Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-2020 Planning Commission Agenda PacketKarin Wilson Mayor Council Members Kevin G. Boone Robert A. Brown Jack Burrell, ACMO Jimmy Conyers Jay Robinson Lisa A. Hanks, MMC Ci{)' Clerk Deborah A. Smith, CPA Ci{)' Treasurer 161 North Section Street P.O. Drawer 429 Fairhope, Alabama 36533 251-928-2136 251-928-6776 Fax www.fairhopeal.gov Pn'nccd on recycled paper 1. Call to Order City of Fairhope Planning Commission Agenda 5:00 PM Council Chambers May 4, 2020 2. Consideration of Agenda Items: A. SD 19.41 Public hearing to consider the request of The Retirement Systems of Alabama for Preliminary Plat approval of Watershed West, a 10-lot subdivision. The property is approximately 7 .23 acres and is located on the south side of County Road 34 between Point Clear Court and Poviner Place. PPIN #: 282038 B. SD 20.14 Public hearing to consider the request Rodney and Melissa Jemison for plat approval of J & J Farms Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division. The property is approximately 3.69 acres and is located on the north side of Champion Road just east of Old Pierce Road. PPIN #: 54636 C. SD 20.15 Public hearing to consider the request of Ronald Gawrysh and Dena Strattton for plat approval of The Summit, a 4-lot minor subdivision. The property is approximately 19.35 acres and it is located on the east side of Young Street across from Kirkman Lane. PPIN #: 3675 D. SD 20.16 Public hearing to consider the request of FST Triple C Development, Inc. for Preliminary plat approval of the Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza, a 2-lot division. The property is approximately 2.51 acres and is located on the east side of St. Hwy. 181 just south of County Road 48 (a.k.a. Fairhope Avenue). PPIN #: 312284 E. UR 20.03 Request of Southern Light for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed underground installation of approximately 917 liner foot of fiber optic cable. The project will run along N. Section Street to service 831 N. Section Street. F. SD 20.18 Public hearing to consider the request of James Scopolites for plat approval of Gayfer Place, a 3-lot minor subdivision. The property is approximately 6.18 acres and is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension and Bishop Road. PPIN #: 43888 G. SD 20.19 Public hearing to consider the request of FST Aldi, Inc. of Alabama for plat approval of Aldi Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division. The property is approximately 7.14 acres and is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of State Hwy. 181 and County Road 48 (a.k.a. Fairhope Avenue). PPIN #: 248109 H. SD 20.20 Public hearing to consider the request of FST Pauline J. Moyd for Preliminary plat approval of Live Oak Estates, a 76-lot subdivision. The property is approximately 33.66 acres and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Hwy. 181 and Bay Meadows Avenue. PPIN #: 15078 I. SD 20.21 Public hearing to consider the request of Gumbo South, LLC for plat approval of RARE Properties Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division. The property is approximately 14.51 acres and is located on the south side of US Hwy. 98 at 8480 US. Hwy. 98. PPIN #: 5024 J. SD 20.22 Public hearing to consider the request of North Hills at Fairhope, LLC for Final plat approval of North Hills at Fairhope, Phase One, a 48-lot subdivision. The property is approximately 47.5 acres and is located on the north side of State Hwy. 104 approximately½ mile east of County Road 13. PPIN #: 98367 K. IR 20.01 Request of John and Donna Anderson for an Informal Review of Kevin & Anna Anderson, a 2-lot subdivision. The property is approximately 6 acres and is located at the west terminus of Brenda Road. PPIN #: 107659 4. Old/New Business • SD 18.10 Replat of Lot 2, Young Oaks -Sidewalk discussion 5. Adjourn 1 SD 19.41 Watershed West Pre – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 Preliminary Plat Case: SD 19.41 Watershed West Project Name: Watershed West Property Owner /Applicant: Retirement Systems of Alabama /Goodwyn, Mills, and Cawood General Location: South side of County Road 34 between Point Clear Court and Poviner Place Project Type: Preliminary Plat Number of lots: 10 Project Acreage: 7.23 Zoning District: District 17/Unzoned PPIN Number: 282038 Engineer of record: GMC. Inc Tim Lawley, P.E. School District: Fairhope West Elementary Fairhope Middle Fairhope High School Report prepared by: Mike Jeffries, QCI City Planner R-3PGH Pati~Sr>Qlehmjy 0 R.J T1l Tov.nii01.1aeSn!J!efamty ! ' I I i ! i I ,, I I ! ! I I 8--2 GOl'\tttl8111111utD•tna I. -~ TOUtlS Re'°'1 t.od;rio o.:na I ~ -8-JG Tovti•RnoncommeroliStNICCIDIMlla I -8--i Butinet11ffllProtmiOMIOlttnct I -M-1 Ugbtllldu•b\aJOi.nCI ,. -P-1P111iin9 ,. PUD PW~UntOe-..eloonlel!t I 2~::ei~~:._._,-·-·-··_J 2 SD 19.41 Watershed West Pre – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Goodwyn, Mills, Cawood, LLC on behalf of the Retirement Systems of Alabama for preliminary plat approval of Watershed West, a 10-lot major subdivision. The property is located on the south side of County Road 34 between Point Clear Court and Poviner Place. The subject property is 7.23 acres with the smallest lot 15,452 S.F. and largest lot 31,903 S.F. View looking south towards subject property from County Road 34 Comments: SITE DATA TABlE TOTAL ACR EAGE TOTAL u BE OF 1..ms DE SllY ET DENSITY co t ,iON AR EA GR EE N SPAC E TOTAL LOTS TOTP.,L LI NEA R FEET OF R ,D ZO ING SET BA CKS FRO NT SIDE U,.R IL ITY COM I IES W~J ER & SEWER TELE P'HO E ELECTRICITY = 3 4,978 SQ.FT .. (7..2 3 AC .±) = 10 = .38 UNITS /AG. = .69 UNITS/AC. = 59,21 SF (1.36 AC) (18.8 %) = 44,7 80 SF (1 .03, AC ) (14.2 %) = 0 {S ,i AL LE ST LOT -15,452 SF) = ,0 50 LF ± = COU NTY UN ON ED = 30' (EXC E T LOT 10) = 10' = Q' FAIRHOPE ILITIES AT&T II/ERA UTILITIE S 3 SD 19.41 Watershed West Pre – May 4, 2020 - The subject property was subdivided in 2006 via case number SD 06.08 Colony at the Grand North Subdivision. The approval of a waiver from the stormwater standards was also approved stating that “Drainage calculations and plans will be provided at the time each parcel is individually subdivided or developed.” - 10% Greenspace is required and determined by the net density of the entire site. 14.2% greenspace is being provided. - Drainage is handled on site and travels across other RSA-owned properties until discharge into Mobile Bay. 100% of the stormwater discharge will be routed through the bio-retention pond prior to discharge. Some stormwater will be processed by other LID techniques providing greater than the required 80% TSS removal. - The property is currently unzoned and lies within Planning District 17 of Baldwin County. - A street name is not proposed at this time. This will be reflected prior to final plat submittal. - ZC 19.16 Watershed West is a pending case of conditional annexation into the City of Fairhope to TR District. The proposed subdivision of Case number SD 19.41 meets the requirements for a subdivision in Fairhope’s Planning Jurisdiction and exceeds what would be the requirements if the subject property is rezoned to TR District. - A supporting document provided by the engineer or record was submitted to address the Planning Commission’s safety concerns about the golf course adjacent to subject development. A copy of this supporting document was included in each Planning Commissioner’s packet. The engineer of record states the design of subject development did not differ from other approved and constructed developments adjacent to golf courses. The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article V.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; • 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.” • Staff defers the evaluation of this criteria to the City of Fairhope Planning Commission. Please see condition of approval “4” below. - --- 4 SD 19.41 Watershed West Pre – May 4, 2020 Recommendation: Staff’s review of case number SD 19.41 is based upon a thorough analysis of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. Staff has determined that case number SD 19.41 is in compliance with the technical standards contained within the City of Fairhope Subdivision regulations as more fully-described in Article IV, Section B.2. “Approval Standards” as indicated above and on the previous pages. If it is the pleasure of the City of Fairhope Planning Commission to approve case number SD 19.41, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Furnish via follow-up correspondence a revised stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement reflecting inspections are every fifth year after submittal of the first inspection report. 2. Applicant shall address comments from Baldwin County Planning and Zoning and Baldwin County Highway Department and provide documentation from Baldwin County that those comments have been satisfied prior to application for Final Plat approval. In addition, the following items are required to coordinate Baldwin County and City of Fairhope Subdivision Requirements: a. Revise the sanitary sewer plans and profiles to reflect sewer placed in the ROW and not under the road. Revised plans and profiles shall be approved by the City of Fairhope Water and Sewer Superintendent prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. b. Revise the grading and drainage plans to comply with Baldwin County’s requirement that no roadside swales be used for detention. Revised plans shall be submitted to Planning Staff for review prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. c. Revise the drainage calculations to reflect the SCS method of rainfall runoff determination. Revised drainage calculations shall be submitted to Planning staff for review prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. 3. Memorialize the following approval statement: “This approval does not determine the applicability or proper interpretation of any existing easements, covenants, restrictions or other private contract rights, and accordingly does not abrogate, limit, or impair any such existing easements, covenants, restrictions, or private contract rights which may impose greater restrictions than this approval, the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Regulations, or other law”. 4. Staff respectfully defers ruling on Article V.B.2.e. to the pleasure of the City of Fairhope Planning Commission. This condition of approval serves as a “place holder” for the Planning Commission to act upon. WATERSHED WEST/ AZALEA HOLES 2 & 3/ PRO XIMITY AND SAFETY CONCERNS In response to the safety concerns voiced regarding the referenced deve lopment, we offer the following discussion and exhibits. From our research and observations, it appears that a homeowner, by purchasing a home on a golf course and during the rea l estate transaction , assumes the inherent risk and should be aware of the safety concerns associated with li ving on a golf course. Since there are no existing homes located on the referenced parcel, all homeowners w ill be fully aware of the proximity to the go lf course w hen purchasing a home. The buyer wi ll be aware of any safety concerns or other pec uliariti es prior t o purchasing a l ot and the subsequent co nstruction of a home . Regarding standard go lf course design, from our research and speaking with severa l golf course architects and also landscape architects, we find that there are no codified w ritten standards for lot setbacks i n go lf course design. Multiple factors, including topography, surrounding vegetation, golf hole d esign, player ski ll leve ls, predominant winds and other intangible or random effects can all affect golf course designs. Different golf course architects or des igners wi ll make different assertions on design m erits standards base d on their personal opinions and des ired o utcom e. For reference, the attached exhibits show the proxi mity of golf courses in relation to the rear side and front side of residential lots as it re l ates to our subm iss ion and other parcels in the l oca l jurisdictional a rea. We have included for your review examples from Quail Creek, Rock Creek, Lake Forest, and Lakewood. We have also included a tabulation showing how the proposed development relates to the proximities of other go lf course holes in the area . Th e data indicates that the proposed deve lopment at Watershed West is at least sim ilar to and in some locations better than what already exists in the area. Specific attention shou l d be directed towards Quai l Creek Ho le #12 in re l ationship to the proposal for Watershed West. It should be noted that a very recent phase of Firethorn Subdivision was approved al ong the west side of the Qua il Creek Ho l e# 12. Prox imity to the rear ya rd is closer to w hat is be i ng proposed at Watershed West; Proximity to the front yard is with in 10' -15' of what is being proposed at Watershed West. It should be noted that this development was approved by the both the City of Fa irhope Pl anni n g Staff and the City of Fairhope Planning commission. It is my understand ing that safety concerns for this development were not even discussed at the planning com mission meeting or in the submi ttal process. It should also be noted that the r es idential lots in Firethorn and t he Quail Creek Golf Course have different owners. The residential lots in the proposed Watershed West and the Lakewood Go lf Course are both owned by RSA and, as such, RSA can establish reasonable building setbacks and covena nts and restrictions on the location of res idences o n the subject lots which would provide further protections of the homeowners and the ir guests. Fin all y, it should be noted that mature oaks and pines lin e the majority of the eastern and western property lines of the referenced parce l (located both on the referenced parce l and on the golf co urse). Th ese trees w ill ai d in deflecting "bad" go lf shots that may head towards the property lin e. This ca n be observed in the attached exhibit wh i ch shows the Lakewood go lf co urse holes adjacent to the parcel and in the 5 attached pictures of the site . The property line in the attached photos is indicated by the wooden fence for reference. lo) ~@~IlW~lffi ID! MAR 1 6 2020 J!}) BY : .. ~ ......... . PAR Avg Distance to Back Yard Avg Distance to Front Yard Min Distance to Back Yard Min Distance to Front Ya rd LAKE FOREST HOLE 16 4 77' 207' 55 ' 178' ROCK CREEK HOLE 12 4 105' 220 ' 96' 206' QUAIL CREEK HOLE 12 (SHOT 1) 5 110' 228' 95' 211' QUAIL CREEK HOLE 12 (SHOT 2) 5 102' 219' 94' 207' LAKEWOOD HOLE (DOGWOOD) 7 4 119' 220 ' 117' 198' LAKEWOOD HOLES (AZALEA) 2/3 4 135' 2 06' 119'. 187 ' 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 · · · · · ·’ ’ · 4 PROFESSIONAL No. 27403 N DESECILAMABALA SURV E Y ORS T UART L S MITH. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:sheet ofA EDGFH12346578109BC12346578109 WATERSHED WEST AT THE COLONY PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 CMOB190294 GMC Project # JANUARY 2020 SLS SLS1 GOODWYN, MILLS & CAYWOOD, INC. I ,'1 I I ,.; ( : r.., 0: i I .:i tl ., J :!i " ... I I \ I I -----------7 \ I I I LOT 1 POINT PLACE SUBDIVISION 1 LOT 1 I (SLIDE02584-E) J 0: POINT CLEAR COURT !>, (SLIDE 1586-B) ~ 0 ~------------I c, LOT 14 POINT PLACE SUBDIVISION (SLIDE 0584-E) COMMON AREA ----------, LJ ..',......_ _______________ l __ C:MMO AREA __ _J __ ... --0 50 GOLF COURSE 0 5/8" CRF (CA#0085) 5/8" CRF (C,t,,#0085) GOLF ~ :1!: ASPHALT COUNTY ROAD #84 A.K.A. BATTLES ROAD (60' R/W) f_:f----oE--OE--OE--OEJr~~ETE -.. ---~·~---~--~~-.-.-'~ .. "'•""'-~.---.-,-·.--~ 59•4:'3_Q_"_E-:4-3-.7-0-'(p~ .,.-~---··· ---ASFHA_C_J.-S-. _-_r----. S -- 5 89"46'47" E 243.69'(A)-OE--OE--0E--OE--OE--OE--OE--fJ -------- GRAPHIC SCALE 0 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 5/8" CRF (CA#<J085) _,,_,...... • • ~!J ....... "' "' bb 00 zz 5/8" CRF (CA60085) ft. --------------------- 50 COMMON AREA-1 0.75 ACRES± 32,B27 S.F.± 5/8° CRF (CA#OOBS) N 00"16'30" E 68.42'(P) N 00'16'21" E 68.14'(A I I • • "' -¥' :- "' a, ~~ 00 "' Cf) 5/8" CRF (CA#OOB5) VICINITY 5/Bn CRF (CAf0085) GOLF COURSE 0 c-.•, IC:.:HJ~~ ;e.1ccrrnn (f•'lJN <C f-'A .' I ~ M A P NOT TO SCALE 50.00' --------------------------------- 5/8n CRF (CA#0065) o. .P~I ~ r--:1 b..., 0 "' u I I I 5/8" CRF (CA#OOBS) S 00'16'30" W 77.85'(P) 00'19'0D" W 77.79'(A) WATERSHED WEST AT THE COLONY 5/8" CRF (Wooas) CURVE TABLE CURVE TABLE PROPER'TY TAG P.O.C. P.O.8. (A) (R) (P) (C) OTIF IPF CTIF CRF RBF CRS CMF CMS LS# CA# (DIST) (REF) (UNR) INST # SECT. T- R- -0- E-- R/W R.O.W. ◊ -ef ~ ~ ~ ~ EL/ELEV INV t ,) l CURVE # RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD Cl 75.00' 12.88' N05i4'05"E C2 75.00' 32.93' S22'43'54"W C3 125.00' 12.62' N32'25'07"E C4 125.00' 34.00' N21 '44'04"E cs 75.00' 12.83' S18'50'29"W C6 75.00' 31.14' S35'38'12"W C7 125.00' 56.38' S34'36'41"W CB 125.00' 33.14' S14'05'40"W cs 25.00' 17.23' S26'14'57"W C10 25.00' 3.81' N50'21 '44"E PROPER'TY PIN # OWNERS NAME 72050 DAVIS, MARGARET H ETAL DAVIS, ~LLIAM E 293994 CUNNIGHAM, MARTIN H. 360772 DAVIS, BENNY 37731 & 293993 GRAND PROPERTIES, LLC. 72845 TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA, T LEGEND POINT OF COMMENCEMENT a l£LEPHONE BOX (VAULT) POINT OF BEGINNING WATER METER ACTUAL s SANITARY SEWER VAf.VE RECORD DEED WATER VALVE PLAT OF RECORD GAS VALVE COMPUTED §I TRANSFORMER BOX OPEN TOP IRON PIPE FOUND ~ LIGHT POLE IRON PIN FOUND el CABLE TV BOX CRIMP TOP IRON PIPE FOUND ~ ELECTRIC BOX CAPPED REBAR FOUND ~ ELECTRIC PANEL DISTANCE CURVE # RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD DISTANCE 12.86' C11 50.00' 53.39' S66"21 '58"E 50.89' 32.67' C12 50.00' 108.85' S20'40'36"W 88.59' 12.61' C13 25.05' 21.02· S17'35'43"E 20.41' 33.89' C14 75.oo· 53.71' S27'00'59"W 52.57' 12.81' C15 125.00' 73.28' S30'44'16"W 72.24' 30.92' C16 75.00' 27.97' S24'37'36"W 27.81' 55.91' C17 125.00' 54.89' S22'43'54"W 54.45' 33.04' C18 125.00' 21.46' S05'14'05"W 21.43' 16.90' C19 49.98' 78.96' S09'27'24"W 71.00' 3.80' ADDRESS Cl'TY STATE 18356 POINT CLEAR CT FAIRHOPE AL 593 MUSKET AVE. FAIRHOPE AL 307 POVINER PL. FAIRHOPE AL PO BOX 904 MONTROSE AL C/0 DR DAVID G BONNER MONTGOMERY AL OWNER/DEVELOPER THE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA 201 SOUTH UNION STREET MONTGOMERY, AL 36104 SURVEYOR STUART L. SMITH AL. LICENSE NO. SITE DATA 27403 TAX PARCEL NO. 46-09-30-0-000-090.001 TOTAf. SITE AREA = 7.23 ACRES± (314,978 S.F.±) TOTAf. NUMBER OF LOTS = 10 1/2" REBAR FOUND ~ IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE SMALLEST LOT = 0.35 ACRES± (15,452 S.F.±) LARGEST LOT = 0.73 ACRES± (31,903 S.F.±) DENSl'TY = 1.38 UNIT/ACRE 1/2" CAPPED REBAR S □ STAMPED CA#156 ® SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND @ STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 4" CONCRETE MONUMENT SET © TELEPHONE MANHOLE NET DENSITY = 1.69 UNITS/ACRE ZIP 36532 36532 36532 36559 36104 LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR'S NUMBER @ CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER fill DISTURBED ~ SEWER CLEANOUT SEWER GRINDER PUMP GREASE TRAP TOTAL COMMON AREA = 1.36 ACRES± (59,216 S.F.±)(18.8%±) GREENSPACE = 1.03 ACRES± (44,780 S.F.±)(14.2%±) REFERENCE CORNER SET ON LINE a..._ FlAG POLE ZONING UNREADABLE © GAS LINE SIGN MARKER BALDWIN COUN'TY INSTRUMENT NUMBER & TELEPHONE SIGN MARKER DISTRICT 17 -UNZONED SECTION & TOWNSHIP £. RANGE (EX.) POWER POLE -FO- GUY WIRE -OE- RIGHT-OF-WAY -BE- RIGHT -OF-WAY -UT- FIRE HYDRANT -s- SIGN -w- WATERLINE MARKER FlBER OPTIC LINE MARKER EXCEPTION UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC BURIED ELECTRIC LINE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE UNDERGROUND SEWER LINE UNDERGROUND WATERLINE ZONING REQUIREMENTS 30' REAR SETBACK, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED 1 Q' SIDE SETBACK, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED 30' FRONT SETBACK, EXCEPT LOT 10 SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE 13 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL -o-UNDERGROUND GAS LINE AS PER THE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION SETBACK ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR BALDWIN COUN'TY, AL, ACT NO. 94-572, THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS 75' ALONG COUN'TY ROAD 34. ELECTRIC METER BOX -lV-UNDERGROUND TELEVISION AIR CONDmONER rill.flt' SPOT GRADE ELEVATIONS JUNCTION BOX (VAULT) CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE PEPICATEP EASEMENTS ELEVATION INVERT RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE CPP CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE ·= ALL CORNERS ARE "CRS" UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. RIVIERA UTILITIES REQUIRES A 10 EASEMENT ALONG ALL SIDE PROPER'TY LINES (5' EACH SIDE) AND A 15 EASEMENT ALONG ALL FRONT AND REAR PROPER'TY LINES. BALDWIN COUN'TY REQUIRES A 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE SUBDIVISION PERIMETER AND 7.5' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL INTERIOR LOT LINES. -RIVI ERA UTILITIES -FAIRHOPE WATER & SEWER -FAIRHOPE WATER & SEWER GENERAL SURVEYORS NOTES UTILITIES POWER SEWER WATER GAS TELE FAIRHOPE GAS -AT&T 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED TO FACILITATE THIS SURVEY WERE PREVIOUS SURVEYS BY THIS AND OTHER FIRMS, THE RECORDED SUBDIVISION PL.AT, AND/OR OTHER RECORDED DOCUMENTS SHOWN HEREON. NO TITLE SEARCH, TITLE OPINION OR ABSTRACT WAS PERFORMED BY THIS FlRM. THERE MAY BE DEEDS OF RECORD, UNRECORDED DEEDS, EASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS, OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD WHICH COULD AFFECT THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS PROPER'TY THAT WERE NOT FURNISHED AT TIME OF SURVEY. FIELD WORK FOR THIS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON 09/19/2019. ALL BEARINGS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983, ALABAMA WEST ZONE; STATE PLANE GRID NORTH; DERIVED BY GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM OBSERVATION; ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND DISTANCES. ALL MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. STANDARD FEET. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988. CONTOURS ARE SHOWN AT ONE FOOT INTERVALS. THE SURVEYED PROPER'TY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA HAVING A ZONE DESIGNATION OF ''X'' BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA), AS SCALED FROM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 01003C0756M, WITH A REVISED DATE OF IDENTIFlCATION OF APRIL 19, 2019, FOR COMMUNITY NO. 15000, IN BALDWIN COUN'TY, STATE OF ALABAMA, WHICH IS THE CURRENT FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR THE COMMUNl'TY IN WHICH SAID PREMISES IS SITUATED. NO UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED UNLESS SHOWN. THIS IS A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE SURVEYED PROPER'TY LIES WITHIN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST, BALDWIN COUN'TY, ALABAMA. THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND ENERGY COSTS OF ANY STREET LIGHTS. THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL COMMON AREAS. ALL COMMON AREAS SHALL SERVE AS A COMMUNl'TY ACCESS EASEMENT. Cl'TY OF FAIRHOPE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE. ALL LOTS SHOWN HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE WATERSHED WEST AT THE COLONY DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TO BE RECORDED IN BALDWIN COUN'TY, ALABAMA (THE "DECLARATION"), INCLUDING THE VARIOUS EASEMENTS, USE RESTRICTIONS AND THE CREATION OF LIENS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE DECLARATION. ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL REMAIN PUBLIC AND BE MAINTAINED BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. A MINIMUM 21 FOOT SEPARATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN ALL STRUCTURES TO MEET ISO REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRE RATING OF THE STRUCTURE WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. DESCRIPTION QF SURVEY LOT 1, THE COLONY AT THE GRAND NORTH SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON SLIDE 2269-E & 2269-F, RECORDED IN PROBATE RECORDS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL PARTS OF THIS SURVEY AND DRAWING HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF. STUART L. SMITH, PLS DATE ALABAMA LICENSE NUMBER 27403 *DRAWING IS INVALID WITHOUT SIGNATURE & SEAL OF A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR GMCNETWORK.COM , PROFESSIONAL No. 27403 N DESECILAMABALA SURV E Y ORS T UART L S MITH. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:sheet ofA EDGFH12346578109BC12346578109 WATERSHED WEST AT THE COLONY PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 CMOB190294 GMC Project # JANUARY 2020 SLS SLS2 GOODWYN, MILLS & CAYWOOD, INC. WATERSHED WEST AT THE COLONY CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP STATE OF ALABAMA COUNTY OF BALDWIN THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE PLAT, AND THAT I HAVE CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED AS INDICATED HEREIN, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSE HEREIN SET FORTH AND DO HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADOPT THE SAME UNDER THE DESIGN AND TITILE HEREON INDICATED: AND GRANT ALL EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY USE AS NOTED TOGETHER WITH SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS NOTED BELOW OR ATTACHED IN A SEPARATE LEGAL DOCUMENT. DATED THIS THE __ _uAY OF ___ 20 THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA 201 SOUTH UNION STREET MONTGOMERY, AL 36104 NOTARY FOR EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY I, _______________ THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY IN SAID STATE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT STEVE TIMMS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RSA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND WHO IS KNOWN TO ME, ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY THAT, BEING INFORMED OF THE CONTENTS OF SAID INSTRUMENT, HE, AS SUCH SECRETARY-TREASURER AND WITH FULL AUTHORITY, EXECUTED THE SAME VOLUNTARILY FOR AND AS THE ACT OF SAID PUBLIC CORPORATION. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS THE ___ .uAY OF ______ 20 NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______ _ CERTIFICATION QF ENGINEER STATE OF ALABAMA COUNTY OF BALDWIN I, TIMOTHY D. LAWLEY, A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA FOR HUTCHINSON, MOORE AND RAUCH, LLC, HOLDING CERTIFICATE NUMBER 30859, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE DESIGN HEREIN WHICH WAS DONE UNDER MY DIRECT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION AND THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF, CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAIRHOPE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND TO ALL OTHER RULES, REGULATIONS, LAWS AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE TO MY DESIGN. DATED THIS THE ___ DAY OF ________ 20 TIMOTHY D. LAWLEY, P.E. ALA. REG. NO. 30859 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY AT&T THE UNDERSIGNED, AS AUTHORIZED BY AT&T HEREBY APPROVES THE WITHIN PLAT FOR THE RECORDING OF SAME IN THE PROBATE OFFICE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, THIS THE ____ DAY OF _______ 20 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY FAIRHOPE WATER AND SEWER THE UNDERSIGNED, AS AUTHORIZED BY FAIRHOPE WATER & SEWER, HEREBY APPROVES THE WITHIN PLAT FOR THE RECORDING OF SAIME IN THE PROBATE OFFICE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. THIS THE ___ DAY OF ------20 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY FAIRHOPE GAS THE UNDERSIGNED, AS AUTHORIZED BY FAIRHOPE GAS, HEREBY APPROVES THE WITHIN PLAT FOR THE RECORDING OF SAME IN THE PROBATE OFFICE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAIMA. THIS THE ___ DAY OF ------20 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE RIVIERA UTILITIES THE UNDERSIGNED, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE RIVIERA UTILITIES, HEREBY APPROVES THE WITHIN PLAT FOR THE RECORDING OF SAME IN THE PROBATE OFFICE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. THIS THE DAY OF -----------20 AUTHORIZED SIGNATIURE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE PLANNING COMMISSION THE WITHIN PLAT OF CAMELLIA AT THE COLONY, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, IS HEREBY APPROVED BY FAIRHOPE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS THE __ _ DAY OF _______ 20 SECRETARY ,,1111111,,,, CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP STATE OF ALABAMA COUNTY OF BALDWIN THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE TEACHER'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE PLAT, AND THAT I HA VE CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED AS INDICATED HEREIN, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSE HEREIN SET FORTH AND DO HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADOPT THE SAME UNDER THE DESIGN AND TITLE HEREON INDICATED; AND GRANT ALL EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY USE AS NOTED TOGETHER WITH SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS NOTED BELOW OR ATTACHED IN A SEPARATE LEGAL DOCUMENT. DATED THIS THE ___ u.AY OF ___ 20 THE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA 201 SOUTH UNION STREET MONTGOMERY, AL 36104 NOTARY FOR TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY I, ________________ THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY IN SAID STATE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT STEVE TIMMS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RSA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND WHO IS KNOWN TO ME, ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY THAT, BEING INFORMED OF THE CONITENTS OF SAID INSTRUMENT, HE, AS SUCH SECRETARY-TREASURER AND WITH FULL AUTHORITY, EXECUTED THE SAME VOLUNITARILY FOR AND AS THE ACT OF SAID PUBLIC CORPORATION. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS THE DAY OF ____ 20 NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______ _ CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER THE UNDERSIGNED, AS COUNTY ENGINEER OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, HEREBY APPROVES THE WITHIN PLAT FOR THE RECORDING OF SAIME IN THE PROBATE OFFICE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. THIS ___ DAY OF __________ 20 __ . AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE BALDWIN COUNTY E-911 ADDRESSING THE UNDERSIGNED, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE BALDWIN COUNTY E-911 BOARD, HEREBY APPROVES THE WITHIN PLAT FOR THE RECORDING OF SAME IN THE PROBATE OFFICE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, THIS ___ DAY OF __________ 20 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ,,, l1/ .$' .. •···•·'"••····· ,.~ 2039 Main Street ~ .. . ~ -,----------11=:-:::-7"""/ ___ \,:--· --::::.~-1 ------------tt========l======t-------Daphne,AL 36526 ___ ++-------==------~ ... ./ ~ T 251.626.2626 ~... ••.... ,.•· "" ,-./ •······• ,, /11 ,,, '111111111 11 GMCNETWORK,COM Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Armand DeKeyser <armand.dekeyser@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:08 PM Emily Boyett; jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Opposition to Zoning Request for Watershed West Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: As a resident of Owl's Nest Place, directly across from the proposed RSA development, I join my many neighbors and friends who also express strong opposition to the request before the P&Z Commission. You have or will receive many emails/letters/calls regarding this proposal. I do not need to add to your reading materials and repeat the very valid and logical reasons for opposing this unnecessary expansion of housing in our beautiful community as many before me have done so better and more eloquently. Suffice it to say, the RSA proposal is contrary to Dr David Bronner's own words when he previously wrote in the foreword to "The Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail: Its History and Economic Impact" by fellow Fairhope resident, Mark Fagan ... "I wanted the local people at each site to have ownership and for it to be "our" site and not RSA 's or SunBelt's (Golf) site ... I wanted local participation from the beginning to build in this sense of proprietorship so the local community would be committed to helping the site succeed." Well, the local people do not have ownership nor a sense of proprietorship with the RSA proposal and it is unlikely that RSA really ever attempted to engage the community. If they had, RSA would had heard the deep and sincere opposition to their desire to add ten homes within the grounds of the Lakewood Azalea Golf Course. Please vote against this proposal on May 4th! I will close with thanking each of you for the service you are tasked with as community leaders in our beautiful area. Sincerely, Armand DeKeyser 529 Owl's Nest Place 1 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: To All Concerned Parties: Diane Horst <dthorst1@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 6:07 PM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Emily Boyett; Richard Peterson; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Proposed RSA Development Watershed West My husband, J.B., and I are opposed to the proposed RSA development, Watershed West, for a number of sound safety and environmental reasons, all of which have been clearly and articulately expressed previously. Once a development, such as is proposed, is wedged into a space not adequate or appropriate, the damage is done, and the ill advised consequences are irreparable! Our residence is 18170 Scenic Hwy 98, on the Lakewood Golf Course, so we understand the appeal of living in such a pleasant, picturesque location, at the same time we are aware of the safety risk to golfers, as well as golf course residences and their inhabitants. We are especially concerned about the current abundance of traffic on Battles Road and Scenic Hwy 98, as well as the current and present effluent into Mobile Bay in the Battles area. Balance is an important consideration in all decisions; however, it is especially relevant in developmental planning. Please consider your decision in this matter carefully and thoughtfully. Thank you for you time and attention. Sincerely, Diane and J.B. Horst Diane Horst CRS ABR Realtor Roberts Brothers, Inc. 251-490-7644 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Eric Zubler <eric_zubler@yahoo.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 5:54 PM planning;jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Watershed Phase II Dear Mayor Wilson, Chairman Turner, and Members and Staff of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, As a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to Fairhope I am writing with grave concern for a proposed development of land inside the middle of Lakewood Golf Club's Azalea Course. The nearby Lakewood Estates neighborhood was established on a system of private roads with safety for golfers and residents alike. Setback lines and roads are long, deep, and winding through historic trees and watersheds with backyard views unto the golf courses. Animal life and human life live together in perfect synchronicity. Currently, RSA is proposing a very small-sized subdivision in the middle of two active holes of golf, there residents, workmen, and visitors will likely be pelted with golf balls throughout the day, both in the front and backyards of these homes. Furthermore, access to this subdivision will only be from busy, already over-used, Battles Road, just north of Scenic Highway 98. Cars, pedestrians, and bicycles will have to compete with golf carts going between holes, followed quickly by fast-moving vehicles to get to the only exit of the proposed subdivision, which has already been fenced off from the golf cart pathway, and service road systems. Finally, the area chosen for the proposed subdivision is home to many species of animal life, including a very unique fox squirrel with a black mask, white around the eyes, and other very unique markings. Eagles, heron, coyotes, armadillos, egrets, alligator and other animals also depend on the unique ecosystem provided by the centuries old Live and Water Oaks on the property. These trees and the water they collect, use, and/or shed to the marshes across the third hole will all be impacted, no matter how careful builders are around precious, irreplaceable trees and habitat. Please consider carefully the safety of our residents here in the Greater Fairhope area as you discern whether six or eight more homes are worth destroying one of the most unique properties and ecosystems along the Eastern Shore, simply for more profit by a multi-billion dollar entity. Thank you for you time and dedication to our area. The Rev. Eric J. Zubler 18247 Woodland Drive 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Connie Zubler <connie_zubler@icloud.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 5:06 PM planning;jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Opposing Watershed Subdivision As a resident of Lakewood Estates, I oppose the proposed re-zoning and subdivision that would cut through the Azalea Golf Course. At Battles Road it will impact traffic on a narrow two lane road that will have limited visibility for vehicles turning into and out of the proposed subdivision. Our beautiful old oak trees will also be impacted. Not only will several trees be cut down to make room for a road into the subdivision, but more trees will be cut down as houses are built along the tree line that currently separates Azalea #2 and #3. Often the trees they plan on saving are damaged during the building process and eventually die. Some of these live oaks are hundreds of years old. In fact, one of these oaks was measured earlier this year and estimated to be 450 years old! These trees do not have any special designations so they need your help to protect them! Animals also make these green spaces and trees their home. Foxes, squirrels, frogs, eagles and numerous other animals reside in Lakewood Estates and each new subdivision impinges on their habitat. Finally, allowing a subdivision that impinges into the center of the golf course would set a dangerous precedent. All other subdivisions have been along the perimeter of the golf course which limits the impact to residents' views, to golfers' safety and to the natural beauty of the area including our majestic live oaks. These proposed homesites would have both their front and backyards directly connected to the golf course and setbacks would be much smaller than what is currently in place among the established homes. This makes the chance of people and property being hit by golf balls more than twice as likely than in the established neighborhood. Help preserve one of the most scenic areas in Fairhope and Baldwin County. Stop this harmful growth and vote against RSA's proposed re-zoning and subdivision. Thank you, Connie Zubler Sent from my iPhone 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: > To Whom It May Concern: > Brooks Chew <brooks.chew@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:19 PM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Opposition to Proposed Watershed West Subdivision > I am writing to express my adamant opposition to the proposed Watershed West Subdivision (WWS) development located off of Battles Road. > > As you are aware, the WWS development would be located inside the original Grand Hotel Golf Course, destroying beautiful green space including gorgeous live oak trees and creating hazards for golfers, pedestrians, and vehicles. >Asa mother with young children, I am especially concerned about the ill-planned access road from Battles Road, directly across from the entrance to Pointe Place subdivision. This road will create a four-way intersection on a very busy road. Traffic is already a tremendous problem along Battles Road, and this will only serve to exacerbate the problem. Additionally, the proposed road would have a golf cart crossing and a pedestrian crossing with very limited visibility for cars entering the road, golfers crossing on the path, and pedestrians using the sidewalk. This is an accident waiting to happen. > > Since the road would be located inside of an active golf course, there is a very legitimate risk of golfers hitting vehicles, homes, and/or pedestrians on this proposed road. Because it is the golfer's responsibility for any injuries or property damage resulting from play, this creates an inherently unfair burden on golfers. The members of Lakewood Golf Club have not agreed to these requirements with a 10-lot subdivision located inside of the golf course. In fact, every golf member to whom I have spoken is opposed to the proposed development. The golf membership has never been consulted about this proposed development nor has the developer conducted a study of future liability concerns. > >Asa member of Lakewood Golf Club and as a resident of the area, I am extremely concerned about the location of a road and homes inside the golf course-destroying valuable green space and cutting down immense live oaks in the process. The landscape would be forever changed in a most detrimental way. > > Additionally, it is my understanding that the developer has not conducted an environmental impact study. Given the vast problems already faced by our water and sewer systems and the runoff issues already incurred along Point Clear Creek, it would be egregious to allow any aspect of this proposed development (including rezoning) to move forward without an environmental impact study. > > Please do not allow this proposed project to continue. Allowing this project to move forward that will forever scar a community treasure that was created in the 1940s, create unlimited potential liability for our residents, and add additional burden to our overstressed infrastructure. Additionally, approval of this project could lead to tremendous liability on the part of the city and county by putting people in harm's way. This proposed project infringes upon the health, safety, and welfare of our community. > > Thank you for your consideration of the very strong opposition to this project. > > Sincerely, > Brooks Chew > 322 Poviner Place 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: Adam Milam <amilam@milam-law.com> Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:17 PM To: Emily Boyett Subject: FW: RSA Watershed West Subdivision Plat Application -May 4 Agenda Opposition Importance: See below Regards, Adam M. Milam, Esq. Milam & Milam, L.L.C. High 20252 State Highway 181, Suite C Fairhope, Alabama 36532 Direct Dial (251) 928-0191 ext. 301 Fax (844) 273-4029 Mobile (251) 680-0108 Please note our address has recently changed. PLEASE NOTE: This email is confidential, and may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email, and then delete the message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any other purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. To do so could violate state and federal privacy laws. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Adam Milam Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:11 PM To: lee@pitmaninsurance.com; adyas@msn.com; rebecca.bryant@watershed.pro; holliemackellar@gmail.com; chall- black@bayshorechristian.org; worsham454@gmail.com; kevin.boone@fairhopeal.gov; emily.boyette@fairhopeal.gov; jburrell26@bellsouth.net; robert.brown@fairhopeal.gov; karin.wilson@fairhopeal.gov Cc: Tracy Frost <tracyafrost@gmail.com>; Billy Frost <billyf@delaneyinc.net>; kwatson@joneswalker.com Subject: RSA Watershed West Subdivision Plat Application -May 4 Agenda Opposition Importance: High Planning Commission and City Leaders, as you know I represent a group of Fairhope, Baldwin County residents that oppose the development and construction of the Watershed West Subdivision, a 10 residential lot and one road on the Lakewood Azalea Golf Course, between holes 2 and 3. My address is 20252 Hwy 181, Suite C, Fairhope, AL 36532. The developer/applicant wishes to subdivide a lot into 10 residential lots, 2 common area lots, and 1 road right way between Holes 2 and 3 on the Lakewood Azalea golf course. In December 2019 the Planning Commission almost unanimously voted (7-1) not to approve/recommend approval of the subdivision due to multiple safety and environmental concerns which the commission determined failed to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of present and future residents of Fairhope. 1 The developer has now made minor revisions to the lot sizes, set-backs, and common area space, and has now applied for plat approval. Nothing of substance has changed, and the subdivision plat application is due to be denied, just as it was voted against in December 2019. First and foremost, the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations govern. Article I, Sec. A., "The purpose of these regulations is to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of present and future residents and to effect the coordinated and efficient development of the City of Fairhope, Alabama in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and all other plans or programs adopted by the City for the physical development of the City of Fairhope and neighboring territory." Article V, Sec. B(2), "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 first question is can the Planning Commission, when reviewing an application for subdivision plat approval, exercise discretion in determining facts that demonstrate the project endangers the health, safety and welfare. The answer by the Alabama Supreme Court is a resounding, YES. Under Alabama law, a planning commission has the authority and discretion to deny a proposed subdivision plat application that otherwise meets the technical requirement of the subdivision regulations if there is objective evidence that the specific proposal would jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the residents. In re Baldwin County Planning Commission v. Montrose Ecor Rouge, LLC (Ala. 2010). In the Montrose Ecor Rouge case, the developer applied to subdivide and build on a 7.98-acre parcel of land fronting on Mobile Bay. Developer proposed to subdivide the parcel into 8 numbered lots, with lots 1 through 4 fronting Mobile Bay. The developer's plat met all the "black and white technical requirements" for approval, but because some lots were prone to flooding, and neighboring owners should photographs of flooding, the planning commission denied the application because such a development "reasonably be harmful to the safety, health, and general welfare of the present or future inhabitants" due to flooding. The developer Montrose appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court held, and clarified, Planning Commissions have the power to exercise discretion concerning the health, welfare and safety of developments as long as it is based on objective criteria, and not just a subjective or vague determination that the project is "out of character'' or "aesthetically displeasing." The Court held, "As we explained previously in this opinion, "' "some situations require the placing of some discretion in [enforcement] officials, as in cases where it is ... impracticable to lay down a definite or comprehensive rule for guidance, or where the discretion relates to the administration of a police regulation and is essential to the ... health, safety, welfare, etc."'" Ex parte City of Orange Beach Bd. of Adjustment, 833 So.2d at 54 (quoting Walls, 253 Ala. at 485, 45 So.2d at 471). 2 The Court went further stating, "This determination is circumscribed further by the requirement that prohibited development be such as could "reasonably be harmful to the safety, health, and general welfare of the present or future inhabitants ofthe subdivision." ... "In other words, the regulation-written as it is in the conjunctive-inextricably links considerations of "general welfare" to the more objectively reviewable concepts of safety and health." As determined by this Commission in December 2019, this development, based on its unique characteristics and objective criteria in not in the best interest, health, safety or welfare of Fairhope residents or future residents. 1) the application proposes to build homes, where adults, children will live, play and be in the constant line of fire of golf balls; 2) their property, homes, and cars will be in danger; 3) this will not only inevitably cause injury and damage, but result in disputes and lawsuits by and among residents; 4) it is a danger to the golfing residents and public for at least a couple reasons -when they hit a golf in someone's yard, home, or car-what do they do? Do they trespass and try to collect their ball, do they leave an note/card with their personal information? Do they run off the course if they hit someone; 5) importantly, the proposed plat has the golf cart path crossing over the road near the adjacent parallel highway where cars and trucks will be entering and exiting the road. This poses significant danger and risk to the golfers, traveling public, and residents. There will no doubt be tragic accidents as a result. 6) there are serious flooding and drainage issues -Point Clear Creek the runs along the golf course and intersects Scenic 98 is empirically known to swale and flood frequently. The property is currently wooded and treed, and abuts and flows into Point Clear creek. The roofs, cars, road will create impervious surfaces increasing the run off into the creek, flooding the golf course and scenic 98. 7) There is significant environmental concerns, eagles, wildlife in this area and on this lot, that will go away. 8) the economic welfare of Fairhope and its residents is also important. Tourism is key to Fairhope. The Lakewood Golf Course in known throughout the Southeast and nation. This will adversely affect the appeal ofthis historic and important tourist attraction. This project is not safe. Based on objective criteria, specific to this particular application and development, it endangers the health, safety, and welfare of present and future residents. Therefore, we plead with the Commission to act consistent with its December 2019 decision, and deny approval of the proposed subdivision plat requests. Regards, Adam M. Milam, Esq. Milam & Milam, L.L.C. 20252 State Highway 181, Suite C Fairhope, Alabama 36532 Direct Dial (251) 928-0191 ext. 301 Fax (844) 273-4029 Mobile (251) 680-0108 Please note our address has recently changed. PLEASE NOTE: This email is confidential, and may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply email, and then delete the message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any other purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. To do so could violate state and federal privacy laws. Thank you for your cooperation. 3 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sam Dixon <spdixonjr@aol.com> Thursday, April 30, 2020 9:47 AM lee@pitmaninsurance.com; adyas@msn.com; rebecca.bryant@watershed.pro; holliemackellar@gmail.com; chall-black@bayshorechtistian.org; worsham454 @gmail.com; Kevin Boone; jburrell26@bellsouth.net; Mayor Karin Wilson Emily Boyett; jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov Watershed West Subdivision Request I see a beautiful golf course ("Queen of Southern Resorts") with wonderful, established, neighborhoods bordering on the east and west. To the contrary, GMC on behalf of RSA sees$$$ and$$$! Community Leaders, please help us preserve this beautiful piece of nature for our children and grandchildren to behold and enjoy as did my parents and grandparents. 1 Respectfully yours, Sam Dixon 18268 Woodland Drive Point Clear, Al. PS. A little known fact; Confederate troops bivouacked in this area during the Civil War and artifacts abound. Sent from my iPad 3 transformation of the area. I recently had a couple from New Orleans tell me that they really miss the cottages at the Grand Hotel where there is now a pool and 2 large buildings. Again, it's a business, and I understand that 12 families in 6 duplex cottages does not bring in the money that two or three hundred hotel rooms would bring. I am a little off topic, but this is the sort of thing that I am fighting for. Stop this overwhelming and incessant need to build and develop now. Watershed West is nothing but another nibble off of what is left of the undeveloped areas within Lakewood. The area was never meant to have houses built on it. Doing so is a hazard to the homeowners, pedestrians, all of the animals I mentioned and needlessly exposes golfers to unnecessary liability. All for what? So someone can line their pockets with some cash given to them by people who are trying to grab what is left of a dying opportunity-to live in one of the more desirable places in Alabama. This is supposedly the largest land mass county east ofthe Mighty Mississippi River. There is plenty of land to be developed in the county. Develop it! Leave this spot alone -please. Enough is enough. There are some technical and legal arguments that I will let some ofthe organized groups address-I do not have the time to research and chase those arguments to their proper end. My opposition is clearly personal and comes from a sense of nostalgia. Protect Battles Wharf and Pt. Clear from the commercial development that is threatening to consume that which we have always been known for and that which we have all come here to peacefully enjoy. I am tired of having to write these letters every single time RSA or someone else wants to step over the line. Please consider this a standing objection and read it every single time one of these projects comes to a vote. Thanks for your time and attention. Please let your conscience guide you -there is only one "right" decision. Ritchie Prince 5593 Moogs Lane 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Carroll Sullivan <csullivan@scottsullivanlaw.com> Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:32 AM lee@pitmaninsurance.com; adyas@msn.com; rebecca.bryant@watershed.pro; holliemackellar@gmail.com; chall-black@bayshorechristian.org; John Worsham; Kevin Boone; Emily Boyett; jburrell26@bellsouth.net Proposed RSA Development off Battles Road near Scenic 98 in middle of Lakewood Golf Course; Watershed West On Apr 18, 2020, at 1:27 PM, Tom Adger <tadger@tsmsal.com> wrote: Mr. Nunnally, My family has resided in Fairhope for many years. The purpose of this letter is to emphasize my continued support to oppose the RSA proposed development of Battles Road/Lakewood Golf Azalea Course between Fairway 2/3, Watershed West. Through several presentations, meetings, and most of all, a vast number of opposition letters, I understand that RSA is now seeking approval of the County Engineer, to effort approval towards this proposal item set for the next Fairhope P&Z agenda. Per the previous denial by the Fairhope P&Z during the December meeting by a 7 to 1 vote, as well as, non-approval by the Fairhope City Council, I urge you, as County Engineer, to join with these governmental bodies to deny this plan and development access. As per the many arguments presented by the body of this community, this development negatively impacts the beauty, and natural resources of the area, as well as, imposes unnecessary risks to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and public. For the future protection of our great county, the emphasis of common sense by understanding and defining allowance of preventing over development should be understood and respected by all, in order to protect this beautiful area and resources that remain with us. I hope you will share in this same perspective. Thank you. Thomas C. Adger 19409 Scenic Hwy 98 Fairhope, AL 36532 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: Sheila Ward <sheilabward@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11 :OS AM To: Emily Boyett Subject: Watershed To all Planning and Zoning members We would greatly appreciate you not letting RSA develop this property. As a long time property owner on Woodland Dr. we feel this is a not a piece of land that they need for any reasoning. Size, location and golf course lay out. Please copy this request to all members. Thank you Sheila and Don Ward 18118 Woodland Dr Point Clear Sheila Ward 251.421.1408 Please note my new e-mail address Sheilabward@gmail.com 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: JANET-RAE PETROVIC <janetraep@icloud.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:21 AM Emily Boyett Opposed to Watershed West/ Azalea #2 & #3 This proposal infringes on the Health, Safety and Welfare ofthe community. ( I live on Poviner Place, across the street) THIS IS A BIG MISTAKE! Someone is going to be hurt/killed as a result. I walk my dog every day on Battles Road and trucks/cars speed by in excess of 60 MPH! The drivers are often texting while driving and almost hit me. Just a week ago a large truck turned over in the ditch near scenic 98 on Battles. There are many places to build these few homes, go there! Safety: The revised plans have done nothing to address the safety issue and if anything have increased the risk by reducing the green space and common areas which will have public access, a public road with sidewalks on both sides of the road very close to Azalea #3 and last, no gate at the entry which will increase the opportunity for accidents due to blind turns into the subdivision immediately crossing the cart path. With public entry individuals can ride bikes or walk through this neighborhood as they do any public access. Liability: The proposed area has always been in-bounds on the course and lies between two fairways. 70% of golfers have an issue with slicing the ball. This course is played 7 days a week. This development would constantly have issues with errant golf balls flying into cars, homes or even worse causing bodily harm or even death to innocent bystanders. Homeowners assume some responsibility but this will be a public road with continual traffic for deliveries, maintenance and service providers, city and county empolyees, children on bikes, sidewalks, etc. Environmental Impact: The environmental impact will be horrific as the development would destroy the century old oaks and old long leaf pines. The developer is stating they would only remove a few, but the truth is they are pushing the responsibility to the potential homeowner as the lots would dictate those trees being destroyed to build. Those that weren"t destroyed would still be at risk due to root damage as foundations are established. These magnificent trees and the now out of bound grove are homes to many different types of habitat including the Eagles,hawks, fox squirrels, gopher tortoise and others. The watershed will also me impacted increasing runoff into Point Clear creek and Mobile Bay. These bodies of water are already stressed due to the developments being constructed now. 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Emily, Torrey DeKeyser <torreyva@gmail.com> Monday, April 27, 2020 11 :18 AM Emily Boyett Battles Road Preservation Group Opposition to Proposed Watershed West Development off Battles Road I hope you and your family are safe and well during this surreal time. Thank you in advance for sharing my letter regarding the new/revised proposal for Watershed West off Battles Road with the Planning Commission. I appreciate your help and service to the community. Best, Torrey DeKeyser Dear Members of the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Committee: Thank you for your leadership and for taking the time to consider my concerns and those of many others who care about the quality of life in our beloved Point Clear and Fairhope communities. The issue around the proposed development on the Lakewood Golf Course off Battles Road between the 2nd and 3rd fairways of the Azalea course is a difficult one and deserves this consideration. I am a homeowner in the original Watershed neighborhood off Battles Road. I also am an RSA retiree and proud of the many wonderful investments my retirement fund has made in this area. But the proposed Watershed West development is not one of them. I agree with all the objections raised by others who have written in opposition to this project. I won't repeat their excellent points other than to say that from the safety, environmental, aesthetic, loss of what makes our community unique and special, and other reasons presented, I can find no good reason to let this become a reality in any form! In pushing this development, the RSA is departing from the original intent of the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail. I am including a link to the foreward written by David Bronner in the book "The Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail: Its History and Economic Impact" by Mark Fagan, a respected member of our community. https://www.rsa- al.gov/uploads/files/ForewordbyBronner rtjgolftrailhistory.pdfln the foreward, Dr. Bronner describes what he envisioned for the golf trail concept that the Lakewood Club is part of, including the following: I wanted the local people at each site to have ownership and for it to be "our" site and not RSA 's or SunBelt's (Golf) site .... / wanted local participation from the beginning to build in this sense of proprietorship so the local community would be committed to helping the site succeed. Dr. Bronner writes further about golf experience awards won by the Grand Hotel Marriott Resort. We can all be proud of these awards but to approve this development would contribute to the Lakewood Club taking on the look and feel of any overdeveloped golf course in America, taking away from the beautiful and unique assets that make it so very desirable and award-winning. I have a wide circle of family and friends in Fairhope, Montrose, Daphne, Spanish Fort, Mobile and I can say without exception that I do not know a single person who thinks this beautiful live oak grove should be 1 altered in any way to allow this or any development to be built in the middle or the golf course. Family and friends from other parts of Alabama, as well as Utah, Virginia, New York and other states who love to visit our area and play golf at Lakewood are just as appalled as we are. Many have written to Fairhope leadership over the past months to express their opposition. Yes, as Dr. Bronner expressed in the foreward, we do feel ownership of the golf course and we do feel a sense of proprietorship and we are committed to helping it succeed! While the RSA is drifting away from the philosophy of community buy-in and involvement, we are doing all we can to try to maintain the integrity of the real estate along the course and to keep it on the periphery, not in the middle of the course, creating unnecessary hazards for humans, property, flora and fauna. We care enough to donate our hard earned dollars to establish and support the Battles Road Preservation Group to help fight this because someone has to take a stand to do what is RIGHT for the community and we will continue to do so! As I said in a previous letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission, even if it is determined that RSA has the right to do this development, that does not make it RIGHT! If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to drive through the expanding RSA Battles Trace development accessible off of Old Battles Road, Twin Beech Road and Section Street. There are hundreds of home sites planned with many options to add ten more homes rather than in the proposed Watershed West site where homes have no business being and are unwanted by the community, the very people Dr. Bronner said he wants to have ownership. The RSA is not listening to us, the community "owners" whose support they claim to seek! Instead, the RSA is coming to you yet again for a work-around to push this ill-conceived project on the community that does not want it! To allow this to go forward in any fashion will forever change Lakewood for the worse and set an unfortunate precedent for similar proposals, should they occur in the future. Please help us do the RIGHT thing and deny this proposed development! Many thanks for your leadership and for taking time to seriously consider my thoughts and opinions. With appreciation and best wishes, Torrey Torrey Van Antwerp DeKeyser 529 Owls Nest Place Fairhope, AL 36532 205.792.7617 torreyva@gmail.com 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Ms. Boyett, Roger Berkow <roger.berkow@gmail.com> Monday, April 27, 2020 8:45 AM Emily Boyett Watershed west My name is Roger Berkow and I live at 521 Owls Nest Place, Fairhope, AL. I continue to be in opposition of the development of the land between the second and third hole of the Azalea Golf course at Lakewood Golf Club. This project is ill conceived. The roads leading into the development will pose a significant risk to the golf carts which use a cart path which is parallel to Battles road and will be perpendicular to the entrance road to the proposed development. This is a safety risk. This is in addition to the risk of children living in these houses and cars being hit by golf balls. Please relay my opposition to this project to the members of the Fairhope Zoning and Planning Board. Roger L. Berkow, MD 521 Owls Nest Place Fairhope, AL 36532 1 POINT CLEAR WOODS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 6025 Oakwood Lane Fairhope, AL 36532 April 25, 2020 Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Water Shed Development of Lakewood Golf Course A substantial amount of our homeowners are aggressively opposed to this development which is no more than a continued assault on the Lakewood Golf Course, its historic past and its environmental integrity along with its members. I further suggest that this issue is no more than a continued "money grab" by the private owner constituency of the Lakewood Course. By the development plan submitted you would be endangering the safety and welfare of your citizens; traffic congestion would be dangerously increased. Active fairways would be within a few feet of the ingress/egress road and homes. Liability to golfers and course personnel would increase tremendously not to mention the lost of live oaks and pine trees; along with valuable and rapid diminishing green space. In your process, please consider our strenuous objection in light of my comments along with the tremendous liability the city and count would be taking on by approving a course design change to merely accommodate a few more extra building lots for the sake of nothing more than profit. I implore you--- Please--enough is enough!!!. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at (630) 618-7849. -~ Sincerely, ' I __ ,,,, uffy Presid nt of Point Clear Woods Home Owners Association Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear ms Boyett Lynn Roberts <1roberts2800@gmail.com> Saturday, April 25, 2020 11 :29 AM Emily Boyett Proposed subdivision off battles Rd in Lakewood We are writing in opposition to this proposal. There are a myriad of reasons for our opinion. Most have already been voiced by our neighbors Because we have background in the real estate profession, we ask the question of why this "subdivision "would be considered in the first place if there are so many negatives to its existence. The only answer we can think of centers on greed. In our opinion the negatives win here. We are positive the board will make the appropriate decision Thank you, Lynn and Johnny Roberts 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject Randall Word <rword1958@icloud.com> Friday, April 24, 2020 4:00 PM Emily Boyett Watershed West Pis make sure my request is forwarded to all pertinent leaders. I would like to ask that the Watershed developers adhere to the current zoning rules that apply to all of us. I am a homeowner in the area and I had to revise my improvements to adhere to current zoning. They should have to do the same. The zoning is there to protect the area and the current property values. I could not cheat and neither should they. Randy and Lisa Word Sent from my iPhone 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Lee Webb <1eewebb3@yahoo.com> Friday, April 24, 2020 3:34 PM Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Mayor Karin Wilson Opposition to Watershed West proposed subdivision I am writing in opposition the proposed subdivision called Watershed West for the following reasons: SAFETY-The Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-1 to recommend the denial of the annexation and re-zoning of the proposed subdivision due to the Safety, Health and Welfare of the community at the 12/2/19 meeting. While this is a subdivision proposal only, the concerns are the same. Chairman Lee Turner commented that if a subdivision proposal were brought before the commission, they would have the ability and, in his opinion, it would be their responsibility to deny if it was rendered unsafe. The revised plans have done nothing to address the safety issue and if anything have increased this risk by reducing the green space and common areas which will have public access, a public road with sidewalks on both sides of the road very close to Azalea #3 and lastly, no gate at the entry which will increase the opportunity for accidents due to blind turns into the subdivision immediately crossing the cart path. With public entry individuals can ride bikes or walk through this neighborhood as they do any public access. LIABILITY-There is case law which supports liability falling to the course owner and or municipality when a course redesign is done without consideration for safety. The area which they are hoping to develop has always been in-bounds on the course and lies between two fairways. 70% of golfers have an issue with slicing the ball. The average male golfer hits the ball at a speed of 133 mph and average female golfer at 111 mph. This course is played 7 days a week. This development would constantly have issues with errant golf balls flying into cars, homes or even worse causing bodily harm or even death to innocent bystanders. Homeowners assume some responsibility but this will be a public road with continual traffic for deliveries, maintenance and service providers, city and county employees, children on bikes, sidewalks, etc. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -The environmental impact will be horrific as the development would destroy the century old oaks and old long leaf pines. The developer is stating they would only remove a few, but the truth is they are pushing the responsibility to the potential homeowner as the lots would dictate those trees being destroyed to build. Those that weren't destroyed would still be at risk due to root damage as foundations are established. These magnificent trees and the now out of bound grove are homes to many different types of habitat including the Eagles, hawks, fox squirrels, gopher tortoise and others. The watershed will also be impacted increasing runoff into Point Clear Creek and Mobile Bay. These bodies of water are already stressed due to the developments being constructed now. Thank you for your consideration. Lee Webb 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Petrovic Insurance <petrovicins@gmail.com> Friday, April 24, 2020 2:42 PM Emily Boyett battles road development/ Attn City planning Emily, My name is Stevo Petrovic & I am sending you this email in regards to the proposed golf course development. I live off of battles rd. almost directly across from # 4 hole. I am also a member of Lakewood. I walk our dog on that road & I have to tell you, its scary! From the corner of twin beech and Battes rd. to the proposed development entrance is about a big block. Vehicles are already at 40 mph or more. Just walking on the sidewalk is a bit disconcerting. The dog jumps & so do I. Putting a entrance there is just asking for a loss! Also, If you slice on #3 or# 4 ,you will hit a home, person or UPS truck. It is ridiculous! It doesn't make sense. Please forward this to the committee and hopefully the committee will come out here & see the site. thank you, Stevo Petrovic 370 Poviner Pl Fairhope,AI 36532 --gmail.com 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Greg Ritchey <automat@bellsouth.net> Friday, April 24, 2020 11 :59 AM Richard Peterson Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Fw: RSA's Watershed West Subdivision Proposal Dear Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission Members, My name is Mace Ritchey and I reside in Lakewood Club "Estates",in Point Clear.AL In fact,I have lived on Woodland Drive in Lakewood, for the past 44 years. I am writing you all today to express my vehement opposition to the never ending developmental GREED of the RSA. Specifically this time on what the RSA has titled "Watershed West". For with this dangerous and unimaginable greedy subdivision proposal, the RSA continues in trying to cram 10 more home sites, in addition to their already approved 800+(Iike they need TEN MORE????), on to a mere 7.23 acre long parcel of pristine,historical,home to 100 year old live oak tree , to the "INTERIOR" of the Lakewood Golf Course's Azalea holes 2 & 3. I have an up close and personal view/history of the changes that have taken place in Lakewood over the past 40+years,from Point Clear polo being played where Azalea# 6 is now,to the revolving ownership, to the adding of the 4th 9 holes(now Azalea 6-14), to the unrelenting destruction of the flora and fauna within Lakewood by the RSA,over the past 15+ years.through the absurd redesigning of existing golf holes to the aforementioned 800+ home lots they have greedily cobbled together nad have had approved. To that,I will sat that I have never opposed any RSA developments, until the past few years.even though,again, they have destroyed 1 000's of incredibly old growth trees of all varieties(especially so many old majestic live oaks .... Lakewood's' "Mascot" btw!!,some mascot they covet), wildlife habitat, all amid poorly thought out ,crammed in greedy housing developments. The reason I did not oppose them was because all those developments were "OUTSIDE" of the "ORIGINAL" 18 holes of the Lakewood Golf Course. But,I did recently oppose the RSA from developing anything more on the Hotel/BAY side of their property(i.e.the BIG condo they wanted to erect at their "so called" marina ...... a marina they would love to do away with but.have to keep as a mere shell of the marina it once was ... a full service marina with gas and bait and a dock master/etc.,so they can maintain their cozy T & R zoning ... made some how exclusively for them it seems), due to the shear smothering density of people that now patronize their Hotel, with their existing expansions on the hotel bay property(the 4 story East and West wings.as well as, the Spa building, thus increasing their on site occupancy 10 fold,for the size of property they have,thus is now beyond it's max human density,and dose NOT fit in with the zoning/type of residences.that run along the bay,before and after the hotel. Giving credit to the City and County for not allowing that monstrosity of a "marina" condo mistake to go forward(even though as I write this,on my run yesterday I see the hotel has looked to dance around the county's denial by "announcing" that they are still going to go forward with an identical structure, to their "condo" proposal that was "DENIED" by the county, 5 story gargantuan build out that their enormous sign advertises "Is Coming in 2021" ,that will serve as an "Extended Stay" facility ,on the same site as was to be their "condo"!! I preface my letter of opposition to you here with this opening paragraph,as an illustration of not only my tenure/history in Point Clear, specifically Lakewood, but to illustrate that i have not been opposed to legitimate areas that the RSA could develop within the legal and safety realms of this God's Country part of our world called Point Clear. Thus, with that history goes a knowledge of the covenants and restrictions that are a part of the record of Lakewood,all recorded in Bay Minette,regarding the fact that there are to never be any development of any nature/kind of ANY of the interior portions of the "ORIGINAL" 18 holes of the Lakewood Golf Course. 0 which the 7.23 acre parcel of land that is the subject here sits smack dab in the middle of that original 18 holes of Lakewood,specifically Azalea holes 2 & 3. The original Lakewood Club Estates covenants and restrictions do NOT allow for ANY development inside the "original" 18 holes of the Lakewood Golf course .... ONLY on the periphery of the "original" Lakewood 18 holes were to have any homes constructed on them (e.g. the "original' 18 holes of Lakewood are: Azalea holes 1-5 & 15-18 and Dogwood holes 10-18 AND those homes were/are to only be "estate" homes, i.e. over 40,000 sq ft lot sizes(i.e. approx 1acre or more lots sizes). The lot sizes for the RSA's "crammed in" 10 lots are .30 acres on avg!!!!!!!! Yet the RSA's proposed "Watershed West" development wants to SHRED this incredibly beautiful 7.23 acres of land, that rests completely within,and contrary to Lakewood's covenants and restrictions, the INTERIOR of the original 18 holes of Lakewood Golf Course. BUT ... the covenants are but one of MANY reasons this parcel of land needs to left to Mother 1 Nature and her magnificent tree grove,and her animals, and Lakewood's golfers.as it ~,as for over 60 years now!!! One of the additional reasons to DENY this proposal of the RSA,and perhaps, of a more Fairhope Planning & Zoning/County matter.is the RSA's totally ignoring the safety factor that their jammed in development of this little piece of land represents, should ANY size home(s) be built inside of it! It is a proven statistic that over 70% of golfers slice their golf shots. And to boot,it is a given statistic that the average golfer(male or female) have a tee shot velocity in excess of 100mph. Now BOTH Azalea holes 2 & 3 tee boxes are in "slice"positions to any home(s) built on this parcel of land,thus those home(s )would be in DIRECT and CONSTANT fire/harms way of any and ALL of those "sliced" tee shots. The number of sizzling ,projectile tee and subsequent non-tee golf shots,that would be headed towards any of the residents.their children,visitors,delivery personnel.etc. is ,in a nut shell, MANY each and every day of the week!! In addition and also very safety concerning , is the fact that the entrance roadway and exit roadway proposed for this development is an tragic accident waiting to happen. All one needs to do is ride past the RSA's GMC plat's projected entry roadway directly interesting at 90 degrees with Baldwin Cty RD 34. Both 34 and the development's roadway run but mere feet from the golf cart path. That 34 is now SOOO busy/congested , strictly due to the RSA being allowed to develop, by the 1 0O's of lots, on 34 and Battles Road. At any given minute of every day of the week there are speeding,impatient and distracted motorists running up and down 34. I know this FIRSTHAND.as I travel 34 every day/night of the week. It is like the Indy 500 at times. To have a residenUvisitor/delivery vehicle turn hastily into or out of Watershed West's proposed access road, in their impatient effort to get ahead of oncoming traffic,if only to save that person mere seconds of time.if developed,is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed. You all know what I am describing here is true. If not,go spend a half hour at this designated juncture for the access road into Watershed West and 34, and oserve for your selves the haste and never ending volume of the traffic. ADDING, to this roadway hazard.that a majority of those turning into Watershed West.will not be paying much, if any attention to an inopportune golf cart zipping on by and subsequently being hit it by the hasty vehicle trying to outrun the on coming traffic,on it's way into Watershed West. This development is a tragedy waiting to happen ... AND ... the liability for such a imminent accident will lie with.not only the driver.but the County/City who allowed it to be so hazzardly permitted/constructed. I feel,and hope you do to,that this proposed development is a huge,dangerous,safety issue. YET, it is obvious that the RSA ,once again in their need for greed,, could care less. As this new lot design is but mere semantics to the first lot design they put in front of the Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission.back in Dec.where it was overwhelmingly DENIED for it's egregious lack of safety!! They must feel that the City/County here are their patsies??? For.again, they were denied in Dec on this very proposal for safety concerns,but have come back.this time in an effort to get it in front of the county ,to try for a 2nd bite at the apple.with a flimsily re-configured plat of minimally changed lot sizes. Not even to seem to be thinking twice about why they were DENIED, in the Dec P & Z meeting. A white tiger may be a different color than a Bengal tiger, BUT ... they are still exact DNA's of each other ... i.e. they are still dangerous tigers!! Not sure how the RSA explains how the new "county" configured lot sizes turn a man-eating tiger into a lamb. But from where I sit they have not come close to doing that with their new lot plat,,in fact.they seem to be contemptuous in their regard for what the P & Z denied/told them in Dec. I know$$$ can go a long way.and the chest pumping Mr."Gordon Geko" Bronner-run RSA has more to burn than any entity in this state (although their ROI for the last 15 years has been awful to the state employees.So much so that the state tax payers have to make up the difference for Mr.Bronners a.k.a Gordon's fiscal genius failings every year to the tune of billions). As we all know.and rightfully so.the Fairhope P & Z denied the RSA's request for annexation by a resounding and well educated/derived 7-1 vote back in just Dec of last year. The safety issue being the most weighted reason for that denial. Even though the environmental impact will be unimaginable.with the loss of over a dozen 100 yr old+ Live Oak trees.that provide shelter/homes for Bald Eagles.Great Horned Owls.endangered Red Bellied turtles.Gopher Tortoises.our so unique fascinating fox squirrels (that btw only habitat with Old Growth PINE TREES, which are now being bull dozed and cut down by the 100's here in Lakewood by Bronner and his minions for "better/easier" golfing holes .... does the same reasoning with the Hotel's/Lakewood's world wide emblem/mascot the live oaks),and the list goes on. Also ,as I opened up with.the "covenants and restrictions" that established Lakewood,by the Mr. & Mrs.Roberts(Southern Industries Founder/Chairman), back in the late 40's,that are set in perpetuity, that "no development" is to occur to the interior of the "original" 18 holes of the Lakewood Golf Course. I will also add here that the RSA/hotel is in violation of the definition for maintaining their T & R zoning, since they do not now have a full service marina!! Go back to the taping of the DEC P & Z meeting,where the city atty defines "marina" ,and according to that recited definition.the hotel's "marina" no longer provides ANY "services" to fit the definition that is referred to in the definition of qualifying for a zoning designation of T & R! !.So take thy pie on the myriad of reasons this development should be denied and never be considered again. In closing,again,I ask you to please deeply consider all the aforementioned reasons to DENY the RSA'smosr recenUupcoming subdivision proposal that I lay out above.and then responsibly vote to DENY any and all of the RSA's subdivision proposals regarding their Watershed West subdivision. Sincerely, Mace Ritchey 2 3 4/24/20 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: We write to you today as concerned citizens regarding the planned development of Watershed West on the golf course at the Lakewood Club. Numerous citizens have continuously and consistently voiced their concerns and opposition of this project to the Fairhope City Council over the past several months. It appears that through a series of postponements, cancellations, and rejections this issue is now before the Planning and Zoning commission. I would respectfully request that each and every email, letter, phone message and other form of communication that raised opposition to this proposal that was previously sent to the Fairhope City Council be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and education. It is not fair, especially during this pandemic, to ask that the citizens put aside their personal problems and issues to once again beg for someone to deny the constant development pressure from a very well funded and singularly voiced opponent in the RSA. If this proposal is allowed, it will destroy what so many people in Point Clear have worked so hard for-low density housing in a quiet community. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT-PLEASE STOP IT IN ITS TRACKS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! Sincerely, Largay and Boyd Douglas 18575 Scenic Highway 98 Fairhope, AL 36532 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Mapp, Joey Nunnally <JNunnally@baldwincountyal.gov> Thursday, April 23, 2020 3:11 PM Louis Mapp Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson; battlesgroup2 @gmail.com; Vince Jackson; Wayne Dyess RE: Proposed development by RSA on the Lakewood Golf Course adjacent to Battles Road--Fairhope/Point Clear, Al. 04/23/2020 I appreciate your concern in this matter and rest assured that we will look at these issues that you and others have brought up. It is also my understanding that this case will be heard again by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission on May 4th. If it passes their vote, then the County Planning and Zoning Department will start their review process to ensure that the development meets the County Subdivision regulations and I will be looking at the traffic and drainage designs in that review process. If it doesn't pass their vote, the County P&Z will not take any action on this development due to the lack of an approval by Fairhope. I hope this email finds you well and please be safe. Joey Nunnally, P.E. Baldwin County Engineer 251-937-0371 -----Original Message----- From: Louis Mapp <lmapp@bellsouth.net> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 7:14 AM To: Joey Nunnally <JNunnally@baldwincountyal.gov> Cc: richard.peterson@fairhopeal.gov; emily.boyett@fairhopeal.gov; Jack Burrell <jack.burrell@cofairhope.com>; Mayor Karin Wilson <karin.wilson@fairhopeal.gov>; batt1esgroup2@gmail.com Subject: Proposed development by RSA on the Lakewood Golf Course adjacent to Battles Road--Fairhope/Point Clear, Al. 04/23/2020 [CAUTION: External Email] Good morning Mr. Nunnally, I walk along the sidewalk on Battles Road-in front oft he proposed subject RSA development-most every day. First-this is not about my being able to walk on this sidewalk--as I am almost 83--and I will get along fine without being able to do so. My main concern is for the families and children I see on the sidewalk-some on bicycles-some parents pushing strollers-some just walking and running along-enjoying life. Just for a moment-if you approve this development-think about all of the heavy trucks and equipment that will be crossing this sidewalk going into-and coming out of--this project. Think about the danger this could cause for those described above as they enjoy this sidewalk-all for the sake of building approximately 10 homes. I shudder to think of what could happen if you approve this project-and I pray that it doesn't. 1 Please think about this as you make your decision. Sincerely, Louis Mapp 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Leaders, melanie moore <melaniemoore75@hotmail.com> Thursday, April 23, 2020 2:01 PM Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett; jnunnallye@balwincountyal.gov Opposition to Watershed West I am writing on behalf of my family which as enjoyed a home at Point Clear for over 80 years. We want to express our vehement opposition to the Watershed West development. Over development has become a blight in Baldwin County, and the Pt. Clear/Battles Wharf area is feeling especially "squeezed" with high rise buildings and neighborhoods in every direction. Considering that this particular proposal would destroy gorgeous old oaks and pines on the golf course, put people in close proximity to flying golf balls (creating safety and liability issues) and change drainage and water flow problems during heavy rains, we ask you to vote against the request of GMC/RSA. We know they are strong and have deep pockets, but we are counting on our leaders to hold the line and protect the nature of this historic area. The winning points of the Fairhope area are the quality of water in Mobile Bay, and the slow paced quality of life in the various neighborhoods. If you "kill the golden goose" the desirability of Fairhope declines. Thank you for your consideration. We are very interested in hearing this proposal has been voted down. Respectfu I ly, Melanie Moore 17211 Scenic Hwy 98 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Todd Landau <toddmlandau@gmail.com> Thursday, April 23, 2020 1 :56 PM Subject: worsham451@gmail.com; chall-black@bayshorechristian.org; holliemackellar@gmail.com; lee@pitmaninsurance.com; adyas@msn.com; Kevin Boone; Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Carroll Sullivan; Mapp Louis; Frank Smith; Tracy Frost Reject the Proposed Watershed West RSA Subdivision Dear Members of the Fairhope P&Z, Please see my email below to Mr. Joey Nunnally, Baldwin County Engineer, expressing my strong opposition to the Watershed West RSA Subdivision, which had come before him for his consideration, together with the reasons for my continuing opposition. At your upcoming Monday May 4, 2020 Virtual P&Z meeting, I urge you to please deprive this proposal of any additional "oxygen" (and any additional "end runs") by reaffirming your prior denial of this dangerous proposal by 7-1 on December, 19, 2019 on the grounds that it is contrary to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fairhope, Point Clear and Baldwin County. Respectfully yours, Todd M. Landau Email: toddmlandau@gmail.com Cell: (908) 451-6381 Home: (251) 517-7726 Begin forwarded message: From: Todd Landau <toddmlandau@gmail.com> Date: April 20, 2020 at 1:34:16 PM CDT To: Joey Nunnally <jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov> Cc: csullivan@scottsullivanlaw.com, James Morgan <jiminpointclear@att.net>, Smith Frank <fsmith@wilkinsmiller.com>, Logan Loomis <logan@loganloomis.com>, Rhonda Loomis <rmldesigns@cox.net>, Armand De Keyser <armand.dekeyser@gmail.com>, Torrey DeKeyser <torreyva@gmail.com>, Ray Hammock <rayhammock@gmail.com>, WHOA <sandrawhammock@gmail.com>, Roger Berkow <roger.berkow@gmail.com>, Patty Berkow <patricia.berkow@gmail.com>, Jim Edens <jimedens@ymail.com>, Sara Edens <jedensl@aol.com>, Bill West <resound51@gmail.com>, Linda West <qx42003@gmail.com>, Earlmonroe <earlmonroe@aullmonroe.com>, Brandly Monroe <bcmonroe@aol.com>, Bill Byars <wvbyars@gmail.com>, Bonnibel Byars <bonnibel@mac.com>, p.achee@yahoo.com, Brian Chew <bchew@htk.com>, Louis Mapp <lmapp@bellsouth.net>, Tracy Frost <tracyafrost@gmail.com>, Effie Thompson <effiesthompson@gmail.com>, Mark Callahan <mcallahan@sagepointadvisor.com>, Elizabeth Phyfer <elizabethphyfer2@gmail.com>, Sam Dixon <spdixonjr@aol.com>, Greg Ritchey <automat@bellsouth.net>, lroberts2800@gmail.com Subject: Reject the Proposed Watershed West RSA Subdivision 1 Dear Mr. Nunnally, I am writing to reinforce the strong opposition to this proposal that was expressed by Mr. Sullivan in his recent email to you. I also oppose very strongly this ill-considered development project, for all the reasons Carroll outlined along with all the reasons I have previously raised in my prior opposition emails addressed to the Fairhope P&Z team. I fully understand the "bulldozer" mentality of the developers and their legal counsel, plowing ahead to seek permission at the county level, given their full awareness of both the complete and unwavering opposition of the Fairhope, Lakewood and Point Clear communities and the 7-1 rejection of their proposal by the Fairhope P&Z team. It is not surprising, perhaps, that they would seek to exploit the distractions of the Covid-19 shutdown ordered by Governor Ivey, by trying to do an "end run" past our local community defensive lines that are committed to preventing this egregious proposal from proceeding. One hears frequently in regard to the Covid-19 response: "First Do No Harm". Indeed. That is a good summary of our position here in regard to the RSA proposal. We all share the conviction that this ill- considered proposal, if permitted, would do considerable harm for no worthwhile benefit to the community (other than cramming ten more houses into an already congested street and neighborhood. While technically feasible, in the most narrow engineering sense, it is a travesty of law, regulations and common sense to allow this project any more "oxygen" to proceed. RSA and their lawyers clearly have deep pockets enough to pursue all of the legal and regulatory objections that we will continue to mount in opposition to their proposal, in their thoughtless, bullheaded, drive to prevail in spite of uniform opposition. They have dollars but lack sense. There are many, many perfectly good development sites that could easily accommodate their project further to the East of County Road 3, without the myriad dangers to human safety, and the profligate destruction of habitat on one of the most beautiful stretches of the Azalea Golf Course. Accordingly, I respectfully request your close consideration of the points above, as well as those raised by Mr. Sullivan. We all urge you, please, to reject this proposal as being nonviable. Sincerely yours, Todd M. Landau Email: toddmlandau@gmail.com Cell: (908) 451-6381 Home: (251) 517-7726 18423 Point Clear Ct. Fairhope, AL 36532-6847 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Douglas Kearley, Sr. <dbkearley@aol.com> Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:36 AM Emily Boyett Watershed West Dear Ms. Boyett: The residents of Point Clear/ Battles Wharf have spoken: This proposed development is detrimental to area. There is no need to go into the particulars because the residents have spoken on NUMEROUS occasions. The constant switching of what governmental agency is responsible is tiresome. No development in the middle of the Lakewood golf course. Thank you. Douglas Burtu Kearley, Sr., AIA, NCARB, OStJ Douglas B. Kearley, AIA, Architect, Inc. Ten Wisteria Avenue Mobile, Alabama 36607 Telephone 251-473-7553 Facsimile 251-473-7553 Mobile 251-421-0385 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Emily, John Summersell <jps123@me.com> Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:09 AM Emily Boyett Watershed West I am strongly against this development. It's approval would have lasting adverse precedent setting impact on the community. Please stand up and protect our precious part of the world. Here's a very simple test. When my friends from the elegantly developed Charleston, SC come back to visit in a few years, when they see the proposed Watershed West they will think "what is wrong with these people around here? Don't the recognize and protect what truly makes this place special?" It is natural beauty, smart development, and special people who have in common a love for those things, that keeps people investing in and loving this special place we call Fairhope. Jack Summersell Pt Clear property owner (251) 402-0116 Sent from my iPhone 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Binky Oswalt < hiddenireland@att.net> Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:44 AM Emily Boyett Watershed West TO Baldwin County Commission and Council Members and Fairhope Government: This is email is to register my strong objection to the development proposed for the Lakewood Golf Course known as Watershed West. It is totally beyond belief that the RSA is hoping to build more houses in an area absolutely saturated with their previous and current building and development. There are serious issues with storm water runoff and sewage spills and traffic and THE SURE AND CERTAIN ISSUE OF TOTALLY DESTROYING this area. We need oak trees. We need clear spaces. The continued development will totally destroy the beauty of Point Clear and Battles Wharf. Enough is enough. The application to build more houses in the middle of a golf course (it sounds ridiculous to even say it) should be DENIED. It only takes common sense. Please pay attention to the residents of these communities. I appreciate your work and your support. Sincerely, Marion Oswalt 17727 Scenic Highway 98 Point Clear Binky Oswalt The Hidden Ireland Tours PO Box 40034 Mobile AL 36640 251-751-3087 hiddenireland@att.net 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Carroll Sullivan <csullivan@scottsullivanlaw.com> Thursday, April 23, 2020 8:15 AM Subject: lee@pitmaninsurance.com; rebecca.bryant@watershed.pro; adyas@msn.com; holliemackellar@gmail.com; chall-black@bayshorechristian.org; jworsham@edtengineers.com; Kevin Boone; Emily Boyett; karin.wilson@faithopeal.gov Fwd: Watershed West Subdivision From: Mark Callahan Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:11 PM To: jack.burrell@fairhopeal.com; kevin.boone@fairhopeal.com; robert.brown@fairhopeal.com; jay.robinson@fairhopeal.com; jimmy.conyers@fairhopeal.com Cc: karin.wilson@fairhopeal.com Subject: Watershed West Subdivision As a Lakewood resident, 18160 Woodland Drive, for the past year and a half I have walked the property in question either early in the morning or late afternoon at dusk . Just yesterday i encountered fox squirrels, and a fox on this property . Soon it will be time for the turtles to come lay eggs on this property like they did late last spring . And of course we have the owls, hawks, and bald eagles . The environmental impact of this development was discussed during the 12/2/19 meeting and I can emphatically state that it would affect the wildlife in this area . With all the surrounding development these animals would not have anywhere else to go . Another item discussed during the meeting is the necessary elimination/destruction of 5 to 10 Heritage Oaks on this property if this development occurs . Walk the property as I have and examine the proposed construction sites . These oaks are coming down if this is approved , period . As the saying goes ... don't tell me it's raining ! It is very ironic that the same corporation that now incorporates a Heritage Oak tree as its primary logo would pursue the unnecessary destruction of so many of these beautiful trees. During the 12/2/19 meeting there was also mention of safety concerns due to errant golf balls . The other morning I picked up twelve balls as i walked and they were not on the fringes of the property ! The concern is valid . Only one member of the Planning Commission voted in favor of this development. I heard his explanation that evening and he expressed that the request met all requirements and followed all rules and regulations and hence he could not vote against the proposal . If we only needed a 1 rulebook, a Planning Commission would not be necessary ! Rules can provide structure and humans can provide common sense because every situation is different and rules can not be expected to anticipate variables . I invite all of you to park at my home this weekend and walk this property and see everything I have outlined in person, and I ask you all to use common sense and deny this development . Thank you very much ! Mark C. Callahan Callahan Financial Solutions , Inc. Financial Advisor with SagePoint Financial, Inc. 116 Fairhope Ave Fairhope , Al 36532 mcallahan@sagepointadvisor.com Office -251-990-4700, Fax -251-990-4704 Cell -251-610-0533 Securities offered through SagePoint Financial , Inc. , member FNRA/SIPC , Callahan Financial Solutions is not affiliated with SagePoint Financial , Inc. or registered as a broker-dealer or investment advisor . This message and any attachments contain information, which may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended for use only by the intended recipient, any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender and (ii) destroy all copies of this message . If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this email with the word REMOVE in the subject line 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good morning Mr. Nunnally, Louis Mapp <lmapp@bellsouth.net> Thursday, April 23, 2020 7:14 AM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson; battlesgroup2 @gmail.com Proposed development by RSA on the Lakewood Golf Course adjacent to Battles Road-- Fairhope/Point Clear, Al. 04/23/2020 I walk along the sidewalk on Battles Road-in front of the proposed subject RSA development-most every day. First-this is not about my being able to walk on this sidewalk--as I am almost 83--and I will get along fine without being able to do so. My main concern is for the families and children I see on the sidewalk-some on bicycles-some parents pushing strollers-some just walking and running along-enjoying life. Just for a moment-if you approve this development-think about all of the heavy trucks and equipment that will be crossing this sidewalk going into-and coming out of--this project. Think about the danger this could cause for those described above as they enjoy this sidewalk-all for the sake of building approximately 10 homes. I shudder to think of what could happen if you approve this project-and I pray that it doesn't. Please think about this as you make your decision. Sincerely, Louis Mapp 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matthew Mosteller <drmattm@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 22, 2020 7:51 PM Richard Peterson Emily Boyett; Tracy Frost Lakewood golf course subsisting opposition. I am still against the subdivision requested by RSA in the Lakewood golf course This tweaked proposal is the same idea in sheep's clothing that you recommended to be denied . The grounds of objection that you pointed out earlier have not changed at all. Let's not destroy what's makes our community unique . Please vote to deny the request to subdivide. Matthew Mosteller 251-454-7851. 17999 Scenic Highway 98. Fairhope ,Al 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Elizabeth Phyfer <e1izabethphyfer2@gmail.com> Monday, April 20, 2020 7:07 PM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett Subdivision proposal in the middle of the Azalea golf course TOP 10 REASONS to deny the GMC/RSA application for a subdivision in the middle of the golf course (Watershed West): 10. The developer has altered the original request, yet none of the alterations address the concerns the citizens have vocalized since this subdivision was proposed. 9. The proposed lots are not AT ALL compatible with the Lakewood Club Estates covenants, and are, in fact, in complete violation of those covenants. 8. The water retention plan is to divert the water runoff from Watershed West (note the name) to the already stressed Point Clear Creek. Ask the residents of Azalea Ridge how the creek will be able to handle additional runoff, or maybe just ask the lawyer they employed to aid them in their quest for a solution to the Point Clear Creek flooding. 7. The wildlife -bald eagles, fox squirrels, and turtles, oh my! 6. The trees -large, live oaks hundreds of years old, as well as several tall long leaf pines. 5. This small area was part of the original golf course when it was established in 1947 and any ball landing in this area has always been "in play." Just because the area will now be out of bounds, doesn't mean golf balls will not be landing there. On the contrary, this area is between 2 fairways and multiple times a day, golf balls will come from all directions as golfers tee off and slice their tee shot on 2 different holes. 4. Golfers will be liable for any damage caused to these homes and property, yet the Lakewood Club golfers were not consulted about this proposal. When golfers signed their Lakewood Club contract this area of extreme risk did not exist. 3. Anyone visiting these homes (delivery services, lawn care, handy man, grandma, friend ... ) has not assumed risk, as the homeowner does when purchasing a golf course home, and therefore an injured visitor can sue the golfer, the course, and even the municipality. 2. The road into this proposed subdivision will come off Battles Road and will almost immediately cross the cart path leaving VERY little room for reaction time by a driver or a golfer -an accident waiting to happen. And the number 1 reason to deny the GMC/RSA application to annex into the city of Fairhope with TR zoning for the subdivision in the middle of the golf course ... The Fairhope Planning & Zoning committee recommended denial of this application months ago. There are some changes to the proposal since then, but none of those tweaks to their plan change the P&Z reasons for denial. Thanks for listening, Elizabeth Phyfer 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ritchie Prince <rp@princemckean.com> Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:29 AM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov; Richard Peterson; Emily Boyett; Jack Burrell; Mayor Karin Wilson Battles Road PreseNation Group Watershed West Opposition and Opposition to the RSA Condoiminiums at the site of the Grand Hotel Marina Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: It seems as if this is a war of attrition, and it should not be that way. Concerned citizens have continuously and consistently expressed their concerns and opposition to the Fairhope City Council months ago regarding Watershed West, and through a series of postponements, cancellations and rejections this issue is now before the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would respectfully request that each and every email, letter, phone message and other form of communication that raised opposition to this proposal be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and education. It is not fair, especially during this pandemic, to ask that the citizens put aside their personal problems and issues to once again beg for someone to deny the constant development pressure from a very well funded and singularly voiced opponent in the RSA. The never ending pressure to build condominiums right up against properties whose owners have spent their entire lives saving for and building/renovating homes that are NOT next to a condominium are just tossed aside if this Commission approves the condos at the Grand Hotel. That is the Southwestern front we are fighting to try to preserve and maintain what makes this place so special. People who DO NOT live here are pushing these projects to make money-they are not doing it to enhance any way of life for anyone that is already here, regardless of what the RSA may say. I have a job. I have ailing parents. I do not have the time required to properly dive into the details of the current proposal (WHICH APPEARS TO BE SOMEWHAT OF A MOVING TARGET) to build houses in the Lakewood Subdivision with an entrance right off of County Road 44. This is our current Northeastern front that we are fighting-and make no bones about it, this is a fight for those of us who live here and have seen our slow, genteel way of living slowly get pushed to the side while more and more people move to our area. This proposal to build houses in between the holes on Azalea (Old Azalea 2 and 3 which I think is now Azalea 11 and 12) is nothing but another attempt to grab what green space is left on the golf course. Will they next try to fill in the swamp over by Azalea holes 2 and 3 (old Magnolia 2 and 3)? I want to voice my opposition, that of my children, my ailing parents and the opposition of all who no longer have a voice or who have already opposed both of these proposals and don't have the time to go over this again and again. This is the largest land mass county east of the Mississippi from what I am told. There is plenty of land in Baldwin County for the RSA to develop and to line their pockets with money. Let's not allow them to OVERdevelop the Battles Wharf/Pt. Clear area. I do appreciate your time and attention to this extremely important matter. Cordially, Ritchie Prince 5593 Moogs Lane 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cheryl Kiefer <cbkiefer@icloud.com> Monday, April 20, 2020 10:27 AM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov Emily Boyett Watershed West We live on Mulberry LN In the Colony not far from the above plan to build these homes on the golf course. We are very much against this project for the numerous reasons mentioned in your email. We certainly don't like the tourist and resort classification. There are more than enough homes in this area already on the golf course. We would appreciate your efforts to stop this. Thank you Chuck and Cheryl Kiefer 143 Mulberry LN Sent from my iPad 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Huey <mghuey@hueyfirm.com> Monday, April 20, 2020 9:58 AM Emily Boyett Lakewood Dear Ms. Boyett, First, my wife and I were ignoring the development on the fringes of the Azalea Golf Course figuring that RSA would be happy with a few lots on the perimeter of the course -after all it had already scrapped the earth (Richard Pate's lake property) and squeezed dozens of homes into what amounts to a zero lot line development. Moreover, there as dozens of unsold lots and more than a few unsold homes in the Colony. We were wrong. RSA wants it all. RSA's appetited for development will lead to it build on all undeveloped property boarding and in the interior of the Azalea Course. Second, the traffic from the Colony has increased exponentially to the point that it is creating a hazard for the residents and visitors. If RSA is allowed to build homes between Azalea 2 and 3 the traffic will only be more hazardous, e.g. golfers crossing the road, children paying, as well as the vehicles necessary to support the homes, e.g. UPS, garbage etc. Unlike the existing homes on Azalea that are set back from the course the residents of the proposed development will be right on top of the course placing them in danger of flying golf balls. Third, no matter how careful there will be storm water run-off. The issue of stormwater runoff will, without a doubt, adversely affect Point Clear Creek and Mobile Bay. The destruction of the water quality will not only cause harm to the fish and birds it will certainly kill what native aquatic vegetation remains. We do not need another De'Olive creek situation. More, the destruction of the old growth oaks and mature long leaf pine will displace the wild life including fox squirrels, bald eagles, endangered Red Bellied turtles, red fox to name a few. In fact only recently we have seen the return of bald eagles after a long absence. Moreover, I saw pelicans fishing it several of the Lakewood lakes this weekend, a rare occurrence in years past. It is our opinion that development of the Eastern Shore, i.e. Colony, has forced the local wildlife to seek refuge on the golf course. A place where they can raise their young unmolested by development. Fourth, the rezoning will violate covenants that run with the land. Which will necessarily mean a long court fight pitting voters against their elected representatives and RSA. RSA has already retaliated against its members by increasing the dues after the citizens and club member defeated RSA at the zoning board leave. Legal issues will be litigated, i.e. purpose and intent of TR designation, and no operating marina to name Two (2) issues. Fifth, when the developer is gone the city/county will be forced to provide city services which will mean increased stress on the tax base and government budgets. Is it more important to spend tax money on education or additional garbage, sewer and road repair foisted on Fairhope by RSA? RSA will leave -pocketing the money and leaving the City holding the bag. 1 Finally, we gave RSA an inch with the Colony and the lots on the perimeter of the golf course -now they want a mile. I am concerned that RSA will start surveying lots near between 9 and 1 O fairways, over by the parking lot for the club house, along 17 and even between in the area between 12, 13 and 16. Lakewood is a jewel and a major tourist draw. The course is unspoiled by development. Visitors/golfers do not come here to play Quail Creek or Rock Creek -golf course developments. They don't "resort" at the Hampton Inn. They come here for the ambiance of Fairhope and Point Clear. A place untouched by the over population and traffic. They come here to escape developers like RSA. The unspoiled golf course is truly the "Jewel" of the Eastern Shore -Please keep it -don't sell out at the expense of our environment, safety and future generations. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to consider Lorna and my position. Mike and Lorna Huey ******************************************************* Michael G. Huey Huey Law Firm LLC P.O. Box 1806 Mobile, Alabama 36633 1059 Dauphin Street Mobile, Alabama 36604 (888) 607-5249 Toll Free (251) 433-6622 (251) 433-6654 Fax E-mail: mghuey@hueyfirm.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication contains information which is legally privileged and confidential. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying, forwarding or use of this communication or the information therein is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the communication and destroy any copies. Thank you. 2 Mr. Joey Nunnally Baldwin County Engineer Mr. Nunnally, April 20, 2020 Good morning, my name is Tracy Frost and as a resident of Point Clear, I am writing to express my opposition to the subdivision request for the proposed development known as Watershed West. As you may know this is another attempt by the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) via Goodwyn, Mills and Caywood (GMC) to propose a dangerous and ill-conceived development in the middle of Lakewood's Azalea golf course. I am unsure of the interaction and discussions which may have taken place thus far, but certainly want to ensure information has been shared with you as decisions are made in this process. As we are now navigating with different parameters due to COVID-19, face to face meetings may be impossible ,so it is imperative you and the new members of the P&Z commission have been made fully aware of the history and enormous opposition. GMC on behalf of RSA submitted the original request for simultaneous approval to be annexed into the City of Fairhope along with new zoning to Tourist and Resort District last fall. This request was met with enormous opposition, by not only the community, but a recommendation of "DENY" to the City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the December 2nd• 2019 meeting. There were several reasons for this recommendation, but the HEALTH, SAFETY and WELFARE of the community was cited as the most important. This decision was determined by a vote of 7 to 1. The one and only supportive vote for the proposal was made with apologies to the citizens and based only on concern of the city being sued for not approving the request. It was a great example of a decision needing to be more closely examined and scrutinized versus approved because "one could check the proverbial boxes". Prior to being heard by the February 10th City Council meeting, GMC asked to indefinitely postpone the hearing. Council President Jack Burrell allowed the postponement with the agreement to be heard no later than early May. GMC obviously had no intention of presenting their original plans to the City Council due to lack of support and is now seeking approval through the county. So now, here we are today with the same ill-conceived plan being presented to you in hopes of garnering support. If we look at the facts, nothing has changed to address the primary concerns with this proposal. Minor modifications, such as lot sizes and road width, were made to meet the county subdivision requirements but did nothing to address the HEALTH, SAFETY and WELFARE of the community and its citizens. If anything, the new proposal increases the danger by moving the proposed road closer to the #3 fairway and reducing the common area/green space area. You are still left with a subdivision unsafely planted between two fairways on a golf course. It seems quite delusional to me to present this plan with expectations of a different outcome. With the decision to go through the county un-zoned, the subdivision proposal for consideration goes back to the P&Z commission for vote. To quote Commission Chairman Lee Turner, "If a request violated the Health, Safety and Welfare of the citizens, we would have the ability and it would be our job to DENY". This request clearly violates the safety of this community. I highly recommend watching the video recap of the 12/2/19 Fairhope P&Z meeting to hear first-hand the concerns of the commission members. There may be arguments made that the risk of injury is low on a golf course or perhaps home damage is the fault of those choosing to live on a course. However, when a well-established course is re-designed and puts people at risk, those who agreed to those modifications without concern for the well-being and safety of others can be held liable. Perhaps RSA thought that erecting a fence around the historical in-bound tree grove would somehow make it appear that it was separate from the course? Liability was the only reason the Planning and Zoning vote wasn't unanimous and yet a vote to approve sets up a more serious form of liability. Consider these points -The average male golfer hits a ball at 133 mph and female at 111 mph. 70% of golfers have an issue with slicing the ball. With a subdivision planted between two fairways, there is a 70% chance that someone or something will be dodging high speed golf balls when the course is in play. The course is in play almost every day! Safety is by far the most important concern, but there are many other reasons as to why this should be denied. This development would have a detrimental environmental impact and displace the habitat including endangered species such as the gopher tortoise, bald eagles, plus wildlife in the watershed. It would increase traffic and noise, infringe on established covenents and restrictions and overall support the destruction of this beautiful area. It will forever change the beautiful landscape in which Point Clear is known for as the century old oaks and long leaf pines are destroyed, added strain to the watershed of Point Clear Creek and Mobile Bay. The only positive outcome would be monetary gain for one entity at the risk and with no regard of so many. Last, the Baldwin County Master Plan outlines the mission to support and protect the natural resources, character and quality of life in our area. The plan states very clearly, and I quote, "This community has a strong sense of identity and care for its environment and landscape and WILL NOT be willing to significantly compromise for the benefit of growth itself. Growth on the Eastern Shore will need to characteristically fit with its history". Please consider all the points above and responsibly deny this proposal for the Watershed West subdivision. Regards, Tracy A Frost E:dvvard Frost l820t \Voodland Dr, Point Ckar, Al cl65ti,I• !'hone: (251)209-78il8 • E-Mail:BillyFrostti:i)grnail.corn Dear Mr. Nunnally and P&Z Conunission Me1nbers, • April 19, 2020 I am writing today to try and impress upon you the impact of developing the finger of land inside of Lakewood Golf course on Battles Road designated as "Watershed West". As a resident of Lakewood Club Estates, this proposed development has many detrimental impacts to our subdivision, as well as, the surrounding communities. This small strip of property is located within a historical and well established golf course, and has attracted visitors to this area for over 60 years. Destroying the habitat of so much wildlife, pollute the watershed, and forever change this historically recreational area goes against any responsible development. The proposed development is a slap in the face to the surrounding communities of Lakewood Club Estates, Poviner Place, Point Clear Court, and Owl's Nest. This development would destroy century's old Oaks and hundred year old pines that are refuge and homes of fox squirrels, grey squirrels, Eagles, Hawks, Owls, and countless other species. These trees have survived War, hurricanes, floods, and drought, but they cannot survive chain-saws and bulldozers. As a resident of Lakewood Club Estates, this proposed subdivision has a direct impact upon my property, my property values, and the "quiet enjoyment" of my property. I would also like to use this letter as notice to the Commission, as to issues of safety. A well hit golf ball travels between 50 and 200 MPH, someone's home next to a fairway is in direct and constant risk from dangerous and potentially lethal projectiles. I do realize there are situations that do merit considerations for development. In my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of the planning commission, this is not one • of them. Placing a subdivision in the interior of the only recreational "green space" in the area is irresponsible and detrimental to the surrounding communities. This development does not meet Baldwin County's 2009 Comprehensive plan in many ways. A few examples: It would violate the intent of Policy 2.1.1.1 (a) as a recreational area, it is not consistant with policy 2.1.2. 7 in meeting planning goals, it would not meet the criteria of Policy 2.1.11.3 in resource protection. It would impact the already overburdened watershed affecting Objective 4.2.1 for waterbodies, as well as, 4.3.6.4 for wildlife. These are but a few of the issues this development would impact. With all of the major developments in this particular area, is this small area really worth destroying forever? I invite you to look at the sight of this proposed development, and see for yourself, how development in this location will affect the trees, wildlife and general aesthetics of one of the most treasured areas in the state of Alabama. Please deny any subdivision or development application request on this site, as it clearly undermines the well-established and historical use of this property. Sincerely, Edward Frost 2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Boyett, Ray Hammock <rayhammock@gmail.com> Saturday, April 18, 2020 11 :29 AM Emily Boyett Watershed West I join the great host of Fairhope residents and Lakewood members that oppose the major subdivision request from RSA know as Watershed West. The reasons have been adequately stated to you by others. Please share this with all PandZ members. Thank you, Ray Hammock 525 Owls Nest Place Sent from my iPad 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Emily Boyett, leslie sullins <lesthmes@yahoo.com> Friday, April 17, 2020 8:03 PM Emily Boyett Rezoning I currently serve in the planning commission in another city. I also live here in Fairhope at the Bayview II property on Colony Drive. Please do NOT allow the rezoning if the property proposed near the Azalea course here. This is a wonderful, thriving community built on the basis of safety, pride of ownership and relaxation. Some development can reverse, thus harm just for the motivation of profit. Thank you for your consideration in this important decision. Yours very truly, Leslie Sullins/Draper Sent from my iPhone 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bill Hyatt <william.hyatt7@gmail.com> Friday, April 17, 2020 5:17 PM jnunnally@baldwincountyal.gov Mayor Karin Wilson; Jack Burrell; Emily Boyett; Richard Peterson Watershed West As I have stated many, many times before I am pro-development to the core, however this is the most ill conceived project imaginable. I play golf 2-3 times a week and on numerous occasions I now have to climb over the fence erected by the RSA to search for my golf ball (very presumptive to have already erected a fence). If you have the slightest slice in your golf swing the proposed new home development will be bombarded from both fairways 2&3 on the Azalea course, not to mention destruction of magnificent trees. In addition we will have to walk or drive carts across the proposed entry drive. It is a dangerous & hazardous design in the middle of the golf course. I have met opposition many times as a developer with & without cause. I have always relented toward adjacent neighborhood objections where warranted. I know of no single individual in or around the proposed subdivision that favors this project. RSA has hundreds of new homes planned or under construction now from County Road 34/44 to S Section St & beyond. They are trying to squeeze every dollar out of every sf of property adjoining the golf courses & care nothing for the current members or their families. If approved I will be carrying my $800-900 per mo habit elsewhere. I implore each of you to oppose & deny the Watershed West proposed subdivision in any form presented. Thank you for your time and consideration. I sincerely appreciate your service to our outstanding, award winning community of Fairhope/Point Clear. Wm. W. "Bill" Hyatt CCIM LanDel Realty LLC 23210 Hwy 98 Suite 4-A Fairhope AL 36532 251-605-2112 Cell/Office 855-898-8348 Fax wwhyatt7@bellsouth.net william.hyatt7@gmail.com Romans 8:28 Jeremiah 29:11 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Linda West <qx42003@gmail.com> Friday, April 17, 2020 4:23 PM Emily Boyett : Re: Letter for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for May 4, 2020 meeting/ Emily please give each member a copy. Thank You! To: Chairman Lee Turner, Vice-Chair Rebecca Bryant, Harry Koehler, Richard Peterson, Hollie Mackellar, Art Dyas, Clarice Hall-Black, John Worsham We are requesting that you do not approve the current RSA plan for the 7.23 acre subdivision on the Azalea Golf Course that joins Battles Road. This current plan has no changes in regards to the safety, health, and environmental impact this would bring to Battles Road, Azalea Golf Course and the entire area. Development would create numerous safety issues not only on the golf course, but on and along the Battles Road area. Battles Road is currently overburdened with traffic that ranges from 18 wheelers, to bikes, golf carts, runners, walkers, babies being strolled in strollers as well as automobiles. A major attraction to this area is outdoor recreation which would no longer be safe. Additionally, the safety for essential services, deliveries and maintenance would be jeopardized. Environmentally, drainage and flooding are already an issue in the area and that would be exacerbated by this development. Also, protected animals and heritage trees would be lost forever. As you are aware a less safe and environmentally protected area would no longer be a desirable place to live. Please deny once again this RSA Subdivision proposal and keep Fairhope the best place to live for those of us here now and for future generations. Respectfully, Bill and Linda West 509 Owl's Nest Place Fairhope, AL 36532 1 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Linda West <qx42003@gmail.com> Thursday, March 12, 2020 2:57 PM Emily Boyett Re: Letter for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for April 6, 2020 meeting/ Emily please give each member a copy. Thank You! To: Chairman Lee Turner, Vice-Chair Rebecca Bryant, Harry Koehler, Richard Peterson, Hollie Mackellar, Art Dyas, Clarice Hall-Black, John Worsham We are requesting that you do not approve the current RSA plan for the 7.23 acre subdivision on the Azalea Golf Course that joins Battles Road. This current plan has no changes in regards to the safety, health, and environmental impact this would bring to Battles Road, Azalea Golf Course and the entire area. Development would create numerous safety issues not only on the golf course, but on and along the Battles Road area. Battles Road is currently overburdened with traffic that ranges from 18 wheelers, to bikes, golf carts, runners, walkers, babies being strolled in strollers as well as automobiles. A major attraction to this area is outdoor recreation which would no longer be safe. Additionally, the safety for essential services, deliveries and maintenance would be jeopardized. Environmentally, drainage and flooding are already an issue in the area and that would be exacerbated by this development. Also, protected animals and heritage trees would be lost forever. As you are aware a less safe and environmentally protected area would no longer be a desirable place to live. Please deny once again this RSA Subdivision proposal and keep Fairhope the best place to live for those of us here now and for future generations. Respectfully, Bill and Linda West 509 Owl's Nest Place Fairhope, AL 36532 1 1 SD 20.14 J & J Farms – April 6, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval Case: SD 20.14 J & J Farms Subdivision Project Name: J & J Farms Subdivision Property Owner /Applicant: Rodney & Melissa Jemison General Location: The property is located on the north side of Champion Road just west of Old Pierce Road Project Type: Minor Subdivision inside Fairhope’s ETJ Number of lots: 2 Project Acreage: 3.69 Zoning District: Unzoned PPIN Number: 54636 Surveyor of record: GEO Surveying, Inc. School District: J Larry Newton, Fairhope Middle, Fairhope High School Report prepared by: Carla L. Davis City Planner Recommendation: Approval N Subject Property N Subject Site C ITY OF FA IRHOPE ZONING 7 n 11 ia !1 g'~ Tn Tn1 ·~'1r.'-'!"I -R ,\::l.o::.:i.':1n li,df;41 1iw r1i. ,o ~ i-.;. mTITl w c..u ~A ·(h• ~!{'(.~: -I"!-~ M,,.to,.,, r, ,OC•l:,,f,,,!j, ,_,-., .a,. -P.-) 11<1n •)~-.,i:-.$1r<1lt -·:im ry n -~ r,,;-:.H r r ·1n.r.r11'!'\.-:n ~,1-.9rr -F-n n-1y -il-'.-'J, Ill l )...,.,ou~.;lll(M l •r •)· -R 4 l vw0 111n..,ty L1 u li f :.mi y 1-'.-> 1,on o ~,,,::,1.>we1n":-.:e,,,e nt a1 -3--•1 Lc,:ol ~"loo,:.1no o ,1r ::1 A-' r:,.,.,..,,F1 ,,,.,,,::~•o;.1,; J -0 -)~ T❖ull 'fl P.M-,nL•:<l(,IIII O OIUlld -ti :J•., 1.,undK.,.,,;1I C un H•U llll ~,:,1v vi,U ~ .J -Ll-4 U1a nM$!.nd :-''❖'tt tl(•i.tl l\'lt l(t -1,1 I L 11hl mJ•.t.:lli :.I Did 1i..s. -r -·r 11 11·1n11 P Iii"! .,._,.,,..,1 l ,11 I 0 ..-... 1,1• ""' _1_1_ I 1 11111 2 SD 20.14 J & J Farms – April 6, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Rodney and Melissa Jemison owner and applicant for a 2-lot minor subdivision. The property is located on the north side of Champion Road just west of Old Pierce Road. The subject property is approximately 3.69 acres and the applicant desires to divide the property into two separate lots. The proposed Lot 1 is approximately 1.88 acres (81, 926 square feet) and has an existing dwelling on the property. The proposed Lot 2 is approximately 1.82 acres (79,140 square feet). Comments: The subject property is in Fairhope’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations. The proposed subdivision according to Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations is a minor subdivision and has been reviewed accordingly. Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations Article V I Section D requires the provision of sidewalks along all streets in the Planning Jurisdiction of Fairhope. The preliminary plat depicts a 15’ drainage, utility, and sidewalk easement. The applicant has also requested a sidewalk waiver. The proposed subdivision does not include the building of any infrastructure or improvements at this time, therefore a tree protection plan, landscape plan, and other criteria required for a major subdivision is not applicable. The proposed subdivision did not trigger a traffic study. Concerning storm water runoff none of the existing flow patterns will be changed by this replat. Water services will be provided by the City of Fairhope. Power is supplied by Baldwin County EMC. It should be pointed out that the applicant will have individual septic tanks, which requires the Health Department’s approval. Waiver Request: Article VI Section D. Sidewalks requirement in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations which states, “sidewalks shall be installed on all streets within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope.” The applicant has provided a letter stating the following regarding the request for a sidewalk waiver: The purpose of this letter is to request a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for the J & J Farms Subdivision on Champion Road. This property is located in a rural area of the County that is currently unzoned. The reasons for the request are the nature of the subdivision, proximity to the City of Fairhope, connectivity to other sidewalks, and that Champion Road is a low volume/traffic roadw ay. This is a two lot division that has no proposed infrastructure. The HL Sonny Callahan Airport is the closest property that is within the City limits of Fairhope and is approximately four (4) miles from this location. The closest subdivision with sidewalks is Stone Creek off of SR-181 which is over four (4) miles away and the closest sidewalks not within a residential subdivision are on US-98 (South Greeno Road) approximately six (6) miles away. A. WAIVER STANDARDS: (Staff response in purple) 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. Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Though no hardship is presented, currently there are no sidewalks in the nearby vicinity. However, the applicant is proposing to allow a 15’ sidewalk easement thus a sidewalk can be constructed in the future if needed. 3 SD 20.14 J & J Farms – April 6, 2020 2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider. Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Not applicable for this individual case. 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. Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Staff finds that this waiver will not nullify the intent of the regulations because the existing character of the surrounding properties is such that there are no sidewalks. However, the applicant has provided additional space for the construction of a sidewalk, if needed. 4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship; Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Because property is allocated for future construction for sidewalks, the waiver would be a minimal deviation from the required standard. 5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public; Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: No, the waiver shall not have adverse effects. 6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done. Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Staff is neutral on this standard. 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; • Not 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; • Not applicable 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 of SD 20.14 conditional upon the following: 1) the approval of a sidewalk waiver by the Planning Commission. 1 SD 20.15 The Summit – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 4-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval Case: SD 20.15 The Summit Project Name: The Summit Property Owner /Applicant: Ronald Gawrysh/ Dena Stratton General Location: The property is located on the east side of Young St. across from Kirkman Ln. Project Type: Minor Subdivision inside Fairhope’s ETJ Number of lots: 4 Project Acreage: 19.35 Zoning District: Unzoned PPIN Number: 3675 Surveyor of record: Geo Surveying School District: Fairhope Elementary, Intermediate, Middle, and High School Report prepared by: Samara Walley, MCP City Planner Recommendation: Approval N N Subject Site Young St. Ingleside Ave. Ingleside Ave. Young St. Subject Site ti.l'C,,.-,1&,io.-.-0,w.., ■s.::,Tau•ulm<>n.\.ooi')i!l'..-i<I -~i,..;,,To..,.;.,'1-.cc..,......,,,~a • r,..&.;,.,_.,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,,,, Cl= ■u..1.Llcr."'\""""""'10.,,;,,, ■,.1.r,""""" O\JD"'-"'lll,r,,-~ ll W«0-t"Sl:-.~-~ TTI ~!!•! ~-~,_,-i.,.......,,...., ~ ~\(,.).llo..id""'ol~"'<o,ta,, ~licl-Aeo·c1o-~Ol'IOlt, 2 SD 20.15 The Summit – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Ronald Gawrysh and Dena Stratton for plat approval of The Summit, a 4-lot minor subdivision. The property is approximately 19.35 acres and it is located on the east side of Young Street across from Kirkman Lane. Comments: The subject property is in Fairhope’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations. The proposed subdivision according to Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations is a minor subdivision and has been reviewed accordingly. The proposed subdivision does not include the building of any infrastructure or improvements therefore a tree protection plan, landscape plan, and other criteria required for a major subdivision is not applicable. The proposed subdivision did not trigger a traffic study. Concerning storm water runoff none of the existing flow patterns will be changed by this replat. Water services will be provided by the City of Fairhope. Sewer is not available. Power is supplied by Riviera Utilities. AT&T will provide services as well. The initial preliminary plat illustrated “standing water” on the northeast corner of the proposed Lot 1. According to Article IV., Section C.1.b.(18) of the subdivision regulations, wetland(s) delineation and buffers are required to be illustrated. A wetland survey was performed by Oceanic & Agricultural Research & Survey. It was determined that there was no evidence of wetlands present on the subject site. The preliminary plat illustrates a 4-lot subdivision. Existing sidewalks are shown along Young Street. It should be noted that there is an existing residence on the proposed Lot 2. A 40-foot drainage easement runs diagonally across proposed Lots 3 and 4. It should also be noted that the proposed Lot 4 extends to Ingleside Drive. 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; • Not 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; • Not applicable 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 of SD 20.15. Emily Boyett From: Emily Boyett Sent: To: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:37 PM Emily Patterson Subject: RE: Questions -The Summit on Young St Ms. Patterson, You are correct. The owners are proposing to split their property into 4 lots. If the subdivision is approved, they will maintain one of the lots where they recently built a home. The remaining three lots will be sold. The City does not have any information as to whom the lots will be purchased by but it is possible that the lots could be purchased for commercial use since the property is unzoned. Cordially, Emily Boyett City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Dept. 555 S. Section Street P. 0. Box 429 Fairhope, AL 36533 251.990.0214 Office 251.990.2879 Fax emily.boyett@fairhopeal.gov From: Emily Patterson <emily@joyworkscounseling.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:10 PM To: Emily Boyett <Emily.Boyett@fairhopeal.gov> Subject: Re: Questions -The Summit on Young St Thank you so much for your quick response and patience in answering my questions. Please forgive my ignorance about how zoning, construction and subdivisions work in general! So just to make sure I understand correctly, the current owners are just subdividing the property and selling the lots first? There are no current plans for building new homes at this time? Are these types of lots typically purchased by individuals to build homes on, or are there plans to sell to a developer? Also, if this is unzoned land and it's sold to someone who wants to use the land for commercial purposes, is it possible that it could be used for something besides residential property? On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:52 PM Emily Boyett <Emily.Boyett@fairhopeal.gov> wrote: Ms. Patterson, 1 I have received your comments and a copy will be provided to the Planning Commission as part oftheir information packet regarding the referenced case. I can also address your questions prior to the meeting. 1. Each ofthe proposed lots front on Young Street; therefore, no new street or road is proposed to be constructed. If approved, individual driveways will be installed as the lots are developed. 2. No road is proposed. Individual lots may choose to gate their driveway. 3. The property is currently unzoned land in Baldwin County; therefore, there are no use restrictions. 4. No improvements are proposed for Young Street. Any concerns with speeding or current issues can be addressed with the Traffic Committee and the Police Department. 5. The property is currently unzoned land in Baldwin County. At this time the City has not received any request to annex the subject property. 6. If approved, the development of each lot would be dependent upon the property owner. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments. Cordially, Emily Boyett City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Dept. 555 S. Section Street P. 0. Box 429 Fairhope, AL 36533 251.990.0214 Office 251.990.2879 Fax emily.boyett@fairhopeal.gov From: Emily Patterson <emily@joyworkscounseling.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 12:58 PM To: planning <planning@fairhopeal.gov> Subject: Questions -The Summit on Young St 2 Dear Planning Commission, I'm an adjacent property owner to the proposed subdivision, "The Summit," on Young Street. I have resided at 19251 Young Street since 2017 and am glad to hear about new additions to our neighborhood. Please send me a calendar invitation so that I can join the public hearing on May 4. I have the following questions about the subdivision: 1. Where will the ingress and egress to the subdivision be located? 2. Will it be gated? 3. Will these be single family homes? 4. Will there be any traffic alterations? FYI -there is a problem with drivers speeding and driving recklessly on Young between Kirkman and Twin Beech. My driveway columns were recently destroyed in a car crash by a drunk driver speeding down the road, and speeding and racing is a daily occurrence. Some alterations in this area would probably be beneficial; however, I rarely notice any police presence here to monitor speeding. 5. Is this property located in the City or County? If it is zoned as City, will that affect the properties on the West side of the street that are currently zoned as County? 6. What is the time frame for building? Will there be trucks going up and down the road constantly? I am concerned about the noise level that may be created by the construction, as well as the wear and tear on the road, etc. Thank you, Emily Patterson Emily Patterson, LICSW, PIP Joyworks Counseling, LLC 28150 N Main St Daphne AL 36526 (t) 251.680.0734 (f) 251.517-0449 3 www.joyworkscounselinq.com There are associated risks involved with electronically transmitting information. Safeguards are taken to protect your information. Please let us know if you wish to discontinue this correspondence via email or fax. This email or fax and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us at emily@joyworkscounseling.com. Emily Patterson, LICSW, PIP Joyworks Counseling, LLC 28150 N Main St Daphne AL 36526 (t) 251.680.0734 (f) 251.517-0449 www.joyworkscounselinq.com There are associated risks involved with electronically transmitting information. Safeguards are taken to protect your information. Please let us know if you wish to discontinue this correspondence via email or fax. This email or fax and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us at emily@joyworkscounseling.com. 4 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Grenda Johnson <Grenda.Johnson@PrintXcel.com> Thursday, April 30, 2020 9:07 AM planning The Summit subdivision request I'm a property owner on Ingleside, adjacent to the owners requesting a subdivision (The Summit) on Young Street. We're most interested on what's going on in our neighborhood. Will you please send me the calendar invitation & instructions to: grenda.johnson58@yahoo.com ? Thank you, Grenda Johnson Grenda Johnson 19337 Ingleside Ave. Fairhope, AL 36532 Phone: 251-591-8621 Email address: grenda.johnson58@yahoo.com 1 Planning Department P.O. Box 429 Fairhope, AL 36533 Reference: Case SD 20.15, Subdivision The Summit 1. Resc.hedule Meeting Date Williams 8102 Daniel Drive Forestville, Maryland 20747 April 29, 2020 a) The Certifie9 Letter was received on April 27, 2020 allowing only three (3) business daY;S to reply to the Planning Commission. b) It is requested that the meeting date May 4, 2020 be rescheduled to June 1, 2020 to allow residents sufficient time to respond to the Planning Department in this matter. 2. Ingleside Avenue Easement a) The current easement from Ingleside Avenue to Lot 4 on the Plat shall continue to exist for ingress and egress for continued use by the adjacent property owners and not to be interrupted or interfered with. b) The subdivision Plat does not show any road entry (ingress/egress) for lots ] , 3, and 4. Will each lot have a separate road for vehicles entry? Why does the Plat have two 2 utilities easement on each lot? 3. Homes and Price a) How many homes does the developer plan to build on each 4.6 acre lot? b) Are there gojng to be any restrictions on the number of homes that can be built on each 4.6 acr¢ lot now and in the future? c) If other requests are submitted to the City of Fairhope for rezoning the lots to build more homes beyond the current plan, how will the City of Fairhope respond? d) Based on the developer's plan for the subdivision what is the price range for the homes (lowest price to highest price)? e) The developer of the Summit subdivision homes in this historic African American community shall agree to discount/reduce home or land prices l 0% for African American residents from the Fairhope community. 4. Annexation a) If this property is not within the city limits of Fairhope, how will the property be annexcrd into the city limits of Fairhope? 5. Subdivision Water Drainages a) The developer/builder is responsible to ensure water drainage flowing into and from the subdivision lots will not be diverted causing runoff or flooding onto adjacent properties. b) Will there be a detention or a retention pond for water drainage and where will the pond fye located? Regards, Lionel Williams File: Letter City of Fairhope PC 04r29-_2020 V2 Emily Boyett From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Emily Boyett, Andrea Smith <drea_37us@yahoo.com> Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:54 PM planning The Summit Subdivision We the people of Young St are opposed to the Summit Subdivision. I, Andrea A. Smith have spoken to many residences of the community and we feel the subdivision is a part ofthe City of Fairhope plan to gentrify Young St. Fairhope has many other subdivisions the people can move too. This is a peaceful street and community. We don't want others coming onto our street where we live, and pay taxes telling us how and how not to go about our daily routine. We fear building this subdivision will not only brining strangers we do not know, but fear of not being able to walk down the street without the police being called us because we "look suspicious," or someone being murdered due to a hoodie or some other outlandish excuse that can be made to target and justify gentrification of Young St. I would like to be invited to attend the virtual meeting on Monday to also say we oppose of it. Thank you, Andrea A. Smith 1 1 SD 20.16 Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 Case: SD 20.16 Resubdivision of Lot 4 East Fairhope Plaza Project Name: Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza Site Data: Lot 1 – 1.150 acres +/- Lot 2 – 1.356 acres +/- Project Type: Major Subdivision Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: Unzoned Baldwin County within County Planning District 14 PPIN Number: 312284 General Location: 1/10 mile south of intersection of Fairhope Ave and St. Hwy. 181 Engineer of Record: Stephanie Groves, PE Owner / Developer: Triple “C” Development, Inc. School District: Fairhope Elementary, Intermediate, Middle, and High Schools Recommendation: Approval with conditions Prepared by: J. Buford King Development Services Manager 2 SD 20.16 Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of surveyor of record Mr. Matthew Roberts, PLS and engineer of record Ms. Stephanie Groves, PE of Gulf States Engineering on behalf of Jay Machleit of Triple “C” Development for the approval of a the Resubdivision of lot 4 East Fairhope Plaza, a two-lot major subdivision. Subject property is located on the east side of State HWY 181 1/10 mile south Fairhope Avenue / County Road 48, west of the existing Wal-Mart Supercenter. Proposed Lot 1 is 1.150 acres +/- and proposed Lot 2 is 1.356 acres +/-. Installation of a new water main to serve the subdivision triggers a “major” subdivision application Comments: The following items are excerpts from the various checklists utilized by staff to evaluate subject application’s compliance with the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations and other relevant ordinances and are included here to provide relevant background and rationale behind staff’s recommendation. 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. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(3) Names and addresses of the following: • owner • designer • applicant • all associated investors • record owners of lands immediately adjacent to subdivision. ☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Please furnish all associated investors of Triple “C” Development. A copy of the articles of incorporation of Triple C Development, Inc. was furnished. Jay Machleit is listed as the sole director of this corporation. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(8) Plan and profiles of all proposed utilities with connections ☐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: Utility availability letters not furnished for electrical power and communications. By virtue of submission of plans and profiles of utilities to be installed, this review assumes availably of service of water and wastewater by Fairhope Public Utilities. If natural gas service is desired for the site, please provide a utility availably for natural gas. Chief Water Operator Curtis Cooper reviewed the plans and profiles and found them to be satisfactory. The water and sewer superintendent may have additional comments provided under separate cover and/or via conditions of approval noted in the Planning Commission staff report, and will likely have conditions of approval related to re-connection of existing services. An availability letter from Wade Mitchell of AT&T was furnished. 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: A flow model was furnished with the application for subdivision, however this flow model appears to be for file purposes and submitted for the sake of completeness. A new fire hydrant and the necessary plans and profiles for a main extension are included with drawing AS20003, sheets 1 and 2 and will be placed into service at the direction of the Water and Sewer Department of Fairhope Public Utilities. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(13) and Article V, Section D.5.a.(9) Tree protection plan for all required street trees or trees over 24” DBH. Tree protection fences shall be installed prior to land disturbance activities. (See Appendix G) ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Cross Reference: Ordinance number 1444, Tree Ordinance Comments: In the previous submission of this subdivision (Case # SD 18.07) the applicant indicated in the preliminary plat checklist that existing trees will be maintained. This review assumes the intentions of the applicant I I I I I I I I 3 SD 20.16 Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza May 4, 2020 to maintain existing trees for subject application – all existing trees are noted on the preliminary plat. Applicant is advised that compliance with Ordinance number 1444, Tree Ordinance must be maintained and corrections of any deficiencies to the satisfaction of the City Horticulturalist may be a condition of approval to the request for final plat. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(14) Minimum finished floor elevations for every lot. ☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Not shown on plat. Not shown on the revised plat. A condition of approval will memorialize that FFEs must be shown on the final plat prior to recording. Article IV, Section C.1.b.(18) Applicants shall provide site data and all applicable permits relative to items such as soils, wetlands, flooding, drainage, natural features and potential archeological features. ☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: As a component of the review of previous Case # SD 18.07 the Code Enforcement Officer noted the subject property is located in the Cowpen Creek watershed, and is therefore a priority construction site. The Code Enforcement Officer requested a copy of the wetland delineation for the site and that request is carried over to subject application. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory indicates “Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland” passing through the site through the previously-developed proposed Lot 2. For file purposes, the wetland delineation is required to satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations. A letter from Vittor and Associates was provided via follow-up submittal, indicating a wetland area is located on the subject property. As a condition of approval, the final plat shall note the location of the wetland and include the 30’ jurisdictional wetland buffer as required by Article V Section F.4.b. Article IV, Section C.1.d. Drainage plan prepared by professional engineer, including proposed method of storm water detention and means of controlling erosion during construction. Any portion of the land in the proposed subdivision subject to periodic inundation by storm drainage, overflow or ponding shall be clearly identified on the plat. Lands lying within the flood plain, V or A Zones, shall be clearly identified on the plat. Storm-water detention facilities shall be shown in the plans and calculations provided. ☐N/A ☐Accepted ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments Cross Reference: Article V, Section F.3.a., b., and c. Comments: The narrative included with the previous subdivision application (SD 18.07) indicated the desire to convey drainage from the subject property into the existing drainage system of the Wal-Mart site. Upon advisement of the Public Works Director, staff requests verification that the Wal-Mart site’s existing drainage system is as-built as-designed and therefore capable of handling drainage from the subject property. Please provide a narrative stamped by the engineer of record for the Wal-Mart site’s drainage system indicating “as-built as-designed”. As discussed during the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting, staff researched the original subdivision case number SD 09.01 related subject property. A letter of inspection from Whitley Engineering dated May 15, 2017 was included in the file. The professional engineering that signed the inspection letter approved the drainage system as functioning and providing the 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal required by Article V Section “F”. As a condition of approval the May 15, 2017 letter will be memorialized and an updated letter indicating the drainage system is “as-built as-designed” will be requested along with the request for final plat. I I I I 4 SD 20.16 Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza May 4, 2020 Article IV, Section C.1.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study ☐N/A ☐Accepted with comment ☒Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: Case # SD 18.07 included a letter stamped by a registered professional engineer in the State of Alabama indicting a traffic study was not warranted for the subdivision in lieu of a traffic study. The letter indicated no changes in trip generation are anticipated as a result of the proposed subdivision. For file purposes, and updated letter is required for subject application. An updated later dated Mach 13, 2020 signed and stamped by Stephanie Groves, PE was provided as requested. Article VI, Section F. Construction Standards-Water System ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Cross Reference: Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities Comments: The Fairhope Public Utilities chief water operator indicated plans and profiles of the new water service are acceptable. The Water and Sewer Superintendent will likely request conditions of approval related to the re- connection of services along the new water main to be furnished with this project. Article VI, Section G. Construction Standards-Fire Hydrants Fire Hydrants shall be installed along each street at a maximum interval of four hundred fifty (450) feet, or at the ends and center of each block, or as otherwise required by the fire authority having jurisdiction. Water supply and pressure shall be adequate to provide fire protection and for the future needs of the development. Blue reflective markers shall be installed at the street line of streets to indicate the location of fire hydrants. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Comments: The Fairhope Public Utilities chief water operator indicated plans and profiles of the new water service are acceptable. The Water and Sewer Superintendent will likely request conditions of approval related to the re- connection of services along the new water main to be furnished with this project. Article VI, Section H. Construction Standards-Sanitary Sewerage 1. All subdivisions shall have sanitary sewer service. The sewer service shall be provided by either the Fairhope Public Utilities or an approved sewer service. 2. All sanitary sewer systems constructed within a subdivision and all sanitary sewer systems constructed outside of a subdivision but servicing a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with those certain “Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities” which is on file at the City of Fairhope Water & Sewer Department. 3. Individual septic tank type systems that have been approved by the Baldwin County Health Department and the Fairhope Public Utilities Sewer Department may be utilized. ☐N/A ☒Accepted with comments ☐Revise and Resubmit per comments Cross Reference: Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities Comments: The water and sewer superintendent may have additional comments provided under separate cover and/or via conditions of approval noted in the Planning Commission staff report, and will likely have conditions of approval related to re-connection of existing services. 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; I I I I I I I I 5 SD 20.16 Resubdivision of Lot 4, East Fairhope Plaza May 4, 2020 • 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: Recommendation: Staff recommends concurrent preliminary and final plat APPROVAL of Case number SD 20.16, Resubdivision of Lot 4 East Fairhope Plaza, subject to the following conditions: 1) Article IV, Section C.1.b.(13) and Article V, Section D.5.a.(9) Memorialize that applicant is advised that compliance with Ordinance number 1444, Tree Ordinance must be maintained and corrections of any deficiencies to the satisfaction of the City Horticulturalist may be a condition of approval to the request for final plat. 2) Article IV, Section C.1.b.(14) Memorialize that finished floor elevations (FFEs) must be shown on the final plat at the time of final plat submission. 3) Article IV, Section C.1.b.(18) Memorialize that the jurisdictional wetland identified by Vittor and Associates shall be noted on the final plat and include the 30’ jurisdictional wetland buffer as required by Article V Section F.4.b. 4) Article IV, Section C.1.d. Memorialize for subject case the letter of inspection dated May 15, 2017 by Whitley Engineering indicating the drainage system appears to be “as-built as- designed”. a. Further memorialize the requirement for final plat submittal that an updated letter indicating the drainage system servicing subject property is “as-built as-designed.” 5) Article VI, Section F., G., and H. Disconnection of existing services and reconnection of existing services to the new water main shall be provided by the developer. Coordinate all connection and reconnection with the Fairhope Public Utilities Water and Sewer Superintendent. Looking south along HWY 181 toward subject property from existing Lot 3 Looking east toward proposed Lot 1 from west side of HWY 181 1 UR 20.03 Southern Light N. Section Street – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 Case: UR 20.03 Southern Light – 831 N. Section Street Project Name: 831 N. Section Street Applicant: Southern Light, LLC Owner: City of Fairhope Rights of Way Project Scope: 917’ of directional boring to Install fiber optic cable Jurisdiction: City of Fairhope Corporate Limits General Location: N. Section street between Creek Drive and Volanta Avenue Prepared by: J. Buford King Development Services Manager Recommendation: Approve with conditions .... i,,;,.,.._ • (,,A n .-IL t,,.1~ Q BEGIN PROJE<;I" " ! ENDPROJEcr ... J ,I ........ d -! 2 UR 20.03 Southern Light N. Section Street – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Request of Southern Light for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed underground installation of approximately 917 linear feet of fiber optic cable. The project will run along North Section Street beginning south of Creek Drive (near the entrance to Fly Creek Marina) terminating near Volanta Avenue. Comments: The proposed utility construction falls within the Corporate limits of the City of Fairhope. The comments below are typical general comments for City of Fairhope right-of-way projects. Any portions of the project affecting public rights-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. Southern Light proposes construction of the project utilizing directional boring. In the description of work, the applicant states that they intend to bore a minimum 60” deep along N. Section Street as well as 60” deep for a street crossing. Plans and profiles of the work have been submitted, and an enlarged map of the work area as well as an enlarged aerial image of the work area is included below: l N E DPROJECT BEG 3 UR 20.03 Southern Light N. Section Street – May 4, 2020 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. N 4 UR 20.03 Southern Light N. Section Street – May 4, 2020 • The applicant shall provide drawings locating their utilities with other utilities and the sidewalks. Any boxes/handholes 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 Richard D. Johnson, PE, Public Works Director, to resolve any potential conflicts. • All conduit/cable shall be placed at a depth from existing grade per industry and/or County Standards as applicable. 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 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. 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. o The Building Official may provide supplements to the flier at the time of ROW permit issuance for which the applicant shall comply. 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 or as directed by staff. Natural Gas Standard Comments: • Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities. 5 UR 20.03 Southern Light N. Section Street – May 4, 2020 Additional Review Comments: 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). State and Federal permits, as applicable, shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the issuance of City of Fairhope permits. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of UR 20.03 subject to the following conditions: 1. Consultation with the City’s horticulturalist, Paul Merchant, to determine if the required depth of bore must be increased so that no trees are impacted by the project. The contractor is responsible for any damaged trees. 2. Edit the note on drawings FLCRSP-1 and 2 to reflect 36” separation from all drainage and utilities 3. At all street crossing locations, conduct potholing to determine exact location and elevation of existing utilities. Reflect the exact elevation of utilities and gps coordinates of the pothole locations on a set of as-built drawings. a. An additional right-of-way permit may be required for the potholing procedures. 4. Memorialize the follow-up activities below required by staff and the applicant: a. Applicant shall submit as-built drawings to the Construction Inspector reflecting the requirements of condition of approval “2” above. b. Upon satisfactory review and approval by staff, as-builts will be submitted to the utilities GIS technician for inclusion in GIS utility maps as needed. N 1 SD 20.18 Gayfer Place – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval Case: SD 20.18 Gayfer Place Subdivision Project Name: Gayfer Place Subdivision Property Owner /Applicant: James Scopolites General Location: The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension and Bishop Road Project Type: Minor Subdivision inside Fairhope’s ETJ Number of lots: 3 Project Acreage: 6.18 Zoning District: Unzoned PPIN Number: 43888 Surveyor of record: Moore Surveying Inc School District: Fairhope Elementary, Intermediate, Middle, and High Schools Report prepared by: Samara Walley, MCP City Planner Recommendation: Approve with Conditions N N Subject Site Gayfer Rd. Ext. Bishop Rd. Subject Site Gayfer Rd. Ext. Bishop Rd. ..... ■61-~~Dl,o,,q b.!.C..-•llklL.._.O..Ua ■B-J, '""""R<-,,,n.l<>;li"iD..-ia ■ ~b~T°'"""' ~ .. -.c~-.....,., ~""" .&j_g,.,.,..., .. ,rcf,-,"'""'Obc,c .M-I-Uc;"'\ .. ...,,;,,1 □.,;;,, -~-I-P1~ "IJO"-"'dV,.•o,;._....... ULuo.lJ~l"II •"--,. TTI •I!•! ~•P"""""'......, ... ., ~ l\(1>)--Qor~olll"<olW'O •11<1-~c,·de.,....,._.00'1>in 11-t.ltl.,d;""'tt,,...,.Si'fi"'$'"'") ■11-.!-l+'l"°""-"'Ys.-.i .. ·•-, N"<}MP.,,ol(,f'l!""S-,0.........,.,. (:l,;311'•--.S,,,gk,Ml ., .. ~O-l)'M1o.-.h-,,l7 U ,H<~o.r.,1<f\O'...uir9~wo~O<ZioJ IU-M,,l,•11 r-,HT""" u.~ .......... .i.s,;"""""-o;.,,.,:ic •lR-T°"""lla,u1 2 SD 20.18 Gayfer Place – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of James Scopolites for plat approval of Gayfer Place Subdivision, a 3- lot minor subdivision. The property is approximately 6.18 acres and it located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension and Bishop Road. Comments: The subject property is in Fairhope’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations. The proposed subdivision according to Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations is a minor subdivision and has been reviewed accordingly. The proposed subdivision does not include the building of any infrastructure or improvements therefore a tree protection plan, landscape plan, and other criteria required for a major subdivision is not applicable. The proposed subdivision did not trigger a traffic study. Concerning storm water runoff none of the existing flow patterns will be changed by this replat. The City of Fairhope will provide water, sewer, power and gas services. AT&T will provide services as well. The preliminary plat illustrates a 2-lot subdivision at the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension and Bishop Road. Existing sidewalks are shown along Gayfer Road Extension. There are no sidewalks along Bishop Road. If approved, the plat should be revised to illustrate sidewalks or a sidewalk easement along Bishop Road. It should be noted that there is an existing residence, mobile home and shed located on the proposed Lot 1 and a residence and two sheds on proposed Lot 2. Lastly, it should be noted that the proposed Lot 2 will have two street frontages. 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; • Not 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; • Not applicable 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 of SD 20.18 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Provision of a revised plat illustrating a sidewalk along Bishop Road or a sidewalk easement. 1 SD 20.18 Aldi Subdivision – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval Case: SD 20.19 Aldi Subdivision Project Name: Aldi Subdivision Property Owner /Applicant: Aldi Inc. of Alabama General Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of State Hwy. 181 County Road 48 (a.k.a. Fairhope Avenue). Project Type: Minor Subdivision inside Fairhope’s ETJ Number of lots: 2 Project Acreage: 7.14 Zoning District: Unzoned PPIN Number: 248109 Surveyor of record: Lawler and Company School District: Fairhope Intermediate, Fairhope Middle, Fairhope High School Report prepared by: Samara Walley, MCP City Planner Recommendation: Approve with Conditions N N Subject Site Fairhope Ave. Hwy. 181 Subject Site Fairhope Ave. Hwy. 181 1,792 ,. ...... ■ iJ-i, r.,.,-.. t ~-.1.<.<1.c"ilt);"""'' ■ ~;,~.r•-~..anC.C-.1tt<ll~<r • 6,..,1 .i,. ....... ~,.of,,~""' ~ • .i.1.UQ.,.,o,....,.;,,tO.n\a ■ p.1.p......., ~.._t,o,,,0,..,..- lti.,,,,,,O~t"ll•"-''I" TI)IIT!ol h~"'"4."'..,,.__., ~ lj\.,j .1't.t<do,,.~l/sc- l1~-11~·-~,1u,- <t.2.l.!edl""'O.""")'S.sgd.,,., ■11,,1-l+gH),on,lry~-I NO(f~ o.,kil(;o._s-,g..~i; CJ ~ti-' ~-'5,,,g!,,F,o-,,,~ ■ r4i.-tlffls1)'M ... -.t...,,, ~, .... ~•0,,-1"J D'-11iov~... ·,, U-MoC,011_,.r,,t-c;,,.;a U-~._.,,,., .. :"-!;~Diw::, -~-,--,, 2 SD 20.18 Aldi Subdivision – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Aldi Inc. of Alabama for plat approval of Aldi Subdivision, a 2-lot minor subdivision. The property is approximately 7.14 acres and is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of State Hwy. 181 and County Road 48 (a.k.a. Fairhope Avenue). Comments: The subject property is in Fairhope’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations. The proposed subdivision according to Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations is a minor subdivision and has been reviewed accordingly. The proposed subdivision does not include the building of any infrastructure or improvements therefore a tree protection plan, landscape plan, and other criteria required for a major subdivision is not applicable. The proposed subdivision did not trigger a traffic study. Concerning storm water runoff none of the existing flow patterns will be changed by this replat. Due to scheduling conflicts caused by COVID-19, the applicant could not obtain flow model data prior to the completion of the Staff Report. A fire hydrant will be required within 450’ of each lot. The hydrant(s) should be clearly illustrated on the preliminary plat. The information is forthcoming and will be a condition of the subdivision approval. Water and gas services are available through the City of Fairhope. The City of Fairhope cannot provide sewer services. Electrical services shall be provided by Baldwin EMC. The preliminary plat illustrates a 2-lot subdivision at the intersection of Fairhope Avenue and Highway 181. There are no existing sidewalks along Highway 181 or Fairhope Avenue at the subject site. The applicant has provided a 10’ sidewalk easement along Highway 181 and Fairhope Avenue. 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; • Not 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; • Not applicable 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 of SD 20.19 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 3 SD 20.18 Aldi Subdivision – May 4, 2020 1. Provision of a revised plat illustrating a fire hydrant(s) within 450’ of each proposed lot prior to the signing of the Final Plat. 2. Provision of flow model date prior the signing of the Final Plat. 1 SD 20.20 Live Oak Estates – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 Preliminary Plat Case: SD 20.20 Live Oak Estates Subdivision Project Name: Live Oak Estates Property Owner /Applicant: Moyd Family/Mullins, LLC General Location: Southwest corner of Bay Meadows Ave and ST. HWY 181 Project Type: Preliminary Plat Number of lots: 76 Project Acreage: 33.66+/- Zoning District: Planned Unit Development PPIN Number: 15078 Engineer of record: Micah Jones, P.E. Mullins LLC School District: Fairhope Elementary, Intermediate, Middle, and High School Report prepared by: Mike Jeffries, QCI Planner Recommendation: Approved with conditions CITY OF FAIRHOPE ZONING Zon~ rla nt~RHM R-•Rudlllli.1 1.t,gno,llwe D .. •CI R•I LOWDl!flU)'So\fl..,tlll,I)" [DillJ 111f1) G::J Al (D) 111(~ -11-2 M-IIIDefl!l,!yS11"'"1a,11llr -R-ltlf!ll!O.,.uySir,gi..famty R-3 PGH P~ S. ,,....., 0 R-3ll!TD-.S11gla,amly N .R .. low0ffltf)IMUlll.f..,,,'1 A.-5"9'1Dtn•ill'D .... f\9Rnid!IIMI R..t MobtaN-PIO\D- -fl...l ~S~O~CI S-2 G-.ia1111~uaooe=cr -8-3' T-tllltMtll.O<IQrlQ01$111CI -8-3b T-«Rtt.OIICOfll..,_alS....-aDllttla -8-' 8u1-.-IPN,ll!ff...,..D111na -.1t.1UgllllN:IUl,lnalOl- -p.1Ptl\~ PUDP~IJftlOt,,...111,pmtr,t D P.rc:ejli,11.JM Subject Property 2 SD 20.20 Live Oak Estates – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of FST Pauline J. Moyd for Preliminary plat approval of Live Oak Estates, a 76-lot subdivision. The property is approximately 33.66 acres and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Hwy. 181 and Bay Meadows Avenue. The subject property received final approval at the January 27th City Council meeting for a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Comments: The proposed subdivision has been reviewed according to Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations. The property being a PUD has an approved site plan that this subdivision had to be reviewed against as well. The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with both. - The subject property being a PUD has a remnant parcel that has the same allowed business uses as B-4 Zoning in Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance. The PUD also requires that a mandatory Site Plan Review be done for future development on tract ‘A’ - Storm water is directed to a wet pond providing the required 80% TSS removal - A traffic study conducted for the rezoning of the subject property recommending that “the intersection of AL Highway 181 and Bay Meadows Avenue be widened to accommodate a northbound left turn lane. This lane will allow the future signal to operate with permitted/protected concurrent left turn phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches.” An updated study will be furnished and the recommendations will be required. SITE DA A U BER OF LOT S: 76 LOTS SMA LES T LO T SIZE: 10,50 0 SF TOTAL ARE A: 33 66 ACR ES± PRO POSED ZO ING: CITY OF FAIR HO PE, PU D SE TBACKS : FRO T REA R: SIDE : SIDE S REET: 20 FEET 15 FEET 8 FE ET 20 FEE TOTA L CO MMON AREA 8 62 AC± RESERVED FOR GRE EN SPACE: 767 AC±(22.8% OF TOTAL ACREA GE) RESE RV ED FOR DETENTI ON: 3.95 AC± DE SITY: 2.26 U ITS/ AC E (RES IDENT IAL) 3 SD 20.20 Live Oak Estates – May 4, 2020 - 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; • 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 SD 20.20 Live Oak Estates Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Add note on plat that “Future development on Tract ‘A’ per Ordinance No. 1672 shall be limited to B-4 Business and Professional District allowed uses per Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance and will require a mandatory Site Plan Review. 2. Revise stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement and inspection Note 1. on Plans page 14 to reflect inspections are every fifth year after submittal of the first inspection report. - ---- BAY MEADOWS AVENUE ALABAMA HIGHWAY 181(80' R.O.W.)(66' R.O.W.) Parcel Number: 05-46-05-22-0-000-001.522 Owner Name: FST CHRISTIE, STEPHANIE Parcel Number: 05-46-05-22-0-000-001.523 Owner Name: FST BOWLES, MATTHEW Parcel Number: 05-46-05-22-0-000-001.529 Owner Name: FST ROSHETKO, MARK T ETUX Parcel Number: 05-46-05-22-0-000-001.572PIN: 77747Owner Name: FST LA DEVELOPMENT L L C Parcel Number: 05-46-05-22-0-000-001.506PIN: 14699Owner Name: FST HATHORN, WAYNE D (2/3 INT)ETAL GAFF Parcel Number:05-46-05-22-0-000-001.568PIN: 77625Owner Name: FST YEAGER, FLOYD CJR ETAL YEAGER, IVOL Parcel Number:05-46-05-22-0-000-001.588PIN: 80973Owner Name: FST JACKSON,TIMOTHY T & ADELL G Parcel Number:05-46-05-22-0-000-001.552PIN: 14490Owner Name: FST CARRIER,RICHARD A & MARY S Parcel Number:05-46-05-22-0-000-001.551PIN: 15054Owner Name: FST SYLVESTER,ELLIOTT T ETAL SYLVESTER Parcel Number:05-46-05-22-0-000-001.589PIN: 81134Owner Name: FST DEWBERRY,RANDY M ETUX GAIL G Parcel Number:05-46-05-22-0-000-001.550PIN: 15199Owner Name: FST WRIGHT,DOUGLAS W OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSBRONZE ST.50' R/WBRONZE ST.50' R/W GOLDEN LEAF AVE.50' R/WGOLDEN LEAF AVE.50' R/W HARDWOOD AVE.50' R/W HARDWOOK AVE.50' R/W SPLIT BRANCH AVE.50' R/W WWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSS SS SS SSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS111 11 0 110 108 108107106 106 105 10 5 105105104104 10 3 103102102 10110010 0 10099999999 98989897 97 9796969 6 95 959594 94939393939 3 92899 2 929 1 91 110 108 108 107 106 105 104102101 100 105104 103102101 100 98 97 96 95 95 9897 96 95 94 93 92 10510510410310210110099989796959493939291909291909089888786100 103 101 106 101 10299 85109 108 107112107 106 979410095101 85 80868785838382848484848484 79758076837676777880787576777980828183123456789101112131415161718COMMON AREA 'A'COMMON AREA 'B'COMMON AREA 'B'COMMON AREA 'A'COMMON AREA 'C'COMMON AREA 'A'COMMON AREA 'D'±4.30 ACTRACT 'A'COMMON AREA 'D'19202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758696867666564635960616276757473727170±0.70 AC±3.95 AC±2.73 AC±1.24 AC71737274757174728380858426" Live Oak30" Live Oak26" Live Oak24" Water Oak24" Water Oak24" Pecan27" Pecan27" Pecan26" Live Oak26" Oak30" Live Oak36" Live Oak26" Oak36" Live Oak36" Live Oak30" Live Oak24" Live Oak26" Live Oak36" Live Oak30" Oak24" Live Oak24" Live Oak46" Live Oak40" Live Oak46" Live Oak46" Live Oak36" Live Oak40" Live Oak24" Live Oak26" Live Oak46" Live Oak24" Live Oak26" Live Oak30" Live Oak30" Live Oak40" Live Oak36" Live Oak24" Live Oak26" Live Oak30" Live Oak30" Live Oak26" Live Oak24" Live Oak26" Live Oak30" Live Oak24" Live Oak26" Live Oak30" Live Oak26" Live Oak40"+ Live OakPreservation area, withminimal disturbance,including ex. treesPreservation area, withminimal disturbance,including ex. trees520 LF Barricade,per notes50 LF Barricade,per notes50 LF Barricade,per notesPreservation area, withminimal disturbance,including ex. trees775 LF Barricade,per notesPreservation area, with minimaldisturbance, including ex. treesREVISIONS Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: ------ --------------------- All documents, including Drawings and Bid Specifications,prepared or furnished by Firms listed on face, areinstruments of service in respect of the client and firmslisted on face, shall retain an ownership and propertyinterest therein whether or not the Project is completed.Such documents are not intended to represented to besuitable for reuse by the Client or others on extensions ofthe Project or on any other project. Any reuse withoutwritten verification by Firms listed on face will entitleFirms listed on face to further compensation at rates tobe agreed upon by Firms listed on face and the Client.SHEET NUMBER1Job No.19-113PDate:2020 2/20Drawn By:HMSChecked By:HMSLandscape PlanPREPARED FOR:Breland Homes Fairhope, ALLive Oaks EstatesLandscape PlanScale: 1" = 100'N Ex. Significant Tree to be removedEx. Significant Tree to remainSignificant Tree Symbol Legend:Total Ex. Significant Trees176178Tree Protection Notes:1. All ex. trees identified on this plan meet the City ofFairhope Subdivision Regulations designation of aSignificant Tree. No such designated trees shall beremoved without approval from the City.2. Protective barricades shall be placed as shown tocreate a protective area around existing SignificantTrees to remain. Such barricades shall remainin-place throughout all land alteration, siteclearing, and construction efforts.3. Barricades shall consist of chain link fencing erectedat the Tree Protection Lines as shown and shall besigned as follows:No entry, storage, temporary parking, ordisturbance allowed within barricade.4. Installation of barricades shall not destroy orirreversibly harm the root systems of protectedtrees. Any roots to be cut (outside the protectionareas) shall be severed cleanly as far from treetrunk as is practicable.5. Protective dry wells and/or drainage and aerationmeasures shall be implemented wheresurrounding grade is to be raised such thatponding of rainwater would occur in the rootzones of protected trees.6. Tree Protection Barricade Detail for installation canbe found in The City of Fairhope SubdivisionRegulations, Appendix G.Detention PondFuture Commercial LotNUMBER690SPROFES SIONALLANDSCAP E ARCHI T E C T AMABALAFOE T A T HARRYMATHISSNEEDQty. 36Ulmus parvifolia 'UPTMF' -- Bosque ElmMin. 3" Cal. -- B&B/WB -- Full & MatchedQty. 33Betula nigra 'BNMTF' -- Duraheat River BirchMin. 2" Cal. -- B&B/WB -- Full & Matched3-cane or 5-cane ONLYQty. 33Quercus texana -- Nuttall OakMin. 2" Cal. -- B&B/WB -- Full & MatchedPlant ListTop of root ball shall be flush withfinished grade, or slightly above.Trunk caliper shall be as specified on plans.Root flare shall be at top of rootball.Existing soil.Slope sides of loosened soil.Prior to mulching, lightly tamp soilaround the root ball in 6" lifts tobrace tree. Do not over compact.When the planting hole has beenbackfilled, pour water around theroot ball to settle the soil.Bottom of root ball rests on existing orrecompacted soil.Finish grade.3x widest dimension of root ball.Loosened soil. Dig and turn the soilto reduce compaction to the areaand depth shown.Tree Planting DetailNOT to ScaleCentral leader. (See crownobservations detail).Detail modified from resources by:Urban Tree Foundation © 2014Mulched, per notes. No more than1" of mulch on top of root ball.Ex. turf.4" high x 8" wide round-topped soil bermabove root ball surface shall be constructedaround the root ball. Berm shall begin at rootball periphery.Bed Edge per notes and details.1. Coordinate with all trades & verify all utility locations in field prior tobeginning of work. Damage to utilities caused by landscape installationshall be repaired at no cost or delay to the owner.2. Stake tree locations and layout bed lines for approval by LandscapeArchitect prior to installation. Adjust staked locations and bed lines asdirected.3. All landscape materials are subject to approval of the Owner or LandscapeArchitect at any time during the job, up until point of acceptance.4. All plants shall meet standards set forth by the American Standards forNursery Stock.5. Provide No. 1 grade or better nursery grown stock grown in an approved,recognized nursery in accordance with requirements of applicablestandards as noted herein. Provide only healthy, vigorous, stock free ofdisease, insects, injuries, abrasions crown die-back or disfigurements. Alltrees shall have a single, straight leader (co-dominate leaders areunacceptable) unless otherwise noted.6. Trees with narrow crotches of included bark, split bark with inrolled callus,dead, broken, or flush-cut branches will not be accepted. Rootballs shallbe firm, neat, slightly tapered and well burlapped. Trees with loose orbroken rootballs at time of planting shall be rejected. All trees indicatedas B&B/WB in plant schedule shall be balled and burlapped and set inwire basket at time of digging in nursery.7. Plant material transported in open vehicles / trailers is damaged andsubject to rejection.8. Any rejected plants shall be removed from the site and replaced byacceptable plants meeting drawings notes & specifications at noadditional cost to the owner.9. All plant material, upon delivery to site shall be immediately planted inprepared and prior approved beds and pits. If contractor is unable toplant within 2 hours of plant delivery to site, plants shall be heeled in,the roots kept moist, and plants otherwise protected and maintaineduntil installation at no cost to the owner.10. All plant material shall be handled by the container or rootball and not bythe top growth.11. Plants injured on job site are not acceptable and shall be replaced bycontractor at no additional cost to the owner.12. All plant material shall be warranted by Landscape Contractor for a periodof one year after final acceptance. Dead or declining plant material shallbe rejected and shall be replaced by landscape contractor at no cost tothe owner. It is the contractor's responsibility to contact the owner atthe end of the warranty period. If the contractor fails to notify and meetwith the owner, the warranty period shall continue until the meeting isheld, dead or declining plant material is replaced, and the project isaccepted by the owner.13. Tree staking shall be removed from established plants at the end of thewarranty period.14. Mulch for trees shall be pine straw; 2" settled thickness. Mulch shall extendmin. 6' around trees.15. Finish grade shall be approved by Landscape Architect and Owner'srepresentative. All weeds shall be sprayed then removed prior toplanting, seeding and or sodding.16. Topsoil for use on-site shall be approved by Landscape Architect prior toinstallation. Contractor shall submit to Landscape Architect min. 1 Gal.sample for review.Thoroughly mix approved topsoil with existing soil by use of rotary hoetype tiller or other suitable equipment which will give an even mix ofsoil, fertilizer, and sphagnum. Final surface of the area shall bereasonably smooth, free of weeds, roots, rocks and other debris to thesatisfaction of the engineer.Landscape Installation Notes:CIVIL ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT DESIGNSURVEYING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 41 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 106, Pensacola, FL 32502(850) 462-8412 ULLINS, LLCFeb 20, 2020G---0 I I I I ------7 I ~ I I Eli I I I I ---~====--- - - - - - -0 lo 0 I I ----t--= _-_ =-----=-_-_ =-----a •~---•---••----• 0 I I _ _J ______ _ 0-0 0 --------a----- - - - --------- -- - - - - - - - ---a--- - - - ---II-- - - - - - - -------0 I. I ,-0 I ,I --j •. f· I I 11 I 0 0 0 I I I I I I -,--~\' I 0 \I I {: 0 I _______ ,_ I I -0 0 I I ' I I I; 0 i 0 ---------------<"';~::··----·j-"t-----2'---•,-=c--' .-11',(-o I o '------=-~::\---1....'. 0 _, -..-D ,..-i--~,, / :: ' ' ---0-- - -7 I I ~~-! I I I I L __ I I I -0 * * 1 SD 20.21 RARE Properties Subdivision – May 4, 2020 Planning Commission May 4, 2020 2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval Case: SD 20.21 RARE Properties Project Name: RARE Properties Subdivision Property Owner /Applicant: Gumbo South LLC General Location: South side of US 98 between South Greeno and CR 13 Project Type: Minor Subdivision inside Fairhope’s ETJ Number of lots: 2 Project Acreage: 14.51+/- Zoning District: Unzoned PPIN Number: 5024 Engineer of record: Dewberry Engineers, Inc. School District: J. Larry Newton, Fairhope Middle and High School Report prepared by: Mike Jeffries, QCI City Planner Recommendation: Approve The subject property is 1.5 miles+/- south of the nearest Fairhope Zoned property. US 98 2 SD 20.21 RARE Properties Subdivision – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of Gumbo South, LLC for plat approval of RARE Properties Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division The property is located on the south side of US 98 between S. Greeno and CR 13. The subject property is approximately 14.51 acres. Comments: The subject property is not zoned by the City of Fairhope but is in Fairhope’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and therefore must follow Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations. The proposed subdivision according to Fairhope’s Subdivision Regulations is a minor subdivision and has been reviewed accordingly. The proposed subdivision does not include the building of any infrastructure or improvements therefore a tree protection plan, landscape plan, and other criteria required for a major subdivision is not applicable. The proposed subdivision did not trigger a traffic study. Concerning storm water runoff none of the existing flow patterns will be changed by this replat. The proposed subdivision exceeds the minimum lot width and size and provides the appropriate easements and setbacks. The lots will be serviced by private wells, private sewer, and Baldwin EMC for power. 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; • Not 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; • Not applicable 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 of SD 20.21 RARE Properties Subdivision --- 1 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 City of Fairhope Planning Commission May 4, 2020 Case: SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope, Phase One Final Plat Request Project Name: North Hills at Fairhope, Phase 1 Final Plat Request Site Data: Smallest Lot – 0.32 acres +/- Largest Lot – 1.25 acres +/- Project Type: Major Subdivision Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: R-1 Low Density Single Family and R-2 Medium Density Single Family PPIN Number: 98367 General Location: North side of State Highway 104 approximately ½ mile east of County Road 13 Engineer: Dewberry Owner / Developer: North Hills at Fairhope, LLC School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Approve with conditions Prepared by: Carla Davis City of Fairhope Planning Staff Subject Site Subject Site HWY. 104 County Rd 13 N •····· Subject Parcel C ITY O F FAI R H OPE ZONI NG Zon ing -T R Tourist Re$0rt -R-A Re s id entia l /AgriOJ 1ture Distri ct R-1 Lo w Density Sin gle-Fn m~y ITIIIII R 1(!!) ~R 1(b) ~R 1(c) -R-2 Med ium Density S in gle-Family -R-3 HighDens itySingle-F nmily R-3 PGH Patio/Gard en S in gle Fa mil y ~ R-3 TH Tov.nhouse Singl e Fam il y -R-4 Lo w DensityMulti..f am ily R-S High Density DY-elin g Res idential R-6 Mobne Hom e P eril District -B-1 Local Shopping District B-2 Generel Business Distri ct -B-3a Tourist Resort Lodgin !I Distri ct -8--Jb Tou ri st Resort Commerci al Service Distri ct -B-4 Business and Professional District -l.l-1 Light lnd ustria1D istricl -P-1 Pa r1!:ing PUD P lanned Unit.Deve lopment ~Parcel lot line ............... iW l D 2 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of North Hills at Fairhope, LLC for approval of the final plat of North Hills at Fairhope, Phase One; a forty-eight (48) lot major subdivision. The subject property is located on the north side of State Highway 104 approximately ½ mile east of County Road 13. Subject property consists of approximately 47.5 total acres, with the smallest lot being identified as 14, 278 square feet (0.32 acres) and the largest lot being 54,745 square f eet (1.25 acres). Mr. Jason Estes of Dewberry serves as the engineer of record (EOR) for subject development. Comments: • The subject site is Phase I of a two part phased subdivision. Development of Phase II has not yet been determined. • Phase I of the subject site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential except lots 22-30 which are zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Family. (The zoning map will be updated upon approval of the Final Plat). • All additional items identified on the Final Plat Checklist reviewed by the Planning Department have been submitted, revised, and completed by the applicant. 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 3 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 Site Photos: Looking northwest from Mount Pleasant Boulevard toward lots 45-48 Hwy. 104 – new sidewalk installation on west side of entrance towards Fly Creek Looking south west from Mount Pleasant Boulevard 4 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 Enlarged Aerial Map: HWY 104 Subject Site N 5 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 Enlarged Zoning Map: Subject Site County Road 13 N Legend •••••• Sub ject Parcel C ITY OF FA IR HOPE ZO NING Zon ing ~ TR Tou rist Resort -R-A Residentia l I Agri OJ ltu re Dist ri d R-1 Lo w Density Single-Fa mily UIIIl] R 1(a ) ~ R 1 (b) C'R 1(c) -R-2 Med iu m Density S ing le-Fam ily -R-3 High Density Sing le-Famil y R-3 PG H Pa ti o/Garden S ing le Family [=:I R-3 TH ToY.nhouse S ing le Fa mily -R-4 Low Density Mu lti-Fam ily R-5 High Density D welling Residential R--6 Iii obil e H ome P ark District -B-1 Loca l S hopping D istri ct B-2 General Business District -B-J a Tou ri st Resort Lodg ing Distri ct -B-3b Tou ri st Resort Comm ercial Service D istri ct -8-4 Business an d Professiona l D istrict -M-1 Li gh t Industri al District -P-1 Pa nting PU O P lanned Un it Deve lopment ~ Pa rce l Lot Li ne t 6 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 Final Plat: (Phase I) .. .., ., ,., .. ,., .. '+' ,., "',, ( ,., I I' ... I I ... 1 I "' ). I ,., \ ~ \ ... .. \ "' I I "' -.I f ,., I ,l, --------~.3'·---- 7 SD 20.22 North Hills at Fairhope Phase 1 Final Plat – May 4, 2020 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of case # SD 20.22, North Hills at Fairhope Phase I Final Plat contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions preceding application of signatures to the final plat: 1) Completion of any and all punch list items which shall be to the satisfaction of City of Fairhope staff prior to placing approval signatures on the final plat. 2) The warranty period for the sewer lift station shall not commence until the lift station pumps are installed in the wet well to the satisfaction of the Fairhope Public Utilities Water and Sewer Superintendent. 3) Memorialize the required follow-up procedures required of staff and the applicant: a. Applicant shall furnish to staff a copy of the recorded final plat AND a copy of the recorded stormwater Operations and Maintenance Agreement. b. Upon receipt of items included in “a” above, staff will prepare a DRAFT resolution of dedication of the streets and utilities and transmit the DRAFT resolution to the City Clerk for editing and inclusion on a future City Council meeting agenda for adoption by the Fairhope City Council. i. The Mayor of the City of Fairhope will execute resolution of dedication as well as the Maintenance and Guaranty Agreement upon adoption. ii. The City Clerk will serve as the custodian of the Maintenance and Guaranty Agreement, Maintenance Bond, Subdivision Performance Bond Agreement, and Subdivision Performance Bond until release of bonds by staff. c. Maintenance Bond Expiration: February 12, 2022 d. Subdivision Performance Bond Expiration: February 12, 2022 e. Stormwater O&M Inspection Begins: February 12, 2025 11450 Brenda Road/Kevin & Anna Anderson Minor Subdivision/Baldwin County Family-Split Kevin Anderson Kganderson4512@gmail.com This is an informal minor subdivision plat submittal with the hopes of staff approval for the requested waivers. Interpreting the subdivision regulations for the City of Fairhope the proposed minor subdivision would be classified as a major subdivision unless a waiver is granted for the fire hydrant construction standard located in Article VI, section G of the subdivision regulations. Reference the flow modeling section and Map 1 for more details about meeting Article VI, section G requirements. 11450 Bren 1da R1oad/Kevin & Anna A 1nderson 1 Contents Two Copies of the Plat .................................................................................................................................. 3 Two Sets of construction plans ..................................................................................................................... 3 One Copy of the plat in PDF format on disk ................................................................................................. 3 Subdivision application with Articles of Incorporation Attached ................................................................. 3 Error and Omissions Insurance ..................................................................................................................... 3 Drainage Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 3 BMP Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Street Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Pedestrian Circulation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 4 Landscape Plan including Street Trees and Tree Preservation Plan ............................................................. 4 Traffic Study .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Aerial with Topographic Overlay .................................................................................................................. 4 Utility plans and Profiles ............................................................................................................................... 4 A Street Lighting Plan .................................................................................................................................... 4 Proof of Receipt from the County ................................................................................................................. 4 Certificate of County Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 5 Memorandum of Transmittal signed indication County’s Receipt of Plat/Plans for Development being Submitted before Planning Commission ...................................................................................................... 5 Flow Modeling .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Property Owner Notification List .................................................................................................................. 6 Other engineering and pertinent documents: (including but not limited to Floodplain/floodway information, CLOMR, LOMR applications or correspondence, wetlands reports, and ADEM correspondence, ADEM notiications, ALDOT correspondence, etc.) ........................................................... 6 All applicable permits (eg. ALDOT, ADEM, COE, etc.) ................................................................................... 6 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2017 Family Subdivision Parcel ................................................................................................................. 7 Map 1: Parcel Map and Fire Hydrants ...................................................................................................... 8 Map 2: Baldwin County Contours with ESRI Satellite Imagery ................................................................. 9 Map 3: Soils Map..................................................................................................................................... 10 Map 4: Fire Station Travel Distance ........................................................................................................ 11 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 12 2 2017 Baldwin County Approval............................................................................................................... 14 Utility Providers via 811 .......................................................................................................................... 15 County Zoning ......................................................................................................................................... 16 3 Two Copies of the Plat Two copies of the final plat will be provided upon approval of this informal submission. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the existing plat and Appendix B for a description of the existing easement that will have to be extended to the North approximately thirty feet. Edits to be made to existing plat: o 30-foot ingress/egress with the extension of the existing easement provided to my parents, John and Donna Anderson, by Krhut Farms Inc. o Signatures of utility providers and services to the proposed parcel o 20-foot setback lines required by the city and county Two Sets of construction plans We intend to build a house on the proposed parcel. This informal submission is for the division of property only. The builder we choose will submit the proper paperwork and permits for construction, if the division of property is allowed as a Minor Subdivision. One Copy of the plat in PDF format on disk A PDF. copy of the existing plat can be provided on disk or via email. Subdivision application with Articles of Incorporation Attached The proposed subdivision is between family members and is recognized as a one-time family split with Baldwin County, therefore no articles of incorporation exist. Error and Omissions Insurance Enterprises, corporations, or businesses contracted to do work on this subdivision will have proof of error and omissions insurance. Drainage Plan Refer to Appendix A for an overland waterflow map. BMP Plan A general contractor will submit a BMP plan when construction is planned to take place on the proposed parcel. I ask that the BMP plan be waived from this Minor Subdivision submittal. Street Plan No streets are required to access or run through the proposed division of property. I ask that the street plan be waived from this Minor Subdivision submittal. 4 Pedestrian Circulation Plan Provided this is a division of property between family members. I ask that the pedestrian circulation plan be waived from this Minor Subdivision submittal. Landscape Plan including Street Trees and Tree Preservation Plan There are no street trees or trees over 24” DBH on the proposed one-acre parcel. I ask that the landscape plan including street trees and tree preservation plan be waived from this Minor Subdivision submittal. Traffic Study The proposed subdivision will not generate an average daily traffic count of 1000 trips or more, or which will generate 50 trips or more during any peak hour period. I ask that the traffic study be waived from this Minor Subdivision submittal. Aerial with Topographic Overlay Refer to Appendix A for an aerial with topographic overlay. Utility plans and Profiles Water: City of Fairhope Electricity: Riveria Utilities Propane: Blossman Phone: ATT Cable: Mediacom Sewer: Septic Tank Proper permits and percolation test will be provided to the health department before construction begins. A Street Lighting Plan No street lights will be raised. I ask that a street lighting plan be waived from this Minor Subdivision submittal. Proof of Receipt from the County The attached parcel was approved by the County engineer in 2017. 5 A new parcel will be submitted to the County for approval with the updates mentioned in this informal submittal. (easements, setbacks, utility provider, etc.) Refer to Appendix B for the 2017 Baldwin County approval letter. Certificate of County Zoning Refer to Appendix B for the existing 6-acre parcel data of Donna Krhut and John Patrick Anderson Parcel number: 05-46-01-12-0-000-004.004 zoning description. (include the parcel information/details from property viewer) Memorandum of Transmittal signed indication County’s Receipt of Plat/Plans for Development being Submitted before Planning Commission Refer to Appendix B for the County’s approval of the proposed subdivision in 2017. If the proposed informal plat is approved with the updates needed to comply with the City of Fairhope it will be resubmitted to the County for approval. Flow Modeling No fire hydrant exists within 1000 feet of the proposed subdivision. A flush plug is located at the end of the cul-de-sac within 100 feet of the proposed subdivision. The six-inch water main ends at the start of Lisa Court which is the closest fire hydrant to the proposed subdivision. From the Lisa Court hydrant three-inch feeder lines are run to the rest of the neighborhood and to Brenda Road. There are 18 parcels that I count in the Linn Ridge neighborhood that do not meet the new 450’ hydrant regulation. A flow model can be performed on the fire hydrant located at the start of Lisa Ct. and also at the flush plug if deemed necessary. I ask that the requirement for a fire hydrant within 450’ of the property line be waived due to the cost to the individual and the hardship of running over 1200’ of six-inch water main to comply with Article VI, section G. Reference Appendix A Map 1 for fire hydrant locations relative to the proposed subdivision. 6 Property Owner Notification List North: Krhut Farms Inc. Parcel: 46-01-12-0-000-004.000 Address: 11378-A ST HWY 104, Fairhope, AL 36532 East Northeast: Brian H and Sonja T Blount Parcel: 46-01-12-0-000-002.027 Address: 11505 Brenda Rd, Fairhope, AL 36532 East Southeast: Matthew and Tammy Kilgore Parcel: 46-01-12-0-000-002.028 Address: 11508 Brenda Rd, Fairhope, AL 36532 South & West: Krhut Farms Inc. Parcel: 46-01-12-0-000-004.000 Address: 11378-A ST HWY 104, Fairhope, AL 36532 Other engineering and pertinent documents: (including but not limited to Floodplain/floodway information, CLOMR, LOMR applications or correspondence, wetlands reports, and ADEM correspondence, ADEM notiications, ALDOT correspondence, etc.) All applicable permits (eg. ALDOT, ADEM, COE, etc.) 7 Appendix A 2017 Family Subdivision Parcel ..... -ii !l ll ..... , !'!...SID R, ...... .. =--· :!~=-:~~"'-===--~::,i:i-:~=:.: ••lll'1t1.a,wra-••ut.,n't••-ru••••••"' =--==~i:-=---=~=~~~~-::.::=~i:r tfflP ....... ., ........... .,.,., •• ,. ...... ~ ... • _,.lir,iliii•»IID'eAIS ... ,-•■ 1111111.W...i_,.llrAlll!ll •--•e•-111-•--'l1111f'•c.L•0t• _,.,ma_,._,_ -,•-tarl'll'l\U11R-•r.■.-rw1111 ■1Wa11v.,.. •1r•~~--~ARl'--... --·-···--·-:.~==-':i-=:.=:==~-=~=:.·::-i:~ -a11••-•lll'IID'.1 •••■•1111a .. _,•1-••11r .......... _ l.al'_,ll'"••■-•--••--•-a1•-t111ia11111 ■V -•.w11•.,.•••, .. •v•,•----■1111. -·-,.W:::t'ee - Ill.I _,, • I ..... , C.7'Util R, • .. ,~ i 8 -... ., . ..,...,,. ,, . - "'l!l,. ' --,,J ~ t / I r ~ 'a. I I -b '1 ll - ~ l • I • I -• • l ~~II.!!.. < • u ij •• 0 u u ~ .... .._ __ "'{J'.:f 11•--~ 8 Map 1: Parcel Map and Fire Hydrants Map 1 I I I I I I .. _J a Q I ... I g ii: I 2 z 1,81 .4 Feet l~~A.)J~ o°ic ~ I I ~~3-•. ~ I I ~ ;;:; !;; l J'° ...... '" .. ~ I ) 3 RIOALWOOD L N , .. ,~ • I ~ • I Febru ary 15, 2020 polyli nel"l'e< polygonl..aye< D Pa.-Lot U nes --Ownide 1 -~ 1 Cenle<tines D Counly 8ou,dary -OYe,ride 2 • Coa stal Control Line- I ) I I I STATF HWY;,104 ! """ •. ,...Q ~RE:ssA<k / -IV~/ I\ 1.a .028 O 0.075 0.1 S D..3 n1 O 0..1 02 DA Im .,._,. ta.. NtM, °""""'-1.1$311';. -.. INCIIOCNT,-,llltOon, t •lopot\. 1111m.r.1 c-'"""' !t->,&.1-,t orirn-,-,. 9 Map 2: Baldwin County Contours with ESRI Satellite Imagery Map2 February 19 . 2020 polygonl.ayw -Coastal Control line 0 Q.03 ... 0.121m Ov-1 Lot U-.nes Misc □ County Bot.nda,y □ Parcels Cent erines 10 Map 3: Soils Map Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI EuB Eustis loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.2 23.4% LaB Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 0.7 76.6% Totals for Area of Interest 0.9 100.0% MilPS0.:1:1,S(l)tpWMCIOl'IA ....... (U •lf&S')~ son Map-Bala.In COl.l'lty. Alabama (M'I) 3 ) ---•.,====.,-------.. ======= .. '- ',--., ... ==,, .. .-----. ..... ==== .. •- ~prtfdl)rle'Mb,,_... ~~'MDll Edjjllll:S:urMitw'-.UHYG!il94 weosoHSUWy Nallcmf COOperalJve SOIi &Jf\le)' 2f19J2020 Page 1 Ol 3 11 Map 4: Fire Station Travel Distance 3/S/2020 Farmape ~ Re Department Ro'}'W. Slalbi No. 2 lo 11450 Brenda court. Fa1'1ope-, AL· Goog"e U., Google Maps Fai'hope Volunteer Fire Department Roy White Scstion No. 2 to 11450 BreOOa Court, Fairhope, AL l J l ...... "· ,,,, ..... I. " ,.,.,, qi F a irhope Volunteer Fire Departm ent Roy White Station No. 2 lhr.\,,crl Hal Rd, fM"-opt, AL ~ ·' I. HeQd norlh M ThOmpoon Hall Rd 1owa,ct W.tletn■ Rd ,. 2. Tum tlgh1 OMO Windmill Rd ., 3. TuM leftt)ffloAL.♦18l N t" 4. Tumtlghtcnt0Al·1 04E ,. 5. Tum tlgh1 OMO Lim Ridge DJ ,. 6. TumtlghlOMOBtendaCI 1 1450 Brenda Ct Fa11tq:,, Al '65:n n-d..aloMlfllr«~~4 ~m..-rMlhlllOONIIUl:lbnllf'Qjldt,ll'll'ie, ....... «ok-•fnllf-eo,d:ll>Mto lllf•l'IOMtheffltl)HtlA .. tM'IO,l-.0:Mflll,11 "°"'lll))NlatCOnlilOt,. vo..-~•lflllJIII« llOllcMIIO'Rli\f-,CUI- .,,. .... ,.,. ,.,. .... .,,. ,., Om'e 5.1 miles. 9 min ~/WAW.goocJe.~lr/f.tlmope+VOIIIOleer+Flre+Depaimel'lt-+Ro)'+WN!ffstatton+No. +2. + ~+Hal+Rd,+F¥nelpe, +Al +365321114... t /1 12 Appendix B 13 Warranty Deed and Easement WAli:~7,lfl'\. D~t:D, JOlbl'l'L\' C(IA lJIPB ~:':'ti ~,::.lll~~YD?:R TO SURVl\'0~ ST~T~ 0~ ALA~AMA CO\UIT'IC OE' JlALDWIN Kll>DW ALL MF,N AV 'l'RR~F. '?RP.RF.NT::;: 't'haf'. t<lUiCJT PP.RMS, T.N~., a cm:.:,0rc1.Lii::,n, l,uein~!t.er n.= 'l'BN (-110.00) DOLL,\ru:I a;i(\ ot.h~t> 'JOO~ e.r:.:i ve.lu~h~:.O '=Or.sid.Maticn tc it in ha.r.(\ p;.i.li by vorlSA l<ti.f-!(lT Al-ll>O::R~Ol-1 "l:ld Beginnin1 ;i,t an ir~r. pin the sout n.ee&t ccr:1er o~ Loe !1 0 Lln" Ri1l1,1r: Sub.Jl·,l~hm, UtJit:. 2, .::,i:. reco~d~·1 i.n Map nook 10, Page 23, in t.~e .;udg~ <>! Prob11.~e•s O!fice, ll&.ldwi:1 ~oun;_y, Alaban;i ~ nm N-0" 28' 26 '' .. .,., ;iloll9 t.he 11e:s-: :1r1.rgiJl <>£ ~•id d:Jb:l!. \l'.t.&h)t"., :1 .ii 9 L:1.1\1!'1'! o! 40 i '() = feet -:o a, i.r.01'1 pin; thenc~ -:un •1~ s-8Y•3S"4l''-W, a di9t:ance o! 60. 27 feet to : ' - an iron ?i:i: !hence r..:n N-O• 24' 18" ... ,_, il -, rt. Ilia l:..:1r1ct'! <•£ 127. 38 !e~l l:n r1n iru1\ vb !ol: !' t ~-~ t.he Point of Seqinnin9 ~ tbc-nc,e r.·,m .-.· •i s ... Qgo]!, 1 428 -W, a dlatanoe of 559. 27 £eel:. to~ i ~ an iron pin~ t.hence run 9 .. Q ~ 24' 18" -~. a • ' l <l t 9t...ri.c~ ,,( 464. 68 !t:1":L ~o nl\ .!.:u,\ vb 1yiug in a. !ence line; t.hence nm s-89•20' 18"-E al.("o)')g s•id £enc~ J.in.e, ei diat1t.t'lce of 559. 37 feet. to an it'on pi:,; ,;hence rim i; .. 0"24*18°' .. w " diat.ll.nce of 475. 04 fe~t t.() Lbe Pninl 0£ Be3inn&~q. s~Li p;ir~cl ot ~~~d con~.tLO$ 6. 3 a~rea. no,e ar lea&, and lies in se~tion 12 • '!'6S. R.2£, b;ild..,J.n cour.t,y, .0a.~.:iib.11'Wln. lN'CLUDl!IC TH!: F'OJ,.W,oi'tNG POR tNGRJ;SS :\.'ID EGRlt9S PURPO$BS, a913innin9' at-an iron pin the S,:mth1ten co(ner r,1 1.ot. 17, t.in~ Ridge subdi ..-iaion, Un.it. 2, as fll!ICO(de,t ;. n M~ Book 10 • Ra9e 13 • ill the- Judge of Probate's Office, Daldwi~ coun~y. Ala.bboia: t1,1.n ~-'J•28"26'1 •II .ilon43 th4° \'le.s! ::aargi~ of Said s·.Jbdi viaio?l, a dia t.anee of. 43 f.eet to -,,,, t ~on plh £.:.t' ch• ~oh1t of eeginninqr thence run s-89°35 '42"-liti. a d~•tan~~ 0£ 60.27 fee~ t~ ~rt iron pia~ the~98 run s-0•24"18"-e:. a distance of 140 feet to an b:c,n pin: ~h•l\<?111 run N-SCJ 0 J!PrJ-.. l'., " distance of 59.76 feet t.o an iron pin~ thence r~n s-0•20·26~-w, A di~tance oi 14D £•et. ~o the P6int of Beginni11g. S&id parcel of lal'\d 14 2017 Baldwin County Approval BALDWIN COUNTY November 17, 2011 Hunter Smith P.O. Box 7082 Spanish Fort, AL 36577 Subjeel: Exempt Subdivision Parcel 10: 08ar M r. Smith: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT P.O.B0X2 20 SILVERHILL,ALABAMA 36578 TEUll'HCNE. (251)937-0371 F>.)(!25 1j937,020 1 0S-46-01-12-0-000,-004.(04 SEC.12, T6S, R2E (District 14, Unzonod) Jt)£Y ,\£•,"N,fLU~ /',(. CO(.'•\'rl' t;,W'ilXEER Thi, letter is in response io your requ-est for an exemption from :h& Bald1W1 County SuocJi,tision RegufatJOtts as provided i n socuon 4.2(a) which states the foUowi ng: §4.2 Exocptlons to ReQU lfed Approval. {a) Sale. deed or transfer of land by the ow,,er to an immediate family member, excepl that, in lh& event that the!'e is any sale, deed, or transfer of l and by the own&r or an Immediate family member to someone other than an immediate fam ily member, these ragulaUons shall apply. Each parcel shall have its O\vn lng1ess/eg·ess e nd utility ooc~s of not less than 30 feet i n width; Exemptjon from UlO requirem ent for approval to subdivide does not oonsli'ute exemption from the requiramants of other applicable; re,g1.llat1ons ln¢100ing bot not limited to zoni ng ordinance, Health Oe;:,artment requi'cmonts, hlghw;:iy construction setbacks, or, if located within the extrtl.tertitorlal jori$diction of a mun'.<::ipallty, the r egulations of that muniC4'lal planning commission. Ba-£ed upon your requesl for an exP.cmption. the proposed division of this i:arcel ir,to two (2} parcels as shown on the attached drawing is U!!I!R! from the Bardwln County Subdivjsjon Regulations. This property is located within the &xtratertitortal Jurisdiction of the City of Fairhopa and ;.;s such you are requ ired to contact their Planning Department to ..,erify oomplianoe with their regutaboos. TlliS exemption Is only approve<: for deeding parcels to Immediate family members. If you hove :lny questions, p!eaee feel frao to call to~. Seth Peterson, P.E. Permit/ Subdivision Manager Cc: Mike Howell : Ek.lilding Olfieial (vio interoffice mall} Annette Lubertozn: E91 1 Addressl"9 (via inte,roffice meil) City of Fairhope PlaMl!l!) Oes,0rtmen1 File, 15 Utility Providers via 811 TICKET 200062433 ---... """"""' ,.,_ VOICII ....... -IDie ..&8 ... -I.Gd-On. OUCIS/20 -Jll'Ullt'06.3:12Q.!1)8fM IIM• .,_.,.,, o:?.106!20 COMtAftY UHOUlATIOH ""'"'""""""' 2"78:?l HIM' 181 LNIT3l 0l CW'I-M.ALUS:?6 ,r,.,,sc (ZSI} 60S•:~602: ._, C..ca ~ ANoasoN -• (;2:Sl ) 60H600: c.,_,.....,_ ttCAN081SOM4S'"«MII O"lM WOU: OffOUlATfOH -Al. ..,. . .., __ =« """"" -·~ -''""'°"' ,_, -~--~·· , .. t.OCAT£ o,,tcno,tS ~20207:00NA """'""""'°" 11450 SftEH!)t.0-...,, .. LOCA.1'!'Tl-lE 1ST HALF OfTHE LOT FitOMTHE E.-srSIDETOTHE M.:CCU.Of'Trl£LOT AT"'Tl-llS .ICCM!;!SS H)IAUS llP COO£ a6S82: MUUUS ...,., •=• ~"' -°"'~ -~ &lmr.l Utflltl•i;-~-a'NTOI ATT /0 AtsPONSt STATUS AS Of 1'.0MOAY, HUUAIIY 24. '?020 7:2.S Atl C.C.QC""""I C LOCA.TIO .. --· .... ,.,_ ..;,mm "P• Propaty CMn• QtrNa-ICEWf.AHOE!l50N a,t.,,,,..,.._ (:SI) 60S-:3602" cn.,em-l((JIHoecsoN4S12~LCOM 6b- ... --toi,Jlo,1 .. sc "'~ 11--····· "'" -"'" .-.. -a. .... Ulll!l'(ro~ toui. C10$1tM1 ~ ~.., ;n '«ll.l.lNfNIY. Tiw.1'$ ngy IIClt~.J4~octJOriiC ~ .-.s~ ,ron, • umn:rm.~ OOSllaC! onlM ""'' ATmOl ....... .,. t AOt.111U .ATT J O ~ ♦ J•...,.,07. lCIN 11 .UAW ~rtlO~ W llll•s. Ctr cs. 'llr.1.tv, ot Oric:tftc,-s-r • Moksporn:1ch111-..,1 ... t,-•l,...nw1 , ... • JMuUVll. 2020 11:2? Mt 06tU1'Yl'iitMI p,au.n.Mol'Ull!WU.ffll!ldliU<lft 12312020 10 !ll!1UJL Wl'l1e & 1 cb.'f1J)&1mocu-•ea.kof ,,,120201.-00:ooAW ""°"' """'" tr,1Cidl¥:orn -Cult Obk1 Slloru-YXJ,1(1;?_ •J .. ~U,. 2020 12:U i'III. ~ 1A.U~ -ilec:r'< Ollollll$ -RV\li'OI ♦ JoWl....,.,.09. lQNl 11 :0S ,liM "JoW11111/Y09. 2020 ll;Ol J,M. • Molte.spomt toJ11-.ll'lltlufa.ca-.,-•fo,i,t1u:i, OHMlbVS'fM-9'11 O,OUU.Mooft,lOOft!IUf'tCIIUdtduo11{23/202010:1J:24A.W,.wlMI b I cb'f1$) pul rkU: -· da.a Gt 1/9/2020 7:«tOOAW 16 County Zoning 2/18/2020 Delta Computer Systemswww.deltacomputersystems.com/cgi- apa3/APMCGI02?HTMCNTY=AL05&HTMBASE=C&HTMKEY=107659 1/1 Property Appraisal Link BALDWIN COUNTY, AL Current Date 2/18/2020 Tax Year 2019 Valuation Date October 1, 2018 OWNER INFORMATION PARCEL 46-01-12-0-000-004.004 PPIN 107659 TAX DIST 02 NAME ANDERSON, DONNA KRHUT ETVIR JOHN PATRICK ADDRESS 11450 BRENDA RD FAIRHOPE AL 36532 DEED TYPE BOOK 0409 PAGE 0001152 PREVIOUS OWNER LAST DEED DATE / /0000 DESCRIPTION 6AC(C) FR SW COR OF LOT 17 RUN W60' AND N127' TO POB TH W 559.27' TH S464.68' E559.37' N475.04' TO POB SEC12 T6S R2E PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS 11450 BRENDA RD NEIGHBORHOOD FHOPEEAST EAST FAIRHOPE PROPERTY CLASS SUB CLASS LOT BLOCK SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE 00-00 -00 LOT DIMENSION ZONING PROPERTY VALUES LAND: 122400 CLASS 1: TOTAL ACRES: 6.00 BUILDING: 207700 CLASS 2: TIMBER ACRES: ========= CLASS 3: 330100 TOTAL PARCEL VALUE: 330100 ESTIMATED TAX: $879.56 DETAIL INFORMATION CODE TYPE REF METHOD DESCRIPTION LAND USE TC HsPn MARKET VALUE USE VALUE M LAND 2 ST AC8 46 6.00 acres 1110-RESIDENTIAL 3 Y N 122400 BLDG 1 R 111 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE - 3 Y N 207700 View Tax Record 17 '118/2020 """"" -- --MP 9►1111 ~ciMI "" -- Property App rais al L ink BALDWIN COl>"NIY, AL Tn1't•d01' v ....... n..()c,w,.,t.Jfl• --fflN I01'9 T,UJDI' OIi: ' :,;p:Jr@r\' .. !ii,i~ l~d!l8l191W.RD """'°"'""""' 'IIOOK ~ fllla&OOOIU: mtnoN ~tt'1"0J1.o,u,n1,au,Wf#~Nl21' ,o_roenrw ss:7'fflh54.dl'£Sdt31'N4UM10NlBECl2-T•J.:m _,.,_ U4~JialNOARD -...,......,.. _...,.. ~,w;wa:..-l:AlCI =- LAND, --__,_ I J)IOO Q..1981: 'IOT.U.A(llllll: iwftroo ~l: ,...Aall: a..\18.1: wiro lftUa.UW',f ff"3H mlllm" Bl1'¥IDIJt rer:a::mrr; wm.m J:C lllll~L ~ ~1 ff #0'46 6.00-11 10-lltlllllmAL ) Y N 11'J400 llUlQ 1 ». 111 CNOU1.._nm11:e1a1 • s T 'N 20l"JOO YvlieBsvt •· MW.Cle~APMCGI02?HJMCHTY-Al.05&HTM!ASE<Mn'Ml<EY•1076,59 1/1