HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketKarin Wilson
Mayor
Council Members
Kevin G. Boone
Robert A. Brown
Jack Burrell, ACMO
Jim my Conyers
Jay Robi nson
Lisa A. Hanks . MMC
Ci(Y Clerk
Mi chael V. Hi nson, CPA
City 1/msurer
161 North Section Street
P 0. Drawer 429
Fairhope, Alabama 36533
25 l-928-2 l 36
251 -928-6776 fax
W\l~l'.fairhopeal.gov
Pnmfd JJn n -c.yckJ papa
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
Council Chambers
October 1, 2018
• September 6, 2018
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. ZC 18.08 Public hearing to consider the request of Eva M. Raley to rezone
property from R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District to
B-2 General Business District. The property is located on the east
side of US Hwy. 98 (a.k.a. Greeno Road) between St. Hwy. 104
and Volanta Avenue, at 814 N. Greeno Road.
PPIN #: 43891
B. SD 18.32 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting,
LLC for Preliminary plat approval of Pinewood Subdivision, Phase
2, an 18-lot division. The property is located on the south side of
Manley Road between Saddlewood Subdivision and the City of
Fairhope Soccer Complex.
PPIN #: 230553
C. ZC 18 .09 Public hearing to consider the request of Billi e, LLC to establish
initial zoning of R-2 Medium Density Single Fami ly Residential
District conditional upon annexation into the City of Fairhope. The
property is located on the south side of State Hwy. 104
approxi mately½ mile east of County Road 13 .
PPIN #: 62466
D. SD 18.34 Public hearing to consider the request of Truland Hom es, LLC for
Preliminary plat approval of Hamlet at Old Battles Village, Phase
Five , a 42-lot subdivision. The project is located on the west side
of Garrison Blvd and north of Old Battles Village, Phase 4.
E. ZC 18.10
PPIN #: 71702
Public hearing to consider the request of North Hills at Fairhope,
LLC to ~stablish initial zoning of R-2 Medi um Density Single Family
Residential District conditiona l upon annexation into the City of
Fai rhope. The property is located on the north sid e of State Hwy.
104 approximate ly ½ mile east of County Road 13, to be known
as North Hills at Fairhope.
PPIN #: 98367
F. SD 18.36 Public hearing to consider the request of Anthem Development,
LLC for a Final plat approval of Anthem Oaks Subdivision, an 9-lot
division. The property is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of County Road 32 and Mandre ll Lane.
PPIN #: 24011, 27146 and 375126
G. IR 18.02 Request of JADE Consulting, LLC for an Informal Review of Higbee
Farms, a 264-unit multiple occupancy project. The property is
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Higbee Road
and State Hwy. 104.
PPIN #: 77702
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjourn
are not included on the map excerpt of the Greeno Road and North Villages seen on the previous page . The
Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific guidance regarding the commercial development of the
section of north Greeno Road connecting the North Village to the Greeno Road Village above and beyond
enforcement of ex isting ordinances or possibly widening the ALDOT right of way. As a result, the adoption
of the Hayek and Park Place PUDs and the commercial uses within those PUDs establishes the commercial
development pattern for the region of Greeno Road on which subject property is located.
Article 11 Section C.1.e. (2) Goals and Intent of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance
The purpose and intent of subject property's existing R-1 Zoning District is as follows: R-1 Low Density Single -
Family Residential District: Thi s district is intended to provide choices of low-density suburban residential environment
consisting of single-family homes on large parcels of land. It is sub-classified into four categories (R-1, R-la, R-lb, and
R-lc) based on lot sizes.
Allowable Uses for B-2:
Allowed by Right: Single Family, Two-family, Mixed Used, Elementary and Secondary Schools, Educationa l
Facility, Library, Public or Common Open Space, General or Professional Office, Grocery Retail, General
Merchandise, Shopping Center, General Personal Services, Automobile Repair, Indoor Recreation, Boarding
House or Dormitory, Restaurant, Bar, and Entertainment Venues.
Permitted Subiect to special conditions listed in the ordinance: Townhouse, Accessory Dwelling, Home
Occupation, Convenience Store, and Recreational Vehicle Park.
Permitted only on appeal and subiect to special Condition: Cemetery, Hospital, Community Center or Club,
Public Utility, Automobile Service Station, Outdoor Sales Limited, Outdoor Sales Lot, Garden Center,
Convalescent or Nursing Home, Clinic, Outdoor Recreational Facility, Day Care, Mortuary or Funeral Home,
Dry Cleaner or Laundry, Personal Storage, Hotel or Motel, Ken nel or Animal Hospital, and Limited
----
Manufacturing.
Article II Section C.1.e.(3) Th e character of the surrounding properties
Subject property is bordered to the north by the existing Hayek PUD, to the south by the existing Park Place
PUD, and to th e east by the Auburn University Gulf Coast Experiment Station, zoned R-1 Low Density Single
Family Zoning District. The predominant character of the existing neighborhood is residential based upon its
existing use, however the residential structure located on the Hayek PUD property, PPIN 40382 appears to
have been unoccupied for an extended period chime. Currently, the Park Place PUD property contains a
number of mobile homes as the commercial activity allowed by the Park Place PUD has not been developed.
The Hayek PUD, case number ZC 15.11 was approved via Ordinance number 1577 on May 27, 2016 and
includes the following uses:
• Office/Professional, Medical/Professional, and Limited Retail are the approved uses
o Limited retails uses sha ll not exceed 19% of the gross square footage of the entire
development, and may include:
• Sandwich shop or deli
• Coffee shop
• Juice/ smoothie shop
• Ice cream/candy shop
• Office sup ply retailer
• Computer services
• Barber shop
• Gift shop
4 ZC 18.08 814 N. Greeno Road -October 1, 2018
Article C.1.e .(3) above, the adjacent approved uses immediately north and south of subject property are
commercial in nature and allow both retail and restaurant uses, but restrict drive-through services to banks
which have typical daytime operating hours. The Gulf Coast Experiment Station property east of subject
property is not expected to receive development in the foreseeable future. The City of Fairhope Recreation
Center as well as Vo l anta Park are located west of subject property across Greeno Road and include
activities outside of normal professional office business hours that periodically produce noise and heavy
traffic similar to that of the B-2 zoning district. The introduction of a B-2 zoning district between two PUDs
of a commercial/retail natures, as well as in close proximity to a recreational facility operating non-standard
hours will allow more similar uses to the region of North Greeno Road on which subject property is located.
Article II Section C.l.e.(2) differentiates the uses within B-2 zoning that are allowable "by right" vs . the uses
requiring approval by the Board of Adjustments. With the exception of an automobile repair facility, the
most intense uses, such as automobile service centers, convenience stores, outdoor sales lots, etc. require
approval by the Board of Adjustments prior to establi shment of that type of land use. As a result, an
additional vetting process is required for the most intense uses that may potentially occur on the site . As a
condition of approval, staff requests the same restriction to drive-through restaurant windows apply to
subject property as is the case with the adjoining properties zoned PUD .
Dimension Standards:
The dimensions standards for the existing R-1 zoning district and the proposed B-2 District are summarized
below. Please note the taller building heights allowable in the Central Business District are not applicable to
subject property.
JJimcn ·ion •Jin. Lot Arca/ Min. Set backs l\ fa :i.. total lot Max..
Di 1rict or Allowed n1rs Per LotWiiHJ1 F ron t R.e-ar Sid l' Street coverage by heig ht
u e, Acre(lrPA) side principle
structure
R-1 15 ,00 0 sJ./-100 ' 40 ' J 5' JO' b 20' 40% 3()' •
B-2 Nun d -llilllC 20'd none f no ne 30' k l
e----
Traffic: A proposed use specific to subject property is not included in subject application though a
conceptual commercial development site plan is included as a supporting document. The conceptual site
plan "need not be built" and represents two office buildings of 6,000 sf and 3,100 sf with parking and
stormwater detention shown as examples of how the site may be developed. The specific traffic impact is
not known as the site plan is conceptual only. The applicant is encouraged to contact the public works
director as well as ALDOT regarding connection to Greeno Road as a part of its pre-development activities.
Compatibility Analysis: A full compatibility analysis examining the actual and allowable development
densities of nearby properties has not been performed for the rezoning request because the applicant is
proposing a commercial zoning district located between two PUDs that are primarily commercial in their
composition. The allowable uses of the proposed B-2 district substantially mirror the allowable uses of the
two PUDs and demonstrates an inherent compatibility. Subject property is less than 3 acres, prevent
request for PUD zoning for the property and as a result preventing an exact reproduction of the adjoining
PUDs. Further, the subject application does not request introduction of a higher-density residential use into
a lower density residential area . The Fairhope Recreat i on facility and the Gulf Coast Experiment Station,
though zoned R-1, do n ot currently include residentia l uses and are very unlikely to receive residential
development in the foreseeable future that will be affected by subject application . Though a complete
compatibility analysis is not needed due to the intuitive comparison of uses of the subject and surrounding
properties, a 1,320' buffer around subject property is included below for reference, with subject property
depicted with a cross hatch pattern:
8 ZC 18.08 814 N. Greeno Road -October 1, 2018
1 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Planning Commission
October 1, 2018
Preliminary Plat
Case: SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2
Project Name:
Pinewood, Phase 2
Property Owner / Applicant:
Matt Byrne and Todd Booth
General Location:
The property is located on the south
side of Manley Road between
Saddlewood Subdivision and the
Fairhope Soccer Complex.
Project Type:
Preliminary Plat
Number of lots:
18 lots
Project Acreage:
7.42 Acres
Zoning District:
Currently Unzoned. Case number
ZC 18.05 is awaiting final
Approval of the Fairhope City Council
For establishment of R‐2 zoning
District for subject property
PPIN Number:
230553
Engineer of record:
Sawgrass Consulting, LLC.
School District:
Larry J. Newton Elementary,
Fairhope Middle and High School
Report prepared by:
J.Buford King, City Planner
Recommendation:
Approval with conditions.
2 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for Preliminary Plat
approval of Pinewood, Phase 2, an 18‐lot subdivision. The property is located on the south side of Manley
Road between Saddlewood Subdivision and the City of Fairhope Soccer Complex.
The property owner is LA Development, LLC which consists of Matt Byrne and M. Todd Booth. Sawgrass
Consulting, LLC is the applicant’s representative and engineer of record (EOR). The subject property is
approximately 7.42 acres and 18 lots are proposed. The largest lot is approximately 12,617 sq. ft. and the
smallest lot is approximately 10,500 sq. ft. This proposed project is submitted as a major subdivision as it
consists of more than 4 lots, as per Article II, Definitions in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations:
Major Subdivision: a major subdivision not classified as a minor subdivision, including but not limited to
subdivisions of five (5) or more lots, including remnant parcels, or any size subdivision requiring any new
street, drainage, or other public improvement.
Site History
The subject property is approximately 7.42 acres situated between multiple subdivisions and the City of
Fairhope Soccer Complex. The subject property is an open field with the topography generally flat with
some gentle fall to the east.
Topographic View of Subject Property Aerial View of Subject Property
The applicant previously submitted case number ZC 18.05 requesting conditional annexation to R‐2 medium
density single family zoning district for subject property. Case # ZC 18.05 was approved during the Planning
Commission meeting on May 7, 2018 and consideration by the Fairhope City Council is pending. The original
arrangement of Pinewood Subdivision is located to the north of the subject property and consists of 6 lots
fronting on Manley Road, which are unzoned and lot 7 is the remnant parcel resulting from the previous
Pinewood subdivision case. Though subject application is identified as “Pinewood Phase 2” subject
application is technically the “Resubdivision of Lot 7 of Pinewood Subdivision” and is not necessarily a formal
“phase of development” but a Resubdivision of Lot 7. “Pinewood Phase 2” is the generally accepted name
of the Resubdivision of lot 7 so that subject application is more easily identified and distinguished from the
original Pinewood Subdivision application as well as surrounding developments. Further, the Resubdivision
3 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
of lot 7 functions as a second phase of development but must function within the constraints created by the
original Pinewood Subdivision.
As stated previously the zoning application associated with subject property will be zoned as R‐2 Medium
Density Single Family District and proposes the following dimension standards:
35’ front setbacks
35’ rear setbacks
10’ side setbacks
20’ street side setbacks
37% maximum lot coverage
30’ building height
Accessory structures as allowable in the zoning ordinance
Comments:
The following item are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject application’s
compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and other
relevant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and rationale behind staff’s
recommendation. Any items initially marked “revise and resubmit” in red text have been cured by the
notations in blue text. Any remaining 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.1. Memorandum of Transmittal for Extra-Territorial Development (IF APPLICABLE)
☒N/A with comments ☐Accepted ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Case # ZC 18.05 proposes annexation into COF conditional to R-2 zoning. As a result, the
memorandum of transmittal to the County is unnecessary as the property will be annexed into COF. Approval of
Case # ZC 18.05 is a condition of approval of subject application.
Article IV, Section C.1.b.(3) Names and addresses of the following:
owner
designer
applicant
all associated investors
record owners of lands immediately adjacent to subdivision.
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: The members of LA Development, LLC are Matthew D. Byrne and M. Todd Boothe as recorded
with the Judge of Probate of Baldwin County, # 1391793.
Article IV, Section C.1.b.(8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utilities with connections
(8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utility with connections to existing utility system and all proposed
improvements. Approval of private utility connections for water and sewer shall be subject to the standards of
Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 12 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Fairhope. The applicant shall submit one copy of utility letters stating availability of
service. Utility letters and layout must be submitted from electric, water, sewer, phone, trash provider, and gas (if
applicable), stating the property may be adequately served by such utility.
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
4 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Cross Reference: Approval of private utility connections for water and sewer shall be subject to the standards of
Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 12 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Fairhope.
Comments: A “will serve” letter was furnished by Baldwin EMC for electrical service to subject development.
This review assumes all applicable City of Fairhope Public Utilities and Public Works services to subject
development are to be furnished by COF. Further review of utilities will occur at the Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting, time and date are pending.
Article IV, Section C.1.b.(11) Flow model data submitted to the standards of the COF Water Department.
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: The submitted fire flow model includes a static pressure of 85 psi, residual pressure of 50 psi, and
flow of 1,060 gpm, which satisfies the 20psi / 1,000 gpm threshold for most developments. Additional comments
if necessary are pending discussion at the DRC meeting.
Article IV, Section C.1.b.(16) Pedestrian circulation plan
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Pedestrian circulation plan on drawing PP100 reflects pedestrian access to common areas, the
adjoining Saddlewood subdivision, and the COF soccer fields. However, the preliminary plat and pedestrian
circulation plan are not coordinated – please reflect pedestrian easements between lots 6&7 on the preliminary
plat, as well as reflect the pedestrian easement between lots 16 and 17 on preliminary plat. Pedestrian
circulation plan drawing PP100 and the preliminary plat have been revised and are coordinated. Pedestrian
easements occur between lots 2 and 3 (in lieu of lots 6&7) and lots 16 and 17 and are reflected on the revised
preliminary plat.
Article IV, Section C.1.c. Street Plan Requirements:
(1) Location of existing and proposed streets within and adjacent to subdivision
(2) Widths and purpose of existing and proposed rights-of-way (ROW) and easements
(3) Clear identification of ROW and location of any street included in Master Plan
(4) Proposed curb radii for each street intersection or significant street curves
(5) Proposed street names
(6) Typical section for proposed streets, centerline profiles of all proposed streets with finish grades, at a
scale of: 1"=50' horizontal and 1"=5' vertical, or 1"=100' horizontal and 1"=10' vertical
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Article V, Section “D” for street plan technical requirements.
Comments: Please consider re-naming Silage Drive to a name with greater contrast with the nearby Silo Loop.
The similarities in names as well as the agricultural context of the names will likely create confusion. The
typical street section requires revisions more fully-described in Article V, Section “D”. Silage Drive has been
re-named Dutch Road to provide the naming contrast as requested. Correspondence with Baldwin County
E911 is included with the follow-up submittal as a supporting document.
Article IV, Section C.1.g. State or County ROW detailed highway improvements plan:
If any state right-of-way or any improvement thereon is proposed to be changed or modified, a detailed Highway
Improvements Plan, with the written approval of the responsible official of the Alabama Highway Department,
showing all existing features within the rights-of-way and all proposed changes, including, but not limited to,
changes in traffic patterns, markings, signs, curbs and barriers, neutral zones, signals, warnings, plantings and
landscaping. There shall be submitted with and as a part of the Plan a written statement setting forth means
proposed for traffic control and safety during construction and for restoration of the site. All of the foregoing shall
also apply to rights-of-way controlled by the County, except that the County Engineer's approval shall appear on
the Plat to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: The traffic engineering consultant provided a supporting document indicating a traffic study is not
warranted due to the trip generation (20 trips at peak) of the proposed development. Therefore, a highway
improvement plan is not-applicable if there is no data to support improvements.
5 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Article V, Section C.2. Applicability and Requirements: the regulations in this Section C. shall apply to any
development as dense or denser than the City R-1 Residential Zoning District, whether or not in the City Limits.
Greenspace shall be provided as follows: 10% Greenspace is required.
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Each common area is clearly labeled and the amounts of greenspace and detention area comprising
the common areas are clearly identified. The greenspaces as presented encompasses 1.27 acres, or 17% of the
subject development and demonstrates compliance with this section. Please note comments related to Article V,
Section D.5.a.(11) in reference to the landscape plan on drawing LP100. Staff and the Planning Commission
have discussed increasing the greenspace requirement to 15% for subdivisions. Though not a requirement
at this time, subject development would be in compliance with a 15% greenspace requirement. Further, lot
sizes were reduced (but maintain R-2 zoning requirements) to allow increasing the size of the greenspace for
subject development, including widening the access to the active recreation area greenspace within the
common area on the southwest corner of the property. Further, please note greenspace has increased from
13% originally submitted in Case # SD 18.18 to 17% in subject application.
Article V, Section C.4. Greenspace Design Requirements - All eligible greenspace shall conform to the following
design requirements:
a. Maximize public exposure and public access to greenspace.
b. Streets shall align adjacent to greenspace.
c. Greenspace land must be contiguous but may be bisected by local streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths.
d. Greenspace must be located at the rear edge or interior of the development.
e. Greenspace shall not be located adjacent to a collector or arterial street.
f. Due regard shall be shown for all-natural features such as lakes, ponds, water courses, historic sites and other
similar features which, if preserved, will add attractiveness and value to the property.
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please revise the landscape plan on drawing LP100 to include compliance with paragraph 11 “Buffer Zone
Landscaping” of the Tree/Landscape ordinance 1444 for both detention areas. The greenspace of the common area on the
southwest corner of the property appears to be the “active” recreation area contemplated by Article V, Section C.3.a., and
the greenspace adjacent to the northern detention area appears to be a “passive” recreation area. Please consider labeling
the “active” and “passive” recreation areas. Various pedestrian easements are included on the preliminary plat allow the
greenspace to be contiguous as required by item “c” above. Drawing LP100 has been revised to reflect 7-gallon Sweet
Viburnum plantings to provide screening around both detention areas. The EOR provided correspondence from the
developer indicating the sidewalks passing through the greenspaces as shown on the master plan will be reflected on the
“for construction plans” prior to land disturbance.
Article V, Section D.3.e. Street Standards – Street Layout (Continued)
a. Access to Adjacent Property - Street connections to abutting properties shall be provided at least at
intervals not to exceed the maximum block length specified in Section D.4., by extension of a paved street
that meets City construction requirements to the boundary of the abutting property. A temporary turnaround
shall be provided for those streets subject to the following:
(1) A circular turnaround with a diameter of 30 to 42 feet. If a center island is provided in the turnaround, the
outside diameter shall be 45 feet with a 20 to 24-foot lane maintained at all times. Circular turnarounds may
be designed to incorporate a future traffic circle or roundabout, as provided in Article V., Section D.5.h.,
when future streets will intersect at that point.
(2) For extensions serving 5 lots or more, a cul-de-sac shall be required. Permanent dead-end streets shall not
exceed 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) in length. Permanent dead-end streets with a pavement width of 20 feet or less
shall be provided with a turnaround having a roadway diameter of at least 70 feet and a right-of-way
diameter of at least 100 feet. Permanent dead-end streets with a pavement width of more than 20 feet shall be
provided with a turnaround having a roadway diameter of at least 80 feet and a right-of-way diameter of at
least 100 feet. At non-permanent dead-end street, provide a temporary turn-around with at least a 70’
diameter constructed with an all-weather surface.
(3) For street extensions serving four or fewer lots, no temporary turnaround is required.
(4) All access streets to adjacent property that are not connected at the time of the improvements shall be
posted with a stop sign blank reading "Future Through Street.” The sign shall be posted by the Subdivider.
☒N/A with comments ☐Accepted ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Subject property is bordered to the north by Pinewood Phase 1, with all Phase 1 lots fronting upon
Manley Road. Subject property is bordered to the west and south by Saddlewood Phase 1, the layout of which
6 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
does not allow connectivity to subject development. Subject development is bordered to the east by the City of
Fairhope Soccer Complex, to which street-level connectivity is not possible due to the existence of soccer fields
that are in-use. As a result, subject development does not propose connection to adjoining properties. Further,
subject development is a re-subdivision of Lot 7 of the existing Pinewood subdivision. The existing lots
encompassing the existing Pinewood subdivision, the existing soccer complex as well as the existing
Saddlewood Subdivision limit the development capacity of subject property, therefore preventing the
connection to adjoining property.
Article V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(4-6) Storm Water Standards – Submittal Requirements - Minimum Requirements
(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 storm water pollution plan for coverage under the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management for issuance of NPDES Permit, and permits from any other agency, where
required; and,
(6) Any additional engineering information the Planning Commission deems necessary to make a decision
on subdivisions and other development where adequacy of drainage is reasonably questioned.
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Site disturbance is greater than 1 acre, therefore an ADEM NPDES ALR# is required – please
include with revisions. An ADEM notice of intent (NOI) has been submitted for subject property and a copy
of the NOI was included with the revisions package.
Article V, Section F.3.b. Storm Water Standards – Submittal Requirements - Adverse Effects
b. Adverse Effects - 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 Commission a plan to mitigate damage to downstream property which would or
might result from the subdivision under consideration. Downstream drainage structures should be considered
when sizing detention outfall structures, with proof of this submitted to the Commission. The hydraulic elevations
resulting from channel detention shall not adversely affect adjacent properties.
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Due to the close proximity of subject development to two existing developments, please provide an
additional narrative explaining how the storm water design of subject development mitigates potential adverse
effects. The engineer of record (EOR) provided a narrative in the revised drainage calculations narrative
explaining how the proposed drainage system mitigates adverse impacts to the existing adjacent
developments. In brief, the post development stormwater flows are equal to or less than pre-development
stormwater flows. A copy of the EOR’s adverse effects narrative is attached to this staff report.
Article V, Section F.5.a. Storm Water Standards – Flow Control-Scope of Design
a. Scope of Design - All subdivisions or other developments shall be provided with adequate storm 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. Culverts shall generally
accommodate a 25-year storm frequency under arterial roadways; drainage systems within subdivisions should
accommodate a 2 through 25-year storm frequency; bridges shall accommodate a storm frequency of 50 years.
When deemed necessary, the Planning Commission may require a storm frequency design as great as 100 years.
(1) There shall be no storm water pumps.
☐N/A ☐Accepted with comments ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: No storm water pumps are included in the drainage calculations of subject development. Table “3”
in the drainage calculations indicates the discharge rates of the two detention ponds designed for subject
development and furnishes the existing runoff rates and proposed discharge rates for the various storm
intervals. Pond 2’s discharge rate is higher than the existing runoff rate for all storm intervals – please verify the
columns in table 3 correctly reflect the discharge rates for pond 2 and make necessary revisions. The drainage
calculations narrative was revised and clarified the pre-development drainage system for the site consists of
four drainage basins. Three of the pre-development flows exit the site and enters Saddlewood Subdivision
7 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
and the remaining drainage basins flows into the swale along the western boundary of the Fairhope Soccer
complex. Post development flows include one drainage basin that will flow into the storm
Article V, Section F.5.a. (continued)
drainage system of Saddlewood, one drainage basin that will sheet flow into the existing swale along the
western boundary of the Soccer Complex, one drainage basin on the north side of the property that will flow
through Pond 1, and the final drainage basin on the south side of the property that will flow through Pond 2.
Ponds 1 and 2 outfall into the Soccer complex swale, and all post-development flows are equal to or less than
pre-development flows.
Article V, Section F.5.c.-d Storm Water Standards – Site Facilities and Conformity with Other Standards
c. Site Facilities –
(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 available, 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 storm 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 with Other Standards - All drainage facilities shall be constructed in conformity with state
specifications and all other state and federal laws and regulations.
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please note the Public Works Director’s comments regarding the existing ditch along the soccer
complex into which subject proposed development’s detention ponds outfall. The EOR clarified in the revised
drainage narrative the existing drainage swale along the west side of the Fairhope Soccer complex is
vegetated and stable, and the discharge velocities of Pond 1 and 2 are 3.4 and 2.9 feet per second,
respectively. The EOR further clarified the maximum allowable discharge velocity of an established and well
vegetated channel is between 5 and 8 feet per second. The EOR concludes the two ponds discharge at a
velocity below the generally accepted maximum allowable discharge velocity, and the EOR concludes the
existing drainage swale adjacent to the Soccer Complex will not be adversely affected by stormwater from
the proposed development. Staff consulted the public works director and he was satisfied with the discharge
velocities reported by the EOR since they are both below 5 feet per second for each detention pond.
Article V, Section F.7b.- e. Storm Water Standards – Detention and Retention Facilities (Continued)
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Table “3” in the drainage calculations indicates the discharge rates of the two detention ponds
designed for subject development and furnishes the existing runoff rates and proposed discharge rates for the
various storm intervals for both Pond 1 and Pond 2, as calculated by the Rational Method. Pond 2’s discharge
rate is higher than the existing runoff rate for all storm intervals – please verify the columns in table 3 correctly
reflect the discharge rates for pond 2 and make necessary revisions. Also note the Public Works Director’s
comments on Sheet 7 and provide revisions as requested. . The drainage calculations narrative was revised
and clarified the pre-development drainage system for the site consists of four drainage basins. Three of the
pre-development flows exit the site and enter Saddlewood Subdivision and the remaining drainage basins
flow into the swale along the western boundary of the Fairhope Soccer complex. Post development flows
include one drainage basin that will flow into the storm drainage system of Saddlewood, one drainage basin
that will sheet flow into the existing swale along the western boundary of the Soccer complex, one drainage
basin on the north of the property that will flow through Pond 1, and the final drainage basin on the south
side of the property that will flow through Pond 2. Ponds 1 and 2 outfall into the Soccer complex swale, and
all post-development flows are equal to or less than pre-development flows. The EOR provided
correspondence indicating the curbs cuts at the south end of forage drive will be re-evaluated with
consultation of the Public Works Director, and any revisions to the construction plans will occur before a
“for construction” set of plans is produced for the purposes of requesting a land disturbance permit.
8 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Article V, Section F.8.e.-g. Storm Water Standards – Post Development Water Quality Best Management Practices
(Continued)
e. A developer should consider low 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 storm 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 BMPs
Filter Strip 50
Grass Channel 50
Organic Filter 80
9 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Underground Sand Filter 80
Submerged Gravel 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 bank full 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 sites 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.
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Enhanced Swales and a Bioretention are utilized on subject development.
Article V, Section F.11.a.-e. Required Use of Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Subject application contains four (4) LID techniques in six (6) locations, and though the storm
water calculations narrative mentions submission of a waiver of the six remaining LID techniques, a stand-
alone document requesting a waiver is not included in the application. Please provide a waiver of six (6) of the
required ten (10) LID techniques in a stand-alone document. A waiver of the six remaining LID techniques
was submitted as requested, however Resolution 2017-03, as adopted on August 6, 2018 revised the
subdivision regulations changing the requirement for ten (10) LID techniques to “as many LID techniques as
practical and appropriate for the development”. As a result, the wavier requested and included in the
revisions package is no longer required for subject development.
Article V, Section F.11.f.(1)-(5) Required Use of Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques (Continued)
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Enhanced Swales (technique 5) are included with subject application. In addition, a dry detention
basin, in concert with a level spreader, creates a temporary wet basin (technique 1).
Article V, Section F.11.f.(12)-(15) Required Use of Low Impact Development (LID) Techniques
☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: A Bio-retention area (technique 14) as well as a Level Spreader (technique 15) are to be utilized on
subject development. The level spreader will be created from a rock berm that will created a forebay of storm
water in a dry retention basin that has the temporary effect of a wet pond, thus allowing the dry pond to function
as wet pond removing 80% TSS.
Article VI, Section B. Construction Standards-Streets and Lanes
The sub-divider is required to pave all streets and lanes with a suitable hard surface, all weather type of pavement in
compliance with city standards and the requirements of Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances, as amended.
1. Sub-grade – All streets, roads and lanes shall be so graded by the sub-divider that pavements, curbs, and
sidewalks can be constructed to the required cross-section. Before commencing grading, the entire right: of:
way shall be cleared of all stumps, roots, brush, and other objectionable materials as well as trees not
intended to be preserved. Stumps, boulders and other obstructions shall be removed to a minimum depth of
two feet below finish sub grade. Compaction of sub grade shall be not less than one hundred percent,
Modified Proctor Density. Suitable materials from roadway cuts may be used in the construction of fills,
approaches or at other locations as required. Fill shall be in layers not exceeding eight inches thickness and
shall be compacted to not less than one hundred percent, Modified Proctor Density.
2. Pavement Base - After preparation of the sub grade, the base shall be constructed to a thickness of six
inches. Base may be a mixture of sand clay, sand shell or plain shell. Base shall be compacted to one
hundred percent Modified Proctor Density.
10 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
3. Following establishment and testing of the base, emulsified or cutback asphalt shall be heated or otherwise
prepared to insure uniform distribution and a coat thereof sprayed on the prepared base, application rate to
be determined by requirements of state specifications.
4. Wearing Surface shall consist of a surface course constructed with asphaltic concrete. It shall be
constructed in one layer, not less than an average weight of one hundred fifty pounds per square yards at an
average thickness of not less than one and one-half inches. Wearing surface shall conform to the lines,
grades, and typical cross sections shown on the Plans. A cross slope of not less than one-quarter inch per
foot shall be maintained from centerline to curb line. Plant mix shall conform to state specifications for the
type work.
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Article VI, Section B (continued)
Comments: The wearing surface depicted on sheet 14 is 1” thick, not 1.5” as required by this section, and has a
weight of 110 lbs./sy in lieu of the 150 lbs./sy required by this section. The 2.0% side slope equates to
approximately ¼” per foot and is in compliance with this section. The 8” pavement base exceeds the
requirement of this section (6”) however please note placement in a maximum of 4” lifts when revising this
section. Sheet 14 has been revised to reflect 150 lbs. per square yard asphalt wearing surface as well as the
granular base applied in maximum 4” lifts.
Article VI, Section H. Construction Standards-Sanitary Sewerage
1. All subdivisions shall have sanitary sewer service. The sewer service shall be provided by either the Fairhope
Public Utilities or an approved sewer service.
2. All sanitary sewer systems constructed within a subdivision and all sanitary sewer systems constructed outside of
a subdivision but servicing a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with those certain “Standard
Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities” which is on file at the
City of Fairhope Water & Sewer Department.
3. Individual septic tank type systems that have been approved by the Baldwin County Health Department and the
Fairhope Public Utilities Sewer Department may be utilized.
☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities
Comments: “Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities” contains
an application for constructing utilities within the City of Fairhope. This application is required for compliance
with this section. Please furnish the application with the various revisions to subject application. The
application within “Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities”
was submitted with the follow-up submittal and revisions as requested. The EOR provided correspondence
indicating the EOR will consult Mr. Richard Peterson, Public Utilities Director of Operations and determine
if the lift station must be relocated. If relocation is necessary, the necessary construction drawings will be
revised, and the revisions reflected on the “for construction” sets of plans prior to land disturbance. A
possible new location of the lift station is shown below.
11 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
Article V, Section F.3.b.
Excerpt of the Engineer of Record’s drainage narrative regarding adverse effects
Site Photos:
Looking east toward the Soccer Field View of Subject property from Sadddlewood.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards. Address each
of these criteria with either a “meets” or “does not meet”. 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:
12 SD 18.32 Pinewood, Phase 2 – October 1, 2018
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City’s
Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
meets
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or
program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a
Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
meets
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
meets
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and
regulations; or
meets
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City.”
meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
1) Final approval of Case # ZC 18.05, conditional annexation to R‐2 medium density single family zoning
district by the Fairhope City Council.
2) Acceptance of the applicant’s request for wavier of six (6) of the ten LID techniques formerly required
by Article V Section F.11. Subject application was submitted prior to the adoption of resolution
20017‐03 and therefore the LID provisions are applicable to subject property, necessitating a need
for an LID wavier.
o Mitzi and Brook Rollins, 118 Open Field Dr, Lot 5, Saddlewood (adjacent to west
lin e of Pinewood, Phase 2) (Video @25 :40)
• Concerned about the future use of Lot 7, specifical ly concerned about a
multi-family use or becoming a parking lot for the future soccer
complex. Jonathan Smith, Planning Director, stated in his opening
comments that access to Lot 7 was via the Silage Drive stub-out and that
there was currently no plan for Lot 7 (Video @23:15). Lee Turner, PC
Chairman stated that he assumed that Lot 7 would be sold or subdivided
at a later dote (Video @29:10). Steve Delahunty, Sawgrass Consulting
(Developer's Representative) s tated that he could not answer for the
Developers future plans of Lot 7, but did know the property was
UNZONED (Video @29:30)
• Mr. & Mrs. Ro l lins claimed they were told that the property was going
to be part of the Fairhope Soccer Complex. Mr. & Mrs. Rollins purchased
their home from DR Horton in 2015. It is unlikely they ever had any
conversation with the original developers of Saddlewood, who are also
the developers of Pinewood. The original developer sold the lots to DR
Horton in April, 2014 . The Developer would have been out of the picture
at the time the Rollins purchased. (See Exhibit ''F'')
• Concerns about the houses to be constructed and whether were would
be of "like" size, and if there wou ld be similar covenants and restrictions
as Saddlewood. It was clarified by the PC and Stoff that those items
were not governed by the City.
• Mr. Rol lins wanted the Saddlewood POA to purchase Lot 7.
• Comments/Concerns from the Planning Commission and Staff
o Lee Turner, Chairman,
• Stated he felt like Lot 7 would be sold or subdivided in the future
(Video @29 :10)
• Asked Jonathan Smith, Plann ing Director if the Development met the
Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Smith answered YES (Video @34 :30)
o Jenifer Fidler
• Clarified a question regarding the drainage of Pinewood, Phase 1 and
further stated that drainage would have to be reevaluated when Lot 7
was deve loped {Video @32:50)
o Holli e McKellar
• Asked about street trees required on Lot 7 (Video @33 :20) Trees were
not required, but were installed (response by J. Smith , Planning Directo1
and S. Delahunty, Sowgrass Constilting)
• Who is responsible for maintaining Lot 7 {Video @34 :57) A note was
included on plat defining maintenance responsibillty to the lot owner
until time offuture development (response by E. Godwin , Sawgrass
Consulting) (See Attached Exhib it ''L")
• Would Lot 7 have to be in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations
and would th e lot have to be rezoned for future mu lti -family use {Video
@36 :51) J. Smith clarified thal Lot 7 would have to be In compliance
with the Subdivisio11 Regulations ff the developer chose the subdivide Lot
7 and that the property was currently unzoned and not subject to and
land use restrictions . He did further state any multi-family development
would fall Linder the multi-occupancy requirements of the subdivision
regulations .
o George Roberds
• Asked Jonathan Smith , Planning Director if the Deve lopment met the
Subdivision Regulations . Mr. Smith answered YES (Video @36 :10}
o Ralph Thayer
• Gave the 2nd to the motion .
o Jonathan Smith , Planning Director
• Stated no known plan for Lot 7 but access was from Si lage Drive
(Video @30 :10)
• Stated Sub. Regs . Would not al low double frontage lots requirfng lots to
front on Manley Road and would allow a road to run directly behind lots
1-6 in future development {Video @30 :10 )
• Stated that staff reviewed the possibility of requ iri ng a stub out for
add itional access to Manley Road but said the property did not comply
with the 660 requirement for an additional curb cut. (Video @30 :10)
• Determinations
o It was acknowledged that Lot 7 was unzoned ahd could be a number of differeht
uses .
o It was acknow ledged by Staff and Planning Commission Members that there
was a very likely chance Lot 7 would be developed in the future .
o Additional curb cuts for Lot 7 to Manley Road would not be in compliance with
Regs.
o Assumptions that the property was to be some other use than single-fam ily
residential (i.e ., multi-family, parking, soccer complex)
o Clarification that if Lot 7 was to be resubdivided it would have to comply with
regulations and that governing land use in unzoned areas is difficult.
o During all discussion of possible future development of Lot 7, never did a
phasing questlon arise .
o It was asked and acknowledged that the plan met the subdivision regu lations ,
o Project was unanimously approved.
Discussion/Comments from October 2, 2017 Pl anning Commission Meeting
(Final Approval, Pinewood, Phase 1)
• Planning Commission Members Present:
Lee Turner, Chairman, Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson , Richard Peterson,
Ralph Thayer, Ho llie McKellar, Jay Robinson
• Planhing Director: Wayne Dyess
• Comments/Concerns from the Pub lic: NONE
• Comments/Concerns from the Planning Commission and Staff
o Nancy Milford, Planner
•
•
Presented the project to the Planning Commission for consideration of
Final Plat (Video @ 1:01:00)
Stated she raised the question about Phase 2 during the Preliminary Plat
Phase and was to ld there was no plan at that time (Video @1:02 :30)
Ms . Milford's statement is consistent with what was told during the
Preliminary Approval HOWEVER, multiple Planning Commission
Members and Staff disrnssed future development of Lot 7 during the
Preliminary Approval all of which e luded to an assumption that Lot 7
would be developed in the {titure.
■ Stated in response to a statement from Art Dyas that she and Wayne
Dyess had discussed the phasing of the development and agreed that
they were going to look into definitions of Phased Developments (Video
@1 :06 :45) This becomes a reo ccurring statement
o Le e Turner, Chairman,
■ Stated in response to Art Dyas' concerns about lots fronting Manley
Road that the Subdiv i sion Regulations prohibited double frontage lots.
(Video @1 :05 :30)
o Art Dya s
■ Stated concerns about Lots 1-6 fronting Man ley Road and asked Wayn e
Dyess to look ihto Phasing for future developments (Video @1 :03 :30)
Mr Dyas ' concerns were addressed /Jy Chairman Turner and Ms . Milford
regarding the lot frontage and phasing . In addition, Mr. Dyas was not on
the Planning Commission during the November, 2016 Preliminary
Approval to hear the request from adjacent property owners to allow Jor
those lots to front Manley and not the rear yard and was likely unaware
of that previous conversation .
■ Made motion to Approve
o Hollie Mckel lar
■ Asked what the plan was for Lot 7, sh e said she understood there was
not going to be a second phase (Video @1 :02 :10) Tom Granger w/
Sowgrass Consulting, the Developer's Rep stated that there was no plan
at the time of Final Approval, but a second phase was befng
contemplated. Never did the representative of the Developer say there
would NOT be a second phase during the Preliminary Approval. Actually,
he stated that he could not onswerfor the Developer as to the future
plans of Lot 7. In addition, multiple references were mode by Planning
Commission Members and Stnff about the future development of Lot 7
in the Preliminary Approval of Pinewood, Ph 1, including Mrs . McKe//or
(See reference from Preliminary Approval above)
• Who is responsible for maintaining Lot 7 until it is developed, or not
(Video @l :07 :14) Mr. Granger responded that the Developer held the
maintenance responsibility. Mrs. McKe/lor asked the same question
during the Preliminary Approval ond was told that staff requested that o
note be placed on plat defining maintenance responsibil ity to the lot
owner until time of future development (response by E. Godwin1
Sawgrass Consulting) (See Exhibit "N ")
o Ralph Thayer
• Gave the 2nd to the motion.
• Determinations
o It was acknowledged Planning Commission and Developer's Rep that Lot 7 may
be developed in the future and a second phase was being contemplated .
o Staff was asked to look into phasing
o Discussion of double frontage lots not be ing a llowed .
o Project was unanimously approved.
Discussion/Comments from M ay 7, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
(Prel iminary Approval, Pinewood, Phase 2)
• Planning Commiss ion Members Present:
Lee Turner, Chai rman, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson , Richard Peterson, Ralph
Thayer, Hollie McKellar, Tim Simmonds, Jay Robinson
• Planning Director: Wayne Dyess
• Comments/Concerns from the Public:
o Edward Jackson (106 Open Field Drive, Lot 8, Sadd lewood, Ph 1) (See Exh ibit "J ")
• Sadd lewood Subdivision Property Owner's Association Pres ident
• Concerned about school traffic a long Manl ey Road.
(Video @1 :32 :40) The discussion during the Moy 7 Planning
Commission, which included Richard Johnson, Public Works Director,
resulted in the acknowledgement that the Manley Rood traffic issues are
due to t he school pick-up/drop-off lines and not actually traffic trave ling
along Manley Rood for other reasons. In addition, th e traffic from 18
Lots would not generate a significant traffic impact. As for drainage, Mr.
Jackson /Ives adjacent to the So uthwest corner of Pinewood, Phase 2
{See Exhibit "M ''). All stormwoter for Phase 2 is being colle cted and
conveyed to the east side of Phase 2, which is the opposite side of the
property from Mr. Jackson .
• To ld when he bought his home, the lot was going to be developed and
access would be from Silage and Manley. (Video @1 :33:35). Mr. Jackson
purchased his home from DR Horton in Moy, 2017 (See Exhibit "J"). The
Developer sold Mr. Ja ckson 's lot to DR Horton In Moy, 2018 and would
not have been involved in this transaction and thus was not involved in a
promise potentially mode at the time of Mr. Jackson 's purchase . To dote
the Developer has had no communication with Mr. Jackson .
■ Expressed concerns about the current drainage conditions related to
the undeveloped property (proposed Ph 2) drain ing into the lots of
Saddlewood . (Video @2 :16 :10) Any current drainage issue is due to the
undeveloped state of the property. Upon the approval of Phase 2, that
property will have drainage improvements constructed which will better
control the storm water run -off from the site. These improvements have
been reviewed and approved by Richard Johnson, Public Works Director
(Video @2 :19:00)
o David Ed Bishop {123 Open Fie ld Drive, Lot 30, Sadd lewood, Ph 1)
■ Reiterated concerns about the Manley Road traffic and dra i nage . He
also had concerns about Pinewood, Phase 2 not contributing to the POA
of Saddl ewood for the maintenance of the front entrance . Mr. Bishop
lives on the west side of Open Field Drive which is not adjacent to
Pinewood, Ph 2 (See Exhibit "M") Our response regarding traffic and
drainage is the same as above . As for the Soddlewood POA , Pinewood,
Phase 2 IS NOT part of addlewood and therefore will not be a member
of the Saddlewood POA. All roads and rights-of-woy within Saddlewood
are Public and maintained by the City of Fairhope, NOT the residents of
Soddlewood. Silage Drive was constructed during the development of
Soddlewood with a sole purpose of providing access and connectivity to
the undeveloped adjacent property that is now Pinewood . The access to
Phase 2 (Lot 7 of Pinewood, Ph 1) was to be via Silage and was
acknowledged by the Planning Commission and Staff along with the
likely chance of future development during the Preliminary Approval of
Pinewood, Ph 1 in October, 2016. (see references above)
o Gary and Brenda Biesenthal (243 Silo Loop, Lot 15 , Saddlewood, Ph 1) (See
Exhib it "H ")
■ Also expressed concern about traffic and asked if Common Areas would
be shared between subdivisions . The response to the traffic is the some
as mentioned above . Each Subdivision's individual Common Areas are
spec1ficol/y for the enjoyment of the residents of that subdivision . There
will be no shared use and/or maintenance between the 2 developments.
o Bill Paetz (227 Si lo Loop, Lot 30, Saddlewood, Ph 1) (See Exhib it "I")
■ Concerned about a single entrance and emergency vehicles .
(V ideo @2 :15 :00) Access points in relation to emergency vehicles {i .e.
Fire, EMT and Police) are governed by the Fire Code which this project is
in compliance with .
• Comments/Concerns from the Planning Commission and Staff
o Nan cy Milford, Planner
• Presented the project to the Planning Commission for consideration of
Annexation and Initial Zoning (Video@ 1:16:40} and Pre li minary
Approval of Subdivision (Video @1 :55 :00)
• Stated she that in her staff report she raised the question about a
phased development and was to ld that it was not a phased
development . In addition, she stated that had the Deve loper pursued a
phased development they would have been able to alt ow for a stub-out
to Manley Road for Lot 7 which is nor Pinewood Phase 2 (V ideo
@1:02 :30). Ms . Milford's statement is consistent in that she did ask if
this was originally planned to be a Phased Development and she was
again told that it was not In addition, there was discussion about
phased developments and future plans for Lot 7 (Phase 2) during both
the Preliminary Approval of Pinewood, Ph 1 and the Final Approval of
Pinewood, Ph 1. Consistently during the development of Pinewood
Subdivision as a whole the Developer and his representatives have
stated thal there was not defined use for Lot 7. This was continually
acknowledged by multiple Planning Commission Members and Staff
during the Preliminary and Final Approvals of Phase 1. You cannot have
a phased development without a specifically defined use . Ms . Milford's
statement rega r ding the opportunity to provide an access to Manley
road is incorrect. Per Jonathan Smith, Planning Director at the time of
Preliminary Approval of Phase 1, the subdivision regulations would not
hove allowed for a curb cut along Manley Rood, thus resulting in the
only allowable access being from Silage Drive . (See reference above)
• Stated the road that the residents of Saddlewood were told was going
to provide access to Manley would have been between the 6 lots
fronting a long Manley in Phase 1 . In addition, she stated that the
Developer {or h is rep .) told the Planning Director that Lot 7 was going to
be a remnant parcel. Ms . Milford said she suggested that an access from
Manley be provided to Lot 7 and that ''they" (a ssuming she means the
Developer and/or his representative) chose not to do so . (Video
@1:41:14). Ms . Milford' statements are incorrect. There was no
communication between the residents of Saddlewood and the Developer
and/or his representative about o road to Manley Road . In addition, as
mentioned above, Ms. Milford Is in corre ct in stating that it was the
Developer's chose to not provide the access to Manley, but in turn it was
not allowed per Jonathan Smith .
• Ms . Milfo rd mentions for second time regarding the Pinewood projects
that some review of the regulations in regards to Phased Developments
needed to be reviewed . Her first reference specifically to the Pinewood
Developments was in October, 2017 at the Final Approval of Phase 1 .
o Lee Turner , Cha irman,
• Stated that a phased approach could have been applicable in this
development cons iderin g it had only been 2 months since the last
Planning Commission action on the property and that it was by the
same Developer. (Video @1 :26 :50) Chairman Turner was incorrect tin
his 2 -month timeframe Actually, the last action prior to the Moy 7, 2018
request for Preliminary Approval of Phase 2 was the Final Approval of
Pinewood Phase 1 in October, 2017. In addition, Chairman Turner rnode
several references in the previous meetings regarding the Pinewood
development and the likely future development of Lot 7 (now Phase 2)
(See references above).
o Hollie Mckellar
■ Stated that she was told the y ear before, referencing the Fi nal Approval
of Phase 1 that there would be "no more future development" (Video
@1:27 :20) (See Exhibit "B" Me eting Minutes) Mrs . McKellar 's statement
is incorrect. As referenced above, Mrs . McKel/or inqvired at every
planning commission meeting regarding the future development of Lot
7. At no point was she to ld that there would be ''no more future
development". The most recent statement regarding her inquiries was
provided by Tom Granger w/ Sawgross Consulting, the Developer 's Rep
stating that there was no plan for Lot 7 at the time of the Phase 1 Final
Approval, but a second phase was being contempl ated. In addition1
multiple references were made by Plc,nning Commission Members and
Stoff about the future development of Lot 7 in both the Preliminary and
Final Approval of Pinewood, Ph 1, including Mrs. McKellar. (See
reference from Preliminary Approval above)
• Inquired about what buyers in Sadd lewood were be ing told and/or
promised about t he future development of the Pinewood property
(Video @1:41:00) The Developer of Saddle wood sold all the lots in the
subdivision to DR Horton. In return Dr Horton sold the lots/houses to
each resident of Saddlewood. Deeds for the adjacent property owners
present at the meeting are provided for clarification, Considering that
the original developer of Soddlewood would not have been present or a
party in the sole of any lot in Saddlewood to a resident, it is highly
unlikely that any promise mode to a lot owner at the time of purchase
would have been by the Developer thus making that "promise "
something that never had any merit to begin with.
• Mrs. McKel lar stated that what she and the Planning Comm i ssion are
being told and what is be ing approved and ultimate ly built are not the
same and that there i s a need for transparency (V ideo @1:42:00)
Throughout the development of Pinewood, the Developer and his
representatives have never wavered from the fact that Lot 7 (Phase 2)
was always likely to be developed in the future. The only unknown in
that future development was the specific land use since the property
was unzoned. This undefined use for Lo t 7 is one reason why a phased
approach was not taken initially. Confusion related to the ultimate
development of Lot 7 only arose upon the submittal of Phase 2 .
However, there was the acknowledgement during the Final Approval of
Phase 1 that a second phase was being contemplated. This
acknowledgement was specific to a question from Mrs. McKellar. It
appears the lack of clarity was not from the developer or his
representatives (See references above)
• Mrs . M cKellar inquired about the maintenance of Lot 7 (Phase 2) and
t hat she ha d been seeking clarity of the responsi b ility all along.
(Video @1:45:50 ) The maintenance responsibility of Lot 7 was defined in
every meeting to date os being the Developer's responsibility. In
addition, staff required a note stating such on the plat of Pinewood,
Phase 1 (See references above)
• M rs . McKellar inquired about more Gree n Sp ace (Video @l:52:45)
Several lot dimensions have been reduced to 75'x140' from the original
75'x150' to allow for more Green Space. This reduction in lot size created
an additional 0 .31 acres or 4% of Green Space .
o Rebecca Bryant
• Asked for clarification between what is Green Space and what is
Detention (Video @2 :06:30) The revised plat of Pinewood Phase 2
defines the area of both Green Space and Detention within the Common
Areas . In addition, the total of each is provided in the Site Dato Table on
the Plat (See Plat, Exhibit "D")
• Expressed concerns regarding maximum access and public exposure to
Green Space, that the Subdivision Regulations require streets to align
with the Green Space and that there may be potential conflict with the
requirement to have Green Space sat the Rear and Interior of th e
development (Video @2:11:30) The revised layout for Pinewood Phase 2
reduced several lots to a dimension of 75' 140' (original lot size was
75'x150'} to allow for the 30' access to the large green space area
behind lots 12 -18 as well increase the proposed Green Space to 1 27
acres or 17% of the total property . This 30' access fronts along Silage
Drive in an effort to maximize access and provide additional public
exposure (see Exhibit "D" and "E" attached) In addition, sidewalks hove
been laid out throughout the all Green Space areas to allow for
additional access . All sidewalks in common areas will be constructed
during the construction of all roadways and infrastructure . For
additional public exposure, the Developer will include a restriction on all
lots abutting Common Areas to a maximum fence height of 4 feet lo
allow for visibility and prevent the seclusive appearance sometimes
created by taller privacy fences . The only available location for Green
Space is along the rear of the subdivision . Restrictions placed on Phase 1,
no double fronting lots along Man ley; restricted access to Lot 7 only
from Si l age, placed some design constraints on Phase 2 which would
only a/low Green Space in the rear of the lots. However, as Mr. Dyess
stated in the meeting the original plan met the Green Space
requirement.
o Jay Rob ins on
• El udes to the Developer presenting one plan or "prom is es" and then
breaking those promises to change the development plan (Video
@2 :38:35) Mr. Robinson was not a member of the Planning Commission
when the application for Preliminary Approval for Pinewood, Ph 1 came
before the Planning Commission in November, 2016 so he would not
hove been aware of any promises made at that t ime unless he went
back and reviewed the meeting minutes and video. Mr. Robinson WAS
• Determinations
on the Planning Comrniss ,on ,n October, 2017 w/Jen the opp/1cot1un for
Final Approval of Pmewood, Ph 1 and the Developer's Represenwt,ve
stated thot a Phase 2 wo<; being conten,plotedfor Lot 7 (See Refe1et1ces
above).
o Misconceptions and "promises".
o Green Space needed to be reviewed for better visibility.
o Lac k of clarity regarding phased developments .
• Conc lusions
o First and foremost, this report is not to discredit any Planning Commission
Member or Staff to any misconceptions or confusion created by the Developer
or his representative.
o There is a significant importance in reviewing the meeting minutes and meeting
videos by all parties (Planning Comm ission, Staff, Co n su ltants and Developers)
prior to prepa ring any staff reports, making statements regarding prior
commitments and in an effort to refresh one's memory about what was a
wasn't said in the past regarding projects.
o The topic of "Phasing'' was discussed in a ll 3 Planning Commission meetings
associated with the Pinewood proJe cts . In more than one of those discussions
Staff stated that a more specific definition of Phasing was needed but
unfortunately this more specific definition was not defined leaving this topic
open to the individL1al interpretation of the different parties involved .
o The real traffic iss ue at hand is entirely related to school traffic. The property
owners within Saddlewood as well as Mr. Johnson have al l acknowledged that
the school creates the back -up of traffic making the internal flow of traffic
within Saddlewood a problem during the times of pick-up and drop-off. As Mr.
Johnson pointed out, everyone traveling to and from the school co ntributes to
this problem. Not just the adjacent residents, the r eside nts of Saddlewood, or
the proposed 18 lots of Pin ewood, Ph 2.
o Drainage from Lot 7 currently may be an issue since it is in an undeveloped state
and functions in its natural state. The development of Lot 7 wi ll rem edy those
issues .
o The Deve loper has taken note of the Planning Commission's conce rns
associated with Green Space . Lot dimensions were modified to reduce lot sizes
and in crease total Green Space area. The revised development plan now shows
17% of the total area being dedicated to Green Space which is over 1.5 times
more than the 10% requirement. In addition, the developer has planned for th e
co nstruction of multiple sidewalks that wi ll practica lly encompass the property
(see attached Exhibil 'T'). To increase the visibility of the Green Space
throughout the project, the Developer wil l place a restriction of fence heights
for all lots that abut a Common Area to a maximum height of 4 feet. Th ls
restriction prevents the seclusion of Green Space and Common Areas from the
adjacent lo t s,
o Pinewood will be a totally separate development from Saddlewood. Pinewood
will have its on Covenants and Restrictions, Homeown er's Association and
Common Area(s).
o The following items are includ ed in this report as Exh i bits:
• Ex hibit ''A'' -Meeting Minutes from the November 10, 2016 Planning
Commission Meeting for Preliminary Approval of Pinewood , Ph 1.
• Exhibit ''B" -Meeting Minutes from the October 2, 2017 Planning
Commission Meeting for Final Approval of Pin ewood, Ph 1.
• Exhib i t "C"-M eeting Minutes from the May 7, 2018 Planning
Commission Meeting requesting Preliminary Approval of Pinewood, Ph
2.
• Exhibit "D" -Revised Pinewood, Phase 2 Preliminary Plat as submitted
requesting Preliminary Approval .
• Ex h ibit ''E" -Color rendering of the revised proposed Pinewood, Phase
2
• Exhibit "F"-January , 2015 Warranty Deed convey ing Lot S, Saddlewood
Phase 1 from Dr Horton to Brook and Mitzi Rollins
• Exhibit "G"-October, 2015 Warranty Deed conveying Lot 30,
Saddlewood Phase 1 from Dr Horton to David Ed Bishop
• Ex hibit "H"-September, 2015 Warranty Deed conveying Lot 15,
Saddlewood Phase 1 from DR Horton to Gary and Brenda Biesenthal
• Exhibit "!"-April, 2016 Warranty Deed conveying Lot 11, Saddlewood
Phase 1 from DR Horto n to Wi ll iam and Cora Poetz
• Exhibit 11J"-May, 2017 Warranty Deed conveying Lot 81 Saddlewood
Phase 1 from DR Horton to Edward and Christine Jackson
• Ex h ibit "K" -Apri l, 2014 Warranty Deed conveying practically all lots
adjacen t to the Pinewood property, i11clusive of those lots referenced in
Exh ibits ''F-1 ", LA Development, LLC (Developers of both Sadd lewood
and Pinewood) to DR Horton .
• Exhibit 1'L'' -May, 2015 Warranty Deed conveying remain i ng lots
adjacent to the Pinewood property, i nclusive of those lot referenced in
Exhibits "J" from LA Deve lopment, LLC (Developers of both Saddlewood
and Pinewood) to DR Hort on
■ Exhibit "M" -Plat of Sadd lewood, Phase 1 showing lots so ld to DR
Horton as referenced in Exhibit "J" and property owners referenced in
Exhibits "F-1 1'
■ Exhib it "N "-Final Plat of Pinewood , Phase 1 inclusive of the lot 7
ma intenance note referenced above .
This report is provided in addition to the application package submitted inclusive of the revised
Pi newood Phase 2 Plat , Construction Plans , Drainage Report and other supporting docum e ntation .
Should have any questions or comments p lease do not hesitate to conta ct me at 251 .544 .7900
Vice President
G.1-118,11
.; \1.•111111,,.·1 111 J 1'1
11f •1 ' ,•t Pll'PI \I
lh1. l'l.1r111111g < 111111111,-;i,111 111 1.'1 i\ln11d,1). >,,11i.:111h:1 111, ~rite) ,11 'i:t111 l 1 \l .11 thi: c 11:,
vl11111cip,il l 't,111pll:\. I(>\ I\, ...,,,.,,.;111111 'ilJCL'l 111 lhl' ( 'u1111c1 I Ch 1111h,:r•,
l'n:,.:'lt: I 1.'I..' I 11rni.:1 1 hatrp.:r,c;u c 11:orri.: !{1,br.:rd-. Vice-< ·111111, R:ilpli I h,1) 1.·1. fo11ndi::r
l·idh.:1. l\,il, C l,1rk.lk111k I 1>!:'.dl l). I ),I\ 1d ~l.lllin I l11ll1'-· \.Lrd,l.!!l.ir: J111t1J1\ <_'1111)l:I"
.IPn,1lli:111 \111ith. Pl.11111u1g I l1r1.·c1or: l-i11il) l\nyo.;lt Sc.:cn:t:11:,. :11ul 'I \tl \\'~ 11n,·. ( 'tl)
\1tnrm:~
I\ 1i ... ..: 11 l 1\ 1 )llL'
1 '\mi,111,111Im111!11:,dlt.:d tft1.· 1111.:cti:iJ 1,1 ,o:,kr,il <.•r 12 l'~I dJJ,.I w111,1u11c.:1.•d Lli~ 1111.:1.·ti11~ i,
h1.:i11g 1cc11rd.:d \Ir I 1inn·1 \\r.:k,,nwd llr I hmi.:1 \Jr ;\l,uli11. ,111,I < ".1u111:ilm,111 I '1,11~~r-,
10th~ 1'l,11rning < 11111111i•,s:,i .. 11
I hL· 111i1H1IL'" 11I tl11.· I h.:L11hL0 1 L 1 1! \ 11 llh i.:1111!_-'s \\Cr1. ~·1111,iLk·n:d :111d < ,c.:,wr.:: l{11b.::r,\-; 11111\,.;d
lll t1r.:1..·t:pl thl.' m1111111:.., .i, \\lllkl\ ttn.i \\,l'> 2"'1 h, Hoh< 'l,11!-. I lu.: 111,1tic1111.,:1r1i1..'d wilh lhi:
!i1ll11\\i11g<1h-.tc111il11h l(,tlph I h,l~L·r. 1.'11111k1 I i1..lk·1. l\i.:1i111.· I (lg,1r1~. I 1,1,·1d \-l,11ti11. unJ
li1n111y l '011) 1.:1·~.
'/.(' 1(,.0 1) l'uhlk lw;1ri11~ lo l'on,i,h·r !Ill· ll'lllll''I 111' ()l'H ht·r1')/l'rclilc-Rish, LI.( Ii•
re111m: pn,pcr'I.' from R,\ lfr~ith:11ti:1I/Agric11ltun· l>i..,frkl to 1{-2 .\kdium lhwdl)
Singll-Famil~ HP'>idrnlial l>h11·id 1 ~tl'\ t· P11mpl11 ·t•~. 1 liL' p11111,:rty i, l{lca1,:J ,111 iii .:
t·a,l si,k 111 ( 011111) l(<•a~t I t 1 1 ..,ou1h 11I l',:l.',111 11,11 \... .1t I 1)11.(q c ~••111t,· R11ad I I \ lr
',•mth !;;II\ l th: ~t11r'I tcp•H 1.., 1~ 111,,: th.: p,, ipcrt~ 1, :rppro,.tm lld> ~ .., l rn re, c1nJ i 1
10,,i1i.:d l'l..: pn,p1.·1t) 11\\\l~I plrnt·, 1111 uddill!,! .i l11l111..: ph;1~c.: 11.1 1h1.: h1\ l l,t\\11\1•
'>L1hd1,i•,i1,11 "t11ll r..:LPlllllh.: td.1111111 j-; l,1 .1rpl'(tl\.! th.: pn,p,,-;-.,l /11l11llf I \i,111~·1.! 1111111 1:.\ 111
R-2
\Ir l'rn11ph1..:~ ,1ddn: .. .,cd 1h1.. l m11111•~..,,,rn ...,11~in!:' !lw -1h' \\,,11!11 J'r11\ id,• :11, .11.:,~·,., t,
< '11u t 1I) f{p:1d l i 1111 lhl· l 11 \ 11,,111111 -;11[,di\ i~ion 1I ll i,; 1\.:1.i1wd
~Ir. I llllll.'I (J[lt,;111.'d 1!11.: p11h lil· lil.!tll 111g. 1111\ 1n~ l\ol ,111..: pr.:,l!I\I 1,1 ~1x:al,. i\11 r lllll1.'I
d,,.,1.·d Lh..: put.It ... hL·.ir1;1_,!,
I... 1nik1 I 1dk1 111.1(.k u lllt•lh•II tu ,u:\.·,:pl 1l:1 ,1.11'1J\.'1.11111111i:11d,t1io111,1 UJ'pt11\I.' thl.'
prnp,1•,L·d /11nini; Li1;111h'.t' l111111 !{1\ 111 H 1 lkrni1.· I 11~•,111) 1 ''1 1l1i.: 11111tlP11,1111.i Lill' 111\lillHl
L ,r ·1,ol L111tllllllhlthl:
Sil Ir, J. I Rcqm•,;t or St. l.11d,1 PropL·rth•s. LLl 1'01· \lultipll' < h:i:upatH') PrnjL·cl
.ippn" al of St. l.uda ( ollaul',, a J-1111il projl'L'I, ,laem., I l'l'. I he pwp..:rl) ,.., IL11.' 1tnl
llll d11 \\l!sl ,;idv ,,1 "i r,.1i,hik ~ll\.'•.:t. iu~I ~1ll1lh cl( i L·i'i •\\l'.11111.' hi ;l1(1"' ~l,1hik '-ill~l'l
:, Ir. '-inii I Ii F.i\ r..: lh1.• -;l ,1 11 r1.•11u1 l .,,l\ 111g I Ii\! pr111 H:rl, h I, •l',tkd 111 I iii: t '1 !) , ,1· I a11 h11p.: 111d
b /11111.·J B 1 t I, Htrl~I I<..:, •l'I I 11dt illl' I),-;(! Ill I h~· ,1 1.: 1, ;•prr1•\ 11mHch '7 :11:11:-. ,l!ld '1
111111-. ttn. pn,p,N.:d I hit. t,, tl\c -.nu,l ,i,,,• ,,1th .. • ,1tl th,: ,1p11lii:rn1L i, 11.'llth.:•,l111g.i \\dt\l!r
1,, th,: J II) f'<''-\ll 11.·111.:111-. i...1,lll j1,.'l'.ltl'H1l•·11df\tll1111-; \ti llf!\li'll\1; t;lllillllJ:!•-'111 IIJhl[l iii•.:
lo l l .. \\i11g l''' 1d1111111,
I I h.: ( lp1.•1.il11,,1 .... 11.,I \l.i 111..,1,1,i..1. Pl: I «11J \µ11..·..:1111.111 ,11 ii t,~· , ... \ •~t·d ,111d
it•~• h111i11r.:l1 a11d 1:t,, d, cl ,111lt111 r1(1 dJ\ ,. 11 ;1pp111\ul
If r,~r I I ,, '
I I I I IP..! ! l! \II I ,
i\ljUL'-.lul 1h,· t1ppl1L,tli1111 /,,, l;i/1!1.•,I 11111il th,: r J,,,·11il1,.:1 11 1.tilfllll!._' 1_'1111 1111·,'>l•IJl lill'i.'ll11g 1,,
,1ddr,·~, i ,-..IIL'~ ,,itl, tlw "sl'\\L'I \],•, \\l'l11;1,l,.lt\·,.,,,11 1111.· ( '1,111111i,:--in11 ., 1, i1 !.! th~~ ;if·,:
l\.'ljllL':-llllj tl li' .1ppliL·.1ti,111 lw l,1hkd 1,1 \\Ork I'll( i ,,-,[1.'·, \\ i\h !Ill' ,,·\1,.:1 f It· ',d l,l lht'I\:
,, ... ·rv t111 indit.;1111111-.; ,,r ,t'\\\'I' l ',1p,1,·il) i,,u,.•-; \\'ilL'il tllL' l'I I) ,,,d~ :1ppr,1,·L·d t11h.l th1,·1 1\,'n·
li11111gl11 up ~,,.ll'r l\1L' ( '1l: ~ 1n iL'\\ a11d \!I' i!-, ''<.'ljl lL',li11~ 1\1 d.i: ~ TP lia11dk lhl.' -,i1uati1111
i\11. I u111<.'1· 11pi..•11L·,\ thL· 1,ul,lk lt,:,.11·i11g
I l,,11<11d c 1rL'L•l1 111 ;:; 11 ( ·11 .m11µ I. J\),~ "'11 ,•,:1 I k -,l'tkd I l11 11 ti1tt;!.l1JI 1 \\'1111d-: dr.1it1 ~ 111111
1li1·-prupdl\ 11,tlllh \I) rn,1k1· '-ll10 thL \\:tll.'I i, l1L'i11,i,: at' •lllllk.l r,11· in 11,,.• .lr.1ir1u::_!l' pl.111,
I k· ,d-.11 ,,1 id Ill' d11L'" 11lH ,, 11t1111, L·1111,1rn1·11nn 11.illk l'(1111i11~ rirn!utd1 I lu111111g1111: \\ 1111LI ,
I ,11 1 / ldridy~' 111 nn},-\ f!,,k 1\ l,,,,ri ( 1 ,ur1 [ k :,HIJ f lu111i 11s L,111 \\'p11d~ d1·,1i11~ inl,1 hi,
l'J'\'/'L'll,\ :111tl lili, dl'\ ,•1111°11 .. ·1 1[ ,,ii' Ill 11,L ll 1\1)1'~, .. I IL' i'L','dll]lll:.'11ti, . .'J '.I IHdding lllill-. li11
11,v -.l1H1111\ .1kr t,1111 tk,· -.,ur,· '11~ dr.ii11tt=',' i , Jd•,\1u.ll1· lk ,.t\~11 It.id L',111<..'L'l'lh ,,.i 1li
<l!lhc/U il,1~ ... a1td t:1'11,i,,11
\1n.111d:1 l,u,hm.111 ,ii llPk I, i',11:: \(,HHI (. llllll '.'>Ii-· :-.lc1ll:J :-..ill'I> L',,11c,:!'II, ilti,' t,, till'
w11uu11t ,1 I \\,Ila lit 11 ,·1111w, ,,r1 ,11' ll1s: prn1),1',L'.J •--l~
l>.•n \1,:l'nir>, \\.tiL'1 :111 d \.1.\L't \up-.1111k11.J:111 II .. ""~1:,I ilk t u1111111-..,i,1111,1 ~1,1 11! tl1L
.tp[)li..:t111\--. 1L',jtll..'-.l l1• t.1hk th·, ,11 111l ic .Jti111J 1111 ~,, ,l,1 1 .. I k ,d d th, i,~111..' i, \\ii:, t l1,·
L' \ i ... 1 i 1111 ~ i.:,,. ,, ,. 1 i n "' i 11 i 1 111
l>,:hhit: I II•, ,,t .'I~!/ llr1,,l[,,•,.L I ctt tL 1.;1,l ,t:11 ·,I ,_,,11~,·111, \'.Ith ti,· :1ni.1111if ,<1 ,1,11.,•1
t.:u11r111~ 1·1·11111 liil' ,uhjL·1·1 ~ih' 11111,, Ii-.·!' pr,1p,:11: "ii•,_· ,i/;-1 1 -.. 1i,I i/"1 !1,_·1L' ,u,.· ,,,u ~·, \\illi Iii ~
,i!\1L·1 ,,!1,..:,11.I, tli. 11 1,ltu1 ,1"111111'11.-l'L·,l ,, 1h1.: 1(,1, 11!,11111,· 111 11 l1u il1 l,w 1ppn11~·.i ,1itl1 tit•
l I l I ) .
iJ,11 II!:' 11,11?11,· ,.:l ., p1·1•v:,11. 11° ,ii,_• i! \11 I L\1'!11 '1 '111,,:11 '11. ru1,1 1, li 1.'.l/'ill~
.l ;,-,,,11 i~~•L·,; lJ,:1,l,,.·1 I'\ Pr,:11!1: 1{1,'1 I I I. ;1,id1\: .-,:d tl1~ 1•1.1l1tt.__ 1•11J1lf1\t f 1h ..,,.IJ 11,~ lit,!
1, .. 1kr l1,1111 I l liillill,;,!1>11'. \\,,,id, 11,,11, ,1;:,, 11 d1.1\\ h1..··\\,,11 11•,_ 1,111 p;·,,
1
'.L il•1.·, ,,n.J 1\1 1.'I', ,
11i1tl 111'::' h,•, .i11 d,) .1hH11 i1 l·,,:.'.""'-i1i,1111 11111111.-11 ,,1t-.. I k ... ,ud tl1L' ,111f,.,1u1 1 ... ,:,1-,t11,g
h,•1,,l,·11 I l11mi 11gt,11 1 \\'11,,d:, :111J 1I • ~ d,,., ,~l1,pJ11.?n1 hul 11,. v,111-1111,_1i1l11 1,·:.il 'l i1 · 1\ill lh.
1-.111L,·d thn,ugh 1 \\11 ll,1l1k , Vi lla:!,:. a-.p1,·11i1u,h .igr1..:d If,, -.1atr.d 1ltc d1c1i11c1~.: ,,ill Uk •
1 c11 ·1.· ill 1111.• \\dlL'l 1111 lltL· -.,1dq, . .:L jlf'i'ill'rl) :111cl .1t·1·c1t,1r , 11 ill h.: ili-:l,tlk.t in 1h-: p11r11.I•, ln
ll ,111h·1t 11l\l'-,tjllil1ll'~
11~1111_ I Pg,trll 1,1 ,1tk t L 1·1i,~11,Jl 1,, .1 .. ·,:i.:1 11 tli1..•,1p11ii,~~1,1 1 "l'L'\tll,:.,.;/ 111 L,tlik tli ...' rcq11,:;-;1 u111j\
t:il· I k-.n11hvr 1111.•1.•1111~ 1,, ndd1 ·l''-·, i i~l\<:-. 11i1ii 1!iv ,1_·11.,·r \II', 11dk1 1111!1.•(i ,lt ~· 11 'L'•·'" 11,
rL'l'i1..·11 11,._, l :111d,1.apL' 11 1:111 li11h ( ],11k .'. ,, lltL' 111n1it,n ,111d 1'1~ 11!111 1,111 l'.,lllki..t
llll.tlli 11 11 lll:,I ~
sn l(i.2(1 Pul)lic hearin~ lo cnn~idN till' rcqur~t of l>ewhcrry/l'reble f{islt, I.LC' l'or
Prl'liminar~ l'fat approval 1,r Phit\t' ~ nl' Cn.:enhriar :it f'in·H1<1rnt·, a Hl-lot
·,11hdi, isi,in, ,lohn \, l'nL I hL prnpt'rty 1, h11.·.itcd 11..::-1 nl t)u.1il ( 1· .. :d. \ ill is ,111d 111ll'lh
, ,! S 1111)1' ( i'L'l'k \'ill.!' \11 'l111i1l1 _!2d\l' 1\1' -.1,tll 1.:1),1 1'[ 1'1\ i11~1 t ill.' Pll•fl<;:l'I\ i-; /<lli<'J i'l \ I
11 l11,· ( it~ •ii i .iir-lHll"•L' .111,I i -, :1p1)1'l ,,i 1,11~-1~ 11, 't ,1,:11:•, ',1,1t! ,·.c11111111,•1·•l,1111111 "1,1,
d·•1:'. rl,, .1tl•d'1 i-·•'I' ,II 1hi. 11nw ,1 1 1. 1,, 1 l.1 ·k ,,,· -,,:\,._" Ld f' 1 it: l,,r llil.' -,11/i ,I \-; ,,q I''
11,. j i11 \\' 11,•r '\111,1 ",_·\\\.'r '-,up,:rt1 1••~·,i.J~11\ 111,~ tr111lil ~oil 1 h:i-. 1,: lliL',l,:~I .IH.' ,q)r1l 1 ,It 111,
'"· 1,d,k-., Ill I I 1h: I )..'u:111!1 \.'I !1 lc1 1111111~! l '11111 1111·,,idli '11L'•_•1it1_,'. 11 1 :t<L!r,:,, j.,,.,lk', l.1,ilh I le'
,,;11,:r \Ir \1 1.·111 11,!dr•.;,,·.J :l,i.: l 11111111i"i,111 -.,1;-111!..'. 11,_,, r,;q•1,:-11i11c1l1i,, ,t~'iil1u11111,11111
1 1°1'1111,II,·, i I ,1,kl1..:-., 1-..:, ,_::, \\ tf, ,i ,_ 1 1111 I jh,J,1 11,ill ,,.,, .. :111 -.,I 1\11111
II ·r:·i\. I 11:' t:\ 1,.1,li: 111,11111111, 1,·, .:111 i 11L' 1.111!;1..· 11•1, 1.•,1 1 ·,' •,1 I iii!.· iii : r, q 11~ ,I 1,, ~
11\,111111, ll'III\ ill,.' .I 1 \ii l!'.1 1111.•:r II~' 1 ' 1,l !1·L··,·, l:,•,1.,.•, \\ill • ti:,: L"\'.\.'I \Ir... I td,,·1 11,1'1..'.,I ,I,,~
1 ,,,, I l" [,_, IL'\'. '1 • I 1:1,J, 'lj't.' rll I l l,•1111il1• I t,!!.,"· 1 'I l•' I 1'r,111 ,!fl I i 1•.: 111,11i,·1 'li'P•:il
It 11 I 1 I '
I 111 If t' 4 111H 11 \ I ii
\ 1 i I I I l I I 1.' I 1 • 11 1 I \ \ I 11 ~ \ 1 I I l • \ 1 -I I ! i ii p I I I I I ,1 ~ 1..' I , 1 ... • I 11 I I t',· I I I iJ k· I'. I l I d , ( I .i I 'L. I l,_; I t 11 ,;
1.,~,,1111 . I ,:,· lu;·11,_:r li,,1'1-: ,\I 1--1.:l•ll.1• ,111d l).i\id \l:1lli11. \•\~ <,:,inJ .... 11 ,,h:1·d-.;,
'-I[) l(i.27 f'1 1hlic l1l0 ildll)!, 111 rnn,itl l'I tliL 11 ·q1ll".'il of'()l1 \\bl'll\ll l'L•hl1· i(bli, l,l,C r1.i
l'n·l i rnin:11., l'la! Hppnn;II ul 1:air l10p1 • 1·a11~. Pha.,I.' l HIid ~, a (,7 lot ~uhdi\ision •
• 11,1111 _,, l'llt r1,l• 11 1,1p1~1 I) i , 1111 .. 1kd 1111 Lh i: :-u1111i ,,~ii: tll :---1 1" ~ 11q itnd \\\.''it ~i1
'1'll ,1 mi1, l\h1.I i\11 ~111i1l1 t!d'-~ LIil' .~L.rll 1..:pwl ,:11.i11 .'. till' t'rup1.-r1, i-. a1111111\i111~1kl)
.. , . .; I ,11.1-:, 11ul:-,id,• Ilk' ( ii : ol I airliup..: .in ,11, 111>1 11>1i...·.J :-.1,dt r..:, 11111111t.:11,l ,1li1i11 t, IP
d1_•111 tlw ,1 1hd1\ 1.,.1 1 11 Ju'--11 1 1111.• 1aik·d 1!1111 1nod ... •J l ltl' ,tppl1cc11111w~ 1·1.·q1_1(,.'.;1~d 1h ~·
11ppl11.ali1,11 Lie luhk•1.I 1111til 1111~ l1~u.111h,:1 ' l 1l:1111 1i 11~ ( ,1rn111i-,,in11 111,·c1i11r lu :1dd1\•-.;~ iN1c
,, ilh th ~ 11 1•\\ 111l1i..l..:I \Ir \\,'ill addrl',·,L\I 111 ,: ( 11111111i-,~i1!J1 ,L) 111 g 1111.·, 1,•qu..:'jl 1,, 1,tlli '-
:q1pli , ,11i1,11 h1r '11 11 111th.:-, I•' 1\~1 1h 11111 tli 1111\\ 11\od,:I I IL-1.:,1olw11..:d 1lw 111i~•.i11nl ill1,,.
ni11d,·1 ,,.1, -,1,1l,rn1 I Lt't l 111 1!1 1l1L' q1pl11.,\111111 ,1ml ,l1,l 11,1t k1111\\ It l\:t ~ 111~1il lii:i..:11t , Ur.
1 li;t~ r..l' .1:,kl'd 1\111 11,, ,111.' :i,•vpli11~ li1L1llllpktv ,1p ,11-:.iti(lll.">, i\lJ ,\\l"ltl ,1,tkd th..:
,1.1l•111;1wl l\:t', ,:u1npl ,:1,· :111,l Ii,: 111-:11\~1\_•i,-:d th, ,11t"t l't'p,irt \villi ,11-· li11ctl .:,..11111<.'111 ..;
d.11 ... t1/11 ,\Ir ',111ill1 :-:l.1t..d ll1L' lli,,, 11 11,lkl 1 -,\1!..' ,,,t~ 11,1tL\I ,111 lli.' i11111.,I 1,·, iL",\
lt1lr,l1 I l1H11.·r lllll1l1.• 111111li1111 Ill nu:1·p1111,· '·•I 1 1'1'11•11,\l 1l 'l,'1 1d c1 l l 11111 11 ,k-I\ th,_· .,1 1l1,l1\ i -,1111 1
,I Ii' t, till.· l :11 k,I 111•\1 lllllck•: II 1h ( I.irk~ I th' 1111lli1l[I \Ir --:,1 111li "I llnl 11111,I 11I tit,·
1111,11111•11 ... ,:,1 11 li 1.• 1111.l l· 1 ·ih ,111,I -,,11JIL ,,l 1,'.ld1 1,11,. l·•i:,·11 1111.i l',11111 h 1:,c·1 1,i1lid1 ·,•,
l1i1111,1111111 ~llld i',t1h 1. lt1rl 1~illtLl1,'I\ hi~ 11 •.I
\11 I t1•11-1 ,1p1.·n 1:,l 111~· p11l1l1c 111',ll 111 ~~ 11 !I It\~ 11 11 ,111,• p1 ·:,-;,:m 111 ,p.:dk. \1,. ,.l11 i:,l tit,·
1,11hlk 111.',lllfl~!
\!1, \1 ,·:1 1 1_'\[1 1,111 -:d ·11,· ••'l}'.ll11 1 \1, tl" :,11•k:I \\,!:, ,Lth1 11(1.\.I J,11 Il le'..'. 1::-illll,t ~1.1l1cll\ 1 ,11,11
,,11,I 1iw) ,., .• ,l. 11111 ,l'.',:til' 11 ,,,11lld li:111_' 1,, Ii'-• r,•d,,,,.. lit: ~111\t·,.l 1li 1.· 1,,11, __ 1, ,11 11ni.:11:, 1' i:1
h,•,1.t 11 -..-;-.,d q11i,~l: \1,,I, ll,d,:: IJ '-•11li 1:1 n P1t:lilv ,l'1..,l 1 I l 1 , .1111i..:,l 1l1l 1,,._. lh11\ ,1<1,
111..•1·:"11 1111·:1I 1,l,1_1 'IIhi I I\\ I I, \1 .11~·1 11111.lr:I, ,1,1 l1 L' u,111;1li..-11.•,I ',.111'-'. \J1'l,11\l, J'' :r\11''(
... r.tl •,l 1,h1:1 iii 1h , 1,111,1 111·"1-. 11 I\•· ·il•..:·1d1 b l'l'il ,1,l,!1·1.-.._t',l r111,l 111<'-l ,tl th,·111 11·· \''-')
1ui11ur. ,\11 \Id '1\11 \ ~:,11..:11111 • nppl1,.\1l11111, •1 11 li1'1l,~d i'11L '11111 ,u!i, :1 1,l 1111.' 11,·1•,
i11i'cir111L1li1i11 -.uh1ni1tl'1.I
11 ,dpli I l1:t_)1'1' 111;1 ,k• .I 1111111,111 l,_1 d 1."L~p1 ll1, ,-.l.ili'1,:1.'11lllll1,·11,.L11i ,1 J1111 di.:11;, 111 ..: .1tl1dhi ,1,111
du,· tu \11,_• fr1ikJ llm\ 111<11.kl I Iii.' 111111i1111 I 1il.:d due r,, 111 1.' l:11..I, 111 ·1 '11•1
\11· l<11l11·1\I, -.1.1\t.\l 11w ,q1 d11.·;1111 •,11,.,111,1 1, 111111,' up1 1 li, . .rti,,1' .111 I ,1,ldrl·;-,•, ill ,,I 1h:
11lll ,t,ll! Illig lk lll
.k1 111il1..•1· I ii.l kr 11\.',k '.11111tl11111 111 ,1, L'-' 1· 11,,· ,q1pli1 ;1111 1 ·qui.-,l lu L1hk Ilic.· ,q1pl11.\lli,111 r 11 .
11l 1J111 1·, t11 .1ddtl'"' :i 11.• 1111\, ,~,11,.:,, l{,11, (. l.ir~ ~111 tl1l 111" 11111 .111.! 1111.' 111 lll<'ll la111,.\l I i t l1
1lt,: 11 ,ll,1,\ill~ \1)k': \ \'I l{,dpll I h:t)t:1· . .1 ~111111·..:1 I idk r. 1~11\-t t ·1.1rk lk·rni t' I 1Hwrt:, I 1•,,
i lllllL'I', ;1:11! I l,illk \l ,1,·t -,·ll,11 , \) ( IS:'11\(L' 1{111'-:1 \I·,
Ir '"'111i 1 l 1 ',I, IL-d ·,n,•ru l ,q 1 pl11. 1l ,111~ 11·1• 1. 11 l', 11 I 11.I 1.:,1 I• 11. I 1111; 11 1111•1•, dri... l.i
111,,'\tlllj'kl~' ,11li:11111 I
... :n I (1 7.S 11 111,lil' l1l ,tl'i11g t11 1.1111•,iJv,· ti\\.· ri.:qill'.'!I ol I\'. I)(,, I.{.( l11t' 1'1 di!llin:ir_, lllHI
l'i11iil l'lal app1 ()\ al ,,r h. lH, 11 1 ilj)L'i 'l\ ul1di1 i,i1111, a~ -101 11ti11n,· dh 1·,itlll, \1 ikt•
1~1111,!?,h 1111 • 111·111•:ft\ 1, l,,u11~••I , 1 11, • ..,,,11•!1 :ii~ ,,JI 'l 11,,., ),' i 1·,1..: i-1, '\[ ll\ \1 111
lk,,;.:11 l',,.1d \11 '-IIJll:111:,11\.'i'l' 1,,111 i..1 •1•l 'I ,,1:,111'-.'.lli~ 111 ,q hll 1 1·-·q 1p1,,,1111.1 1-.:l_1 -Lt;'
,J\ 1""' :, "l ,"f 1 \ •.; 1.l, ·., '1 ', '1 .. 11 1, l ~1111111 •1:", 1 l,•I, ','\\ j•'• ,-: IIIJ, 1 l,),'Jl•-,
IIL\PI\ ._,,, ,,l'I'-1','\' .~11 .i\ 1 •1· \1111 Ill,, 1.1,'111,1,I ,"11j I ·11m,d11111 q I 111:! \\ •;11q11 .1 ,1 !1do
.l,1qLJ I" 1,1,11 .11:,;11!1 t'I.:. 11,q1:lt1t\11,1dd1:yi u11111•1prJ,Ui p11110.1'ii.1,1p1111 11.)~11il'l,1d ,111)
111 tti w.1dd,: p1J1: \1,1! 1,1}1 \l!!!l l 11 "i~' I! pl! "' .. I 1'1~1!'1 111,1,pnm., I" t\inli,1~1 ~ I ''>I }I
,1,1,1111111111111 i\'11 '1 "'lill !i•llll '•ll I'''" 1,,111 1•111 'l]I . L 1-'il'! I , . ..,,,w,
•u. !'ll,ll ,1,J;,,, ,,\\ •~~ p•r J."11 \\ ,'l\l 1,; ,.1i,11 . .ld1• 'lil 11,•I, ,li''i" "'l!1 11 1 "'\ \I( 1
•jll d I q,,·,,,,,,"1,I .,, ',I I
,111·,1•1 ,'l 1T·o1t11111 :11 1,;,1!,,,,11.-d1,''''~:i11111, "''!J•'li'!-'lil''i"tt•t~.'!11hh·.1 1!1 r
11 .,1,.1\,..,_,.1 .,1 ,,q 111,11 \'l'1J11 ''!''' tu11.u 11t.•i11·11wq111 .-,1!1 Ill!\·, u11!:;! '>!l'•ir•~
1111 .l•~i 1111 1,1 ·'-"tl1'1t,"1llf!rt \ 1 i,1• ,1111!lllJ,..,,1,, ,'11111 ... 1,,.., =''I, ,)il'j'<.111 (j1!1[$ 11111.,qJ,!,• ·"'l I
P•'l,ljdllll!., ·'•I ll''W ·=Hl,'\}I l"'l ll·'l11id p:ll!l ll\'
"'F'11 •il ~•:--·"'111
\\i\li', ,, 'l','1'111''1\" :-11q 11 1 1·11'1' .,., ... ,q I '''il!,">lj·;'l•-1., i;11 l'! p1,1' ·.,f111111•.1 11 Lllli'-1 ·''II Pl
.,,, 11 ._ ~;,1c, 11":-1 ," 1 ,,, ; 1 111 , ., ;i 11r q-. ,, 1 p i 1, ... ll :i • 1 '~ p:, .. ! ,:u ,,l, I , m1i.. ., l'-11· 1 r 11:p .'\ 11., ,1 l 1
·~11iH1q111,,.-, iH11,,,,11l'I .'lJI 1111dn
i,. ilili1l1'1,1 ,'\l•,1 1,111 I.JI \l<'lllil,ll.'111 l u,,;,J 1\1'1~ ;1tp i.],,,1 • 111 \l l)\\1 '1111 ' ,11'1'\LI \,"l,i\t 11\) \[t lll1!f
fitl!ll!.~11 ""!1•111d ,"111! l';"l!-•'1·'
•~u.111 I ·11\ F id•. n1 lll,"'-:->td '\IP uil ;"1,1 ,c1 I 11!,H?i•lf .~q,1'1 d -'IP l':'l,1,•d11 .:.,u~r; I 11'\J
lltllli,'11h ,1.>\\'-1111 t'I 1,:., ... :11d ..;1•,, ;.'.\I \\11 I IT'\!
111.·f11.-11111.,dn,1 ,, .. "'':, 1,111• 1,">'t \\ •1111 ,·, :,·11111iil11 q, h',"'I 111'q~ "11!''\l ~\ -;1i 1 •
q11d. l'!,11' ·'1'.'d •'111 (I,
,1,tr11 ltf 1·111 1· • 11 •111 '"' I 111 ••rd 1·•1r1,1 ;-J1 lli'.'-lll I," 11, .. •11 LI' l'll'"l.t\lr "'I l . • I I • I ~ ' I
p-1,_,,,-, .. 1 .... 1 ,.11 ,,11 ,· ••.i-i:d .. ,, 1 •ir.,1.1., ,1,,1,1'1t111•11 ,1 .·q 1 •ti!'.' 11i•!:-1,,r,i11·
•. 111 ,1111 Il l Id ,,,111,'(l l l!li 'j\) 1'111' '·1111111'1,·il() i'lllll'-o!'·" N\1 'i\'1\lt1 ll''q-. (111 ''! dill~ ,111 I
1 .1z-1,lu (, ~ ... l 11 L1 •t.i ·,1 ,. I IJ,i-,1111{ 1'!l1:1 JI'
... l 'l)l 11·'" =''II
1\1,q, '1J1 .. -.,1 "I 111\ ... ;'l•ll I •1 1:p ,111, ,) 11 ',,)(l;"l iil~•'-1 ,, 1\11[11\ 1·•111' .:-,;1 i 11 \'lj 1 11,1 ,'•t .~,111 '·'I
~ 1r "'Fr,11 .;:.: 11',lf .,L1, 1.1 ,.-,;1111:q.-· .-Hll l•'·'t 1:,.11'1j 1):i•.i '·'-' ,~l, 11 ,:,1, :'i-4' 11 n·1, ;·1,:: ..,,, 1
'-lll'!l!ru ,, ~l,l\\ll1it1( '11• ,1 ,,dn 111:,:"111plP"I
• \1_1.!u,lll \\) '-I 111·11,11•11,1 lilll ,,.,~I I 1rn, l"'!,11 ... ( I ) ll"1,:i}1 1'-! 1111 1 I ~{ I f','li<'/ '-! 1•11 j .~d,Jtj,l!ll I .l''
\ll l "lq1 111 l','11',11 11 • .,., ,1• l 1 !-{ I \j,'11 1ll!\,1t<ld1: ··! \l 1.-,d,11 d :"q t ,ill! ,r.., ·11nd.11 _1,1,·1.; .1111 ,'\l'Ti
1111111') 11 \ T 11'1! l .11p 11: ,1,11p1 1 A1p I" q1 ,11111 1 1·.-,~1 ,:-11•.1·11 1\1 ·'I', q11"11 .~lp 1111 p .... w.,1 1
,1 ,1J:-id1'.:d .,q I ·,·,,,\Ht J 1111 ! 'ltn!'·! '!(Hp1-. 101 ~ 1 11 't' ,q:q.i '.1.11:.1 J ,,1m1:H .10 p: ,1,.11!du
1111,1 ptll! ·l 101 ,)'J'f '}11\'H .1•1 l'-,111h;1,1 1111 '•'P!'ll!!,1 11) ;;11!,11:.111 -l !('lll,l I f'IJ I {I',
• \l'"ll•lll:lli'LI i I.~, \II~'\ ,'1 11?111[1 111) t'III" 111\1)11111 ;'Ljl I ut ll!l11 J\ -1 \I'( I
H'(d ,,q1
111,,11l"l[111.1,~.• 111,·1.1111 11!."l(I ,j qn,,I 1 ,1 111 ,1'. l 11! ,11~11'111•, 11! 11ud Ip ,q•, 11 11"qddP ,'lj I
,llil!,!)'11111 rilf!\\11\!t'.I •1p u,1ti11
111 ,-,11J1il11., ,,o.111d1· 11111,11 11'l'll•''lt1l111P1 l''i'-,,lll d,"l;-1'1' "' 1,,,111>1111· -ri:111 -..J:i'i1111) (11111111
•,~lllll' '11 , jljlid ,1111 p.J:,ul·"'
,.,111111 11\ '·[1',)l!o.;111 lll,h.,1111ll111'11 ~tl!\1111 ,ill[,W,711 l)llj11ll •'ljl 11,,11.'llll,l."lll.lllj '·'I\
,uo11•;,"111h l.711s1111 q1 ~u.:-,• . ..,.1d 'I"\\ qi'im:fl ·q,
11•1d ,7 l{I
ilc, ;"\ll''!l!Jl,• l Jll,',,'lll'd;,( I ljl.l'.~i I \]lllln J !ii 1\J'PU 1: :ipl \,1id lll'lj' ilil',"l!jdd1! ,1q I
'l lil!IIPLI•'' ITlll\\111[1'1 ill! 11,1d11111;,;1111111'1.1
1,,i•,ld1•,q 0 1 w 111•1111:-,111111,,,_, 111 ,..., 1•:,uo111ti1 ,, p111', 1J11•1, .11,,pp·11 i:, p.1 1i.·w1 ~,,,,,,
I\ 1· I I I I, I• I (:1111J:H / I
J 1 .. 111
fo11\11 J1\.I Iii 'II
\1 !,1, IHI •11 I ,1,1, 1, ill l II H I
i l:11•.tl1;1111~ I ,111,• 111111 l 1111 ... :11\: 11 1111 1.,-,,.,1. I !11: ,11 1plil,11i,H1 11 ,1il11n[u1•d. ,,ill Ii-. 1111 .1
min,11 ' ~1 1h,li1 1-;i,111 \ 1!1',1\d ,l1·i,c ,.., 111\,1111,L:,I l" 111,1, iii~ ,k'\.'<..'"" 111 ll1,: 1111111,, .~d l 11t.; ,111 I
:: ,1a1,~r 11ill ha,l' 1,1 Ii~• ~,11h 111itk,.I 111 lh, 1"1.:q11irl.'.111,:1111111i1L \itiL·li.: V. '-1:<'!11111 I· (, 1
I 1-11 ,\l'l ,·,,. ~11hd1, i~11 ,11 l frptl,11i111;" tl\~11 ··,di liH, ,h,tll ln111L upu11 n p:1\ ~d puhli,.'I~
1111111ll1i11,·d ~trl''--'l •• \1;11'1 l\'l'1lllll]ll'l1cidli1111 h l• I 111·11, idL' 111 ,i!.:ltt ;111d \ 1)11lllh.'lll ll:!,:clrd111l.'.
thl.' p111p1h,'d -I Int 11111111 :· ,11h\lh 11-.i ,llt :1111 1 th,· ,1L1i11_·1 1,·q11ir .. ·d 1.11 L.ll'I'\ 1111l lh1.: ,q1pl1c,.t11t,
pl:111
,\lr, I ilkk .1.l 1 l1\'',,,1..·d tl1,• v111111ni ,;.;11,11 ,it) i11g 1l,,_· 1it'lllk'l'l) i-.; / ,k'I\.'·, ,111d 2 .1~rc-, IH1,',;> ik·i.:11
... k:11\:d l k ~.dd 11c i, l,,1,l-.i11g 111111 ,1 ..:L:rt11·1 .. :d 111;.1111,; l,:1·1111ng u11d 1lwr__. liu,,• h~1•11 l1itc: 1)l
l'~11r1k 11:l('l\":kd i11 l1...-lpi11~ '.ll\•.l ',11b,li ,1din:1 ,,ill ull1 11\ ~ ,,1.llt'I', (11 I l!i!d :111 I l1L•l11 \',ilh 1l1L'
111d I I.: -.tall'•i ,, ·h.irL·d dri, v t:,i-;,:111..-nt, ,,r.,1 1,1-L·d lu m111·111'/\' i11q1 wt 11 11111, 1...-,pi.:cl
1h1..•adi,11·v111 p11 1 p1.·111 il\llk'l'\0 l\'1 [\IL',h v11 [u11i~1 d·,kd 11'11,i: dri,1° l\llllid In: :111
i.)\ll'll,i1111 ,it I l :11,th111m· I :1111.· ,t id \Ir I 11..•kll, :1Jh\\,'l\?d ~\:, ~11·, l<1,h,~1·J:-. ,i.~kL·d tl1i.:
111dtl111[ 111.: i::i-c1\1l'11 1 <111,.I \11· ! .111, I,:> ll'';lhlJ!Lld hl't '.1i..1'll ,::1)· t,, 111· \\t., I tdkr tt~d,1..·d
il"l l,l"llinrnL' I dJ1 1..· i ·, < 11t11tl~ 111,111111it'L:d ,1nd \Ir I ,11,li.:: 1\ .. •,1111111bl >,',, l1J :1,•e1·1s111•
,,,1i1 ·1 \t1 . I i1..kk· ,;,11d l1l' 11.1:,; ,\I\ -:,l'iL'\lli.:1 11 ,111,I th: l •L 'l)c'hh,1:-\\,1111 [11k1.·1..•111111.• ~.l'(J\l,)I
dri,~· i\lt:, ~-litd,1.•ll:t !hi-,-.•,] 11lu : tlii..' 11 1,l[l·,l''-\1ill Ii' Iii 1' ;11 1,I \Ir. I i1.•kll ll'"ird 11d,;,l 111;.
1l id 111,1 l-.11,111 1\11 l \1111 ... ·1· :1·d-,·,I h,,11 1!,,: f!U!'l1,1µ1.· 111\I 111.: .11:c,•-;-.,~·,I tllhl »11 l 'il.'.kll· 'il.:1t~d
it i, pi..:kl.,l 11 11 ,11 Iii,: 1.·nd 1>i'tl,~·d1i1 1,1.11 \11.1_·111!, :1,k,..,I ii 1!1•: 11.<1 1 1,:1 i•, u, i-,11 1•.1J1\l
.\11· ...;1111tl11..:;;111H1d.~d .,1;11·1 I, 1 1111.•11l1m:1~ 1111.; 1c~'.1 1l.t1111th ,111,J tlll.·1 \. 1, 111\l .i li ard-,liip 111
11,i-, 1.o1·,c;c I k "<-11..l ,1 1 ill.i~c-.. 1l1dl\ i-.1,,11 ,,iii I hv ,1111,p111111.
11{ lb.US H.eq\11:~I 1,I ' I h11rnpso11 l•'nr,i111..'l'1·i11•, for :lll !111'0 1·111:d l<t·\ i1:n It.I J'('/.1\lll' !'1)ll1'
(l'IITtl 1; 111 1 (;f'l'l'l111 ffoad l'ot·m H Jh I 011rht lhsnn ( 11n1111e·1'l'ial ~-il'n it·(• lli~lf'il'I a11d
B--4 BLhilH1-.S and l'n,t't ... :,i11n ,il Di,t1irt {IJ n J (;l'l1L'1·:d 1iu,inc,, l>hlrid, ( hri,;lupl,~:1
t:rn11t. IL,.: p:1 1 )"-'1'1.1 ·, l1!1 .. !lll..'d 1111 l,1•· 1 t -.ilk "I (11~~111, lZ1.,,11I. il1.-,1 •,t1J1Ll1 ,1 I ,1iJ\1,11'•~
\L'1t1,11·1:il ( im.J,:11, i\lr. i..;r,1ilh ~1,1' ,· 11,,· 'Ii 11·1 l\l111n '1'1>111~' in 'l()()i,! ,111, 111 llh. lrn~•1li11n
.111d 1h1111d,1111:1..• ,ii \iti:,111t I{ 1 ,,r,1pt:1·11e ,111d u111 1.111 d 11r,111c 1·,k-:;; ,il1>J11 1 l1 1'1...1H1 !{1,ad. ~1,,l'l
,111,I tl11..· l 1 li111t1i11h'. l '01111111,:-.i,J11. u11.111i111,,u, 1,11,·. \\.I,, u11:1bk· t11 ,upp,,r1th1.11\'/1111i11~: ,11 ·
1'11 1: ,ii' Iii .. 11:1r1.., 1-.. 1·11 ,rn U ~ 1,, I~ 11 111 !lie p.1s1 I k -.i.,t,~,I tl1..: l 'nu ,11 ii: l\,J\\ ..:1 ~r , tileu 111
,.~•1i 111~ llrL· 1-l ;[, p:111:,•l 1\1111 ,t, l•• '11•k 111 \11ril 11! ,.'.()I)); 11, ,tll,rn l'u1 ·d hc:d1l11'1111d ,,1,,1\.'
·il:11 h ih 11,11 h,•,_·11 h11il1 t,1 d:ll.:-',1:il'I l'L'u •111111.:11-hti1111 i., 111 p1·11\ 1dl' llhH•hr .111,I ,:111n111~11•
l'L'~,1rd111:.. l,k 111u1 111'il'cl /1 1Jlillt' t.:11,lll~L 11,111\ I{ "lh :111d Ii-I (11 B -..!
\Ir < <1.i111 ,td lr..::,·,1:d lh ·· ( \11111ni..,-;1111' ,,t) 111~ r1 ):!I'l l\.'·, y c,11•1\' 1 :1111111 •d i11 h 3h d tlll tlti·,
pr,111.:1l: i11..'1lit_! 1,111, .I .i 111,. i:-,11td 11111111,:!-lk -.,11-.l 1111.·1,• ,1,L' 111\ ,,t I\ ~ 1 1111L·d p1t1pl'rt:
,d(ill~ (11,2L·111, i{l1.1,I ,\11 I 11rnL·r ,1:-;k1..·,l 1h • l11tc1 I -,11,: 1,1 the prnpL·rtk:, .ind :::lid liL' 1\1rn ld
,,L, (l):!.l ilbl ,!(l\ tlti11 ~ iilll ,I 111 ·1, I ll 111,lk,· ,ll!'C' th.: ~ill' i•.; l1:111dkd 1.'111·11 :1'11' ,ln,I vi, 1 '!ur~
agn.:~·J . ;\lt·:.e. I idkr' :-.i11d tl1v 1;1-:1..'ll"ij\:tll' liurti:r-. ,\ill l1L' [1_1..,1 ilit I~ 1l.'11111,:ll t,1 I{-~ ai11I ~Ii
1·111111 1 11:1\111,111! \II' l1111wr-..:11,ll 1 11,11il,l 1i:,l'i ,1i.. ... ·L·tl h•l~-;1,ri.:;,1 11<.'1\r,,[I f ~l1-;
\1.ll k1..·ll,!1 ,:;:1 11111 ,,, d,1>-, ,,1 Ii\ Ill!.'. ,1 11 ( IJl'•-'1\11IZ,11d l!IL.' ,11 ., ,Jll\.l ,,,_. lll..'1'd l11 [1111! ti 111,·
.• ._.,i. ,1! 111~ r '-.!;\~•1'11 11, o17, ,11 -..· 1 1 1,I 111 !I, 1 • ,, 1,,-1, 11,l 1 ._•1,11· th
,I) I ~-1 i l<L'l(ltD! 11!' Dl'I\ l1v11 ,\ ,1 1 1 di!' l{i-.h 1 I .I. • l'ot l1-,1) da, t IL·11·,io11 ut· !l1l·
pn·li111i11:ir,, pl:11 .q1p1·111 al n!' \\ untll:11111, 11 11:t.w \1 '-,(l'I 1.· l'u111pl!n·.1. \11· '-,1111111 ·,l 1l ,1
11 1,1,,· i I :1(1,l..:rc,111,\111tll,•11 111d .11,1.il,l l11..•,•,,1wk1i.:,I 1·11 h ... •i.:11d,,' ·.,1 ,~111h,.1 l:•il
L'I •l lil'I•' 1..l.r I' '111 Llf'(11• ,~· l• 1,_•,1 1 ,.,, •,I
"lo~crnbc1 I O, 2.0 I ti
Planning (.'l1mmis,io11 Mim1l ~:.
13 b lark made a motion to accept the taff reco rn111 endation to approve a 18 0 day
ex ten ion r the preliminary pl at approva l of Woodlawn, Pha se J , Berni e ftogar ty 2 nd th e
motior1 and the mot ion carried unanimousl y,
Ele tioo of Offic ers, Jonathan Smith -Mr . Smi th stated typ ica ll y someone pol1s lh e
omrnissio ners and pre ents a slat e of office rs at the Dece mber meeting. Georg e
Roberd s made a motion t hav Bob Clark poll the Commissione rs an d pre sent a slate at
the December mee ting. Bernie fogarly 2nd th e motion and th e motion carried
unanimously.
20 17 Planning om mis ion Agenda Schedule -Mt ·. Smith ask di r there were any
conilicts with the propo sed date s.
Having no further busin ess, Georg Rob erds made a motion to adjourn , Bern ie fogaity
2nd the motion and the motion canied unan imous ly. Th meeting was adjourned al 7: 18
A:~--~/ 110 j: ?:id(JP_d}_
r ,ec Turner, Cha i1111an rnily Boy1 tt Seo e ry
)
E xN 1 8rr I t /3 II
U1:tobcr 2, 20 17
Plonni11g Cm11111issio11 M1nu1cs
The Pl anning Commission met Monday, October 2, 20 17 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Compl ex, 161 N . Section S treet in the Counci l C hambers,
Present: Lee Turner. Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Charles Jolrn son: Richard
Peterso n; Ralph T hayer; I lollie MacKel.lar; Jay Robinson ; Wayne Dyess, Planning
Director; Nancy Mi lford, P lanner; Lmi ly Boyett , Sec r eta r y; and Ken Watson. C i ty
Attorney
Absent. Buford King, Pla1u1cr
Chairman Tllrner caJled the meet in g to order at 5·04 PM and announced th e meeting is
being recorded. Mr . Turner announ ce d the proposed rezoning on Manley Road for
Pinewood Subd iv ision is not on ton ight's agenda and Item H. S D 17.20 has been
withdrawn by the app li cant. l-le also staled ltern L. SD 17.24 wi ll be heard first.
The minutes of the Sep tembe r· 5, 20 17 meeting were conside.rcd and Ralph Thuycr moved
to accep t lhe minutes as corrected and was 2 11d by Char les Jo hnson The motio n ca1Tiecl
w ith ubs lenLion s by Rebecca 13ryanl and Jay Robinson.
ZC 17.L4 Publi c hearin g to cons id er t he request of tlu' City of Fa irhope Plan ni ng
and Zoning Dcparhucnl for a proposed amendment to Ar·ticl(.' ll I, Section 0.9
Accesso ry Dwe lling Units of Ordimin cc #1253, known as the Zon in g Ordinance,
Wayn e Dyess. Mr. Dyess gave the staff report saying th is amendment was co ntinued
from lht: Se ptember meeting and the purpose or tl1is amendment is to all ow accessory
dwellin g units (w ith kitchens to make a bona fide d welling unit). subject to locational
requirements conta in ed in th e Zoni ng Ordinantc . The bcnclils of' accessory dwel ling
unit s are many induding havi ng the ab il ity to age in place. affordable housing, an d the
nbility to have family stay close such as you n g adu lt rela ti ves stariing careers o r e ld er ly
parents These-serve nut on ly cco□omic benefits to a fami ly but a lso social bcnctits ,
Staff recomm1;:ndalion is lo .approve as proposed .
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having 110 one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing .
Dr. Thayer staled lots of accesso1y dwellin g units are man ufactured and# I l stales
manufactu red homes may not be used. !vi r. Dyess sla ted he was address j11 g speci fie
co ncerns. Mrs. Bryant said prefabricated e lements may be more appealing to some
residen ts and she suggested tying th e res trictions to the bui ldin g t.:o de and not just
elim inatin g manufactured homes. Mr. Turtu::r stated any stru cture wi l I bave lo meet thc-
1-milding code and sa iu the irnporta.nt th ing wou ld be to make s ure the wind requiremems
are met. Dr. Thayer asked what the parki ng requirements are fo r a principal dwellin g and
Mr. Dyess responded 2 spaces a.n u I additio nal space would have to be added for an
accessory dwe ll ing lmit. Mr. Turner af;kcd for clarification regarding the terrn "fam ily:·
Mr . Dyess ex plain ed it wo uld preven t accessory dwe ll ing uruts from being rented by
multiple peop le . Mr. Pete rson asked if RVs would be cons idered a rnanufacturt:J ho me
and allowed as an access ory dwelling uni t and Mr. Dyess res pond ed no . M r. Robinson
asked if the re is a deftni tfon ofa manu fac tured ho1ne in the orcl.i nancc a nd Mr. Dyess
res ponded yes. Mrs . Bryan:t stated th ere a.re manufactured homes that me et the bujld ing
code and no t just t he \-Vatered-dow11 HUD req uirements. Mrs. Bryant sai u she think s thi s
is a pos itive amendment.
Ocu,bi:r 2, 2Q 17
Pl:i11 11111g ( °(1/IUlll>SHIU M1111 1t~,
Rebecca Bryant ma<l(.! u motion l() approve the prnposed acce ssory dwelling unit
nmc ntlmen t with the rol!owing co ndilio ns:
I . Co nsolidate numbe r 1 and 8 inlo one rcq11ii-cmenl regardi ng si1l! restrictions.
2. NLUnbcr 11 be tied lo the bllilding code and not com pl etely prohibit runnufaclllred
homes.
Ralph Tha yer 2nd th e motion and the n101ion carricJ un aninmus l y,
7,C 17.15 Public hea ri ng t u con sidcl' thl' r cqu~I of tll c City of Fairhope rta1111ing
a nd Zon in g Dcp11rtment for a pro posl'tl amendment to Arti c le II, Section C.2
regardin g Site Plan Re view of OnJinance #1253, lrn own as th e Zo n ing Ordinance,
W:tync Oy es s. Mr . D yess rcqu~s tcd lhis case be heard for comments only and continued
until next month for consideration . He exp lainetl th e pmµo sl• i5 to allow more foc us on
planning aspects or si te phm rev iew ralhcr 1han the detail ed e ngineering. I re sta ted this
wi ll shift the r eview from engi nee ring to compatibility and site integrati on with th c-
surroundings.
Mr, Turner opt:necl th e publk hearing. Having no one present to speak . Mr . Turner
c l ost:tl th e puhlit: hcn ri ng.
Mr. Turner asked ir thi s will require ciny commercial rezoning request 10 have a :;ite pla11
and Mr. Dyess n.:sponde<.l y~s. Mr. Dyess explained this" ill allow staff. Plannin g
Commi ssion. City Council. find the comm unity t o k now whut wi ll be constru cted and
what ii wil l look like when I here is a zoning change . Mrs. Bryanl asked i r Lhi s
requirement will unly appl y for pruperties rc/'.o ning from residential to commercial and
Mr. Dyess an swered no. it wi ll be for oll rczonmgs. Mr l'umer exprl!ssed concerns that
th i., wi ll be a deterrent fo1 • annexation . Mr l um cr and Mr Robinson quest ioned the
requi rement thul ul l major ~uh di vi:,;i on s will lrnvc to go tluoug h Lhe C ity Council. Mr.
Dyess stated this requirement would 011 11 be for subd ivisions r~qucsting a zoning change .
Mrs. Rryanl said it seem s th e purpose is to eliminate detail and cxpt't1l)e a1 tht ht:gi,ming
but the ~ubrnitt al req uirement s still rn nntlat c Ful l architectllral drawings, Mr. Dyess
exp lained then! [c:; an accompanying alllet1d mcn L coming m.:XL monlh with additiona l pre -
application procedures . Mrs . Hryant s uggested also allowing some ll e:-.ibiliL) for
changes . Mr. Peterson as k.cd lhe difference between a P LID nnd thi s site plan review.
Mr. Dyess stntt::d PUD s allow l'or ne. ibility and wa ivers to the regul a ti ons and a si lt: pl an
docs no l a l low any deviations from tht: regulations. Mrs. MacKellar asked i r there will
be a sun set clause for site pla11s and { r. Dyess responded ye s, a I year expirnti o n wi th
possible e>.ie nsio n granted hy the C ity Co un ci l. Mr. Dya s asked if siLe plan expirl:!S
wnuld lhe zonin g re vert lo Lh e previous zo ning, and Mr . Dyess sta ted th at cuu lll bt:: one
possibi l ity or the 1oning could remain but a new site plan \-\Ould have to be appro ved.
Mrs. Mac Kellar s1ated she liked the e;..pimt ion clause and said we n.ced lo be prepared 101
th e effects of our decisions . Mr. Tu11h::r stated hr lik es th e propo sed amendment anu
think s it wi ll help with Greeno R oad .
S D 17.25 Publi r hea ring l o t:0nsickr th e request uf Snwgra~s Consultin g, LL C for f in a l pint
approval of Pin ewoo d S ul>di vis iuo , a 7-lot di vision , T o m Cnrn gcl'. T he property is loca ted
on the so uth side of Manl ey Road bet\\Ccn Sadd lcwood Subdivisio n anc.l the Fairhope .\il.unicipal
Soccer Com pie-.. Ms . Milford gave the staff report saying the property is a pproximately 9.7
ac re s and 7 lots are proposed. The prope rt y is unzoned in Baldwin Co unty bul is sutTouncl ed by
City or Fairhope R-1 S ing le Fam il y Residential Di strict 1,o ned pro p~rt y. Staff recommendation
is to approve with the followi ng condit ions:
2
0 ctnbcr 2. 2017
1,1anning Commission Mrnutcs
l. The applicanl shall install th e water service for the lots racing Man ley Road.
2. Approval of U1 c 10 ' right-of-way dedication by City of Fairhope City Council.
J . The applicant shal l s ubmit G IS As -bu ills lor final approval by the City or Fairhope Water
Deprutment when comp le ted.
Mrs. Mi l ford stated the C ity Counci l has already accepted the 1 O' right-of-way dedication
and that conditi o n can be removed.
Mr. Tw·ncr opened the public hearing. Having no ()llC presen t lo speak, Mr . Turner
closed the public hear in g.
i\lr-,. MacKc lb r a-'>kc d wh.11 wil l lie doni.: w1 lh Lut 7 :.U1J M1 lirangcw·..:~p.uudt:d nothin g
a t tb[:, time. 1 k nalcd the upplicatll is l:Ollll'mpla ting ::i Plw.st: 'bul not hi ng ha:-hecn Jone
,;n fo 1 Dr. T haye r asked i r the soccer complex can handle the drainage and Mrs. Mi I ford
stated there is a letter from the eng in eer of record for the soccer t:omplex ver ifyin g the
drainage fac il ities are sufficient. Mr Dyas aske d i f Lot s 1-6 wil l i.:ul', ha,e u d ri veway
1)ntn Ma nley Road and Mr. Grange.r responded ye ".
A.11 Dyas made a motion to accept the stal T recomm e ndati on to approve with th e fo llowin g
conditions:
I . The applicant shall install the water service for the lots racing Manley Road.
2. The applicant shall submit GIS As-buills for final approval by the City of fairhope Water
Department when comp lc led .
Ra lph Th aye r 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
SD 17.26 l'ublic hearing to consider th e request of Dewberry/Preble-Rish, LLC for
plat approval of Main Street at Montrose, a 3-lot minor subdivision, Ste.ye
Pumpl1rey, The property ts located on the easl side or main Street between Ledyard
Street and Ecor Dechene. Mr. Dyess gave the s taff report sayi11g the property is
approxirnaLely 2.55 acres and is the first phase of the Montrose Preserve PUD . Staff
reconunendation is to approve with th e fo ll owing cond ition s:
1 Make corrections to the preliminary/lfoal plat certificate bl ocks to reflect The
Uti li ties Board of th e City of Daphne (Daphne Utilities) as the drinking waler
provider to the subjed property .
2. Make co rrections to the preliminary/final plat certifi cate blocks to reflect Riviera
Uti li ties as the elec trical provider to lh c subject property.
3. Finished 1:!oo r Elevations shall be reflected on the plat prior to recording.
4 Submission under separate cover and appro val of a fu-e flow model for the subject
propetiy is a condition of approva l. lndicatc the location of the nearest fire
hydrant on the plat prior to recording .
5. Make corrections lo the prelimi.nary/final plat to re tlect 15' drain age and utility
easemen ts as requi red by C ity nf Fail'hope S11bdivisiu11 Neg11/litio11s ,~rticle V,
Section E.5.a.
Mr. Dyas stated only condition number 4 is still outstanding at th is time . Mr. Dyas asked
for some detail s of the PlJD since most of the Commissioners are new . Mr . Turner stated
the app li cants worked with staff and the residents of Montrose to cume up with a plan
that everyone was happy with. l le added the applicant designed the project to keep the
exist ing trees and nol tie into the nanow streets in Montrose. Mr. Dya s asked if th is is
the entire proj ect and Mr. Dyes s respo nded no , th e overall project is much larger. Mrs ,
Bryant questioned the drainage on th e rear oCthe lots and Mr. Pu1nplu·ey responded the
drainage area is not on the lots but behind them. Mr. Dy as asked if the PUD is
completely residential and Mr. Pttmphrey responded yes. Dr. Tha yer asked about th e
J
OCI0ber 2, 21,) 17
Plunnini: Co mmission Minute•
conserva tion easeme nt and Mr. Pumphrey stated nothing has bee n done with it to date but
it will be includ ed with an additional phase f'lhe project.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing . l lavin g no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
c lo se d tb e public hearing.
Mr . MacKcl\ar thanked the applicant for working with the residents lo d esign a projec
they were all suppo tl ivi.: of.
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to ai.:cepl the staff recommendation to approve with the
following condition :
1, Submission under separat~ over and approval of a fire flow m,(1del for the subject
property is a condition of approva l. fndic ate Lhe location of the nea r st fire
bydran l on the plat prior to recording.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motio n carried unanim usly.
Old/New Busines •
Mr . Dyes~ introduced Richard Johnson us the new I ublic Works Di.rector. [ r. Thayer
s tated half of tbe complaint the 'ommi sion hears a.re about drainage. Mr. Johnson said
he is I oking forward lo working with th e nunission and staff to he lp lhi;: fix the
drainage issues not just move th em armmd.
By-Laws Discussion -Art Oya -Mr. Dyas ex.plained he would !Lke to propose an
amendment to lhe Pl anning om1nission's By -Laws regarding outside communication
and Lranspanmcy , He 1,lated it wi ll provide guideline for th e Commission to disclose
whether th ere has been any outside communica tion to allow for eve ryone to be privy l
the sa me infonnati on prior to the case being heard, He added it will al low
Comm is . iom:rs a "way out' wh n they are approached outside of meet in gs . Mr. Peterson
asked h wi t will aff ct hirn in regard to work in g with th e utilities and Mr . Dyess
exp lai ned he will ju st disc lo e anything at Lbe meeling. Mr . Tu111er , lr . Robinson and
Mrs . Bryant ag reed lhis is something that i:, need ed and were in favor of th e amendmcnL
Having no furt her busin ·ss, Art Dyas made a ntolion to adjourn. Ralph 'l hayer 2nd lhe
motion and the motion can·i d unanimously . Th · meeting was adjou rn ed at 6:43 PM.
Le e Turner, Cha irmah Emily Boyett, Secre ta ry
May 7. 2018
Pla nning Conim ts~ion Mir111ll!..,
The Planning Comm ission met Monday, May 7 , 2 018 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal
Comp lex, 16 1 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee TLU11er, Chairperson; Rebecca 13 ryant: Charles Johnson; Richard Peterson;
Ralph Thaye r; Hollie MacKellar; T im Simmonds; Jay Rob in son; Wayne Dyess, Pla1111.ing
Director; Buford King, Plann er; Na11cy Milford, Platmer; Emi ly Boyett, Secretary; and
Ken Watson , City /\ltorney
/\bsenl: Art Dyas
Chairman T urner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
Mr. Turn er aimounceu the PUD amendment for Ohl Battles Vill age has been withdrawn
by th e app licant and wou ld not be heard .
Mr. Turner sla ted lbe applicants of cases SD 18.19 New Bank and Retail -Ecor Rouge
and SD 18 .2 0 EcOi' Rouge Condo have requested the cases be tab led.
SD 18 .19 Public hcal'ing to consid e r the re quest of UMR, LLC for Mu ltiple
Occupancy Project' approva l of a New Bank and Retail -Ecor Ro uge, a 6-un it
project, Robe rt C ummings. The property is locat~d on lbe west side of Greeno Road
between Edwards Av~nue and Fairhope Avenue. Tim Lawley was present 011 behalf of
the appli cation and requested the applicant be tabled and the 30-d ay requirement be
waived.
Ralph Thayer made a moti on lo table the request and waive the 30-day requirement.
C har les Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the follow ing
vote; A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer. Lee Tu rner, Hollie
MacKellar, Tim Simmonds, Richard Peterson. and Jay Robinson. NAY -none .
SD 18,2 0 Public hcal'ing to co ns ider the reques t of UMR, LLC for plat approval of
Eco r Rouge Con do, a 6 -unit con dominium development, Robert C ummings. The
property is located on lhc west side of Greeno Road between Edwards /\ venue and
l:a irhopc /\ venue. Tim Lawley was present on beha lf or the app li cant and reques ted the
app li catio n be tabled and the 30-day requirement be waived.
Ra lph Thaye r made u mo ti on to Labl.e the request and waive the 30-day requ irement.
Rebecca Bryant 211d the mot ion and th e mo tion carried unanimously wilh tht: fo llowing
vote: A YI::'. -Rebecca Bryant, Charles JCll 111son, Ralph Thayer, Lee Tutner, Hollie
MacKellar, Tim Simmonds, Richard Peterso11, and Jay Robinson. NAY none.
S D 18.14 Public hearing to con sider the reques t of Dewb err y Engineer s, In c. for
Preliminary plat a ppro va l of Anth e m Oaks, a 9-lot s ubdivis ion , Steven Pumphrey.
The property is located a l lbc. sou theast corn e r of the intersect ion of Coun ly Road 32 and
Mandre ll Lane. Ms . Mi l ford gave the staff report sayi ng the subject si te is approximately
30.07 acres of unzo11eu Baldw in County land with 9 lots proposed. Staff recommends
approv al conti ngent upon the following conditjons:
1) The npp licant shall provide the req uired data as specified in the C ity of Fairhope
Regu lati on s Article IV Sectio n C Iii, Traffic Data a 11d Traj]7c Study .
May 7.1018
Pln1111ing C0111111i 1tm M111111 c
The engineer 's con dition s for adequate fire n w hall be noted on the p !al, Lmless
otherwise de termined by th e DirectQr or Operations, Richard Peterson, PE,
3 Ul ili ty availability (ut ility letters) shal l be acknowledged by the Director c f
Operation .
4 The applicant sha ll inc lude lot 9 in the drainage plan and pr vide dra in age
ca lcu lat ions to su pport the ca c for no storn1 water detention/LllJ to meet the
approva l of the i ty of Fairhope Public Work:,; Diret:tor Mr. Ri ·hard Jolrnson,
Pt"..
5) The applicant sha ll provide la.r ification on this being a phased dcv lopment. lf
thLs is a phase d devel pmenl then phase l inc s shall be shown.
6 The applit:an t shall show lhe requc l or waiver meet s one or the waiver s tandard s
or th e app li cant shall s how docurnentati n r·rom the Baldwin 'ounty (owne r of
th right-or-way) that s idewalk would not be allowed in tbi ri ght fway and the
Planning Commission grants the waiver.
7) Tbc applicant sha ll revis th e drainage, bmp, and other construction drawing to
i11clude the 9111 lot wl1icb has bce11 added l Lhe subdivision plats ther e i •
consistency between clo<.:uments .
Mr. Pumphrey stated mosl of the conditions have been addressed. l-lenoted si dewa l ks
are no1 req uir ed by Baldwin County.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing . I la ving no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing ,
Mr . Tu mer sai<l l1e is co ncern ed with the lack or sidewalks and wants lo see them built al
the tim of construction . ! le asked irthere is right -f-way available f r sidewalks and
Mr. Pumphrey resp ncled th ere should b a.long ounty l{oacl 32, but he i not sure about
Mandre ll Lane. Mr ,. 81 yanl expressed c01,ceros with the uumcrous condi tion s and
would like t see them a ldrcs es prior to the m eting . She also asked if the sidewalk
waiver meets the requirements or not and Mr . Dyess responded tnat is for the
ommiss i n to decide. Richard J l1nson Public Works Directo r, a<.ldres;;eu th e
omrnission say ing Ll1e impervious ar a will barely he I 0% [OJ these siL.e lot s. He
suggested a 1 0' sidewa lk ea emcn t be pla ced a long the front of the lots lo allow
sidewalks to be con.structed even if there is not enough right-or-way . Ile also 11 led any
re-subdivision will require the drainage lob~ re -e valuated.
R becca Bryant mad a rnot ion lo accept the staff recommcndntion fen approv.a l
contingent upon tne following conditions ;
I) The applicant shal l provide the req uired data as specified in the City or Fairhop e
Regulations Articl e l Sect iou C 1 I, Ti'afji c Data nm/ Traffic Strc dy.
2) The engineer's condition s for adequate fir now sh al l be noted on th e plat , unle ss
otherwise determined by he Director of Operations Richard P lerson, PE.
3) Ut ility availability (uti l ity lette r ·) sha ll be acknowledged by the Director or
Operat ions.
4) The applicant shall include lot 9 in the drainage p lan and prov ide drainage
calcu l ations Lo suppo rt lhc case ~ r no st01m v ater detention/LTD, lo meet the
approval of the ity of Fa irhope Public Work s Director. Mr , Richard Johnson ,
PE.
5 Th applicant shall pro ide lariiication on thi s being a pha sed development. 1
this is a phased developme n t th en phase lines sh all be shown ,
6) A 1 0' sid walk easement shall be required alo ng the Fron l or all lot s.
2
Mny 7, 201~
Plonniui; C'onunl ~~1on ,\il111lllc~
7) The applicant shall revise the drainage, bmp , and o ther construction draw i ngs to
include the 9111 lot which has been added to tbe su bdivision plat so there is
consistency between documents.
Ralph Thaye r 2nd the mot ion and th e motion carried unanjmous ly wi th lhe fo ll owing
vute: A YE -Rebecca Bryant, Cha rl es Jolm son, Ralph Thayer, Le e Turner, I lol li e
MucKcllar, Tim Simmonds, Ri chtu·d Peters on, and Jay Robinson. NI\ Y none.
S D 18.15 Publi c hea ri ng to cons id er the req uest o f Dewberry E ngi nee rs, ln c. for
Preli mi na ry pl at a pp rov al of Ph ase S of Gree nbri a r at Firctbo rne i a JO-lot
s ubdivis ion, S l cvcn P umphrey. The property is located oo the west side of Quail Creek
Estates, The Villas. Ms. Mil fo rd gave the staff report saying the subjecl property is
approximately 13.90 acre s and 30 lots arc propo sed . Staff recommends ll pprova l
co ntin gen t upon the follow in g cond itions :
L Fire ["low and utiliti es sha ll meet th e approval of'the Director of Operations .
2 Utili ty avai lab ility shall be acknow led ged by the Director of Operat ions.
3. Easements sha ll be as per the City o r l ·'a irhope Regulation s as per the C ity of Fairhop e
Subdivision Regulation s Art icle V Sec ti on D 5. Utilit vAccess and Easemen ts.
4. T he lo t number correctio ns shall be revised throug hout th e construction drawings .
5. BMP plan shall re0ect the minimu n1 requirements (Type A si lt fence and construction
exit). Thes e requi1·ements shall be rel1ected on sheet C-2,
fv1r , Pump lu·ey addressed th e Commission saying he is aware of th e conditions and has
made the requested changes.
Mr , Turner opened the publie hearing. Having 110 one present to speak. Mr. T urn er
c.losed the pub lie hearing,
Mrs . Bryant asked how many developm ents are slill undeveloped that wen:: approved
prior to the LID require men ts and Mr. Dye s::. responded he is not sure, Dr. T hayer asked
if a signal wi ll be in stnllcd at the entrance on St. Hwy. 181 and Mr. Pumplu-ey responded
it is not required at this tim e. lle explain ed the trartic study wi ll be re-evahiate d when Lhc
139111 hou se is completed.
Ralph Thayer made a moti on to acoepl the staff recommendation for approval contingent
up on the following conclilioru;:
l . Fire J?luw an d utilities sha ll meet the approva l of the Director of Operations.
2. Ut ili ty ava il abi lity s ha ll be acknowledged by th e Director or Operations.
3. Easements shall be as per tbe City or r airhope Reg ulations as per the City of Fairhope
Subdi vis ion Regulation:; Article V Section D 5. Utilin1 Access and Ease me ms.
4. T be lot number corrections shal l be revised throu ghout the construct.io □ drawings.
5. l1MP plan shall reflect tht: mh1imum requiremen ts (Type A si lt le nce and constructi on
exit). These Jequirern cnt s shall be reflected on sheet C-2.
Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and th e motion carr ied unanimously with th e ro llowing
vote; A YE-Rebecca Bryant , Char les Jobnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Ho ll.i e
MacKellar, Ti m Simmonds, Richard Peterson, and Jay Robinson. ).IA Y -·non e .
SD 18.16 Publi c hearing to co ns id er th e req ues t of Dew berry E ugincCJ·s, inc. for
Preli mi nary plal a pprova l of Phase 6 of Go ld en Oak at Firc thornti, a 26 -lo t
s ubdivision, S lcvc n Pu mphrey. The prope rty is located on the west side of Quail Creek
Estates, The Vil las. Ms. Milford gave the staff rep ort sayin g the su bj ect pro per ly is
3
May 7, 2018
Planning C(l mmission Minute,
apprnximately 12.68 acres and 26 lots arc proposed . Staff recommends approva l
contingent upon the fol lowing c0nclitions:
l. Fu.-e Flow and utilities shall inect the approval of the Director of Operations.
2. Ut ility availabil ity sha ll be acknow ledged by lh~ Director of Operation.:;.
3. Ea~ements shal l be as per the City of Fairhope Regula ti ons as per the City of Fairhope
Subd ivision Regu lat ions Article V Section D 5. Utility Access and Easements.
Mr. Pumphrey addressed the Commission saying he is aware of the cond itions and ha s
made the requested changes. He said the berm al.ong Quail Creek Drive has also heen
completed.
Mr. Turner opened Lhe public hear ing. llavin g no one present Lu speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Bryant asked how we know the number or houses complcte<l and Richard Johmon
responded lh e 139th house is in Phase 4 and the Building Dept . is track in g the ce rtifiea(es
of 00<.:Ltpancy. He explained the trigger wil I on.ly req LLire the traffic to be re-evaluated but
/\ !,DOT co ul d st i 11 deny the s ignal being insta ll ed and wail until the 4-lanc is
eonstn1ctecl. Mrs. MacKellar asked if the ADEM registrati on has bec11 rece ived and Ms.
Mi l ford answered yes.
Rebecca Bryant made a motion Lo accept Lhc staff recommendati on for appro val
conti.ngent upon the following cond iLion.s:
I . Fin: Flow and ut il it ies shall meet the approval of the Director of Operations.
2. Utility availabi lity shall be acknowledged by th e Dire ctor of Operations.
J . Easements s hall be as per the City of' 11airhope Regulations as per the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Re gulation s Article V Section D 5. U1ilitv llc:cess and },'asemen/s.
Ralph Thayer 2 nd the mot ion and the motion carr ied utianimously with the following
vote: t\ YE Reb ecca 8ryant, Charles Jo hnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie
Mac.:Kellar, Tim Simmonds, Ri cha rd Peterson, and Jay Robin so n. N/\ Y none .
SD 18. 17 Public hearin g to con sider th e reques t of Dewberry Eng ineers, In c. for
Prel iminary plat a ppro va l of The Village at F ircthornc, a 20-lot s ubd ivision, Steven
Pumph rey . L'he property is located at the soutJ1 end or [lem lock Drive and on the west
side of Quail Creek Estates, The V illas , Mr. King gave the staff report sayin g U1e subject
property is ap prox im ately 6.27 acres consisting ofJ.19 un.i ts per acre when divided into
20 lots. Subj ect application is a new phase of the larger Firctborne PUD, and approva1 of
The Village at rircthornc sha ll be condit ional upon the annexation i.nto the City of
Fairhope as a PUD. S taff re co mmend s ap proval contingent upon U1e fo ll owing
conditions:
.I) Cily Co un c il aprroval or case number LC 18.03, co nditional annexation a.nd
rezoning lo PUD of su bject property
a. The Pl anning Comm issio11 is auvised the number of lot s in case ZC 18 .03
was original ly 23, but has been reduced to 20 lo a1.:com.modate the size of
th e wet pond retention area.
2) Prior to land di sturb ance, s11b111i ssio11 of "will serve" lcllers for water and sewer
util ities as required by Art icle IV , Sedion C. l .b.(8).
Mr. Pumphrey was present tu answer any questions.
Mr. Turne r opened the public hearing . 1Jav Ln g no one prese nt to speak, Mr. 1~u111er
closed the public hearing.
4
.iy 7, 2UI S
r1 ann 111g c mni 1ss 11 n tv li 1111t~i
Richard Pete r so n mad e a motion lo acce pt the s taff reco mmendation [or approval
c ontin gen t upon th e roll wing c ndi ti ns:
I) 'ily Cou ncil approval of case nuinber ZC 18 .0 \ condi tiona l annexation am.I
rezo nin g to PUD of subject prope rt y
u. he Pl anning Com1nission is advi se d lh c number of lots in case Z 18.03
wa orig in all y 23, hut hH s been redut:e d Lo 20 Lo accommoda te th e s ize or
lh wot pond r eien tion area .
2) ri or to land d ist mb a nc e, su b mi ion f ''will set·ve'' letters or waler and sewer
utiliti es RS r eq uired by Article TV, ecti on . I .b.(8).
lloll ie MacK ell ar 2nd th e motion and the mot.io n car rie una.oim ousJy wit h the foll wing
vole: /\ YE Rebec a Br ya nt , ha rl es Joh n on Ralph Tha yer, Lee urn er Holli e
Ma cKe ll ar, T im Simmond , Ric hard Pet erson , and J ay Ro bin son. NAY -none ,
Z 18.02 Public hearing to consider the requc t of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC to stablish
initial zoning or PUD (Planned Unit Dcvclopmc11t) conditional upon annexation into the
City of Fairhope for property to be lu1own a Twin .8cecb E talcs PUD, Ercil Godwin. The
prop erl y is located on th e n rlb ·idc of OL 1nty Ro ad 44 (a .k.a. Twin Deec h Road) just we t of SL
Hwy. 18 1. Mr. King gave the sl <1ff report sayi ng the appli ca nt is seek in g concurrent annexation
an d rezo nin g or eigbt par ce ls comp ri si ng appr xi.malely 22.6 acre from un ✓.-.one <l B aldwin
Cou nt y lo the ity o[ Fairhope as a Planned Unit Development (P JD) for a future subdivision or
72 sing le fa mil y reside nti al lots. llc stated the a pp lica nt hr1s worked with taff to redesign the
si te to meet the City 's n.:.qu c.s l and fit wit h the s urroundin g de ns ity. S taff reco mm en ds the
reques ted <.:anclitional a111 1ex.a Lion to Plan ne d Uni t Development PUD) be a ppro cd and
lorwurded to th e it y C uncil for consideration. Mr. Godw in w a J resent to Rn ·we r any
qll cstions. Mr. ' urner requ ested a s idewa lk easeme nt b I laced along Tw111 Beech Roa<l anJ Mr.
God1,; in agree d lo Lh . reque t. Dt·. Thayt:r \ as concerned with th e us h.1ln ess of the gree nspace
in the middl e of \h e dev loµm en l. Mr . MacKcllar asked ho w the adjace nt bee farm will be
protec ted and Mr. IUng responded th ere is a bu ffer along the west si de of Lb c si te between tb c
two properti es. Mr s , Br yan t a. ked the diffcrem:e in th e c urr en t al l wable densi ty and th e
propo se d and l'vlr. Dyess res ponde d the propo sal i in li i1c wil11 R-2 zoning . He explained th e s it e
is not far from th e vil lage ceuter al Tf wy . l 81 and Fairh ope Avenue and i ' within th spJ1 er ol'
inrtu ence soil i~ not --om plclcly o ut of ·b arac ter with th e Com preh ens iv e Pla n. Nlr. King stated
R-1 wou ld all ow 65 lots. l'vlr. Peter o n aske d why the r equ est is for a PUD and not R-2 . Mr .
I yess slat ed the lot s a re U1r ee differ e nt sizes and h as a un iqu e d es ign.
Mr . T1.1mcJ open d th e pub l ic h ear i_ng. r Iaving no one pr esent to speak, Mr. Tu mer
c losed th e pLtbli c hear in g.
Mrs. I3t'yant stated she thin.ks th e plan is more inle resting with th e pro posed design i111d
Mr. Turner agre ed.
Ric har d P terson made a motion to accept th e staff re co nun e ndation to approve the
r quested conditiona l annexatio n to Pl ann ed njt Deve lopment (PUD) and be forwarded
lo th 'ity Cou ncil for consideration . Ralph Thay~r 2nd the moLion and th e motion
carried with th followin g vote: A YE Rchccc a Bryant , harlcs Johnson , Ralph Thaye r,
Lee Turner l lolli e MacKella r, l'im i111inon ds, and Rich ard Peterson. NAY -none .
ABSTAIN -Jay Robin so n.
ZC 18.05 .Public hearing to consid(•1 · the request of Sawgrnss Consultiag, LLC to
establish. initi al zoning of R-2 Medium Uensity Single Family Res id coti:il District
5
May 7, 2018
Plan11111 g r1,111miss10n lvlin11tcs
cond ition al upou a nn exatio n in to th e C ity o f Fairh ope for proper ty t o b e l<n own a s
Pin ewoo d , Ph ase 2, E rcil Godwi n. The property is located on the south side of Manley
Road between Saddlewood Subdivision and the City of rairhope Soccer Complex. Ms.
Milford gave the staff report saying the applicant is seeking conditional annexation and
rezoning of approximately 7.42 acres from unzoned Baldwin County to a R-2. The
applicant is proposing simultaneous applications incl uding concurrent annexation into the
City of Pairhope. rezoning to R-2 and subdivision into 18 lots. R-2 zoning al lows for a
37% lot coverage for the principle strncture wi1h a 30-foot building height. The applicant
is proposing R-2 sized lots ( I 0,500 sq. Ii.) which is consistent with the surrounding
developments of ~outhlancl Subdivision and Saddlcwood Subdivision. Staff supports the
proposed density for R-2 due to the consistency of lhe prestnce of R-2 sized lots in the
sun-ounding developments. the presence of residential units being proposed in close
relation to the existing recreational soccer field and lo the fact that the area is prima1·i\y
residcntiaJ. Staff recommends the requested conditional a1u1exation lo R-2 Medium
Density Single Family Residential Di strict be approved. Mr. f)yess stated the su bject
properly is sunounded by R-2 size lots. He noted staff has received comments regarding
the existing tranic issues along Manley Roat! but explained the access is existing. Dr.
Thayer asked ii' uli 1 ity vehic les can access the lots and gel back out ns designed anc\
Rjchard Jolu1 son, Public Works Director. answered a hammerhead is required for turn-
arounds and will meet the City's standards. Mr. Godwin explained the request is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and fits in the area . He sa id the st u b-out
was provided with the development or Saddlewood Subdivision for future connection.
rTe stated there is no other access point for this project. Mrs. MacKcllar questioned the
location and accessibility of the greenspace. Mr. Godwin stated there are pedest rian
access po ints for accessibility and they are over the required percentage of greenspacc.
Mr. rumer opened the pu Qli c hearing.
fah,anl JJck !)On uf l06 Open [ iddDcih! I k ·ti<l thi.: tmffi~· nn I',.lmik) Road already
hin d,-; th' .en trances to Sa~lJkwooJ and lllOrc homi.:s will only mid Lo th1.: erobkm I le
also tatc 1Le_o11ccrns \\ilh Jrarnage.
Ed Bi shop ul L2J O pl:!11 I u,:.lll Dri, • I k rdtcrat.:d concern"\\ ith traffic and drnimrge.
He sai d Mank) R.o..i.J 11ce<l!> impro, .;mcnls for schou.l traffic .
Gnry nnd BrcuJ.a Dil!S.i.:ntlull o f2-r~ Sik, ClOp The • slatl.!<l cvnce1 ns with t:mr!it-and
as\...c J ir the cu111 mon area \\ill be shu.n;J U\!lwc~n tht: twu ~ulxli\'i s ion:s auJ ~11. l umc1
re -.ponded no .
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public bearing.
Mrs. MacKellar asked what was approved with Phase I and Mr. Godwin staled il was
just the 6 lots along Man ley Road. Mr . Godwin said the traf'Iic issues on Manley Road
are not part of the proposed project. Mr. Turner noted the site is currenlly unzoned and
anything eoul<l be put tberc now. He said il is not perfect but better 10 zone il R-2 and
have some control over the use. Ntrs . MacKc ll ar asked if there was a lraflic study and
Mr . Godwin responded the si te does not meet the requirements to man<late a traffic study.
Mr. Peterson suggested the school n~eds the trnflic study and Mr. Dyess explained t he
issue with the carline is not unique and is a problem wi th eve ry sch oo l. Mrs. MacKellar
said she is concerned with the location of the grccnspa{:e and Mr. Godwin stated it i s not
ideal, but il meets the City"s requirements.
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to accept the staff recommenda1ion lo APPROVE the
requested conditional anm:xati.o n Lo R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential
6
1 1u y 7, 201 k
l'la1111111 g Conirni ss m11 M111u1 ~s
District. Ralph T hayer "-11d the motion a11d the 11,1otion carried with th e fol lowing vote:
A YE -Rebecca Bryanl, Charles Johns 11, Lee Turner. Ho lli e MacKellar, Richard
Peterson , and Tim Simmond . N/\. Y -Ralph Thay r. /\.BSTENTION -Jay Robinson .
SD 18.18 Public hen ring to consider the reque st f Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for
Preliminary Plat approval of Pinewood, Phase 2 1 an 18-lot subdivisfon, Ercil
Godwin. The property is lo ated on the south side of Manley Road between Saddl ew od
ubdivision and the 'ity of Fairhope Soccer Complex. Ms . Milford gave the staff report
say in g lhe subject property is approximately 7.42 acres and 18 lots are proposed . The
app li cant ls proposing simultaneous applications including concurrent annexation inlo the
City of rairhope, rezonin g to R-2 and subdivision into 18 l ots. The original Pinewood
Subdiv is ion Phase 1 is located to the north of the subject properly and consist of 6 lots
fron ting on Manley Road which are unzonecl and a 711, remnant parcel wh i ch is rnrnmtly
being prop osed as Pinewood Phase 2. Staff recommends approval contingent upon the
fo llowing conditions:
1) E ngineer's response letter shall have standard letter formatting so Lhat at a
minimum the 'ity Planning Depa:itment can tell when the Letter was sent, who it
was addressed Lo and from whom it was sent.
2) T t1m aro tods-and associated easements shall meet th approval of the Mr. Richard
Johnson, PE, City of Fairhope Pub lii.: Works Director.
3) Pedestrian landings shall meet the approva l of Erik Cortinas Building Official.
4) Tbe applicant shaJl revise the erosion contro l plan lo include location of
construction exit, in the legend and list it under phase l activities. Also th e
app li cant sha ll provide the NOI and the ADEM registration number.
5) F ir e "low shall meet the approval of Richard Peterson PE. Operation s D irector.
6) The approval of th e Pinewood, Phase 2 zoning reque s t by ity of airhope rty
ouncil.
7) Adequate a cess to the lift station shall be provided .
8) S idewalks shall be installed prior to final plat approval.
Mr. P~terson asked if there is access L the Ii ft station and Mr. odwi.J1 staled they are
reworking the ut i lity dcsig11 to meel the gravity sewer reqL1irements and instal l the lift
station . Mr. Simmonds asked if U1e turn-around can accommodate a schoo l bus and Mr.
Godwin responded yes. Mr. Johnson stated the school traffic wi ll require the Board of
Education to help redesign the stacking queue . Mrs. Bryant asked what is common area
versus detention and Mr. Godwin e ·plained tl1ere is approximately one acre of
greenspace . Mr. Turner asked if the detention wi l l be u able grccnspace and Mr. Godwin
responded yes , most of the time it will be usabJe area. Mr. Dyess stated the regulations
only requi re 10% of greenspace but there is no cr iteria for the specific use. He said staff
can lo ok at changing lhe regulation to h ave clea1· guidance. Mrs . Bryant 'uggested
grccnspacc b e a li gned to the street for public exposure and Mr. Dyess said the applieai,t
could make the case tbe proposed design meets that crite ri a.
Mr. T urner o p ened Lhe public heari11 g .
.Dill P tz o • 2 7 Silo Loo p -lk said traffic is a major 1.:oncern a _ vt:11 c1 _ fe ty wit h
only u L l> al:-~es-s for the::.~ 18 l l .
Ed w[lrd J ack · a , l 06 O pen Fi IL !)r iv ' ·aid lhl-' wak:r from thest:' 7 acr . d ra in
the: Joi · in Saddkwood a nd the. Jevdopcr h as alreacly haJ lo in ·ta ll a bq • J.ra in. J e sai d
t h i ~ i , _ ub di i siu11 in a su.b<l i vi ti ion and it is no t cont-ribut i:ng to th e PO or 111ai n.tcnaf1c e
7
May 7, 2018
Planning Com1111 srnin !v1111mc~
of tbe entrance. Mr. Johnson explained the water ror this site will be d irected to Lhe east
and will help the drainage for Saddlewoucl.
Having no one else present to speak , Mr. Turner closed the puhl ic hearing.
Mrs. Bryant stated an additional access to Manley Road could be achieved via Lot 6 in
Phase I and Mr. Godw in stated there is a home constrncted on Lot 6. Mr. r uruer said he
wou ld like to see a secn nd access fo r sa lely and l\fr God\i\111 cxplaine<l ·1 second access
point is not req uired fo • 18 lots
Ra lph Thayer made a motion to acccpl lhe staff recommendation to APPROVE
conti ngent upon the following conditions:
I) Engineer's response letter shal I have standard letter fonnatling so that at a
mit1i.mum the City Planning Department can tell when the let1er was sent, who it
was addressed to and from whom it was sent,
2) Turnarounds and associated easements shall meet the approval of the Mr. Richard
Johnson, PE, City of Fairhope Public Works Director.
3) Pedestrian landings shall meet the approva l of Eri k Cortinas, Building Official.
4) The applicm1t shall revise the erosion control plan lo include location of
construction exit, in the legend and Ust it under phase I activities. Also, the
applicant sh all provide the NOI and the ADEM registration number.
5) Fire Flow shall meet the approval of Richard Peterson, PE. Operations Director.
6) The approval of the Pinewood , Phase 2 zoning request by City of Fairhope City
Co uncil.
7) Adequate access to the lift station shall be provided,
8) Sidewallcs sha ll be installed prior to fu1al plat approval.
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion and the motion fa iled with lhe following vote: A YE -
Lee Turner , R ichard Peterson, alld Tim Si1nmond s. NAY -Rebecca Bryant, Charle!:.
Jolrnson, Ralph Thayer, Hollie MacKellar, and Jay Robinson.
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to DENY the request based on lhe g reenspace location
not meeting the requirements to provide maximum exposure and access to the public.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE -
Rebecca Bryant , Charles Jolu,son , Ralph Thayer, Hollie MacKellar, and Jay Robinson .
NAY -Lee Turner, Richard Peterson, and Tiin Simmonds.
8 0 J 8.2 1 Pu b lic be a r in g to c onsid e r th e r equest of llMR, LLC for M ultip le
O ccupa ncy Proj ec t ap prova l of O ld Battles Place, Phase 2, a 95-unit pro jec t, T im
Lawley . The property is located on the 11011heast corner of the intersection of Old Battles
Road and S. Section Strcel. Mr. King gave the staff rcpo1t saying the site is
approximately 40.89 total acres and is zoned R-5 High Density Multi-f amiJy Residential
District. The subject appl ication is an MOP and does not request subdivision of lands or
the creation of new lots . Phase 1 of the developmet1t has been constructed, consist.i ng of
1 l O apa1iment homes. Phase 2 wi ll complete developmenl of Lhe site and add an
additional 95 apartment homes of simi lar con.figuration and mrangcment to Phase 1.
Staff recommends ap p rnva l of the MOP request subject to the cond itions below:
I) A pre-construction conf'ercnce will be required pr io r to land disturbance associated with
Phase 2.
a. Incidental !and distmbance associated with Phase l may continue prior to the
Phase 2 pre-construction meeting.
8
Mlly 7 2()1~
Planm11g i.:'0111111i.1~1011 M1n11tl¼
b, The sequencing of apartn1enl home construction, procedures for requests for
building inspection, and s ite stAbilization requirements for each apartment home
site wil I be dari fied during the pre-C()nstruction conference.
2) i\.cceptance of the request for waiver often (10) LID techniques and accep tance of the
use of five (5) LTD technique s as was accepted for Phase l of subject deve lopment.
3) The buildi ng uf1icial will monitor the progress oflhe construction of the apartment
homes in Phase 2. When the building official de termines approximately 75% of the
apartrne nt homes have altained certificate of occupancy, staff wi 11 conduct the following
c:loseout procedures as well as request the following c loseout documents :
o Maintcmmce Bond as required by Article IV, Si.:ction.D.l.a. for any infrastructure
lo be dedicated to the City of Fairhope.
o A fully-exe cuted and recorded copy orthe Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Plan and Agreement for ma intenance or detention faci lities and othe r storm water
quant ity and quaJjty BMP s as required by Miele IV , Seclion.D.l .b.( 17) and
Article V, Section F.J.a.(3)(a)(3).
o Digita l or video imagc(s) with date and Lim e s tamp or storm dra ins to ensure
drainage structures arc undc1ma gc d and free of debris and se diment as required by
Attiele JV , Seclion.D. I .b.(16).
o One copy or the s ile as -built drawings as well as one i.;opy of the drainage
calculations, both containihg the engineer's certi ficatc required by A1iic le IV ,
Scclinn.D.1.b.(18) ,m d Article Yi, Section H,6, 8. an d identifying the entity
responsible lbr mai 11\l.:nance of drainage fad! ili cs outside the pub lic ROW or
rubl ic easernenls.
n One copy of the landscape as-bui It drawings with a statemenl from th e land sca pe
architect of record indicat ing the various landscape features have been completed
as-desigued .
o Inspection of all other MOP-appl icable sections or Art icle IV, Sectio n D. I .b.( I)
( 18).
o Inspect ion of all other MOP-applit:able sections of Article VI, Conslr11c1ion
Standard,' and Chapter 19 of th e City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, test ing
requue111 ents.
Mr. Turner asked what recourse we have if the landscapin g is not installed as designed
and Mr. King responded our legal counsel would need to advise for rewurse. Mr. Dyess
sta ted staf-f in s pects the si t e to ensure the site is buill in accordance with the approved
construction plans.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Carol Gordon of 17861 S. Section Street She thanked Lh e Commission for the ir service
to the City. She gave a brief history of the site und said the reduction of'units per acre
was agreed to so the property would be aru1exed. She stated concerns with sto r mwater
and the L!Ds . S he asked if the in line stormwater slorage system has been cons1ructcd,
She said there is a pump in the retention pond that constantly runs and was told it would
be remuved a t the time of wmpletion and the poml re-dug . S he asked what recourse the
res idents have if' the dra inage systems fail. Mrs. Gordon said sidewal ks are needed along
Battles Road and Section Street. She referenced a tree plan dated June 23, 20 16, and said
9
Moy 7. 2018
Planning Co111m,ss100 M1ni1(.;,
trees arc being removed on the phase 2 site thal could be heritage trees. She explained
traffic is major · concern at Lhe iole;:rseelion ofBallJes Road and Section Street and there
have been multiple acc idents. She stated the property was rezoned in 2006 and it would
be reasonable for the city to have a sunset c lause.
Cl in t Martin of 201 AL water Avenue He stated concerns with environmental issues. lie
said there have been 8 or 9 incidents of' red sediment and run off from thi s sile. He said
stop work orders have not been obeyed and the County had lo replace the cu lve rt s on
Section Street because of this development.
Bonnie Gulsby of 410 Barllect Avenue She stated concerns with the landscaping and
asked who fol lows up to make s ure its completed. She said the site was comp lete ly elem·
cul and even one of the trees she planted we re removed. She noted the pond has already
been dugout once and now it is being done agai n. She said our slreets and schools are
a lready overloaded and this development will only eompound lhe problems. She said the
developer has not been a good neighbor.
Elizabe th Brodbeck of 18320 S. Seclion Street-S he sta ted she did not receive a letter.
She exp lained the proposed development is comp letely different from what was
presented when the site was rezoned. She slated the proposal has one more unit th,m is
al lowed ror 40.89 acres. She said the landscaping has not hcen fol lowed and the
stormwater is inadequate. She said tbe pond has been breached several times and needs
lo be dugout again. She questioned the third-party review and the lack of L ID s. She said
the LID waiver does not need to be continued just because il was a ll owed with phase l.
She said th e speed limit ne~ds Lo be lowered 011 Section Street and sidewalks should be
installed. She added t he site ha s had many vlola1ions and the mies need to be followed.
Having no one e lse present to speak. Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kin g responded to the comments saying the City has revised the erosion regulation s
and now each building wili have to have their own control measures . He saitl lhe
drainage system was rev iewed by a third -party, Larry Smith of S.E. C ivil Engineer in g,
LLC. Mr. l ,awlcy t,;Xplained the L!D waivers were requested due to the site's
incompatibtliLy with the avai lable lechni9ues. He stated the in -line storage has been
Insta lled and the pump is used to all ow the water to .filt rate throug h lhe site. lle explai ncd
the County requested lhe pipe he resized due to the adjacent development d ischarging to
this si te and the developer installed 4 culverts at the ir own expense . I-l e added the County
d id not want th e sidewalks installed . Mr. Turner said he would like to sec s idewalks
installed even if they arc put in an easernent on private properly. l-:le noted Phase 1 was
one or the worst environmental projects he has ever seen but ii did cause the City to
rev ise several ordinances lo prevent th is in the future. Mr. Law ley said there were eigh t
or nine 5" or more rain events in a 6 month tirnefrume . li e sa id the trees on Ph ase 1 were
planted pines and were intended to be hm-veste<l but Phase 2 has a tree prese rvation plan
which is being a dh ered to. Mr. Lawley explained there is a vege ta tive buffer along the
ri g hts-of-wny and the or igin al p lan at the time of rezoning propo sed 192 units. Mrs.
Bryant sa id this is a great site to use LTDs and lo spread tbem ou t. Mr. Lawley detailed
tJ1e LlDs being utilized on the site. Mrs . Bryant said turbid water leav in g the site is an
issue and Mr. Lawley responded lhe co lor vvas the issue, not the amount. Mr. Tmncr said
he fee ls the roads not being paved where a big part of th e issue. Mrs. M aeKe llar asked if
the in line storage is in place a nd Mr. Law ley responded yes, and the pipe was eve n
upsi7.cd to al low more storage in the pipe. Mrs. Bryant said th e LID waiver is a concern
fo r her. Mr. Turner said Lhe waiver is not because the developer doesn't want l o do Lh.em
10
Mny 7, 2018
Plan n1rig Conm1i ssion M1nvtc~
but becau se Lhc site soils are uns uitable for the remaining teclmique s. Mrs. Bryant
suggested add in g more of the L)Ds !hat are suitab le for the site. Mrs. MacKello.r asked
t1 bout having a sunset clause for %Oning changes and Mr. Dye ss staled the proposed site
plan amendments wi ll tie the zoning Lo a site plan to help with those concerns. Mr.
Peterson di sclosetl co ntact with several resi<lents in the area regarding sewer concerns.
Ile staled there are currently 5 project that liave been approved and J will affect thi s site .
He said we need to con tinue on the track of progre ss lo stay ahead of th e growth.
Ralph Thayer made a motion to cJCcept the staff recommendat ion for approvnl of the MOr
req uest 8ubject lo the conditions be low:
I) A pre-con st rudio n conference will be requrre<l prior to land disturbance a::;sociatc<l with
Phasti 2.
a. lncidental land disturbam.:c associated with Phase I may continue prior to lhc
Phase 2 pre-construction meeting.
b. The sequencing of apartment home construction, procedures for re quests for
bui ldin g inspection, anti s ite stabilization requirements for eac h apa rtment hom e
si te will be clrtrifte<l during th e pre-<.:onstrucLion conference.
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver of len (10) LID tec.:hniques and acceptance of the
use of fiv e (5) LlD techniqu e8 as was acl:epted for Phase I of subject development.
3) The hui ld in g orficial will tnonitor the progress oflhe construction of th e apartment
home::; in Pbase 2. When the building official determines approximately 75% of the
apartment hoJ11e s have attaineu cer tificate ot·uccupancy, staff wi ll conduct the following
closeout procedures as well as request the rol lowiog closeout documents:
o Maintenance l3ond as required by A rlicle 1 V, Scction.O.1.a. for any infra structure
lo be dedicated to the Ci ty ur Fairhope.
o A lully-cxecuted and recorded copy of the Operations and Mnintenam:~ (O&M)
Plan and Agreement for maintenance ofdctontion facilities and ot her storm water
quantity and qualit y BMPs as required by A11ide [V, Section.D. I .b.(17) and
/\rticle Y, 8cction F.3.a.(3)(a)(3),
o Digital or video image(s) with date and time s tamp of storm drains lo ens ure
drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as requin:cl by
Article IV, Scction.D.1.6.( 16).
o One copy of the sile as-bui It drawings as we! I as one copy of the drainage
calculations, both containing the engineer's certificate required by Anicle rv,
Section. D. l .b.( 18) and Ali icle V l, Section E.6.-8. and identifying the entity
responsible for maintenance of drainage facilities outside the public ROW or
public easements.
o One copy of the land scape as-bui It drawings with a statem en t from the landscape
architect of re co rd indicatin g the various landscape features have been compleleJ
as-designed.
o Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of' Article lV , Section D. l .b .( I)
( l 8).
o inspection ol' all o ther MOP-applicable sections of /\Jticle VI , Co nst ru ction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City o.l Fairhope Cade of Ordinan ces, te sting
requirements.
11
Mny 7, 2018
Plannin g Co m1111s~1011 Minute,
4) Sidewalks shall be in stalled on Battles Road and County Road 3 (a.k .a. Section Street).
Char les Jo hn son 211d the motion and the motion fai led with the following vole: A YE -Charles
Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner. and RichaJd Pelerson. NAY -Rebecca 8rya11t , Hollie
MacKellar, Tim Simmonds, and Jay Robinson.
Mr. Watson explain ed a statement of denial is needed and the bases of the denial so it can be
communjcatccl to the developer. Mrs. MacKel tar stated she has never voted for the project and
cited stormwater, flooding, traffic , environment, and the LID waivers as reasons she is not in
favor of it. Mrs. Bryant stated the project endangers th e health , safety , and welfare of properly
within the jurisdiction , and the UD waivers are reasons for denial.
Jay Robinson made a motion to de ny the MOP request due to concerns for the health, safety, and
welfare of properly in the planningjurisdiction, and due to traffic and storm water concerns
whic h were proven with the constrnction of Phase 1. Rchecca Rryant 2nd the motion and th e
motion carried with th e fol lowing vote: A YE --Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer,
Hollie MacKellar, Tim Simmonds , and Jay Robinson. NAY -Lee Turner and Richard Peterson.
Old I New Bu siness
P lanni ng Commission Work.sess ion -Mr. Dyess stated there will he Planning and
Community Engagement Meeting worksession follow-up on June 4, 2018 , at 3:30-4:30
PM in the Council Chambers.
Having no further business, Ralph Thayer made a motion to adjourn. Charles Johnson
2 11d the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The 111eeting was adjourned at 9:05
PM.
12
Exhibit A
Pcm1itted Exceptions
L Ta xes for th e year 2014 and sub sequent years , not yet du e and payabl e (excluding any
potcntl aJ roil back taxes that may be assessed aga·in st the Prop erty and which sh.all be paid by th e
G rantor),
2. Any prior reservation or co nveyance, to gether with release of dam ages of minera ls f
eve ry kind and harac.ter , includin g, but not li mited to , oil. gas, san d and grave l in , on and und er
subject prop erty .
J. Building setback line and draina ge and utility line ease ment~ as shown 011 the plat of
Sadd lewood Subdivision (Phase l) as recorded 011 Slide s No . 2500-E and 2500-F of sa id
subdivision.
4. Oil. gas and minera l lease by William H. Burmeister and Bonnie Burmeister lo
Am era da Hess orpornticm dated August 26, 1976 and recorded in D ee d Book 50 l page 789 ,
5. Oil 1 gai:; and 1nincral lease by William H. Burmeister and Bonni e Bum1cister to Shell
W cs tern E&P, Inc., recorded in Ren I Prop erty Book 3 8 , rage J 7 .
6. Assignment of Leas e Benefits and hange of Dep sitory Bank reco rd ed u, Real
Property Book 386 , pa ge 1825 .
7. Oil, ga~ and mineral lease by William H. Bum1eister and Bonnie Burmeislcr to
Stampede Production , LL rec orded in lnst1um ent No. 74 123 1.
, BMP Maintenance Plan and Co mmon Area Maintenan ce for Un.it Co nstruct ion and
Long Tc1m recorded as Jnstn.m1,ent o , I 442483 .
. Declarati on of Covenan ts, Condition & Rest1'idions of Sadd lewood Subdivision
recorded as lnstrumem No. l 442548, as amended by that Amended and Re sta ted Dec larati on or
C lpj~Ons, Covenants and Restri ct ions of Saddlewood Subdivisi n recorded as ln stn.unent No . J :[ '31{) , but omitting any covenant. co nditi on or res tri ct ion ba se d on race, co lor,
re l ig ion , sex, handic ap, familiar status or nati onaJ origin as provided in 42 U.S .. Section 3604
unles s and only to th e: extent that th e cov nmt (a) is not in vio lat ion of sta te-or federa l law (b) is
exem pt und er 42 U.S.C, Sec ti on 3607 or (c) relates Lo a handi l:ap but do es not disc1iminale against
handi capped people.
I 0 . City of Fair ho pe, Al abama Stonn Water Mai.nt ena nce Agreement recorded as
lnstru111ent No. 1442835 .
All rec ording refe rences contained herein are to the records of the Offtce of the Jud ge of
Probate of Baldwin County Alabam a.
4
Exhibit A
Perm itt ed Exceptions
I. Taxes for th e year 2015 and subsequen t years, not yet due a nd payab le (excluding any
potential ro ll bac.k taxes tli.tt may be assessed agai nst th e Pro perly and w hich shal l be pa id hy th e
Gran tor).
2. Any prior reservati on or conv eyance, together with re lease of da mages of minerals of
every kind and character, in cl udin g, but oot limi ted to, oi l, gas, sand and grav e l in. on and und er the
Property.
3. Bu ilding set bac k li nes and drainage and utility lin e easements as shown on the plat of
Sad dl ewood Subdivis ion (Pha se I) as recorded on Slides No. 2500-E and 2500-fi o f sa id s ubdivi sion.
4 . Oil, gas and mineral le ase by William 11. IJurmeisler and Bonnie Bu rmeister to Amerada
Hess Corpora l ion dat ed August 26, 1976 and recorded in Deed Book 50 I, page 789.
5. Oil, gas and mineral lease hy Wi lliam H. Rurmeister a nd Boonie Burmeister to She ll
Western E&P, lnc ., reco rded in Rea l Prope rty Bo ok 385 , page 375 .
6 . Assignme nt o f Lease Benefits and Ch an ge of Depository Bank reco rd ed i11 Real Pr operty
Book 386 , page 1825 .
7. Oil, gas and min e ra l lease by Wil lia m H. Burm eis ter and Bon nie Burm eiste r lo Stam pede
Productjon, LLC reco rd ed in lnstrument No. 74 123 1.
8, BMP Maintennnt:e Plan and Comm on Area Main tenance for Unil Construction and Long
Term recorded as fn strum ent No . 1442483 .
9. Declaration of Cove nants, Co nditiohs, & Rest rictions of' Saddlewood Sub division re corded
as lnstrum ent No. 144254 8, as amended by th at Amend ed and Res tated Dec laration of Conditi ons,
Cove nants and Restricti ons of Sadd lewood S1i bd ivision recorded as In strumen t No. 1453702, but
omitting any covena nt, co nditi on or resllict ion based on race, color, religion, sex, handi ca p, fam ili ar
status or national or igm as provid ed in 42 U.S.C. Section 3604, un less an d o nly to the extent that the
covenant (a) is not in vio latio n of state or fed eral law , (b) is exemptund er42 U.S .C. Secti on 3607, or (c)
re lates to a handi cap, but does not <li !ic riminate agai nst handicap pe d peop le.
10. City of Fairhope, Alabama Storm Water Mainte na nce Ag ree m ent reco rde,d as Jnsirum cni
No. 1442835.
11 . Arti c les of Incorporation of Saddl ewoo d Homeowners' Association , Jn c., reco rded as
Instru ment No. 14425 47 .
All re cording references conta ined herein are to the rec ord s of th e Offi ce of the Jud ge of
Pro bate of Ba ldwin Cou nty , Alabama.
View of site from Hwy 104 View of Culvert on property on Hwy. 104
View of slope from Hwy 104 to Subject Property
Adjacent Property Zoning: The adjacent property is zoned as fol lows:
To the North: Unzoned
To the East: Unzoned
To the West: Unzoned
To the South: Rl (Low Density Single Family Zoning District) and R-2 (Medium Density Single Family
Zoning District), along with unzoned properties.
Additionally, the currently unzoned property to the North i s a proposed project that has been
submitted to the City of Fairhope Planning Department for conditional annexation to R-2, that is being
proposed as a subdivisio n consisting of 112 lots.
The adjacent properti es zoning history is as fo llows:
5 ZC 18.09 Bi llie, LLC -October 1, 2018
Case Number Applicant Case Type Subdivision Number of Zoning I PZ Da te Recorded Plat CC Approval
Lots Date
SD -01-0 9 Harold preliminary Pecan Ridge 30 R-2 5/7/2001
Thomps o n
SD-02 -43 Geo Prelim i nary Pecan Ridge 28 R-2 10/7/2002
Survey in g Res ub mitta l
5D -99-36 Ogden Eng informal Pecan Ridge 34 9/7/1999
SD-05-28 Bassett final plat Pecan Ridge 27 R-2 6/17/2005 06/30/2005 7/25/2005
Engineers & Estates
Const.
SD-18-35 Dewbe r ry Prelimi nary North Hills 112 n/a 10/1/2018
at Fairhope
Zon ing Gas es
Development I
Ca se Num ber PC Date Name Applicant Owner Request Add ress Le ga l
zc 18.10 10/1/2018 North Hills at Dewberry North Hil ls at Conditiona l Hwy .104 PPIN: 98367
Fairhope Fa irhope, LLC annexation to R-2
Area and Dimensional Standards:
The appl icant is proposing simultaneou s appl i cations including concurrent annexation into the City of
Fairhope, rezon i ng to R-2 (Medium Density Sin g le Family District).
The R-2 se t bac ks are as fol l ows:
• 35 feet for the front,
• 35 feet for the rear,
• 10 feet on the side s,
• and 20 feet on street sid e.
R-2 Zoning allows for a 37% lot coverage for the principle structure with a 30-foot building height. The
accessory structures will comply with the R-2 zoning Requirements . Any acces sory structures must be
behind the rear building line of the principle structure, maintain 10' separation from the principle structures,
and have lot coverage of no more than 25% of the required rear yard for each lot.
The proposed area and dimension standards for the property are as follows:
Case # ZC 18-09
District M in. Lot Size M in. Lot W idth Front Rear Side Max. Lot Max. Building
Setback Setback Setback Coverage Height
R-2 10,500 sq. ft . 75 ' 35' 35' 10' 37 % 30 '
Accessory Requirements:
Dimension Setbacks la .. total lot J\lax. height Min. tructure
Front Rear ide treet side co,•crage by se paration fr om
Di tric t or u e accessory principle
structure structure
Al l other re ideutial Behind rear 5' 5' no nearer than 25% of required 30' but no tal le r IO '
districts buil ding lin e pri nciple rear yard than
of pri ncip le structure the principle
structure structure
Compatibility analysis: The Co d e of Al abama , Section 11-52-72 provi des th e following purpose for
planning and zon i ng: "designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and
6 ZC 18.09 Bi ll ie, LLC - Octobe r 1, 2018
other dangers, to promote health and the general welfare, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent
the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population, and to facilitate the adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements". (Acts 1935,
No. 533, p. 1121; Code 1940, T. 37, §777.) Insuring compatible development clearly fits into the scope of the
Alabama enabling legislation for planning and zoning.
The City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides criteria to be used in the review and analysis of the
rezoning process. Article II., Section C.l.e. "Zoning Amendments" provides nine review criteria for
the rezoning process. Criteria 3, 8, and 9 directly relate to compatibility:
(3) The character of the surrounding property, 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.
On the micro (Buffer)-level zoning compatibility maintains an appropriate development pattern and
protects neighborhoods from negative impa cts of incompatible land uses such as:
• changing neighborhood character through inconsistent land use patterns
• increased density throu gh decreased lot sizes and reduced building setbacks
• intensity of uses out of character with the neighborhood
• poorly located commercial uses
• negative externalities such as increa sed traffic, light, noise etc.
As a result, incompatible land use s may negatively affect property values and the quiet enjoyment of
property.
Buffer Level (Micro) Compatibility:
Staff evaluated compatibility at the buffer level by comparing the development density of the proposed
development to the development density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhoods.
Buffer Area: The buffer limit around the subject property was chosen at a¼ mile (1320 ft.). The entire buffer
is approximately 342.1 Acres.
The following City zoned propertie s fall within the buffer area: Portions of Country Woods Subdivision (R-1
Zoning), Portions of Hollowbrook Subdivision (R-1 Zoning), Pecan Ridge Subdivision (R -2 Zoning), and three
individually R-1 zoned properties.
7 ZC 18.09 Billie, LLC -October 1, 2018
Note: The applicant is proposing R-2 Zoning Dist r ic t which would allow 4 .15 UPA; however, the applicant
contends that with the natural feature of the site would actual ly accommodate 45 lots on the 35.06 acres (1.
28 UPA).
Unzoned Summary:
Unzoned Area:
Unzoned North:
Unzoned Central:
South West:
South Centra l :
South East:
76 .3 Acres
172.8 Acres
30.8 Acres
5.9 Acres
10.9 Acres
296.7
Percentage of Unzoned:
24 .85
56.02
10.3
1.92
3.55
96 .64
Development Density for Unzoned Property Allowab le: 15,000/43560=2.9 units per Acre
----......___
76.3 A pres 7,832.7 Feet
'I...
-c:-1 .. , ....... ,,,.,.. ..... ,..,, .. •lrt.1 1
-----I ,__ ----1 ------T -'---' I I ~r--\ -
I ----.----C r-,...._ -.,---? ~::,., -..L: .... •t,~ --1.,,. a • s 12,37 t...3.-Eaef-\ 1\ I I 11 -
--'"'~rb"'-I ,_ .
I I I I f I LJ I I
I I 1 1 I H1 I r ·,
~ I I I I 11 11
-
Fl I I II h7 -rr , .. ,, .... J
\ I L v-LL ----~ ------1;. -.
~ I ~ -
-~
..... -fli1 ~ -1, ---'""LL -; / /11 )\
" Unzoned North and Central Area
10 ZC 18 .09 Billie , LLC -October 1, 2018
between Hwy 13 and Hwy 181. The applicant is requesting R-2 Zoning Designation which is consistent
with the surrounding zoned parcels and the land use pattern of the Comprehensive Plan .
2. Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance~ The
applicant is requesting th e property be rezoned to R-2. Any development proposed for the site shall
comply with all of the area and dimension standards of the Zoning Ordinance for R-2 .
3. The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity: The
surrounding property could be characterized as predomin ately rural agricultural at this time.
However, some portions of the immediate adjacent properties to the south and east of the su bject
parcel are zoned R-1 and R-2. The requested zoning is consistent with the residential character of the
adjacent parcels.
4. Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development:
The City of Fairhope Director of Operations has provided verification that the infrastructure for gas,
water and sewe r i s available to support R-2 Zoning at this location. Electrical will be provided by
other utility com panies.
Storm Water Management: there are no existing public storm water sy stems adjacent to this
property. If developed, the design shall include all required storm water improve ments and all these
infrastructures sha ll be designed and constructed to minimum City Standards.
Local Street Access: there are no existing public municipal local streets serv ing this property. If
developed, the d es ign shall include all require d lo ca l street improvements and all these
infrastructures sha ll be designed and constructed to minimum City Standards.
Collector/Arterial Access: State Highway 104 is under the jurisd iction of ALDOT. The City of Fairhope
Public Works Department has on oversight concerning connection to or improvement of. Any
connection and/or improvement will be subject to permitting by ALDOT .
5. Impacts of on Natural Resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development
conditions; The R-2 Zoning designation wou ld allow the property to be developed as a subdivision. If
this were the case, the applicant would be required to come into compliance with the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations and any applicable regulatory authorities related to the stream and natural
feature s of the site.
According to the Baldwin County ISV Mapping System and the Alabama Office of Water
Resources/ ADE CA (previously cited), a Blue-line stream runs the length of the property. If the
property i s developed as a subdivi sio n, the subdivi si on regulations requires the following: Article IV
1.b.(18} Applicants shall provide site data and all applicable permits relative to items such as soils,
wetlands, flooding, drainage, natural features and potential archeological features. Article V
Section F 4-. Stream Buffers would apply and any proposed development would be required to be in
compliance with these buffer requirements for the stream and wetlands.
This subj ect parcel is located in a critically se nsitive area within the Fly Creek Watershed. The City of
Fairhope Red So il s Ordinance (Ord. 1423) defines a critically areas as follows: Environmentally and
ecologically sensitive areas to incl ude but not limited to high risk areas for erosion and/or within 100'
of floodpl ai n s, wetlands, wat ercourses and gul li es .
The City of Fairhope ha s two ordinances that will a pply to environmentally se nsitive areas; the City of
Fairhope Red Clay Ordinance and the Wetlands Ordinance (Ordinance 1370).
13 ZC 18.09 Billie, LLC -October 1, 2018
Staff also contacted the applicant with regards to the natural features of this site. The site contains a
stream which is a state water body. The applicant states that "this project is in the initial stages of
engineering and site design. One of the first steps is to evaluate the property by conducting a wetland
delineation. The subdivision will then be designed based on the natural features of the site and
topography. It is the intention at this point to have no impacts to the stream or wetlands, therefore
there is no reason to consult with USACE . Should an impact to wetlands or a strea m crossing be
required, agency (USACE) coordination will be required. The si te will require an ADEM NPDES permit
which will be requested and obtained in advance of land disturbance. The site does not fall within an
ADEM impaired watershed, nor does it fall within an ADEM priority watershed. The site i s within
Flood Zone X. "
Site falls with in Flood Zone X as represented on the attached flood maps from 2007 and this parcel
has no proposed change in the new proposed FEMA maps.
Staff met with the Building Official with regards to any potential concerns with flood zones on this
site. His comments are as follows: "There is a portion of Fly Creek that runs through the
property. While this area is not designated on the FEMA flood maps as a flood zone, it is only because
the flood study for the 2017 map updates stopped short of this parcel. The same creek bed is formally
designated on the 2017 flood maps both upstream and downstream of this site. Prior to development
or construction, the Building Dept will require a detailed flood study of the creek bed to determine
possible flooding hazards ."
6. Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; The property is located within the City of
Fairhope Planning, Permitting, and Police Jurisdictions. Any subdivision development proposed would
b e required to be in compliance with the City of Fairhope Wetlands Ordinance (Ordinance Number
1370) and Red Soils Ordinance (Ordinance Number 1423). The Landscape Ordinance would also
apply at this location. The subd ivision and zoning ordinance will also apply to any development at this
location
7. Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; Thi s project is currently
unzoned. Baldwin County i s the lead agency of authority at this time. When the property becomes
annexed within the City of Fairhope Corporate Limits, the City of Fairhope will become the lead
agency as the property is loca ted within the City of Fairhope Police, Permit and Planning Jurisdictions.
The property fronts on State High way 104 and Baldwin County "Mosley Road". Any type of
restrictions regarding these rights of ways would have to go through the State Transportation
Department and Baldwin County.
There are natural features of the property which may have federal and state protections. The
applicant is re spons ible for comp liance with any applicable requirements. Th e applicant shall notify if
any of the above requirements.
8. Impacts on adjacent property and surrounding neighborhoods including noise, traffic, visible
intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values: The applicant has not provided any
information regarding traffic as a part of this application . A letter from a traffic engineer stati ng
addressing the ne ed for a traffic study will required was provided at the time of subdivision
application . The proposed re-zoning of the property is not anticipated to significantly increa se noise
as the majority of the area is rural and residential. Staff anticipates some increase of traffic if the
14 ZC 18 .09 Billie, LLC -October 1, 2018
applicant ultimately chooses to develop the parcel into single family lots. Based on R-2 sized lots
(10,500 sf), the maximum number of lots would be 145 that could be place within the 35 acres;
however, due to the natural features on the site (stream) the actual number of lots is anticipated to
be a much lower number of lots. In the applicant's conceptual sketch (attached) shows the lot can
accommodate 45 lots.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the requested conditional annexation to R-2 (Medium Density Single
Family Residential District) be approved.
15 ZC 18.09 Billie, LLC -October 1, 2018
Summary of Request: Consider the request of Truland Homes, LLC for Preliminary Plat approval of Hamlet
at Old Battles Village, Phase 5, a 42-lot subdivision. The project is located on the west side of Garrison Blvd.
and north of Ol d Battles Village, Phase 4 . The applicant is Nathan Cox with Battle Plan Capital. The
authorized agent is Jason Estes , PE with Dewberry-Preble Rish, LLC.
The total tract of the subject property is approximately 12.47 acres. The largest lot in the subdivision is
approximately 17,048 sf and the smallest is approximately 8,100 sf.
Attached for your review is a layout of the development phases thus far.
Site History: In 2003, the development Oak Hill, (corresponding to Huntington Phase 1 & 2, respectively).
Huntington Phase 1 & 2 was conditionally annexed and approved as a Planned Unit Development . The
development went through some additional PUD amendment changes and changed ownership. Ultimately,
Huntington Phase 2 became the Old Battles Village PUD . Under Riverbrooke Capital Partners, the Old Battles
Village Phase 1 portion of the PUD was developed . The ownership changed again and the subdivision was
purchase by Truland Homes. Truland requested another PUD amendment to address amenities staging and
ultimately began developing the remaining subdivision. According to the submitted Articles of
Incorporation, Nathan Cox is listed as the sole investor on this project.
On August 6, 2018, the applicant made a PUD Amendment Request to Planning Commission to amend
Phases 3, 4, 5, and 6 with minor changes to Phases 3 & 4 to accommodate the changes to Phases 5 & 6. The
proposed modification was a redesign of the undeveloped portion of the PUD to remove lots from
significant drainage areas and environmentally sensitive areas and move the units designed for an aging
population (smaller lots). The application was approved by Planning Commission and Council is pending.
Zonina Cases:
Case Number PC Resu lt CC Date Develo pm ent Owne r Re quest Address Ordinance
N am e Nu mber
zc 03 -03 approved 6/9/1 8 Oak Hill -St reet Family Cond itional Old Battles @ 1171
Huntington & Old annexation to PUD Greeno
Battles Vi llage
zc 04-04 na Huntington M ile s Jone s PUD Amendm ent -Greeno Road withdrawn
Huntington
zc 04-06 approved 10 /1 l /04 Huntington Miles Jones PUD Amendment Greeno Road 12 28
for Side Setbacks
zc 05-21 approved 11 /28/05 Huntington Riverbrooke change Huntington NW corner of 98 Ord. 1279
Capital Partners PUD and Old Battles RD
zc 16-03 approved 18/22 / 16 Old Battles Truland Homes, PUD Amendment Old Battles Road 1582
Village LLC
Development
Case PC Result CC Date Owner Request Address Ordinance
Number Name Number
zc 18.04 Tab led Old Battle Truland PUD Battles Withdrawn
Village PUD Home s Amendment Road By applicant
zc 18.06 TBD Old Battles Tr uland PUD Battles
Village PUD Amendment Road
Subdivision cases:
2 SD 18 .34 Hamlet at Old Battles Village -October 1, 2018
School Impact analysis :
The Preliminary Plat for Hamlett at Old Battles Village contains 4 2 single family lots. Applying the student
yield factors, the development is expected to generate 16.38 {42 x.39} elementary school students, 4 .62
{42x.11) middle school students and 7.14 {42X .17} high school students .
Develo pment Application Ho using Total Units Attendance Zone SYF
Name Type Type
Hamlett at Final Plat SF
Old Battles Village
42 Fairhope
Elementary
Fairhope Middle
Fairhope High
Total
.39
.11
.17
Exp ected
N umber
students
16.38
4.62
7.14
28.14 *
*It should be noted that this particular development is intended for aging populations and will likely produce
lower student yields than shown here.
Comments:
All Associated Investors (Article IV SectionC.1.b.(3)): Na t han Cox appea r s to be the sole investor in this
project.
Greenspace (Article V.C. 3): Staff requested that the applicant provide a summary of greenspace regards to
the PUD, for tracking purposes. During the DRC meeting, the Public Works Director commented that the
applicant does not need to provide this information at this time.
The applicant did provide additional comments regarding greenspace as follows : "There was no green
space allotted for this phase of development on the PUD master plan nor shown on the preliminary plat.
There are only common areas that serve as drainage ways . The preliminary plat is consistent with the
PUD master plan . A note has been added to the preliminary plat stating the POA is required to maintain
all common areas and that they will not be dedicated to or maintained by the City of Fairhope."
Storm water (Article V Section F): According to the City of Fairhope 's Engineer, Richard Johnson, PE, the
storm water management system is designed for and constructed such to meet all the applicable storm
water management and post-development treatment standards, based on the applicant's engineer's
recertification of the drainage that was submitted . An Operations and Maintenance Plan was submitted
and approved by the Public Works Director. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be recorded at the
time of final plat.
Mr. Richard Johnson has concerns regarding the common area becoming isolated by fencing . According to
Mr. Johnson in discussion on September 6, 2018, the note on t he plat regarding no fences in the drainage
easement is satisfactory for this application; however, this type of design presents concern for the City and
on future applications, we would prefer not to have common area that can become isolated by fencing. The
applicant responded "The easement or common area decision is to be made by the City and we will concur.
In the past the City has not allowed fences in easements that may obstruct the flow of storm water runoff.
The common area allows for the maintenance by the POA and the easement requires maintenance by each
individual home owner. "
Wetlands (Article V Section F): Per Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer, requested clarification
regarding the presence of wetlands (isolated or non -isolated) in Phase 5. T he applicant confirmed there is
no grady pond on or near the subject property.
4 SD 18.34 Ha mlet at Old Battles Village -October 1, 20 18
BMP Plan (Article V Section F): According to Ms. Kim Burmeister, Code Enforcement Officer, the erosion
control plan is indicated on the "Overall Drainage Plan " and this indicates minimum requirements. Applicant
has provided the ADEM registration (ALR # 107924)) for Phase 5.
Streets/ Traffic: All lots front a publicly maintained right of way . Staff received a few comments from publlic
works regardin g iss u es w ith th e str ee t s/ri ght of ways.
The typical roadway sec tion on sheet 3 was incorrect. The markups are provided on the drawings; however,
the planting strip shall be a minimum of 8'. The applicant has provided revised drawings electronically for
review lby the Public Works Director . To accommodate the 8' minimum, the applicant has noted on the plat
that a one-foot pedestrian/sidewalk easement shall be located along the front of all lots, along the front
property line on all lots adjacent to ROW's . The Public Works Director has not provided his approval of this
item at the time of this writing.
The Publ ic Works Director, Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, requested a statement of fact regarding the detaHs of
the traffic for this application . The applicant has responded "The traffic study was previous1v submitted for
Old Batdes Village and the required improvements have been made."
Drainage Easements: Mr. Richard Johnson, Director of Public Work fou nd a correction that was requ ired to
the original drawings. A 20' drainage easement shall be provided between lots 246 and 247 t o
accommodate pipe 99's 7-foot depth . The applicant indicates the correction has been made. Mr. Richard
Johnson's approval of this correction is pending.
Water and Sewer: Water and sewer shall meet the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Specification s. The
required form s relating to water and sewer justification were not necessary, due to no low pressure sewer
being proposed. The applicant is using gravity sewer. The Director of Operations, Mr. Richard Peterson , PE
commented that he requires additional informat ion to prepare the wat er and sewer avai l ability letters. The
applicant responded as follows: "As per a conversation with Richard Peterson a Jong term plan for sewer
capacity is in design and the capacity issue will be addressed. "
Staff has provided revised drawings and the engineer's response letter. As of this writing, staff has been
unable to confirm with Mr. Peterson that he is satisfied with the applicant's response.
Waiver Requests: No waiver requests have been made.
Flaw Model: A flow model was previously submitted . The applicant provided the information from the
previo us submittat for review and approval by Richard Peterson for this particular phase of t he
development. Mr. Peterson 's review is pending .
Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be located at every intersection and every 450 feet.
Landscaping: A landscaping plan was submitted. The landscape plan was reviewed during the City's internal
sup ervisory review meeting. The City of Fairhope Horticulturist, Mr. Paul Merchant, has re v iewed and
approved the plan.
Staff identified two areas that appear to have very large trees on the aerial and reque sted clarification. The
applicant clarified that there was one tree at 36" whi ch wa s added to the plat.
5 SD 18.34 Haml et at Old Battle s Villa ge -October 1, 2018
Other: Any app lic ab le outside agency permits sha ll be obtained .
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV. 8.2. Approval Standards.
"2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the
subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and
development as proposed, due to any of the following :
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's
Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with th e City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan
or program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street
Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and
regulations; or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City."
This application appears to be consistent with the City of Fairhope's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance as the Master Plan was approved by City Council on August 22, 2016 and the proposed PUD
modification that is sched uled to go before City Council. The proposed subdivision appears to be consistent
with the minimum requirements for preliminary p lat subdivision with the exception of some ve rifi cation of
approvals with Mr. Richard Peterson and Mr. Richard Johnson. Staff is unaware of any pending issues
related to app licable state or federal loca ls and regulations and health and safety. The burden of
responsibility is on the app li cant to coordinate with any appropriate agency regarding their proposed
project.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the app lication contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The Counci l approva l of the Old Battles Vi ll age PUD Amendment (ZC 18.06) and conditions of approva l
therein.
2. All pending water and sewer approvals from Mr. Richard Peterson, PE , Director of Operations sha ll be
obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting.
3 . A ll pending public works approval from Mr. Richard John son , PE, Public Works Director sha ll be
obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting.
6 SD 18.34 Hamlet at Ol d Battl es Villa g e -Octo ber 1, 20 18
The site data table included with the supporting documents of subject application includes the
proposed dimensional standards summarized in the table below. R-1 zoning classification, though not
requested by subject application, is shown for schematic purposes and for completeness:
Case# ZC 18.10 Proposed R-1 and R-2 Dimensional Standards
District Lot#'s Cot Sizes Typical Front Rear Side Max. Lot Max. Building
-(minimum) Lot Width Setback Setba~k Setback Coverage Height
R-1 1-21
31 -80 15,000sf 100' 40' 35' 10' 40% 30' 85-88
107-112
R-2 22-30
81-84 10,SOOsf 75' 35' 35' 10' 37% 30'
89-106
The site data table included with the proposed development's preliminary plat indicates a smallest lot
size of 14,278sf and a largest lot size of 54, 745sf. In addition to the typical dimensions standards
shown above, 5' rear and side setbacks are required for any accessory structures located on the
residential lots within the proposed development. Any accessory structures must be located behind
the rear building line of the principle structure, maintain 10' separation from the principle structure,
and have a lot coverage of no more than 25% of the required rear yard for each lot, in addition to
various other requirements of the zoning ordinance related to accessory structures.
School Student Analysis:
The proposed PUD master plan for Twin Beech Estates contains 72 single family lots. Applying the
student yield factors (SYF) provided by the Baldwin County Board of Education listed below, the
development is expected to generate 61.6 (or 112 x 0.55) elementary school students, 22.4 (or 112 x
0.2) middle school students and 22.4 (or 112 x 0.2) high school students .
Development Application Housing Total Units Attendance Zone SYF Expected
Name • Type Type Number of
Students -
Twin Beech PUD SF 112 Fairhope 0.55 61.6
Estates request Elementary
II II II II II II Fairhope Middle 0.2 22.4
II II II II II II Fairhope High 0.2 22.4
Total Students 106.4
Allowable Uses:
Requested uses are "single family residential" as allowable by both R-1 and R-2 zoning requested for
the development.
Zoning History of Nearby Properties:
Case number ZC 05.06 was a request by Mr. Pat Achee for annexation contingent upon a zoning
change from unzoned Baldwin County to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the
development known as The Waters, located on the west side of AL HWY 181 north of AL HWY
181. The Fairhope City Council approved Case# ZC 05 .06 on April 25, 2005.
3 ZC 18.10 North Hills at Fairhope -October 1, 2018
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 important decision -making element in the zoning process. On a macro-
level it can maintain and protect community character and raise the quality of deve lopment
throughout the community. On the micro-level zoning compatibility maintains an appropriate
development pattern and protects neighborhoods from negative impacts of incompatible land
uses such as:
• changing nei ghborhood character through inconsi stent land use pattern s
o increa se d density through decreased lot sizes and reduced building setbacks
• inten si ty of uses out of character with the neighborhood
o poorly located commercial uses
• negative externalities such as increased traffic, light, noise etc.
As a result, incompatible land uses may negatively affect property values and the quiet
enjoyment of property.
The Code of Alabama, Section 11-52-72 provides the following purpose for planning and zoning:
"designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and other
dangers, to promote health and the general welfare, to provide adequate light and air, to
prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population, and to
facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and
other public requirements". (Acts 1935, No . 533, p . 1121; Code 1940, T. 37, §777.) Insuring
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.1.e. "Zo ning Amendments" provides nine review
criteria for the rezoning proce ss. Criteria 3, 8, and 9 directly relate to compatibility:
(3) The character of the su rrounding property, including any pending development
activity;
(8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property va lues; and,
(9) Impa cts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions,
potential physical impacts, and property values.
The properties surrounding the subject property are a patchwork of zoned, unzoned, developed, and
undeveloped properties and all must be examined in t erm s of the subject application. Though there
are a number of undeveloped properties, and in the case of the Gulf Coast Experiment Station,
properti es unlikely for d eve lopm ent in the foreseeable future, AL HWY 104 is a corridor on which
residential development is not only expected but is inevitabl e. The Zoning Compatibility Analysis
applied to subject property exam ines both "s urrounding neighborhoods" (subdivisions and other
developments one-qu arter mile, or 1,320 feet from the subject property) as well as "adjacent areas"
(abuttin g properties includin g those directly across a right-of-way from the subject property as well as
properties with a phy sica l relationship with the sub ject property such as properties along the same
street or road as the su bject property). The surrounding neighborhoods to the subject prop erty were
identified by drawing a 1,320' buffer around th e sub j ect property utilizing the 'buffer' toolkit within the
4 ZC 18.10 North Hills at Fairhope -October 1, 2018
o The actual deve lopment density of unzoned, developed property is represented as
accurately as possib l e
■ Unit counts for mobile home parks are counted as accurately as practicab le
■ Any other multi ple-occupancy uses such as apartments or accessory dwellings
are counted as accurately as pract i cable
■ If on ly one (1) residentia l unit occurs on a piece of property, it has a
development density of 1 unit divided by the property's acreage
o The allowable development density of unzoned property is based upon the minimum lot
size of Art icle V, Sec t ion E.2 .b . of t h e Subdivis i on Regu l ations
■ (43 ,560 sf per acre)-;. (15,000 sf per lot)= 2.9 units per acre
• Residential subdivision developments are ana lyzed as units within the buffer area
o PUDs have the same actual and allowable development density because the density is a
fu n ction of an d governed by each PU D's ord i nance
o Actual density of non-PUD zoned subdivisions is based upon units per acre derived from
its approved final plat to the maximum extent practicable, or calculated directly by units
per acre
o A l lowable density of non -PUD zoned subdivision developments, as well as various zoned
areas is based upon its zoning district
■ R-1 : (43,560 sf per acre)-:-(15,000 sf per lot)= 2.9 units per acre
■ R-2: (43 ,560 sf per acre)-;. (10,500 sf per lot)= 4.15 units per acre
We ighted development densities are summarized i n the "development density conclusions" section of
this staff report.
WEIGHTED DENS ITY CALCULATION
As stated previously th e total area of the buffer, as determined by KCS Fairhope Map Viewer is 437.3
acres. Subtracting the 96 .8 acres of subject property leaves a net buffer area of 340.5 acres.
The actual we i ghted density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood is summarized in the
table be low:
DEV. TOTAL AREA Raw Actual
DEVELOPMENT NAME OR PPIN ZONING (acres) BUFFER ACRES Density (uni ts)
Th e Wa te rs at Fa irhope PU □ 94.85 40.70 0.94 38.26
Co u ntry W oo ds R-1 Low Density Single Fam i ly 22 16.50 1.54 25.41
8601 Unzoned Baldwin County 61 51 .2 0 0
40372 Unzc ned Ba Id w in County 77 29 0 0
983 67 Unzoned Ba )d w in County 78 35.9 0 0
226942 Unzoned Ba ldwin County 78 10.9 3 32.7
269 989 Unzo ned Ba ld w i n County 24 10.7 0 0
117886 Unzoned Ba ldwin County 1.5 1.2 1 1.2
1015 8 Unzoned Ba Id w in County 1.98 1.98 0 0
25743 Un zo ned Baldwin County 5.8 5.8 0 0
33421 Unzo ned Ba ldwin County 5.4 5.4 0 0
765 Unzoned Baldwin County 13 13 1 13
55 384 Unzone d Baldwin County 3.3 3.3 1 3.3
557 62 Unzoned Baldwin County 3.3 3.3 0 0
62465 Unzo ned Ba ldwin County 34 34 0 0
243 15 Unzoned Baldwi n County 37 37 0 0
The sum of the weighted actua l u ni t s is 113 .87 units. W h en divided by the net buffer area of 340.5
acres, the actua l weighted density is calcu l ated as 0 .334 units per acre .
Similarly, the allowable weighted density of the adjacent areas and surrounding neighborhood is
summarized i n the tab l e below:
6 ZC 18 .10 North Hill s at Fairhope -October 1, 2018
DEV.TOTALAREA Raw Allowable
DEVELOPMENT NAME OR PPIN ZONING (acres) BUFFER ACRES Density (units)
The Waters at Fairhope PUD 94.85 40.70 0.94 38.26
Country Woods R-1 Low Density Si ng l e Fam ily 22 16.50 1.54 25.41
8601 Unzoned Baldwin County 61 51.2 2.9 148.48
40372 Unzoned Baldwin County 77 29 2.9 84 .1
98367 Unzoned Baldwin County 78 35.9 2.9 104.11
226942 Unzoned Baldwin County 78 10.9 2.9 31.61
269989 Unzoned Ba ldwin Co unty 24 10.7 2.9 31.03
117886 Un:mned Baldwin County 1.5 1 .2 2.9 3.48
10158 Unzoned Ba ldwi n County 1.98 1.98 2.9 5.742
25743 Unzoned Ba l dw in County 5.8 5 .8 2.9 16 .82
33421 Unzoned Bal dw1n County 5.4 5.4 2.9 15.66
765 Unzoned Baldw i n County 13 13 2.9 37.7
55384 Unzo ned Baldwi n Cou nty 3.3 3.3 2.9 9.57
55762 Un zoned Baldwin County 3.3 3.3 2.9 9.57
62466 Um.oned Ba ldw i n County 34 34 2.9 98 .6
24315 Unzoned Baldwin County 37 37 2.9 107.3
The sum of the weighted allowable units is 767.44 units. When divided by the net buffer area of 340.5
acres, the allowable weighted density is calculated as 2.254 units per acre .
The average weighted development density of both the actual and allowable densities is therefore:
(2.254 + 0.334)/2 = 1.294 units per acre (this very low density reflects a number of undeveloped
properties with zero u nits per acre)
Development Dens ity Conclus i ons
As stated previously, the requested development density of the subject application is 2.3 units/acre,
approximately 78% greater than the 1.294 units per acre weighted average density of the adjacent
properties and surrounding neighborhood surrounding subject development. However, the overall
development density of the complete North Hills Fairhope development of 1.16 units per acre is
approximately 10% less than the weighted average development density of adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhood. At the micro level, the 13.47 acre area for which R-2 zoning is requested is
an area of density substantially higher than that of the adjacent area and surrounding neighborhood,
However, the lot sizes of the area requested for R-2 zoning substantially exceed the 10,500sf R-2
zoning lot size. The smallest lots in this area, Lots 23 and 29 each have a lot size of 14,248sf. A
majority of the lots in the subject property are just below the 15,000sf lot size requirement of R-1
zoning. At the macro l evel, the 1.16 units per acre overall development density of the entire
development is approximately 10% less than weighted average development density of the adjacent
prope rtie s and surround i ng ne ig hborhood as mentioned above, and as a result the development
density of the existing properties adjacent to and surrounding subject property support the desired
development density requested by subject app lica tion.
7 ZC 18.10 North Hills at Fairhope -October 1, 2018
Twin Beech Estates Zoning Compatibly Analysis Chart
Compatibility Su bj ec:t Recommended Method Analysts of Recomme n dati on
Dwelling Unit/ Housing Type Adjacent Area : Proposed development requests 112
100 % single family in zoned single family un its overall, 31 single
Areas {PUD) family units in the proposed R-2 zoning
district
Surrounding Neighborhood :
100% single fami ly in zoned Proposed development is consistent
Areas (R -1). with the surrounding neighborhood
and adjacent areas . All zoned units in
100% single family on the adjacent area and surrounding
Unzoned parcels (investigated neighborhood are single family and all
to the maximum extent unzoned properties are either
practi cable) undeveloped or single family.
Building Orientation N/A Case# SD 18 .35 will be considered
By the planning commiss ion during a
Future meeting . Case# SD 18.35 does
Not request any departures from the
Zoning ordinance and is not requesting
A planned unit development that would
Affect building orientation, therefore
The building orientation of the proposed
Development is consistent with adjacent
And surrounding properties
Building Setbacks Adjacent area setbacks: Pro1:1osed R-1 develoQment setbacks :
(Hollowbrook used for examQle Front-40'
QUrQoses, setbacks not shown on Rear-35'
Countr'i Woods Qlats) Side -10'
Front-30' Side Street -20'
Rear-30' ProQosed R-2 develoQment setbacks:
Building Setbacks (continued) Side-10' Front-35'
Side Street -20' Rear-35'
(R-1 zoning district was Side -10'
Established after Hollowbrok Side Street -20'
Was developed, no
R-2 zoning occurs in buffer) Building setbacks exceed the nearby
The Waters setbacks vary by Hollowbrook Subdivision setbacks, the
Lot, ranging from 20' front up Proposed R-2 is also consistent with
To 50' front Or exceeds The Waters PUD setbacks
Building Heights Adjacent area building height: ProQosed develoQment building height:
Max. Building Height-35' Max. Bu il ding Height -30'
{Not specified on Proposed development is consistent with
Hollowbrook's Plat, 35' is the Adjacent area building heights.
Building height of The Waters)
Lot Dimensions Due to the widely varying lot sizes in the evaluation area , Lot Dimensions are not a
readily-quantifiable or highly-accurate measure of compatibility for subject Application .
Lot area/density is a more appropriate measure of compatibility, as seen below
8 ZC 18.10 North Hills at Fairhope -October 1, 2018
Compatibility Analysis Chart
( continued)
Lot Area / Dens ity Adja ce nt area and ProQosed dev eloQm ent lot dim ensi on s:
Su r ro u ndi ng Ne ighbo rh ood
Ac tu al an d allowabl e 31 units/ 13 .4 7 acr es =
W eig hted develoQment 2 .3 Uni ts/ Acre
dens iti es
11 2 units / 96 .8 acre s =
0 .334 u n its per acre actu al 1.16 units per acre
2.254 u ni ts per acr e allowable Proposed developmen t is consisten t
W ith adjacent areas and surrounding
1.294 units per acre average neighborhood
Fairhope Comprehensive Plan Guidance
The absence of any intended physical form (lack of a plan) of a city causes a disjointed
development pattern , inefficient municipal services, conflicting land uses and negative
externalities for bus i ness owners, property owners and residents . In general, the lack of a plan
and negative external ities create poor livab i lity conditions. Providing an "intended physical
form" is land use planning. A "plan" provides a mean i ngful and well-thought-out development
pattern where a desired physical form outcome is stated with provisions and methods to
achieve the desired outcome. Ultimately, the success of the plan to achieve the desired
outcomes depends on how the plan is adm i nistered over a series of years and many
developm ent decisions which togethe r shape the phys i cal form of the City.
Beginning in 2001 , the City of Fairhope expressed its intent for the physical form of the City to
be in the "village " development pattern . The 2006 Comprehensive Plan, incorporated by
reference into the 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, was developed by Gould Evans Goodman
Associates, LLC. The Plan , in Section 5 . Form , Function and Design (page 45-48), provided clear
direction on village types, locations and the transitioning of land uses , specifically in terms of
intensity and density of the villages and their environs .
Section 5.4 Neighborhoods, states the following:
The "village pattern " i s the basic planning unit of the city and is characterized by a center,
suppo rted by a neighborhood and transitioning to an edge . Higher density residences should
be located more closely to village centers or fronting major street corridors. Lower density
residences should t r ansition to edges , and rural areas. This concept is reaffirmed in the 2014
Plan Update where guidance was provided through the following: "The i mmediate area around
villages are to be more dense and then transition to lower density development patterns"
(2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, page 34).
The 2014 Comprehensive Plan Update provided the Preferred Land Use Plan . Section 5 of this plan
contemplates a future village center/node at the i ntersecti on of State Highway 181 and State Highway
104 (2014 Comprehensive Plan Update, page 37). The proposed HWY 104/HWY 181 village center is
approximately 5/8 mile east of the proposed development, if the "center" of the village center is the
centroid of the HWY 104/HWY181 intersection . Using the ¼ mile buffer seen above as the surrounding
neighborhood of the subject property, the proposed HWY 104/HWY 181 village center lies slightly
outside the surrounding neighborhood of the proposed development, but it is reasonable and logical
to assume the proposed development lies within the area of influence of the proposed village center .
An excerpt of the village/node map from the Comprehensive Plan i s shown below, with subject
property depicted i n a "crosshatch " pattern :
9 ZC 18 .10 No rt h Hills at Fairhop e -Octob er 1, 2018
Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Anthem Development, LLC for
a Fina l Plat approval of Anthem Oaks Subdivision, a 9-lot division. The property is located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 32 and Mandrell Lane. The property
owners include : Geoff Lane, Nathan Cox, Allan Cox . The applicant's authorized representative
is Dewberry Engineer's, LLC.
The subject property is approximately 30.07 acres. The smallest lot is approximately 1.78 acres
and the largest lot is 13.61 acres.
Site History: The original project called Anthem Oaks was submitted to the Planning
Department in November 2016. The application was approved by Planning Commission, but
there was feedback from the residents regarding the number of lots. Due to the neighborhood
feedback and economic conditions (per conversations with the applicant), the applicant
revisited the project to come up with a 9-lot subdivision with all lots fronting existing roads.
With the re-arrangement of lots and no roads proposed, there were some trees that were
saved . This site has a number of old Oaks trees. The lot sized also increased in size. The 9-lot
preliminary plat was approved with the following conditions of approval:
1) The applicant shall provide the required data as specified in the City of Fairhope Regulations
Article IV Section C 1h, Traffic Data and Traffic Study.
2) The engineer's conditions for adequate fire flow shall be noted on the plat, unless otherwise
determined by the Director of Operations, Richard Peterson,. PE.
3) Utility availability (utility letters) shall be acknowledged by the Director of Operations.
The Director of Operations acknowledged his approval of availability at the meeting.
4) The applicant shall include lot 9 in the drainage plan and provide drainage calculations to
support the case for no storm water detention/LID, to meet the approval of the City of Fairhope
uolicWofksD1rec or, Mr:-RTcnarcl Jonnsoil,l'E-. -
5) The applicant shall provide clarification on this being a phased development . If this is a phased
development, then phase lines shall be shown.
6) The applicant shall show the request for waiver meets one of the waiver standards or the
applicant shall show documentation from the Baldwin County (owner of the right-of-way) that
sidewalks would not be allowed in this right of way and the Planning Commission grants the
waiver.
7) The applicant shall revise the drainage, bmp, and other construction drawings to include the 9th
lot which has been added to the subdivision plat so there is consistency between documents.
It is staff's understanding that all conditions of approval have been satisfied.
Case Subdivision Number Location Zoning Submittal PZ Date PZ Decision! I Applicant Case Type of Lots Date Number ,
~
Name
SD -17 -02 Dewberry/Preble Preliminary Anthem 23 Outside n/a 11/22/2016 1/3/2017 Approved
-Rish, LLC Oaks
SD -18-14 Dewberry/Preble Preliminary Anthem 8 Outside n/a 3/27/2018 5/7/2018 Approved
-Rish Oaks
SD-18 -36 Dewberry Final Anthem 9 Outside n/a 8/28/2018 10/1/2018 TBD
Oaks
2 SD 18 .36 Anthem Oaks -October 1, 2018
Easements (Article V Section £5): The Director of Operations, Mr. Richard Peterson, PE,
commented that easements sh all be as p er Articl e V Section E 5. Utility Access and Easements
Utility Access and Easement s -
Except where lanes are provided a t the rear of lots, easements not less than fifteen feet
in width along side and rear lot lines as required for drainage and utilities. On interior lots,
the easement may be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots. On perimeter lots, no part
of the required easement shall lie outside the platted lands . Easement placement and
widths shall be approved by the Planning Commission. No half easements will be
approved unless adjacent property owners dedicate the other half of the easement at
time of approval.
Per th e applicant, t he plat has been revi sed to address th e required easements.
Fire Hydrants (Article VI Section G}: Fire hydrants are required at every intersection and every
450 fe et. No co mme nts were received from th e Water Department on this item for inspection.
The Water Depa rtm e nt ha s se nt their approval for final in spection, w ith the stipulation that fire
hydrant markers are required . To date, the fire hydrant markers have not been installed .
Per the applicant, four (4) fire hydrants were insta ll ed as per the approved
construction plans. The developer has b ee n made awa re that hydrant markers are to be
in stalled.
Wetland/soils: Kim Burmeister, City of Fa irhope Code Enforcement Officer ve r ifie d w ith USDA
web soils that hydric soi ls were not li sted for the su bj ec t property.
Drainage (Article V Section F): The Public Works Director, Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, met with
the applicant's representative regarding drainage. He r equested that a specific note be placed
upon th e plat regardin g drain age and con firm e d that low impact development techn iques were
not necessary at this loc ati o n. With no on-site drainage features, there is no operati o ns and
m ainte nance plan to submit. Mr. John so n h as r eviewe d th e notes and provided sta ff with
verbal approval of the notes on September 20, 2018.
Sidewalks: (Article V Section D.6} r eq uires th at all str eet s sha ll include a pedestrian are a and a
planting strip and a sidewalk, according to the st andards in Table 5.3 in Appendix A. After
discussion in Planning Co mmission on May 7, 2018, it was determined the best course for
sidewalks would be to place a si dewalk easement on the property to accommodate the
potential for future growth and pedestrian movem ent on Co unty properties. The applicant has
provid ed the 10' sidewalk easement on the plat.
Street Trees (Article V Section D 1.b.(4): During the Ci ty of Fai rhope internal design review
meeting, a disc u ssio n came up regardi n g a stree t tree bond (along with a street tre e layout).
However, upon furth er determination it was d et ermin e d that the site was outside the police
jurisdiction and no street s were being in sta ll ed; therefore, t he Public Works Director
determined that a street tree layout and bond wo uld not be necessa ry.
4 SD 18 .36 Anthem Oa ks -October 1, 20 18
Water and Sewer Department Final Inspection (Article JV, Setion D.4): The only City of
Fairhope improvements for the subdivision are the water services. The City staff conducted an
inspection on the site. The water services appeared to be satisfied; however, hydrant markers
were not. The applicant shall install hydrant markers for the fire hydrants. To date, the
required fire hydrant markers have not been installed and this is the only punch list item to be
completed.
Maintenance Bond (Article VJ Section E 4): The applicant has submitted the required
maintenance bond package including the maintenance agreement, the maintenance bond and
the engineer's cost estimate.
Recorded Plats (Article IV Section D.7): All conditions of approval shall be satisfied in a timely
manner. At the time of final plat, the applicant shall have all items completed so the Plat may
be recorded within a 60-day time frame, per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations .
Other (Article IV Section C.18): Any applicable outside agency permit shall be obtained.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV. 8.2. Approval Standards.
112. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall
not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such
land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the
following:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and/or the City's Zoning ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan or any: other Jan oI._R_rogra!!) for the physical develoRment of1b_e ~City_ ___________ ~
including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle
Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or
federal laws and regulations; or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety., welfare or
property within the planning jurisdiction of the City."
The project does not appear to be inconsistent with the applicable criteria of the City of Fairhope. The
subject parcel is located outside the City of Fairhope Corporate limits, the police jurisdiction, permit
jurisdiction, but inside, in the City of Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction . Staff is unaware of any pending issues
related to applicable state or federal locals and regulations and health and safety. The burden of
responsibility is on the applicant to coordinate with any appropriate agency regarding their proposed
project.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The fire hydrants markers shall be installed.
5 SD 18.36 Anthem Oaks -October 1, 2018
AMENI TY AESTHETIC EXAMPLES
A .-----_
0 .
..--.--E , + H .
C L UBll=IOUS IE E L EVAT I ON SUM M ER K.I TCH 'E N ElEVAT I ONS