.70 4.15 23.66
Sedgefiel d Subdivlsion R-1 LO\\> De.r.sit11Sin_gle F:!mily 58.35 35 .80 2.9 103.82
Bay Meadows Subdivision R-2 Medium Oe.osity S:ingl=: Fam i l '{ 35 35.00 4.15 145.25
Bay Meadows East Subdivision R-2 Med ium De.n5ity Si ngl e Fam i ly-5.88 5.88 4.15 24.40
Bay Meadows West Subdivision R-2: Med ium D:n.sity Si ngle Family 10.8 10.80 4.15 44.82
Wood lawn Phas e 1 R-1 Lo w Density Sin .gle F3 rnily 48.15 48 .15 2.9 139.64
Wood lawn Phas es 2and 3 R-2 M edium 01:nsrtyS.iogl.; Fam ily 32 32.00 4 .15 132.80
Firethorne {oot includ;n~Villa,;e) PlJD 126.37 87.87 1.8 158.17
77751 R-6, Mobile Hom 1.: Park 46.3 28.70 0.5 14.35
Stone Creek PUO 177.2 88.10 1.49 131.27
Callaway Place R-3 Hish Den sitySingl s F:imHv 4.98 4.98 5.58 27.79
R-3 PGH-H igh DecruitySin5 1e-
Family p·3tio Garden Home
Quail Creek Estates Villas Ri:-si-d:nti a l Dlit rict 29.87 1.60 10.89 17.42
Unzoned PPIN 34272 Uozon:d Ba l dwin Co untv 1 1.00 2.9 2.90
All Other Unzoned Unzon :d 8-3!dwln County 292.12 292.12 2.9 847.15
The sum of the weighted allowable units is 1,879.00 units. When divided by the net buffer area of
728 .3 acres, the all owable weighted density is calculated as 2.58 unit per acre.
The average weig hted development density of both the actual and allowable densities is therefore:
9 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -May 7, 2018
PPIN 77751. Multi family uni ts are in
100% Multi Family on two place on PP I N 34272, however this
Unzoned parce ls (PPIN 34272) property is unzoned.
And 77562)
A l l other unzoned
Parcel s appear to be si ng le
family
Bu il di ng Orientation N/A Requested development app li cation
Estab l ishes PUD zoning for development
But does not include a subdivision
Application by which b uil ding orientation
may be eva l uated . Building or i entation is
n ot applicable for ana lysis at th i s time .
Building Setbacks Ad jacent area setbacks: Pro1;1 o sed deve lo1;1ment setbacks:
Front -7 5' Fro nt -2 0'
Rear-75' Rear -15'
Side -25' Side-6'
Si de Street -50 ' Side Street -not specified
Bu i lding Setbacks (continued) (Per R-A zoning district ) Prop osed development is NO T
Consistent with adjacent area setbacks,
H owever, see comments regarding lot
Size and how lot size creates ares of
compatablfity
Bu il ding Heights Adjacent area bui l ding heig ht: Pro1;1osed develo1;1me nt build i ng height:
Max. Bu i lding Height -30' Max. Building Height -30 '
(Per R-A zon i ng d i strict) Proposed deve l opment is consistent with
Adjacent area building heights .
Lot Dimensions Due to the w i de ly vary i ng l ot size s in t he evaluati o n area, as wel l as the
Vary i ng lot sizes in the proposed PUD , Lo t Dimensi o ns is not a readily-
Quantifiab le or high ly-accurate measure of compatibi l ity for sub j ect
Appl ication.
Lot Area/ Density Adjacent area and Pro1;1osed develo1;1ment lot dimensions:
Su r round i ng Neighborhood
Actual and allowab le 72 units/ 22.6 acres=
Weighted develo1;1ment 3.19 Units/ Acre
densities Though the proposed development is
Not consistent overa ll with adjacent area
2.06 units/ acre actual and surrounding Neighborhood
2.58 units / acres allowable deve l opment density, the Twin Beech
Road corridor is consistent
2.32 units/ acre average
12 ZC 18.02 Tw i n Beech Estates-May 7, 2018
Fairhope Comprehensive Plan Guidance
The absence of any intended physical form (lack of a plan) of a city causes a disjointed
development pattern, inefficient municipal services , conflicting land uses and negat ive
externa li ties for business owners, property owners and residents. In general, the lack of a plan
and negative externalities create poor livability conditions . Providing an "intended physical
form" is land use planning. A 11 plan" provides a meaningful and well-thought-out development
pattern where a desired physical form outcome is stated with provisions and methods to
achieve the desired outcome. Ultimately, the success 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 expressed its intent for the physical form of the City to
be in the "village" development pattern . The 2006 Comprehensive Plan, incorporated by
reference into the 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, was developed by Gould Evans Goodman
Associates , LLC. The Plan, in Section 5. Form, Function and Design (page 45-48), provided clear
direction on village types, locati'Ons and the transitioning of land uses, specifically in terms of
intensity and density of the villages and their environs.
Section 5.4 Neighborhoods, states the following:
The "vi l lage pattern" is the basic plann i ng unit of the city and is characterized by a center,
supported by a neighborhood and transitioning to an edge. Higher density residences should
be located more closely to village centers or fronting major street corridors. Lower density
residences should transition to edges, and rural areas . This 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 patterns"
(2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, page 34).
The -2014 Comprehensive Plan Update provi ded the Preferred Land Use Plan. This 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 Avenue/State
HWY 181 village center is approximately 1.52 miles northwest of the subject property. Further, the
separation d istance from subject property to the State HWY 181/Fairhope Avenue Village Node
removes the subject property from the "immediate area" and influence area of a village center where
higher densities would be appropriate and expected . Therefore, the compatibility analysis only
considers the weighted den sities 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 possibly be contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan .
The Comprehensive Plan identifies 4 vi l lage centers and 6 commercial nodes throughout the
City and its environs. The subject property is located approximately 0.45 miles east of the Twin
Beech Road/State HWY 181 commercial node contemplated by the 2014 Comprehen sive Plan
update. Commercial nodes typically will occupy between 2 to 30,000 square feet per corner
(2014 Comprehensive Plan, page 34). Further, the Comprehens ive Plan calls for commercial
nodes to be commercial convenience uses such as a gas station (non-repair), bank, small
13 ZC 18.02 Twin Beech Estates -May 7, 2018
The applicant is proposing simultaneous applications including concurrent annexation into the City of
Fa i rhope, rezoning to R-2 and subdivision into 18 lots . The original Pinewood Subdivision Phase 1 is
located to the north of the subject property and consists of 6 lots fronting on Manley Road, which ar e
unzoned and a 7th remnant parcel which is currently being proposed as Pinewood Phase 2.
The Pinewood Phase 2 zoning application as proposed will be zoned as R-2 (Medium Density Single
Family District ). The R-2 setbacks for Pinewood Phase 2 are as follows:
• 35 feet for the front,
• 35 feet for the rear,
• 10 feet on the sides,
• and 20 feet on street side .
R-2 Zoning allows for a 37 % lot coverage for the principle structure with a 30-foot building height. The
accessory structures will comply with the R-2 zoning Requirements . Any accessory structures must be
behind the rear building line of the principle structure, maintain 10 ' separation from the principle
structures, and have lot coverage of no more than 25 % of the required r ear yard for each lot.
The proposed ar ea and dimension standards for the property are as follows :
Case # ZC 18-05
District Min. Lo t Size Min. Lo t Wid t h Front Re ar Side Max. Lot M ax. Building
Se tba ck Setback Se tback Co verage He ight
R-2 10,500 sq. ft . 75 ' 35' 35' 10' 37% 30'
Accessory Requirements :
Dimension Setbacks Max. total lot Max. height l\lUn. structure
Front Rear Side Street side co verage by separation from
accessory principle
structure structure
District or
use
All other Behind rear S' S' no nea rer 25% of required 30 ' but no taller 10'
resid e ntial building line than rear ya rd than
districts of p1i nc iple princip le the p rin c iple
strncture strncture strncture
3 ZC 18.05 Pinewood, Phase 2 -May 7, 20 18
Pinewood Subd ivi sion Phase 1 Subdivision con si sts of 6 unzoned parcels fronting on Manley Road .
These lots we r e not annexed and remain unzoned .
The Soccer field i s completely deve loped and zoned R-1.
Southland Subdivision , wh i le not adjacent, is a PUD within a ¼ mile buffer and was developed as
follows:
Cas e PC Date PC Result CC Date Developm ent App li can t Owner Req uest Address N o . N ame
zc 99 -1 /4/00 Approved 2/28/00 Sout h lan d Le e Pi tt man Pittman/ con di t ional Man le y
25 Plac e Southland Pla ce an nex atio n to Roa d
PUD
zc 01-9/13/0 Approved 9/13 /01 Sou t hland Southl an d Southl an d Pla ce PUD M anley
09 1 Pl ace Pla ce LLC LLC amend m ent -Roa d
I Southland
Traffic: The applicant has not provided any information regarding traffic as a part of this
application. However, a letter from a traffic engineer stating that no traffic study is required
was provided in the subdivision application. The number of trips generated by this
development is less than is required for a traffic study (an average daily traffic (ADT) count of
1,000 trips or more, or which will generate 50 trips or more during any peak hour period.
Ord.
Numbe r
Ord .
1079
Ord.
1133
Adjacent Properties: The developments surrounding the subject property include Saddlewood Phase
1 & 2 Subdivision (R-1 Zoning) with 84 residential units, Pinewood Phase 1 Subdivision consisting of 7
unzoned lots and the soccer field with no residential lots.
Compatibility Analysis: The term "compatibility" is typically defined as a condition in which land uses
or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over t i me such that no
use or condi t ion is unduly negatively i mpacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.
Compatibility of land use is a fundamental principal for planning and zon i ng. Land use
compatibi l ity is also an important decision -making element in the zoning process. On a macro-
l evel it can maintain and protect community characte r and raise the qual ity of development
throughout the commun ity. On the micro-level zoning compatibility maintains an appropriate
development pattern and protects neighborhoods from negative impacts of incompatible land
uses such as:
• changing neighborhood character through inconsistent land use patterns
• increased density through decreased lot sizes and reduced building setbacks
• intensity of uses out of character with the neighborhood
• poo rl y located commercial uses
• negative externalities such as increased traffic, light, noise etc.
As a result, incompatible land uses may negatively affect property values and the quiet
enjoyment of property .
5 ZC 18.05 Pinewood , Phase 2 -May 7 , 2018
The following properties fall within the buffer area: Southland Place PUD, Saddlewood Phases 1 &
2 (zoned R-1 Non-conforming), Summer Lake (zoned R-1 Non-Conforming), multiple unzoned
properties and the Soccerfield (also zoned R-1).
Weighted Averages:
Total Buffer Area -Subject Property
200 Acres-7.42 Acres= 192.58 Acres
Southland Subdivision: 18.4 Acres/192.58 Acres= .096 = 9.6%
Summerlake Subdivision: 61.9 Acres/192.58 Acres= .32 = 32.1%
Saddlewood Subdivision: 30.75 Acres/192.58 Acres = .16 = 16%
Soccerfield Subdivision 39 Acres/ 192. 58 Acres = .20 = 20.2 %
Total Unzoned Subdivision: 42.3 Acres/192.58 Acres =.22 = 22 %
The buffer area data for purposes of calculations were taken from the City of Fairhope Map
Viewer. The buffer data are as follows for the following subdivisions:
1. Southland Subdivision (PUD):
Case
Nu mber
SD-00-12
SD-01-20
SD -02-35
SD-04-05
7
Buffer Acreage with i n the buffer: 18.4 Acres
Total Development Acreage: 54.44 Acres
Development Density for Phase 1: 2.3 Units per Acre
Development Density for Phase 2: 2.4 Units per Acre
Development Density Actual: 2.35 units per Acre
Average Development Density for Phase 1&2: 2.35 Units per Acre
Applican t Case Type Subdivision Nu mber of Locatio n Zoning PZ Date Name lots
EDS
'
Preliminary Southland Place I 136 !Outside l 3/8/2000
PUD
Southland final Southland Place 90 Inside PUD 7/2/2001
Place LLC
EDS final Southland Place II 41 Inside PUD 8/5/2002
EDS final Southland Place 2 Inside PUD 2/2/2004
Ph. 11 -B
ZC 18.05 Pinewood, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
Total Unzoned Buffer Area Calculation :
Unzoned Buffer Area 1 (Southern Portion) Acreage: 34.8
Unzoned Buffer Area 2 (Eastern Portion) Acreage: 5.1
Unzoned Buffer Area 3 (Pinewood Pha se !) Acreage: __1A
Total Unzoned Buffer Acreage: 42.3 Acres
Development Density for Unzoned Property Allowable: 15,000/43,560= 2.9 units per Acre
Buffer Area 1 (Southern Portion) Development Density Actual: 0 units within the buffer
Buffer Area 2 (Eastern Portion) Development Density Actual: .48 units/acre within buffer
.4 units per Acre Pinewood Phase 1 Development Den si ty Actual:
Development Density for all three unzoned areas in buffer= .88 units per Acre
Weighted Average Calculations:
Weighted Average for Allowable Density: Calculated as:
Weighted Area Percenta ge of Subdivision x Allowable Density = Weighted Dens it y
Southland Subdivision:
Summer Lake Subdivision:
Soccer Field:
.096 X 2.35 UPA = .23 UPA
.32 X 2.9 UPA = .928 UPA
.16 X 2.9 UPA = .464 UPA
Total Unzoned: .22 X 2.9 UPA = .638 UPA
Weighted Avg UPA allowable within the buffer area= 2 .26 UPA Allowable
Weighted Average for Actual Density: Calculated as:
Southland Subdivision:
Summer Lake Subdivision:
Soccer Field :
Total Unzoned:
.096 X 2.35 UPA = .23 UPA
.32 X 1.65 UPA = .928 UPA
.16 X O UPA = 0 UPA
.22 X .88 UPA = .194 UPA
Weighted Avg UPA actual within the buffer area= 1.35 UPA Actual
The density proposed in the Pinewood Phase 2 Subdivision for R-2 Zoning is 4.14 UPA*
However, the particular si tuation within this buffer has some anoma lies which are as follows:
• The Soccer Field is Publi c Property and will not be de ve loped as residential.
• Saddlewood Subdivision is zoned R-1 non-conforming because the appli ca nt developed
the site with lot sizes varying from 10,500 sq. ft to 16,696 sq . ft. prior to being annexed
in the City as R-1. Many of the lots within the Saddlewood Subdivis i on are R-2 size d
lots.
• Summer Lake is R-1 non-conforming. However, the lot sizes are consistent with Rl
sized lots ranging from 15, 135 sq. ft . to 27,791 sq. ft.
• Southland Subdivision is a PUD with highly varied lot siz es (6 ,183 sq . ft . to 24,099 sq .
ft.)
• A majority unzoned property within the buffer did not have re sidences within the
buffer area.
12 ZC 18.05 Pi newood, Phase 2 -May 7 , 2018
5. Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City: The proposed project will be
required to come into compliance with the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and City
of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance .
6. Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values: The proposed R-2 zoning is consistent with the surrounding
areas in terms of types of noise present. It is not anticipated that the R-2 zoning will add
negative impacts as it is consistent with the existing activities and uses that currently exist in
the surrounding area .
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the requested conditional annexation to R-2 (Medium Density Single Family
Residential District) be approved .
14 ZC 18.05 Pinewood, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
Development Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF
Name Type Type
Pinewood
Phase 2
Final Plat SF 18 Fairhope Elementa1 .39
Fairhope Middle
Fairhope High
Total
.11
.17
Expected
Number
students
7.02
1.98
3.06
12.06
Engineer's Response Letter: The applicant provided the City of Fairhope with a response letter to
comments. The response letter is missing a date, salutation, closing signature and some additional
narrative response and explanation that staff requested.
Engineer's Certification.: The original construction drawings were missing the minimum signatures
and seals required by the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. The revised drawings met the
Certification requirements. Article IV Section e: Engineering plans. Article IV Section e: All
engineering plans shall be signed and stamped by the registered professional engineer of record.
Utility Plans and Letters: Utility Service Letters were missing from the original submittal. The
applicant has since submitted the utility availability letter from Baldwin EMC.
No pipe sizes were provided in the original construction drawings. According to Mr. Richard Peterson,
PE, the design construction plans were incomplete as submitted and could not be reviewed as
presented. The applicant provided electronic revised drawings to Mr. Richard Peterson on April 16,
2018. Mr. Peterson's review is pending.
Fire flow: The applicant has submitted a fire flow that is currently under review by Mr. Richard
Peterson, PE, Director of Operations.
Phased Project: According to Article IV Section C, where a phased development is proposed, the
preliminary plat shall include all phase lines and a master plan showing the continuity of
development proposed for the entire project. Each phase of shall satisfy the requirements of these
regulations individually. Staff had some concern that this was a phased project when phase 1 was
developed. However, at the time, the applicant's representative stated it was not a phased project.
The recently submitted Preliminary Plat for Pinewood Phase 2 showed work was performed October
2016. Staff asked for clarification whether this was part of a phased development, as this shows the
work was done at the same time as the Pinewood Subdivision Phase 1.
The applicant responded "No the date of the field work has no significance as to classifying this project
as a phased development. Lot 7 is part of Pinewood Phase 1. The developer is now re-subdividing Lot
7 into 18 lots. At the time of Phase 1, there was no identified use for Lot 7 ."
According to Article IV Section D2. Phased Plats -A final plat that includes only a portion of the land
area of an approved preliminary plat shall correspond to the phase lines on an approved preliminary
plat.
At this time, there is no specific definition in the subdivision regulations addressing "Phased
Development or Phased Project" in the subdivision regulation s.
4 SD 18.18 Pinewood, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
5
Setbacks: The applicant has shown R-2 setbacks on the subdivision and is requesting concurrent
annexation with R-2 zoning. All lots front a publicly maintained right-of-way. Lot si zes appear to
conform with the minimum allowable lot size for R-2 zon i ng.
Pedestrian, Lighting and Street Tree Plan:
No tree protection plan was provided as the property had been previously cleared and was a field
when deve loped .
A pedestrian p l an was provided. The app li cant added pedestrian easements to access greenspace . The
Build i ng Official, Mr. Erik Cortinas did not approve the pedestrian landings . The applicant sha l l get with
Mr. Co r t i nas to address the iss ues .
Greenspace: For R-2 zoning districts, a 10 percent g r eenspace requirement shall be met. Staff
requested the app l icant make it clear in the site data table and on the drawi ngs, what is common area
and what is greenspace . In accordance w ith the requirement below, eligible greenspace shall not
include any retention, detention, or similar holding basins and shall provide they type of usable active
or passive recreation.
1. Applicability and Requirements -The regulations in this Section C. shall apply to
any development as dense or denser than the City R-1 Residential Zoning District,
whether or not in the City Limits. Greenspace shall be provided as follows: 10%
Greenspace is required.
2. Eligible Greenspace -Greenspace eligible for meeting the requirements of this
section shall:
a.
b.
C.
d .
e.
3.
a.
b.
C .
d.
e .
f.
be usable land for public active or passive recreation purposes .
be located in FEMA FIRM map zones AO, A99, D, or VO.
not be located in any wetland areas as defined by the Federal Government.
not include any retention, detention or similar holding basins.
not include any right-of-way.
Design Requirements -All eligible greenspace shall conform to the following
design requirements:
Maximize public exposure and public access to greenspace.
Streets shall align adjacent to greenspace.
Greenspace land must be contiguous but may be bisected by local streets,
sidewalks, and pedestrian paths.
Greenspace must be located at the rear edge or interior of the development.
Greenspace shall not be located adjacent to a collector or arterial street.
Due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as lakes, ponds, water
courses, historic sites and other similar features which, if preserved, will add
attractiveness and value to the property .
The appli ca nt me t wi t h the Planning Directo r regarding green space activ e and passive recreation requirements
and it was determined that pedestrian easements would allow the greenspace to be useable and acces sible for
active and passive recreation. The app l icant did show the pedestrian access easements on the plat, however, it
hard to read . Staff requests the applicant add a note to the plat so that it is very clear to future homeowners
th at pede strian moveme nt can occ u r be t wee n t hese easements . The applicant shows a 13 % greenspace in the
SD 18 .18 Pin ewood , Phase 2 -May 7, 20 18
6
site data table and provided an email, dated April 19, 2018, documenting that the detention was not part of the
greenspace.
Traffic/ Streets: The applicant has provided a letter from Gulf Coast Traffic and Development Services,
LLC regarding the traffic impact. The engineer's conclusion was that the projected daily and peak hour
trip volumes fall well below the threshold for traffic impact study requirements in the City of Fairhope'
Subdivision Regulations, which is 1000 trips per day or 50 trips in any peak hour period.
Staff has some concern over City trucks being able to turn around at the dead end street. Mr. Richard
Johnson met with the applicant regarding safety issues related to the turn around easement . Richard
Johnson has not approved the applicant's proposed turnarounds.
Storm Water: The applicant provided stormwater drainage calculations and revised plans. Mr. Richard
Johnson, PE, has reviewed the drawings and calculations and has approved the drainage. All engineer
calculations shall be signed and sealed as per Article IV Section e: Engineering plans
The applicant has added the following note as per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations
Article V Section F 3 ld (4) Certifications and Seals:
(4) The calculations, construction plans, and plat shall have the following statement:
"A property owners association (POA) is required to be formed. The POA is required to
maintain any and all storm water facilities and structures located outside of the
publicly accepted right-of-way.
Operations and Maintenance Plan: The applicant has submitted a draft, unsigned Operations and
Maintenance Plan . The plan is currently under review by Mr. Richard Johnson, PE. Upon approval of
the plan and at the time of final plat, the owner and engineer of record shall sign (and sealed) the plan
(Article IV Section e) and the plan shall be recorded at the time of final plat.
BMP: Ms. Kim Burmeister provide comments regarding the project phasing. According to Ms.
Burmeister, the erosion control plan does not indicate the20 X 50 construction exit pad. The applicant
shall revise the erosion plan to include location of construction exit, in the legend and list it under
phase 1 activities. Also, the applicant shall provide the NOi and the ADEM registration number.
Approval Standards:
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards.
"2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall
not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such
land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the
following:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City
including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle
Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or
federal laws and regulations; or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
SD 18.18 Pinewood, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
7
The project does not appear to be incon sistent with the applicable criteria of the City of Fa irh o pe.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval cont in gent upon the following conditions :
1) Engineer's response letter shall have standard letter formatting so that at a minimum th e City
Planning Department can tell when th e l etter was sent, who it was addressed t o and from
whom it was sent.
2) Turnaround s and associated easements sha ll meet the approval of the Mr. Richard John son,
PE, City of Fairhope Public Works Director.
3) Pedestrian Landings shal l meet the approval of Mr. Erik Cortinas, City of Fairhope Building
Official.
4) The applicant shall revise the erosion control plan to include location of construction ex it, in the
le gend and li st it under pha se 1 activities. Also the applicant shall provide the NOi and the
ADEM registration number.
5) Fire Flow shall meet the approval of Mr. Richard Peterson, PE. Operation s Director.
6) The approval of th e Pinewood Phase 2 zon ing request by City of Fairhope City Council.
SD 18.18 Pinewood , Ph ase 2 -M ay 7, 2018
Summary of Request:
Pub l ic hearing to consider the request of Hutch i nson, Moore, and Raugh, LLC (HMR) on behalf of
Fairhope Group, LLC for approval of a new bank and retail site Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) at
the Ecor Rouge Shopping Center. Subject prope rty fronts upon Greeno Road consist i ng of
approximately 5.76 total acres and 0.80 project site acres . Subject application is an MOP and does not
request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots, however a concurrent subdivision application
will be separately-considered to establish condominium lots on subject property . HMR serves as the
engineer or record (EOR) for subject application. Subject property contains an existing restaurant,
church, and office building occupying a former grocery store building. The staff recommendation
reflects conditions of approval necessity for final closeout of the MOP but requiring a separate
procedure due to the absence of a final plat approval associated with MOPs .
Comments:
MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY PROJECT (MOP) CRITERIA
The following item are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject
application's compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations and other re levant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and
rationale behind staff's recommendation . Any items initially marked "revise and resubmit" have been
cured by the notations in blue text . Any items marked in red text will be cured by conditions of
approval , or in the case of a recommendation for denial of an application, provide rationale for the
recommendation of denial. A ll Article , Section , and Paragraph numbers identified are references to
the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations unless ot he r wise identified .
Article IV, Sec tion C l . Pre liminary Plat A pplic ati on Checkli st
O N /A IZIAcc epted with comme nts 0 R evis e and R esubmit p e r
c o mments
Commen ts : Not furni shed Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-uv submittal.
Article IV. Sec tion C J. Ce1tifi cation of Prope1ty Ow ner Not ificat io n Li st
□NIA IZIAc cepted with comments 0 R evi se an d R esubmit p er
c omments
Comments: Th e property owner n otification list was provided, hut th e Certification of Prop erty
O wner List was not included. Provided m, a follow-up s ubmittal 4/25/2018.
A rticle IV. Section C l.b.(3) Names and addresses of th e fo ll ow in g:
• owne r
• des igne r
• ap pl ic ant
• all assoc iated invest ors
• reco rd o wner s of land s imm edi ately adj ace nt to subdi vision .
□N IA 0 A c c epte d with c omments 0Revi se an d Resubmit p er
c omments
Commen ts: Please furnish the !lames and addresses o f all associated investors .
2 SD 18 .19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
□NIA IZJAccepted with comments ~ Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please see Article IV, Section C.J.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study. If a traffic study is
not warranted this section is not applicable. If a traffic study is warranted, tile improvements
required by a traffic study must be submitted to satisfy this section.
A letter from the Engineer of Record (EOR) indicating a traffic study is not warranted was
submitted with the 4/16/2018 follow-up package, therefore a State or County ROW improvement
plan is not required for subject application . Please see Article IV, Section C.J.h. for additional
comments.
Article JV, Section Cl.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study
□NIA □Accepted ~ Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: A traffic study, or a letter from the EOR and stamped by EOR indicating trip generation
of the proposed development does not warrant a traffic study, is required to fulfill this section.
A letter from tile Engineer of Record (EOR) indicating a traffic study is not warranted was
submitted with tJ,e 4/16/2018 follow-up packaf!e, however the letter was not PE-stamped.
Article JV, Section C 1. i. List of Names and addresses of all persons to whom notice of a public
hearing shall be sent, and the names and addresses of all owners of land immediately adjoining the
proposed subdivision as their names appear upon the plats in the county tax assessor 's office, which
will be certified or otherwjse verified by the County, on the tax records of the County.
□NIA □Accepted ~ Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article JV, Section CJ. Certification of Property Owner Notification List
Comments: See Article JV, Section C.1. "Certification of Property Owner Notification List" -
though the list of adjacent property owners has been furnished, the certification was not included
with the list. Provided llS a follow-up submittal 4/25/2018.
Article IV, Section C.2. Staff Review
2. Staff review -Applicants for a preliminary plat shall first submit the preliminary plat and plans to
the P lanning Director and /or his /her authorized agent for staff's review. The Director shall determine if
the submittals meet all of the requirements of Section C. l., above. Incomplete, partia l, or inaccurate
submittals will not be accepted , but will be returned to applicant for re-submission for a later hearing.
Staff shall review the
application and provide comments to the appJicant. Following staff review and comments the applicant
shall submit revised drawings for review by staff and the Planning Commission. The revised plans
submitted shall reflect staff's initial review comments .
□NIA IZl Accepted with comments ~ Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: This section authorizes staff to withhold an incomplete application from the Planning
Commission agenda or return an incomplete application entirely. A number of items in this
checklist are marked "revise and resubmit" but may be cured in sufficient time for the application to
appear 011 the upcoming planning commission agenda. See cover letter for deadlines to respond
with outstanding items. The va1ious "revise and resubmit" items have been sufficiently cured for
the application to be considered by the Planning Commission. Various items requiring
conditions of approval are noted in the "recommendation" section of the staff report.
6 SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
Article IV, Section C.5 . Pre-Construction Conference
5. Pre-construction Conference -An onsite pre-construction conference with City representatives is
required prior to initiation of any land disturbance activities. Construction of said improvements shall
in no way obligate the Commission to grant Final Approval of the Plat, nor shall it obligate the City
Council to accept such improvements for public maintenance. No owner or developer shall proceed
with any site work under authority of preliminary plat approval until the completion of the
preconstruction conference.
□NIA IZI Accepted with comments D Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Commel1ts : For the applica11t's i11formatio11 "pre-construction cmference is a condition of
(IDDl'OV(II.
Article IV, Section C.6. a. and b . Expiration and Revocation
6. Expiration and Revocation -
a. Any substantial deviation from the approved submittals during construction or failure to provide for
traffic control, safety, environmental protection controls and/or best management practices and
restoration of the site shall be grounds for the immediate suspension of the Preliminary Plat Approval
and/or issuance of a stop work order. The Planning Commission shall have the power to reinstate
Preliminary Approval when it is satisfied that conditions resulting in suspension have been mitigated .
b. If a final plat is not submitted within two years or less after preliminary approval has been given, the
preliminary approval shall expire, and the preliminary plat shall be null , void and of no force or effect.
□NIA IZIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comme11ts: For lite applicaJ1t's information , su~;ect application is an MOP and ,wt a traditional
subdivision requiring a final plat approval. The various closeout req11ireme11tsfor this MOP will be
conditions of' annroval.
Article IV, Se ction.D.I Final Plat Aoolication Checklist
□NIA IZIAccepted with comments IZIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Not included with MOP subdivision applicatio11.
Subject application is an MOP and not a typical subdivision requiring final "plat" approval. In
lieu of a final plat requiring approval , the various closeout requirements shall be condition s of
approval.
Article IV, Section.D.J.a. Maintenance Bond
a. Either a financial guaranty (in the form of a maintenance bond) in an amount and form acceptable to
the City Council as a guarantee for the installation of required improvements or the determination of
the City's General Superintendent that all required improvements have been installed to the City's
requirements .
□NIA IZI Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject application is an MOP and not a traditional subdivision requiring a.final plat
approval. Normally the maintenance bond is included with tlte final plat approval. Comments :
Subject development is not a typical subdivision requiring a final "plat" approval. The closeout
requirements for this application will be conditions of approval, and the maintenance bond
(more specifically a maintenance, materials, and wo.-lilllanship bond) will be a closeout
requirement only for improvements that will become public improvements occurring in public
ROWs and public easements. Any needed dedications to the COF will be identified during the
closeout process and will be prepared by staff for City Council approval similar to that of a
typical subdivision.
7 SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
Article IV, S ec tion.D. l. b. (4) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all information required by and
meeting requirements of Aiticle IV ., Section C. l. and the following additional information:
( 4) Street Tree Plan shall be submitted showing the location of al I plante d street trees .
!ZIN/A with comments □Accepted □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject application is ,m MOP and does not propose creation of new streets to be
dedicated to COF requiring street trees. A landscape plan was submitted and will be reviewed to
determine compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. A revised landscaping plan was furnished with
the 4/20/2018 follow-up submittal, however tlte landscape plan did not include tree pmtection detaill'
for the existing treel· in the ROW immediately adjacent to the subject property, with canopies that
extend i111o the proposed worksites. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall coordinate any
COF-required tree protections with the COF lwrticulturalist and reflect anJ tree-protections 011 fl
revised la11dlw1pe plan to be submitted with the land disturbance permit. As a further condition of
approval, lite landsc"pe architect shall submit an as-built drawing with a statement indicating the
lam/.c;c:ape features of the site have been constructed as-desi1:11ed.
Article IV, S ection.D.1. b. (5) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all infonnation required by and
meeting requirements of Article IV ., Section C.l. and the following additional information :
(5) Final plans and calculations for utility layouts.
□NIA ~Accepted with comments IXI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER AND/OR
WATER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE PLANNING
JURISDICTION not furnished.
Included with the 4/16/2018 follow-up submittal package.
Article IV, S ection.D. l . b. (11 ) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all infonnation required by and
meeting requirements of Atiicle TV., Section C. l . and the following additional infonnation:
(l 1) Surveyor 's Certificate on Plat, Engineer's Seal and Cettificate on Plans.
□NIA IZ!A cce pted with comme nts IXIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Not shown on plans.
Engineer's certificate has been added to the front cover of the plans and the surveyor's
certificate is included on the existing conditions/demolition plan but is not signed by the
surveyor. However, the condominium establishment subdivision application case# SD 18.20
contains the same drawing surveyor-stamped and is cross-referenced here for case# SD 18.19
and a coov will be olaced in SD 18.19's file to match SD 18.20's file.
Article IV, Section.D. l . b. (15) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all infonnation required by and
meeting requirements of Atiicle IV ., Section C.l . and the following additional information:
(15) Site data table box including but not limited to:
• Total acreage of site
• Acreage of common area(s)
• Total number of lots
• Gross Floor Area of Buildings
• Site Density
• Number of units proposed .
□NI A IZ!Ac ce pte d with comments IXIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please provide 1:ross floor areas of buildin1:s on tlte revised sets of plans.
8 SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
Added to the plans and reflected on drawing 3 of 13 "Site Plan Overlay" in the follow -up
submission dated 4/16 /2018 .
Article IV, Section. D. l. b. (16) Fina l Plat and Final Plans showing all infonnation required by and
meet ing requirements of A1ticle TV., Section C. l. and the following additional info1111ation:
(16) Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure drainage structures
are undamaged and free of debris and sediment.
□NIA IZ!Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: subject application is cm MOP and not a traditional subdivision requiring a final "p lat"
approval. Tlte digital or video images intlicatetf above are a closeout requireme11t.for this MOP and
will be a co11ditio11 of approval. Tlte Building Official and staff will c/ar(fy the closeout procedure al
the ore-co11structio11 meeti112.
Article IV, Section.DJ. b. (1 7) Fina l P lat and Fina l Plans showing al l infonnation required by and
meeting requirements of Article IV., Section C . l . and the following additiona l infonnation:
(17) Maintenance Plan for maintenance of detention facilities during development and documents
providing for continued maintenance after completion of development and sale of al I lots . Such
documents running as a covenant with the lands.
□NI A IZ!Accepted with comments D Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference : Article V, S ection F. 3 . a. (3)
Subject application is an MOP and not a traditional subdivision requiring a final "plat" approval.
Tlte Maintenance Plan described above is a closeout requirement for this MOP and will be a
co11ditio11 of approval. The Building Ojjicial and stafl will clarify the c/o,,~eout procedure at the pre-
construction meeti11J?,
Article JV. Se ction .D.1 .b.(18) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all info1111ation required by and
meeting requirements of Article IV ., Section C. l . and the fo llowing additional information:
( 18) The engineer shall pe1form the supervision of construction, the final plat shall have the following
engineer's certification :
9
"ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE"
"l, the undersigned , a Registered Engineer in the State of A labama holding Ce1tificate
Number ___ , hereby certify that l have designed the within improvements in
conformity with applicab le codes and laws and with the principals of good engineering
practice. I further certify that I have observed the construction of the within
improvements, that the same confonns to my design, that the within is a true and
accurate representation of improvements as installed and that said improvements are
hereby recommended for acceptance by the City of Fairhope, Alabama.
Project Engineer
Date
Name of Project to which the Certificate Applies Plans which are ce1tified consist of
Page __ thru _, each of which bears by seal and signature ."
SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
□NI A □Accepted IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject applicatio11 is rm MOP am/ 1101 a traditional subdivision requiring aji11al "plat''
approval. Tlte e11gi11eer's certificate as worded above will he placed 011 the cover page of a set of as-
built drawi11KS to be provided with the closeout submittal, wlticl, .r,ha/1 be a co11ditio11 of aooroval.
Article V, Section F.3 .a. (3)(a)(2) Stonn Water Standards -Submittal Reguirements -Minimum
Reguirements-Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(2) An Erosion and Sediment Contro l Plan which includes , but shall not be limited to:
(a) Architectural and engineering drawings , maps , assumptions , calc ulations , and
narrative statements as required to accurately describe the development and measures
taken to meet the objectives of storm-wate r management;
(b) Data on historical runoff, developed runoff, detention pond details, and method of
discharge.
□NIA □Review pending IZ!Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please revise drawing 10 of 13 "Erosio11 Control Plan " to re.fleet the COF JO-day rule
h1 the lieu o_fthe ADEM 13-day rule regarding temporary seeding. Tlte stabilization requirements of
eacl, buildi112 will be more fu/11 1 described durillK the vre-co11structio11 couference.
Article V, Section F.3.a. (3}(a)(3) Stonn Water Standards -Submittal Requirements -Minimum
Requirements-Operations and Maintenance Plan
(3) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for maintenance of detention
facilities and other storm water quantity and quality BMPs during development and documents
providing for conti nu ed inspection and maintenance after completion of development and sale
of all lots, such documents running as a covenant with the lands.
(a) An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement signed by the developer or
owner for any required detention faci li ties or othe r storm water quantity and
quality BMPs must be submitted wit h the maintenance plan prepared by the design
engineer for each BMP. The maintenance plan must -include a description of the
stom, water conveyance system and its components, inspection priorities ,
schematics for each BMP, and inspection schedule for each water quantity and
quality BMP. The O&M Agreement must be recorded prior to final plans approval.
If the fo1al configuration of the stonn water system or BMPs differs from the
original design on the approved plans , the O&M Agreement must be revised ,
finalized , and rerecorded. Failure to follow the O&M Agreement could result in
enfo rc ement action.
(b) The long-tern, maintenance plan withi n the O&M Agreement contains the
inspection priorities and sc hedul e for the storm water BMPs. The owner is
responsible for inspecting the storm water system and BMPs according to the
schedu le and submitting reports to the Planning Director or his authorized
representative every three (3) years to document that inspections have been
completed an d necessary maintenance has been perfo1med. The first inspection
reprni is due December 31 of the third year after construction has been completed.
Inspection repo1is are then due by December 31 of every third year following
submittal of the first rep01t. The Planning Director or his authorized representative
must be notified of any change in ownership. Failure to file the three-year
inspection reports and perfonn required maintenance activities could result in
enforcement action.
( c) Prior to the fu 11 release of the performance bond for any new or substantially
improved stonn water facilities, an Alabama registered engineer shall submit to the
Planning Director or his authorized representative ce1iification that the proposed
storm water mana ement s stem and BMPs for the develo ment are com lete and
10 SD 18.19 New Ban k and Retail -May 7, 2018
functional in accordance with the approved plan s and shall al so provide as-built
drawings for the stonn water management systems and BMPs.
□ D Review pending IXl Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
N I A comments
Comments: Subject applicatio11 is mt MOP not requiring a final "plat '' submis.~ion process. As ll
result, the submission of thefully-executed and properly-recorded Operations mu/ Maintenance
Plan shall be a closeout requirement and a condition of aooro11al.
Article V, Section F.3 .d. Storm Water Standards -Submittal Requirements -Ce1tifications and Seals
d . Ce rtifications and Seals -
( 1) All plans , and design calculation s submitted shall bear the seal , original signature, name ,
address and te lephone number and ce,tification of the project engineer, who shall be registered
to practice as a Professional Engineer in the State of Alabama and who is qualified by reason
of education and experience in the field of storm water design.
(2) The engineer shall seal and sign each sheet of the plan assembly.
(3) The engineer shall affix his certification to the first sheet of each plan assembly and design
calculation , which ce1tificate shall read substantially as follows:
"ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned , a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Alabama holding
Ce,tificate Number ____ , hereby certify that l have reviewed the design herein which
was done under my direct control and supervision and that, to the best of my professional
knowledge and to the best of my be lief, conforms to the requirements of the Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations and to all other rules , regulations, laws , and ordinances applicable to
my design.
______________ Project Engineer
Date
Name of Project to which this Ce1tificate Applies
Plans which are certified consist of Page __ thru __ , each of which bears my seal and
signature."
( 4) The calculations , construction plans , and plat shall have the following statement: "A
property owners association (POA) is r equired to be formed. Th e POA is re quired Lo maintain
any and all storm water faciliti es and structures locat ed outs ide of the publicly accepted right-
of-wav ".
D NI A D Accepted IXl Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: As a co11ditio11 of approval please provide ll revised copy of the drai11age calcu/atio11s
i11cludi11g the engineer 's cert(ficate 011 the cover as described above. Also p/e(lse i11clude a stateme11t
idemifyi11g the POA or similar e11tity re!,ponsiblefor mai11tai11i11g any mu/ all storm water facilitie!,·
and structures located outside o{'tl,e public/JI flccef}led ROW t1s remtired by item (4) above.
Article V, S ec tion F.6. Storm Water Standards -Erosion Control (Excerpted)
□NI A IZIReview pending ~Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference : National Engin ee ring Field Manual f or Cons ervation Practices and A labama
Handbook for Erosion Control, Sedim ent Control and Storm Wat er Manage m ent on C onstruction Sites
and Urban Areas
11 SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
Comment:,: As a co11dition of approval please revise drawing 10 of 13 ''Erosion Control Plan'' to
reflect the COF JO-day rule ill the lieu of the ADEM 13-day rule shown regarding temporary
seeding. The stabilization requirements of eaclt building will he more fully described during the pre-
co11structio11 conferellce.
Article V, Section Fl l .a.j Reguired Use of Low lmQact Develogment (LID) Technigues
ON/A □Accepted !XI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: LID techniques used not identffied. The EOR provided a narrative describing four (4)
LID techniques to be used on subject site and fm1her requested a waiver of the remaining LID
techniques . Waiver of the remainin2 LID techniques shall be a condition of approval.
Article V, Section G. Planning Design Standards-Ugsizing
□NIA IZIAccepted with comments !XI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Review pending submission of APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT
SANITARY SEWER ANDI OR WATER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE PLANNING JURISDICTION Submitted with the 4/16/2018 fo ll ow-up package.
Article VI, Section F. Construction Standards-Water S)'.'.stem
a . All subdivisions shall have water se rv ice . The water service shall be provided by either
Fairhope Public Utilities or an approved water service.
b. Primary water service may be individual well type systems that have been approved by the
Baldwin County Health Depa11ment and the Fairhope Public Uti lities Water Department.
c. All water systems constructed within a subdivision and all water systems constructed outside
of a subdivision but servicing a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with those
ce11ain "Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities "
d. Water meters shall be placed inside the property line at the sta11 of the utility easement.
□NIA IZI Accepted with comments IZIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference : Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitmy Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities
Comments: Review pending receipt of APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT
SANITARY SEWER AND/OR WATERDISTRIBUTIONFACILITIESINTHECITYOF
FAIRHOPE PLANNING JURISDICTION. Submitted with the 4/16/2018 follow-up package .
Article VJ, Section G. Construction Standards-Fire H)'.'.drants
Fire Hydrants shall be installed along each street at a maxi mum interval of four hundred fifty (450)
feet, or at the ends and center of each block, or as otherwise required by the fire authority having
jurisdiction. Water supp ly and pressure shall be adequate to provide fire protection and for the future
needs of the development.
Blue reflective markers shall be installed at the street line of sh·eets to indicate the location of fire
hydrants.
□N I A □Accepted !XI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
12 SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
Comments: See Article IV, Section C.l.b.(11) for flow model requirements, notfumislted. The
nearest existing.fire hydrant is south oftlte existing McDonald's near the "Agave" sign.
Furnished with 4/19/2018 follow -up submittal package: 1200 gpm flow , 54psi static pressure, 44
psi re s idual oressure.
Article VJ, Section H Construction Standards-Sanitary Sewerage
I . All subdivisions shall have sanitary sewer service. The sewer service shall be provided by either the
Fairhope Public Utilities or an approved sewer service.
2. All sanitary sewer systems constructed within a subdivision and all sanitary sewer systems
constructed outside of a subd ivision but servicing a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with
those certain "Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities"
which is on file at the
City of Fairhope Water & Sewer Depa11ment.
3 . Individual septic tank type systems that have been approved by the Baldwin County Health
Depa1tment and the Fairhope Public Utilities Sewer Depa1tment may be utilized.
□NIA □Accepted lZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference : Standard Specifications for Cons!J•ucting Sanita,y Sewer Facilities and Water
Facilities
Comments: Comments: Review pending receipt of APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER ANDI OR WATER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES IN THE
CITY OF FAIRHOPE PLANNING JURISDICTION. Submitted with the 4/16/2018 follow-up
packae:e.
Article VI, Section K. Construction Standards-Inspection of Improvements
When a ll required improvements have been in stalled, the sub-divider shall call for a furnl inspection .
The Planning Director and /o r his /her authorized agent and other City Department representatives sha ll
inspect the site to detennine if the required improvements are satisfactorily installed according to plans,
specifications, standards and applicable laws and ordinances . To determine if the streets are installed to
minimum standards, the sub-divider sha ll select an indegendent testing laboratory aggroved by the City
to make the necessaiy tests. Tests shall be conducted at the expense of the sub-divider as required by
Chapter 19 of the Fairhope Code of Ordinances.
□NIA lZI Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Chapter 19 of th e Fairhope Code of Ordinances (test inf! requirement!i)
Comments: All MOP-applicable closeout requireme11ts shall be a co11ditio11 of approval in lieu of the
formal final ''plat" approval process comluctedfor a typical subdivision.
Article IV, Section B. Site Design Standards
2. Screening
a. In any district , all mechanical or operating equipment, materials , or activities not contained with in a
building, such as drive -through equipment, outdoor storage of materials, stationary machine1y, and
outdoor servicing activities , shall be enclosed by a wall or fence of solid appearance or tight evergreen
hedge not le ss than six feet in height. If the owner elects to build a wall or fence of bare or severe
appearance it sha ll be enhanced with the planting of shrubs.
□NIA □Accepted with comments lZ!Revise and Resubmit per
com111ents
Comme11ts: Please provide drawings of the screening surrounding the dumpster pad/can wash area,
standby ge11erator (if applicable) and all other meclia11ical or electrical equipment/or subject site to
verifv compliance with screening requirements. Reore~·e11tative buildiltI! elevaliotts were include,/
13 SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
• meets
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or
federal laws and regulations,· or
• meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
• meets
Recommendation:
Subject application is a Multiple Occupancy Project and as a result there is no "plat" to be submitted
for final approval. In order to fulfill the final inspection requirements of Article IV, Section C.6 .a. and
b., as well as Article IV, Section 0.4, staff recommends APPROVAL of the MOP request subject to the
conditions below:
16
1} A pre-construction conference will be requ i red prior to land disturbance.
a. The sequencing of construction of the three buildings, procedures for requests for building
inspection, si te stabi lization requirements for each building site and initiation of closeout
procedures will be clarified during the pre -construction conference.
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver of ten (10) LID techniques and acceptance of the use of four (4) LID
techniques for the site.
3} Include with the building permit plans elevations indicating how screening is accomplished for any items
included with the site requiring sc reening as required by Article IV, Section B.2. Note the maximum
allowable building height in B-2 General Business District is 30'-0" ta ll.
4) Prior to land disturbance, coo rdinate any tree protections required by the City of Fairhope
Horticulturalist for existing trees immediately adjacent to subject property and reflect any tree-
protections on a revised landscape plan to be submitted w ith the land disturbance permit.
5) An elevation certificate shall be included with the building permit request for each building.
6) Revise drawing 10 of 13 "Erosion Control Plan " to reflect the COF 10-day rule in the lieu of the ADEM 13-
day rule shown regarding temporary seed in g.
7) Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subd ivis ion . In lieu of the final plat approval
procedure required for a typical subdivision, the closeout procedure for subject development includes
the follow procedures and/or documents:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.l.a. for any infrastructure to be
dedicated to the City of Fairhope
b. A fully-executed and recorded copy of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and
Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other storm water quantity and quality
BMPs as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b .(17 ) and Article V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(3)
c. Digital o r video image(s) w ith date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure drainage
structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as required by Article IV,
Section .D .l.b.(16)
d. One copy of the site as -built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage calcu lations
containing the engineer's certificate required by Article IV, Section.D.l.b.(18) and Article VI,
Sec tion E.6-8 as well as a statement identifying the POA or simila r entity responsible for
maintaining any and all storm water facilities and structures located outs ide of the publicly
accepted ROW .
e. One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the landscape architect of
record ind i cat ing the various landscape features have been completed as-designed .
f. In spection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Art icle IV, Section D. 1.b.(1) -(18)
g. Inspection of all other MOP-a pplicabl e sec tion s of Article VI, Construction Standard s and
Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing requirements
SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -May 7, 2018
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of Hutchinson, Moore, and Raugh , LLC (HMR) on behalf of
Fairhope Group, LLC for approval of preliminary and final plat approval of three new condominium
units to be located at the at the Ecor Rouge Place shopp i ng cente r . Subject property fronts upon
Greeno Road consisting of approximately 5.76 total ac r es and 0.80 project site acres. Subject
application is concurrently submitted with case number SD 18 .19, a Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP)
for a bank and retail site on the same property. The MOP does not request subdivision of lands or the
creation of new lots, however subject applicat i on creates condom i nium "lot lines " on which the units
r equested by SD 18.19 may be built . HMR serve s as the eng i neer of record (EOR) for subject
application . Subject property contains th ree existing condominium units occupied by a restaurant,
church, and office space occupying a former grocery store build i ng. The proposed new condominium
unit "lot lines" will be created in the ex isting parking lot serving the existing condominium units and
will front upon Greeno Road .
Comments:
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Art icl e II , Definit ion of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations defines a Condominium
Development as "real estate, portions of which are designated for separate ownership and the
remainder of which is designated by common ownership solely by the owners ofthose
portions. The development type is hereby subject to the same development reviews and
procedures as a conventional su bd ivision. Condominium developments shall submit a plat(s)
that adhere(s) to the requirements established in this document. Existing buildings as of
September 2001 in the City Limits and ETJ are exempt from these procedures. Additionally, the
Central Business District as defined in the Zoning Ordinance is exempt from these procedures ".
The following item are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject
application's compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations and other relevant o r dinances and are included here to provide relevant background and
rationale behind staff's recommendation. Items marked in blue text ar e accepted with comments. All
Article, Section, and Paragraph numbers identified are references to the City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations unless otherwise identified. Subject application was submitted concurrently with Case# SD
18.19 as described previously, and a great majority of the documents required for submission of
subject case are duplicates of SD 18.19's documents and are referenced below as applicable.
Article IV, Section C.J . Prelimin ary Pl at A ool ication Che ck li st
O N/A IZI Accepted with comments ~R evi se an d Re su bmit p er
comments
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-on submittal to SD 18.19 MOP.
Article IV, Sect i on C. 1. Certificat io n of Pro oertv Ow ner N ot ificati on L i st
ON/A IZIAccepted with comments ~R evise and Resubmit pe r
c om ment s
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-on submitta l to SD 18.19 MOP.
Article fll, Section C. J. b. (3) Na mes and ad dresses of the fo l low in g:
• ow ner
• des i gner
2 SD 18.2 0 Ecor Rouge Plac e, A Condominium -May 7, 2018
• applicant
• all associated in vestors
• record owners of lands immediately adjacent to subdivision .
□NIA IZIAccepted with comments IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please furnish the names and addresses of all associated investors.
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-up submittal to SD 18.19 MOP. Stan Davidson and
Courtney Trotter are t he associated investors and their contact information was submitted for
file purposes.
Article IV; Section C.l.b.(7) Building set back line s shall be shown on the plat as required by the
Z011ll)g
ordinance or in absence of zonin~, as required by deed restrictions.
□NIA IZI Acce pted with comments IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-up submittal to SD 18 .19 MOP.
Article IV. Section C. l . b. (8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utilities with connections
(8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utility with connections to existing utility system and all proposed
improvements. Approval of private utility connections for water and sewer shall be s ubject to the
standards of
Alticle VIII , Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 12
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fairhope. The applicant sha ll submit one copy of utility letters
stating availability of service. Utility letters and layout must be submitted from electric, water, sewer,
phone, trash provider, and gas (if applicable), stating the prope1ty may be adequately served by such
utility.
□NI A IZI Accept ed with comments IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Approval o.f private utility connections for water and sewer shall be subject to the
standard~ of Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, and
Chavter 12 of the Code of Ordinances of the C it y of Fairhove .
Will serve letters for water, sewer, electrical, and natural gas included with 4/16/2018 SD 18.19
MOP submittal.
Article IV, Se ction C.l.b.(11 ) Flow model data submitted to the standards of the COF Water
Depattment.
□NIA IZI Acce pte d with comments IZIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Furnished with 4/19/2018 SD 18.19 MOP follow -up submittal package: 1200 gpm flow , 54psi
static oressure, 44 psi residual pt·essure.
Article IV, Section C. 1. b. (14) Minimum finished floor elevations for every lot.
□NIA IZI Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
cmmnents
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-up submittal to SD 18 .19 MOP.
Article IV, Section C. J. b. (] 5) Submit a topographic survey with an aerial photograph with plat overlay .
□NIA IZI Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow ~up submittal to SD 18.19 MOP.
3 SD 18 .2 0 Ecor Rouge Place, A Condominium -May 7, 2018
Article IV, Section C J. b. (16) Pedestrian circulation plan
□NIA IZJAccepted with comments cgjRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Furnished with 4/16/2018 follow-up submittal to SD 18.19 MOP .
Article IV, Section C l .b.(1 7) Site data box including but not limited to:
• Total acreage of site
• Acreage of common area(s)
• Total number of lots
• Square footage of each lot
• Site Density
• Number of units proposed
□NIA cgj Accepted with c omments IZIRevise and Resubmit per
comments
The "lots" indicated by the survey included with subject application are for the purpose of
declaration of subdivision. The square footage of the new "lots" as well as their legal description
is delineated on the survey olat.
Article Iv, Section Cl.e. Engineering Plans: all engineering plans shall be signed and stamped by the
registered professional engineer of record.
□NIA IZJAccepted cgjRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments:
Article JV, Section CI . h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study
□NIA IZl Accepted with comments D Revise and Resubmit per
comments
A letter from the Engineer of Record (EOR) indicating a traffic study is not warranted was
submitted with the 4/16/2018 SD 18.19 MOP follow-up packaee.
Article JV, Section.D. 1 Final Plat Application Check) ist
□N IA IZJ Accepted w ith comme nts cgj Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Subject application functions similar to a minor subdivision in that preliminary nd final
approval is concurrent. SD 18.19 MOP has been submitted concurrently and various closeout
requirements of the MOP are conditions of aooroval of the MOP.
Article JV, Section.D.J.b.(11) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all infonnation required by and
meeting requirements of Article TV., Section C. l. and the following additional information:
(]I) Surveyor 's Ce1tificate on Plat, Engineer's Seal and Ce1tificate on Plans.
□NIA IZ!Ac cepted cgjRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments:
4 SD 18.20 Ecor Rouge Place, A Condominium -May 7, 2018
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;
• meets
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City
including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle
Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
• meets
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
• meets
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or
federal laws and regulations; or
• meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
• meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends preliminary and final plat APPPROVAL ofthe three condominium units subject to
the condition(s) below:
1) Approval of Case# SD 18.19 , New Bank and Retail -Ecor Rouge Shopping Center
6 SD 18 .20 Ecor Rouge Place , A Condominium -May 7, 2018
2
Summary of Request:
Pub lic hearing to consider the request of Hutchinson, Moore, and Raugh, LLC {HMR) on behalf of
Batt les Road , LLC for approval of a Phase 2 of Old Battles Place, a Multiple Occupancy Project {MOP).
Subject property is located at the northeast intersection of Old Battles Road {CR 34) and South Section
Street (CR 3), consisting of approximately 40.89 total acres. Subject application is an MOP and does not
request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots. Phase 1 of the development has been
constructed, consisting of 110 apartment homes . Phase 2 will complete development of the site and
add an additional 95 apartment homes of similar configuration and arrangement to Phase 1. Mr. Tim
Lawley, PE , of HMR serves as the engineer or record {EOR) for subject application. The staff
recommendation reflects conditions of approval necessary for final closeout of the MOP but requiring
a separate procedure due to the absence of a fina l plat approval associated with MOPs.
Comments:
MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY PROJECT (MOP) CRITERIA
The fol lowing item are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject
application's compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations and other relevant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and
rationale behind staff's recommendation. Any items initially marked "revise and resubmit" have been
cured by the notations in bl ue t ext . Any items marked in red text w i ll be cured by conditions of
approval , or in the case of a recommendation fo r denial of an application, provide rationale for the
recommendation of denial. All Article , Section , and Paragraph numbers identified are references to
the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations unless otherwise identified .
Article IV, Section C.1 . b. (3) N a mes a nd a ddresses of t he fo ll owi ng:
• ow ne r
• des ign e r
• a ppli c ant
• a ll associated in vesto rs
• record owners of l a nd s immed iately a dj ace nt to s ubdi vis ion .
□NIA I IZIAcce pted w ith c o mments J □Revise and Resubm it per co mments
Commen ts : Thomas Mitchell is the sole member o f Battles Road, LLC.
A rticle IV, Sectio n C.1.b. (8) Pl an a nd profil es of all pro pose d utili t ies w it h connections
(8) Pl an and profi les of a ll proposed utili ty w ith conn ectio ns t o exist in g ut ili ty syste m a nd a ll proposed
improvem ents . A ppro va l of pri va t e ut ility c01rn ecti ons for w at e r a nd sewer s ha ll be subj ect t o t he
stand ard s of
Art ic le V ill, Sections E. a nd G., res p e ct ive ly of t he Fairh ope S ubdi vis io n R eg ul at io ns , and C ha pte r 12
of t he Code of Ordina nces of the C ity of Fai rhop e . T he a ppli ca nt s ha ll sub m it o ne co py of ut il ity lette rs
statin g avail a bil ity of se rv ice . U til ity lette rs and layo ut mu st be submitted fro m e lectric , wat er, sewe r,
ph o ne , tra sh p rov id e r, a nd gas (if a pplica bl e), statin g th e pro pe1ty may be adeq uate ly served by s uc h
utility .
□NIA □Review pending IZI Accepted with comments □R ev i se a nd Res u bmit per
please see comments comme nts and provide follow-up
SD 18 .2 1 Ol d Battles Place , Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
3
Cross Reference: Approval of private utility connec tions for water and sewer shall be subject to the
standards of Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations , and
Chavter 12 of th e Code of Ordinances of the City of Fair hope .
Comments: Utili(J' drawings.for phase 2 i11cluded in the "'·ubmittal. This review assumes the /(ft
station co11structed in phase 1 was designed to accept waste water from the e11til'e site. Please
coordinate utility review with Richard Peterso11 and address any questions or concerns he may lun1e.
Please provide a brief narrative explaining the upgrades to the /(ft station servicing subject property
that have been completed or are pending.
The EOR verified in its 4/18 /2018 follow-up submittal that the lift station constructed in Phase 1
was sized for the entire development and its volume and capacity were upgraded at the request of
COF.
Article JV, Section C. 1.b . (11) Flow model data submitted to the standards of the COF Water
Department.
□NIA ~Rev ie w pending jg!Accepted wi th c omments □Revise and Resubmit per
p lease see comments comments
Comments: Flow model submitted -please coordinate review with Richard Peterson and address any
questions or concems he may have.
The EOR acknowledged this item by mat·king "noted" in its 4/18/2018 follow-up submittal. The
fire flow model for the entire site indicates a worst-case scenario delivering 1,000 psi at more
than 20 psi, and will likely deliver 2reater pressure to Phase 2 due to Phase 2's lower elevation.
Article IV, Section C. J. b. (12) Street li ghting plan
□NIA [gjAccepted with comments . □Revise and Resubmit per
please provide follow-up . comn1ents
Comments: A street lighting ''plan" is not included, however .rnbject development does not propose
dedicating streets to the City of Fairhope. Please provide a brief narmtive explaining ho,v street
lighting is to be accomplished.
The EOR's 4/18/2018 follow-up comments clarified that street lighting will be installed consistent
with Phase 1.
Article IV, Section C.1. b. (13) and Article V, Section D.5.a. (9) Tree protection plan for all required
street trees or trees over 24" DBH. Tree protection fences shal l be installed prior to land disturbance
activities. (See Appendix G)
□NIA IXIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Ordinance number 1444 , Tree Ordinance
Comments: The City Horticulturalist reviewed and approved drawings TPl00, LP200, and LP500.
Su~;ect application is au MOP and therefore aformalizedfiua/ "plat" procedure is 1101 conducted.
As a contlitiou of approval. the landscape architect shall submit (lit as-built drawing with a statement
iudicating the la,ulscape features of the site have been constructed as-designed.
Article IV, Section C. l .b. (16) Pedestrian circulation plan
□NIA [gjAccepted with comments, □Revise and Resubmit per
please provide follow-up. comments
Comments: A pedestricm circulation plan is not induded; however proposed de11elopme11t does not
contain streets to be dedicated to the City of Fairhope. Please provide a brief narrative describing the
pedestrian circ11latio11 plan for the site.
The EOR included a brief narrative in its 4/18/2018 follow-up submittal indication pedestrian
circulation for the 2nd ohase mimics that of the first phase via 5'-0" wide sidewalks on each side
SD 18.21 Old Battles Place, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
4
of the interior access road. Both phases 1 and 2 contain a linked "loop" connecting all apartment
home units .
Article IV, Sec tion C. l.b.(17) Site data box including but not limited to :
• Total acreage of site
• Acreage of common area(s)
• Total number of lots
• Square footage of each lot
• Site Density
• Number of units proposed
□NIA IZI Accepted with conunents igjRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comme11ts: The 11w11her ,?f w1it~· I de11si(v is 1101 sltow11 011 the site data table. Because this is the
fi11al phase of J/,e development please i11c/11de the total unit co1111t a11d density of the site.
The follow-up submittal of 4/18 /2018 contains a revised site data table. The total development
contains 205 units on approximately 40.89 acres for a density of approximately 5.013 units per
acre. The allowable density for the site (R-5 High Density Residential Dwelling Disfrict) is ten
(10) units per acre.
Article IV, Section C.J .b.(18) Applicants shall provide site data and all applicable permits relative
to items such as soils, wetlands, flooding , drainage , natural features and potential archeological
features. <Excerpted)
□NIA I 18JAccepted with comments I □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Subject properly is not located in a flood hazard area per the 2017 preliminary flood
maps. Drainage calculations have been submitted and are currently under review by the Public
Works Director.
Article IV, Section C.l.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study (Excerpted)
Applications shall include trip generation data showing the projected average daily traffic (ADT) in a
24-hour period and projected peak-hour traffic generated by the development in the subdivision
application . Peak hour traffic shall generally be the hours between 7 A.M. and 9 A.M. for morning and
4 P.M. and 6 P.M. for the evening and include the consecutive 60-minute segment in which traffic
counts are projected to occur.
□NIA 18JAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: A traffic study performed by Sain Associates was submitted with Phase 1 of Old Battles
Place. The traffic study states "the intersection of Section Street and Old Battels Road is expected to
operate at acceptable levels of service after both build phases are complete". Tlte traffic study also
states a multi-way stop evaluation was performed at the same intersection at the request of the
Baldwin County Highway Department, and Sain Associates stated, "The intersection does not meet
(the) warrantsfor installation".
Article IV, Section C.5. Pre-Construction Conference
5. Pre-construction Conference -An onsite pre-construction conference with City representatives is
required prior to initiation of any land disturbance activities . Construction of said improvements shall
in no way obligate the Commiss ion to grant Final Approval of the Plat, nor shall it obligate the City
Council to accept such improvements for public maintenance . No owner or developer shall proceed
with any site work under authority of preliminary plat approval until the completion of the
reconstruction conference.
SD 18.21 Old Battles Place, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
□NIA IXIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: This item will be a condition of npprm al.
Article TV. Section.D. I .a. Maintenance Bond
a. Either a financial guaranty (in the form of a maintenance bond) in an amount and form acceptable to
the City Council as a guarantee for the installation of required improvements or the determination of
the City's General Superintendent that all required improvements have been installed to the City's
requirements .
□N IA IXIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
co nun en ts
Comments: Subject development is not a typical subdivisio11 requiri11g a final "plat" approval. The
closeout requireme111s for tit is applicotio11 will be conditions of approval, a11d the mai11tena11ce bond
(more specffical/y a mai11te11a11ce, materials, mu/ workmansltip bond) will be a closeout requiremellt
011/y for improvements that will become public improvements occurring in public ROWs and public
easements. Any needed dedications to tlte COF will be ide11tijied during the closeout process and will
be prepared by staff for Cit}' Council avoroval similar to that of a tvpical subdivision.
Article IV, Section .D.l.b. (4) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all infonnation required by and
meeting requirements of A1ticle IV ., Section C.1. and the following additional information:
(4) Street Tree Plan shall be submitted showing the location of all planted street trees.
□NIA IXIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject development is not a typical subdivision requiring a final "plat" approval. The
closeout requirements for this application will be conditions of approval. Please see Article IV,
Section C.1.for llxl 7 drawing submittal requirements and note drawings TPI0O, LP200 and LP500
It ave been reviewed and approved by tlte COF horticulturalist. As a condition of approval, the
landscape architect shall submit an as-built drawing with a statement indicating the landscape
feature ,\' of tlte site It ave been constructed as-desi1:ned.
Article IV, Section.D. I . b. (8) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all information required by and
meeting requirements of A1ticle IV., Section C. I . and the following additional information:
(8) Owner and Lien-Holders Ce1tificates of Dedications for Streets or other public use.
□NIA IXIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
conunents
Comments: Subject development is not a typical subdivision requiring a final "plat" approval and
does not request dedication o.f streets into the COF. The closeout requirements for this application
will be conditions of approval. Please see Article IV, Section C.1. for llxl 7 drmvu1g submittal
requirements.
Article IV, Section .D.l .b.(!)) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all information required by and
meeting requirements of A1ticle IV. Section C. 1. and the following additional information:
(9) Where streets stubs are provided said stubs shall provide access to abutting prope1ties. The
applicant shall include a note on the plat providing notice that said stub shall provide future access to
abutting propetties .
□NIA IXIAccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject development is not a typical subdivision requiring a final "plat" approval and
does not request dedication of streets into the COF or stub streets comiectinf! other developments.
5 SD 18.21 Old Battles Place, Phase 2-May 7, 2018
The closeout requirements.for this application will be conditions of approval. Please see Article W,
Section C.l. or llxl 7 drawina submittal re uirements. Phase 1, nor does lwse 2
Article JV, Section.D. l.b. (16) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all info1111ation required by and
meeting requirements of Alticle IV., Section C. l . and the following additional information:
(16) Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure drainage structures
are undamaged and free of debris and sediment.
□NIA ~Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject development is not a typical subdivision requiring afi.nal "plat" approval. Tlte
closeout re11uireme11tsfor tit is 11pplicatio11 will be contlitions of approl'al.
Article IV, Section.D.l.b.(17) Final Plat and Final Plans showing all information required by and
meeting requirements of Article IV., Section C.1. and the fol lowing additional information:
(I 7) Maintenance Plan for maintenance of detention facilities during development and documents
providing for continued maintenance after completion of development and sale of all lots. Such
documents running as a covenant with the lands .
□NIA ~Review pending by □Accepted □Revise and Resubmit per
Public Works comments
Director
Cross Reference: Article V, Section F.3.a.(3)
Comment.<r: The closeout requirements for this aoo/icatio11 will be conditions of aooroval.
Article V, Section F3.a.(3)(a)(2) Stonn Water Standards-Submittal Requirements -Minimum
Requirements-Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
□NIA
(2) An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which includes, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Ai·chitectural and engineering drawings , maps , assumptions, calculations, and
narrative statements as required to accurately describe the development and measures
taken to meet the objectives of storm-water management;
(b) Data on historical runoff, developed runoff, detention pond details, and method of
discharge.
~Accepted with comments ~Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please see commellls 011 Erosion Colltro/ Plan drawing 17 of 19, please consider re-
wording lo reflect the application of the asphalt binder layer am/ its use for construction purposes
followed by the application of the wear course as a closeout requirement.
The phasing sequence on Drawing 17 of 19 has been modified as shown below:
PHASE Il l
1. BASE & PAVE PROPOSED ROADWAY (BINDE R LAYE R ON LY).
2. CONSTRUCT AL L BUILDINGS/ RE AINI G IMPROVE ~E TS.
3. PAVE WEARING ASPHALT L AYER
4. lt~STAL L LA DSCAPING & S ABIUZE ALL
DISTURB ED AR EAS.
5. REMOVE SIL T FENCE, WAT TLES & ANY
ACCUMULATED SED IMEN IN THE DRAINAGE
AND DE TE NT ION FACI LI TI ES .
6 SD 18 .21 Old Battles Place, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
7
Article V, Section F3.a. (3)(a)(3) Stonn Water Standards -Submittal Requirements -Minimum
Requirements-Operations and Maintenance Plan
(3) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for maintenance of detention
facilities and other storm water quantity and quality BMPs duri11g development and documents
providing for
continued inspection and maintenance after completion of development and sale of all lots ,
such documents running as a covenant with the lands .
(a) An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement signed by the developer or
owner for any required detention facilities or other storm water quantity and
quality BMPs must be submitted with the maintenance plan prepared by the design
engineer for each BMP . The maintenance plan must include a description of the
storm water conveyance system and its components, inspection priorities,
schematics for each BMP , and inspection schedule for each water quantity and
quality BMP . The O&M Agreement must be recOTded prior to final plans approval.
If the final configuration of the storm water system or BMPs differs from the
original design on the approved plans, the O&M Agreement must be revised ,
finalized , and rerecorded . Failure to follow the O&M Agreement could result in
enforcement action.
(b) The long-term maintenance plan within the O&M Agreement contains the
inspection priorities and schedule for the storm water BMPs. The owner is
responsible for inspecting the sto1111 water system and B11:Ps according to the
schedule and submitting reports to the Planning Director or his authorized
representative every th1·ee (3) ye ars to document that inspections have been
completed and nec e ssary maintenance has been pe1formed. The first inspection
rep o1t is due December 3 l of the third year after construction ha s been completed.
Inspection reports are then due by December 31 of every third year following
submittal of the first report. The Planning Director or his authorized representative
must be notified of any change in ownership . Failure to file the three-year
inspection re po1ts and perform required maintenance activities could result in
enforcement action.
( c) Prior to the full release of the perfo1111ance bond for any new or sub stantially
improved storm water facilit ies , an Alabama regi stered engineer shall submit to the
Planning Director or his authorized representative ce1iification that the proposed
storm water management system and BMPs for the development are complete and
functional in accordance with the approved plans and shall also provide as-built
drawings for the stonn water management systems and BMPs.
□NIA IZIReview pending by IZ!Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
Public Works Director comments
Camments: Su~iect npplict1tiu11 is an MOP ,wt requiring afimzl "p lat" submission process. As"
result , the submission of //,e.ful~r-executed aud proper~v-recorded Opert1lim1s mu/ Mai111emmce
Plan sltall be " closeout requirement and a co11dition of aooroval.
Article V, Section F.3 .d. Storm Water Standards -Submittal Requirements -Ce1tifications and Seals
d. Certifi cations and S eals -(Excerpted)
(l) All plans, and design calculations submitted shall bear the seal , original signature, name ,
address and telephone numbe r and ce1tjfication of the project engineer, who shall be regi stered
to practice as a Professional Engineer in the State of Alabama and who is qualified b y reason
of education and experience in the field of storm water design .
(2) The engineer shall seal and sign each sheet of th e plan assembly .
(3) The e ngineer s hal I affix his certification to the first sheet of each plan as sembly and design
calculation.
SD 18.21 Old Battles Place , Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
( 4) The calculations , construction plans , and plat shall have the following statement: "A
property own ers association (POA) is required to be formed. The POA is required to maintain
any and all storm water faciliti es and structures locat ed outside of th e publicly accepted right-
of-wa y".
□NIA [gjAccepted with comments QgRevise and Resu bmit per
comments
Comments: The Engineer's Certificate is included 011 the cover of the dminage calculations,
however" stateme11t relrcted to item (4) abo11e is required identifying the POA or similar ellfity
responsible.for maintaining any and all storm water facilities and structures located outside,~{ the
ROW.
Follow-up submittal of 4/18/2018 included a new cover for the drainage calculations identifying
Battles Road, LLC as the entity required to maintain any and all storm water facilities and
structures located outside the publicly accepted ROW.
Article V, Section F 6. Sto1111 Water Standards -Erosion Control (Excerl:!ted)
□NIA ~Review pending by [g!Accepted with comment s □Revise and Resubmit per
Public Works comments
Director, also please
note comments
below
Cross Reference: National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices and Alabama
Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control and Storm Water Management on Construction Sites
and Urban Areas
Comments: The building official notes that land disturbance BMPs shall be applied to each
ae.artment home as i[.eaclt unit was an individual worksite. Comments: Accepted by Code
Enforcement Officer
Article V, Section F.11.a.-f. (Excerpted) Re~iuired Use of Low Im12act Develogment (LID) Technigues
□NIA □Accepted QgRe v ise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please provide a brief narrative explaining the LID techniques used 011 the site mu/
requesting a waiver of the ten required LID techniques if necessary for phase 2. (A similar waiver
was submitted for phase 1). The EOR provided a narrative describing the LID techniques to be
used on subject site and clarified the continuity with Phase 1 regarding the use of LIDs . The
narrative fmiher requested a waiver often LID techniques as was granted for Phase 1 and
clarified five LID techniques will be utilized for Phase 1 as well as Phase 2. Approval of the LID
technique waiver shall be a condition of approval.
Article V, Section G. Planning Desigp Standards-U12sizing (Excerpted)
□NIA ~Review pending by ~Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
Public Utilities comments
Operations Director
Comments: The EOR verified in its 4/18/2018 follow-up submittal that the lift station constructed
in Phase 1 was sized for the entire development and its volume and capacity were upgraded at
the request of COF.
I Article VJ, Section E. 6. -8. Construction Standards-Storm Water(Continued)
8 SD 18.21 Old Battles Place, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018
11
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance associated with Phase
2.
a. Incidental land disturbance associated with Phase 1 may continue prior to the Phase 2
pre-construction meeting.
b . The sequencing of apartment home co n struction, procedures for requests for building
inspection, and site stabilization requirements for each apartment home site will be
clarified during the pre-con struction conference.
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver often (10) LID techniques and acceptance of the use of
five (5) LID techniques as was accepted for Phase 1 of subject development.
3) The building official will monitor the progress of the construction of the apartment homes in
Phase 2. When the building official determines approximately 75% of the apartment homes
have attained certificate of occupancy, staff will conduct the following closeout procedures as
well as request the following closeout documents:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any infrastructure to be
dedicated to the City of Fairhope
b . A fully-executed and recorded copy of the Operations and Maintenance {O&M) Plan and
Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other storm water quantity and quality
BMPs as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(17) and Article V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(3)
c. Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure drainage
structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as required by Article IV,
Section. D.1. b .(16)
d. One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage calculations,
both containing the engineer's certificate required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(18) and
Article VI, Section E.6.-8. and identifying the entity responsible for maintenance of
drainage facilities outside the public ROW or public easements.
e. One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a sta tement from the landscape
architect of record indicating the various landscape fe atures have been completed as-
designed.
f . Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D. 1.b.{1) -{18)
g. Insp ection of all other MOP -applicable sections of Article VI, Construction Standards and
Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing requirements
SD 18.21 Old Battles Place, Phase 2 -May 7, 2018