HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2018 Planning Commission Agenda PacketF. SD 18.40 Public hearing to consider the request of Allen Fonde for plat
approval of Fonde Division, a 2-lot minor subdivision. The
property is located on the north side of Mosley Road across from
Plainview Drive.
PPIN #: 14097
G. UR 18.06 Request of Southern Light, LLC for an 11.52.11 Utility Review
and approval of the proposed underground installation of
approximately 732 linear feet of fiber optic cable. Th e
project will run along Morphy Avenue and S. Section Street t o
service The Citizen's Bank at 104 S. Section Street.
H. UR 18 .07 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval
of the proposed underground installation of approximately
5,404 linear feet of fiber optic cable. The project will run
throughout Quail Creek subdivision.
4. Old/New Business
• SD 16.37 The Verandas, Phase 1 and SD 17.09 The Verandas, Phase 3 & 4
-Request for 1-year extension of the pre liminary plat approval
• Election of Officers
• 2019 Agenda Schedule
5. Adjourn
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met Monday, July 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Charles Johnson; Richard
Peterson; Hollie MacKellar; Tim Simmonds; Jack Burrell; Wayne Dyess, Planning
Director; Buford King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and
Ken Watson, City Attorney
Absent: Ralph Thayer and Clarice Hall-Black
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
SD 18.19 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Multiple
Occupancy Project approval of a New Bank and Retail – Ecor Rouge, a 6-unit
project, Robert Cummings. The property is located on the west side of Greeno Road
between Edwards Avenue and Fairhope Avenue. Mr. King gave the staff report saying
the subject property fronts upon Greeno Road consisting of approximately 5.76 total
acres and 0.80 project site acres. The subject application is a MOP and does not request
subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots; however, a concurrent subdivision
application will be separately-considered to establish condominium units on subject
property. The subject property contains an existing restaurant, church, and office
building occupying a former grocery store building. The subject application is a Multiple
Occupancy Project and as a result there is no “plat” to be submitted for final approval. In
order to fulfill the final inspection requirements of Article IV, Section C.6.a. and b., as
well as Article IV, Section D.4, staff recommends APPROVAL of the MOP request
subject to the conditions below:
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance.
a. The sequencing of construction of the three buildings, procedures for requests
for building inspection, site stabilization requirements for each building site
and initiation of closeout procedures will be clarified during the pre-
construction conference.
b. Consult with the COF horticulturalist to determine if any tree-protections will
be required for the existing trees along the ROW adjacent to subject property.
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver of ten (10) LID techniques and acceptance
of the use of four (4) LID techniques for the site.
3) Include with the building permit plans elevations indicating how screening is
accomplished for any items included with the site requiring screening as required
by Article IV, Section B.2. Note the maximum allowable building height in B-2
General Business District is 30’-0” tall.
4) An elevation certificate shall be included with the building permit request for each
building.
5) Revise drawing 10 of 13 “Erosion Control Plan” to reflect the COF 10-day rule in
the lieu of the ADEM 13-day rule shown regarding temporary seeding.
6) Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subdivision. In lieu of the final
plat approval procedure required for a typical subdivision, the closeout procedure
for subject development includes the follow procedures and/or documents:
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
2
a) Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any
infrastructure to be dedicated to the City of Fairhope
b) A fully-executed and recorded copy of the Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Plan and Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other
storm water quantity and quality BMPs as required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(17) and Article V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(3)
c) Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure
drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as required
by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(16)
d) One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage
calculations containing the engineer’s certificate required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(18) and Article VI, Section E.6–8 as well as a statement
identifying the POA or similar entity responsible for maintaining any and all
storm water facilities and structures located outside of the publicly accepted
ROW.
e) One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the
landscape architect of record indicating the various landscape features have
been completed as-designed.
f) Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D.
1.b.(1) – (18)
g) Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article VI, Construction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing
requirements.
7) Approval of the landscape plan by the City of Fairhope Horticulturist.
8) Approval of case SD 18.20 Ecor Rouge Place, A Condominium by the City of
Fairhope Planning Commission.
Mr. Cummings was present on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for approval of the MOP
request subject to the conditions below:
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance.
a. The sequencing of construction of the three buildings, procedures for requests
for building inspection, site stabilization requirements for each building site
and initiation of closeout procedures will be clarified during the pre-
construction conference.
b. Consult with the COF horticulturalist to determine if any tree-protections will
be required for the existing trees along the ROW adjacent to subject property.
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver of ten (10) LID techniques and acceptance
of the use of four (4) LID techniques for the site.
3) Include with the building permit plans elevations indicating how screening is
accomplished for any items included with the site requiring screening as required
by Article IV, Section B.2. Note the maximum allowable building height in B-2
General Business District is 30’-0” tall.
4) An elevation certificate shall be included with the building permit request for each
building.
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
3
5) Revise drawing 10 of 13 “Erosion Control Plan” to reflect the COF 10-day rule in
the lieu of the ADEM 13-day rule shown regarding temporary seeding.
6) Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subdivision. In lieu of the final
plat approval procedure required for a typical subdivision, the closeout procedure
for subject development includes the follow procedures and/or documents:
h) Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any
infrastructure to be dedicated to the City of Fairhope
i) A fully-executed and recorded copy of the Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Plan and Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other
storm water quantity and quality BMPs as required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(17) and Article V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(3)
j) Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure
drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as required
by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(16)
k) One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage
calculations containing the engineer’s certificate required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(18) and Article VI, Section E.6–8 as well as a statement
identifying the POA or similar entity responsible for maintaining any and all
storm water facilities and structures located outside of the publicly accepted
ROW.
l) One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the
landscape architect of record indicating the various landscape features have
been completed as-designed.
m) Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D.
1.b.(1) – (18)
n) Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article VI, Construction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing
requirements.
7) Approval of the landscape plan by the City of Fairhope Horticulturist.
8) Approval of case SD 18.20 Ecor Rouge Place, A Condominium by the City of
Fairhope Planning Commission.
Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Richard Peterson, and Jack Burrell. NAY – none.
SD 18.20 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for plat approval of
Ecor Rouge Condo, a 6-unit condominium development, Robert Cummings. The
property is located on the west side of Greeno Road between Edwards Avenue and
Fairhope Avenue. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the applicant requests approval
of preliminary and final plat of three new condominium units to be located at the at the
Ecor Rouge shopping center. The subject property fronts upon Greeno Road consisting
of approximately 5.76 total acres and 0.80 project site acres. The subject application is
concurrently submitted with case number SD 18.19, a Multiple Occupancy Project
(MOP) for a bank and retail site on the same property. The MOP does not request
subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots, however subject application creates
condominium “lines of ownership” that serve as the “lot lines” on which the units
requested by SD 18.19 may be built.
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
4
The subject property contains three existing condominium units occupied by a restaurant,
a church, and office space occupying a former grocery store building. The proposed new
condominium unit “lot lines” will be created in the existing parking lot serving the
existing condominium units and will front upon Greeno Road. Staff recommends
preliminary and final plat APPPROVAL of the three condominium units subject to the
condition(s) below:
1) Approval of Case # SD 18.19, New Bank and Retail-Ecor Rouge Shopping
Center.
Mr. Cummings was present on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for preliminary and final plat
approval of the three condominium units subject to the condition(s) below:
1) Approval of Case # SD 18.19, New Bank and Retail-Ecor Rouge Shopping
Center.
Charles Johnson 2nd the motion.
Mr. Burrell asked if the three lots will be leased separately and Mr. Cummings responded
there will be two spaces on each lot.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca
Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Jack
Burrell. NAY – none.
SD 18.24 Public hearing to consider the request of Sawgrass Consulting, LLC for
Preliminary plat approval of Twin Beech Estates, a 72-lot subdivision, Ercil
Godwin. The property is located on the north side of County Road 44 (a.k.a. Twin
Beech Road) just west of St. Hwy. 181. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the subject
property is approximately 22.6 acres and is currently located in an unzoned region of
Baldwin County. The applicant has a current application for conditional annexation to
PUD (case ZC18.02). The Planning Commission unanimously approved the conditional
annexation and re-zoning at the May 7, 2018 meeting. Staff recommends APPROVAL
of the Preliminary plat of Twin Beech Estates contingent upon the following conditions:
1) City Council approval of Case # ZC 18.02, annexation of subject properties and
re-zoning to PUD.
2) Waiver of five (5) of the ten (10) LID techniques required by Article V, Section
F.11.f.(1)-(15). Five LID techniques are utilized in eight (8) locations as
indicated in Article V, Section F.8.e.-g. in the “comments” section of the staff
report.
Mr. Burrell stated concerns with the greenspace and questioned the use of common area
for drainage. Mr. Dyas asked Richard Johnson, Public Works Director, if he agrees with
the traffic data not requiring improvements for Twin Beech Road. Mr. Johnson stated a
left turn lane would be a potential issue, but the study did not warrant a turn lane. Mr.
Dyess explained the difference between greenspace and common area. He noted
detention and storm water holding areas cannot be included in greenspace calculations.
Mr. Burrell asked if the application would meet the requirements of the subdivision
regulations if the project was not a PUD and Mr. King responded yes.
Mr. Godwin addressed the Commission saying the project exceeds the greenspace
requirements. He explained the PUD zoning was requested to allow for three different
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
5
lot sizes but all other aspects of the Subdivision Regulations still had to be met. Mrs.
MacKellar asked if the final product will look like the drawings and Mr. Godwin
responded yes, the layout will be the same but the sidewalk locations within the
greenspace could vary due to natural features. Mr. Dyess stated the regulations only
require 10% of greenspace.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
David Ellis of 7194 Brodbeck Lane – He asked where the sewer from all this new
construction is going and Mr. Peterson responded new lift stations are being built for new
developments and phase one of the sewer improvements have been started. Mr. Ellis also
noted traffic concerns and reduced fees for those annexing into the City. Mr. Dyess
stated the impact fees are required for property inside city limits. Mr. Burrell added there
are also property and sales tax that the City gets from annexed properties.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for approval of the
Preliminary plat of Twin Beech Estates contingent upon the following conditions:
1) City Council approval of Case # ZC 18.02, annexation of subject properties and
re-zoning to PUD.
2) Waiver of five (5) of the ten (10) LID techniques required by Article V, Section
F.11.f.(1)-(15). Five LID techniques are utilized in eight (8) locations as
indicated in Article V, Section F.8.e.-g. in the “comments” section of the staff
report.
Art Dyas 2nd the motion.
Mr. Burrell asked what communication utilities will be provided and Mr. Godwin
responded he did not know but conduit will be installed in the right-of-way inside the
development, but the applicant cannot make the providers come down Twin Beech.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca
Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Jack
Burrell. NAY – none.
SD 18.26 Public hearing to consider the request of Moore Surveying, Inc. for plat
approval of the Re-plat of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Red Barn Road Estates, a 9-lot
subdivision, Seth Moore. The property is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of County Road 33 and Red Barn Road. Ms. Milford gave the staff report
saying the subject property is approximately 28.29 acres in unzoned Baldwin County.
The original approved Red Barn Road Subdivision consisted of 16 lots. The applicant is
taking a portion of those lots, reconfiguring 5 of the original 16 lots and then adding 4
additional lots. The smallest lot is approximately 2.61 acres and the largest lot is
approximately 5.97 acres. The minor plat for Red Barn Road Subdivision contains 9
single family lots. However, the applicant is only adding 4 lots to the original
subdivision. Staff recommends APPROVAL contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide written verification (letter or email) from Baldwin
County regarding approval of Lot 25 as a flag lot.
2. The applicant shall add the note that was on the previously recorded plat regarding
the wetland specialist and engineer. The note on the previous plat reads as follows:
“The owner of each lot shall provide to the City of Fairhope Planning Department a
signed sealed certification from and Alabama Registered Professional Civil
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
6
Engineer and a wetland specialist stating that the drainage and Low Impact
Development (LID) have met the City of Fairhope drainage and LID requirements.”
3. The applicant shall provide a note on the plat that sidewalks shall be required at
building permit.
4. The applicant shall correct the utility easements and building setback lines so that
the utility easements are not greater than the building setback lines and meet the
City of Fairhope’s requirements.
Mr. Turner and Mr. Dyas stated concerns with the major subdivision being resubdivided
into multiple minor divisions to circumvent the requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations. Mr. Burrell and Mrs. Bryant questioned the number of lots and the process
by which it was reviewed. Mr. Dyess explained the proposed lots exceed the minimum
lot size requirements. Mr. Watson stated a piece of land is being made into 9 lots and it
does not constitute a minor subdivision. Mr. Dyess noted only 4 new lots are being
proposed and the other 5 lots are just lot line adjustments. Mr. Peterson asked what
would change if the application was reviewed as a major subdivision and Mr. Dyess
responded nothing because no infrastructure is required. Ms. Milford added the
preliminary and final plat would be heard simultaneously and the fees would be double.
Mrs. Bryant noted a concern with the flag lot. Mr. Johnsons addressed the Commission
saying the application has kept all the original requirements of the previous approval and
has even added sidewalks. Mr. Burrell said the lot sizes meet and exceed the
requirements, but his concern is if this continues with the rest of the lots then the density
will be out of control. Mr. Turner said he liked the large lots and they fit with the
surrounding properties but not if they are being chopped up into smaller and smaller lots.
Mrs. Bryant asked if the heritage tree will be saved and questioned the increase of
stormwater from the previously approval. Mr. Johnson responded the lots are still in
excess of 10,000 square feet and he does not see drainage as a problem. Mrs. Bryant
asked if the application was a major subdivision would the tree be protected and Ms.
Milford responded no, this is residential property and unzoned. Mr. Moore addressed the
Commission saying this could have been accomplished in a 2-step process by requesting
a common lot line movement and then a minor subdivision. Mr. Dyas suggested
changing the regulations to specify a particular piece of property. Mr. Dyess stated these
are legal lots of record and only 4 new lots are being created. Mrs. Bryant asked the
intended use of the flag lot with the tree and Mr. Moore responded the owner plans to
keep the tree and build their residence on the lot. Mr. Burrell explained he wants to
prevent a huge subdivision by circumventing the major subdivision regulations. Mr.
Dyas and Mr. Burrell asked if the application can be voted on as a major subdivision and
Mr. Watson stated yes, they are just changing the label and not the proposal.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Bruce and Joy Larsen of 18837 Highland Drive – He stated concerns with stormwater,
drainage, erosion, and size of the lots. He said they were told one thing and now it is
being changed. Mr. Turner explained the only way to prevent the lots from being
subdivided is a deed restriction. Mr. Larsen also said there are gopher tortoises on the
property. Mr. Burrell noted the drainage techniques that will be applied to these
properties may help the downstream runoff. Mrs. Larson stated their home has flooded in
the past and the water continues to rise with each rain event.
Monty Montgomery of 31200 River Road – He asked if the LID techniques that were
required with the first subdivision were carried over to this application because this will
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
7
double the amount of impervious area. He said this is stealth subdividing and now it is
becoming something the residents in the area didn’t know it was going to be.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Bryant asked how the LIDs will be enforced and Mr. Dyess answered at the time of
building permit. Mr. Johnson stated a signed and sealed drainage plan is required for
each lot. Mr. Burrell stated the runoff will not be any worse than what is happening now
especially with the LID techniques incorporated.
Jack Burrell made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for Preliminary and Final
plat approval contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide written verification (letter or email) from Baldwin
County regarding approval of Lot 25 as a flag lot.
2. The applicant shall add the note that was on the previously recorded plat regarding
the wetland specialist and engineer. The note on the previous plat reads as follows:
“The owner of each lot shall provide to the City of Fairhope Planning Department a
signed sealed certification from and Alabama Registered Professional Civil
Engineer and a wetland specialist stating that the drainage and Low Impact
Development (LID) have met the City of Fairhope drainage and LID requirements.”
3. The applicant shall provide a note on the plat that sidewalks shall be required at
building permit.
4. The applicant shall correct the utility easements and building setback lines so that
the utility easements are not greater than the building setback lines and meet the
City of Fairhope’s requirements.
Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Richard Peterson, and Jack Burrell. NAY – none.
SD 18.27 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Multiple
Occupancy Project approval of Old Battles Place, Phase 2, at 94-unit project, Tim
Lawley. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Old Battles
Road and S. Section Street. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the site is
approximately 40.89 total acres and is zoned R-5 High Density Multi-Family Residential
District. The subject application is an MOP and does not request subdivision of lands or
the creation of new lots. Phase 1 of the development has been constructed, consisting of
110 apartment homes. Phase 2 will complete development of the site and add an
additional 94 apartment homes of similar configuration and arrangement to Phase 1.
Staff recommends approval of the MOP request subject to the conditions below:
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance associated with
Phase 2.
a. Incidental land disturbance associated with Phase 1 may continue prior to the Phase
2 pre-construction meeting.
b. The sequencing of apartment home construction, procedures for requests for
building inspection, and site stabilization requirements for each apartment home site
will be clarified during the pre-construction conference.
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver of ten (10) LID techniques and acceptance of the
use of six (6) LID techniques. A similar waiver as was accepted for Phase 1 of subject
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
8
development. The six LID techniques occur in 21 locations throughout Phase 1 and
Phase 2.
3) The building official will monitor the progress of the construction of the apartment
homes in Phase 2. When the building official determines approximately 75% of the
apartment homes have attained certificate of occupancy, staff will conduct the following
closeout procedures as well as request the following closeout documents:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any infrastructure to
be dedicated to the City of Fairhope.
b. A fully-executed and recorded copy of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan
and Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other storm water
quantity and quality BMPs as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(17) and Article
V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(3).
c. Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure
drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as required by
Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(16).
d. One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage
calculations, both containing the engineer’s certificate required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(18) and Article VI, Section E.6.–8. and identifying the entity
responsible for maintenance of drainage facilities outside the public ROW or public
easements.
e. One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the landscape
architect of record indicating the various landscape features have been completed as-
designed.
f. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D. 1.b.(1) –
(18).
g. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article VI, Construction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing
requirements.
Mr. King explained each of the LID techniques being utilized in the development and the
location of each. Mr. Dyas asked if the project meets the City’s rules and regulations and
Mr. King responded yes. Mr. Burrell asked if MOPs are required to have 10% of
greenspace like other subdivisions and Mr. King responded no. Mr. Burrell stated he
would like to make the greenspace required for MOPs and Mr. King said an amendment
can be proposed to change the regulation. Mrs. Bryant asked where the constructed
wetland is located and Mr. King explained it is in Phase 1. Mrs. Bryant stated pervious
pavement is required to be used due to the parking requirements and the applicant is also
listing it as a LID technique. She said counting it as both is double dipping. Mr. Burrell
asked if grass buffers can be counted as greenspace or just as storm water and Mr. King
said he is not sure if the uses can be overlapped. Mr. Turner stated some LIDs are very
usable for greenspace. Mr. Dyess explained an open field can function as both a LID and
greenspace.
Tim Lawley addressed the Commission saying greenspace is not required for MOPs but
the subject development is 20 acres with 5 acres of greenspace proposed. He explained
the site has a pool, clubhouse and deck.
Mr. Turner noted there are sidewalks stubbed out for the surrounding area to connect.
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
9
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Allen Jones of 17891 S. Section Street – He stated concerns with drainage and noted
there have been numerous issues with red runoff from this site.
Carol Gordon of 17861 S. Section Street – She stated the Commission has already denied
this project once for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and this proposal is not
doing anything different. She said the issues will continue if this phase is approved.
Lexie Jones of 17891 S. Section Street – She said the rules and regulations are here to
protect the City but they have not worked for this site. She asked the Commission to
make the best decision for the citizens.
Bonnie Gulsby of 410 Bartlett Avenue – She said the health, safety and welfare of the
public is in danger with this development. She stated there have been 18 calls to ADEM,
City stop work orders, and 3 self-reports because of this site. She showed pictures of run-
off and flooding issues downstream. She asked the Commission to deny due to the
waivers requested.
Beth Brodbeck of 18280 S. Section Street – She said this site is environmentally
detrimental and it is affecting hundreds of homes downstream. She said the sidewalks
should be provided by the developer and not the city or the citizens.
Bo Brodbeck of 18280 S. Section Street – He asked the point of LIDs is if the developers
are only meeting the bare minimums. He said the problems will continue and what will it
be like in 5 years.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lawley addressed the public comments saying sidewalks were not required with Phase 1 but
the developer is adding them. He explained the water quality of the run-off has improved and
will continue once Phase 2 is completed because the site was designed together. He stated
ADEM conducted numerous inspections and only 1 violation was ever given. Mr. Peterson
asked if the phasing of the project is causing the turbidity and Mr. Lawley explained a 6” or 7”
rain event will cause turbid water and that is why ADEM has a major event clause. Mr. Turner
noted the roads being required to be paved will help the run-off. Mr. Burrell stated the City has
passed new regulations due to Phase 1 of this development. Richard Johnson, Public Works
Director, stated red clay turns the water red but the sediment is what will be helped with the new
regulations. He explained LIDs are really for post development and the best way to help the
situation is to finish the site. Mr. Burrell stated most of the concerns with this project are with
stormwater and turbidity. Mr. Lawley explained the site is only 40 acres but the watershed for
the corner where the water has been an issue is the draining point for 1200 acres. Mrs.
MacKellar stated crop run-off doesn’t cause roads to wash out. Mr. Lawley stated the County
made improvement upstream and install new larger culverts the same time Phase 1 was
beginning which is what made it seem all the issues were from this site.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for approval of the MOP
request subject to the conditions below:
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance associated with
Phase 2.
a. Incidental land disturbance associated with Phase 1 may continue prior to the Phase
2 pre-construction meeting.
b. The sequencing of apartment home construction, procedures for requests for
building inspection, and site stabilization requirements for each apartment home site
will be clarified during the pre-construction conference.
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
1
2) Acceptance of the request for waiver of ten (10) LID techniques and acceptance of the
use of six (6) LID techniques. A similar waiver as was accepted for Phase 1 of subject
development. The six LID techniques occur in 21 locations throughout Phase 1 and
Phase 2.
3) The building official will monitor the progress of the construction of the apartment
homes in Phase 2. When the building official determines approximately 75% of the
apartment homes have attained certificate of occupancy, staff will conduct the following
closeout procedures as well as request the following closeout documents:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any infrastructure to
be dedicated to the City of Fairhope.
b. A fully-executed and recorded copy of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan
and Agreement for maintenance of detention facilities and other storm water
quantity and quality BMPs as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(17) and Article
V, Section F.3.a.(3)(a)(3).
c. Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to ensure
drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment as required by
Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(16).
d. One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage
calculations, both containing the engineer’s certificate required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(18) and Article VI, Section E.6.–8. and identifying the entity
responsible for maintenance of drainage facilities outside the public ROW or public
easements.
e. One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the landscape
architect of record indicating the various landscape features have been completed as-
designed.
f. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D. 1.b.(1) –
(18).
g. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article VI, Construction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing
requirements.
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion.
Mr. Burrell asked if the project meets the health, safety and welfare of the public and Mr. Dyess
stated the project meets the City regulations. He said health, safety and welfare is ambiguous,
but the regulations are based on the health, safety and welfare and the project meets the
regulations. Mrs. MacKellar stated the stormwater is a concern.
The motion carried with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Lee Turner,
Richard Peterson, and Jack Burrell. NAY – Rebecca Bryant and Hollie MacKellar.
Old / New Business
Resubmittal Requirements, Subdivision Regulations Amendment – Mr. Dyess
explained the Subdivision Regulation currently state a parcel cannot be reconsidered by
the Planning Commission for 6 months if a preliminary plat is denied on said parcel. Mr.
Dyas stated the proposed amendment would allow the plat to be resubmitted before the
July 2, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
1
180 day time frame if the applicant has clearly addressed the concerns stated in the
denial.
LID Amendment – Mr. King provided the Commission a draft proposal of an
amendment to the LID requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. He highlighted the
changes which include removing the required use of 10 LID techniques and adding a
reference to the Alabama LID Handbook. He stated there will be a worksession prior to
the next Planning Commission meeting to further discuss the proposed changes. Mr.
Dyess stated the proposed changes will still require the same results for discharge just not
mandate the number of techniques be used. Mr. Turner stated he likes the proposed
changes.
Greenspace Requirements – Mr. Burrell suggested greenspace be based on the density
of a project and not a set percentage. Mrs. MacKellar said she would like to see
greenspace defined for each development. Mr. Turner stated R-1 properties are not
required to provide any greenspace. Mr. Burrell stated 10% should be the minimum but
the denser the project the more greenspace that should be required. Mrs. Bryant said she
would like see more diverse bio-retention and practical applications.
Having no further business, Richard Peterson made a motion to adjourn. Jack Burrell 2nd
the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 PM.
____________________________ ________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Charles Johnson; Ralph
Thayer; Richard Peterson; Hollie MacKellar; Clarice Hall-Black; Wayne Dyess, Planning
Director; Buford King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and
Ken Watson, City Attorney
Absent: Jack Burrell
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:04 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
Mr. Turner introduced Clarice Hall-Black as the newest Commissioner.
SD 18.25 Public hearing to consider the request of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC for
plat approval of Garner Subdivision, a 3-lot minor division, Larry Smith. The project
is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of S. Church Street and Bergundy
Street. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 1.06 acres
in size and is currently one lot with a single-family residence. The owners plan to split the
property, demolish the house and then re-build on one of the lots. The applicant is
requesting the plat approval be extended from 60 days to 180 days. This will give the
applicant time to take the necessary steps to remove/demolish the existing house.
Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant is requesting the plat approval be extended from 60 days to 180
days. This will give the applicant time to take the necessary steps to
remove/demolish the house. The plat not be signed by the City of Fairhope staff
until the existing residence on the subject property is demolished and verified by
the City of Fairhope;
2. The approval by the Planning Commission of the request for extension of the 60
day recording period to 180 days.
3. Sidewalks shall be constructed at time of home construction on subject property.
Submit standard sidewalk details with building plans for homes to be constructed
on the subject property. Existing sidewalks shall be brought into ADA
compliance at the time of home construction.
4. The applicant shall provide a note of clarification that 5’ will be dedicated to the
City of ROW to provide sufficient row in this location.
Mr. Smith addressed the Commission saying the owners would like a circular drive for
Lot 1 to allow access to both streets. Mr. Johnson, Public Works Director, responded he
would prefer one access but due to the low traffic volume he is not opposed to two access
points. He also added he would be able to review the driveway placement at time of
permitting.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve contingent upon
the following conditions:
1. The applicant is requesting the plat approval be extended from 60 days to 180
days. This will give the applicant time to take the necessary steps to
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
2
remove/demolish the house. The plat not be signed by the City of Fairhope staff
until the existing residence on the subject property is demolished and verified by
the City of Fairhope;
2. The approval by the Planning Commission of the request for extension of the 60
day recording period to 180 days.
3. Sidewalks shall be constructed at time of home construction on subject property.
Submit standard sidewalk details with building plans for homes to be constructed
on the subject property. Existing sidewalks shall be brought into ADA
compliance at the time of home construction.
4. The applicant shall provide a note of clarification that 5’ will be dedicated to the
City of ROW to provide sufficient row in this location.
Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner,
Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
SD 18.29 Discussion regarding the request of Mullins, LLC for Site Plan approval of
Northgate Subdivision, a 482-lot Village Subdivision, Joe Rector. The project is
located on the south side of St. Hwy. 104 just west of the intersection of St. Hwy. 104 and
Lawrence Road. Mr. King gave the staff recommendation to table the request beyond 30
days.
Mr. Rector addressed the Commission saying they are going to make some changes and
bring the project back for approval. He explained this application is a new design for the
site but there is an existing village subdivision approval for the subject property. He
stated Trae Corte previously obtained approval and now Mullins, LLC is seeking to
redesign the western portion. He noted the site is in close proximity to a village center as
denoted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the applicant is replicating the village
design in the development. He noted the design will have large lots overlooking natural
wetlands and he asked the Commission to look at the net density and not lot size. He
stated there is a focal greenspace in the middle of the site with additional greenspace along
the edges which will be connected by pedestrian trails.
Mr. Dyas questioned the traffic analysis and Mr. Rector stated there is a 10 year build-out
plan and the traffic improvements will be constructed as developed. Mrs. MacKellar
asked if this approval has a sunset clause and Mr. Dyess responded the preliminary plat
approval expires after 2 years. Ken Watson stated the site plan has an expiration of 6
months but it only requires the preliminary plat be approved for the first phase. Dr.
Thayer stated traffic studies need updating periodically to account for future growth. He
also said he like the addition of a connection to the 3 Circles church. Mr. Rector stated the
church actually requested the connection and he said it will be a platted right-of-way.
Mrs. MacKellar suggested adding amenities and a commercial aspect along Hwy. 104.
Mr. Turner said he wants to see sidewalks along Hwy. 104. Mrs. Bryant said the access
connections and amenities should be front loaded. Richard Johnson, Public Works
Director, stated ALDOT will dictate the required improvements and the phasing plan of
the improvements. He suggested each phase be designed to meet the standards on their
own so if future phases are not constructed all aspects will be met.
Rebecca Bryant stated a conflict with SD 18.30 and SR 18.05. She recused herself and
left the dais.
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
3
SD 18.30 Public hearing to consider the request of James and Beverly Reid for
Multiple Occupancy Project approval of Reid Mixed Use Development, a 21-unit
project, Larry Smith. The property is located on the south side of Magnolia Avenue just
west of Church Street. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the property is zoned B-2
General Business District and is in the Central Business District Overlay of downtown
Fairhope, consisting of a combined 0.81 acres. Subject application is an MOP and does
not request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots. The development proposes six
(6) structures with a total of 21 units. Subject application is a Multiple Occupancy Project
and as a result there is no “plat” to be submitted for final approval. In order to fulfill the
final inspection requirements of Article IV, Section C.6.a. and b., as well as Article IV,
Section D.4, staff recommends APPROVAL of the MOP request subject to the conditions
below:
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance.
a. The sequencing of construction of the various buildings, procedures for
requests for building inspection, site stabilization requirements for each
building site and initiation of closeout procedures will be clarified during
the pre-construction conference.
i. Any building constructed “stand-alone” must be constructed and all
improvements installed for “stand-alone” functionality and will
have its own closeout process.
2) Submission of a copy of the recorded utility easements related to subject property.
3) Submission of a re-plat of the existing lot lines to fit the proposed development.
(Administrative approval, no new lots to be created)
4) Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subdivision. In lieu of the final
plat approval procedure required for a typical subdivision, the closeout procedure
for subject development includes the follow procedures and/or documents as
applicable:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any
infrastructure to be dedicated to the City of Fairhope
b. Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to
ensure drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment
as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(16)
c. One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage
calculations containing the engineer’s certificate required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(18) and Article VI, Section E.6–8 as well as a statement
identifying the POA or similar entity responsible for maintaining any and
all storm water facilities and structures located outside of the publicly
accepted ROW.
d. One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the
landscape architect of record indicating the various landscape features have
been completed as-designed.
e. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D.
1.b.(1) – (18)
f. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article VI, Construction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances,
testing requirements.
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
4
Larry Smith addressed the Commission saying the property is in the CBD and they are
proposing to expand the existing sidewalk to 8’ and push the building closer to the street
which will help the trees in the middle of the property.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Al Johnson of 215 Magnolia Avenue – He stated this area drains down the hill and floods
his property. He asked how the drainage and run-off will be addressed.
Dan Stubler of 209 Magnolia Avenue – He stated he is in favor of the development but
has concerns with headlights shining in his windows. He also had concerns with parking
during construction. He asked what the phasing and timeline would be.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Smith addressed the public comments saying a new storm system will be constructed
to tie into the existing system. He stated the access points are existing, but the flow could
possibly be reversed to help with the lights and glare. He added Saxe Lane is also an
access point that will be used. Mr. Smith said there has not been a construction staging
plan developed yet but the applicant will start with one building and the rest will be
market driven.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL of the MOP
request subject to the conditions below:
1) A pre-construction conference will be required prior to land disturbance.
a. The sequencing of construction of the various buildings, procedures for
requests for building inspection, site stabilization requirements for each
building site and initiation of closeout procedures will be clarified during
the pre-construction conference.
i. Any building constructed “stand-alone” must be constructed and all
improvements installed for “stand-alone” functionality and will
have its own closeout process.
2) Submission of a copy of the recorded utility easements related to subject property.
3) Submission of a re-plat of the existing lot lines to fit the proposed development.
(Administrative approval, no new lots to be created)
4) Subject development is an MOP and not a typical subdivision. In lieu of the final
plat approval procedure required for a typical subdivision, the closeout procedure
for subject development includes the follow procedures and/or documents as
applicable:
a. Maintenance Bond as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.a. for any
infrastructure to be dedicated to the City of Fairhope
b. Digital or video image(s) with date and time stamp of storm drains to
ensure drainage structures are undamaged and free of debris and sediment
as required by Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(16)
c. One copy of the site as-built drawings as well as one copy of the drainage
calculations containing the engineer’s certificate required by Article IV,
Section.D.1.b.(18) and Article VI, Section E.6–8 as well as a statement
identifying the POA or similar entity responsible for maintaining any and
all storm water facilities and structures located outside of the publicly
accepted ROW.
d. One copy of the landscape as-built drawings with a statement from the
landscape architect of record indicating the various landscape features have
been completed as-designed.
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
5
e. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article IV, Section D.
1.b.(1) – (18)
f. Inspection of all other MOP-applicable sections of Article VI, Construction
Standards and Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances,
testing requirements.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE – Art
Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Clarice Hall-
Black. NAY – None. ABSTAIN – Lee Turner.
SR 18.05 Request of James and Beverly Reid for Site Plan approval of Reid Mixed
Use Development, a 21-unit project, Larry Smith. The property is located on the south
side of Magnolia Avenue just west of Church Street. Mr. King gave the staff report
saying the property is zoned B-2 General Business District and is in the Central Business
District Overlay of downtown Fairhope, consisting of a combined 0.81 acres. Subject
application is a mixed-use development which proposes six (6) structures with a total of
21 units. Staff recommendation is for APPROVAL.
Dr. Thayer asked if there will be elevators and Mr. Smith responded none are proposed
but they can be incorporated.
Charles Johnson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL.
Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE – Art Dyas,
Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, Clarice Hall-Black.
NAY – None. ABSTAIN – Lee Turner.
Rebecca Bryant returned to the dais.
ZC 18.06 Public hearing to consider the request of Truland Homes, LLC for a PUD
Amendment to the Old Battles Village PUD, Steve Pumphrey. The property is located
on the north side of Battles Road, between Section Street and Greeno Road. Mr. Dyess
gave the staff report saying the applicant is seeking to amend Phases 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the
Old Battles Village PUD Master Plan. The most significant change in lot sizes and lot
number will occur in phases 5 and 6, with minor changes to phases 3 and 4 needed to
accommodate the changes to phases 5 and 6. The proposed changes will increase the total
number of lots in the development by four lots, resulting in a change from 177 total lots to
181 lots. The total area of the development with remain unchanged at 86.76 acres. The
proposed changes minimally increase the development density from 2.04 units per acre to
2.09 units per acre. No request for changes in use has been proposed and the use of the
development shall remain “single family residential” as the use type. No other use types
are above and beyond single family residential are indicated in the applicant’s PUD
request narrative. Phase 5, the “Hamlet” is ringed with a 20’ and 25’ “green belt”, large
common area buffer or abuts the property line of an adjoining property located in
unincorporated Baldwin County. The smallest lot abutting the property subject of the
amendment is 11,480 sq.ft. (82’x140’) to the north and approximately 13,800 sq.ft. for the
property abutting on the east. In comparison, the smallest lot inside the “Hamlet” abutting
the east and northern properties are 8,775 sq.ft. Where the “Hamlet” abuts lots outside of
itself, a green belt, common area or property line is present thereby separating dissimilar
lot sizes. The “Hamlet”, is essentially self-contained neighborhood within a neighborhood
with all lots fronting inward to the development with no lots directly abutting adjoining
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
6
lots in other phases of Old Battles Village. The subject property comprising the request
for PUD amendment is a component of the Old Battles Village Master Plan, approved by
the Fairhope City Council on August 22, 2016. Staff believes that the proposed
amendment offers a variety of single family lot types without unduly affecting
neighboring properties. In addition, the green belt and common area concept provides not
only a visual buffer and separation for the subject property but also provides a unique
aesthetic surrounding for this self-contained internally facing neighborhood.
Staff recommends that ZC 18.06 Old Battles Place PUD Amendment be APPROVED.
Mr. Pumphrey addressed the Commission saying this design amendment was relocated to
a further future phase at the request of the residents in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Bryant asked if the buffer is required to be sodded or planted and Mr. Pumphrey
responded there are trees proposed in the buffer.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner closed
the public hearing.
Mrs. Boyett stated no letters have been received but several residents called to verify the
location of the amendment had been moved to the north.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL of the Old
Battles Village PUD Amendment. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried
unanimously with the following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson,
Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black.
NAY – None.
UR 18.05 Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of
approximately 1,269 linear foot of underground installation of fiber optic cable,
Wade Mitchell. The project will run along Magnolia Avenue, N. Church Street, and the
Fairhope Parking Garage alley to service 23 N. Section Street. Ms. Milford gave the staff
report saying The applicant proposes to install approximately 1269 linear feet of 1.5” and
2” HPDE conduit, equipped with a fiber optic cable, across Magnolia Avenue, just west of
Section Street., along Magnolia Avenue to N. Church St. along N. Church Street to the
alley entering the Fairhope Parking Garage, and through the alley to the rear of 23 N.
Section St. Fiber Optic handholes to be placed in the sidewalk in two locations
The applicant proposes to install 7 handholes flush to grade and replacing 3 existing
pedestals in the alley. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated
above.
2) All mechanical equipment shall be painted Munsell green as applicable.
3) The applicant shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works
Director.
4) The applicant shall provide the City of Fairhope with the Right of Entry documents
from the Lease holder (Parking Authority) and the grantor (Fairhope Single Tax).
5) A pre-construction conference shall be held prior to construction and written notice
shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written
schedule.
Mrs. Bryant was concerned with the large trees on Magnolia Avenue and Richard Johnson,
Public Works Director, stated boring is the least intrusive and preferred method of
installation near and around trees.
August 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
7
Hollie MacKellar made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve with the
following conditions:
1) The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated
above.
2) All mechanical equipment shall be painted Munsell green as applicable.
3) The applicant shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works
Director.
4) The applicant shall provide the City of Fairhope with the Right of Entry documents
from the Lease holder (Parking Authority) and the grantor (Fairhope Single Tax).
5) A pre-construction conference shall be held prior to construction and written notice
shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written
schedule.
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner,
Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – None.
Resolution 2017-03 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department to approve a proposed amendment to Article V,
Section F. 11 Low Impact Development (LID) requirements in the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the major changes include
removing the required use of 10 LID techniques and adding a reference to the Alabama
LID Handbook. He also stated there were a few minor text edits and grammatical
corrections. Staff recommendation is to APPROVE as presented.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Wade Burches – He stated he was glad to see the City being proactive about drainage and
he applauded these changes.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Bryant asked why the waiver allowance is still included and Mr. Dyess responded he
thought it best to keep it but does not see where it should ever be needed. Mr. Turner said
he would not be in favor of granting a waiver to the LID requirements if this change is
approved.
Ralph Thayer made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE as
presented. Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the
following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee
Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – None.
Having no further business, Ralph Thayer made a motion to adjourn. Rebecca Bryant 2nd
the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 PM.
____________________________ ________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
September 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Charles Johnson; Ralph
Thayer; Richard Peterson; Clarice Hall-Black; Wayne Dyess, Planning Director; Buford
King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City
Attorney
Absent: Hollie MacKellar and Jack Burrell
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
Mr. Turner announced Item A. ZC 18.07 Rezone request for 20451 County Road 13 has
been tabled by the applicant until the October 1, 2018 meeting.
SD 18.31 Public hearing to consider the request of Bryce and Cora McMurry for
plat approval of Cora Mae’s Place, a 3-lot minor subdivision, Seth Moore. The
project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 13 and
County Road 44 (a.k.a. Twin Beech Road). Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the
subject property is 6.119 acres with 3 lots proposed. The largest lot is 3.1 acres and the
smallest lot is 1.452 acres. The property is unzoned in Baldwin County and is situated
on the south east corner of County Road 13 and Twin Beech Road. There is a house and
two out buildings on the property. The house appears to have built in approximately
1978, according to the Baldwin County Records. According to the applicant, the out
buildings on the property are going to be removed and Mr. McMurry has plans to reduce
the size of the existing house. Sidewalks are required per the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations; however, the applicant has submitted a waiver request from
the sidewalk requirements. Staff recommends APPROVAL contingent upon the
following conditions:
1) The applicant shall not have more than two access points on Twin Beech Road.
2) Sidewalks shall be installed unless the waiver is approved by Planning
Commission.
Seth Moore addressed the Commission saying he has added a note to the plat for a
common driveway. He explained the size of the lots do not require sidewalks if it was
just in the County. Mr. Turner asked about a fire hydrant and Mr. Moore responded a fire
hydrant is not required because the applicant plans to install a well.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, Mr. Turner
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Turner said he would like to see sidewalks installed along these lots and Richard
Johnson, Public Works Director, stated the City just received a grant to build sidewalks
from Sedgefield to the soccer fields just south of the subject property on County Road 13.
Mr. Moore explained there is not enough right-of-way to install the sidewalks, but the
applicant is not opposed to a 10’ easement along County Road 44 for sidewalks. Mr.
Dyas agreed sidewalks are needed to tie into the forthcoming infrastructure. Mr. Turner
asked how far back the easement needs to be to stay out of the ditch on County Road 13
and Mr. Moore and Mr. Johnson explained there is a steep embankment on the east side
September 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
2
of County Road 13 which leads to wetlands to the south. Mr. Turner said he wants
sidewalks built or a 20’ easement for sidewalks along both rights-of-way.
Art Dyas made a motion for APPROVAL contingent upon the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall not have more than two access points on Twin Beech Road.
2) A waiver to require sidewalks in the right-of-way.
3) A 10’ sidewalk easement shall be added to the plat along the front of Lot 1 and 2
adjacent to County Road 44 right-of-way and along the west side of Lot 2
adjacent to the County Road 13 right-of-way.
4) A 20’ sidewalk easement shall be added to the plat along the west side of Lot 3
adjacent to the County Road 13 right-of-way.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner,
Richard Peterson and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
Resolution 2018-01 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department to approve a proposed amendment to Article IV,
Section C.4. Planning Commission Decision procedures in the City of Fairhope
Subdivision Regulations regarding resubmittal requirements, Wayne Dyess. Mr.
Dyess stated the proposed amendment will allow applicants to resubmit within 180 days
if they have adequately addressed the Commission’s concerns which led to a previous
denial. Staff recommendation is for APPROVAL as presented.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL as
presented. Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the
following vote: Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner,
Richard Peterson and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
Resolution 2018-02 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department to approve a proposed amendment to Article IV,
Section H. Multiple Occupancy Projects in the City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations to require greenspace, Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess stated the proposed
amendment will require Multiple Occupancy Projects comply with the greenspace
requirements for subdivisions. Staff recommendation is for APPROVAL as presented.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL as
presented. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the
following vote: Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner,
Richard Peterson and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
Resolution 2018-03 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department to approve a proposed amendment to Article IV,
Section B. Pre-application and Sketch Plat in the City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations to require pre-application conferences and community meetings,
Wayne Dyess. Mr. Dyess stated these procedures are happening informally in the
process now but the proposed amendment will require the applicants to meet with staff
September 6, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
3
and the community prior to submitting an application. Staff recommendation is for
APPROVAL as presented. Mr. Turner asked if Mr. Dyess has used this procedure in
other places and Mr. Dyess responded yes, it worked very well in Walton County. Mr.
Dyess stated lots of minor issues were caught and worked out prior to the public hearing.
He added it is sometimes easier to have dialog and communication without the pressure
of the public hearing.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL as
presented. Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the
following vote: Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner,
Richard Peterson and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
Old / New Business
Greenspace Standards, Subdivision Regulations Amendment – Mr. Dyess stated the
Commission requested the greenspace requirement be looked at to amend the percentage
to be based on the density of a development. Mr. Dyess provided a draft of the proposed
amendment to the Commission. Mr. Turner stated he would like to encourage detention
to be an amenity, i.e. ponds stocked for fishing, docks, suitable for kayaks, canoes, or
paddleboats. Mr. Turner said to put it out front so its visible and the POA maintains it
instead of in the back with a fence around it. Mrs. Bryant said it’s all how it’s worded
and designed to make detention an amenity. She stated 25% seems high for hard surfaces
and suggested looking at vertical greenspace too. Mr. Peterson asked if greenspace
includes clubhouses and Mr. Dyess responded yes. Mr. Dyess said staff will re-evaluate
the wording and bring it back to the Commission.
Walton County Field Trip, Seaside and Rosemary Beach, Florida – Mr. Dyess
invited the Commission to attend a day trip to 30A/South Walton County to look at
several New Urbanism projects. He sated Rick Hall and David Bailey will be showing us
how their communities have approached similar challenges including pedestrian safety,
connectivity and the demands of rapid growth using good community design standards
primarily created through New Urbanism. We have a tentative date of Thursday,
September 13th, 2018.
Having no further business, Rebecca Bryant made a motion to adjourn. Charles Johnson
2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:47
PM.
____________________________ ________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
October 1, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Charles Johnson; Ralph Thayer; Hollie
MacKellar; Richard Peterson; Clarice Hall-Black; Jack Burrell; Wayne Dyess, Planning
Director; Buford King, Planner; Nancy Milford, Planner; Mike Jeffries, Planning
Technician; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attorney
Absent: Rebecca Bryant
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
ZC 18.05 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, Larry Smith. 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. Mr.
King gave the staff report saying the property is bordered to the north by the Hayek PUD,
to the south by the Park Place PUD, and to the east by the Auburn University Gulf Coast
Experiment Station, zoned R-1 Low Density Single Family Zoning District. The existing
uses and emerging development pattern created by the two nearby PUDs along with the
proximity of the recreation facility is inherently commercial in nature into which
introduction of a B-2 zoning district is not inappropriate. Staff recommends
APPROVAL subject to the following condition:
1) Restaurant drive-through lanes and windows are prohibited.
Mr. Burrell asked if all drive-throughs are precluded on PUDs and Mr. King responded
he was not sure. Mr. Turner asked about the overlay district that was discussed for the
Greeno Road Corridor and Mr. Dyess stated the City is conducting a Visual Preference
Survey on November 8th and 9th and staff is waiting for those results before moving
forward. Mr. Dyess stated the site is located between two village centers and below the
acreage required for a PUD. Dr. Thayer said he would like to see this site and the PUDs
work together instead of three individual developments. Mr. Turner suggested waiting
until the survey is completed to approve this change and Mr. Dyess said it will take
several months to get all the results. Mr. Turner said he would like to see the building
facades and landscaping along the right-of-way, not parking lots.
Larry Smith addressed the Commission saying the applicant would like to mimic what
the adjacent PUDs have approved and they are willing to restrict parking to the rear of the
buildings. He added that waiting several months for the survey results does not work for
his client’s timeframe. Mr. Burrell asked if the applicant would agree to other restrictions
such as no gas station, convenience store or mechanic/repair shop.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Dyas asked for the list of allowed uses in B-2. Mr. Dyess stated the following:
Allowed by Right: Single Family, Two-family, Mixed Used, Elementary and Secondary
Schools, Educational 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.
October 1, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
2
Permitted Subject to special conditions listed in the ordinance: Townhouse, Accessory
Dwelling, Home Occupation, Convenience Store, and Recreational Vehicle Park.
Permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions: 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, Kennel or Animal Hospital, and Limited
Manufacturing.
Mr. Peterson said the Fairhope Recreation Center is an asset and the close proximity
would warrant single family or high density residential at this location.
Art Dyas made a motion for APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
1) Parking shall be in the rear.
2) Drive-through lanes and windows are prohibited.
3) Automobile repair is prohibited.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE – Art
Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black,
and Jack Burrell. NAY – Richard Peterson.
SD 18.32 Public hearing to consider the request of LA Development, LLC for
Preliminary Plat approval of Pinewood Subdivision, Phase 2, an 18-lot division,
Ercil Godwin. The property is located on the south side of Manley Road between
Saddlewood Subdivision and the City of Fairhope Soccer Complex. Mr. King gave the
staff report saying the subject property is approximately 7.42 acres and 18 lots are
proposed. The applicant previously submitted case 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.
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 a LID
wavier.
Mr. Dyas asked why the City Council has not heard the zoning case yet and Mr. King
stated the applicant requested the zoning case be held until the subdivision case was
approved. Dr. Thayer asked how utility and service vehicles will turn around at the dead-
ends and Mr. King answered there are hammerheads proposed at each location.
Ercil Godwin addressed the Commission and gave the background and timeline for this
project. Mr. Turner stated the surrounding residents had several concerns regarding what
they were told by D.R. Horton when they purchased their homes. Mr. Godwin explained
neither he nor his client have control over what information D.R. Horton gave.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Edward Jackson of 106 Open Field Drive – He stated concerns with a subdivision inside
a subdivision and asked if a property owner’s association will be formed for this
October 1, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
3
development. He also wanted clarification whether the drainage would tie into the
existing Saddlewood drainage system and pond.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Doug Chaffin of Sawgrass Consulting addressed the public comments saying a POA will
be required for this subdivision and the northwest corner of this site will drain to the road
due to the topography but everything else will be directed to the new infrastructure. Mr.
Turner asked if the drainage will be more than pre-development and Mr. Chaffin
responded no, it will be significantly less going to the Saddlewood system.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for 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 a LID
wavier.
Jack Burrell 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Richard
Peterson, Clarice Hall-Black, and Jack Burrell. NAY – none.
ZC 18.09 Public hearing to consider the request of Billie, LLC to establish initial
zoning of R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District conditional upon
annexation into the City of Fairhope, John Avent. The property is located on the
south side of St. Hwy. 104 approximately ½ mile east of County Road 13. Ms. Milford
gave the staff report saying The property is approximately 35.08 acres and connects to
Highway 104 on the northern side of the property and Mosley Road on the southern side
of the property. The property appears to be undeveloped based on the Baldwin County
Mapping system aerials. There is a natural blue line stream feature shown on the subject
property, which represents the headwaters to Fly Creek. With an R-2 Zoning
Designation, the applicant could build up to 145 units on this site 4.14 Units Per Acre
(UPA). However, given the natural feature of the site, the applicant proposes a concept
more in line with approximately 45 UPA. Staff recommends to APPROVE as requested.
Mr. Dyas asked if there will be traffic coordination along St. Hwy. 104 with the multiple
projects and Mr. Dyess responded St. Hwy. 104 and 181 are controlled by ALDOT and
the City does not have jurisdiction to require improvements. Richard Johnson, Public
Works Director, stated the Eastern Shore MPO is tracking everything the local Planning
Commissions are approving and ALDOT sits on that board.
John Avent addressed the Commission saying this request is for zoning only and the
traffic study will be at the time of subdivision.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Ken Mayfield of 9119B Mosley Road – He asked if the drainage and traffic have been
reviewed for Mosley Road. Mr. Turner explained this is only to approve the use of the
property for single family residential and the drainage and traffic will be reviewed once
the property is developed.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
October 1, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
4
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to APPROVE as requested.
Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Richard Peterson, Clarice Hall-Black, and Jack Burrell. NAY – none.
Jack Burrell left the meeting.
SD 18.34 Public hearing to consider the request of Truland Homes, LLC for
Preliminary Plat approval of Hamlet at Old Battles Village, Phase 5, a 42-lot
subdivision, John Avent. The property is located on the west side of Garrison Blvd. and
north of Old Battles Village, Phase 4. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the total
tract of the subject property is approximately 12.47 acres and 42 lots are proposed. 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.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application contingent upon the following
conditions:
1. The Council approval of the Old Battles Village PUD Amendment (ZC 18.06) and
conditions of approval therein.
2. All pending water and sewer approvals from Mr. Richard Peterson, PE, Director of
Operations shall be obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting.
3. All pending public works approval from Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, Public Works
Director shall be obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting.
John Avent was present to answer questions.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL of the
application contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The Council approval of the Old Battles Village PUD Amendment (ZC 18.06) and
conditions of approval therein.
2. All pending water and sewer approvals from Mr. Richard Peterson, PE, Director of
Operations shall be obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting.
3. All pending public works approval from Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, Public Works
Director shall be obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
ZC 18.10 Public hearing to consider the request of North Hills at Fairhope, LLC to
establish initial zoning of R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District
conditional upon annexation into the City of Fairhope, John Avent. The property is
located on the north side of St. Hwy. 104 approximately ½ mile east of County Road 13,
to be known as North Hills at Fairhope. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the
applicant is seeking concurrent annexation and rezoning of approximately 13.47 acres +/-
October 1, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
5
from unzoned Baldwin County to the City of Fairhope R-2 Medium Density Single
Family Residential District. The 13.47 acre area is a portion of a parcel of approximately
96.8 acres to which the applicant has also requested to annex but as R-1 Low Density
Single Family Residential district. Staff recommends APPROVAL as requested. Mr.
Dyess stated the applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property,
but it did not make the agenda. Mrs. MacKellar asked what amenities will be in the
subdivision and Mr. Dyess responded the proposed development will be very similar to
The Waters subdivision.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL as
requested. Charles Johnson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the
following vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie
MacKellar, Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
SD 18.36 Public hearing to consider the request of Anthem Development, LLC for
Final Plat approval of Anthem Oaks Subdivision, a 9-lot division, John Avent. The
property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 32 and
Mandrell Lane. Ms. Milford gave the staff report saying the subject property is
approximately 30.07 acres in unzoned Baldwin County and 9 lots are proposed.
Staff recommends APPROVAL contingent upon the following condition:
1. The fire hydrants markers shall be installed.
Dr. Thayer asked if the development is phased and Ms. Milford responded no.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Connie Cotton of 12415 Old Timney Lane – She stated concerns with drainage and said
the run-off from this site causes the southeast corner to wash out.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Jared Landry of Dewberry Engineering, Inc addressed the public comments saying the
site naturally drains to the southeast but the post-development run-off will not exceed the
pre-development rates.
Charles Johnson made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for APPROVAL
contingent upon the following condition:
1. The fire hydrants markers shall be installed.
Hollie MacKellar 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE - Art Dyas, Charles Johnson, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Richard Peterson, and Clarice Hall-Black. NAY – none.
IR 18.02 Request of JADE Consulting, LLC for an Informal Review of Higbee
Farms, a 264-unit Multiple Occupancy Project, Max Dearing. The property is
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Higbee Road and St. Hwy. 104. Mr.
Dearing addressed the Commission saying the applicant is proposing 264 high-end
apartments on approximately 22 acres. Mr. Dyas asked if there will be a commercial
component to support the residents of the facility to reduce the stress on the major
infrastructure. Dr. Thayer noted the parking needs to accommodate clubhouse functions
and warned the widening of St. Hwy. 104 may take most of the greenspace denoted along
the right-of-way. Mrs. MacKellar stated concern with the parking being along the ROW.
Robert Randall, applicant, stated there have been talks with a grocery store for this
October 1, 2018
Planning Commission Minutes
6
location and Mr. Dyas said now groceries do not require the massive footprints they once
did. Mr. Randall said the development will be market driven. Mr. Peterson questioned
the density and setbacks for this property and Mr. Watson stated they are not requesting a
subdivision and splitting the land. Mr. Watson explained the units in the buildings are
being leased not the land. Mr. Dyess said the property is unzoned and the City’s
authority is very limited. He added if this project was inside city limits, this proposal
would not meet the compatibility analysis. Mr. King noted the site is also outside the
City’s Building Permit Jurisdiction as well.
Trae Corte asked why this proposal is not required to meet the Comprehensive Plan and
Mr. Dyess explained this will be required to follow the Multiple Occupancy Project
process but the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property.
Old / New Business
Walton County Field Trip, Seaside and Rosemary Beach, Florida – Mr. Dyess said
thanked the Commissioners who attended the field trip. He said it was very informative
and an excellent example of long-term planning executed. Mrs. MacKellar said the best
way to learn is to see the practices implemented. Mr. Dyess said he would like to do a
similar trip once a year to different places.
Having no further business, Art Dyas made a motion to adjourn. Charles Johnson 2nd the
motion and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 PM.
____________________________ ________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of Dewberry Engineers, Inc. on beha lf of North Hills, LLC for
preliminary plat approval of North Hills Fairhope, a 112-lot major subdivision . The property is currently
owned by Mr. A.I. Corte, Il l and is located approximate ly 5/8 mile west of the intersection of State Highway
181 and State HWY 104, along the north side of HWY 104 approximately 3/8 mile east of County Road 13.
The subject property is approximately 96.8 acres with a smallest proposed lot of 14,278 sf and a largest
proposed lot of 54,745 sf, and an overall deve lopment density of 1.16 units per acre. Two phases of
development are proposed, including lots 1-48 within Phase 1 and Lots 49 -112 within Phase 2. Subject
property is currently located in an unzoned reg ion of Ba ldwin County and subject application shall be
conditioned upon city council approval of Case# ZC18.10, concurrent annexation and re-zoning to a
combination of R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District and R-2 Medium Density Sing le Family
Resident i a I District.
Comments:
The fo ll ow i ng items are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject application's
compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and other
relevant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and rationale behind staff's
recommendation. Any items initially marked "revise and resubmit" 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 denia l 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 un less otherwise identified. Sections from the subdivision regulations are excerpts -complete
check l ists are available via SharePoint web access.
PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENTS
Article IV, Section C.l .b.(3) Names and addresses of the following :
• owner
• designer
• applicant
• all associated investors
• record owners of lands immediately adjacent to subdivision .
□NIA I IXIAccepted I IXIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please furnish the associated i11veslorsfor the project with co11tact information as required by this
section. The applicant clarified the associated investors are Thunder Box LLC (William Rance Reeh I) and
Prosperity Hills LLC (Erick and Jamie Windham). The full contact information for each investor is included
in the applicant's narrative included with their follow-up comments.
Article IV, Section C. l . b. (10) The existing or proposed zoning classification of the subdivision and all contiguous
lands. Where there is no zoning in effect, the proposed use of the lots shall be shown on the plat.
□NI A I □Accepted [ IXIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please provide a breakdowll of lots to be zo11ed R-1 and R-2 a11d identify 011 the site data table.
Furnished as requested and clearly identified on the site date table.
A1iicle IV, Section C. J. b. (16) P e destrian circulation plan
□NIA I □Accepted \ IXIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please provide a pedestrian circ11latio11 plan. The applicant clarified the sidewalk layout included in
the various plans and plats represents the intended pedestrian circ ulation plan.
2 SD 18 .35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
Article IV, Section C.l.b.(17) Site data box including but not limited to :
• Total acreage of site
• Acreage of common area(s)
• Total number of lots
• Square footage of each lot
• Site Density
• Number of units proposed
ON/A I □Accepted I IZJRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please include the site density 011 the site dara table. Included as requested and shown on site data
table. The overall density for the site is 1.16 units (lots) per acre development density.
Article IV, Section C. l .d. Drainage plan prepared by professional engineer, including proposed method of storm water
detention and means of controlling erosion during construction . Any portion of the land in the proposed subdivision
subject to periodic inundation by storm drainage, overflow or ponding shall be clearly identified on the plat. Lands
lying within the flood plain , V or A Zones, shall be clearly identified on the plat. Stom1-water detention facilities
shall be shown in the plans and calculations provided.
□NI A I IZl Accepted \ IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference : Article V, Se c tion F.3 .a ., b., and c.
Comn-1ems: Please see the design standards review for detailed comments -in brief the LID techniques to he
utilized 011 the site are not identified a11d 110 narrative is included showing the efficacy of each LID technique nor
is a quantitative analysis ofeac/1 LID technique 's performance included iu tlte applicatiou.
Drawing "LID" has been added to the construction plans to identify the type and location of the four (4) LID
techniques submitted. Further, an LID narrative has been added to the drainage calculations booklet. As
stated above please see the desh!n standards of A11icle V for the technical review.
DES IGN STANDARDS COMMENTS
Review assistance provided by Public Works Director Richard D. Johnson, PE, and Public Utilities Operations
Director Richard Peterson, PE and Building Official Erik Cortinas, LEED AP, CBO.
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 : I 0% Greenspace is required.
□NIA I □Accepted I IZJRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: See commeuts related to sections C4 and C5 below. Gree11space as submitted (14.55%) is correct however it
is not clear (fa portion of the gree11space comprising the 14.55% submitted is included along the HWY 104 ROW.
Further, a b1~tfer strip is required along HWY per the Tree/Landscape Ordinance #1444, however tlte buffer strip may
not "count" toward the greenspace requirements. Sidewalks are uot indicated along HWY 104 servicing the
development -please revise and resubmit reflecting sidewalks "long HWY 104 for the development and coordinate with
all other drawings. The site data table has been revised to reflect 12.6 acres, or 13.02% greenspace as required by
this section. The applicant's follow-up narrative clarifies the greenspace adjoining Hwy 104 was removed from the
greenspace tota l to attain the new 12.6 acre/ 13.02% greenspace submission. Further, the 20' buffer strip required
by Ordinance 1444 is reflected on the olat as well as a 10' sidewalk easement.
Article V. Section C.3 . Eligible Greenspace -Greenspace eligible for meeting the requirements of this
section shall:
a. be usable land for public active or passive recreation purposes.
b. be located in FEMA FIRM map zones AO, A99 , D or VO.
c. not be located in any wetland areas as defined by the Federal Government.
d. not include any retention , detention or similar holding basins.
e. not include any right-of-way.
ON/A I □Accepted I IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
3 SD 18.35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
Comme11ts: See comments related to sections C4 a11d CS below. Greenspace as submitted (14.55%) is correct
howeJ1er it is 11ot clear if a portion of the gree11space comprising the 14.55% submitted is included along the HWY
104 ROW. The site data table has been revised to reflect 12.6 acres , or 13.02% greenspace as required by this
section. The applicant 's follow-up narrative clarifies the greenspace adjoining Hwy 104 was removed from the
greenspace total to attain the new 12.6 acre / 13.02% greenspace submission. Further, the 20 ' buffer strip
required by Ordinance 1444 is reflected on the plat as well as a 10 ' sidewalk easement.
Article V, Section C. 4. Greenspace Design Requirements -All eligib le greenspace shall confo rm to the following
design requirements:
a. Maximize public exposure and pub li c 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 co llector or arteria l street.
f. Due regard shal l be shown for all natural features such as lakes , ponds , water cow-ses, historic sites and other similar
features which, if preserved , wi ll add attractiveness and value to the property .
□NIA I □Accepted \ IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please see the comments on sheet 2 of 3 of the preliminary plats. Please verify the 14.55% gree11space
submitted does ,wt include greenspace along the HYW 104 ROW. AL HWY 104 is a millor arterial accordi11g to
the Eastern Shore MPO, mut therefore gree11space adjacent to a11 arterial is 11ot "coimted" toward the gree11space
requirements of section C2. The area adjacent lo HWY 104 shall contain the 20' wide strip required by (and shall
be labeled on the plat) according to COF ordinance 1444, Section 20.5-4 page "7" as the subject property is
located along AL HWY 104. The site data table has been revised to reflect 12.6 acres, or 13.02% greenspace as
required by this section . The applicant's follow-up narrative clarifies the greenspace adjoining Hwy 104 was
removed from the greenspace total to attain the new 12.6 acre / 13.02% greenspace submission . Further, the
20' buffer strip required by Ordinance 1444 is reflected on the plat as well as a 10 ' sidewalk easement. Please
reflect 011 the site data table the 1.46 acres of HWY 104 bt~{fer area so that all common area components total
25.89 acres. Included on the revised preliminary plat as requested.
Article V, Section D.5.a. (11) Street Standards -Street Design -General Requirements -Tree Protection
Requirements
The fo ll owing requirements a1212l:y to all 12ro12ertie s other than single-fj1mily_ residences:
(a) A significant tree is defined as any li ving tree (overstory or understory) with a DBH that exceeds twenty-four (24)
i11ches. Significant trees are protected under this Ordinance and cannot be cut or intentionally harmed without
expressed written consent of the City Horticulturist.
□NIA I IZIAccepted with comments I □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Tile general notes 011 landscape drawing SPJ00 references the more restrictive 20" DBH requirement
of the Landscape/tree ordinance. Landscape drawing TPJ00 includes the tree protection plan and tree protection
details depicting chain Link tree protection fencing with signage as required by ordinance 1444. TheCOti
hortic11lt11rt1li11t revien, is pe11di11g. The COF horticulturalists reviewed and approved the landscape plans with
the following condition of aooroval : "any trees on undeveloped lots leave. Otherwise approved".
Article V, Section D.5.c. Street Standards -Street Design -Traffic Calming
To maintain design speeds specified in Table 5 .3 (in Appendix A) and the function of streets specified in Table 5 .2.,
traffic calmin g devices may be introduced into the street design. A ll traffic calming devices shall be based on sound
engineering principles and are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Traffic
4
calming devices may include, but are not limited to:
( l) Traffic circles - a circular raised island centered in the intersection around which traffic circulates. Traffic circles
require no geometric changes to the intersection and merely alter the flow of traffic through the intersection.
(2) Roundabouts -a circu lar raised island centered in the intersection . Roundabouts require traffic to circulate
counterclockwise around a center is land. Unlike traffic circles , roundabouts require geometric alterations to the
intersection and are used on higher volume streets to allocate rights-of-way among competing movements
(3) Curb projections , neck downs or "bulb-outs" -Curb projections , neck downs or "bulb-outs ' -curb extensions placed at
mid-block locations or at inter sectio ns which naJTow the street to rovide visual distinction and to reduce edestrian
SD 18.35 North Hill s at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
crossing di sta nce s. These are oft.en used in conjunction with on street parking to define the on street parallel parkin g
areas.
(4) Medi a ns -rai se d islands located along the centerline of a street that nmTow the street at that location or block through
moveme nt of vehicles at a cross streets or driveway access points.
(5) Road Striping -painted stripes on the road can create the perception of nairnw through lan es when a greater width is
actually needed to accommodate truck traffic or turning movements .
(6) Speed Humps -Speed hump s are rounded raised areas placed acro ss the road.
(7) Speed Tables -fl at topped speed humps oft.en constructed with brick or other textured material s on the flat section.
(8) Chicanes -curb extensions or islands that alternate from one s ide of the street to the other, forcing traffic into S-shaped
cmves.
(9) Chokers -curb extensions on both sides of the street that narrow the stre e t at that location . Chokers may be used in
coniunction with on street pa rking or a mid-block pedestrian crossin _g
□NIA I □Accepted I i:gjRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Please revise mu/ resubmit to include traffic calming devices throughout the development. The streets
within the development contain long, uninterrupted stretches and therefore this section is applicable. Pmi·sible
/ocatious of traffic calming devices are shown in red 011 drawing C5-A. Traffic Calming "speed humps" are
depicted on revised drawing CS-A and shown in similar locations to those on drawing CS-A mark-up. Speed
humps are 3" tall (maximum) 12' lone and include "shark's tooth" white paint markers for identification.
Article V, Section D.6. Street Standards -Pedestrian Area Design Standards
All streets shall include a pedestrian area comprised of a planting strip and a sidewalk, according to the standards in
Table 5.3 in Appendix A. The developer may have the flexibility to construct the sidewalks within 2 years of final
plat approval. A letter of credit guaranteeing the construction for 125% of the engLneer's estimate is required. At the
end of 2 years, all sidewalks shall be completed by either the developer or City using the letter of credit. The areas in
which the sidewalks will be poured shall be graded and compacted at the time the subdivision infrastructure is
constructed. The pedestrian area shall be designed according to the following minimum standards:
5
a. All streets supporting residential land uses shall have a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street with
the back edge o f the sidewalk being the edge of the right-of-way .
b . All streets supporting public in st itution s and public facilities land uses s h a ll include a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk
and 8-foot wide planting strip on each side of th e street.
c. All streets suppmiing non-resid e ntial land use s including commercial , office, and mi xed-use villages, shall have :
(1) a minimum 15 ' wide sidewalk, with tree wells according to Article V ., Section D .5.a.8.(e) on each side of the
street; or
(2) a minimum 10 ' wide s idewalk and minimum 6-foot wide pl a ntin g strip on each si de of the street.
d . Sidewalks shall include cmb ramps meeting accessibility require ments of the Americans with Disabilities act at all
intersections and any non-grade driveway or land intersecting the sidewalk .
e. Sidewalks shall be constructed of a minimum 4" concrete s urfac e meeting City construction standards. Where
applicable, sidewalk m aterials shall be used and constructed to encourage maximum tree preservation .
f. Streets in rural and agriculh1ral subdivisions meeting all requirements of Article V ., Section O.7.c . and d . are not
required to provide s idewalks.
g. Where applicable, sidewalks shall be configured in a manner that provides for maximum tree prese rvation.
□NI A I □Accepted I i:gjRevise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Article V Section D.5.a.8. (e) and D. 7.c and d.
Comments: The typical road section 011 drawing B2 contains a correct 50' ROW but the pla11ti11g strip is shown as
7' wide in lieu of the required 8' wide. Revise mu/ resubmit to comply with this sectio11 as well as Table 5.3 in the
subdivision regulations appendix. The building official reviewed the curb ramps 011 drawing C5-B mu! had 110
comments. Please see Article V, Section C.4/or comments related to the i11clusio11 of sidewalks along HWY 104.
The typical roadway section on drawing B2 has been revised to include the 8' planting strip as noted above .
The developer desires to utilize 2'-6" wide valley curbs for the project and as a result the 5 ' sidewalks extend
beyond the 50 ' ROW by 1' on each side. The revised preliminary plat reflects a 1' pedestrian/sidewalk
easement in general note 15 for the front property line along all lots adjacent to the ROW to reflect the 1'
sidewalk extension on either side of the ROW . A 10' sidewalk easement adjacent to the HWY 104 ROW is
reflected on the revised preliminary plat.
SD 18.35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
Article V. Section D. 7.a. Street Standards -Exceptions to Street Standard s
a. Natural Features -Blocks abutting natural or topographical features may be approved with exceptions to the
blocks and street layout standards of Atticle V ., Section D., subject to al l of the following:
(1) construction of the grid according to the block and street layout stand ards must be impracticable in that
the applicant would incur substantial and unreasonable additional costs in designing streets across the natural
or topographical feature or modification of the grid is necessary to preserve imp01tant environmental features
such as streams, wet land s, anima l habitats, or other conservation areas;
(2) Modification of the gr id sha ll not alter the minimum block length or block size, except that the distance of
the property line along the natural or topographical feature creating the need for the exception shall be
omitted when calculatin g the perimeter of the block . Additionally, public access easements to any natural or
topographical features w hi ch can be used for active recreation may be used as the perimeter of a block; and
(3) Cu l-d e-sacs or "loop " streets may be approved where connections with a thrnugh street would intersect
with the natural or topographical feature. "Loop ' streets a re preferred to cu l-d e-sacs wherever practicable.
Cu l-de-sacs shall not exceed 660 feet and loop streets sha ll not exceed 1300 feet.
ON/A I ~Accepted with comments, please note Publi c Work s I □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Director 's comments in red below
Cross Reference: Article V. Sectfon D.
Comments: Two cul-de-sacs are proposed, one comprised of radii C99-CJ()5 and the other C66-C70. Neither are
greater than 600/eet Long in arc length. One loop street, comprised of radii Cl45 and C146, as well as linear
segments, totals 580.86 centerline length, less than both the cul-de-sac mu! loop street restrictions. The cul-de-sacs
and loop street provide access and tumaround areas to lots abutting wetlands that are unlikely to be traversed by
future development. The northern cul-de-sac is near the existing Waters development, which did not contemplate
future access through the wetlands. The loop street and southern cul-de-sac provide access to lots abutting
wetlands adjoining the property of the Gu(/ Coast Experiment station,for which future development requiring
wetland crossing is unlikely. Both cul-de-sacs have an acceptable mdius of 47.5' and an en larged detail of each
cul-de-sac is on drawing SJ. Cul-de-sac mdius was reviewed with the assistance of the Public Works Director.
Please see section Nole: per the Pu.blic_Works Director, no sa11itatio11 seniice shall be provided 011 the private
ROWs. General note #13 on the revised preliminary plat ackuowlede;es this requirement.
Article V, Section E.2. Lot Standards -Lot Sizes
□NIA I IZ!Accepted with comments I □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Case# ZC18.10 was submitted concurrently for establis!tme11t of R-2 zoning/or lots 23-40 and 91-107
of the development. A similar application will he submitted to the City Council /01· the balance of the development
requesting R-1 zoning concurrent with fmnexation. All lots submitted herein appear to satisfy the R-1 and R-2 lot
size requirements.
STORMWATER STANDARDS COMMENTS
Review assistance provided by Public Works Director Richard D. Johnson, PE, and Building Official Erik
Cortinas, LEED AP, CBO .
Article V, Section F.3.a. (3)(a)(2) Storm Water Standards -Submittal Reguirements -Minimum Reguirements-
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(2) At1 Erosion and Sediment Contro l Plan which includes , but shall not be limited to :
(a) Architectural and engi neerin g drawings , maps assumptions, calculations , and narrative
statements as required to accurately describe the development and measures taken to meet the
objectives of stonn-water management ;
(b) Data on historical runoff, developed runoff, detention pond details, a nd method of discharge.
IZIN/A I IZ!Accepted with comments I □Revise and Resubmjt per comments
Comments: The City of Fairhope Code Enforcement Officer provides tliefollowing review comments: prior to
land disturbance please submit(]) a wetland delineation report dated within the last.five years, (2) verify wetlands
are flagged onsite, (3) wetland buffer signage shall be installed prior to land disturbance, (4) submit a11 ADEM
ALR# prior to land disturbance, (5) 110 red soil or red clav will be allowed 011 lots within 100' of critical areas
6 SD 18.35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
designed to achi e ve the goal of removing at least 80 % of the average annual post-con struction to tal susp ended solids (TSS) load .
The stom1 water quality BMPs will be considered in compliance with thi s requirement if;
(I) BMPs are sized to capture and treat the water qua li ty treatment volume , which is defined as the runoff volume
resulting from the first 1.8 inches of rainfa ll from a site ; and ,
(2) Appropr iate struc tural storm water BMPs are selected, designed, constructed, and maintained . Storm water quality
BMPs may be required on smaller projects if it is determined in th e Planning Comm ission 's discretion that the intens ity
of the development could cause off-site storm water impacts dw ·ing or after development.
b. The storm water quality treatment goal is designed to capture 85 % of the annual storm water runoff. Storm water quality BMPs
must be designed to treat the runoff from the first 1.8 inches of rainfall. Each site 's storm water quality treatment volume is also
based on its percent impervious cover. The treatment standard is the same for all sites unless other secondary pollutant reduction
goals are established by ADEM; for instance , tlu·ough the establi shment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
c . This storm water quality treatment goal is designed to give the developer flexibility in meeting the 80% TSS
reduction goa l on each s ite . BMPs may be se lected to meet the storm water quality requirements in numerous ways
through the app lic ation of low-impact site design and layout, non-structura l BMPs, and structural BMPs.
d. The City encourages use of low-impact site design practices that reduce the impact of development on storm water
quality and quantity. Low-impact si te design practices are meant to:
(1) Minimize the impervious cover o n a site,
(2) Preserve the natural infiltration abi li ty of the site,
(3) Route storm water to "micro controls," such as rain ba1Tels , rain gardens, etc. that treat small portions of
site storm water from the site , and,
(4) Minimize long-term BMP maintenance by preserving and using natural features of the site.
DN/A I □Accepted I IXIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: No stormwater treatment quality calcu/atiom,· are included with the stormwater design 11armtive.
Please revise and resubmit the stormwater design narrative to include treatment volume calc11/atio11s for each
location of each type of Low lmpact Development Technique. The revised drainage narrative includes treatment
volume calculations for the four (4) wet ponds used on the site and reports the volume of the three (3) grass
swales as well as their TSS removal. The vegetated buffer· as reported as 84% TSS removal is provided by
AHEM per the EOR. See Article V, Section F.11:f.(1)-(16) for additional specific comments related to the
various LID techniques .
Article V, Se ction F.8.e.-g. Storm Water Standards -Post Develogment Water Quality Best Management Practices
(Continued )
f. Structural stonn 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
struchiral. BMPs have been divided into two categories:
(l) 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 go al. These BMPs may not be applicable fo r ce1tain 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 so
Stonn Water Wetland 80
Bioretention Area 80
Sand Filter 80
Enhanced Swale 80
Limited Application BMPs
Filter Strip 50
Grass Chann el 50
8 SD 18.35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
Organic Filter 80
Underground Sand Filter 80
Submerged Gravel Wet land 80
Tnfi ltration Trench 80
Gravity (Oil/Grit Separator) 40
Proprietary Structural Control Varies
Orv Detention Basin 60
□NIA \ □Accepted \ i:gjRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Four (4) wet ponds are i11cluded with subject application, and tlteir size was calculated with Po11dPack,
however tlte WQv required treatment volume is needed if the ponds are to be accepted <ts LID techniques. The
revised drainage narrative includes the WQv treatment volume calculations for the four wet ponds proposed
for the site . Because wet ponds are pre-approved LID BMPs allowed by this section , the TSS removal of these
techniques is accepted at 80%.
Article V, Section F.l l.a.-e. Reguired Use of Low Im12act Develo12ment (LID) Technigues
b . The use of LID techniques is required in any and all proposed developments where the stonnwater
regulations apply. The desi gn engineer shall rely on verifiable professional engineering judgment on which
LID techniques to deploy in each proposed development based on the particular characteristics of the
subject property. The intent of the requirements for the use of LID techniques is that the development shall
implement as many LID techniques as practical and appropriate for the development. Plans and calculations
shall show the efficacy of each LID technique and include a quantitative analysis of their performance. Plans
shall clearly identify each LID technique on a grading and drainage plan with appropriate details and cross-
references to the draina2e calculations.
ON/A \ □Accepted \ i:gjRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: No stormw<der treatment volume calculatiolls are included witlt the stormwater design. As <l result, it
is uot clear if the proposed development is implementing tlze use of as many LID lechniques as practical and
appropriate for the development. The revised drainage narrative includes treatment volume calculations for the
wet ponds and summarizes the drainage area , TSS removal and LID technique identifier for each LID
technique. The treatment volume is greater than the total area of the site due to offsite drainage flowing into
Wet Pond (Lake) 1. As a result , the entire treatment volume totals 117.6 acres though the total site is 96.8
acres. Swales A, B , and C provide 80% TSS removal pre-treatment for the Wet Ponds.
Article V, S ection F.11.f (1 )-(5) Reguired Use of Low I11112act Develo12ment (LID) Technigues (Continued)
f. The following LID techniques are available for use by applicants given the paiticular circumstances and
characteristics of the proposed subdivision:
(5 .) Gras s Swale : The City finds that the potentia l benefits of grass swales are , among other items , in
straining stormwater, providing limi ted quality treatments , while providing some moderate flow attenuation.
Special design cons iderations are: Typically work best in smaller drainage areas where vo lumes are reduced ,
special consideration should be given in pervious soi ls, not recommended with high swell soils , should have
low slopes , adjacent areas and layout should be considered in the design . Suggested chai-acteristics where
topography , soils , and slope permit vegetated open cha1111els and spaces should be considered as a significant
or a primary means of storm water conveyance.
□NI A \ IZI Accepted with comments \ □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Grass swales are included as a proposed LID technique. See comments related to Article V, Sections
F8-F9 and F.11.a.-e., above for re-submittal requirements. The revised drainage narrative and drainage
calculations report 80% TSS removal by grass swales A , B, and C. This TSS removal is further supported by
the document contained within Article V, Section F.11.f(16) as prepared by the Alabama Cooperative
Extension service. The length and treatment volume of each swale is included in the drainae:e narrative.
Article V, Section F.11.f (6)-(1 J) Reguired Use of Low hn12act Develo12ment {LrD) Technigues (Continued)
f. The fo ll owing LID techniques are available for use by app licants given the particular circumstances and
characteristics of the ro osed subdivision:
9 SD 18.35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 2018
(6 .) Grass Buffers : The ity find s that the potential benefits of grass buffers a re , among other items, in
straining stonnwater providing limited quality treatments w hi le providing ome moderate flow atten uation.
S pecial design co ns id e ratio ns a re: Typi ca ll y work best in smaller drainage areas w he re vo lum es are reduced ,
s pecial consideration s hould be g ive n in perviou s so il s, not reco mmend e d with hi g h swe ll so il s, should ha ve
low slopes, adjacent areas a nd layo ut sho uld be cons id ered in the design . Suggested c haracter istics w here
topography, soils and s lop e permit vegetated open c hann e ls and spa c es should be considered as a s ignificant
or a prima ry m ea ns of sto rm water conveyance .
□NIA □Accepted □Revise and Resubmit per
comments
Comments : Grass/Vegetative Buffers are included as a proposed LID technique. The stormwater calculations as
well a s drawing "LID " indicate s ubmission of u 'vegetative buffer", however see co mments related to Article V,
Section F8-F9 and F.11.a.-e., above/or resubmittal requirements. The revised drainage narrative and drainage
calculations report 84% TSS removal by the 30' wide vegetated/grass buffer. The EOR provided correspondence
from Mr. Tim White with ADEM indicati11g the 84% TSS removal for a grass/vegetative buffer is based upon
agricultural extension publications from Purdue, Iowa Stale, and Ohio State Universities. The buffer is 30 ' wide
and the /enl(th is as shown 011 drawinl( "LID".
Article V, Section F.11.f (l 2)-(15) Reguired Use of Low lmQact Deve loQ ment (LID) Technigues (Continued)
f . The fo llowin g LID techniqu es are ava il ab le for use by applicants given the pa1ticular c ir cumstances and
characteristics of t he roposed s ubdivi sio n :
( 15.) level ~reader: The City finds that leve l spreaders can be a n effecti ve tool to eve nly di stribute flo ws
and return vo lum es and ve locity to a predeve lopm e nt distribution pattern . T here are limited sto1111water
strainin g and wate r quali ty impro vement s. Suggested characteristics are: Leve l spreaders are intend e d to
work in a complimentary fashion w ith othe r LID techniques such as , but not limited to , sand filters an d grass
buffers. Specia l d esign co ns id erations are: Typically, leve l spreaders are used d ownstream of an outfa ll and
have a low s lop e with stab ilized and vegetated bu ffe rs b oth up and downstream. They typically are in stalled a
s uit a ble distance from the prop erty line (30 -35 ' is s uggested) so that flow energy is dissipated , and
predevelopment sheet flow characteristics are generated. Specia l consideration shou ld be given in areas with
hi ghl y erodibl e so ils.
□NIA j lZ!Acce pted with comments I □Revise and R esubmit per comments
Comments: Four (4) level spreaders are included with s ubject applicatio11. Please see comments related to Article
V, Section F8-F9 mu[ F.11.a.-e., above/or resubmittal requirements. Level spreaders do not contribute to TSS
removal; however, level spreaders receive discharges that have been processed by an LID technique and create
diffused or sheet flow that is evenly distributed or dispersed, creating a flow velocity that is less likely to create
erosion.
PUBLIC WORKS-UTILITIES COMMENTS
Review assistance provided by Public Works Director Richard D. Johnson, PE, and Utilities Director of
Operations Richard Peterson, PE.
Article V. Section G. Planning Design Standards-Uosizinl!
□NIA IZ!Accepted with c01runents, please □Rev is e and Resubmit per comments
see remarks requesting follow-up
Comments: Two lift stations are proposed to serve the develop111e11t and are depicted on drawings LSI and LS2.
Please co11sult Fairhope Public Utilities Director of Operations Richard Peterson to determine if upsizi11g is
required for subject application. It is possible a f11t11re 8" force main installation near the s11bject developme111 will
require the pressure head delivered by each lift station pump may require upsizi11g as well as increasing the wet
well size 011 the /~ft statiolls to increase onsite storage capacity of wastewmer. The applica11t clarified in their
follow-up submittal narrative the applicant 's e11gi11eer or record (EOR) has been ill communication with Richard
Peterson and a /0111(-term plan for increased capacity is currently in prol(ress.
10 SD 18.35 North Hills at Fairhope -November 5, 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 cond ition s:
12
1) Final approval of Case# ZC 18.10, cond itional annexation to R-2 medium densit y single family zoning
district of lots 23-40 and 91-107 by the Fairhope City Council as we ll as anne xation and establishment
of R-1 low density single family zoning district for the balance of the subject property by the Fairhope
City Council.
2) Preservation of trees on undeveloped lots as required by the City of Fairhope horticulturalist as
reflected in the review of Article V, Section D.5.a.{11}.
3) Prior to land disturbance, submission of the items requested by the City of Fairhope code
enforcement officer as described in the review of Article V, Section F.3.a .(3}{a}{2}
a. Wet land delineation report dated within the last five years
b. Verify wetlands are flagged onsite
c. Wetland buffer signage shall be installed prior to land disturbance
d. ADEM NOPES "ALR" Permit# prior to land disturbance
e. The code enforcement officer further notes that no red soil or red clay wi ll be allowed on lots
within 100' of critica l areas including but not limited to wetlands, streams, and tributaries
SD 18.35 North Hill s at Fa irhope -November 5, 2018
Family Residential District and the areas in brown are zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Fami l y Residential
District.
The development abutting the subject properties to south i s the North Station neighborhood. All other
areas around it is unzoned properties located in unincorporated Baldwin County. The abutting North Station
development was annexed by the City on January 23, 2006 and platted in 2007, with 49 lots w ith the
sma llest lot being 0.24 acres. Additionally, the properties within the corpo rate limits south of Gayfer Road
Extension is part of the Gayfer Estates Plantation platted in 2004. It is zoned R-1 Low Density Single-Family
Residential District and the sma lle st lot there is 0.26 acres (approximately 11,300 sq.ft.). The existing zoning
does not nece ssarily correspond to the ex isting density as these subdivisions were developed in the County
and then annexed into the City voluntarily. Per the Zoning Ordinance, voluntary annexations automatically
come into the City as R-1 Low Density Single-Family Residential District.
The minimum lot size for R-1 Lo w Density Single-Family Residential District i s 15,000 sq.ft. with a minimum
lot width of 100'. The minimum lot size for R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District is 10,500
sq.ft. with a 75' minimum lot width. Many of the R-1 zoned developments do not appear to meet the
minimum lot siz es and minimum lot width i.e. North Station, Gayfer Estates, Fall s Creek, River Station, and
therefore the current zoning of R-1 appears to the in cons i stent with the actual development of the
subdivisions . The R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District appears to be more consistent with
the pattern of development of these developments.
_j g
3 ZC 18.12 The Bill s' No . 2, LLC -November 5, 2018
automobile traffic. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan co ntemplates "density transition" (page 34) in
village centers whereby dense commercial activity transitions to higher density residential to lowe r density
residential or undeveloped property. The corridor of Nichols Ave containing su bject property demonstrates
the density transition contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, transitioning from to M-1 Light Industrial to
R-3 PGH High Density Single-Family Patio Garden Home Residential District. Areas zoned B-2 general
business district as well as R-4 Low Density Multi-Family are also within the vicinity (650') of su bject
property. Subject property is the last remaining property along Nichol s Ave zoned R-1 Low Density Single
Family and adjoins property in unzoned Baldwin County containing a single family residence buffered by a
heavily wooded area. It i s possible that subject property, if re-zoned to M-1 will help to establish an "edge"
to the commercial development within the village center along Nichols Ave also contemplated by the
Comprehensive Plan, further demonstrating compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Article II Section C.l.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 -Fa mily
Residential District: This district is intend ed to provide choices of low-de nsity suburban res idential environment
consisting of single-family homes on large parcels of land . It is sub-classified into four categories (R-1, R-1a, R-1b , and
R-1c) based on lot sizes, however no sub-classifications of R-1 are in existence at this time.
The purposes and intent of the proposed M-1 Light Industrial District is as follows; M-1 Light Industrial District: This
district is intended to provide a suitable protected environment for manufacturing, research and wholesale
establishments w hich are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable emissions, and genera te little industrial
traffic. Industrial parks should be encouraged. Locations should be in accordance with com prehensive plans.
Allowable Uses for M-1:
Allowed by Right: Elementary and Secondary Schools , Educational Facility, Library, Public or Common Open
Space, General or Professional Office, Grocery Retail, General Merchandise, General Personal Services,
Automobile Repair, Indoor Recreation, Boarding Hou se or Dormitory, Warehouse, Limited Manufacturing,
and Light Manufacturing.
Permitted Subject to special conditions listed in the ordinance: Convenience Store, and Recreational Vehicle
Park.
Permitted only on appeal and subject to special Condition: Cemetery, Hosp ital, 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, Junk Yard or Salvage Yard.
Article II Section C.1.e.(3) The character of the surrounding properties
The subject property is bordered to the west by the existing Tony's Towing Office and support facilities,
zoned M-1 Light Industrial; to the south by the Belle Chase Phase I subdivision, zoned R-3 PGH High Density
Single-Family Patio Garden Home Residential District; to the east by PPIN 36272 located within unzoned
Baldwin County, and to the north by Hawthorne Glen subd i v ision, zoned R-3 PGH Hig h Density Single-Family
Patio Garden Home Residential District. A replat of PPIN 214349 and 20371 i s included as a su pporting
document reflecting a proposed conveyance/common lot line movement of a portion of PPIN 214349 to
PPIN 20371 for a possible expansion of the Tony's Towing facility and se rves as the site plan for th e
proposed re-zoning. A re-zoning of PPIN 345052 was approved by the Fairhope City Council on September
10, 2012 which re-zoned PPIN 34502 from R-1 District to M-1 via ordinance number 1473. The character of
the existing neighborhood is a combination of commercial and high-density residential properties, with a
"corridor" of properties zoned M-1 following Nichols Avenue beginning near In gle side Street and proceeding
4 ZC 18.13 8330 Nichols Avenue -November 5, 2018
Dimension Standards:
The dimensions standards for the existing R-1 zoning district and the propo sed M -1 zoning district are
summarized below.
Dimen. ion Min. Lot Arca/ Vlin . Setbacks M . total lot tax.
District or !l owed ·oils Per Lot Width Front Rear Side Stre t CO'-erage b} p rinciple height
use Arre(UP ) side strucmre
R -1 15.00 0 s.f./-100' 40' 35' 10' b 20' 40% 30'
M-l None / -none none g non e [ none c none 45 '
e. Where a lot abuls res identia l propert y, the side se tback sha ll be I O'.
f. W ere a lot abuts resi dentia l property to the rear . the rea r se tback shall be 20'
g. l n th e case of ex isti ng adjace nt estab lishments, the se tback shall be th e ave ra ge withi n I 00 feet on either side of th e pro posed stru ctu re
Traffic: Subject property's exist i ng non-conforming use as an office facility will be maintained , and the
application for rezoning does not request any change of use or development activity that would indicate a
change in traffic patterns. The area to be conveyed to the towing company's property is approximately
18,700sf, or 0.4 acres , and no development activity is identified in the application for zoning change or on
the proposed site plan that would affect traffic patterns. The conveyance is not a creation of a new lot, and
therefore a subdivision application is not necessary for the conveyance to occur. The timeline for alterations
or modifications of the property proposed for conveyance is not known at the time of this writing.
Compatibility Analysis: A full compatibility analysis examining the actual and allowable development
densities of nearby properties has not been performed for the rezon i ng request because the applicant is
proposing a zoning change that reflects the actual uses of subject property and will aligned subject
property's uses with the adjoining uses.
Site Plan As stated previously, the site plan included with subject application proposes a conveyance of
property from PPIN 214439 to PPIN 20371, likely to expand the area on which the uses associated with
Tony's Towing occur. The applicant is advised a formal, stand -alone Site Plan review process as required by
the Zoning Ordinance may be required if the development of the portion subject property conveyed to PPIN
20371 meets the following criteria of Article II Section C.2:
Site plan approval is required when any commercial building(s) located in a business-zoning district
(industrial zoning excluded) or in the CBD overlay:
(I ) Has a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or greater; or,
(2) More than 30 % of the lot (excluding the building) is impervious; or
(3) All applications for zoning map amendments to rezone property to any of the Village Di stricts in
Article VI. However, applicants for rezoning to the village districts may elect to use the special
rev i ew procedures i n Article VI, Section D for review of the rezoning application and site plans
associated with a village development.
(4) A mandatory site plan review application for all mixed-use projects electing to build to 35 feet
height with 33% residential , regardless of whether or not it triggers site plan review approval,
must make application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.
Further, the applicant is reminded the screening/buffering requirements of Tree/Landscape ordinance 1444
must have compliance due to the adjoining R-3 PGH properties associated with the Belle Chase residential
development. In addition, uses such as junk yard or salvage yard must be appealed to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment for areas zoned M-1 Light Industrial. The aerial image below is representative of the portion of
PPIN 214349 to be conveyed to PPIN 20371, outlined in orange:
7 ZC 18.13 83 30 Nichols Aven ue -November 5, 2018
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.
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.
The OBV Acres' Lots 1, 2, and 3 correspond to Phases 4, 5, and 6 respectively.
Zonina Cases:
Case Number PC Date PC Result CC Date Development
Name Applicant Owner Request Ordinance
Number
zc 03 -03 4/7/03 approved 6/9/1 8 Oak Hill -Miles Jones Street Family Conditional 1171
Huntington & Old annexation to
Battles Village PUD
zc 04-04 7/6/04 na Huntington Huntington Miles Jones PUD Amendment withdrawn
PUD -Huntington
Amendment
zc 04-06 8/2/04 approv ed 10/11/04 Huntington Huntington Miles Jones, eta I PUD Amendment 12 2 8
PUD for Side Setbacks
zc 05-2 1 10/3/05 approved 11 /2 8/05 Huntington HMR Riverbrooke change Ord . 1279
Capital Partners Huntington PUD
zc 16-3/7/16 approved 8/2 2/16 Old Battles Village Preble-Rish, Truland Homes, PUD Amendment 1582
03 LLC LLC
--
Case PC Date PC Ce Date Development Na n Applicant Owner Request Ordinance
Number Result Number
zc 18.04 4/2/2108 Tabled I Old Battle Dewberry/Preble -Ri Truland Homes PUD Withdrawn
Village PUD Amendment By applicant
zc 18 .06 8/6/2018 TBD Old Battles Dewberry Eng. Inc. Truland PUD
Village PUD Amendment
Subdivision cases:
Applicant Subdivision Name Number of Zoning PZ Date PZ Decision Case Number Case Type Lots
SD 06 -02 H MR/Riverbrooke Preliminary Huntington Phase II 120 PUD 1/3/2006 Approved
Capital Partners
SD -16 -09 Preble -Rish , LLC Preliminary Old Battles Village , Ph 2 21 PUD 4/4/2016 Approved
SD -17-11 Dewberry/Preble-Final Old Battles Village, Ph 2 21 PUD 4/3/2017 Approved
Rish
SD -16-25 Dewberry/P r eble-Pr eliminary Old Battles Vi llage, Ph 3 43 PUD 11/10/2016 Approved
Ri sh, LLC
--
3 SD 18 .38 OBV Acres -November 5, 2018
.
Comments:
Lot Standards: The property is located in the City of Fairhope Corporate Limits and is zoned PUD. The
individual set backs of the PUD will be addressed at the individual phases of the Master Plan.
Tree Inventory: This is a minor subdivision and the applicant is not proposing any improvements. The tree
inventories will be addressed at the time of subdivision for the individual phases of the Master Plan.
Sidewalks: Article V Section D.6 requires that all streets shall include a pedestrian area and a planting strip
and a sidewalk, according to the standards in Table 5.3 in Appendix A. Sidewalks will be addressed at the
time of the individual phases for the PUD.
Finished Floor Elevations: Finished Floor Elevations have been provided.
Utilities: {Article IV Section C.1.b (B)) City of Fairhope Water and Sewer is available in this location, per the
Operations Director, Mr. Richard Peterson, PE . No flow model will be required at this time. Per Mr.
Peterson, Individual utilities will be addressed at the time of the individual phases of the PUD.
Easements: The applicant shall review the drainage and utility note. It references common areas which are
not shown. The applicant has shown drainage and utility easements for the purposes of platting this division,
with a note "d rainage easements shown hereon were added to comply with the subdivision regulations, but
will be replaced by applicable drainage easements during further development of phases as per the
approved PUD plan ."
Drainage and Utility ease ments shall be as per the Article V Section £5.
Utility Access and Easements:
A. UTILITY ACCESS AND EASEMENTS -
i. Except where lanes are provided at the rear of lots, easements not less than fifteen feet in
width along side and rear lot lines as required for drainage and utilities. On interior lots, the
easement may be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots. On perimeter lots, no part of the
required easement shall lie outside the platted lands. Easement placement and widths shall be
approved by the Planning Commission. No half easements will be approved unless adjacent
property owners dedicate the other half of the easement at time of approval.
Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants are required at every intersection and every 450 feet. The fire hydrant
locations shall be addressed as a part of the individual phases of the PUD.
Public Works Comments, provided by Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, Director of Public Works:
The applicant shall provid e a note regarding drainage to match the following wording provided by the
Public Works Director: "Adequate drainage for each lot shall be provided at the time of home construction .
No developed lot shall discharge storm water unto a neighboring lot without drainage easement and
constructed conveyance. All lots shall drain to the public storm water system."
Street Trees: Street trees will be addressed at the time of individual phases of the PUD development.
Natural Features/ Stream Buffers (Article V Section F. 4): The applicant shall note the location of the
natural stream and wetlands on the plat for Lots 1, 2 and 3. Buffers associated with the wetlands and/or
streams shall be shown on th e plat .
5 SD 18.38 OBV Acres -November 5, 2018
Recorded Plats : Any conditions of approval provided by Planning Commission shall be satisfied in a timely
manner. Per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, Article IV Section D 7-Recording, applicant is
responsible for recording of Plat and approval shall be null and void if the Plat is not recorded within sixty
days after the date of final approval; provided, however, that the Commission may, on finding of good
cause, extend that sixty-day period. The applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded plat; failure to do
so shall result in the denial of issuance of the building permits within the subdivision .
Other: Any applicable outside agency permit shall be obtained. The applicant shall confirm that this is not
single ta x property.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2 . Approval Standards.
"2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the
subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and
development as proposed, due to any of the following:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning
ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or
program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks
Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City. 11
Thi s application appears to be consistent with the City of Fairhope's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance as t he Master Plan was approved by City Counci l on August 22, 2016 and the proposed PUD
modification that i s scheduled to go before City Council. The proposed subdivision appears to be consistent
with the minimum requirements for a minor plat. Staff is unaware of any pending iss ues related to
applicable state or f ederal locals and regulations and health and safety. The burden of respon sibility i s on
the applicant to coordinate with any appropriate agency regardin g their proposed project.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions:
6
1. The Counci l approval of the Old Battles Village PUD Amendment (ZC 18.06) and conditions of approval
therein.
SD 18.38 OBV Acres -November 5, 2018
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC on behalf of Montrose Properties, Inc owner and
applicant for preliminary plat approval of Fox Hollow Phase Ill, a 32-lot major subdivision. The property is
located on the east side of County Road 13 approximately 1, 750'south of Morphy Ave. The subject property
is approximately 13. 78 acres with the smallest lot 11,363 5. F., largest lot 18,597 5. F., and average lot size of
13,154 5.F. The subject property is the third phase connecting phase I & II to County Road 13. This gives Fox
Hollow Subdivision in its entirety a total of three entrances. Two off Morphy Avenue and one off County
Road 13 .
Comments: Red print are comments sent out after initial review
Blue print are responses from applicant/representative
3
Orange print are staffs' explanations of how conditions were met
Arlicle IV. Section C. 1. h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study:
Applications shall include trip generation data showing the projected average daily traffic (ADT) in a 24-hour period
and projected peak-hour traffic generated by the development in the subdivision application. Peak
hour traffic shall generally be the hours between 7 A .M . and 9 A.M. for mornLng and 4 P.M. and 6 P.M. for the
evening and include the consecutive 60 minute segment in which traffic counts are projected to occur. In instances
where the proposed application will have peak periods that differ from the general peak periods above the Planning
Commission may require that the analysis be conducted for the alternative peak periods. Trip generation data shall
be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic EngLneer is Trip Generation Manual or actual data
about similar developments in Alabama with the same types of uses and site
conditions. A traffic study shall be required for all applications that will generate an average daily traffic (ADT)
count of 1,000 trips or more, or which will generate SO trips or more during any peak hour period. An agent selected
by the City and paid for by the applicant shall perform the traffic study. The traffic study shall be used to determine
what on-site and off-site street or trnffic improvements may be necessary due to the development. The Planning
Commission may condition the approval of the application on the applicant paying for or constructing those
improvements or po1iions of improvements that are needed due to the traffic impact of the application based on all
potential land uses. The traffic study shall include the following data
along with an analysis of the data:
(1) Estimates of trip generation for the proposed development showing projected inbound and outbound
vehicle trips for morning and evening peak periods to identify the maximum combined hourly traffic volume
associated with the peaking characteristics of the site development combined with the adjacent street traffic.
(2) Projected traffic impact and trip distribution on existing and planned streets within the development and
at major signalized and unsignalized intersections within ½ mile of the project site (study area) areas likely
to be impacted by the development. Intersections of pa1ticular concern to tl1e City may be added or omitted
from the traffic study at the direction of the Planning Director;
(3) Assignment of trips generated by the proposed development on existing and planned streets within the
development and areas likely to be impacted by the development and within the project study area;
(4) Intersection turning movements and traffic counts on all existing and planned intersections likely to be
impacted by the proposed development. Traffic counts must be les s than 3 years old to be used as base
volumes for the traffic analysis ;
(5) CotTesponding intersection levels of services shall be calculated for the peak periods for the intersections
within the sh1dy area , utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) latest version , or Synclu·o traffic
software, for the e x isting conditions and opening year of the project site . Intersections shall be considered
deficient if Level of Service (LOS) Dis exceeded , and improvements to meet this LOS threshold shall be
identified ;
(6) Site access volumes and major unsignalized intersections within the study area shall be evaluated using
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to demonstrate the need for installation of a
traffic control signal ,
(7) Auxiliary htrn lane requirements shall be evaluated at the site access points to identify if right turn and
left turn ill!rress lanes are needed. Site access oints that oenerate 40 or more ri ht turns in one hour will be
SD 18.39 Fox Hollow, Phase Ill -November 5, 2018
Article V, Section C.2. Applicability and Requirements: the regulations in this Section C . shall apply to any
development as dense or deL1ser than the City R-1 Residential Zoning District, whether or not in the City L imits.
Greenspace shall be provided as follows: 10% Greenspace is required .
□NIA \ □Accepted \ IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Need to have the gree11space broke11 down into %common are" and %retentio11/dete11tion
Common area noted i ncludes retention . Greenspace noted is only greenspace {I .e. common area minus
detention)
Site Data Table includes greenspace %.
SITE DATA TABLE
TOTAL ACREAGE
TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS
DB N SITY
CO:IDION AREA
TOTAL LF OF ROADWAY
ZONING
YAX. LOT COVERAGE
(PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE)
PHASE l GREEN SPACE
PHASE 2 GREEN SPACE
PHASE 3 GREEN SPACE
TOTAL GREEN SPACE (PB1-PB3)
"' 13.78 ACRJ!S
= 32
-2 .32 UNITS PB.R ACRE
= 2.21 ACRES ((J.6 .0<1~ OF SITE)
-J.682 LF
"' R2 -MEDIUM DBNSTIY SINGLE FAMILY
-37"
= 8.38 ACRES
= 0.46 ACRES
= 1 .03 ACRES
= 9 .87 ACRES (TOTAL ACREAGE = 76.76)
(12.90" TOTAL GREEN SPACB)
Phase 1-8.38/76.76 = 10.9% (Greenspace acres /Total Acreage)
+
Phase II -.46 added = 11.5%
Phase Ill -1.03/13.78 = 7.5% (Alone)
Total Greenspace = 12.9%
SETBACKS
FRONT
REAR = 35'
SlDB = 10·
SlDB STREBT = 20'
UTILITY COMPANIES
POWER
SERVER
WATBR
GAS
= RIVl!RIA
-CITY OF P'A.IRBOPB = CITY OF FA.IRBOPJ!
"' CITY OF FAIRBOPJ!
Article V, Section C. 3. Eligible Greenspace -Green space eligible for meeting the requirements of this
section shall:
a . be usable land for public active or passive recreation purposes .
b. be located in FEMA FIRM map zones AO, A99 , D, or VO.
c. not be located in any wetland areas as defined by the Federal Government.
d . not include any retention , detention or similar holding basins.
e. not include any right-of-way.
□NIA \ □Accepted \ IZIRevise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Need to have tlte greenspace broken down into %common area and %rete11tion/detentio11. See
commellts in red 011 the co11s tr11ctio11 drawings. Wetland permit 11eededfor enlza11ceme11ts to the grady pond. Note
need for plans and profiles. Describe mu/ quantity the volmnes of treatment and TSS removal. Grey Fox they show
110 i11lets -where is the water ffOinl(? Inlet spaciltK {!reater than 600'?
Plans and drainage report are updated.
Included a greenspace master plan, a LID narrative showing TSS removal, and provided required wetland
permit.
Article V, Section C.4. Greenspace Design Requirements -All eligible greenspace shall conform to the following
design requirements:
a . Maximize public exposure and pub lic access to greenspace.
b. Sh·eets sha ll 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. Greens ace shall not be located ad' acent to a collector or a1terial street.
5 SD 18.39 Fox Hollow, Phase Ill -November 5, 2018
f. Due re gard shall be shown for a ll natural features such as lakes , ponds , water courses, historic sites and
other similar features which , if preserved , will add attractiveness and value to the propetty.
□NI A I □Accepted \ fZ!Revise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Green space needs to be more centrally located a11d accessible to the public. CR 13 is an arterial or
collector so it can have buffer along CR 13 but not gree11space. The gree11space is not useahlefor active recreation .
Possible sidewalk oassi11e thromd, for oassive recreation but not for active recreatfon.
Greenspace provided in Phase 3 is above & beyond what is required by the subdivision regulations . See
attached greenspace master plan .
Total greenspace for the entire subdivision is 12.9%. The required greenspace Is 10%.
A rticle V, Section D. 5. a. (9) Street Standards -Street Design -General Requirements -Stre et Tr ees (continu ed)
An inventory of all live trees greater than 24 " DBH on site shall be protected and indicated on a tree preservation plan.
Said preservation plan shall reflect tree protection in the diagram in Appendix G and
verbiage below. Erecting Barriers is essential to protecting trees during construction . The applicant shall provide
construction fences around all significant trees. Allow one foot of space from the trunk for each inch of trunk diameter.
The intent is not merely to protect the above ground po1tion of the trees, but also the root systems . The fenced area
shall be clear of building materials , waste , and excess soil. No digging , trenching or other soil disturbance shall be
allowed in the fenced area. Fines for not complying with the City of Fairhope 's ordinance 1193 , tree protection , will
be levied in accordance to the Citv of F a irhope 's restitution table .
□NIA \ □Accepted \ fZ!Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Ordinan ce numb er 1444, Tr ee Ordinanc e
Comments: Need a tree preservation plan.for all trees over 24" .DBH See lots 117, 118, and 119. Tlzere is an
extraordinarv tree on these lots tlzat staff recommends preserving. Make this" common area possiblv.
Landscape plan has been updated to include tree protection .
The landscaping plan was revised to show a tree protection plan and approved by Pau l Merchant the City
Horticulturalist. HMR stated that the tree ls proposed to stay and is 95' from the front setback line
providing an adequate building area .
Article V, S ection F.8. e. -g. Storm Water Standards -Post Develo~ment Water Qualitx: Best Management Practices
(Continued)
e. A developer should consider low impact site design practices early in the design process in an effo1t 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 regulation s.
f. Struch1ral sto1111 water control s, or Best Management Practices (BMPs), are engineered structures designed to treat
stonn water or mitigate the impact from storm water runoff. Th e 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
struch1ral BMPs have been divided into two categories:
(I) General application BMPs are assumed to achieve the 80 % TSS reduction.
(2) Limited application BMP s which have to be used in combination with oth er 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
Stmm Wa ter Wetland 80
Bioretention Area 80
6 SD 18 .39 Fox Hollow, Phase Ill -November 5, 2018
Other:
Any applicable outside agency permits shall 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;
• Meet.5
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 withi n the
planning jurisdiction of the City. 11
• Meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval of SD 18.39 Fo x Hollow, Phase Ill.
9 SD 18.39 Fox Ho ll ow, Ph ase Ill -November 5, 2018
Comments:
Plat submittal requirements:
All Associated Investors: Article IV Section C.1. b (3) The sole associated investor is Mr. Allen Fonde.
Aerial: The applicant shall provide a full-sized aerial with topographic and plat overlay.
Lot Standards: The property is located in Baldwin County and is unzoned. All lots front a publicly maintained
right-of-way. The applicant has met the minimum 100' lot width and exceeds the required lot size.
Tree Inventory: According to Article IV Section C.1.b(13} a tree inventory shall be noted on the preliminary
submittal of the plat.
In this particular case, the applicant is not proposing any improvements. The number of trees on the
property is extensive. The applicant has verified that some of the trees are of heritage size . The trees are
on private property and are subject to removal. Conducting a tree inventory would be burdensome due to
the number of trees. The trees are generally located in the area of potential wetlands which is required to
have a wetland buffer per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, in this case, staff believes
conducting a tree inventory would be excessively burdensome and the trees currently have a protection due
to their presence in the area of wetlands and in the drainageway and because no roads are proposed.
Sidewalks: Article V Section D.6 requires that all streets shall include a pedestrian area and a planting strip
and a sidewalk, according to the standards in Table 5.3 in Appendix A. Sidewalks shall be required unless a
waiver is granted. The applicant has requested a waiver in writing to the subdivision requirements for
sidewalks. The applicant shall verify if the County will maintain the sidewalks. Staff requests a sidewalk
easement be placed on the front of lots for future growth and to ensure there is room for sidewalks as that
growth takes place. The applicant has not provided the sidewalk easement to the plat . The sidewalk
easement shall be shown on the plat and this is a condition of approval should the sidewalk waiver be
granted. If the applicant's waiver is not granted by Planning Commission, a note sha ll be added that
sidewalks shall be provided at the time of building permit. A sidewalk detail shall be submitted at the time
of construction .
Waiver's Article VII Section A:
Waivers may be granted where the Planning Commission finds that the following conditions exist:
1. An extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with these regulations due to unusual
topographic or other physical conditions of the land or surrounding area not generally applicable to
other land areas.
2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider.
3. The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent of the regulations,
the Zoning Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship;
5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the
public;
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
Finished Floor Elevations: Finished Floor Elevations have been provided for every lot as per Article IV
Section C.1.b (14) of the City of Fairhope Subdivi sion Regulations .
3 SD 18.40 Fonde Divi sion -Nov ember 3, 2018
Utilities: (Article IV Section C,1.b {8}} Water and Sewer from the City of Fairhope are available in this
location, per the Operations Director, Mr. Richard Peterson, PE . There are existing structures on site with
utilities such as telephone and power.
Easements: The applicant has provided drainage and utility easements as per the Article V Section ES. The
Director of Operations has reviewed the easements and approved them .
Utility Access and Easements :
A. UTILITY ACCESS AND EASEMENTS -
i.Except where lanes are provided at the rear of lots, easements not less than fifteen feet in
width along side and rear lot lines as required for drainage and utilities. On interior lots, the
easement may be designed to lie equally on adjacent lots. On perimeter lots, no part of the
required easement shall lie outside the platted lands . Easement placement and widths shall be
approved by the Planning Commission. No half easements will be approved unless adjacent
property owners dedicate the other half of the easement at time of approval.
Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants are required at every intersection and every 450 feet . There is a fire hydrant in
front of Lot 2.
Public Works Comments, provided by Mr. Richard Johnson, PE, Director of Public Works:
• The applicant shall provide a note regarding dra i nage to match the following wording provided by the
Public Works Director: "Adequate drainage for each lot shall be provided at the time of home
construction . No developed lot shall discharge storm water unto a neighboring lot without drainage
easement and constructed conveyance. All lots shall drain to the public storm water system ."
• The applicant shall show the drainageway in a 20-foot drainage easement. The applicant shall also show
the area of potential wetlands on the plat. The Building Official, Mr. Erik Cortinas, requested a note on
the p.lat stating: A wetland's delineation shall be required at the time of building permit.
The applicant has addressed the above comments.
Street Trees: Staff met with Mr. Richard Johnson and Mr. Richard Peterson regarding the requirement for
street trees on minor subdivisions . Since new streets are not being installed they were of the opinion that
street trees should not be required by the City of Fairhope for minor subdivisions .
Natural Features/ Stream Buffers (Article V Section F. 4): Staff is in receipt of the letter regarding the
potential for wetlands. The applicant shall add a note on the plat regarding the need for a wetland
delineation at the time of permit and the requirement for a wetland buffer around jurisdictional and non -
jurisdictional wetlands.
The note regarding the wetland buffer is missing a reference to the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations
Article V Section F.4. Stream Buffers .
Recorded Plats: Any conditions of approval provided by Planning Commission shall be satisfied in a timely
manner . Per the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, Article IV Section D 7-Recording, applicant is
responsible for recording of Plat and approval shall be null and void if the Plat is not recorded within sixty
days after the date of final approval; provided, however, that the Commission may, on finding of good
cause, extend that sixty-day period. The applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded plat; failure to do
so shall result in the denial of issuance of the building permits within the subdivision.
4 SD 18 .40 Fonde Division -November 3, 2018
Other: Any applicable outside agency permit shall be obtained. The applicant shall confirm that this is not
single tax property.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards.
112. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the
subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and
development as proposed, due to any of the following:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning
ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or
program far the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks
Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City."
The project does not appear to be inconsistent with the applicable criteria of the City of Fairhope .
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions:
5
1. The applicant shall show the 10-foot sidewalk easement on the plat, if Planning Commission grants the
waiver. Should the waiver not be granted, the applicant shall construct sidewalks along the road
frontage for both l ots .
2. The applicant shall clarify the note on the plat regarding the requirement for wetlands by adding "The
required buffer and any allowed uses within the wetlands buffer shall be compliance with the City of
Fairhope Subdivision regulations Article V Section F.4 Stream Buffers.
SD 18.40 Fonde Division -November 3, 2018
Summary of Request: Request of Southern Light for an 11.52.11 Utility Review of approx imately 732 lin ear
feet of underground insta llation of fiber optic cable . The project will run Along Morphy Avenue and S.
Section Street to se rvice the Citizen's Bank at 104 S. Section Street.
This application i s under review due to Alabama Code 1975 11-52-11. Alabama Code 1975 11-52-11
addresses "Proposed construction of streets, public buildings, utilities, etc. to be subm itted for approval of
commission after adoption of master plan: overruling of commission.
According to state co de, an 11.52.11 review is done "whenever the commission shall have adopted the
master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts therof, no street, square, park
or other public way, gorund or open space or public building or structure of public utility, whether publicly
or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and
district until the location, character, and extent thereof sha ll communicate its rea sons to the council, which
shall have the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two thirds of its entire
membership prov ided futher, that if the public way, ground, space, budiling, structures, or utilitiy is one the
authorization or financing of which does not, under the la w or charter provisions govern ing same, fall within
the province of the municipal council, then the submission by the planning commission shall be to the board,
commission or bo dy having such juri sdication and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled
by said board, co mmission, or body by a vote of not less than two thirds of its membership.''
Project Scope: The a pplicant proposes to install approximately 732 linear feet of directional bored HPDE
conduit, equip ped w ith a fib e r optic cable, across Morphy Avenue (from sou th to the north) just west of
Section Street th e n east on Morphy to Section Street going north to the Citizen's Bank. Four fiber optic
handholes to be placed in the right of way . A sma ll section of approx imately 8 linear feet between borepits
will be trenched. The trenchin g in this section has approved by the Building Official. The conduit in sta lled
will be approxi mately 2-1.25 inches.
Comments:
General:
2
• No open trenches shall be allowed (with the exception of an 8' trench section approved by Erick
Cortin as, Bu ilding Official. All work sha ll be directionally bored .
• The appli cant shall hold a pre-construction co nference with the Department Supervi sors and
appropri ate staff prior to construction.
• Written notice sha ll be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written
schedule .
• The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call in ord er to locate all existing utilities.
• No work shall b eg in until a ROW permit is issued by the City of Fairhope Building Department or other
applicable jurisdiction. Permits are not valid until payment is made and th e permit is picked up by the
contractor.
• Th e RO W Pe rmit shall be kept with th e contractor or subco ntractor at all times during site work. The
ROW pe r m it shall be po st ed on the job site or in t he window of contractor(s) vehicle .
• All contr act ors/s ubcontractors are subject to City of Fairhope Business License procedures.
• The site sh all comp ly with all State, Federal and local requirements, including, but not limited to the
followin g Ci t y of Fairhope Ordinances:
1. City of Fairhope Wetland Ordinance( #1370), which regulates activity within 20' of wetlands.
2. Ci t y of Fairhope Red Soi l and Clay Ord inance (#1423), which prohibits th e use of red soil/clay
with i n 100' of critical area s.
3. City of Fairhope Ero sion Contro l Ord inance (#1298).
UR 18 .06 Southern Li ght -104 S. Sect ion St reet -November 5, 2018
• State and Federal permits shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the
issuan ce of Ci ty of Fairhope permits .
• The appli can t sha ll provide as-built profiles of the installed lines, showing the exact depth. The
applicant sha ll provide full sized plans (24"X36") for this application and for future applications.
Superintendent and Department Head Comments:
Public Works Director:
•
•
•
Any trees present shall not be negatively impacted. Handholds shall not be located within the
driplin es of Heritage trees (a s defined by the Tree Ordinance). If proposed work is within a tree
dripline, consult with the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with earth work.
The applica nt shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works Director. All
conduit/cable shall be placed at a depth from existing grade per industry and/or County Standards. A
minimu m horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36" must be maintained from storm
water an d utility infrastructures. No handholes, boxes, or other above ground infrastructure shall be
installed within drainage easements. Pedestals shall be placed in a manner as to avoid obstructing
visibility of motorists and to allow vehicles to exit the roadway during an emergency.
Any boxes/ha ndholes cannot be placed in sidewalks. The applicant shall review the sidewalk plan to
determin e if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall coordinate work with Mr. Richard Johnson,
PE, Publi c Works Director, to re solve any potential conflicts.
Building Official:
• Written notice shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written
schedule .
• The ma teria l under the sidewalk shall be compacted and the repair w ork shall be to the satisfaction of
the Buil d ing Offici al or his designated representative. The applicant shall contact the Building
Dep artment fo r insp ection prior to placing concrete.
• BM P's shall be installed at boring sites.
• Ground Cond itions in the ROW 's shall be returned to original pre-construction condition(s) or better.
• All plan s an d p ermits shall be available for review at all times along with the City of Fairhope permit
appli ca tion .
• If required, appropriate ALDOT or Baldwin County Highway Department permits shall be obtained
p r i or t o the issuance of a ROW p ermit.
• Contra ctor is advise d to review and comply with the Building Official best practices flyer.
• Applicant and ap plicant's contractor shall follow the Right of Way Installation Permitting and Work
Procedu re s docu ment available in the Building Department, including any supplements provided by
th e Buildin g Officia l at the time of ROW permit issuance .
Water and Sewer Department Standard Comments:
• All existi ng utilities mu st be located , and proper separation shall be maintained between utilities.
• All mechanical e quipment shall be screened by painting th e equipment Munse ll Green.
Ga s Departm ent Stan dard Comments:
• Contractor shall provid e proper separation from the gas main and all other uti lities.
Code Enfo rcem e nt Office r's Standard Comments:
3 UR 18.0 6 So uth ern Li ght -104 S. Section Street -November 5, 201 8
• The ap pl icant, or subcontractor, shall obtain a ROW permit from the City of Fairhope Building
Dep artment p r io r to beginning work.
• Subcont r ac t o r s shall have a current business license with the City of Fairhope and shall have a copy of
the ROW pe r mit available for review at all times and shall be posted on site or in the window of
contracto r ve h ic l es .
• Any ROW cu t s shall be stabilized (covered) at the end of each day and disturbed areas shall be re-
veget ated w ith so d within ten (10) days of completion of the project.
• Mulc h/seed sha ll be watered as needed to ensure survival.
• Inlets shall be protected .
• If site is withi n 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc.), no red soils/clay are allowed as fill material,
Per th e City's Red Clay/Soil Ordinance.
Recommendation:
To approve w i t h the fol lowing conditions:
4
1) Th e ap plicant sha ll follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated above.
2) All m echanical eq uipment shall be painted Munsell green as applicable.
3) Th e ap p licant sha ll provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works Director.
4) A pre-co nstruct io n conference shall be held prior to construction and written notice shall be provided
in ad vanc e t o the affected business owners, along with a written schedule .
UR 18.0 6 South ern Li ght -104 S. Se ct ion Stree t - Nov emb er 5, 20 18
Summary of Request: Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review of approximately 5,404 linear feet of
underground installation of fiber optic cable. The project will run throughout the Quail Creek neighborhood.
This application is under review due to Alabama Code 1975 11-52-11. Alabama Code 1975 11-52-11
addresses "Proposed construction of streets, public buildings, utilities, etc. to be submitted for approval of
commission after adoption of master plan : overruling of commission .
According to state code, an 11.52.11 review is done "whenever the commission shall have adopted the
master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts therof, no street, square, park
or other public way, gorund or open space or public building or structure of public utility, whether publicly
or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and
district until the location, character, and extent thereof shall communicate its reasons to the council, which
shall have the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two thirds of its entire
membership provided futher, that if the public way, ground, space, budiling, structures, or utilitiy is one the
authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions governing same, fall within
the province of the municipal council, then the submission by the planning commission shall be to the board,
commis sion or body having such jurisdication and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled
by said board , commission , or body by a vote of not less than two thirds of its membership."
Project Scope: The applicant proposes to install approximately 5,404 linear feet of 1.5" and 2" HPDE
conduit, equipped with a fiber optic cable, across throughout the neighborhood (identified in the submitted
drawings). The applicant proposes to install 1 handholes flush to grade in the right of way. The applicant
proposes to directional bore all work on this project.
Comments:
General:
2
• No open trenches shall be allowed. All work shall be directionally bored .
• The applicant shall hold a pre-construction conference with the Department Supervisors and
appropriate staff prior to construction .
• Written notice shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written
schedule .
• The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call in order to locate all existing utilities.
• No work shall begin until a ROW permit is issued by the City of Fairhope Building Department or other
applicable jurisdiction. Permits are not valid until payment is made and the permit is picked up by the
contractor.
• The ROW Permit shall be kept with the contractor or subcontractor at all times during site work. The
ROW permit shall be posted on the job site or in the window of contractor(s) vehicle.
• All contractors/subcontractors are subject to City of Fairhope Business License procedures.
• The site shall comply with all State, Federal and local requirements, including, but not limited to the
following City of Fairhope Ordinances :
1. City of Fairhope Wetland Ordinance( #1370), which regulates activity within 20' of wetlands.
2. City of Fairhope Red Soil and Clay Ordinance (#1423), which prohibits the use of red soil/clay
within 100' of critical areas .
3. City of Fairhope Erosion Control Ordinance (#1298).
• State and Federal permits shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the
issuance of City of Fairhope permits.
• The app l icant shall provide as-built profiles of the installed lines, showing the exact depth. The
appl icant shall provide full sized plans {24"X36") for this application and for future applications.
UR 18 .07 AT&T -Quail Creek -Novembe r 5, 2018
Superintendent and Department Head Comments:
Publi c Works Director:
•
•
•
Any trees present shall not be negatively impacted. Handholds shall not be located within the
driplines of Heritage trees (as defined by the Tree Ordinance). If proposed work is within a tree
dripline, consult with the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with earth work.
The app licant shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works Director. All
conduit/cab le shall be placed at a depth from existing grade per industry and/or County Standards. A
minimum horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36" must be maintained from storm
water and utility infrastructures. No handholes, boxes, or other above ground infrastructure shall be
insta lled within drainage easements. Pedestals shall be placed in a manner as to avoid obstructing
visibility of motorists and to allow vehicles to exit the roadway during an emergency.
Any boxes/hand holes cannot be placed in sidewalks. The applicant shall review the sidewalk plan to
determine if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall coordinate work with Mr. Richard Johnson ,
PE, Publ ic Works Director, to resolve any potential conflicts.
Building Official :
• Written notice shall be provided in advance to the affected business owners, along with a written
schedule.
• The material under the sidewalk shall be compacted and the repair work shall be to the satisfaction of
the Building Official or his designated representative . The applicant shall contact the Building
Department for inspection prior to placing concrete.
• BM P's sha ll be installed at boring sites.
• Ground Con ditions in the ROW's shall be returned to original pre-construction condition(s) or better.
• Al l plans and permits shall be available for review at all times along with the City of Fairhope permit
application.
• If required, appropriate ALDOT or Baldwin County Highway Department permits shall be obtained
prior to the issuance of a ROW permit.
• Contracto r is advised to review and comply with the Building Official best practices flyer .
• App li cant and applicant's contractor shall follow the Right of Way Installation Permitting and Work
Procedures document available in the Building Department, including any supplements provided by
the Bu ilding Official at the time of ROW permit iss uance.
Water and Sewer Department Standard Comments:
• All existing utilities must be located, and proper separation shall be maintained between utilities.
• All mechan i ca l equipment shall be screened by painting the equipment Mun se ll Green.
Gas Departm ent Standard Comments:
• Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities.
Code Enforcement Officer's Standard Comments:
3
• The app l icant, or subcontractor, shall obtain a ROW permit from the City of Fairhope Building
Department prior to beginning work.
• Subcontracto r s sha ll have a current bu siness licen se with the City of Fairhope and shall have a copy of
the ROW pe rmit available for review at all times and shall be posted on site or in th e window of
contractor vehicles.
• Any ROW cuts sh al l be stabiliz ed (covered) at the end of each day and disturbed areas shall be re -
vegetated w ith sod within ten (10) days of completion of the proj ect.
UR 18.07 AT&T -Quail Creek -November 5, 2018
• Mulch/seed shall be watered as needed to ensure survival.
• Inlets shal l be protected.
• If site is within 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc.), no red soils/clay are allowed as fill material,
Per the City's Red Clay/Soil Ordinance.
Recommendation:
To approve with the following conditions:
4
1) The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated above.
2) All mechanical equipment shall be painted Munsell green as applicable.
3) The applicant shall provide verification of the depth of the bore to the Public Works Director.
4) A pre -construction conference shall be held prior to construction and written notice shall be provided
in advance to the affected residents, along with a written schedule.
UR 18.07 AT&T -Quail Creek-November 5, 2018