Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2019 Planning Commission Agenda PacketZC 19.14 East Park PUD Amendment LOCATION: Parker Rd west of Greeno Rd ZONING DISTRICT: PUD OWNER/APPLICANT: Wendall Barnhill represented by Tom Granger with Sawgrass. Summary Request to amend the East Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) to increase acreage from 12.104 to 12.64; decrease single-family lots from 47 to 42; increase commercial lots from 0 to 1; decrease density from 3.88 lots/acre to 3.4 lots/acre; decrease road length from 3,145 to 1,722 linear feet; increase greenspace from 1.06 acres (8.39%) to 2.7 acres (21.3%); and other minor changes included on the site plan. Analysis Because this is a proposed amendment to an existing PUD, analysis will consider whether proposed amendments offer a better/worse condition as it relates to the existing PUD and the goals of the City as guided in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Codes. Lots 30 and 31, as shown on the existing site plan were originally included in the discussions of the original PUD as single-family residential lots. However, the legal description failed to include those lots in the final plat. As a result, the acreage is increasing in the proposed PUD to reflect original intentions. 1:1•111a 11,.1 i...0 ... J.ty liqf..,•l!Jy a.:c~ •~0,al-11,;;1; a.J111 t..-A.~Lov.iri C'.-.a -1-Ja T R ... lf"I C t11YP'1:liM'E11 Cl'Hld ..... l11111 -...u.lf'ld"9,nllitn ~ -141•1Ulftll""""'1f411C>-i -P•IP•" ~,--------,,=:c.,i Di,,_I) ili'lllr!el:I \i,,tClll\'IIIDQL'l'i11rt1 D ••t1llDIC- T Five single-family lots are removed in the new request, and average lot sizes increase to 6,722 sf. In addition, the requested amendment shows a reduction in linear feet of proposed roads and an increase in available greenspace. Overall, the density of the proposed PUD is reduced from what is currently approved. R-1, Low Density Single-Family, lies to the north and south of the site. Property to the east and west are zoned by Baldwin County. Property to the east is zoned Baldwin County RSF-2, Medium Density Single-Family. Property to the west is Baldwin County B2 and B3 – both business zoning. Across Parker road, to the south, is the Fly Creek PUD. The immediately adjacent property is the current location of a Publix grocery store and shopping center. The proposed density of the single-family lots, which is denser that surrounding properties, offers an appropriate transition to adjacent business uses and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Spacing and Setbacks are prescribed on the site plan (Appx. 5) and within the applicant’s narrative (Appx. 3). The existing PUD prohibits Accessory Structures. The applicant requests one commercial lot where lots 30 and 31 currently exist, and which are adjacent to Parker Rd, north of the entrance into the development. B-2 zoning is requested on the commercial lot. Allowable uses shall conform to those allowed by B-2 Zoning within the City of Fairhope Zoning Code. Dimensional standards for B-2 zoning will also apply unless explicitly requested and approved as part of this PUD amendment. It is important to note the proposed commercial lot is adjacent to a current residential property to the north, which, if the commercial use is approved, will need to meet requirements prescribed by the City of Fairhope’s Tree Ordinance. There being adjacent commercial lots to the west and south, and due its location in a Village Center, the commercial lot, and the corresponding B- 2 use, meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. There are two means of ingress/egress intersecting existing public roads as shown on both the existing PUD and the proposed amended PUD – one accessible from Parker Rd and one accessible from Greeno Rd. An easement provides ingress/egress directly onto Greeno Rd. At this time, the ingress/egress and the associated easement is not intended as a public road to be maintained by the City of Fairhope. Per our public works department, as part of the Fly Creek PUD, a traffic study determined Parker Rd has been improved as much as possible. Therefore, a traffic study is not required at this time, but the City does retain the right to require a traffic study if needed now or later, as part of the subdivision review. An existing cell tower exists within the PUD. Per the most recent Zoning Ordinance, the proposed single-family housing would not be allowed within the fall line of an existing tower. However, the existing PUD was approved prior to adoption of new requirements for cell towers. Consequently, the cell tower and approved single-family housing may be viewed as an existing non-conformity. Background Prior to 2005, this property was used as a 90-unit mobile home park within unincorporated Baldwin County. On October 24, 2005 the Fairhope City Council approved Ordinance No. 1273, which rezoned the Subject Property from R1 to a PUD to allow for reduced lot sizes. A copy of Ordinance No. 1273 is appended below. Recommendation: Approve with Conditions Conditions of Approval: In addition to Accessory Structures, also prohibit Accessory Dwellings. To make use of the rearranged greenspace, add a walking trail on the site plan. Provide an easement to access the pump station. Provide proof of western easement that provides secondary access directly to Greeno Rd. Appends Appx. 1: Aerial of site Appx. 2: Rezoning Application Appx. 3: Applicant’s Narrative Appx. 4: Existing PUD Site Plan Appx. 5: Proposed PUD Site Plan Appx. 6: Ordinance 1273 – East Park PUD Appendix 1: Aerial Images of Site PUBLIX Secondary Access via easement East Park PUD Amendment Location The East Park PUD Property is located on the north side of Parker Road, on the east side of Highway 98 across from the entrance to Publix. Vicinity Map East Park PUD Approval The property was annexed into the City of Fairhope with an R-1 zoning designation. This property had served as a 90-unit mobile home park prior to Annexation which created a non-conforming zoning use under the R1 designation. Ordinance No. 1273, approved by the Fairhope City Council at their regular Meeting of October 24, 2005, provided for the Subject Property to be rezoned from R1 to a PUD to allow for reduced lot sizes from that permitted under R1 zoning. The approved PUD provided 47 single family residential lots. The East Park PUD is located in the North Village District within the Greeno Road Corridor Overlay. Parker Road Publix East Park PUD The 2005 approved PUD layout is shown in Figure 1. East Park PUD (Existing) Figure 1 Site Data Table Total Acreage in Tract 12.104 acres Smallest Lot Size 0.145 acres Total Number of Lots 47 Linear Feet of Streets 3,175 lf Total Greenspace (Park Area) 1.06 acres ... = =---=-•-=--====-=-=---== ... ---·------·---------·--:::.=.:=:::..·==-=-:-e4 ~ .. -- 1 of 1 The Proposed Amended PUD is primarily a 43-lot single-family residential development with one larger lot designated for Commercial use along Parker Road. Existing Commercial development adjoins the property to the south and west with existing residential properties adjoining on the east side. The Commercial Lot (Lot 44) will follow the B-2 zoning designation for Use and for Dimensional Standards. Proposed PUD Figure 2 The purpose of this PUD Amendment request is to reduce the number of residential lots thereby reducing density, provide for a more efficient layout of lots and reduction of road length, create multiple greenspace areas with connectivity, and provide for a commercial component along Parker Road. The amended PUD will have significantly less roadway and more greenspace compared to the existing PUD which will allow for more tree preservation and lower long-term maintenance costs to the City should the roads be accepted for maintenance. The Comparison Table shown in Figure 3 outlines the major changes affected. Commercial Lot Detention Pond Existing Cell Tower Greenspace (Typical) I u I ,,,,u , ,_ .... ,,. ""'-""' o u,rs TI ITl\l f'trlc lf'ln" .\IU4"1~,\(_·I~ GaU..'-SPV-CKEQ'O *?.iJ \0£!!i•Vt4 GQI..-.;"l';\CY.l'ltO'\l OU>*r'-C1B;:>I ..... Umf.tm,,:t,'2.Ll EAST PARKP.U.D. -12.6ACRES PRELIMINARY LOT LAYOUT PARKER ROAD, FAIRHOPE, /IJ... Comparison Table Feature Existing PUD Proposed PUD Total Acreage *12.104 12.64 Number of Lots 47 43 Density 3.88 lots/acre 3.4 lots/acre Road Length 3,175 lf 1,772 lf Greenspace 1.06 acres (8.39%) 2.7 acres (21.3%) Lot Width at Street 70 ft 54 ft Average Lot Size 5,660 sf 6,722 sf Typical Lot Dimensions 70’ x 75’ 54’ x 125’ Setbacks 20’ front and rear 10’ side Lots 1-17, 21-42 20’ front and rear 7’ side, 15’ side street Lots 18-20 15’ front, 20’ rear, 7’ side Lot 43 (Commercial) B-2 zoning Dimensions Commercial None 1 Lot (0.45 acres) Figure 3 * As we understand, the original PUD was presented in final form with the addition of Lots 30 and 31 included on what is designated as the Commercial Lot fronting on Parker Road on the proposed PUD Amendment. The preliminary submittals of the original PUD in 2005, had not included these two lots so the acreage (12.104 acres) did not include lots 30 and 31 in the total acreage computation. The Amended PUD includes this Commercial Lot acreage for a total overall acreage of 12.64 acres. The East Park PUD meets the Fairhope Comprehensive Plan as it is located at a Village Center as part of the North Village District within the Greeno Road Corridor Overlay. The Residential Development will include sidewalks which will connect to the existing sidewalks and crosswalk on Parker Road for connectivity to Publix, a bank, and other adjoining commercial operations. Utilities Water, Sewer, and Power are all available and currently exist within the Development. The Water and Power will be relocated to conform with the new street and lot layout. We will utilize as much of the existing gravity sewer as feasible with the addition and relocation of manholes and piping as necessary to accommodate the proposed street and lot layout. We have been in contact with the City of Fairhope Utilities Department to confirm that the City maintains an active sewer lift station on site capable of serving the proposed Development. As part of the Subdivision Development, easements will be established and infrastructure provided, for access to the existing lift station and accessory structures. Dimension Table-Lots and Principle Structure Use Min. Lot Area Avg. Lot Area Min. Lot Width Setbacks Front Rear Side Street Side Max. total lot coverage by principle structure Max. Height Residential 5,970 sf 6,720 sf 54’ **20’ 20’ 7’ 15’ 48% 35’ Commercial 0.45 acres 131’ 20’ 20’ 10’ 20’ 30’ Figure 4 ** Lots 18,19,20 Requesting 15’ front setback Note: No accessory structures will be allowed. Cell Tower A cell tower and ancillary support structures currently exist on the property as identified on Figure 2. The property encompassed by the Tower is fenced and access controlled by a Locked gate. This fenced area will be identified by an easement with a designated use in the PUD for a Communication Tower. It is unlikely the Tower will ever be put out of service, however, should the tower ever be deemed unnecessary or no longer useful, this area will convert to Green Space for use by the residents of the PUD. Adjacent Zoning There is a mixture of zoning classifications surrounding the East Park PUD as shown on the following maps. As this area contains properties both inside and outside the City Limits of Fairhope, both the City’s (Figure 5) and County’s (Figure 6) GIS Mapping are shown to clarify the adjacent properties’ zoning. I I I I I Figure 5 Figure 6 East Park PUD East Park PUD County RSF-2 County B2 City PUD Zoning City R1 City B2 City PUD Zoning Requested Amendments to East Park PUD • Convert two Residential lots to one commercial lot • Establish an Easement for the Cell Tower Property • Reduce overall lot density • Increase average lot size • Reduce roadway length • Provide more greenspace • Reduce side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 7 feet Sidewalks: Sidewalks will be constructed that meet City requirements. Streets: The street is private currently; with the replatting of the property the streets will become public. Currently there is not curb and gutter, this will be required with the preliminary plat. Planning Commission: P&Z Commission recommended approval with a building height of 30'. This case was heard at the September 6th meeting. Staff has received several phone calls in support of the application, since it is the conversion of a mobile home park to a conventional subdivision. STAFF RECOMMEDATION: To approve with a building height of 30'. Respectfully Submitted for Consideration, s~w~~ Planner ZC 19.5 309 S. Ingleside St, R-2 to B-3b LOCATION: 309 S. Ingleside St ZONING DISTRICT: PUD OWNER/APPLICANT: Rosetta Wasp/Larry Smith Summary Request to rezone Subject Property from R-2, Single-Family Residential to B-3b with the intent to turn existing house into a restaurant. Analysis The Subject Property is located within Fairhope’s Medical Overlay District. While most of the surrounding properties are zoned M-1 Light Industrial, the subject property is zoned R-2. The abutting lot to the east is zoned B-4 Business and Professional District. Properties to the west, across S Ingleside St, are zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. Properties to the south, across Nichols Ave, are zoned R-2 and M-1. Abutting properties to the north are zoned R-4 Low Density Multi-Family. Setbacks were recorded on a historic plat and differ from the way staff would interpret setbacks under R-2 zoning. Regardless, if approved, B-3b zoning will require a front setback (Nichols side) of 20’ and a rear setback of 20’. In B-3b, there are no side setbacks unless a lot abuts --Sllt,~P'•rQI CITY O F FAIRHOPE ZONING Zoo11g ~ "'"""'" ... " Fl -A RHdi!!'l.lliljll,Qt'IQ,1UIDia'lll. i;:1-l LowOfft$..fYS......,,1~_y '" rm 1 .,c., J;";; Rl(b) , ~l(g Qtt.Slty.$~.amll:,' ~F-lllit'l1Y' R-.3 PGM ~~&fOifflS"4tF1mly ~ Thom3S Hosp lt al residential property, which does not apply in this case. Approval of B-3b zoning will require landscape buffers on the north, west, and south boundaries of the property. The subject property will need to be re-platted to show new setbacks. Buford Question: Does a corner B-3b lot have a street side setback like a residential lot? Criteria Review Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance contains nine (9) criteria by which an application for re-zoning shall be reviewed. Each criteria and review comments for each criterion are discussed in detail below. (1)Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; Response: Infill development has changed the dynamic of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. Locally owned restaurants and businesses have become recent staples of the community. Although the latest comprehensive plan does not explicitly list this area as a “Village”, it does acknowledge the area within the Medical Overlay District as “Public Facilities”. As defined by the Comprehensive Plan, Public Facilities are city-owned assets, schools, and infrastructure facilities (Thomas Hospital in this case) that “frequently serve as ‘anchors’ to attract compatible development”. A restaurant use is compatible with a hospital as addressed in the Medical Overlay District, which is further described below. (2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; Response: The Medical Overlay District (shown in the map right) acknowledges the need for “appropriate facilities for the medical community it serves”. Logically, workers and patrons need places to eat. To that extent, restaurants were recently added to the list of allowable uses within M-1 zoning, the most prominent zoning type south of the hospital to Porter Ln. In addition, the Medical Overlay District allows restaurants as an “Accessory Use” regardless of the underlying zoning. (3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; Response: There are two established restaurants within the same block as the subject property. Therefore, the currently proposed restaurant use is consistent with surrounding properties and zoning. However, other allowable uses within B-3b zoning must be considered, especially considering the subject property is adjacent to residential because future owners/developers inherit all allowable uses. Th omas Hospital urs e~ Thorrun l-bsp1bl Medica l Overlay Distri c~ Listed below are allowable uses in the B-3b, along with comments about potential concerns as it relates to the character of the surrounding property: Single Family Residential (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Two-Family Residential (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Multiple-Family/Apartment (Requires BOA Approval) –No Concerns since BOA must approve and can institute conditions of approval. Mixed-Use (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concern. Conceptually, mixed-use could offer a transition between adjacent M-1 Light Industrial and the adjacent residential zoning, but there is often hesitation rezoning to allow higher density development where it does not currently exist. In this case, however, it is important to once again note the Subject Property is located within the Medical Overlay District. Within the entirety of the MO District, Mixed-use is allowable “by right”. Special restrictions within the MO District apply, specifically; ‘The residential use shall make up 33% of the total area of the building and be located of the upper floors only” and “Mixed-use buildings shall be vertically mixed in use. Retail uses shall be placed at street level”. Accessory Dwelling (“Allowed with Restrictions”) –No Concerns Schools and Library (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns General Office (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Professional Office (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Home Occupation (“Allowed with Restrictions”) –No Concerns. Grocery (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Convenience Store (“Allowed with Restrictions”) –No Concerns. A convenience store is not allowed within 100ft of residential property. General Merchandise (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Outdoor Recreation Facility (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Indoor Recreation (Requires BOA Approval) –No Concerns since BOA must approve and can institute conditions of approval. Personal Storage (“Allowed with Restrictions”) –No Concerns. Special Conditions for Use would not allow the subject property to be used for personal storage. Hotel/Motel (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns. Height limit of 30ft and subject to MOP review. Recreational Vehicle Park (“Allowed with Restrictions”) –No Concerns. Special Conditions for Use require 3 acres, which is larger than the Subject Property. Restaurant (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Bar (“Allowed by Right”) –No Concerns Entertainment Venue (Requires BOA Approval) –No Concerns since BOA must approve and can institute conditions of approval. Marina (Requires BOA Approval) –No Concerns. No Water. (4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; Response: Utilities are available. Capacity can be evaluated via building permit/subdivision regulations. (5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions; Response: No known detrimental impacts are currently foreseen. (6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; Response: At the time of development all applicable laws will be applied. (7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; Response: At the time of development all applicable laws will be applied. (8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; and, Response: Commercial property may have different laws and regulations than residentially zoned property, such as, but not limited to landscape buffer requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance. Subject Property, upon approval of this application, will be subject to laws and regulations as required of commercial property. (9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. Response: Staff does not anticipate significant issues relating to this criterion. Background The existing building on the site has been used as a single-family home in R-2. On 12/12/2019, the City of Fairhope established the Medical Overlay District, within which the subject property lies. Recommendation: Approve with Conditions Conditions of Approval: Re-plat to remove old setbacks and add new setbacks that reflect the new zoning (B-3b if approved). This will not require another case and can be approved at staff level. Appends Appx. 1: Aerial of Subject Property Appx. 2: Rezoning Application Appx. 3: Applicant’s Narrative/Letter Appx. 4: Historic Plat Appx. 5: Boundary and Topographic Survey Appx. 6: Proposed Site Plan Appx. 7: Proposed Architectural Plans Appendix 1: Aerial Images of Site Subject Property Subject Property Thomas Hospital Warehouse Bakery District Hall Appendix 2: Rezoning Application APPLICATION FOR ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE Property Owner / Leaseholder Information Nam e:Wasp, Rosetta Young ETALBrown, Mildred Phone Number: Page 4 of6 Street Address: ~3~0~9~S~l1=1g...,l=es=id=e~A~v'""e'--_____________________ _ City: Fairhope State: AL Zip: --=36=5=32,c_ ______ _ Applicant/ Agent Information Ir different from above. Nolruize d letter from property owner is required ,ran agent is used for representation. Name: Larry Smith, PE Phone Number: _(,...?...,_5~1)J...99Ll,0ci-6.,._5..,6.,_6 _____ _ Street Address: 880 Holcomb Blvd, Suite 2F City: Fairhope State: AL Zip: .........,36...,5~3.._2 _______ _ Current Zoning of Property: ~R~-2 __________________ _ Proposed Zoning/Use of the Property: _B...._-.... 1=b,.._.R.,_,,e..,st....,a1..,H..u·a .... nt...__ __________ _ Property Address: _30=9...,S..,_ . ...,Jn~g'""e=-ls1=·d=e....,A..,_vx..e ___________________ _ Parcel Number: OS-46-04 -17-4-000-139 .on Property Legal Description: _1 o-t~l~-~8-o~se~t1-a-L~ew ........ is~5-u-b<l-i~Y1-·s~io~o-___________ _ Reason for Zoning Change: Allow restuarnnt us e on the property Property Map Attached ~ NO Metes and Bounds Description Attached ~ NO Names and Address of all Real Property Owners within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached. @) NO Character of Improvements to the Property and Approximate Construction Date: Renovate existing structure to add commercial kitchen, restrooms, parking, etc . Spring 2.020. Zoning Fee Calculation: Reference: Ordinance 1269 1 certify that I am the property owner /leaseholder of the above described property and hereby submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax Corp. an authorized Single Tax representa t' • • • •• Signature Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable) 880 Holcomb Blvd, Suite 2F Fairhope, Alabama 36532 251-990-6566 September 25, 2019 Hunter Simmons City of Fairhope 555 S. Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Re: El Barrio Dear Hunter: The applicant is requesting to open a restaurant at 309 S Ingleside Avenue South. The parcel number is 05-46- 04-17-4-000-139.000. The current parcel is lies in the Medical Overlay District and is zoned R-2. The properties to the East are B-4 and M-1. Since this property is in the Medical Overlay District, one would infer that the intent would be for this property to become commercial. We are requesting a rezoning to B-3b which will allow the restaurant use. The purchaser is going to renovate and expand the existing residence on the property. As part of the site plan review that will be required, we will install any required buffers between the development and the residential properties. Mr. Chris Cullen will be moving his family to Fairhope from Birmingham to open his second location of El Barrio Restaurante. Chris’s wife is from Fairhope, and opening a restaurant here has always been a dream of theirs. From their Website: El Barrio brings an exciting, different flavor... Inspired by multi-regional Mexican Cuisine, urban design and locally sourced ingredients, El Barrio bridges the gap between the typical Mexican restaurant and bustling bar and grill. http://elbarriobirmingham.com/ This use will be in line with the other commercial properties on this block of Nichols which include two restaurants: Warehouse Bakery and District Hall. We respectively request that this application be referred to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Sincerely, Larry Smith, PE larry@secivil.pro 1 SD 19.37 Cottage Lane – Fairhope – October 7, 2019 Planning Commission October 7, 2019 Case: SD 19.37 Cottage Lane - Fairhope MOP Condominium Units Project Name: Cottage Lane Fairhope MOP Condominium Units Site Data: Typical Unit – 0.09 acres +/- Total Site – 1.23 acres +/- Project Type: Condominium Unit Subdivision of Previously-approved MOP Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: R-4 Low Density Multi Family PPIN Number: 25387 General Location: Southwest corner of Edwards Ave And Bishop Road Engineer of Record: Barton-Schumer LLC Owner: Cottage Lane Fairhope, LLC School District: Fairhope Elementary, Intermediate, Middle, and High Schools Recommendation: Approval Prepared by: J. Buford King Development Services Manager 2 SD 19.37 Cottage Lane – Fairhope – October 7, 2019 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Barton -Shumer, LLC on behalf of Chason Wachter for approval of eight (8) condominium units to be located at the previously-approved Cottage Lane Fairhope Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP). Subject property is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bishop Road and Edwards Avenue, 0.5 miles east of Greeno Road, consisting of 1.23 acres. Subject application is limited to a condominium unit approval and does not request subdivision of lands or the creation of new lots or phases. David Shumer of Barton-Shumer LLC serves as the engineer of record (EOR) for subject application. Subject property is located immediately west of Fairhope Intermediate School. The MOP case related to subject property was approved by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission on April 2, 2018 via case number SD 18.08. Comments: CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Article II, Definition of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations defines a Condominium Development as “real estate, portions of which are designated for separate ownership and the remainder of which is designated by common ownership solely by the owners of those portions. The development type is hereby subject to the same development reviews and procedures as a conventional subdivision. Condominium developments shall submit a plat(s) that adhere(s) to the requi rements established in this document. Existing buildings as of September 2001 in the City Limits and ETJ are exempt from these procedures. Additionally, the Central Business District as defined in the Zoning Ordinance is exempt from these procedures”. The following item are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject application’s compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and other relevant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and rationale behind staff’s recommendation. Items marked in blue text are accepted with comments. All Article, Section, and Paragraph numbers identified are references to the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations unless otherwise identified. Subject application has been submitted as a follow-up condominium declaration to Case # SD 18.08 as described previously, and a great majority of the documents required for submission of subject case are duplicates of SD 18.08’s documents and are referenced below as applicable. Article IV, Section C.1. Preliminary Plat Application Checklist ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1. Certification of Property Owner Notification List ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(3) Names and addresses of the following: • Owner, designer, applicant, and all associated investors • record owners of lands immediately adjacent to subdivision. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Please furnish the names and addresses of all associated investors. Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(7) Building set back lines shall be shown on the plat as required by the zoning ordinance or in absence of zoning, as required by deed restrictions. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments I I I I I I I I 3 SD 19.37 Cottage Lane – Fairhope – October 7, 2019 Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utilities with connections (8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utility with connections to existing utility system and all proposed improvements. Approval of private utility connections for water and sewer shall be subject to the standards of Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fairhope. The applicant shall submit one copy of utility letters stating availability of service. Utility letters and layout must be submitted from electric, water, sewer, phone, trash provider, and gas (if applicable), stating the property may be adequately served by such utility. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Cross Reference: Approval of private utility connections for water and sewer shall be subject to the standards of Article VIII, Sections E. and G., respectively of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fairhope. Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(11) Flow model data submitted to the standards of the COF Water Department. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. The EOR verified fire flow was calculated to be 2,170 gpm at 20 psi, EOR concluded the development will not reduce fire flow below 1,000 gpm at 20psi. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(14) Minimum finished floor elevations for every lot. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Each condo unit FFE is reflected on an as-built drawing furnished with subject application. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(15) Submit a topographic survey with an aerial photograph with plat overlay. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(16) Pedestrian circulation plan ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Furnished with case # SD 18.08 MOP. Article IV, Section C.1.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 ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments The “lots” indicated by the site plan (drawing SP) included with subject application are for the purposes of declaration of a condominium ownership instrument. Drawing “SP” is the supporting document used in the condominium declaration instrument, executed on April 3, 2019. The dimension of the condominium units is included on drawing “SP” and the legal description of the property is delineated in the condominium declaration. Article IV, Section C.1.e. Engineering Plans: all engineering plans shall be signed and stamped by the registered professional engineer of record. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: As-built drawings of the site approved by case # SD 18.08 furnished as supporting documents to case # SD 19.37. Article IV, Section C.1.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments A letter from the Engineer of Record (EOR) was included in case # SD 18.08 indicating a traffic study was not warranted. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 SD 19.37 Cottage Lane – Fairhope – October 7, 2019 Article IV, Section.D.1 Final Plat Application Checklist ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Subject application functions similar to a minor subdivision in that preliminary and final approval is concurrent. SD 18.08 included various closeout requirements of the MOP as conditions of approval of the MOP. The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. “Approval Standards”. Each of these criteria is addressed below with either a “meets” or “does not meet” comment. If any of the criteria is not met, a denial will be recommended. 2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws - The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the following: a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City’s Zoning ordinance, where applicable; • meets 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 Site Photos: Looking southeast toward subject property from Edwards Avenue Looking east along Edwards Avenue with Fairhope Intermediate School beyond l l 5 SD 19.37 Cottage Lane – Fairhope – October 7, 2019 Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of Case number SD 19.37, Cottage Lane - Fairhope MOP Condominium Units. Looking south along Bishop road Looking southeast along Edwards Avenue toward unit 102 1 UR 19.21 Mini Cell Towers – October 7, 2019 Planning Commission October 7, 2019 Utility Review Case: UR 19.21 AT&T Mini Cell Towers Project Name: AT&T Mini Cell Towers Project Type: Utility Review Project Scope: Install 2 metered mini cell Antennas Jurisdiction: City of Fairhope Zoning District: ROW General Location: Areas throughout Fairhope Applicant: AT&T Owner: City of Fairhope Right-of-Ways Prepared by: Mike Jeffries, QCI City Planner Recommendation: Approve with Conditions •••••• S1.1b,ed Peral CITY OF FAIRHOPE ZONING Zo ning ~TRTol.lhltRHOl'I A-A. Res.,el"tl IAg'10Jl!ute Ol!ltlltt R-1 LowOens.cySin91e-famil)" IDJil ••I•) cz:3 ••1•> Al(c) R -2 t.leo.ura DNi~tySlngh!.fam1ty R-3 H l!Jh Denuy Sinvte-F amfy R-3 PGH PanoJGardN Sngl!a fam.ty C) R-3 TH ToWlllouae Srii;,le hmly -R..4 lowDHHyUull.furuPy R-S H9fl D•ndyDMb'lg Rcsctntal R-S l.lobltl'lo111ePallri 0111111d: -8-1 Loe.1Shopc,fng0.tlla 8-2 Ge~o.l81,11t11ne.M D11-itlet -8--3e T~ost ResOlt lodg11g 04t,ICI -·a-:Jti TOVtistRetOt'ICom.meroa1ses-.-ieciDi,tt10: 1111111 6-A 8ut11\~ and Pflll!:UfOll.!111 OlJUlel _,._, UghlfndUS!nal0191l"IO ~P-1 P.erl:l\gi PUO Pt.Med UntOe...ebpmen! -. ---1 --1 Ceda 1 ttl 2 UR 19.21 Mini Cell Towers – October 7, 2019 Summary of Request: Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of 2 metered mini cell towers in the City of Fairhope’s ROW. The installation will be at 2 locations indicated on the map in Fairhope. These mini towers or cell antennas will be co-located on existing utility poles. Comments: The proposed utility construction is consistent with a previously approved AT&T Mini Cell Approved Project (April 1, 2019). The comments below are typical general comments for City of Fairhope right-of-way projects. Any portions of the project affecting public right-of-way (ROW) maintained by Baldwin County or the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) shall require permits through the Baldwin County Highway Department or ALDOT. AT&T has been very cooperative, has attempted to the maximum extent practicable to co-locate their antennas, and has been very receptive to all of staff’s comments. Site descriptions and locations (Please refer to the map on cover page): 1. Co-location on existing AT&T utility pole on the southwest corner of the intersection of Gayfer Ave. and Patlynn Dr. a. Equipment/antenna to be brown in color to blend with surroundings. 2. Co-location on existing light pole between two driveways. a. Equipment/antenna to be brown in color to blend with surroundings. GENERAL COMMENTS No open trenches shall be allowed. Directional boring shall be used in sensitive areas, such as under roads, in proximity to trees, on finished lots, etc. SUPERINTENDENT AND DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS The applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities. Public Works Standard Comments: • Handholes shall not be located within driplines of Heritage Trees (as defined by the Tree Ordinance). • Any proposed trenching shall not be within the dripline of trees. • If within a tree dripline, consult with the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with earth work. • Trees shall not be negatively impacted. The applicant shall provide drawings locating their utilities with other utilities and the sidewalks. Any boxes/handholes cannot be placed in the sidewalk. The applicant shall review the sidewalk plan to determine if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall coordinate work with Richard D. Johnson, PE, Public Works Director, to resolve any potential conflicts. All conduit/cable shall be placed at depth from existing grade per industry and/or County Standard s. A minimum horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36” must be maintained from stormwater and 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. No grade change shall result from the utility installation. The applicant is to avoid any tree drip lines with handholes and equipment. 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. 3 UR 19.21 Mini Cell Towers – October 7, 2019 Code Enforcement Officer’s Standard Comments: • The applicant, or subcontractor, shall obtain a ROW permit from the City of Fairhope Building Department prior to beginning work. • Subcontractors shall have a current business license with the City of Fairhope and shall have a copy of the ROW permit available for review at all times, and shall be posted on site or in the window of contractor’s vehicles. • Any ROW cuts shall be stabilized (covered) at the end of each day and disturbed areas shall be re- vegetated with sod within ten (10) days of completion of the project. • Mulch / seed shall only be acceptable as temporary cover. • Sod shall be watered as needed to ensure survival. • Inlets shall be protected. • If site is within 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc.), no red soils/clay are allowed as fill material, per the City’s Red Clay/Soil Ordinance. Building Official’s Standard Comments: • BMP’s shall be installed at boring sites and trench locations. • Ground conditions in the ROW’s shall be returned to original preconstruction condition(s) or better. • All 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 right-of-way (ROW) permit. • Contractor is advised to review and comply with the Building Official’s best practices flyer. Water and Sewer Standard Comments: • All existing utilities must be located, and proper separation shall be maintained between utilities. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened by painting the equipment Munsell Green. Natural Gas Standard Comments: • Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities. The applicant is advised of the following: • No work shall begin until a ROW permit is issued by the City of Fairhope Building Department or other applicable jurisdiction (permit not valid until paid for and picked up by 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. This 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 & Clay Ordinance (#1423), which prohibits the use of red soil / clay within 100' of critical areas. 3. City of Fairhope Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (#1398). 4 UR 19.21 Mini Cell Towers – October 7, 2019 State and Federal permits shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the issuance of City of Fairhope permits. The applicant shall provide as-built profiles of the installed lines, showing the exact depth. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of UR 19.21 conditional upon the following: 1) The applicant shall follow the general comments related to utility work, as stated above. 2) Applicant and applicant’s contractor shall follow the Right of Way Installation Permitting and Work Procedures document provided by the Building Official. 3) The applicant shall follow the design/color for each site as dictated by staff per the “Site description and locations” section of staff report. 4) The applicant is responsible for any Aid to Construction costs for new utility poles or work needed to accommodate a co-locate. 5) The City of Fairhope reserves the right to modify or add requirements such as but not limited to cut sheets of proposed poles/fixtures, additional drawings, site locations, design/colors, etc.