HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketF. UR 18.05 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of
approximately 1,269 linear foot of underground installation of
fiber optic cable . The project will run along Magnolia Avenue, N.
Church Street, and the Fairhope Parking Garage alley to service
23 N. Section Street.
G. Public hearing to conside r the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department to accept Resolution 2017-03 for
a proposed amendment to Article V, Section F. 11 Low Impact
Development (LID) requirements in the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations .
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjourn
easement and constructed conveyan ce . All lots shall drain to the public storm water system." The requested
note has been added to the plat.
Streets: No new streets are proposed . There are conflicts regarding the street name spelling: Burgundy,
Bergundy, Burgandy . Google Maps and the County GIS maps contradict each other. The County GIS Maps
actually contradicts itself, by having two spellings listed. The surveyor indicates that the name he shows on
the submitted plat matches the two other plats on this street. It is his position with multiple spellings, it is
best for the plats to match .
The Public Works Director did request the applicant provide a 5' dedication of right of way (row) to provide
sufficient right of way. The applicant shows the change of the 5' dedication but there is no note of
explanation regarding the dedication of the row .
The Public Works Director requested a line sight diagram , which was provided by the applicant . Staff met with
Mr. Richard Johnson on the line of sight and provided his verbal approval.
The Public Works Director also requested that the applicant restrict Lot 1 to have only one access point. A
note has been added to the plat regarding 1 point of access .
Trees: The applicant has provided a tree survey. There are several heritage trees on the site. The lot lines
have been oriented such that the majority of the trees fall within the setbacks. The lot configurations were
oriented such that there would be the least impact to the trees. The applicant indicates the owners of the
land are going to build a new house on the lot that has the majority of the trees . They have lived in the exiting
residence for a long time and intend on saving the trees.
Staff met with Mr. Richard Johnson and Mr. Richard Peterson regarding the requirement for street trees on
minor subdivisions. Si nce new streets are not being installed and in this case the applicant is trying to
preserve the existing overstory trees, Mr. Johnson felt that street trees should not be required by the City of
Fairhope.
Sidewalks: The applicant has added a note on the plat that sidewalks shall be installed at the time of home
construction has been added. Existing sidewalks shall be brought into ADA compliance at the time of home
construction .
Fire Hydrants: The Operations Director, Mr. Richard Peterson, PE provided the applicant with a letter
regarding utilities and in this letter stated "There is a fire hydrant located just north of your parcel and w ithin
450 ' of your south prope rty line so there is no justification to add a separate hydrant for this subdivision .
Fire Flow : Mr. Richard Peterson , PE, ha s approved the fire flow
Utility Letters: Water, Gas , and Electric are provided by the City of Fairhope. Mr. Richard Peterson has
provided a utility letter for the subdivision. A telephone utility has been added to the plat. AT&T has
provided a utility letter to staff.
Electric: In the City of Fairhope utility letter dated May 21 , 2018, Mr. Richard Peterson , PE , lays out specific
information regarding electric utilities and utility options, which will likely have a cost above the typical fee for
the City charges . Mr. Richard Peterson requested the applicant add language to the plat to make sure the plan
for future electric service is established and that provisions for owner participation are made through aid to
construction charges. The applicant has added a note on the plat satisfying Mr. Peterson 's request.
Water and Sewer: In the City of Fairhope utility letter dated May 21, 2018 1 Mr. Richard Peterson , PE , lays
out specific information regarding water and sewer utilities . He also requests notes be provided on the plat
4 SD 18.2 5 Garner Subdivis ion -August 6, 201 8
regarding aid to construction costs required for the new lot requiring service. The applicant has added a note
on the plat sati sfyin g Mr. Peterson's request.
Recording : All conditions of approval shall be satisfied in a timely manner. Per the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations, Article IV Section D 7-Recording, applicant is responsible for recording of Plat and
approval shall be null and void if the Plat is not recorded within sixty days after the date of final approval;
provided, however, that the Commission may, on finding of good cause, extend that sixty day period. The
applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded plat; failure to do so shall result in the denial of issuance of
the building permits within the subdivision.
The app licant is requesting an extension of the recording period as part of this application in order to demolish
the existing house. Staff recommends approval of the extension as and ex isting structu res can't be located
over a lot line.
Other:
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."
The project does not appear to be inconsistent w ith the applicable criteria of the City of Fairhope .
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
5
1. The applicant is requesting the plat approval be extended from 60 days to 180 days. This wi ll give the
app li cant time to take the necessary steps to remove/demo lish the h ouse . The plat not be signed by
the City of Fairhope sta ff until the existing residence on the subject property is demolished and ve rifi ed
by the City of Fairhope;
2 . Th e approva l by the Planning Commissio n of the request for extension of the 60 day recording period
to 180 days.
3. Sidewa lks sha ll be constructed at time of home construction on subject property. Submit standard
sidewa lk details with building plans for homes to be constructed on the subject property. Existing
sidewa lks shall be brought into ADA comp lian ce at the time of home construction.
4. Th e applicant shall provide a note of clarificatio n that 5' w ill be dedicated to the City of ROW to
provide sufficient row in this lo cation .
SD 18.25 Garner Subdivision -August 6, 2018
Summary of Request:
The applicant is seeking approval of a Vil lage Subdivision site plan as contemplated by Article IV, Section F.
of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. The applicant submitted a request for Village Subdivision site
plan review, and after wo r king with staff during the review process, wi shes to present the proposed site plan
to the Planning Commission and solicit the Planning Commission's feedback. The applicant does not wish to
open a public hearing on the subject development and requests subject application be TABLED for additional
study and consideration at a future Planning Commission meeting and the staff recommendation therefore
reflects a reque st for tabling . This staff report will provide the background i nfo r mation regarding the Village
Subdivision site plan and allow the app l icant and staff to present the case to the Planning Commission ,
answer the commission 's questions to the maximum extent practicable, and hear the commission 's
feedback.
The Village Subdivis ion process is simi l ar to that of a Planned Unit Deve l opment (PUD) for zoned areas,
however the criteria for a Village Subdivision are purely w ithin the zoning ordinance and final approval
authority of the Village Subdivis ion resides with the Planning Commission -the City Council does not
consider the application. Further, subject development will remain in the City of Fairhope ETJ and will
remain unzoned -sub j ect app l ication doe s not consider an annexat ion petition as no areas contiguous to
subject property are within the Fairhope city limits. Once Village Subdivision site plan approval is attained,
the preliminary and final plat process is ut i lized much like a typical subdivision, with the approved Village
Subdivi sion site plan governing the development of the subdivision .
Subject application presents a site plan of 482 lots covering 174 acres on property located along State
Highway 104, c1pproximately 1/8 mile east of the intersection of State HWY 181 and State HWY 104. Subject
property is located within the unzoned extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Fairhope. The 482
single fam i ly residential lots ar e proposed to be cons t ructed in six (6) phases over a period of approximately
t en (10) years . The applicant provided a preliminary construction schedule for the various phases of the
proposed Village Subdivision , detailed in the chart below :
Phase Proposed Begin Proposed Comple t e Number of lots -Lo t Width
Constructi on Construct ion
1 January 2019 June 2019 26 -92 ' lots
13 -80 ' lots
25 -50 ' lots
2 June 2020 June 2021 26 -92 ' lots
26 -80' lots
112 -50 ' lo t s
3 June 2023 January 2024 33 -80 ' lots
6 -50 ' lots
4 January 2025 January 2026 57 -80' lots
46 -50' lots
5 September 2027 February 202 8 12 -80' lots
69 -50' lots
6 October 2028 Febr uary 2029 22 -80 ' lots
20 -50 ' lots
As stated previously the proposed development will rema i n unzoned -this application does no t request
annexat ion into the City of Fairhope and does n ot request adoption of zoning for the subject property. The
proposed Vi ll age Subdivision wil l include the afore-mentioned 482 single family lots, two access points along
State HWY 104, an access po i nt to the ex i sting 3 Ci rcle Church property, and an access point in Phase 6. The
2 SD 18.29 Northgate. Village Subdivision -August 6, 2018
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of S.E. Civil, LLC on behalf of property owners James and Beverly Reid
for approval of the Reid Mixed Use Project, a Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP). Subject property is located
at the southwest intersection of Church Street and Magnolia Avenue in the Central Business District of
downtown Fairhope , consisting of a combined 0.81 acres . Subject application is an MOP and does not
request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots. The development proposes six (6) structures with a
total of 21 units. Mr. Larry Smith, PE, of S.E. Civil serves as the engineer of record (EOR) for subject
application with Ms. Rebecca Dunn Bryant, AIA serving as Architect of Record. 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 final plat approval associated with MOPs.
Comments:
MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY PROJECT (MOP} CRITERIA
The following items 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 11 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. All
Article, Section, and Paragraph numbers identified are references to the City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations unless otherwise identified.
Article IV, Section C.l .b.(7) Buildin g set back line s s hall be s hown o n the plat as required by t he zoning ord inance or
in absence of zo nin g, as required by deed restriction s.
□NIA □A ccepted (gj Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Commems: Not shown 011 drawing COJ . Though B-2 zoning requires 110 setbacks l'ear and side,.front setbacks
must be shown. Building setback lines (20 ') have been added to the site plan for the residential units . The
mixed-u se units do not require setback lines as allowed by Article V, Section B.4.a of the Zoning Ordinance.
Article IV, Section C. J. b. (8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utilities with connections
□NIA □Accepted with comments (gjRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Approval of private utility connec t ions for wate r and sewer shall be subject to the standards of
Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of th e Fairhope Subdivision R egulations, and Chapter 12 of the Code of
Ordinances of th e City of Fairhope.
Comments: Utility profiles are included 011 drawing C06 with plans included 011 various drawings. P lease contact
Mr. Richard Peterso11for coordi11atio11 of revisio11s related to the new water service shown 011 Magnolia Avenue as
well as t/Je underground electrical requirements of Article VJ, Section M. Mr. Peterson desires ll single 'f/oop''
co1111ecti11g to an existing main on Magnolia Avenue, passing through the site, and co1111ecti11g to the new main
proposed along Clturclt Street. A new section of 15'' RCP is sltown 011 drawi11g CO2 co1111ecti11g proposed DI#A2
to a11 existi11g inlet at tile comer of Church St. and Magnolia Avenue. Please indicate the size of the existing RCP
um/er Magnolia Ave11ue co1111ected to the inlet at tl,e intersection of Magnolia and Church St., and coordinate
revisio11s with Mr. Richard Johnson. See Article V, Section F regardi11g drainage calculatio11s to be submitted/or
subject application. It is assumed the illte111io11/or tile site is/or waste disposal service to befumished by tl,e City
of Fairhope, however waste receptible locations are not sltownjor lots 1 and 2. The Engineer of Record (EOR)
provided revisions to the utility plans for the subject development reflecting the requested revisions . Drawing
C041 now reflects a single 'loop ' connecting to an existing water main under Magnolia Ave , passing through
the site, and connecting to a new water main to be located on the Church St. right-of-way (ROW). The
exi sting storm water 21' RCP piping to which the proposed 15 RCP connects is reflected on drawing C04 ,
2 SD 18 .30 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
□NIA
(3) Clear identification of ROW and location of any stre e t included in Master Plan
(4) Proposed curb radii for each street intersection or s ignificant street curves
(5) Proposed street names
(6) Typical section for proposed streets, centerline profiles of all proposed streets with finish grades, at a
s cale of: 1 "=50' horizontal and 1 "=5' vertical or I ''=100' horizontal and I "=IO' vertical
I □Accepted I IX!Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Saxe Lane is not " city-maintained street a11d is listed as a Single Tm: Colony Property 011 tlte Baldwin
County Map Viewer. Please verify the entity responsible for providing mai11te11a11ce 011 Saxe Lane, and provide an
access easement if required by the Single Tax Colony. The EOR's follow-up information included a Jetter from
the Single Tax Corporation consenting to installation of utilities on Saxe Lane as well as making improvements
to or providing maintenance of Saxe Lane. This review assumes maintenance of Saxe Lane will provided by
the applicant in conjunction with Fairhope Single Tax and maintenance will not be maintained by the City of
Fairhope. Further, this review assumes utility easements are not required on Saxe Lane for COF-installed and
maintained utilities. Utility easements provided for subject property are reflected in drawing COS.
45 I : H:i r 1-20 -----~
8 1
' I 7 I I
I
' '
'.fl-3.5 10 <fl I 3.504 <;I" I
' ("' ' ,......, ---I
0 7 1s ' -c:i) 80s ' Parcel ID: 77862
V 3 .5 12 -sr Parcel Number: OS-46-0 3-37-0-601-00 3 .5 13
V -sr
n PIN : 77862
\J " 80s Owner Name: FST FA IRHO PE SINGLE T AX CORP I -•9s 8Lt-Address: 336 FAIRHO PE AV E
'" City: FAIRHOPE
State: A L
-" Zip: 3 6 5 32
"' 0 More Det ails
Zoom to ~--~ J ) 3 .509 I; ' 3 .5 14 ;tj-' ~:
Article IV, S ection C.J.d. Drainage plan 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 clearly 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.
□NI A □Accepted IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article V, Section F.3 .a., b ., and c.
Comments: Drainage calculations 1101 f umished. Please see Article V, Section "F" related lo low impact
development (Ll.D) techniques. A bioretention area is mention on drawiug COS hut no drawiugs or calculations
are provided for this area and it is not reflected on drawing CO2. LID techniques are not enforced in the Central
Business District and the EOR clarified the reference to a bioretention area was a misprint. Drainage
calculations were submitted as requested and more fully-described in Article IV, Section C.1.b.(8) and reflect
the pipe sizes of the drainai?:e system.
4 SD 18.30 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
!ZIN/A with comments □Accepted □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject avvlication is an MOP and therefore there is no preliminary "plat" that may expire.
Article IV, Section .D.l.a. Maintenance Bond
a. Either a financia l guaranty (in the form of a maintenance bond) in an amount and form acceptable to the City
Counci I as a guarantee for the in sta llation of required improvements or the determination of the C ity's General
Superintendent that all required improvements ha ve been installed to the City's requirements.
□NIA IZ!Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Submission o,f this item shall be a condition of approval and closeout procedures specific to this MOP
will be clarified at the pre-construction meetiltf(.
Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(-1) Final P lat and Final Plans showing all information required by and meeting requirements
of Article rv ., Section C. l. and the following additional information:
( 4) Street Tree Plan shall be submitted showing the location of all planted street trees .
□NIA IZl Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: As a condition of approval, submit one copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statementfrom
the landscape architect of record indicating the various landscape features have been completed as-built as
designed. Closeout procedures specific to this MOP will be clarified at the pre-construction meetinf!.
Article I V, Se ction.D. I. b. (I 6) Final Plat and Final Plan s showing al l infom1ation required by and meeting
requirements of Article rv., Section C.1. and the followin g additional information:
( 16) Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drain s to ensure drainage structures are undamaged
and free of debri s and sediment.
□N IA IZl Accepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
co nun en ts
Comments: Submission of this item shall be a condition of approval mu/ closeout procedures spec~fic to this MOP
will be clarified at the pre-construction meetinf(.
Article JV. Section .D.1 .b. (1 7) Final P lat and Final Plans showing al l information required by and meeting
requirements of A11icle rv ., Section C.1. and the following additional info1111ation :
(L 7) Maintenance Plan for maintenance of detention facilities during development and documents providing for
continued maintenance after comp letion of deve lopment and sale of all lots. Such documents running as a covenant
with the lands.
!ZIN/A with comments □Accepted □Rev ise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article V, S ec tion F.3.a.(3)
Comments: No detention /retention facilities are included 011 tile subject property and therefore this item is not
avvlicable.
Article IV. Section.D. l. b. (18) Final P lat and Final Plans showing all info1111ation required by and meeting
requirements of Article IV., Section C.1. and the following additional information:
(l 8)The engineer shall perfonn the s upervision of constructirn1· the final plat shall have the fo llowin g e ngineer 's
ce11ifi cation:
6
'ENGfNEER' S CERTIF[CA TE"
"I, the undersigned , a Registered Engineer in the State of Alabama holdin g Certificate Number
--~ hereby certify that I have designed the w ithin improvements in conformity with app licable
codes and law s and with the principals of good engineering practice. I further certify that I have
observed the construction of the within im rovements, that the sa me conforms to m desi n, that
SD 18 .30 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
the within is a true and accurate rep resentation 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 certified consist of Page __ thru
__ , each of which bears by sea l and s ignature."
□NI A □ Accepted with comments [gjRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Comments: Submission of this item shall be a condition of approval and closeout procedures specific
to this MOP will be clarified at the pre-construction meeting. Please see Article JV, Section C. J.d. for comments
related to tlte drainage calculations required for this application. Drainage calculations were submitted as
requested and more fully-described in Article IV, Section C.1.b.(8) and 1·eflect the pipe sizes utilized for subject
development. No detention or retention facilities are utilized on the project requiring calculations for
treatment volume, dischare:e Quality, etc .
Article IV, Section D. 3. Staff Review
3. Staff Review -Applicants for a fina l plat shall first submit the final plat and plans to the Planning Director and/or
his /her authorized agent for staff's review . The Director shal l determine if the submittals meet all of the requirements
of Section D . l., above . Incomplete, pa1tial , or inaccurate submittals wi II not be accepted, but wi II be returned to
applicant for re -submission for a later hearing. Staff sha ll review the application and provide comments to the
applicant. Following staff review and comments the applicant shall make a formal application for submittal to and
review by the Planning Commission .
□NIA IZl Accepted with comments □ Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article IV, Seclion.D. l . b. (19) Final P lat and Final Plans
Comments: Subject application is an MOP not requiring formal review of a.final "plat". Closeout procedures
specific to this MOP will be clarified at the pre-construction meetinJ?.
Article IV, Section D.4. Final Inspections
4 . Final Inspections -Applicants shall submit a letter of verification prepared by the Applicant 's engineer ce1tifying
t hat all punch list items from the final inspections have been satisfactorily completed . A fee of $1 000.00 will be
charged for all re-inspections caused by incomp lete punch lists.
□NIA [gjA ccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Subject application is an MOP not requiring formal review of a final "plat". Closeout procedures
specific to this MOP will be clarified at the pre-construction meetil1f(.
A rticle V, Section F.3 -11. Storm Water Standards
□NIA □Accepted [gj Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article V, Section F. 3. b. Adverse Effects
Comments: Drainage calculatirms 1zotf urnished. A hiorete11tio11 area is melltioned 011 drawing COS bllt 110
drawings or calculations are provided/or this area and it is ,wt reflected 011 drawing CO2. Please provide a
narrative listing the low impact developmellt (LID) techniques used 011 the site and a request for waiver if less tlum
10 techniques are to be impleme11ted. This commelll gm1ems all sections with ill Article V, Section F.3. through
Sectio11 F.11. LID techniques are not enforced in the Central Business District (CBD) and the EOR clarified
the reference to a bioretention area was a misprint. Staff questioned the reference to determ ine if the
7 SD 18.30 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
applicant was voluntarily complying with a portion of the LID techniques required for projects outside the
CBD. Drainage calculations were submitted as requested and more fuUy-described in Article IV, Section
C.1.b.(8).
Article VI, Section C. Construction Standards-Curbs and Gutters
Curbs and gutters shall be installed on all streets within the planning jurisdiction of the C ity of Fairhope, except on
those streets which are eligible for the rural design standard expressed in Table 5.3 Appendix A of these regulati o ns.
On streets requirin g curb a nd gutter, either valley type or barrier type concrete curb and gutter which meets the City's
standards and specifications expressed in Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances, as amended s hal I be installed. Curbs
and gutters shall be desi gned and in sta ll ed in accordance w ith goo d engineering practice. Face of curbs shall be not
les s than s ix inche s in height. Backfill behind curbs shall s lope to the back of the curb for drainage. Markings shall
be added to the curb to indicate the location of water and sewer laterals.
□NIA IZIA ccepted with comments □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Table 5. 3 , Appendix "A" City of Fairhope Subdivision Re~ulations
Comments: No streets or lanes are expected to be dedicated to the City of Fairhope by subject project requiring
curbs and gutters complying with table 5.3 in Appendix "A". Magnolia A venue is a major collector according to
the Eastem Shore MPO, requiring 1'-2 ' curb and gutter each side oftlte street. The 24" roll curb detail on
drmvinJ;t C09 is sufficient for new curb and /!Utter alonJ;! MaJ;!110lia Avenue reauired by the oroiect.
A rticle VI, Section D. Construction Standards-Sidewalks
Sidewalks shall be installed on all streets within th e planning juri sdiction of the C ity of Fairhope , except on those
streets which are e ligible for the rural de s ign standard expressed in Table 5.3 , Appendi x A of these regulations. On
streets requiring sidewalks, concrete sidewalks which meet t he C ity's standard s and specifications expressed in
Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances , as amended shall be installed. Sidewalks shall be des ign e d and installed in
accordance with good engineering practice.
□NIA □Accepte d IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference : Chapter 19 of the C ity of FairhoTJ e Code of Ordinances , as a m e nded.
Comments: Please verify ADA-compliant improvements to the sidewalk along Magnolia Avenue to the extelll of
construction, including but not limited to wide11illg the sidewalk to 8' as needed. Please coordinate revisions with
Mr. Erik Cortinas. The pedestrian circulation plan has been modified to reflect the running slopes and cross
slopes of various ADA-accessible sidewalks, ramps, and pa.-l<lng spots so that the building official may review
for buildin2 permit purposes. The EOR indicted in a narrative the 8' sidewalk will be ADA-compliant.
Article VI, Section E.1.-5. Construction Standards-Stonn Water
□NIA □Accepted IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Alabama D epartment of Transportation S tandard Specificationsfor Highway Constructions ,
current edition
Comments: Drainage ca/c11latio11s 1101 furnished. A bioretention area is mentioned 011 drawing COS but 110
drawings or calculations are provided for this area and it is ,wt reflected 011 drawi11g CO2. Please provide a
narrative listing the low impact development (LID) techniques used 011 the site and,, request for waiver if less tha11
10 techn iques are to be implemented. This comment governs all sectio ns within Article V, Section F.3. through
Section F.11. LID techniques are not enforced in the Central Business District (CBD) and the EOR clarified
the reference to a bioretention area was a misprint. Staff questioned the reference to determine if the
applicant was voluntarily complying with a portion of the LID techniques required for projects outside the
CBD. Drainage calculations were submitted as requested and more fully-described in Article IV, Section
C.l.b.(8).
I Article VI, Section E. 6. -8. Construction Standards-Storm Water(Continued)
8 SD 18 .30 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
iss ued by a s ur ety that is li ce nsed to do bu s in ess in th e State of A la ba ma a nd hav in g a Best ratin g of A -o r better. In
th e eve nt t hat t he s ubdi v is io n li es w ithin t he extra-te rri to ri a l juris di c ti o n, s uc h gu ara nty s ha ll be m a de j o in t ly payabl e
to t he C ity of Fairh ope a nd Ba ld w in County, A la bam a . T he surety an d th e forn1 an d a mo un t of s uc h fi na nc ia l
g ua ra nty s ha ll be su bj ect to a pp rova l of t he C ity a nd /o r Cou nty.
□N IA □Accept e d □Rev i s e a nd R esub mit p er
c o mme n ts
Comments: A ll MOP-applicable closeout requirements shall be a condition ,~f approval in lieu of a formal final
"plat" appro val process. Closeout procedures sp ecific to this M OP will be clar(fied at the pre-con struction
meeti112.
Art icle VI, Sec ti on Jv1 C on structi on Stand a rd s-Und e rgro und Utili t ies
A ll ut ilit ies in a ll propose d s ub d ivis ion s s ha ll be insta ll ed undergro und .
1. T he Pl annin g Commi ss io n may waive thi s secti o n in a ll or pa 1t based on evi d e nce th at unde rground
in sta ll ati o n is not in the bes t interes t of th e env iro nm e nt o r is fin anc ia ll y not feas i ble.
□NIA □A c c ept e d ~Rev ise and Res ubmit per
comments
Comments: Ex isting overhead electrical service shall be place underground -please coordinate design with
Fairhope Public Utilities Electrical Department. The EOR verified the applicant's desire to place the electrical
service underground and will coordinate the relocation with electrical department.
Approval Standards:
Address each of these cr iteria w ith either a "meets" or "does not meets ". If any of the criteria is not met. a
denial should be recommended.
"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;
• Meets -Mixed Use projects are allowable by right in areas zoned B-2 General Business .
Further1 mix of uses is one of the intents of the Central Business District as indicated in Article
V, Section 8.1. of the zoning ordinance . In addition, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges
Mixed Use as density transition measure in the downtown area indicative of the downtown as
an area of greater density transitioning to areas of lesser density.
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
10 SD 18 .30 Reid Mixed Use Dev elopmen t -August 6, 201 8
12
4) Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subdivision . 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 as applicable:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV , Section.D.1 .a. for any infrastructure to be
dedicated to the City of Fairhope
b. 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)
c. One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage calculations
containing the engineer's certificate required by Article IV, Section.D .1.b.(18) and
Article VI, Section E.6-8 as well as a statement identifying the POA or similar entity
responsible for maintaining any and all storm water facilities and structures located
outside of the publicly accepted ROW.
d . One copy of the landscape as-built drawings w ith a statement from the landscape
architect of record indicating the various landscape features have been completed as-
designed.
e. Inspection of all other MOP -applicable sections of Article IV, Section D. 1.b.(1)-(18)
f. Inspection 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 18.30 Reid M ixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of S.E. Civil, LLC on behalf of property owners James and Beverly
Reid for Site Plan approval of the Reid Mixed Use Project, a Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP). Subject
property is located at the southwest intersection of Church Street and Magnolia Avenue in the Central
Business District of downtown Fairhope, consisting of a combined 0.81 acres. Subject application is an
MOP (Case# SD18.30) and does not request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots , however
mixed-use projects to be constructed in the Central Business District (CBD) require mandatory site plan
approval . The development proposes six (6) structures with a total of 21 units. Mr. Larry Smith, PE, of
S.E. Civil serves as the engineer of record (EOR) for subject application with Ms. Rebecca Dunn Bryant,
AIA serving as Architect of Record.
Article II. Section 2. Site Plan
a. Initiation -Review of (preliminary) site plans accompanying a zoning map amendment shall be
reviewed according to the zoning amendment procedures. (Final) site plans that do not accompany a
zoning map amendment shall be reviewed according to this section. Site plan approval is required
when any commercial building(s) located in a business-zoning district (industrial zoning excluded) or
in the CBD overlay:
(1) Has a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or greater; or,
(2) More than 30% of the lot (excluding the building) is impervious; or
(3) All applications for zoning map amendments to rezone property to any of the Village Districts in
Article procedures in Article VI, Section D. for review of the rezoning application and site plans
associated with a village development.
(4) A mandatory site plan review application for all mixed-use projects electing to build to 35 feet
height with 33% residential, regardless of whether or not it triggers site plan review approval, must
make application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. VI. However, applicants for
rezoning to the village districts may elect to use the special review
• Subject development is a mixed-use project with approximately 50% residential units, with
an approximately 40' building height and 3 stories allowed by the amended CBD overlay .
These features of the development, including its location in the CBD, triggers a site plan
review.
Comments:
Article 11, Sec ti on C.2.d. (1 ) Comp lian ce w ith the Comprehensive Plan
□NIA ~Accepted with comments □Re vise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Page 35, "Form, Function, and Design" of the Comprehensive Plan states "Over the years,
the City has worked to create a regulatory environment that is conducive to new development and new
investment in older existing properties". The subject application appears to be supported by the
comprehensive plan because an older existing property will contain numerous improvements proposed by
subject application. The Architect of Record also provided a supporting document fu1iher explainfog
how the subject de velopment supports the Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed development
aids in the transition from the Central Business Di strict to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
A r t icle 11, Sechon C.d.(4)Compliance w ith other /cn,vs and regulation s of the City
2 SR 18 .05 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
□NIA □Ac c epted IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference : Ordinance l550 Low Impact Development Techniques for Parking Facilities . C ity of
Fairhope Subdivi s ion Re g ulations Article IV Se ction F. l l.a.-f. Required U se of Low Impact Developm ent
Techniques.
Commeuts: Please cross reference Article V, Section F.3-11. Storm Water Standards i11 tlte MOP review
for more information. The Engineer of Record (EOR) clarified the storm water design for subject
property, more fulJy-described in the MOP Case# SD 18.30. LID techniques are not enforced in the
Central Business District (CBD) and reference to an LID technique on drawing C04 was a misprint
corrected during revisions .
Article II, S ec tion C d. (6) Impa cts on adjacent property includin g noise, tr qffi c, v is ible intrusions , potential
phvsical impacts, and orooert v valu es.
□N I A □Accepted □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Su~;ect property is zoned B-2 General Business District, which by de_finition i11 the Zoning
Ordi11a11ce "is intended to provide opportu11ity for activities causing noise a11d heavy traffic, not considered
compatible in the more restrictive business district". The Mixed-Use nature of lots I, 2, and 3 as well as
the residential use of lots JR , 4, and 5 is i11here11tly more restrictive than the allowable uses typically
associated with B-2 zo11i11g, a11d therefore less likely to have a negative impact Oil the adjacent properties
than typical B-2 uses. The Architect of Record also provided a supporting document further explaining
how the subject development supports the Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed development
aid s in the trnn s ition from the Central Business District to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Article fl, S ec tion C d. (7) Impa cts on th e surrounding neighborhood including noise, trcif.fi c, vis ible
intrusions , potentia l ohvs ical imoac ts, and proper ty valu es.
□NIA □Accepted with comments , no □Revise and Resubmit per
response required. comments
Comments: Subject property is zoned B-2 General Busi11ess District, which by definition ill the Zoning
Ordinance "is intended to provide opportunity for activities causing noise and lteavy traffic, 11ot co11sidered
compatible in tlte more restrictive business district". The Mixed-Use nature of lots I, 2, and 3 as well as
tlte residential use of lots JR, 4, a11d 5 is inherently more restrictive than tlte allowable uses typically
associated with B-2 zo11ing, and there.fore less likely to have a 11egative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood than typical B-2 uses. The Architect of Record also provided a supporting document
further explaining how the subject development supports the Comprehensive Plan and how the
proposed development aids in the transition from the Central Business District to adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
A rticle JI, S ec tion C d. (8) Ove rall ben e fit to th e community.
□NIA □Accepted IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please provide a 11arrative explaining the su~;ect development's be11efil to the community.
Tl1e Architect of Record also provided a supporting document furthe1 · explaining how the subject
development supports the Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed development aids in the
transition from the Central Business District to adjacent residential neighborhoods .
A rticle JI, S ec ti on C d. (9)Compliance w ith s ound p/annin~ orincioles
□NIA IZI Accepted w ith comments □Rev is e and Resubmit per
comments
3 SR 18.05 Reid Mixed Use Development -August 6, 2018
Comments: Proposed use (mixed use) is allowable in B-2 zoning,further, in-fill development of the type
included in subject application is allowable and supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
Article JI, Section C.d. (12) Prop erty boundaries with dimensions and setback lin es.
□NIA □Accepted IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please cross-reference Article W, Section C.l.b.(7) of the MOP review for setback
requirements. The EOR revised the site to reflect 20' setback lines for the purely residential units. The
Mixed-use units are built to the ROW line as required by Article V, Section B.4.a.
Article JI, Section C.d. (15) Elevations indicatin~ exterior mat erials.
□NIA □Accepted IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Please revise elevations 1 and 3 011 drawings A3.2 and A3.3 to reflect 'mean actual grade" as
required by the Building Official. The architectural elevations have been revised as requested by the
Building Official. Note that CBD building height is now allowable to 40' and 3 stories as amended by
Case# ZC 17.11 .
Article JI, Section C.d.(16) The locations, intensity, and hei~ht olexterior li~hts .
□NIA □Accepted with comments IXJRevise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Reference: Article JV, Section B.3. "Parking Lot/Open Area Lighting"
Comments: Please revise drawings E3.0 and E3.10 to reflect a pole lteigltt ofno more than 10'-0''for
fixtures PJ and PS, as required/or parking areas with less than 50 parking spaces. Furtlter, the parking
area lighting appears to exceed the maximum allowable foot candles of Article IV, Section B.3 -please
clar?fy compliance with the lighting requirements of the zoning ordinance. The EOR verified, and
drawings E3.0 and E3.10 have been revised to reflect 10 ' above finish grade (AFG) mounting heights of
light fixtures to comply with the zoning ordinance. The maximum foot-candle rating has also been
identified on the drawings to verify foot-candle compliance with the zoning ordinance.
Article JI, Section C.d. (17) The locations olmechanical equipment.
□NI A □Accepted IZ!Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Cross Relerence: Article JV, Section B.2.a. and b. ''Screening"
Comments: Not shown -please verify mechanical equipment locations and screening. The EOR verified
buildings 1 and 2 contain roof top units (RTUs) for HV AC which are inherently screened by the
parapet wall s of each building. AJJ other buildings with ground surface mounted HV AC (condenser
units, etc.) are to be screened by landscaping. A condition of approval of the MOP case (and all MOP
cases) wiIJ be submission of an as-built drawing verifying landscaping is installed as-built as-designed .
Article II, S ection C.d. (2 1) Parkinz, loadin £, and maneuverin~ areas .
□NIA □Accepted IZI Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments: Ordinance 1550, which revises Article IV, Section "E" of the Zoning Ordina11ce, requires
compact car parking for a minimum of 30% of the parking spaces but ,w more than 40% of tlte required
spaces. Fumished compact car parking comprises 24% of the spaces. Further, LID techniques required
by Ordinance 1550 are not identified. A biorete11tio11 area is mention on drawing COS but ,w drawings or
calculations are provided for this area and it is not reflected 011 drawing CO2. Please cross reference Article
JV, Section C.l.d.of the MOP review.for more information. The EOR verified two additional compact car
parking spaces have been added to comply with the zoning ordinance requirement for on-site parking
for the purely residential units and are reflected on drawing C0l . The LID technique referenced is a
4 SR 18.05 Reid Mixed Use Development-August 6, 2018
WATER
Responses to P&Z Staff Comments 07.12.18
The proposed mixed use development will benefit Fairhope in multiple ways. It is aligned with
the objective stated in our comprehensive plan, to "define Downtown Fairhope as the
community and regional focal point." The mix of commercial and residential uses matches the
definition of a Neighborhood Village Center.
Architecturally, roofl ines ,. windows, balconies, and street level entrances are intended to relate
the proposed three story buildings to a human scale. These architectural elements and the
relationship between buildings and landscape bridges between the language of the Central
Business District and that of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Special attention has been
given to the Magnolia Avenue entrances, where decorative lighting, broad steps, and public
seating with private balconies above "greet the street." The interior of the development is
being treated as a shady courtyard, rather than a fully paved "back of house," to insure the
character of the development is consistent throughout.
The proposed new lot lines allow us to locate buildings around several mature oak trees.
Appropriate buffers around the trees should allow them to continue to thrive and be enjoyed
by future generations. The shade and views offered by old and new trees are intended to
enhance the character of the development and "maintain the beauty of place in Fairhope". In
keeping with this goal, the landscape will be designed to achieve Backyard Wildlife Habitat
certification .
Th e proposed residential un its should support the economic vitality of our community by
introducing more full time year round residents to our Central Business District. We have
proposed more park i ng i s proposed than required by zoning, to mitigate any potential parking
pressures. Additionally, locating residential units in close proximity to essential goods, services,
and recreationa l opportunities offers the occupants of those units more transportation choices.
Residents can walk or bike to dinner, to get groceries, to get a haircut, to exercise, to vote, or
go to church, just to name a few options. This can be particularly important for our aging
population, who face isolation in the suburbs or remote locations when they are no longer able
to drive independe ntly. It is also a desirable quality for members of our community at any age.
A recent realtors survey shows that both millennia ls and those born before 1944 prefer
wa lkable communities .
WATERS H ED. Mdiog Sostaioab;/;~ I 302 Magoolia A~o,e Fa i,hope , AL I www.wate~hed .pm I p,I -~:,~: ! ~ I
BY:.~b ........ ..
This development also serves our community by utilizing and improving existing infrastructure
within the core of Fairhope, rather than stretch ing resources to create and maintain new
transportation and utility infrastructure at our perimeter.
In summary, it is our intent for the proposed deve lopment to maintain the beauty of p lace in
Fairhope, support the economic vital ity of our community, increase the diversity of c u rrent
housing option s, demonstrate wa lkab le and human scale growth , and offer attractive and
unique residential and commercia l spaces that enhance the character of the Ce ntral Bus iness
District and adjacent n eigh borhoods.
WATERSHED, Buil ding Sustaina b ility I 3 02 Magnolia Avenue Fai rhope, AL I www.watershed.pro I p:251.929.0514
The PUD site data is as follows:
SITE DA.Tl';.
ZOl'4::: PUi>
TOTJ.1.AREA. e..5.76AC .
NO. OF LOTS : 181
DEt-IDtTY: 2 .09 UNITS.I.AC.
SMAU.EST t Ol : U OO SQ. FT.
L.ARGE~,T LOT: 2.iJ,7e.G ~a. FT.
STREET!.: i 2,J~ L. f .
TOTAL OPEN DP'ACE. 25 AC . (28.6%}
TOTAL Gr'.EENSPl'.cf:: t 4.6E-AC. (17%}
MAX. BLD :3. n EI GtIT: 30 '
M/'.X. LOT COVERAGE: 37'% (?fo:INC .:JL=: &DGI
BLDG. SH&~CKD:
@Ot4T-Uf
~R.-25'
SID E· 1 □' 11 0 .:.' Lr.to 121-141 )
STREET SIDE-20'
ACC::SSOR'Y 6-LDGS.-(REAR Y.a.RD ONL'l'I ,
Mil.!<. BLOG. H:i:IG...!fr· JO'
M/l)C LOT CO~'ER/i.G E: 25~., OF R.=1,..~. Yl'iU) I
BLDG. s =-ra~CK.S:
R.'EAR S
SIDE 5'
STREfi SIDE W'
Comments:
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, Article V.A .7 . provides the following for PUD Amendments:
Planned Unit Development Amendments -Changes or amendments to a Planned Unit Development
shall be processe d in the same manner as the original request. Slight changes in the detail of the
Planned Unit Development that do not change the intent, meaning, relationship of structures to each
other may be approved by the Director of Planning and Building.
Allowable Uses :
The applicant provided a narrative for the requested PUD amendment which explained the rationale of
the request for amendment. No request for changes in use is in included in the narrati ve and the use
of the development shall remain "single family residential" as the use type . No other use types are
above and beyond single family residential are indicated in the applicant's PUD request narrative.
Zoning History of Nearby Properties:
The original Old Battles Village property was anne xe d as Oak Hill PUD in 2003. A subsequent
PUD amendment renamed the development Huntington PUD. The Phase 1 Final Plat of
Huntington PUD was approved in July of 2004 (SD 04-45). The Huntington PUD was amended in
November 2005 (ZC 05-21) to reflect a master plan with 290 lots in lieu of 540 lots per the
desires of a new owner of the development. The Pha se 2 Preliminary Plat was approved in
January 2006 (ca se# SD 06-02) and correspondence in the SD 06-02 case file contains the first
correspondence referring to the development as "Old Battles Village". The Final Plat approval
for Pha se I of the development now known as Old Battles Village occurred in December 2006
(Case# 06-54). A PUD amendment (cas e# ZC 16.03) was approved in August 2016 that added
six lots to Pha se II (bringing the total number of lots in Phase II to 177) as well as r e ducing lot
si zes, increasing setback dimensions and reducing the allowable building height from 35' to 30' .
Phase 2 received Final Plat approval (cas e# SD 17-11) in November 2017, and Pha se 3 re ce ive d
3 ZC 18.06 Old Battle s Vil la ge PUD Amendment -August 6, 2018
Final Plat approval (case# SD 18-05} in March 2018. Phase 4 received Preliminary Plat approval
(case# SD 16-34) in January 2017.
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.
Compatibility of land use is a fundamental principal for planning and zoning. Land use compatibility is
also an i mportant decis ion-mak i ng element in the zoning process . On a macro-level it can maintain and
protect community character and raise the quality of development throughout the community. On the
micro-level zoning compatibility maintains an appropriate development pattern and protects
neighborhoods from negative impacts of incompatib le land uses such as:
• changing neighborhood character through inconsistent land use patterns
o increased density through decreased lot sizes and red uced 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, i ncompatible 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.) Insurin g compatible development clearly fits into the
scope of the Alabama enabling legislation for planning and zoning.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides criteria to be used in the review and analysis of the
rezoning process . Article II., Section C.l .e. "Zoning Amendments" provides nine review criteria for the
rezoning process . Criteria 3, 8, and 9 directly relate to compatibility:
(3) The character of the surrounding property, 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.
Macro Compatibility
Staff evaluates compatibility at the macro level by comparing the development density of the proposed
development to the development density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods. The
existing configuration of Phases 5 and 6 consists of 66 lots cover approximately 24.85 acres, resulting in
a development density of approximately 2.66 units per acre . The proposed PUD amendment
reconfigures the lots sizes and lot arrangement of phases 5 and 6, resulting in 78 covering
approximately 24.85 acres for a proposed density of 3.14 units per acre. In order to evaluate the
proposed development density created by the PUD amendment, the areas adjacent to subject
property as well as subject property's surround neighborhood is evaluated in relation to the proposed
density. The adjacent areas are located almost entirely within the Old Battles Village PUD, and the
surrounding neighborhood contains mostly areas within the Old Battles Village Master Plan, or
undeveloped unzoned properties or unzoned properties utilized for single family residential purposes.
Staff did not perform an exhaustive ground survey of the uses of all unzoned properties in the
surrounding neighborhood of subject property, but to the greatest extent practicable determined from
4 ZC 18.06 Old Battles Village PUD Amendment -August 6, 2018
DEV.TOTAL BUFFER Density
DEVELOPMENT NAME AREA (acres) ACRES (existing) Weighted Units
Unzoned Northwest 56 .90 2 .9 165.01
Unzoned Southeast 17.20 2.9 49.88
Unzoned East 16.40 2.9 47.56
Old Battles Village Ph.l 51.44 40.60 2.33 94 .60
Old Battles Village Ph.2 13 .5 13 .50 1.56 21 .06
Old Battles Village Ph. 3 26 .68 24.38 1.65 40 .23
Old Battles Vil lage Ph . 4 22.32 22.32 1.79 39.95
Old Battles Village Ph. 5
and 6 24.85 12.95 2.9 37 .56
Zoned Northeast
Huntington Woods 36.3 6 .50 2.67 17.36
To determine the total weighted average density of the buffer area, the total weighted units from
table above is summed, with a total of 513.20. The total of 513.20 is then divided by the total buffer
area, LESS the subject property of 24.85 acres: 513.20 units/ (210.75 -24.85) acres= 2.76 units per
acre.
The requested development density of the requested Phase 5 and Phase 6 amendment is 3.14 units
per acre, marginally (14%) greater than the 2. 76 units per acre weighted average from the buffer area.
However, the overall development density of the Old Battles Village development increases minimally
from 2.04 to 2.09 units per acre (2.5%). The overall development density of 2.09 units per acre is 24%
less than the we ighted average development density (2. 76 units per acre) of the adjacent area and
surrounding neighborhoods. As a result, the requested PUD amendment maintains macro compatibility
with the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood.
Micro Compatibility
The macro compatibility of adjacent properties was reviewed by examining lot size and lot width. The
use remains single family detached which is the same as the current master p l an PUD . The smallest lot
size occurs in the amended phase 5, with dimensions of 60' x 135', or 8,100 sq. Ft. The proposed Phase
5 and 6 amendments include several common areas "green belts" separating dissimilar lot sizes (see
graphic below). Additiona l ly, the southern boundary of Phase 5 includes a large common area which
includes a wetland and wooded areas. These physical buffers are considered compatibility mitigation
measures creating a buffering effect, maintaining micro compatibility with the adjacent areas .
7 ZC 18 .06 Old Battles Village PUD Amendment-August 6, 2018
PROJECT NARRATIVE
REVISED FEBRUARY 27, 2018
Modification to Old Battles Village, Planned Unit Development
Background:
Old Battles Village is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was approved by
the City of Fairhope City Council. The PUD, as approved, consisted of 290 lots on
138.08 acres.
On December 21 , 2006 Old Battles Village Phase 1 was recorded in the Probate
Office. This phase consist of 120 single family lots on 51.46 acres . The average lot
sizes are 12 ,600 square feet and are 80 ' to 100 wide.
Proposed Modification:
The proposed modification is basically a redesign of the remaining undeveloped
pmiion of the approved PUD, which is approximately 86.76 acres. Part of the
redesign was to remove lots from significant drainage areas and from
environmental sensitive areas. The proposed amenity area has been relocated to a
site that is closer in proximity to the existing phase and will be a pait of the next
phase of development. The amenity area will consist of a clubhouse, pool and
tennis comi. The proposed lot sizes are relatively the same as the previously
approved lots and are 80 ' to 90 ' wide. Lot sizes range from 11,200 square feet to
20,780 square feet. Overall there are 7 additional lots in the proposed plan for a
total of 177 lots. There has been a reduction in the length of roadway from 16 ,658
linear feet to 15,053 linear feet.
Proposed Development Standards:
The proposed setbacks for the lots are 30 feet from the front, 25 feet from the rear,
10 feet from the side, and 20 feet from the street side. The proposed maximum
building height is 35 ' and maximum lot coverage is 40% for the principle
structure. Accessory structures are allowed with a maximum building height of 30
feet and a maximum coverage of 25% of the rear yard. Accessory buildings will
only be allowed in the rear yard with building setbacks of 5 feet from the rear, I 0
feet from the side, and 20 feet from the street side.
Drainage Concept:
In regards to drainage, there is a significant drainage way that bisects this prope1iy
that was accommodated in this redesign. Low impact development (LID) design
standards are being proposed in the future development of this PUD and revisions
lo) ~@~RW~tffi
l!\l JUN c 6 20 18 l!!J
BY :~ ........ .
have been made to incorporate those. For instance, common areas have been added
to the rear of the majority of the lots to allow for drainage. Roadway widths have
been increased from 40 ' to 50 ' in many cases to allow for LID concepts within the
right-of-way.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed revisions do not alter in anyway the concept as a single family
development as originally approved. This i s still a single family development and
still conforms to the standards of the Co mprehensive Plan for this area.
Proposed Modification (6-26-18):
The above project narrative along with a revised Master Plan was approved on
August 22, 2016 by the Fairhope City Council. This is a request for another
modification to the PUD . For the purposes of this project nan-ative , the focus here
will be only on the portion that is being modified. The remaining portions of the
PUD will remain as previously approved and subject to the standards described
above. The following describes the proposed modifications .
The modification consists of revisions to a portion of the PUD previously approved
as Phase 4 and 2 lots that were in Phase 3. The overall boundary of the PUD bas
not changed. There were 2 sites platted for development that made up Phase 4. The
eastern po1iion remains as approved and the western portion along with the 2 lots
in Phase 3 are the area proposed for modification. This area will be called The
Hamlet at Old Battles Village and will be an active adult community. The active
adult community is marketed toward the 55 + age adults with the idea that the
residents within the community would have common interests . The existing
Homeowners Association (HOA) documents will be revised to es tablish specific
conditions and dues for thi s portion of the PUD. The Hamlet residents will have a
uniform lawn maintenance program to ensure that this area continues to remain
visually appealing and consistent with the existing neighborhood. The property
owners within The Hamlet will also have access to the amenities of the overall Old
B att les Village PUD. The entry points into The Hamlet will have decorative
columns as well as landscaping to clearly define its location.
The Hamlet at Old Battles Village will consist of 22 lots at approximately 11,200
sq.ft. (80 'x 140 '). The proposed setbacks will be the same as those for all lots in the
PUD (30 ' for the front, 25 feet for the rear, 10 feet on the sides, and 20 feet on the
street sides). The lot coverage of 37% for the principle building and the building
height of 35 feet , which are as approved in the existing PUD, will be the same for
The Hamlet also. Accessory shuctures will be allowed in this phase also and will
comply with the s tandards previously approved for this PUD.
As a point of correction, the existing PUD Master Plan approved in August, 2016,
indicated 177 lots in Phases 2-6, when the actual number of lots was 176 , which is
a density of 2.03 lots per acre. With this proposed modification, the total number of
lots will now be 182, which is a density of 2.1 lots per acre. There is also a slight
increase in open space to 23.76 acres (27%) from 22.5 acres (26%). The green
space returned to 15.46 acres (18%) from 14.26 acres (16%).
Summary of Request: Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review of approximately 1269 linear
feet of underground installation of fiber optic cable. The project wi ll run along Magnolia Avenue, N.
Church Street and the Fairhope Parking Garage alley to serv ice 23 N. Section Street.
This application is under review due to Alabama Code 1975 11-52-11. Alabama Code 1975 11-52-11
addresses "Proposed construction of streets, public buildings, utilities, etc. to be submitted for
approval of commission after adoption of master plan: overruling of commission.
According to state code, an 11.52.11 review is done "whenever the commission shall have adopted the
master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sec tion s or districts therof, no street, square,
park or other public way, gorund or open space or public building or structure of public utility, whether
publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned
section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof shall communicate its reason s to
the council, which shall have the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less
than two thirds of its entire membership provided futher, that if the public way, ground, space,
budiling, structures, or utilitiy is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or
charter provisions governing same, fall within the province of the municipal council, then the
submission by the planning commission shall be to the board, commission or body having such
jurisdication and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled by said board, commission,
or body by a vote of not le ss than two thirds of its membership."
Project Scope: The applicant proposes to in sta ll approximately 1269 linear feet of 1.5" and 2" HPDE
conduit, equipped with a fiber optic cable, across Magnolia Avenue, just west of Section Street., along
Magnolia Avenue to N. Church St. along N. Church Street to the alley entering the Fairhope Parking
Garage, and through the alley to the rear of 23 N. Section St. Fiber Optic handholes to be placed in the
sidewalk in two location s (identified in the submitted drawings). The applicant proposes to insta ll 7
handholes flush to grade and replacing 3 existing pedestals in the alley. Th e applicant proposes to cut
and restore locations of asphalt alley shown on on the subm itted drawings.
Comments:
General:
• No open trenches shall be allowed. All work sha ll be directionally bored.
• The applicant shall hold a pre-construction con f erence with the Department Supervisors and
appropriate staff prior to construction.
• Written notice shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a
written schedule.
• The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call in order to locate all existing utilities.
• No work shall begin until a ROW permit is i ss ued by the City of Fairhope Building
Department or other applicable jurisdiction. Permits are not valid until payment i s
made and the permit is picked up by the contractor.
• Th e ROW Permit shall be kept with the contractor or subco ntractor at all times during
site work. The ROW permit sha ll be posted on the job site or in the window of
contractor(s) vehicle.
• All contractors/subcontractors are subject to City of Fairhope Business License
procedures.
• The site shall comply with all State, Federal and local requirements, including, but not
limited to the following City of Fairhope Ordinances:
1. City of Fairhope Wetland Ordinance( #1370), which regulates activity within 20' of
wetland s.
2. City of Fairhope Red Soil and Clay Ordinance (#1423), which prohibits the use of red
soil/clay within 100' of critical areas.
3. City of Fairhope Erosion Control Ordinance (#1298).
• State and Federal permits shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department,
prior to the issuance of City of Fairhope permits.
• The applicant shall provide as-built profiles of the in stalled lines, showing the exact depth. The
applicant shall provide full sized plans (24"X36") for this app li cation and for future applications.
Superintendent and Department Head Comments :
Public Works Director:
• It is the position of the Right-of-Way (ROW) Manager/Public Works Director that the alley is not
under his authority. The applicant shall provide the City of Fairhope with the Right of Entry
documents from the Lease holder (Parking Authority) and the grantor (Fairhope Single Tax).
• Any trees present shall not be negatively impacted. Handholds shall not be located within the
driplines of Heritage trees (as defined by the Tree Ordinance) . If proposed work is within a tree
dripline, consult with the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with earth work.
• The appl i cant shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works Director.
All conduit/cable shall be placed at a depth from existing grade per industry and/or County
Standards. A minimum horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36" must be
maintained from storm water and utility infrastructures. No handholes, bo xes, or other above
ground infrastructure shall be installed within drainage easements. Pedestals shall be placed in
a manner as to avoid obstructing visibility of motorists and to allow ve hicles to exit the roadway
during an emergency.
• Any boxes/handholes cannot be placed in sidewalks. The applicant shall re v iew the sidewalk
plan to determine if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall coordinate work with Mr.
Richard John so n, PE, Public Works Director, to resolve any potential conflicts.
Building Officia l :
• Written notice shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a
written schedule.
• The material under the sidewalk shal l be compacted and the repair work shall be to the
satisfaction of the Building Official or his designated represen tative. The applicant shall contact
the Building Department for inspection prior to placing concrete.
• BMP's shall be installed at boring sites.
• Ground Conditions in the ROW's shall be returned to original pre-construction condition(s) or
better.
• All plans and permits shall be available for r eview at all times along with the Ci ty of Fairhope
permit application.
• If required, appropriate ALDOT or Baldwin County Highway Department permits shall be
obtained prior to the issuance of a ROW permit.
• Contractor is advised to review and comp ly with the Building Official best practices flyer.
• Applicant and applicant's contractor shal l follow the Right of Way Installation Permitting and
Work Procedure s document available in the Bui ld ing Departm ent, includin g any supplements
provided by the Building Official at the time of ROW permit issuance.
Water and Sewer Department Standard Comments:
• All existing utilities must be located, and proper separation shall be maintained between
utilities.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened by painting the equipment Munsell Green.
Gas Department Standard Comments:
• Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities.
Code Enforcement Officer's Standard Comments:
• The applicant, or subcontractor, shall obtain a ROW permit from the City of Fairhope Building
Department prior to beginning work.
• Subcontractors shall have a current business license with the City of Fairhope and shall have a
copy of the ROW permit available for review at all times and shall be posted on site or in the
window of contractor vehicles.
• Any ROW cuts shall be stabilized (covered) at the end of each day and disturbed areas shall be
re-vegetated with sod within ten (10) days of completion of the project.
• Mulch/seed shall be watered as needed to ensure survival.
• Inlets shall be protected.
• If site is within 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc.), no red soils/clay are allowed as fill material,
Per the City's Red Clay/Soil Ordinance.
Recommendation:
To approve with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated above .
2) All mechanical equipment shall be painted Munsell green as applicable .
3) The applicant shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works Director.
4) The applicant shall provide the City of Fairhope with the Right of Entry documents from the
Lease holder (Parking Authority) and the grantor (Fairhope Single Tax).
5) A pre-construction conference shall be held prior to construction and written notice shall be
provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written schedule.
RESOLUTION NO: 2017-03
A RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTION F. STORMWATER STANDARDS OF THE
CITY OF FAIRHOPE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, Ala. Code Section 11-52-31, expressly authorizes a municipal
planning commission to adopt subdivision regulations governing the subdivision of land
within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend the Subdivision
Regulations as hereinafter provided.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, as follows:
1. Article VI, Section F. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised to read as
follows:
F. STORMWATERSTANDARDS:
1. Purpose -These st01m water standards shall implement the Comprehensive Plan for the
physical development of the City by setting the location, character and extent of open
spaces and facilities for waterways and storm water runoff, discharge, retention and
detention. T his design and an-angement shall promote the health, safety and general
welfare, and promote safety from inundation and erosion caused by storm water runoff.
These standards shall promote the following goals in the Comprehensive Plan :
(a) plan, provide and maintain efficient and effective infrastructw-e that promotes
orderly growth and environmentally sound practices to meet the future needs of
the community and to support land use goals; (b) promote a sustainable fuhtre
that meets today 's needs without compromising the ability of fuhtre generations
to meet their needs; and (c) encourage and develop connections between
environmental quality and economic vitality.
2. Liability -The design criteria herein establishes minimum elements of design
which must be implemented with good engineering and good construction
practices. Use of information herein for placement of any struchtre, for use of
any land, or any design basis shall not constitute a representation, guaranty , or
wa1Tanly of any kind by the City of Fairhope or its agents, officers or empl oyees
of the practicability, adequacy or safety of design.
3 . Submittal Requirements -
a. Minimum Requirements -All proposed subdivisions shall demonstrate
compliance with this Section F., these Regulat ions, and all apphcable state
and federal laws and regulations by submitting a minimum of two (2) hard
copies and one (1) electronic copy of the following plans and calculations:
(1) A Drainage Plan adequate provision for storm and flood water control by
channel, conduit or basins, which takes into account the ultimate or
saturated development of the tributary area in which the proposed
subdivision is to be located, and which includes but shall not be limi ted
to:
(a) Contour map of proposed development areas, with both existing and
finish contours at not greater than two-foot intervals;
(b) Existing drainage systems, including any structures immediately
down stream that may be affected by the project;
(c) Proposed drainage system, including onsite and offsite drainage
areas;
(d) Structure location, type and size, slope, c.f.s., elevations of inlet and
outlet, velocity, headwater elevation, tail-water elevation, etc.,
relative to the overall subdivision and/or staged phase of the
subdivision;
(e) Differential rnnoff calculations for pre-development and post-
development conditions;
(f) The effect of the subdivision on existing upstream and downstream
facilities outside the area of the subdivision; and
(g) Other pertinent information necessary for review of the drainage
plans as may be required by the Commission.
(h) A drainage naITative, including but not limited to, the following:
1. Any and all historical and existing drainage conditions.
2. Name, location, size of receiving watersheds and any special
considerations required by the watershed.
3. The calculation method and assumptions used.
4. Discussion of adequacy of volume of retention and drainage
design.
5. Method of discharge.
6. And how the design takes into acc0tmt (Section F paragraph 3 b)
the potential for adverse effect.
(2) An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which includes, but shall not be
limited to :
(a) Architectural and engineering drawings, maps, assumptions,
calculations, and naITative statements as required to accurately
describe the development and measures taken to meet the objectives
of stom1-water management;
(b) D ata on historica l runoff, developed runoff, detention pond detai ls ,
and method of discharge.
(3) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement for
maintenance of detention facilities and other storm water quantity and
qua lity BMPs during development and documents providing for
continued inspection and maintenance after completion of development
and sale of all lots, such documents rnmllllg as a covenant with the lands .
(a) An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement signed by the
developer or owner for any required detentio n facilities or other
sto1111 water quantity and quality BMPs must be submitted with the
proposed plans . The agreement must contain a long-term
maintenance plan prepared by the design engineer for each BMP .
The maintenance plan must include a desc1iption 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 recorded
p1ior to final plans approval. If th e 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 resu lt 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 storm water
system and BMPs according to the schedule and submitting reports
to the Planning Director or his authorized representative every five
(5) years to document that inspections have been completed and
necessary maintenance has been performed. The first inspection
repo1t is due December 31 of the third year after consh·uction has
been completed. Inspection reports are then due by December 31 of
every fifth 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 five year inspection reports
and perform required maintenance activities could result in
enforcement action.
( c) P1ior to the full release of the performance bond for any new or
substantially improved storm water facilities, an Alabama registered
engineer shall submit to the Planning Director or his auth01ized
representative certification 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
andBMPs .
( 4) Basic Design Data and calculations including routing calculations in
legible tabulated form and proof of adequacy of volume of retention and
sizing computations for low flow structures.
(5) Copy of notice of coverage and stom1 water pollution plan for coverage
under the Alabama Depaiiment of Environmental Management for
issuance ofNPDES Permit, and pemuts from any other agency , where
required; and,
(6) Any additional enginee1ing information City of Fairhope Staff_or the
Planning Comnussion deems necessary to make a decision on
subdivisions and other development where adequacy of drainage is
reasonably questioned.
b. Adverse Effec ts -Where it can be reasonably anticipated that additional
quantity or velocity of runoff from development of a subdivision will
overload existing downstream drainage facilities, approval shall be withheld
until there is submitted to the Comnussion a plan to mitigate damage to
downstream property which would or might result from tl1e subdivision
under consideration. Downstream drainage structures should be considered
when sizing detention outfall structures, with proof of this subnutted to the
Commission. The hydraulic elevations resulting from channel detention
shall not adversely affect adjacent properties.
c . Additional Engineering Plans and Calculations -
(1) In every case where new sh·eets are to be constrncted, and in cases where
subdivisions provide frontage only upon existing right-of-way and there
exists in the opinion of the Commission the potential for damage from
uncontrolled stonn-water runoff, the project engineer shall include in his
plans the design and calculations required for adequate control of stom1-
water.
(2) For projects not exceeding 200 acres, routing calculations shall be in
legible tabulated fonn. Proof of adequacy of volume of retention and
sizing computations for low flow strnctures shall be submitted. For
projects exceeding 200 acres, the engineer shall provide detailed ,
documented verification of adequacy of design.
(3) No proposals for under-sizing shall be submitted except with plans and
profiles of the entire undersized downstream area with convincing
evidence that the hydraulic gradients proposed will not adversely affect
existing facilities maintained by the City or County.
( 4) A special design drawing shall be submitted for any single drainage
strncture of 20 square feet in area , or larger.
d. Certifications and Seals -
(1) All plans and design calculations submitted shall bear the seal, original
signature, name , address and telephone number and ce1iification 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 certificate shall read
substantially as follows:
"ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
I , the undersigned, a Registered Professional Engineer in
the State of Alabama holding Certificate Number ----·
hereby certify that I 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 ofmy belief, conforms to the requirements of the
Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and to all other rnles, regulations, laws ,
and ordinances applicable to my design.
Proj eel Engineer
Date
Name of Project to which this Certificate Applies
Plans which are certified consist of Page __ thru __ ,
each of which bears my seal and signature."
e. The vegetated target for the buffer shall be undisturbed natural vegetation.
Any of the allowable uses shall be designed and constructed to 1ninimize
clearing, grading, erosion, and water quality degradation.
f. Land in the buffer shall not be used for principal structures and accessories,
such as swinuning pools, patios , etc. All new platted lots shall be designed
to provide sufficient land outside of the buffer to accommodate primary
structures . Buffers should be delineated before streets and lots are laid out to
minimize buffer intrusion and to assme adequate buildable area on each
platted lot. Land within the buffer can serve to meet the minimum lot
requirements.
g. Buffer impacts are inevitable with development. Modification and
mitigation of the buffer width are available to landowners or developers of
newly platted lots or subdivisions where there are exceptional situations or
physical conditions re lated to the parcel that pose practical difficulty to its
development and restiict the application of the buffer requirements. The
landowner or his designated representative may prepare and sub1nit for
approval a written request and site plan showing the extent of the impact of
the buffer on the proposed project and specify a proposed buffer mitigation
plan. The Plamting Director or his authorized representative will review and
render a decision on the buffer encroachment and proposed mitigation within
30 days after receiving the request. In no case shall the reduced width of the
buffer be less than 25 feet. Applicants can appeal the decision of the
Planning Director or his authorized representative's decision to the Planning
Commission.
h . In order to maintain the functional value of the buffer: dead, diseased , or
dying trees that are in danger of falling and causing damage to dwellings or
other structures may be removed at the discretion of the landowner; debris in
the buffer that is a result of storm damage may be removed; and, invasive
plant species may be removed if they are replaced by native species. A
buffer restoration plan must be approved by the Planning Director or his
auth01ized representative .
1. Stream boundaries including each buffer zone must be clearly delineated on
all grading plans, subdivision plats, site plans and any other development
plans. The outside linut of the buffer must be clearly marked on-site with
permanent signs placed every 100 feet prior to any land disturbing activities.
Stream and buffer linuts must also be specified on all surveys and recorded
p l ats and noted on individual deeds . Buffer requirements must be referenced
in property owner 's association documents and shall be labeled on the plat.
J . When a landowner or his representative obtain pemuts from ADEM or the
Army Corps of Engineers that results in in1pacting the buffer then approved
mitigation of these impacts based on the permit conditions supersede the
applicable components of the buffer requirements in areas covered by the
permit. The buff er requirements for areas not covered by the permit shall be
applicable to the remainder of the proposed development site.
5. Flow Control-
a. Scop e of Design -All subdivisions or other developments shall be provided
with adequate stom1 water drainage facilities. The project engineer shall
provide a design adequate to control storm water peak flows , runoff volume
and velocity in accordance with paragraph 7 of this section. In general, the
project engineer shall use design storm criteria based on the site -specific
conditions that relate to protection of life and property. Culvelis shall
generally acconm10date a 25-year st01m frequency under arterial roadways;
drainage systems within subdi visions should accommodate a 2 through 25-
year stom1 frequency; bridges shall accommodate a storm frequency of 50
years . When recommended by City o f Fairhope staff, the Plamring
Commission may require a stonn frequency design as great as 100 years .
(1) There shall be no storm water pumps .
b . D es ign Standards and Calculations -The method of determining storm water
rnnoff, plans, and designs shall be based on principles of good enginee1ing
practice and the following standards:
(1) Calculations shall be based on the Rational Method (Q=cia) for small
basins, up to 100 acres, where:
Q=estimated peak discharge in cubic feet per second
c=coefficient of runoff (from table below)
l=rainfall intensity, inches per hour, for a design stom1 derived from
the time of concentration
tc = time of concentration in minutes , from figure 4-13 of the
Alabama Depaliment of Transportation of Hydraulic Manual,
attached as Appendix D .
a=drainage area in acres
Recommended values for' c " may be found in table 4-2 of the
Alabama Depaitment of Transportation Hydraulics Manual, attached
as Appendix E. It is recommended that the intensity, "I" be obtained
from the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve for Mobil e produced
by the National Weather Service.
(2) When the proposed development lies within a large watershed where
flows from upstream drainage areas are passing through the proposed
development, a rainfall-runoff model such as the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) technical release 20 (TR-20) should be used to calculate
offsite flow . Flow should be calculated using a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall,
the depth of which can be obtained from SCS Technical Release 55 (TR-
55). This flow shall be taken into account when designing detention
outfall structures if the upstream flow passes through the proposed
detention pond . The effects of ( and on) upstream and downstream ponds
in the watershed shall be analyzed.
(3) All proposed conduits or channels shall be of sufficient capacity to
accommodate potential runoff from developed area, including the entire
upstream drainage area. The project engineer shall include in his
subrnittals evidence that he has included in his design the tributaiy area/s .
If an existing channel runs through a proposed development, the engineer
must consider this flow when designing detention and outfall structures.
(4) In general, inlets shall be provided so that surface water is not canied
across any intersection, or for a distance of more than 600 feet in the
gutter. When calculations indicate that gutter capacities are at maximum,
catch basins shall be used to intercept the flow at that point.
(5) Open chaimels and ditches shall be so designed as not to create a traffic
hazard or to cause erosion. The minimum slope for paved ditches shall
be 0.5 percent and for non-paved ditches shall be one percent. Maximum
design flow velocities shall conform to the cun-ent edition of the
Alabama Highway Department Hydraulics Manual.
(6) Cleanout access shall be provided at a maximum spacing of 300 feet for
pipes 24 inches or less in diameter and 400 feet for pipes exceeding 24
inches . Cleanouts shall also be provided at each change in line and grade .
(7) Concrete box culverts shall be designed and constrncted according to
requirements of the Alabama department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Highway Construction, cmTent and the Alabama
Department of Transportation Special Standard Highway Drawings.
c. Site Faciliti es -
(1) The developer shall be required to carry away, by pipe or open channel ,
any spring or surface water existing prior to or as a result of the
subdivision . Adequate provisions shall be made within each subdivision
for drainage facilities required.
(2) Where a public storm water system is av ailable, the developer shall be
required to connect his facilities thereto . If no public outlet exists, the
project engineer shall recommend means to adequately dispose of storm
water runoff.
(3) The stonn and sanitary sewer plans shall be made prior to other utility
plans.
( 4) The storm water system shall be separate from and independent of any
sanitary sewer system.
d . Conformity w ith Oth er Standards -All drainage facilities shall be
constructed in conformity with state specifications and all other state and
federal laws and regulations.
e. Flood Pron e Areas -
(1) Low lying lands along watercourses subject to flooding or overflowing
shall be included in the drainage and shall not be available for
improvements except as specifically authorized by the City's flood
control ordinance.
(2) Low areas subject to periodic inundation and areas subject to excessive
erosion shall not be developed or subdivided unless and until the
Planning Commission may establish that: The nature of the land use
proposed would not tend to be damaged appreciably by water; The area
may be filled or improved in such a maimer as to prevent periodic
inundation; Mininrnm floor elevations may be established such as to
prevent damage to buildings or strnctures; There is adequate provision to
eliminate such flooding.
f. Lands Outside th e City -Within the extra-tenitorial jurisdiction of the
Fairhope Planning Commission, all engineering plans shall be subject to the
more restrictive requirement of these provisions or of Baldwin County's
Stonn Water Management Plan. In those areas , the County Engineer's review
shall be completed and his certificate of review shall accompany all plans
submitted to the Commission. The following outline is provided to help
insure that certain critical elements of design are in compliance with the
objectives of design:
(1) Volume of retention for entire project
(2) Tributary (Q) peak runoff to basin
(3) Balanced maximwn outflow rate from low flow structure
(4) Ratios of inflow to outflow (differential rates)
(5) Sizing of overflow facilities
(6) Stability of dikes
(7) Safety features
(8) Maintenance features
6. Erosion Control -
a. Surface water runoff originating upgrade of exposed areas shall be controlled
to reduce erosion and sediment loss during period of exposure. All land
disturbing activ it ies shall be planned so as to mirlimize offsite sedimentation
damage.
b. No grading or earth moving operations shall commence until erosion and
sedimentation contro l measures shall have been implemented.
c. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized as quickly as is practicable with
permanent vegetation and erosion/sediment control measures. The duration
of exposure to erosive elements shall be kept to a minimum.
d. D etention ponds shall be stabilized by means of grassing, sodding, erosion
control netting, or a combination thereof. Sediment shall be removed from
the pond prior to acceptance, and any disturbed areas shall be regrassed. The
use of red clay as a means of stabilizing detention ponds is prohibited .
e. Temporary vegetation and/or mulching shall be provided protect exposed
high-risk erosion areas during development.
f. When the increase in peak rates and velocity of storm water runoff resulting
from a land disturbing activity is likely to cause damaging accelerated
erosion of the receiving channel, plans shall include measures to control
velocity and rate of release so as to minimize damage to the channel.
g. No land disturbing activity shall be permitted in proximity to a lake, natural
watercourse or adjacent property unless a buffer zone is provided a long the
boundary thereof to confine visible siltation and to prevent erosion; provided,
however, that this prohibition shall not prevent such activity undertaken as a
paii of the construction of such lake or watercourse channel.
h. The angle for graded slopes and fills shall not exceed that which can be
retained by vegetation cover or other adequate erosion control methods.
Provision shall be made for p lanting or otherwise protecting slopes within the
shortest possible time from exposure thereof.
1. Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures and devices shall
provide control from the calculated post-development peak runoff. Runoff
rates and computations may be calculated from procedures contained in the
"National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" and shall be
based on rainfall data published by the National Weather Service for the area
and/or official local records.
J. Engineer shall provide for permanent protection of on-site or adjacent stream
banks and channels from the erosive effects of increased velocity and volume
of storm-w ater runoff resulting from land disturbing activities.
k. Erosion and sediment control plans and details shall be based on the
current edition of the "Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control,
Sediment Control and Storm water Management on Construction Sites
and Urban Areas". Erosion control plans shall be prepaTed by a
certified professional in erosion and sediment control such as a Certified
Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC).
7. Detention and Retention Facilities -
a. The purpose of storm water retention and detention is to protect downstream
properties from increases in flood heights due to development. A
combination of storage and controlled release of st01m water shall be
required for road construction, non-residential developments of one acre or
more, multi-family residential developments of one acre or more, and single
family developments of three acres o r more. The requirement for a
combination of storage and controlled release of stonn water is not required
for minor subdivisions; however, if the Plamling Commission deems that the
intensity of the development could cause off-site stom1 water flow impacts
during or after development, a combination of storage and controlled release
shall be required. (The effective acreage for a project is not limited to a
fractional part of the total concept; even though developed in phases, it is the
total area of the conceptual plans which governs.) Storage and controlled
release facilities may be required on smaller projects if it is detennined in the
Planning Commissions discretion that the intensity of the development could
cause off-site storm water flow impacts during or after development. The
retention or detention (whenever detention requirements are addressed by
these regulations, requirements also apply to retention facilities) facilities
must be designed to control peak fl ow from the outlet of the site such th at
post-development flows are equal to or less than pre-developed peak flows
for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, SO-year and 100-year design storms.
However, detaining the discharge from a site can sometimes exacerbate
flooding downstream due to peak flow tinu.ng and/or the increased volume of
rnnoff coming from a site. If detention faci liti es are indiscriminately placed
in a watershed and changes to the peak flow timing are not cons idered , the
detention facility may result in an increase of the peak flow downstream.
Another impact of new development is an increase in the total runoff volume
of flow. Thus, even if the peak flow is effectively attenuated, the longer
duration ofrugher flows due to the increased volume may combine with
downstream storm water conveyance systems to increase downstream peak
flows. Applicant must demonstrate through hydrologic analyses that the
detention facility will not exacerbate floodi.ng downstream.
b. Such facilities shall be owned, operated and maintained by the development entit ies and
shall not be accepted for inspection and maintenance by the City of Fairhope. The
burden shall be on the developer and his engineer to provide evidence in support of a.ny
proposal to alter or modify the requirement for detention. Storm water runoff from new
development or significant redevelopment must no t adversely affect downstream
properties. In detemlining whether runoff from the new development or significant
redevelopment causes an adverse impact, the following procedures will be used:
(1) Attenuate post-development p eak discharges to a level not to exceed the
pre-development discharges for the 2-year through 100-year recurrence
intervals.
(2) Apply the "ten percent" rule. This rule is based on the prenlise that at a
point downstream of a development site where the drainage a rea above
the development is 10 percent or less than the total drainage area at a
p oint downstream of the development; then impacts related to storm
water runoff from the development are nunimal from trus poi.nt
downstream. Tllis rule recogruzes that in addition to controlling the
peak discharge from the outlet of a detention facility, these facilities
change the timing of the entire outflow hydro graph for the stream or
river in question. Where required, channel routing calculations must
proceed downstream to a confluence point where the drainage area being
analyzed represents ten percent or less of the total drainage area. At this
point, if the effect of the hydrograph routed through the proposed storage
faci lity on the downs tream hydrograph is assessed and shown not to
increase flows in downstream hydrographs, detention can be waived. If
increased flows are found, then backwater calculations and determination
of flood elevations for the areas impacted by increased flows, if any ,
must be prepared. Where downstream increases in peak flows or flood
elevations are shown, detention will be required on site to attenuate
storm water runoff from post-development to pre-development rates. In
the event that the Ci ty has developed a Comprehensive Plan for the area,
the recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan will establish the
requirements for detention. The City retains the right to require
detention in areas of known flooding when detention will not exacerbate
downstream flooding.
(3) The release rate from any detention facility should approximate that of
the site prior to the proposed development for the 2-year through 100-
year st01m events, with emergency overflow capable of handling at least
the 100-year peak discharge except where waived or altered by the
Planning Commission. Design of the detention pond shall be to insure
that detention facilities will survive overtopping occurring for any
reason, including clogging of controlled outlets for the 100 year stonn
event. Detention systems must be constructed during the first phase of
major developments to eliminate damage to adjacent properties during
construction. In this regard, the detention systems shall be designed to
function as sediment traps and cleaned out to proper storage v olumes
before compl etion. If deposition of sediment has occurred, detention
systems must be restored to their design dimensions after construction is
complete and certified as part of the as-built submittal.
c. Detention facilities shall be provided with obvious and effective control
structures. Plan view, sections and details of the strncture shall be included in
submittals. Sizing of the low flow pipe shall be by inlet control or hydraulic
gradient requirements. Low flow pipe shall be not smaller than eight inches
in diameter, except in parking lot and roof retention where the size shall be
designed for the particular application as approved by the Commission.
d. The overflow opening or spillway shall be designed to accept the total peak
runoff of the improved tributary area. Proper enginee1ing judgment, with 25-
year, SO-year or greater stom1 frequencies considered, shall be exercised in
secondary routing of discharge greater than the basic design stom1 for the
protection of downstream properties.
e . Aerators are required for all retention ponds . The Public Works Director
shall approve the specifications for said aerator.
8. Post Development Water Quality Best Management Practices -
a . Stom1 water quality BMPs for ne w development and significant
redevelopment are required for projects that disturb three acres or more or
subdivisions with four or more lots. (The effective acreage for a project is
not limited to a fractional part of the total concept; even though developed in
phases, it is the total area of the conceptual plans which governs). The BMPs
must be designed to achieve the goal of removing at l east 80% of the average
annual post-construction total suspended solids (TSS) load . The storm water
quality BMPs will be considered in compliance with this requirement if;
(l) BMPs are sized to capture and treat the water quality treatment volume,
which is defined as the runoff volume resulting from the first 1.8 inches
of rainfall from a site; and ,
(2) Appropiiate structural storm water BMPs are selected, designed ,
constructed, and maintained.
Stonn water quality BMPs may be required on smaller projects if it is
detemuned in the Planning Commission's discretion that the intensity of the
development could cause off-site stonn water impacts dming or after
development.
b. The stonn water quality treatment goal is designed to capture 85% of the
annual storm water runoff. Stonn water quality BMPs must be designed to
treat the runoff from the first 1.8 inches of rainfall. Each site 's storm water
quality treatment volume is also based on its percent impervious cover. The
treatment standard is the same for all sites unless other secondary pollutant
reduction goals are established by ADEM; for instance, through the
establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The storm water
quality treatment methodology to determine treatment volume is as follows:
Where:
A
WQv =PxRvx-
12
WQv = water quality treatment volume , acre-feet
P = rainfall for the 85% storm event (1.8 inches)
Rv = runoff coefficient (see below)
A= drainage area in acres
Rv = 0.015 + 0.00921
I= drainage area impervious cover in percent (50% -imperviousness would be 50)
c . This stonn water quality treatment goal is designed to give the developer
flexibility in meeting the 80% TSS reduction goal on each site . BMPs may
be selected to meet the stonn water quality requirements in numerous ways
through the application of low-impact site design and layout, non-structural
BMPs, and structural BMPs.
d. The City encourages use oflow-impact site design practices that reduce the
impact of development on storm water quality and quantity. Low-impact site
design practices are meant to:
(1) Minimize the impervious cover on a site ,
(2) Preserve the natural infiltration ability of the site,
(3) Route stom1 water to "micro controls ,' such as rain barrels, rain gardens, etc. that
treat small pmiions of site stom1 water from the site, and ,
(4) Minimize long-tennBMP maintenance by preserving and using natural features
of the site.
e. A developer should consider l ow impact site design practices early in the
design process in an effort to reduce the overall water quality treatment
volume requirement. These practices tie directly into the stom1 water quality
program, the WQv calculation, and/or the storm water treatment volume .
These practices should only be implemented when not in conflict with other
City regulations.
f. Structural storm water controls, or Best Management Practices (BMPs), are
engineered structures designed to treat storm water or mitigate the impact
from storm water runoff. The following table presents a pre-approved listing
of structural BMP practices. These BMPs have been assigned a TSS
removal capability, based upon existing research, and can be used by
developers to meet the pollutant reduction goal of 80% TSS removal. The
structural BMPs have been divided into two categories:
(1) General application BMPs are assumed to achieve the 80% TSS reduction.
(2) Limited application BMPs which have to be used in combination with other
BMPs to achieve the 80% reduction goal. These BMPs may not be applicable
for certain sites and require frequent intensive maintenance to function properly.
Pre-Approved BMPs
BMP Removal Efficiency for
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Structural Control TSS Removal (%)
General Application BMPs
Wet Pond 80
Storm water Wetland 80
Bioretention Area 80
Sand Filter 80
Enhanced Swale 80
Limited Application Bl\lIPs
Filter strip so
Grass Channel so
Organic Filter 80
Underground Sand Filter 80
Submerged Grnvel Wetland 80
Infiltration Trench 80
Gravity (Oil/Grit Separator) 40
Proprietary Structural Control Varies
Dry Detention Basin 60
g . The increase in the frequency and duration of bankfull flow conditions in
stream channels due to development is the primary cause of accelerated
streambank erosion and widening and downcutting of stream channels.
Therefore, streambank protection criterion applies to all development sit es
for which there is an increase in the natural flows to downstream feeder
streams, channels, ditches, and small streams. On-site or downstream
improvements may be required for streambank protection, easements or
right-of-entry agreements also may need to be obtained.
h . The developer should determine if existing downstream streambank cover is
adequate to convey storm wateT vel ocities for post-development conditions.
This can be accomplished by first obtaining post-developed ve locities for the
"Streambank: Protection" 2-year stonn event in the downstream conveyance
system. These velocities are then compared to the allowable velocity of the
downstream receiving system. If the downstream system is designed to
handle the increase in velocity as a result of the proposed development, the
developer should provide all supp011ing calculations and/or documentation to
demonstrate that the downstream storm water conveyance system will not be
compromised as a result of the development.
(1) If the increased velocities are higher than the allowable velocity of the
downstream receiving system, then the developer may choose to
reinforce/stabilize the downstream conveyance system. The proposed
modifications must be designed so that the downstream post-development
velocities for the 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year stonn events are less than or equal to
either the allowable velocity of the downstream receiving system or the pre-
development velocities, whichever is higher. The developer must provide
suppm1ing calculations and/or documentation that downstream velocities do not
exceed the allowable range once the downstream modifications are installed .
(2) The developer may use on-site co ntrol s to keep downstream post-development
discharges at or below allowable velocity limits. The developer must provide
supporting calculations ancVor documentation that the on-site controls will be
designed such that downstream velocities for the three (3) storm events are
within an allowable range once the on-site controls are installed .
(3) Another approach to meet the stream bank protection requirement is to provide
24 hours of extended detention on-site, for post-developed stonn water runoff
generated by the 1-year, 24-hour rainfall event ( 4.5 inches) to protect
downstream channels . The required volume for extended detention is referred to
as the Streambank Protection Volume (SPV). The reduction in the frequency and
duration of bankfull flows through the controlled release provided by extended
detention of the SPY will reduce the bank scow-rnte and seve1ity.
1. Stom1water BMPs with either a pennanent pool of water or that will hold
storm water for an extended period of time can potentially provide mosquito-
breeding habitat. However, if structmal BMPs are properly designed,
installed, and maintained, mosquito problems can be minimized. BMPs with
open water (such as st01m water ponds) shall require aeration for mosquito
control. The Public Works Director shall approve the specifications for the
aerator.
9. Location and Easements -
a . Drain-ways, whether conduit or open channel, shall be located within the
right-of~way insofar as is practicable~
b . Where topography or other conditions render impracticable the inclusion of
drainage within road rights-of-way, perpetual unobstructed easements not
less than fifteen (15) feet in width shall be provided across the property with
access to the road right-of-way. Such easements shall be clearly delineated
on the plat as areas dedicated to public use as drainage easements, with
provision for maintenance by the landowners. The City shall not maintain
such easements.
c. Off premises drainage easements and .improvements lying outside the
proposed subdivision may be required of the Owner to handle runoff into a
natural drainage channel.
d. Where a subdivision or development is traversed by a watercourse, drain-
way, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm-water easement
conforming substantially to the lines of such water course and of such width
and construction as is adequate for the intended purpose, including
maintenance operations.
e. No stom1 water detention sha11 be located in public right-of-way for any
private development.
10. Maintenance -
a. Acceptance for maintenance by the public of lakes or ponds which constitute a part
of storm water drainage control is generally prohibited by stonn water provisions
herein. Any decision to the contra1y must miginate with the City Council.
b . Maintenance outside the street right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the
legal entity established by the developer for the continued maintenance of
common areas. No fom1al acceptance of streets and utilities shall be made by
the City Council and no building permits shall be issued until developer has
made provisions for continued maintenance of such common areas, including
off-street drainage and detention. As part of the final plat submittal, the
owner/developer shall ve1ify in writing that a legal entity shall be responsible
for continual maintenance. In the extra-ten-itorial jurisdiction where street
acceptance is the County's responsibility, the County Engineer may decline
to sign approval for recording of plat unless maintenance provisions meet his
approval.
c. All erosion and sedimentation protection facilities shall be regularly
maintained as required to insure that they function effectively.
d. Means for perpetual and periodic maintenance of the facilities shall be
established by the owner of the development as a condition prerequisite to
approval of the development by the Commission.
11. Required Use of Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques -
a. The use of LID techniques is required and is to be determined from an entire site
development perspective by the engineer of record for the project. The design and
integration of LID techniques shall promote the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community and shall be designed to work in a complimentary fashion with the
drainage plan for the proposed development. The LID techniques are required within
the municipal limits of the City of Fairhope and the planningjmisdiction of the City
of Fairhope based on the rain events experienced in the area, geology, slopes, and
other natural features . The design engineer is encouraged to sub1nit additional LID
based techniques to be utilized in the proposed development.
b. The use of LID techniques is required in any and all proposed developments where
the stonnwater regulations apply. The design engineer shall rely on verifiable
professional engineering judgment on which LID techniques to deploy in each
proposed development based on the particular characteristics of the subject property.
The intent of the requirements for the use of LID techniques is that the development
shall implement as many LID techniques as practical and approp1iate for the
development. Plans and calculations shall show the efficacy of each LID technique
and include a quantitative analysis of their performance. Plans shall clearly identify
each LID technique on a grading and drainage plan with appropriate details and
cross-references to the drainage calculations .
c. If a project, due to the natural characte1istics of the property, cannot successfully
implement any LID techniques the applic ant may submit a waiver request for
consideration. The waiver request shall be submitted at the time of the application
and provide verifiable engineering documentation that LID techniques cannot be
used .. The City shall have the right , but not the obligation, to engage such third party
engineers , consultants and other professionals as necessary and approp1iate to advise
the City as to whether a part icular application complies with and is otherwise in
concert with this subsection 10 (a "Third Party Professional"). In the event the City
engages a Third Party Professional in connection with a paiticular application, the
C ity will forward all application mate1ials to the Third Pa1ty Professional along with
a request for a cost estimate from the Third Party Professional for his/her role in the
review of such application. Upon presentation by the Third Patty Professional of a
cost estimate to the City, the City shall provide same to the applicant, and the
applicant shall deposit with the City a cash sum equal in amount to the cost estimate
of the Third Party Professional (the "Cash Deposit"). Upon completion of all work
by the Third Party Professional relative to such application and payment by the City
of all fees and expenses of the Third Party Professional from the Cash Deposit, if any
portion of the Cash Deposit remains, the City shall refund it to the applicant. If the
Cash Deposit is insufficient to pay the fees and costs of the Third Party Professional ,
the applicant shall immediately remit to the City such funds as are necessary to make
up any shortfall .
d . The Third Party Professional shall submit a finding report to the City Planning
Department. The City Planning Depaitment shall forward a copy of the finding to
the appl icant or the applicant's agent. The City Planning Department shall include,
as part of the application materials to the Plaiming Commission a recommendation
regarding the waiver .
e. The Planning Commission shall consider the waiver, the applicant's documentation ,
and Third Part Professional finding and City Planning Department recommendation
and make a final determination as to the waiver request.
f. The following LID techniques are available for use by applicants given the particular
circumstances and characte1istics of the proposed subdivision:
(1.) Wet Basins: The City finds the potential benefits of wet basins are, among
other items, allowing sedimentation to fall out of stonnwater, attenuating
flows, assisting in evapotranspiration, and improving the stonnwater quality.
Special design considerations are: groundwater elevations , large surface
areas are encouraged, special attention should be given in pervious soil,
surface area of the basin should take into account nutrient loading from
lawns for example in order to treat and improve stonnwater quality to the
maximum extent possible, ensuring that an adequate base flow is provided to
maintain water levels, they are not recommended to be constructed in an in-
line facility , utilize low slopes , the use of forbays are recommended,
upstream and downstream areas shall be considered in the design in
accordance with Fairhope standards .
Recommended characteristics are: The approach slopes should be 4: 1 or less
around the perimeter, side slopes 3: 1 or less (below the water level, beyond
the safety bench), safety bench just below water elevation (4 ' wide, 6"-12"
deep), energy is dissipated prior to ente1ing the basin, can be excavated
below the ground surface.
(2.) Rain Gardens: The City finds the potential benefits of rain gardens are,
among other items, small scale flow attenuation, infiltration, limited
evapotranspiration, allowing sediments to be trapped , and water quality
treatment.
Special design considerations are: Typically smaller areas and drainage
areas are used for rain garden design, special attention should be given in
pervious soils, recommended for use in hydro logic soil groups A and B , not
recommended in high swell soils.
Recommend ed characteristics are: Small scale and frequent use in drainage
areas, the choice of landscaping materials , soil mix, and other characteristics
are crucial to the success of a rain garden. Rain gardens can be highly visible
and utilized as a visual amenity in a proposed development.
(3.) Permeable Pavement Systems: The City finds the potential benefits of
permeable pavement systems are, among other items, flow attenuation,
infiltration , and filtration of stormwat er. There are many products and
strategies that can be utilized and the City is open to the use of varied
products in accordance with manufacture recommendations. Consultation
with the city prior to design of the product to be utilized is suggested.
Special design consideration. are: Use in areas with hydrologic soil groups A
and B, special attention should be given in pervious conditions, not
reconunended in areas with high swell soils, ground water tables should not
impact the ability of water to infiltrate, the technique works best in lo w
slopes .
( 4.) Sand Filter: The City finds that the potential benefits of sand filters are,
among other items , flow attenuation, inftlh·ation, reducing se dimentation , and
providing filtration of stonn water.
Special design considerations are: Best used in small drainage areas, special
attention should be given in pervious soils, recommended use in areas with
soi ls with good permeability in hydrological soil groups A and B , not
recommended in high swell soils .
(5.) Grass Swales: The City finds that tl1-e potential benefits of grass swales are,
among other items, in straining stormwater, providing limited quality
treatments, while providing some moderate flow attenuation.
Special design considerations are: Typically work best in smaller drainage
areas where volumes are reduced, special consideration should be given in
pervious soils, not recommended with high swell soils, should have low
slopes, adjacent areas and layout should be considered in the design.
Suggested characte1istics where topography, soils, and slope pennit
vegetated open channels and spaces should be considered as a significant or a
primary means of stonnwater conveyance.
(6 .) Grass Buffers: The City finds that the potential benefits of grass buffers are ,
among other items, in straining stom1water , providing limited quality
treatments, while providing some moderate flow attenuation .
Special design considerations are: Typically work best in smaller drainage
areas where volumes are reduced, special consideration should be given in
pervious soils , not recommended with high swell soils , should have low
slopes , adjacent areas and layout should be considered in the design.
Suggested characteristics where topography , soils, and slope pennit
vegetated open channels and spaces should be considered as a significant or a
primary means of stormwater conveyance.
(7 .) Constructed wetland channels or wetlands : The City finds that the potential
benefits of constrncted wetland channels or wetlands are , among other
items , flow attenuation, buffering of flooding events, evapotranspi.ration,
sedimentation, and treatment of stormwater quality.
Special design considerations are: Not recommended in high swell soils, low
slope, forebay is recommended , primary benefit of pollutant removal , not
volume reduction , adjacent areas should be considered in the design.
(8 .) Step Pool Stonnwater Conveyance Structures: The City finds that a step
pool stonnwater conveyance strncture may attenuate stormwater flows ,
provides evapotranspiration, reduce sediment transport, and water quality
treatment.
Special design considerations are: Not recommended in high swell soils .
Adjacent areas should be taken into consideration in order to ensure long
tenn viability of step pool strnctures and adjacent erosion.
(9.) In-line stormwater storage: The City finds that in-line storage may provide
for attenuation and limits sedimentation.
Special design considerations are: Designed to be self-cleaning where
possible or suitable clean out access is provided and designed into the
system, designed to smcharge non-sensitive areas with no flooding in
parking lots , structures, or other typically occupied spaces .
(10 .) Site design for habitat, wetland, and water body conservation: The City finds
that site design that incorporates the natural features of the property can help
to minimize erosion and reduce stress on natural water conveyance and
attenuation systems by preserving a natural vegetated state of native plants ,
water courses, and flood prone areas.
Suggested characteristics are : The technique may be used in conjunction with
the City s planned unit development or village subdivision processes to
propose alternative street layouts and design so that impervi ous areas and
other improvements are sited with due regard to the natural elements of the
prope1iy .
Special design considerations: To consider adjacent areas in the design since
impo1iant natural features that utilize this LID technique often extends past
property lines or the phases of proposed develo pment.
(11.)Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies: The city finds that the
restoration of habitat or wetland and water bodies can be productive to
improve the environment by minimizing erosion and reducing stress on
natural water conveyance and attenuation systems by preserving a natural
vegetated state of native plants, wa ter courses, and flood pro ne areas.
Suggested characte1istics are: This teclmique m ay be used in conjunction
with the City's planned unit development or village subdivision processes to
propose alternative street layouts and design so that impervious areas and
other improvements are sited with due regard to the n a tural elements of the
property. Use only native plants in the development process and take special
consideration to restore po1iions of the site to predevelopment native
ecological communities, water bodies or wetla nds with more than 10% of the
development footprint.
Special design considerations: To consider adjacent areas in the design since
important natural feature s that utilize this LID technique often extend past
property lines or the phases of proposed development
(12.)Greenways: The City fmds that greenways provide for beneficial u se of LID
for potentially active a nd passive recreation opportunities and wil dlife
corridors. This teclmique allows for the creative integration into a
development proposal that is frequently linked with other natural or
recreatio n systems that extend past the property lines of the proposed
development.
Suggested characteristics: Typically greenways are easier to integrate into a
development proposal on larger acreages. They are frequently utilized as
linear parks and often include sensitive wetland areas, steep slopes, gull ies or
other natural land forms , creeks, and unique wildlife habitat fo r protected
species.
(13.)Restoring Channel Morphology and Natural Function: The City find s that
restoring channel morphology and natural function provides for flow
attenuation, infiltration, and reduces sedimentation.
Special considerations are: T ypica lly works most effectively in larger
development proposals where a substantial linear footage of channel can be
restored. It is important to consider the upstream and downstream current
and future characteristics so conversation ofland use in accounted for in the
design.
Attest:
(14.)Bio-Retention: The City finds that bio-retention provides for flow
attenuation, infiltration, limited evapotranspiration, reduced sedimentati011 ,
and stormwater quality treatment.
Suggested characteristics are: To be used as both a stormwater and aesthetic
feature frequently throughout developments . Special attention should be
given to plant and ground cover considerations given the volume and
duration of the designed stonnwater.
Special design considerations are : Typically work best in small drainage
areas with frequent use and distribution, special attention is required in
pervious soils and should be used in areas with high permeable soils
(hydrologic soils groups A and B), not recommended in high swell soils.
(15.)Level Spreader: The City finds that level spreaders can be an effective tool
to evenly distribute flows and return volumes and velocity to a
predevelopment distribution pattern. There are limited stonnwater straining
and water quality improvements.
Suggested characteristics are: Level spreaders are intended to work in a
complimentary fashion with other LID techniques such as , but not limited to ,
sand filters and grass buffers .
Special design considerations are: Typically level spreaders are used
downstream of an outfall and have a low slope with stabilized and vegetated
buffers both up and downstream. They typically are installed a suitable
distance from U1e property line (30 '-35 ' is suggested) so that flow energy is
dissipated , and predevelopment sheet flow characteristics are generated .
Special consideration should be given in areas with highly erodible soils.
(16.) Additional information regarding LID techniques is included in the
document Planning For Stormwater, Developing a Low Impact Solution, a
publication of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. This document is
available for download from. the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service
website.
DULY ADOPTED this_ day of ______ ~ 2018.
Lee Turner, Chairman
Emily Boyett, Secretary