HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2019 Planning Commission Agenda PacketKarin Wilson
Afll,VOT
Cow,n'l Members
Kevin G. BO0[lC
Roben A. Brown
Jack Burrell, ACMO
Jimm y Conyers
Jay Robinson
Lisa,".. Han ks , MMC
City Clerk
Michae l V. Hinson, CPA
Ci1y 71-easurer
1 61 Non h Sect ion St reet
P 0. Drawe r 42 9
Fai rhope, Alabama 36533
251-928-2136
251 -928 -6776 Fax
1rn1v.foirh opeal.go v
Frin rctl on rt·c;yd t·,l papt'!'
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
Council Chambers
February 4, 2019
• January 7, 2018
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. ZC 19 .01 Public hearing to consider the request of Dan Blackburn, on
behalf of Michael Hollis, Leslie Hollis, Doris Faust Callies, and
Wil liam Callies, III, to rezone properties from R-2 Medium
Density Single Fam ily Residential District to R-3 High Density
Single Family Residential District. The property is located on
the north side of Morphy Avenue and at the south end of
Beec her Street.
PPIN#: 14655,356335,356336,356334,356337,
356333, 14482, 243084, and 236236
B. ZC 19 .03 Public hearing to consider the request of Robert Evans, on
behalf of Evans Family Trust of 2013, to rezone property from
M-1 Light Industrial District to B-2 General Business District.
The property is located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Nichols Avenue and Professional Park Drive, to
be known as The Hope Farm.
PPIN #: 216208 and 216209
C. Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning Department to accept Resolution 2019-01 for a
proposed amendm ent to Article V, Section C. Greenspace
Standards in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regu lations.
D. SD 19.01 Public hearing to consider the request of Michael Wettermark,
on behalf of Jos h ua Mandell, for site plan approval of
Wettermark MOP, a 3-unit Multiple Occupancy Project. The
project is located on the west side of S. Mobile Street north
E. SD 19 .06
of Denton Lane .
PPIN #: 10623
Public hearing to consider the request of The Bills' No. 2, LLC
for Preliminary plat approva l of Riverhorse Subdivision, a 25-
lot division. The project is located on the northeast corner of
the intersection of Blueberry Lane and Canyon Dr ive.
PPIN #: 369809
F. SD 19.07 Public hearing to consider the request of The Bills' No . 2, LLC
for Preliminary plat approval of Tracery, a 43-lot subdivision.
The project is located on the west side of Lawrence Road just
north of Sky Lane.
PPIN #: 369810
G. SD 19 .10 Public hearing to consider the request of The Retirement
Systems of Alabama for Final plat of Battles Trace, Phase 5, a
73-lot subdivision . The property is located on the north side
of Battles Road, north of the Colony at the Grand.
PPIN #: 29244 and 372296
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjourn
4 ZC 19.01 Hollis/Callies Property-February 4, 2019
The proposed rezoning keeps the property as a residential use. The current use of the surrounding
properties is either a plant nursery and residential. The property consisting of the plant nursery (property
border subject property to the west) is zoned R-3 -High Density Single-Family Residential District. This
rezoning is not anticipated to have an impact to the predominant residential character of the area.
(4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Response:
The subject property and its 8 lots are currently being served with water, sewer and gas. If a rezoning is
approved with a slight increase in density, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
(5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions;
Response:
The subject property currently contains 8 lots with 2 lots containing single family homes . Therefore, the
subject property has previously been disturbed .
(6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Response:
Staff will insure all laws and applicable regulations are followed.
(7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Response:
Staff will insure all laws and applicable regulations are followed.
(8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and
property values; and,
Response:
As stated previously, the subject property will remain residential. No impacts to adjacent property from a
use perspective is anticipated. The proposed R-3 -High Density Single-Family Residential District is
consistent with adjoining property and other properties in the immediate area.
{9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values.
Response:
The current use of the surrounding properties is either a plant nursery and residential. The proposed use
remains residential. No additional impacts are expected with this rezoning.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Case: ZC 19.01 Hollis/Callies Property, rezoning 4.3 acres from R-2 Medium Density
Single Family Residential District to R-3 High Density Single Family Residential District, be APPROVED.
7 ZC 19.01 Hollis/Callies Property-February 4 , 2019
Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Robert Evans, on behalf of Evans Family Trust of
2013, to rezone property from M-1 Light Industrial District to B-2 General Business District. The property is located on
the northwest corner of the intersection of Nichols Avenue and Professional Park Drive, to be known as The Hope
Farm.
The property is owned by the Evans Family Trust of 2013. Mr. Roberts Evans is the authorized representative on this
application. The property is approximately 1.18 acres, including both properties. The northern-most lot (ppin 216209)
is approximately .55 acres and the southern-most (ppin 216208) lot Is approximately .63 acres.
The Planning Commission was presented the Hope Farm Application on January 4, 2019. The Planning Commission
tabled the application to obtain input from the City of Fairhope Industrial Board regarding the impact of this project in
removing M-1 property from the small pool of M -1 Properties that currently exists. On January 16, 2019, the Industrial
Board met and provided input to staff that the pool of M-1 properties is currently too small and firmly expressed the
need to maintain the current number of M-1 properties to have a reserve of light industrial properties for future City
needs . After discussing all sides of the issue, the Board came to the decision that a restaurant/bar use within the M -1
Zoning district was not an objectionable use and may actually benefit an industrial area as long as the parameters for
the restaurant/bar use was well-defined, such as no drive th roughs allowed. They were not supportive of changing
the existing zoning of the subject parcel to a B-2 designation. The Industrial Board made the recommendation to
allow a restaurant/bar use (with well-defined parameters) in the M-1 zoning designation and asked the City Staff to
prepare an ordinance that could be presented to the Industrial Board and City Council. The Industrial Board passed
the following recommendation unanimously: The re-zoning request should be denied and the Ml zoning designation
in the City Ordinance should be revised to include restaurants and bars with the specific restriction of not allowing
drive through service windows. Staff is amending the original staff recommendation based on the concerns of the
Industrial Board's concern for the loss of any M-1 zoning designations.
The applicant is proposing a primary use of restaurant and bar with the following accessory uses:
• Hydroponic Shipping Container gardens for produce for the restaurant.
• Ent ertainment venue.
• Educational facility.
Article IX Section 8.8 defines accessory use as follows:
8. General Use Definitions and Descriptions
The following use definitions or descriptions do not fit into any single use category, but apply generally throughout
this ordinance.
a. Accessory Use -a use that is customarily incidental to the principal use, is typically maintained and operated
as part of the principle use, is subordinate to the principle use, and is located on the same lot as the principle use.
According to Article Ill Section 8.2:
2. Accessory Uses -Any use may be established as an accessory use to any permitted principal use in any
district provided that such accessory use:
(a) is customarily incidental to and is maintained and operated as part of the principle use;
(b) is not hazardous to and does not impair the use or enjoyment of nearby property in greater degree
than the principle use with which it is associated;
(c ) does not create levels of noise, odors, vibration and lighting, or degrees of traffic congestion, dust or
pollutants, in a greater amount than is customarily created by principle use; and (d) is not located in
minimum exterior yard.
Article IX Section 8.5.q defines an entertainment venue as follows:
q. Entertainment Venue -a business where floorshows or other forms of entertainment by persons are
provided for guests, which may include accessory dining, bar, and similar refreshment services. Examples
include concert halls, dinner theaters, or banquet halls.
2 ZC 19.03 The Hope Farm -February 4, 2019
Article IV Section E.2 {Required Parking) sets forth special parki ng requirements as follows in Table 4-3 Parking
Schedule:
Indo or Recreation , Outdoor Recreation , Entertainment Venues ,
Pl aces for Worship, stadiums and simi la r pla ces of assem bl y
I s p ace for eac h 4 seats or each 200 square feet of assemb ly
fl oor are a , whi c heve r is greater .
Parking for any proposed entertainment venue will be reviewed during site plan submittal.
The applicant is proposing a "de stination" project with a combination of activities, including a full
restaurant/bar as their primary use, which will also occasionally (2 -3 times a month) host Guest Chef
dinners. The app l icant is providing an outdoor gathering space for community-oriented events along with
fully enclosed on-site shipping containers that are repurposed for growing plants hydroponically.
At this time, the applicant is proposing enclosed hydroponic gardening within shipping containers.
According to the applicant, all processes are fully self-contained with no on-site waste produced. They have
a desire to use these agriculture products (lettuces, le afy greens, herbs and mushrooms) grown
hydroponically within the restaurant and also use the hydroponic system as an educational venue. The
applicant has provided a narrative regarding the hydroponic operation stating "These containers are
Temporary Structures. There will be a 50 1 by 10' concrete slab that these containers will be placed with a
crane. We have the ability to move these containers at any point as they are not fixed to the slab like a
typical building structure . What is grown inside of these containers will be sold to local restaurants
enabling us to enhance the ir "Farm to Table" offer i ngs ..... There are zero noxious odors associated with this
type of farming, and the discharge is nutrient rich water that will be utilized around the property"
Staff has reviewed the application with the regulations as they are listed in our current ordinances which
address farming in the conventional way and do not have flexibility for the concept of urban farms which is
ultimately a concept the applicant would like to embrace. Staff has discussed this issue with the applicant.
The applicant said that they will accommodate their plah to only use what is grown within their own
operations as a res taurant instead of selling to the public or other businesses.
The applicant has also expressed an interest in selling local artisan , agricultural products and specialty
products in a farmers' market format in the open space area. The concept being proposed is very similar to
the concept that was embraced in the Windmill Market that was located downtown Fairhope.
The applicant has submitted a general conceptual layout of what is proposed. However, this is a zoning
application, so details of site plan will not be addressed as part of this application and will be addressed at a
later date.
Site History:
This re-zoning is for two adjacent parcels. Both properties are currently zoned M-1. The southern-most
parcel was originally part (Phase 3) of the "Little Nichols" site plan.
Little Nichols Site Plan:
Site Plan Review
Ca se Number Applicant Building N~e Address PC Date Decision
SR 07-04 Littl e-Nichols/ Craig Dyas Little Nichols 333 S. Greeno Road 4/2/2007 Approved I
Phase 3 remained vacant and undeveloped with the exception of some minor parking and some cafe tables
which appear to have encroached off of the current Little Nichols property onto the adjacent property (Mr.
Evan's property). This encroachment is an issue between property owners and not an issue for this
particular zoning case. The existing Little Nichols market is non-compliant for their parking requirements.
Staff reviewed this issue with the Planning Director and with Mr. Richard Johnson, Public Works Director
3 ZC 19.03 The Hope Farm -February 4, 2019
The purpose and intent for B-2 is as follows: B-2 General Bu siness District: This district is intended to
provide opportunity for activities causing noise and heavy traffic, not considered compatible in the more
restrictive business district. These uses also serve a regional as well as a local market and require location in
proximity to major transportation routes. Recreational vehicle parks, very light production and processing
activities are included .
The above B-2 zoning designation definition and the proposed primary and ancillary uses (excluding the farm
market concept) of the project appear to be consistent and allowed in the B-2 District. B-2 is a le ss intense
zoning designation than M-1 and is more consistent with the surrounding properties.
At the time of site plan, staff will review the site plan for specific requirements of the zoning ordinance .
Allowed uses for B-2 and M-1:
The allowed uses for 8-2 are as follows:
Allowed bv Right: Single Family; two family; mixed use ; Single Family; Mixed Used; Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Educational Facility, or Library; Public or Community Open Space; General or Professional
Office; Grocery Store; General Merchandise; Shopping Center; General Personal Services; Automotive
Repair Shop; Indoor Recreation; Boarding House or Dormitory; Restaurant; Bar; Entertainment Venue;
Limited Manufacturing
Permitted 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, Civic, Outdoor Recreation Facility, Day Care, Mortuary or Funeral Home, Dry Cleaner,
Laundry, Personal Storage, Kennel or Animal Ho spital;
Permitted Subject to Special Conditions listed in the Ordinance: Home Occupations; Convenience Store;
Recreational Vehicle Park
The allowed uses for M-1 are as follows:
Allowed by Right: Elementary and Secondary Schools, Educational Facility, or Library; Public Open Space and
Community Open Space; General or Professional Office; Grocery; General Merchandise; General Personal
Services; Automotive Repair; Indoor Recreation; Boarding House or Dormitory; Warehouse; Limited
manufacturing; Light industrial.
Permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions: Cemetery; Hospital ; Community Center or Club;
Public Utility; Automobile Service Station ; Outdoors Sales Limited ; Outdoor Sales Lot; Garden Center;
Convalescent or Nursing Home ; Clinic; Outdoor Recreation Facility; Daycare; Mortuary or Funeral Home; Dry
Cleaner or Laundry; Per son al Storage; Junk or Salvage Yard; General Manufacturing
Permitted Subject to Special Conditions listed in the Ordinance: Convenience Store; Recreational Vehicle
Park
Article II Section C 1 e (3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development
activity;
The property is bordered to the north by M-1 zoned property; to the east by M-1 zoned property; to the
west by B-2 zoned property and to the so uth by M -1 zoned property. Properti es outside of the immediately
adjacent areas, but within the 1320-foot buffer include properties zoned:
B-2 (General Bu sin ess District), B-4 (General Professional Office), R-A (Residential Agricultural Di strict), R-
3pgh (High Density Single -Family), R-2 (Medium Density Single-Family) M-1 (Light Industrial).
The area designated as light indu strial include bu sinesses as follows: a gas station, Gulf City Cleaners,
Fairhope Brewing Company, Insurance Office, Dental Office, a church, a dialysis clinic, a medical supply office
The predominate character of the neighborhood is of a B-2 (General Business District). Staff r ec ommends B-
2 zoning as it is a less intense u se near the Hawthorne Glenn neighborhood than the current M-1 zoning
desi gnation for the area.
6 ZC 19.03 The Ho pe Farm -February 4, 2019
a. Intent: The intent of the special conditions on building material for commercially zoned property is to
prevent negative visual impact, provide attractiveness and beautification, and protect commercial
property values.
b. Location restrictions: The special conditions in this section shall apply to any commercially zoned
property in the City of Fairhope.
c. No building or portion of a building visible from a public street or right-of-way shall be exposed metal. A
fa~ade of some type or material shall be used to visually screen the metal from the public street or right-
of-way.
This will have to be addressed at the time of site plan in terms of screening the shipping containers to
remain consistent with the City of Fairhope regu lations, as the containers wi ll be used in the place of
buildings for growing plants.
Article II Section C 1 e (7& 8) Impacts on adiacent and surrounding property including noise, traffic, visible
intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; and,
The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding existing commercial developments in terms
of noise and intrusion. The applicant is proposing a restaurant/bar which is a similar use to the adjacent
property at the Little Nichols Market and the Fairhope Brewing Company across the street. The site plan
approval process wi ll address the parking other issues specified in the City of Fairhope Zoning ordinance.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the zoning request from M-1 to B-2 be denied based on the In dustrial
Board feed back regarding a lack of reserve for M-1 zoning designations. At the request of the Industrial
Board, the City Planning Staff will prepare a zoning amendment to the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance
regarding M-1 zoning designation to include a restaurant/bar u se with restrictions on drive throughs.
According to Article II, Section C Review Procedures, (f) Limitation on Re-submittal: If denied, no
application for a zoning map amendment shall be considered within 365 days from a final decision on a
previous application for the same or similar parcel of land. An application may be withdrawn without
prejudice prior the public hearing being opened by Planning Commission. A request to withdraw an
application shall be made to the Director in writing.
Please note, that a site plan approva l may be required in accordance with Article II. C.2 . requirin g Planning
Commission and City Council approval.
8 ZC 19.03 Th e Hope Farm -February 4, 2019
Memo
Date: January 28 , 2019
To: Fairhope Planning Commission
From: Wayne Dyess, AICP, Planning Director
Re: Greenspace standards amendment to Subdivision Regulations
******************************************************************************
During the past year, the Planning Commission has expressed concern about the location , type
and amount of greenspace in subdivisions. Several projects were tabled, and greenspace
modified by the applicant to alleviate the concerns of the Planning Commission.
Over the past several months staff has worked on an amendment to the greenspace standards .
The staff has 3 primary goals to achieve with this amendment:
1. Ensure that the amount of was adequate to meet the needs of the neighborhood. One
primary change was to calculate amount of green space based on the net density of the
development. Therefore, public or private rights-of-way, storm water infrastructure,
wetlands, water course and undevelopable land based on topography or physical
constraints were removed from the density computation . The resulting usable land was
then used calculate dens ity.
2. Ensure that greenspace provided is in the proper context of the development type.
Rural character is considered 1 dwelling unit per acre or less, suburban character is
considered 2-4 units per acre and urban character and vil lage center is considered more
than 4 units per acre. Table 4-1 provides and visual examples as well descriptions and
minimums and maximum sizes of greenspace.
3. Ensure that greenspace becomes an asset to a neighborhood . Greenspace is an
important design element of quality neighborhoods. Greenspace, properly provided
and designed , increases property values, provides recreational activities and builds
identity and pride .
To assist engineers and designers, staff will also create a Greenspace Guide with examples and
photos to further understanding of the green space standards .
1 C. GREENSPACE STANDARDS:
2 1. Purpose -These greenspace standards shall implement the Comprehensive Plan for the physical
3 development of the City by setting the location, character and extent of playgrounds, squares, parks, and
4 other public grounds and open spaces to promote good civic design and arrangement. This design and
5 arrangement shall ensure adequate and convenient open spaces for recreation.
6 These standards shall promote the following goals in the Comprehensive Plan :
7 (a) create focal points for new and existing neighborhoods by providing appropriately located parks, schools,
8 parkways, and other amenities; (b) support Planning Design Standards Street Standards development of
9 recreational opportunities; (c) link village centers to neighborhoods with a parks and trail system; (d) provide
10 public gathering places; and (e) include Gf}e-A spaces (plaza, parks, greenspace) for social activity and
11 recreation in new infill development.
12 2. Applicability and Requirements -The regulations in this Section C. shall apply to any development as dense
13 or denser than the City R 1 Residential Zoning District, whether or not in the City Limits. Green Space
14 amounts to be provided shall be based on the dwelling unit per acre of a subdivision. For purposes of this
15 section, net density of a site is the resulting number of units per acre after removing public or private rights-
16 of-way, storm water infrastructure, wetlands, water course and undevelopable land based on topography or
17 physical constraints. Greenspace shall be provided as follows: 10% Greenspace is re€Juired.
18 Green space shall be provided as follows:
Units Per Acre Open Space Amount
Less than 2 units per 10%
acre
2-4 units per acre 15%
4-6 units per acre 20%
More than 6 units per 25%
acre
Multiple Occupancy 10%
Project {commercial)
Multiple Occupancy
Project Residential
3 units per acre 15%
4-6 units per acre 20%
More than 6 units 25%
per acre
19
20 3. Eligible Greenspace -Greenspace eligible for meeting the requirements of this section shall :
21 a. be usable land for public active or passive recreation purposes.
22 b. be located in FEMA FIRM map zones AO, A99, D, or VO.
23 c. not be located in any wetland areas as defined by the Federal Government.
24 d. not include any retention, detention or similar holding basins, unless:
25
26
1. The holding basin is clearly integrated into an open space/park site with adjacent land available for
pedestrian facilities and passive recreation .
27 =2'-. -----'H'-'-o=--l=d=in=g'--"b'-=a=s=in'-'b=a""'"n'-'-k=s-=-s'-'-ha=l"-I '-'-no=--t'---'e=x-=c=e=ed=--=a--=3'--'-:1=--=sl=o""'p-=e.
28 =3'-. __ O~pe=n~sp~a~c-=-e--=c"-re=d~i~tf~o'-'-r~h-=-o~ld~i~ng~b=as~i'-'-n-=-s'-'-ha=l"-l'-'-n=ot~e=x~c-=-e-=-e=d'-'-%C.C3~0.
Strike Through represents deletions, underline in bold represents additions
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to cons i der the request of SE Civil, LLC on behalf of Joshua Mandel l property owner and
associated investors Michae l Wettermark, John Wettermark, and Lawrence Wettermark, a Mu ltiple
Occupancy Project (MOP). Subject property is located on Mobile Bay and South Mobile Street 300' south of
Laurel St. and immediately south of the American Legion Post 199, consisting of approximately .63 total
acres. Subject application is an MOP and does not request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots.
Three res idential units are proposed for this site . Mr. Larry Smith, PE, of SE Civil serves as the engineer or
record (EOR) for subj ect application. The staff recommendation reflects conditions of approval necessary for
final closeout of the MOP but requir i ng a separate procedure due to the absence of a final p lat approval
associated with MOPs.
Comments:
MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY PROJECT (MOP) CRITER IA
The fol l owing item are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject application's
compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and other
re levant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and rationale behind staff's
recommendation. Staffs comments are in Red Text and any responses from applicant are in Blue Text . All
Article, Section, and Paragraph numbers i dentified are references to the City of Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations unless otherwise identified.
Article IV, Se ction C. l . b. (13) and Article V, Section D. 5. a. (9) Tree pro tect ion plan for a ll required street trees or
trees over 24' DBH . Tree protection fences shall be installed prior to land d istur bance activities . (See Appendix G)
□NIA I IZIAcce pted with comments 1 □Revise and Resubmit per comments
Cross Reference: Ordinance numbe r 1444, Tr ee Ordinance
Comments : Accepted if approved by Poul Merchant City of Fflirltope s Horticu/turalists
Response: Noted.
Aooroved hv Paul Merchalll
Article IV, Section C.J.b.(17) Site data box including but not limited to:
• Total acreage of site
• Acreage of common area(s)
0 Greenspace requirements of Atiicle V, Section 'C " not applicable to an MOP
• Total number of lots
• Square footage of each lot
• Site Density
• Number of units proposed
□N I A I □Accepted l IZIRev ise and Resubmit per comments
Comments: Add number of1111its to site data box.
Response: Added.
SITE ANAL YSIS
S ITI; ~~-Rf;l1~~ !i!U !LDl N~ tiE IGt:JT II OF UNITS
J:0,63 AC {27 .430 SF) 30 FT ,
IMPERVIOUS AR.EA
BUI LDING !UNDER. ROOEJ 'EXQLUSIVE OF BI.D G} P ERVj OUS AA.EA
r.,,580 s,: (20 ,6%; 4 .9 5,B SF ( 17.5"/,.J 16 ,88.3 SF {61 ,8%)
REQU!MED P~R K ING PROPOSED PARKING
8 SPA C E S G.SPA CES
JUR{SDI C-rlON ZONING
CITY O t-FAlf;l:I-IOP5 B -J.il
9UILO ING SETBACKS: R E QUIR E D:
FRO NT YARD : 30 FT
S IDE YAR D: '"'0 F-1
REA.R VA.RD: 3b f:1
M AX IMUM BUIL D ING H !:IGHT! ao·
M AX. L OT C OVERAGE av PR I CIPLE. STR UCTURE: 30-"I.
2 SD 19.01 Wettermark MOP -February 4, 2019
land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of thefollowing:
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:
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 re-plat of the property shall be recorded to show the location of the utility easements .
2) The following closeout procedures as well as request for the following closeout documents must be
completed before recommendation for C/O's for any of the three units. The City of Fairhope reserves
the right to modify closeout requirements and submission date at the direction of the Planning
Director:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. Inspection of all other MOP-app licable sections of Article IV, Section D. 1.b.(1) -(18)
d. Inspection of all other MOP-app licable sections of Article VI , Construction Standards and Chapter
19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances, testing requirements
3) Add an Erosion Control Note: No red soil or clay is allowed to be introduced on site as per the City of
Fairhope Red Soil & Clay ordinance.
4) Landscaping will comply with the Landscape -Tree Ordinance 1444.
5 SD 19.01 Wettermark MOP -February 4, 2019
4
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
• ~ts
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City. 11
• Meets
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval SD 19.06 with the following co ndition s:
l. A 10' buffer along Blueberry Lane indicating "Reserved for planting of trees and shrubs".
2. Provide a sign and sea led letter w ith response to why a tree protection plan is not needed.
3. Revise Operation and Maintenance Plan to reflect a 5-year maintenance schedu le and not 3.
4. Add note on plat that the greenspace is not dedicated to the City of Fairhope and that th e City of
Fairhope i s not responsible for maintenance of any or all required greenspace.
SD 19.06 Rvierhorse -February 4, 2019
Paul Merchant, City of Fairhope's Horticulturalist has approved the landscape plan . A tree protection was
not needed. The site is bare of trees ex cept what is in the w etland area and i s already protection. A letter
from the EOR wa s provided.
The north and we st side is surrounded by wetlands and the appropriate 30' buffer ha s been applied and
proper sign age will be provid e d .
Th e subdivision regulations contai n the following cri teri a i n Article /V.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:
4
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;
• !!Mrets
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
• Me:e,ts
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 recommend s approval SD 19.07 with th e following conditions:
1. A 10' buffer along Lawrence Road indicating "Re se rv ed for planting of trees and shrubs".
2. Provide a si gn and sealed letter with respon se to why a tree protection plan is not needed .
3. Revi se Operation and M aintenance Plan to reflect a 5-year maintenance schedule and not 3 .
4. Add note on plat that th e green spac e is not dedicated to the City of Fairhope and that the City of
Fairhope is not re spon sible for maintenance of any or all required green space .
SD 19.0 7 Tracery -Februa ry 4, 20 19
Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of The Retirement Systems of Alabama for
Final Plat of Battles Trace Phase 5 (A & 8). The property is located on the north side of Battles Road, north of
the Colony at the Grand.
The property is owned by the Retirement Systems of Alabama and their authorized representative is
HMR LLC.
The total site acreage is 27.58 acres, with the largest lot being approximately 15,185 sf and the smallest lot
being 8,125 sf.
Comments:
Site History: The Tourist Resort District (approximately 186.2 acres with a total allowed density of 637) was
approved in 2010 with multiple development zones, including a recreational zone, a low-rise zone, limited
commercial zone, a mid-rise zone, and a high-rise zone which were presented in a land use map. An
updated land use map is attached to this staff report.
In 2016, the applicant requested an amendment to the TR district land use map rearranging the percentages
of the various zones and reducing the designated high-rise land use area. At the time of the amendment, the
staff cover letter for the amendment reports the applicant antic i pates to be well below the maximum
allowed 637 units at final build out.
Zoning Cases
Case PC PC cc Dev. Applicant Owner Request Address Ordinance
Number Date Result Date Name Number
zc 10.04 6/7/10 Approved 8/23/10 Colony Point Point Conditional Battles Approved-
At the Clear Clear anne xation Road Ord . No . 1434
Grand Pa rtners Part n er s to TR
zc 16 .04 4/4/16 Approved 6/27/1 6 TR District HMR RSA TR District Old Battles Rd Approved-
Amendment Amendment Ord. No. 15 79
The Battles Trace Subdivision Preliminary Plat, first phase of this development, was approved in September
18, 2012 and is considered low-rise residential (not to exceed 35'). The total anticipated number of phases
for this overall development has not been determined yet. According to the applicant's engineer, the
number of total phases will depend on the market and how the developer will choose to break up the
phasing. The final plat Battles Trace was approved on September 5, 2017.
Battles Trace Subdivision Cases
Case No. Applicant Case Type Subdivision Name No. of Zoning PZ Date PZ
Recorded Plat Lots Decision
SD 06-05 Volkert/Da Minor Colony at the 2 N/A 2/6/06 Approved 5/15/2006,
niel Corp Grand -triangle 5/15/2006,
5/15 ,2006
SD 13-12 HMR/Po i nt Minor Colony at the Grand 3 TR 9/3/13 Approved 12/17/12
Clear Replat2, Sub., Ph 3/5/2014
Partners Replat 1 lA
SD 10-03 HMR, LLC Minor Colony at the Grand 2 TR 11/1/10 Approved 5/3/11, 11/22/11
SD -12 -05 HMR Prelimina ry Batt les Trace at the 66 TR 9/18/12 Approved N/A
Colony
2 SD 19 .10 Battles Trace, Phase 5-February 4, 2019
View of the Lake from Battles Tra ce Ph . 5. View that seeding not comp lete.
Second vi ew of i ncomplete seeding. View of curb re-work.
View looking toward the previ ous phase . View looking at Colony Drive
4 SD 19.10 Ba t tles Trace, Phase 5 -February 4, 2019
View of Landscaping and pedestian crossing View of Tree Damage
View of construction materials View of second damaged curb repair
View of Road Repair View of construction staging.
5 SD 19.10 Battles Trace, Phase 5-February 4, 2019
School Impact analysis :
The Preliminary Plat for Battles Trace, Phase 5 contains 73 single family lots. Applying the student yield
factors, the development is expected to generate 28.47 (73x.39) elementary school students, 8 .03 (73x.11)
m iddle school students and 12.41 (73X .17) high schoo l students .
Develop m e nt Applicati on Housi ng Total Un its Attendance Zo ne SYF Expe cte d
Name Typ e Type N umber
stude nt s
Battles Trace Ph 5 Fina l Plat SF 73 Larry J. Newton .39 28.47
Fairhope Middle .11 8 .03
Fairhope H igh .17 12.41
Total 48.91
Green space: The applicant states that 7.53 acres of greenspace (28% of the site) has been provided for this
development. This brings the overall Battles Trace development to a tota l of 35% green space (63.8 acres of
the tota l 184.6 acres).
Operations and Maintenance Plan: The applicant has provided the Operations and Maintenance Plan
amendment with phase 5 of development. The document has been signed and notarized . The app l icant
sha ll record the amendment at the time of final plat.
Wetlands: According to the applicant, no wetlands are located this phase of development.
Storm Sewer: Storm sewers are private. The City of Fairhope will not maintain private sewer. Drainage
infrastructure maintenance is the responsibility of the homeowner's association. According to the City of
Fairhope's Engineer, the storm water system at this location is private. The engineer that has signed the
certification is responsible for the design and functionality of the system; therefore, they are the responsible
for inspection and review of the storm water video . The City will not require the video as the submittal for
this development.
Mr. Richard Johnson , PE, verified the existing note on the plat regarding drainage responsibility was
acceptable .
Roads: The roads in t hi s development are private . There were some issues with the roads that will need to
be corrected and the last layer of road has not been installed. Typically, staff would require bonding of any
uncomp leted item; however, the applicant has committed to have the work completed prior to the Planning
Commission Meeting. Staff has met with the Public Works Director on this item . Per the Public Works
Director, all improvements are to be inspected and accepted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. All
remaining items that are not completed, inspected or accepted are to require a performance bond.
Water and Sewer: The app l icant was missing several submitta l items on the initial submittal, including bac t
tests and sanitary sewer video. Since that time, the required submittals were provided and all passed the
approva l of the City of Fairhope, Director of Operations, Mr. Richard Peterson , PE.
Building Official Comments: The Building Official has requested the following as a note on the plat: "Per
the Building Official, the International Residential Code requirements for firewalls, fire rating of eaves and
soffits and limitation of openings (doors windows, etc) will be enforced based on building proximity to a
property line, not separation from structures on other lots ."
6 SD 19.10 Battles Trace, Phase 5 -February 4, 2019
Final Inspection: A final inspection was conducted on January 16, 2019 . Th e following items were identified as
requiring completion or action :
• No street signs.
• Several wa ter and sewer department ite ms.
• Several storm water box issues
• No final layer of road on the street .
• Site not stab ili zed.
• Construct ion entrance did not appear to be "rocked".
A number of the submittal items and final inspection we re delayed. At the time of this w riting, no road tests ha ve
been subm itted. Ho weve r, the Planning Director and the Public Works Director were w illing to work with the applicant
on the incomplete items. Th e final inspection was sc heduled for January 16, 2019. At the time of final inspection, the
applicant was planning on bonding the fina l wearing la yer of road; ho wever, the applican t chose to move forward and
complete the final wea ring laye r. Durin g the final inspection iss ue s with the road were brought t o the attention of the
contractor and a segment of the road had to be removed and re-worked. The day of this writing, the Publi c Works
Director inspe cted for final completion. Hi s co nditions of approval have been added to the recommendation.
Staff received word from the Water and Sewer Department that the wa ter and sewe r items have been completed and
approved.
Financial Guaranty: The applicant submitted a performance agreement for the pedestrian path.
A maintenance bond was provided by the contractor doing the work. A maintenance agreement was
provided by RSA; however, it was missing the exhibit page.
Other: Any app licab le outside agency permits sha ll be obtained .
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.8.2. Approval Standards.
"2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws -The Planning Commission shall not approve the
subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and
development as proposed, due to any of the following:
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City's Zoning
ordinance, where applicable;
b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or
program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks
Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program;
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations;
d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations;
or
e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the
planning jurisdiction of the City."
The project does not appear to be in consistent with th e app li cab le criteria of the City of Fairhope. There are
som e items p e nding which the City Supervisors will not r e l ease w ithout Supervisory Approval. Th e subj ect
parcel is located within the City of Fairhope Corporate limits (designated as the TR District), the police
juri sdiction, permit jurisdiction, a nd in the City of Fa irhope Planning Jurisdiction . Staff i s unaware of any
pending issues related to applicable state or federal locals and re gulations and health and sa fety. The
burden of responsibi lity is on the applicant to coordinate with any appropriate age ncy r ega rding their
proposed project.
7 SD 19.10 Battles Trace , Phase 5 -February 4, 2019
Recommendation :
Staff recommend s approval of the application contingent upon the following conditions:
8
1. All improvements sha ll be inspected and accepted by the City of Fairhope by the time of the Plann ing
Commission meeting or the applicant shall submit a performance bond for all incomplete items. All
final inspection items shall be completed. The final plat will not be signed until a thorough r e-
inspection occurs ensuring all pending/remaining work is completed.
2 . The building official 's note to the plat shall be added .
3 . All material test reports shall be submitted, reviewed, approved and accepted prior to the signing of
the final plat.
4. All utility related test reports shall be submitted, reviewed, approved and accepted prior to the si gning
of the final plat.
5 . The applicant shall submit the exhibits that go with the agreement.
6. The applicant shall provide a letter verifying the project i s 90% complete .
SD 19.10 Ba t t l es Tra ce, Ph ase 5 -Febru ary 4, 201 9