HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2020 Planning Commission Agenda PacketPlanning Commission Meeting
July 6, 2020
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Please note that as the City is responding to current
COVID-19 concerns, it is important to keep members of the public, our Planning
Commission, and staff as safe as possible. For that reason, we will conduct the
Planning Commission meeting on July 6, 2020 as a remote video conference
meeting. We will continue to update
https://www.fairhopeal.gov/departments/planning-and-zoning for the latest
information.
The City of Fairhope Planning Commission will hold a virtual public hearing
at 5:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2020. Microsoft Teams will be utilized to host our
virtual meeting. We will strive to meet the intent of the State’s Open Meetings Act
under unprecedented circumstances. If you would like your comments to be
considered prior to the meeting, please mail comments to the Planning
Department at P.O. Box 429, Fairhope, AL 36533, e-mail
to planning@fairhopeal.gov or hand deliver to 555 S. Section Street (a drop box is
provided outside our front door) by 3:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2020.
To participate during the public hearings you may join by computer or
smartphone:
Please send a request to planning@fairhopeal.gov. We will send you a calendar
invitation and instructions by 3:00 PM on Monday, July 6, 2020.
You may also join by telephone at: +1 334-530-5148
Access code: 623 398 78#
Please call in 10-15 minutes prior to the 5:00PM start time.
If you are unable to participate by either of the methods above, you may submit a
written request to planning@fairhopeal.gov, or call (251) 990-0214 and we will do
our best to accommodate.
As always, our meetings are also live streamed on YouTube. You may follow
along with the meeting at https://www.youtube.com/user/cityoffairhope.
Our response is changing daily. Please monitor
https://www.fairhopeal.gov/departments/planning-and-zoning for the latest
information.
Karin Wilso n
.1/qJlll
Ke,i n G. B<>om•
Robrn A. Brown
Jack BmreU . ,\CMO
Jimmy C-0 11yers
Jay Robinson
Lisa A Hanks, MMC
Ory(Jtr/1
Deborah_ A, Smith, CPA
riry Tr,-.ey11r;r
161 Nllrth Seni~n Stll!et
P.O. Drawer 429
Fairhope, Alabama 365:i:i
251-928-2 1.30
251-928-6776 fa~
ww·w, fi1irhopcal.gov
1. Call to Order
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission Agenda
5:00 PM
Council Chambers
July 6, 2020
2. Approval of Minutes
• June 1, 2020
3. Consideration of Agenda Items:
A. SD 20.17 Public hearing to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department of Resolution 2020-01 for
various proposed amendments to Article 'IV, Section E.
Procedure Exceptions; Article V, Section C. Greenspace;
Article VI, Section D. Sidewalks; Article VI, Section E.8 . As-
Built Drawings; and Article VI, Section L. Requirement to
Complete Improvements in the Subdivision Regulations.
8. SD 20.25 Public hearing to consider the request of CFP Housing, LLC
for plat approval of Mars Hill Subdivision, a 3-lot minor
division. The property is approximately 29.39 acres and is
located on the east side of US Highway 98 and the north side
of County Road 32 ,
PPIN #: 235003
C. SD 20.29 Public hearing to consider the request of FST Mapp Limited
Partnership, an Alabama Limited Partnership for plat approval
of USA Mapp Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division. The
property is approximately 16.75 acres and is located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of St. Hwy. 181 and St.
Hwy. 104.
PPIN #: 77680
D. SD 20.30 Public hearing to consider the request of Corinne J. Snyder
for plat approval of Ferry Road Estate, a 2-lot minor division .
The property is approximately .89 acres and is located the
east side of Ferry Road between Keeney Drive and Ferry
Road Circle.
E. SD 20.31
PPIN #: 317
Public hearing to conside r the request of Joey and Janet
Langley for plat approval of Dewberry Estates, a 2-lot minor
division. The property is approximately 3.80 acres and is
located on the north side of Dewberry Lane, at 9781
Dewberry Lane.
PPIN #: 56024
F. UR 20 .04 Request of AT&T for 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of
the proposed installation of approximately 3,729 linear foot of
underground fiber optic cable. The project will run along the
north side of Twin Beech Road from 8345 Twin Beech to
County Road 13.
4. Old/New Business
• Discussion to consider the request of the City of Fairhope Planning and
Zoning Department of Resolution 2020-01 for proposed amendments
to Article IV, Section E. Procedure Exceptions for One-lime Splits; and
Article VI, Section G. Fire Hydrants in the Subdivision Regulations.
• ZC 20.03 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
5. Adjourn
Discussion to consider the request of the City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Department for proposed amendments to
Article III, Section B., Table 3-1: Use Table -Zoning Districts
and Specific Land Uses to allow Food Processing in the M-1
Light Industrial District permitted subject to general ordinance
standards and conditions in the Zoning Ordinance.
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met virtually Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; Art Dyas; Rebecca Bryant; Harry Kohler; John
Worsham; Hollie MacKellar; Clarice Hall-Black; Richard Peterson; Kevin Boone,
Council Liaison; Buford King, Development Services Manager; Hunter Simmons,
Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Planner; Carla Davis, Planner; Samara
Walley, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and Ken Watson, City Attorney
Absent: none
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:07 PM and explained the procedures of
the meeting. Mr. Turner took a roll call of those present.
The minutes of the May 4, 2020 Planning Commission meeting were considered. Mr.
Dyas noted his motion for case SD 19.41 was not verbalized in the previous meeting and
he clarified his motion for denial was due to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community. Art Dyas made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. John Worsham
2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE – Art
Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Clarice Hall-Black, Richard Peterson and Kevin Boone. NAY – none.
SD 20.18 Public hearing to consider the request of James Scopolites for plat
approval of Gayfer Place, a 3-lot minor subdivision, Seth Moore. The property is
located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Gayfer Road Extension and Bishop
Road. Mrs. Walley gave the staff report saying this request was tabled at the May
meeting. The Commission tabled the application due to concerns regarding the
configuration of the lots, proximity to a fire hydrant, and construction of sidewalks.
Waivers are being requested regarding sidewalks and fire hydrants. Staff recommends
DENIAL of SD 20.18 based upon non-conformance with the subdivision regulations. If it
is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to APPROVE case number SD 20.18, staff
presents to the Planning Commission three (3) possible approval scenarios it may wish to
consider:
1. Acceptance of the requested fire hydrant and sidewalk waivers as requested and
approval of the minor subdivision as a concurrent preliminary and final plat
approval.
a. The Planning Commission may wish to rule upon Article V.B.2.e regarding
health, safety, welfare, or property.
2. Non-acceptance of one or more of the requested waivers, and approval of case
number SD 20.18 as a preliminary plat in lieu of a concurrent preliminary/final
plat as is typical of a minor subdivision.
a. The applicant will have two years to install the necessary improvements,
appear before the Planning Commission for a final plat request, and recording
of a final plat.
b. If case number SD 20.18 is approved using approval option “2”, the applicant
may wish to contact the City of Fairhope Public Works Department to
determine if the sidewalks may be installed by the City utilizing an aid-to-
construction fee.
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
2
3. Partial acceptance of the fire hydrant and sidewalk waivers and approval of case
number SD 20.18 as a minor subdivision with the following conditions to be
noted on the plat:
a. Sidewalks and a fire hydrant must be installed on the proposed lot “2” ROW
at the time of any vertical construction activities and shall be a condition of
receiving final occupancy approval.
b. Sidewalks must be installed on the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 ROW at the
time of any new vertical construction or class 3 renovation of existing
structures on proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2, and installation of sidewalks shall be a
condition of receiving final occupancy approval.
c. A signature block for the City of Fairhope Building Official shall be included
on the plat.
Seth Moore was present on behalf of the applicant and requested the Commission accept
option number three. Mr. Dyas questioned the fire hydrant requirements and Mr.
Worsham explained the requirement is not in relation to lots but distance from one
hydrant to another. Mrs. Bryant said the flag lot is a concern because it was only created
to meet the 450’ requirement. She asked if the applicant would remove the “flag pole”
portion of the lot and Mr. Moore stated the applicant would be agreeable to rearranging
the lot lines.
John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation option number 3 for
partial acceptance of the fire hydrant and sidewalk waivers and approval of case number
SD 20.18 as a minor subdivision with the following conditions to be noted on the plat:
a. Sidewalks and a fire hydrant must be installed on the proposed lot “2” ROW at
the time of any vertical construction activities and shall be a condition of
receiving final occupancy approval.
b. Sidewalks must be installed on the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 ROW at the time of
any new vertical construction or class 3 renovation of existing structures on
proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2, and installation of sidewalks shall be a condition of
receiving final occupancy approval.
c. A signature block for the City of Fairhope Building Official shall be included on
the plat.
Art Dyas 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following voice vote: AYE – Art
Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black,
and Kevin Boone. NAY – Rebecca Bryant and Richard Peterson.
SD 20.24 Public hearing to consider the request of 68V Pay Dirt, LLC for Village
Subdivision approval of Laurelbrooke Subdivision, a 178-lot division, Steve
Pumphrey. The property is located on the east side of State Highway 181 approximately
½ mile north of County Road 24. Ms. Davis gave the staff report saying the property is
within the City’s (ETJ) extraterritorial jurisdiction. The applicant is proposing 176 single
family lots on 59.72 acres with one main entrance along Highway 181, and a 30’
ingress/egress easement to serve as an emergency vehicle only road. The initial Phase
One is planned to start construction in January 2021. Phase Two of construction is
scheduled for June 2022, and Phase Three is anticipated to start approximately January
2024; with all the above dates subject to change dependent upon the market.
Staff conducted a density analysis and it determined that if the lots were developed to
normal subdivision standards the density rate would be 1.47 units per acre however the
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
3
applicant is requesting 2.95 units per acre. Based on the current subdivision standards
100 units can successfully fit on the 59.72 acres of property to be developed; however,
the applicant wishes to construct 176 units. The purpose of the Village Subdivisions is to
provide an alternative to the standard subdivision regulations and encourage imaginative
design, planning, and environmental sensitivity. As presented, the plan does not appear to
depict “imaginative design” nor does it display innovative design standards with the
current layout of the site. As proposed, the plat greatly exceeds the density for this area.
The current plat does not depict a vast range of lot sizes nor does it incorporate a variety
of amenities considering the number of units proposed. Staff recommends DENIAL of
case SD 20.24 Laurelbrooke Village Subdivision due to the fact it creates a higher-
density development that is not appropriate in an area that is essentially undeveloped;
however staff does not object to tabling the request to a future meeting to allow revisions
by the applicant. Steve Pumphrey of Dewberry Engineers, Inc. was present on behalf of
the applicant. He addressed the Commission saying this proposal will meet a market need
and will create a community aspect within the development. He said the property is
outside the City’s Comprehensive Plan boundary and asked the Commission not to apply
the typical density comparisons. He stated it meets the County’s regulations.
Joe Everson of 68 Ventures, LLC address the Commission saying this design will
promote physical activity and create a sense of community with the proposed amenities.
He reiterated this design will meet a current demand of the market for this size home.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Boyett stated two letters of support and one letter of opposition have been received
from adjacent property owners.
Having no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Turner stated he likes the lake and walking trails but is concerned with the density
and only one ingress/egress to St. Hwy. 181. Mr. Dyas said the site needs some unique
aspect not just high density. He said one access for 176 lots is not appropriate.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to deny the request due to
the higher density and the single point of ingress/egress for the development.
Harry Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner, Hollie
MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black, Richard Peterson and Kevin Boone. NAY – none.
SD 20.25 Public hearing to consider the request of CFP Housing, LLC for plat
approval of Mars Hill Subdivision, a 3-lot minor division, Steve Pumphrey. The
property is located on the east side of US Highway 98 and the north side of County Road
32. Mr. King gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 29.39 acres in
unzoned Baldwin County. A private ROW to be named “Mars Hill Lane” is requested as
a component of the subdivision request. No development activities are known at this time
above and beyond the creation of requested lots via minor subdivision. The applicant is
requesting waiver to the sidewalks and public rights-of-way requirements. Staff
recommendation for DENIAL of case number SD 20.25 for the following reasons:
1. Proposed Lot 1 fails to comply with Article V, Section E.3.a. Lot Standards – Lot
Access
a. Proposed Lot 1 does not front upon a paved, publicly-maintained street
b. A wavier from this requirement has been requested
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
4
2. Proposed “Mars Hill Lane” fails to comply with Article V, Section E.3 Lot
Standards or with Article IV, Section C.1.c. Street Plan Requirements
a. As proposed, Mars Hill Lane meets the standards of neither a “lot” nor a
right-of-way (ROW).
b. A wavier from this requirement has been requested to allow the private
ROW to be platted as submitted.
3. No sidewalks are contemplated by the application as required by Article VI,
Section D. Construction Standards-Sidewalks
a. Staff does not necessarily object to a request for a partial sidewalk waiver
as the ROWs on which the property fronts are more than one road mile
from the nearest sidewalk and a pedestrian/sidewalk easement could be
placed upon the plat.
b. A wavier from all sidewalk requirements was submitted.
Staff does not object to tabling the application to a future planning commission meeting
to allow further study.
If it is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to APPROVE case number SD 20.25,
staff requests the following conditions of approval:
1. A preliminary plat is granted in lieu of the concurrent preliminary/final plat
approval typically granted to requesters of a minor subdivision.
a. The purpose of the preliminary plat approval is to allow the necessary
improvements to Mars Hill Lane to attain a public ROW standard.
b. If required by the Planning Commission in lieu of granting a wavier,
installation of sidewalks along Greeno Road and CR32.
2. Preparation and submission of a Stormwater Operations Maintenance Plan and
Agreement for the existing stormwater system on subject property.
3. The Planning Commission may wish to make a ruling on Article V.B.2.e.
regarding health, safety, welfare, or property. Condition “3” serves as a
placeholder if that ruling is desired.
Steve Pumphrey of Dewberry Engineers, Inc. was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Dyas asked if the road is built in a right-of-way or an easement and Mr. King responded
neither, it is like a driveway. Mr. Turner and Mr. Dyas stated concerns with the access
issues. Mr. Pumphrey explained the site was originally all part of a master plan for a
church which is not going to be developed. He stated the County will not accept the
existing road as a public right-of-way because of the parking spaces along the road’s
edge. Mr. Worsham suggested removing the parking spaces along the road and Mr.
Pumphrey said the applicant may be willing to consider that option. Mr. Turner suggested
tabling the request to workout some of the concerns and Mr. Pumphrey agreed to tabling.
Art Dyas made a motion to table at the request of the applicant’s representative.
John Worsham 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner, Hollie
MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black, Richard Peterson and Kevin Boone. NAY – none.
SD 20.26 Public hearing to consider the request of Roberds Brothers, LLC for plat
approval of Roberds Brothers Subdivision, a 2-lot minor division, Larry Smith and
David Diehl. The property is located on the west side of State Highway 181 just south of
Hollowbrook Avenue at 21883 State Highway 181. Mr. King gave the staff report saying
the property is approximately 1.62 acres in unzoned Baldwin County Planning District
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
5
17. Subject property is the location of a Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) that was
approved April 1, 2019 via case number SD 19.16 and this minor subdivision case seeks
to maintain the MOP approval concurrent with the creation of two new lots. Staff
recommends APPROVAL of Case # SD 20.26 subject to the conditions below:
1) Prior-approved Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) via case number SD 19.16 is
preserved and memorialized by this condition of approval with the following
requirements:
a. Lot 1 is limited to eight (8) units
b. Lot 2 is limited to one (1) unit
c. The addition of any new units will require a new MOP application
2) Memorialize condition of approval #1 from case SD 19.16 will be satisfied by the
following follow-up tasks by the applicant also related to subject application:
a. Submission of a flow model test of the new 12” water main more fully-
described in case SD 19.16.
b. The 12” main is not yet in service but should be more than adequate
pressure and flow to serve subject property
c. The Planning Commission may wish to rule on Article V Section B.2.e. as
this is a health, safety, welfare, and property issue. A private fire hydrant
serving the property was included in the utility drawings included with
case number SD 19.16.
3) Memorialize condition of approval #4 from case SD 19.16 will be satisfied by the
following follow-up tasks by the applicant also related to subject application:
a. Record the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement
once the slide number of the recorded plat is identified.
b. Furnish the instrument number of the recorded O&M Plan and Agreement
to staff once recorded.
4) Condition of approval #5 from case SD 19.16 has been fulfilled as follows:
a. Greenspace has been amended to reflect 0.13 acres (outside the highway
construction setback) along the property’s frontage along HWY 181 on
Lot 1
b. 0.07 acres greenspace is reflected on the plat on the west side of lot 2
c. Total of 0.2 acres total greenspace is reflected on the plat, satisfying the
10% total greenspace requirement for the MOP and applies 10%
greenspace to each lot within the existing MOP.
5) Planning Commission Consideration of the waiver request that Lot 2 not be
required to front upon a paved, publicly-maintained street.
a. Staff does not object to the waiver because future subdivision of proposed
Lot 2 appears highly unlikely without complete redevelopment of subject
property. Proposed lot 2 will be accessed via a common access easement
shown on the plat. Subject property has undergone an engineered
development process through the MOP case, including drainage.
6) Planning Commission Consideration of the waiver request from furnishing
sidewalks along the HWY 181 frontage.
a. Staff does not object to the waiver because sidewalks were not required by
the Planning Commission when MOP case number SD 19.16 was
considered.
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
6
b. Further, the nearest sidewalk along the HWY 181 ROW is greater than
one road mile from subject property.
7) Reflection of any notes on the plat as required by Baldwin County.
Larry Smith and David Diehl of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC were present on behalf of
the applicant. Mr. Smith stated one building is already built, the second building is under
construction, and the building pad is ready for the third. He explained the water line is
live, but he is waiting on the City to authorize the flow test which was delayed due to the
drought.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Peterson asked the difference between this case and the last case and Mr. Turner
explained this site has a dedicated easement for access. Mr. King detailed the previous
approval processes for this site. Mr. Peterson asked what portion of the site the access
easement covers, and Mr. Diehl answered the travel lanes of the driveway are included in
the easement.
John Worsham made a motion to accept the staff recommendation of APPROVAL of
Case # SD 20.26 subject to the conditions below:
1) Prior-approved Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) via case number SD 19.16 is
preserved and memorialized by this condition of approval with the following
requirements:
a. Lot 1 is limited to eight (8) units
b. Lot 2 is limited to one (1) unit
c. The addition of any new units will require a new MOP application
2) Memorialize condition of approval #1 from case SD 19.16 will be satisfied by the
following follow-up tasks by the applicant also related to subject application:
a. Submission of a flow model test of the new 12” water main more fully-
described in case SD 19.16.
b. The 12” main is not yet in service but should be more than adequate
pressure and flow to serve subject property
c. The Planning Commission may wish to rule on Article V Section B.2.e. as
this is a health, safety, welfare, and property issue. A private fire hydrant
serving the property was included in the utility drawings included with
case number SD 19.16.
3) Memorialize condition of approval #4 from case SD 19.16 will be satisfied by the
following follow-up tasks by the applicant also related to subject application:
a. Record the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan and Agreement
once the slide number of the recorded plat is identified.
b. Furnish the instrument number of the recorded O&M Plan and Agreement
to staff once recorded.
4) Condition of approval #5 from case SD 19.16 has been fulfilled as follows:
a. Greenspace has been amended to reflect 0.13 acres (outside the highway
construction setback) along the property’s frontage along HWY 181 on
Lot 1
b. 0.07 acres greenspace is reflected on the plat on the west side of lot 2
c. Total of 0.2 acres total greenspace is reflected on the plat, satisfying the
10% total greenspace requirement for the MOP and applies 10%
greenspace to each lot within the existing MOP.
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
7
5) Planning Commission Consideration of the waiver request that Lot 2 not be
required to front upon a paved, publicly-maintained street.
a. Staff does not object to the waiver because future subdivision of proposed
Lot 2 appears highly unlikely without complete redevelopment of subject
property. Proposed lot 2 will be accessed via a common access easement
shown on the plat. Subject property has undergone an engineered
development process through the MOP case, including drainage.
6) Planning Commission Consideration of the waiver request from furnishing
sidewalks along the HWY 181 frontage.
a. Staff does not object to the waiver because sidewalks were not required by
the Planning Commission when MOP case number SD 19.16 was
considered.
b. Further, the nearest sidewalk along the HWY 181 ROW is greater than
one road mile from subject property.
7) Reflection of any notes on the plat as required by Baldwin County.
Rebecca Bryant 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE –
Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner, Hollie MacKellar,
Clarice Hall-Black, and Kevin Boone. NAY –Richard Peterson.
SD 20.27 Public hearing to consider the request of Provision Investments, LLC for
preliminary approval of Bishop Road MOP, a 7-unit multiple occupancy project,
Larry Smith. The property is located on the west side of Bishop Road just north of
Gayfer Road. Mrs. Walley gave the staff report saying the applicant has provided a site
plan illustrating two (2) proposed buildings on a 1.08 acre property. There are 7 units
total with a gross density of 6.42 units per acre. The site plan illustrates a sidewalk along
Bishop Road. There is a total of 22 parking spaces provided. Each unit will have a single
car garage. There is also an uncovered parking space (driveway). Lastly, a new fire
hydrant will be installed within the required 450’ of the subject property. Staff
recommends PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL of SD 20.27 Bishop Road MOP
subject to the following condition:
1) Replat of Lots 1 and 2 into a single lot prior to any land disturbance activities.
Larry Smith of S.E. Civil Engineering, LLC was present on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL of SD 20.27 Bishop Road MOP subject to the following condition:
1) Replat of Lots 1 and 2 into a single lot prior to any land disturbance activities.
Harry Kohler 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner, Hollie
MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black, Richard Peterson, and Kevin Boone. NAY – none.
IR 20.02 Request of Tammy Barber, on behalf of Barbara Childress, for an
Informal Review of a proposed 3-lot subdivision. The property is located on the north
side of County Road 11 between Lyter Lane and Keller Road and is approximately 16
acres. Ms. Barber addressed the Commission saying the property was previously
farmland and currently has 3 existing single family homes. She stated they would like to
subdivide the property to create separate parcels for each of the existing homes and
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
8
dedicate access/utility easements for each parcel. Mr. Simmons stated staff has a letter
from the Barnwell Fire Department requesting the fire protection requirements be meet
for properties within their jurisdiction.
Old/New Business
SD 18.10 Replat of Lot 2, Young Oaks – Sidewalk discussion, Buford King. Mr.
King gave a review saying the referenced case was approved by the Planning
Commission on April 2, 2018, as a 2-lot minor subdivision zoned R-3PGH. The
subdivision plat was recorded April 25, 2018 and is reflected by Slide # 2637-C.
The Planning Commission added a condition of approval “Sidewalks shall be installed
along Nichols Avenue.” A subdivision performance bond agreement was submitted to
staff by the applicant and included a check for $2,613.00. The sidewalk cost was
approved by the public works director as indicated on the Engineer’s Schedule of Values.
Due to factors illuminated by the Public Works Director, plans for sidewalk construction
along Nichols Avenue have been suspended and future sidewalk construction is not
planned. The applicant is requesting refund of $2,613.00 due to non-installation of
sidewalks because the installation of sidewalks was a specific requirement of the
Planning Commission via condition of approval, staff presents the refund request to the
planning commission for consideration. Mr. Turner stated the sidewalks should be built
and cited the new development in the area currently being built. He said he would like to
see sidewalks all the way down Nichols Avenue. Mr. Peterson agreed and added the
sidewalk was part of the approval for the subdivision and should be built.
David Cooper, applicant, addressed the Commission saying there was a proposal for
Fairhope Single Tax Corporation (FSTC) to construct a sidewalk along Nichols Avenue,
but the residents of Hawthorne Glen did not want them. Mr. Turner explained FSTC
decided against the project due to the resident’s opposition. Mr. Peterson said the
drainage needs to be addressed on Nichols Avenue before sidewalks. Mrs. Boyett stated
Richard Johnson, Public Works Director, stated he would send a crew to build the
sidewalk as soon as possible. Mr. Cooper said he wants a sidewalk and the sooner the
better.
SD 18.39 Fox Hollow, Phase 3 – Request for a 2-year extension of the preliminary
plat approval, Emily Boyett. Mrs. Boyett stated the subdivision is approximately 13.78
acres of R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District zoned property with 32
lots. Preliminary plat approval was granted by the Planning Commission on November
5, 2018. The applicant is requesting a 2-year extension of the preliminary plat approval.
Staff recommends granting a 1-year extension of the preliminary plat approval. Mr.
Turner agreed a 1-year extension is what he is comfortable with approving.
Art Dyas made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to grant a 1-year extension
of the preliminary plat approval.
Richard Peterson 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: AYE – Art Dyas, Rebecca Bryant, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Lee Turner,
Hollie MacKellar, Clarice Hall-Black, Richard Peterson, and Kevin Boone. NAY –
none.
June 1, 2020
Planning Commission Minutes
9
Subdivision Regulation Amendment Discussion – Buford King. Mr. King provided
the Commission with an overview of several proposed amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations. The proposed amendments include an amended date to the cover page, lot
definition, PUDs not required to have additional community meetings, submission of
ESRI ArcMap shapefiles, infrastructure definition for minor subdivisions, replat
discrepancies regarding lots versus tax parcels, one-time splits, multiple occupancy
projects infrastructure, strengthening wording for approval standards, clarifying
greenspace wording and definition, no bonding for sidewalks, sidewalk installation, lot
access deviation allowance, streets and lane construction standards, bond wording for
final plats, testing submittal requirements, waiver wording clarity, and fire hydrant
wording clarity. There was discussion of creating an ad hoc committee to review the
substantial changes to the regulations and having a worksession to discuss them in detail.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Discussion – Hunter Simmons. Mr. Simmons stated
staff is preparing several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the upcoming
Planning Commission meetings.
Having no further business, Kevin Boone made a motion to adjourn. Hollie MacKellar
2nd the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 PM.
____________________________ ________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman Emily Boyett, Secretary
RESOLUTION NO: 2020-01
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COVERPAGE; ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS; ARTICLE IV, SECTION B.
PRE-APPLICATION AND SKETCH PLAT; ARTICLE IV, SECTION C. PRELIMINARY PLAT; ARTICLE IV,
SECTION D. FINAL PLAT; ARTICLE IV, SECTION E. PROCEDURE EXCEPTIONS; ARTICLE IV,
SECTION H. MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY PROJECTS; ARTICLE V, SECTION B. APPROVAL
STANDARDS; ARTICLE V, SECTION C. GREENSPACE STANDARDS; ARTICLE V, SECTION D.
STREET STANDARDS; ARTICLE V, SECTION E. LOT STANDARDS; ARTICLE VI, SECTION B.
STREETS AND LANES; ARTICLE VI, SECTION D. SIDEWALKS; ARTICLE VI, SECTION E.
STORMWATER; ARTICLE VI, SECTION I. PERMANENT MONUMENTS; ARTICLE VI, SECTION L.
REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS; ARTICLE VII, SECTION A. WAIVER STANDARDS
OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, Alabama Code Section 11-52-31, expressly authorizes a municipal planning
commission to adopt subdivision regulations governing the subdivision of land within its
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend the Subdivision Regulations as
hereinafter provided.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, as follows:
1. The cover page is hereby revised to reflect the date of last amendment.
2. Article II Definitions of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised as follows:
Lot: a parcel of land intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or for building
development, or both, which will generally front upon a public right-of-way, exclusive
of any part of the right-of-way. Designation of land as a tax parcel by the Baldwin
County Revenue Commissioner does not establish a lot of record within the meaning of
these regulations.
3. Article IV, Section B. Pre-Application and Sketch Plat, 1.b. of the Subdivision Regulations
is hereby revised to add the following:
(2) Subdivisions preceded by the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) are
not required to conduct an additional community meeting prior to submission of a
subdivision preliminary plat provided that a community meeting was conducted prior to
the application requesting rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD).
4. Article IV, Section C. Preliminary Plat, 1.b.(13) of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised as follows:
(13) Tree protection plan shall be submitted for all required street trees or trees over
20” DBH. Tree protection fences shall be installed prior to land disturbance
activities. (See Appendix G)
5. Article IV, Section D. Final Plat, 1. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised to
remove the following wording:
a. Either a financial guaranty (in the form of a performance maintenance bond) in an
amount and form acceptable to the City Council as a guarantee for the installation
of required improvements or the determination of the City's General Superintendent
that all required improvements have been installed to the City's requirements.
6. Article IV, Section D. Final Plat, 1.b. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised to
add the following:
(20) ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles including, but not limited to locations of: street
centerlines, sidewalk centerlines, curb lines (including back of curb), property
corners, lot lines, and edge of pavement.
7. Article IV, Section E. Procedure Exceptions of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
1. Minor Subdivisions - For platting of four (4) or fewer lots, where there are no new
streets or rights-of-way, no new utility mains, or any other public infrastructure
(hereinafter “streets or public infrastructure”) required, application for
simultaneous preliminary and final approval may be made to the Planning
Commission. Submittals shall in all other respects meet the minimum requirements
of these regulations.
2. Replat - Lot line adjustments may be approved administratively by a replat
approved by the Planning Director and/or his/her authorized agent without review
by the Planning Commission, provided that no new lots are thereby created and
that no lot is reduced below the minimum size otherwise required by the provisions
herein or by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The replat shall otherwise comply
with all requirements of Article V, Section E. Lot Standards. A replat shall require
the submission of a sketch plat as specified in Article IV, Section B.2., except that
the location and dimension of lot lines, and existing facilities shall be exact.
Additionally, a replat may be required by the Planning Director to resolve
discrepancies between lots of record and tax parcels comprising multiple lots.
8. Article IV, Section H. Multiple Occupancy Projects, 5. of the Subdivision Regulations is
hereby revised to read as follows:
5. PROCEDURE EXCEPTION - For Multiple Occupancy Projects which include
four (4) or fewer units and for which no new streets or public infrastructure is
required, application for simultaneous preliminary and final approval may be made
to the Planning Commission. Submittals shall in all other respects meet the
minimum requirements of these regulations.
9. Article V, Section B. Approval Standards, 2.e. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
e. Notwithstanding that the proposed subdivision may satisfy the technical, objective
provisions of these regulations, the Commission has discretion to deny a
subdivision if there is any articulable, rational basis for a determination that the
proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, or welfare of persons
or property. within the planning jurisdiction of the City.
10. Article V, Section C. Greenspace Standards, 1. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
1. Purpose - These greenspace standards shall implement the Comprehensive Plan for
the physical development of the City by setting the location, character and extent of
playgrounds, squares, parks, and other public grounds and greenspace to promote
good civic design and arrangement. This design and arrangement shall ensure
adequate and convenient greenspace for recreation.
These standards shall promote the following goals in the Comprehensive Plan:
(a) create focal points for new and existing neighborhoods by providing
appropriately located parks, schools, parkways, and other amenities; (b) support
development of recreational opportunities; (c) link village centers to neighborhoods
with a parks and trail system; (d) provide public gathering places; and (e) include
greenspace (plaza, parks, greenspace) for social activity and recreation in new
infill development.
11. Article V, Section C. Greenspace Standards, 2. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
2. Applicability and Requirements - The regulations in this Section C. shall apply to
any development, whether or not in the City Limits. Greenspace amounts to be
provided shall be calculated based on the net density of a subdivision and applied
to the gross area of the subdivision to determine the required greenspace for the
subdivision. For the purposes of this section, net density of a site is the resulting
number of units per acre after removing public or private rights-of-way, storm
water infrastructure, wetlands, water course and undevelopable land based on
topography or physical constraints.
Units Per Acre Greenspace Amount
Less than 2 units per acre 10%
2-4 units per acre 15%
4-6 units per acre 20%
More than 6 units per acre 25%
Multiple Occupancy Project – Commercial 10%
Multiple Occupancy Project – Residential, including but not limited to Mobile
Home Developments and Manufactured Home Developments as defined by the City
of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, Baldwin County Zoning Ordinance, or Baldwin
County Subdivision Regulations as applicable.
Less than 3 units per acre 10%
3 units per acre 15%
4-6 units per acre 20%
More than 6 units per acre 25%
12. Article V, Section C. Greenspace Standards, 3. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
3. Eligible Greenspace - Greenspace eligible for meeting the requirements of this
section shall:
a. be usable land for public active or passive recreation purposes.
b. be located in FEMA FIRM map zones AO, A99, D, or VO.
c. not be located in any wetland areas as defined by the Federal Government.
d. not include any retention, detention or similar holding basins, unless:
1. The wet holding basin is clearly integrated into an open space/park site with
adjacent pedestrian facilities and passive recreation provided by the
applicant.
2. Wet holding basin banks shall not exceed a 3:1 slope.
3. Greenspace credit for wet holding basins basin shall not exceed 30% of the
surface area of the wet holding basin at the basin’s static water level.
e. not include any right-of-way.
13. Article V, Section C. Greenspace Standards, 4. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
4. Design Requirements – All eligible greenspace shall conform to the following design
requirements:
a. Maximize public exposure and public access to greenspace.
b. Streets shall align adjacent to greenspace.
c. Greenspace shall not be located adjacent to a collector or arterial street,
provided however, greenspace may be located adjacent to, but outside any
highway construction setback lines.
d. Due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as lakes, ponds, water
courses, historic sites and other similar features which, if preserved, will add
attractiveness and value to the property.
e. The amount, distribution and type of open space provided shall be context
sensitive with the built environment around it.
f. Types of Greenspace
The following Table 4-1 indicates the categories, types, locations and general sizes
of greenspace that are to be used to meet the City requirements for greenspace.
Table 4-1: Greenspace Categories and Types
14. Article V, Section C. Greenspace Standards, 4.Table 4-1 of the Subdivision Regulations
is hereby revised to replace “open space” with “greenspace” throughout Table 4-1.
15. Article V, Section C. Greenspace Standards, 7. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
7. Greenspace Maintenance – All required greenspace shall be indicated on the
recorded plat as a public access and use easement. The plat must also have a note
that the property is not dedicated to the City of Fairhope and that the City of
Fairhope is not responsible for maintenance of any or all required greenspace.
Lakes, ponds, watercourses or similar sites will be accepted for maintenance only if
sufficient land is dedicated as a public recreation area, park or greenspace. Such
areas must be approved by the Recreation Board and accepted by the City Council
before approval of the plat.
16. Article V, Section D. Street Standards, 5.a.(9) of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
(9) An inventory of all live trees greater than 20” DBH on site shall be protected and
indicated on a tree preservation plan. Said preservation plan shall reflect tree
protection in the diagram in Appendix G and verbiage below.
Erecting Barriers is essential to protecting trees during construction. The applicant
shall provide construction fences around all significant trees.
Allow one foot of space from the trunk for each inch of trunk diameter. The intent is
not merely to protect the above ground portion of the trees, but also the root
systems. The fenced area shall be clear of building materials, waste, and excess
soil. No digging, trenching or other soil disturbance shall be allowed in the fenced
area.
Fines for not complying with the City of Fairhope’s ordinance 1193, tree
protection, will be levied in accordance to the City of Fairhope’s restitution table.
17. Article V, Section D. Street Standards, 5.a.(11)(a) of the Subdivision Regulations is
hereby revised to read as follows:
(a) A significant tree is defined as any living tree (overstory or understory) with a DBH
that exceeds twenty (20) inches. Significant trees are protected under this
Ordinance and cannot be cut or intentionally harmed without expressed written
consent of the City Horticulturist.
18. Article V, Section D. Street Standards, 6. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to remove the following wording:
The developer may have the flexibility to construct the sidewalks within 2 years of final
plat approval. A letter of credit guaranteeing the construction for 125% of the
engineer’s estimate is required. At the end of 2 years, all sidewalks shall be completed
by either the developer or City, using the letter of credit.
19. Article V, Section D. Street Standards, 6. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to add the following:
(4) Sidewalks
(a) Sidewalks are not required to be installed in the right-of-way where all lots
front on and have access to existing streets or roads, and such streets or roads
are under the jurisdiction of another governing authority, and that authority has
prohibited the installation of sidewalks in the right-of-way. In such event, the
Commission may require the installation of sidewalks in easements along the
margin of the lots adjacent to the right-of-way.
(b) If so requested, the Commission may waive the requirement to install sidewalks
if, in the discretion of the Commission, sidewalks will not serve the intended
purposes due to the absence of other sidewalks in proximity to the subdivision
or due to topographical conditions. However, in such cases the Commission
shall require sidewalk easements along the margin of lots adjacent to the right-
of-way to accommodate the installation of sidewalks in the future.
20. Article V, Section E. Lot Standards, 3.a. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
a. Except in rural and agricultural subdivisions under Section D.7(c) and (d), or as
otherwise provided in these regulations, all lots shall front upon a paved, publicly
maintained street, and be accessed via such frontage. The Commission, in its
discretion, may (but is not required to) allow deviation from this requirement where
such frontage and access to each lot is unattainable due to unique and
extraordinarily unusual characteristics of the property. Deviation will not be
allowed where it appears to the Commission that that the deviation is proposed, in
whole or in part, for the purpose of reducing development costs or increasing
density. In allowing such deviation the Commission shall require the creation of
easements at least 30’ in width to provide for safe and convenient access for
ingress/egress, utilities, and public services. Double frontage lots are prohibited,
except where lots consist of more than 66% of a block.
21. Article VI, Section B. Streets and Lanes, 4. of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
4. Wearing Surface shall consist of a surface course constructed with asphaltic
concrete. It shall be constructed in one layer, not less than an average weight of
one hundred sixty-five pounds per square yards at an average thickness of not less
than one and one half inches. Wearing surface shall conform to the lines, grades,
and typical cross sections shown on the Plans. A cross slope of not less than one:
quarter inch per foot shall be maintained from centerline to curb line. Plant mix
shall conform to state specifications for the type work.
22. Article VI, Section D. Sidewalks of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised to
read as follows:
Sidewalks shall be installed on all streets within the planning jurisdiction of the City of
Fairhope, except on those streets which are eligible for the rural design standard
expressed in Table 5.3, Appendix A of these regulations, or as elsewhere provided for
in these regulations. On streets requiring sidewalks, concrete sidewalks which meet the
City's standards and specifications expressed in Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances,
as amended shall be installed. Sidewalks shall be designed and installed in accordance
with good engineering practice.
23. Article VI, Section E. Storm Water of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby revised to
add the following:
9. ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles – Electronic ESRI ArcMap shapefiles including but not
limited to locations of all storm drainage piping, structures, inlets, ponds, swales,
ditches, and any other forms of stormwater storage, treatment, or conveyance.
24. Article VI, Section I. Permanent Monuments of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
Monuments shall be set at all points where the exterior boundaries of the subdivision
intersect, including points of curvature and points of tangency on curved boundaries.
All monuments and interior lot corners shall be marked as prescribed by the most
recent edition of the Alabama Society of Professional Land Surveyors document
Standards of Practice for Surveying in the State of Alabama.
25. Article VI, Section L. Requirement to Complete Improvements of the Subdivision
Regulations is hereby revised to read as follows:
Sub-divider shall be responsible for providing all required minimum improvements in
the subdivision. This shall be accomplished by full installation of such improvements
before the Final Plat is submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
Sub-divider shall be responsible for providing all test reports, inspection videos, and
ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles including but not limited to the following:
1. Submission of all roadway and drainage-related test reports and inspection
videos as required by Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances
stamped by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Alabama and
including the engineer’s stamp and statement certifying the roadway construction
meets the requirements of the project plans.
2. Submission of ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles are required by Article IV Section D. and
Article VI. Section E.
3. Submission of all utility-related test reports, inspection videos, and ESRI ArcMap
Shapefiles as required by Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary
Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities with reports stamped by a licensed
professional engineer in the State of Alabama and including the engineer’s stamp
and statement certifying the utility services constructed meets the requirements of
the project plans.
26. Article VII, Section A. Waiver Standards of the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
revised to read as follows:
Except where these regulations elsewhere provide for a waiver as to a specific matter,
waivers may be granted where the Planning Commission finds that the following
conditions exist:
1. An extraordinary hardship may result from strict compliance with these
regulations due to unusual topographic or other physical conditions of the land or
surrounding area not generally applicable to other land areas.
2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider.
3. The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent
of the regulations, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to
relieve the hardship;
5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future
landowners, or the public;
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
DULY ADOPTED this ___ day of ________________, 2020.
______________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman
Attest:
______________________________
Emily Boyett, Secretary
City of FairhopePlanning Commission July 6, 2020Adoptionof various amendments to the subdivision regulations1CCover page amendment2Date of last amendment XXXX, 20XXSubdivision Regulations Adopted March 8, 2007
Article II Definitions Lot:a parcel of land intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or for building development, or both, which will generally front fronts upon a public right-of-way, exclusive of any part of the right-of-way. Designation of land as a tax parcel by the Baldwin County Revenue Commissioner does not establish a lot of record within the meaning of these regulations. 3AArticle IV Section “B” Pre-Application and Sketch Plat1.Pre-application Conference and Community Meetinga. Pre-Application Conference –All applications for major subdivisions, village subdivisions and Multiple Occupancy Projects must attend a mandatory pre-application conference with City staff prior to making application so the developer may become familiar with the comprehensive plan and other rules which may affect the development. A pre-application conference with the Planning Director and/or his/her authorized agent may be scheduled at the mutual convenience of both parties.b. Community Meeting –After the pre-application meeting and prior to making application for a major subdivision, village Subdivisions or MultipleOccupancy Project the applicant must conduct a community meeting to solicit publicinput.(1) Notice of Community Meeting – except as specified in (2) below. The applicant shall notify all persons owning property adjacent to any specific property that is the subject of the application stating the date, time, location, nature and subject of the meeting. The location of the meeting shall be at a public facility unless the location of the development makes a public facility impracticable. Names and addresses shall be from the latest records of the county revenue office and accuracy of the list shall be the applicant’s responsibility. Where land adjacent to the subject property involves leasehold property, the names and addresses of the landowner and the leasehold improvements shall be notified.Upon application for a major subdivision, village subdivisions and Multiple Occupancy Projects, the followingcommunity meeting information must be provided:i.Copy of notice mailed to neighboring properties for the community meeting stating date, time, location, nature and subject of the meeting.ii.Copy of site plan or other descriptive information discussediii.Attendance sign in sheet.iv.Meeting minutesv.Written comments in lieu of attendance if provided(2) Subdivisions preceded by the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) are not required to conduct an additional community meeting prior to submission of a subdivision preliminary plat provided that a community meeting was conducted prior to the application requesting rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). 4
AArticle IV Section “C.1” xiii Preliminary Plat5xiii. Tree protection plan shall be submitted for all required street trees or trees over 20”24”DBH. Tree protection fences shall be installed prior to land disturbance activities.(See Appendix G)AArticle IV Section “D.1.a. and D.1.b.(3). ”Procedure for Plat Approval – Final Plat Requirements Prior to expiration of preliminary plat approval, applicant may submit eighteen (18) copies of the Final Plat to the commission staff for review and, if in compliance, placement on the commission agenda.1.Submission Requirements– The staff shall not place any proposed Final Plat on the agenda for review until staff has received the following items:a. Either a financial guaranty (in the form of a performance maintenance bond) in an amount and form acceptable to the City Council as a guarantee for the installation of required improvements or the determination of the City's General Superintendent that all required improvements have been installed to the City'srequirements.(RE-NUMBER AS APPROPRIATE)b. Final Plat and Final Plans showing all information required by and meeting requirements of Article IV., Section C.1. and the following additionalinformation:(1) Location of all blocks and lots with numbers in final numerical order.(2)Sufficient data to determine and to reproduce on the ground the location, bearing and length of every road line, block line, boundary line, and building line, whether curved or straight, and including the radius of arc, central angle, length of tangent and length of curve for the centerline of all roads or streets and for all property lines. Dimensions shall be shown to the nearest 1/100 foot and bearings to the nearest 15 seconds.(3) ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles including, but not limited to locations of: street centerlines, sidewalk centerlines, curb lines (including back of curb), property corners, lot lines, and edge of pavement. 6
AArticle IV Section “E” Procedure Exceptions1.Minor Subdivisions- For platting of four (4) or fewer lots, where there are no new streets or rights-of-way,andno new utility mains required, or any other public infrastructure (hereinafter “streets or public infrastructure”) required, application for simultaneous preliminary and final approval may be made to the Planning Commission. Submittals shall in all other respects meet the minimum requirements of these regulations.2.Replat- Lot line adjustments may be approved administratively by a replat approved by the Planning Director and/or his/her authorized agent without review by the Planning Commission, provided that no new lots are thereby created and that no lot is reduced below the minimum size otherwise required by the provisions herein or by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The replat shall otherwise comply with all requirements of Article V, Section E Lot Standards.A replat shall require the submission of a sketch plat as specified in Article IV, Section B.2., except that the location and dimension of lot lines, and existing facilities shall be exact. Additionally, a replat may be required by the Planning Director to resolve discrepancies between lots of record and tax parcels comprising multiple lots. 7AArticle IV Section “H.5” Multiple Occupancy Projects 5. PROCEDURE EXCEPTIONFor Multiple Occupancy Projects which include four (4) or fewer units and for which no new streets or public infrastructure is rights-of-way and no new utility mains arerequired, application for simultaneous preliminary and final approval may be made to the Planning Commission. Submittals shall in all other respects meet the minimum requirements of these regulations.8
AArticle V Section “B.2.e.” Approval Standards 1.Generally-According to the City of Fairhope Comprehensive Plan, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space or public building or structure or public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location, character and extent thereof shall have been submitted to and approved by the Commission.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’sComprehensive 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 ImprovementsProgram;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; ore.Notwithstanding that the proposed subdivision may satisfy the technical, objective provisions of these regulations, the Commission has discretion to deny a subdivision if there is any articulable, rational basis for a determination that the proposed subdivisionotherwise endangers the health, safety, orwelfareof persons or property.within the planning jurisdiction of theCity.9AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 101. Purpose- These greenspace standards shall implement the Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City by setting the location, character and extent of playgrounds, squares, parks, and other public grounds and greenspaceopenspacesto promote good civic design and arrangement. This design and arrangement shall ensure adequate and convenient greenspaceopenspacesfor recreation. These standards shall promote the following goals in the Comprehensive Plan:(a) create focal points for new and existing neighborhoods by providing appropriately located parks, schools, parkways, and other amenities; (b) support development of recreational opportunities; (c) link village centers to neighborhoods with a parks and trail system; (d) provide public gathering places; and (e) include greenspaceopen spaces(plaza, parks, greenspace) for social activity and recreation in new infill development.
AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 112. Applicability and Requirements - The regulations in this Section C. shall apply to any development, whether or not in the City Limits. Greenspace Open space amounts to be provided shall be calculatedbased on the net density of a subdivision and applied to the gross area of the subdivision to determine the required greenspace for the subdivision. For thepurposes of this section, net density of a site is the resulting number of units per acre after removing public or private rights-of-way, storm water infrastructure, wetlands, water course and undevelopable land based on topography or physical constraints.Units Per AcreGreenspaceOpen SpaceAmountLess than 2 units per acre 10%2-4 units per acre 15%4-6 units per acre 20%More than 6 units per acre 25% Multiple Occupancy Project - Commercial 10%AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 12Subsection “2” ContinuedMultiple Occupancy Project – Residential, including but not limited to Mobile Home Developments and Manufactured Home Developments as defined by the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, Baldwin County Zoning Ordinance, or Baldwin County Subdivision Regulations as applicable. Less than 3 units per acre 10%3 units per acre 15%4-6 units per acre 20%More than 6 units per acre 25%
AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 133. Eligible Greenspace - Greenspace eligible for meeting the requirements of this section shall:a. be usable land for public active or passive recreation purposes.b. be located in FEMA FIRM map zones AO, A99, D, or VO.c. not be located in any wetland areas as defined by the Federal Government.d. not include any retention, detention or similar holding basins, unless:1. The wetholding basin is clearly integrated into an open space/park site with adjacentland available for pedestrian facilities and passive recreation provided by the applicant.2. Wetholding basin banks shall not exceed a 3:1 slope.3. GreenspaceOpenspacecredit for wet holding basinsbasinshall not exceed 30% of the surface area of the wet holding basin at the basin’s static water level. e. not include any right-of-way.AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 144. Design Requirements–All eligible greenspace shall conform to the following design requirements:a. Maximize public exposure and public access to greenspace.b. Streets shall align adjacent to greenspace.c. Greenspace shall not be located adjacent to a collector or arterial street, provided however, greenspace may be located adjacent to, but outside any highway construction setback lines. d. Due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as lakes, ponds, water courses, historic sites and other similar features which, if preserved, will add attractiveness and value to the property.e. The amount, distribution and type of open space provided shall be context sensitive with the built environment around it.f. Types of Open Space and GreenspaceThe following Table 4-1 indicates the categories, types, locations and general sizes of greenspaceopen spacethat are to be used to meet the City requirements for greenspaceopen spaceand greenspace.
AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 15Table 4-1: GreenspaceOpen Space Categories and TypesReplace “open space” with “greenspace” throughout table 4-1AArticle V Section “C” Greenspace Standards 167.Greenspace Maintenance-All required greenspace shall be indicated on the recorded plat as a public access and use easement. The plat must also have a note that the property is not dedicated to the City of Fairhope and that the City of Fairhope is not responsible for maintenance of any or all required greenspace. Lakes, ponds, watercourses or similar sites will be accepted for maintenance only if sufficient land is dedicated as a public recreation area, park or greenspaceopen space.Such areas must be approved by the Recreation Board and accepted by the City Council before approval of theplat.Size. Category Typ• D4=1criptioD Locatioa Recom.me:ndadoa Image An unde\·eloped area that Preserves may~ The size of a Q contains !!igni.ficam natural located in Ptesen•egreempare features or habitat worthy of development type _,hould Preserve. preservation. Features such based natural be based on the site ~ large stands of trees, water features and the. characteristi~s.and elements, or prominent tequired level of potential continuity topography characterize. preser,,-atioo of of natural features in. l)I'eserves. A pres.erve may na!ural the area alo~ ·with by lue for passive recreation characterutics the potential to or as a scenic and vi.mal required. connect to adjacent Duffer_ Itgenenilly contall:1.3 na:tura.l ·areas. little or no constructed improvements· althou.2h trails mar access the preserve. An undeYeloped area of Trail and Greaiway Generally, ;hould continuous 1mear na'tura! ,ystem mayb< inc)ude at least 3 Traill features, often follol\"inj; a located in any acres but should be Greenway stream oi; floodplain. A trail development type :dzed .and located or greenway should be based on linkages to based on providing usable for r~eation and -proposed or eximng ,ignificont non-motorized trail/greenway continuity transportation. It includes net\yorks. throughout a few constructed development and tQ improvements except for areas beyond the those to enhance tra\·el or development area. recreational use. Mu.rt be at least 30' wide at all locatiqm_
AArticle V Planning Design Standards – Section D.5.a.(9) and (11) “Street Standards” 17(9) An inventory of all live trees greater than 20” 24”DBH on site shall be protected and indicated on a tree preservation plan. Said preservation plan shall reflect tree protection in the diagram in Appendix G and verbiage below.Erecting Barriers is essential to protecting trees during construction. The applicant shall provide construction fences around all significant trees.Allow one foot of space from the trunk for each inch of trunk diameter. The intent is not merely to protect the above ground portion of the trees, but also the root systems. The fenced area shall be clear of building materials, waste, and excess soil. No digging, trenching or other soil disturbance shall be allowed in the fenced area.Fines for not complying with the City of Fairhope’s ordinance 1193, tree protection, will be levied in accordance to the City of Fairhope’s restitution table.(10) Developer shall be responsible for watering trees prior to subdivision acceptance and during the 2-year maintenance bond period.(11) Tree Protection Requirements: The following requirements apply to all properties other than single-family residences:(a)A significant tree is defined as any living tree (overstory or understory) with a DBH that exceeds twenty-four (24)(20) inches. Significant trees are protected under this Ordinance and cannot be cut or intentionally harmed without expressed written consent of the City Horticulturist.AArticle V Planning Design Standards – Section “D.6.” Pedestrian Area Design Standards 6. Pedestrian Area Design Standards–All streets shall include a pedestrian area comprised of a planting strip and a sidewalk, according to the standards inTable 5.3 in Appendix A.The developer may have the flexibility to construct the sidewalks within 2 years of final plat approval. A letter of credit guaranteeing the construction for 125% of the engineer’s estimate is required. At the end of 2 years, all sidewalks shall be completed by either the developer or City, using the letter of credit.The areas in which the sidewalks will be poured shall be graded and compacted at the time the subdivision infrastructure is constructed.18
AArticle V Planning Design Standards – Section “D.7.” Exceptions to Street Standards (3) Cul-de-sacs or “loop” streets may be approved where connections with a through street would intersect with the natural or topographical feature. “Loop” streets are preferred to cul-de-sacs wherever practicable. Cul- de-sacs shall not exceed 660 feet and loop streets shall not exceed 1300 feet.(4) Sidewalks(a) Sidewalks are not required to be installed in the right-of-way where all lots front on and have access to existing streets or roads, and such streets or roads are under the jurisdiction of another governing authority, and that authority has prohibited the installation of sidewalks in the right-of-way. In such event, the Commission may require the installation of sidewalks in easements along the margin of the lots adjacent to the right-of-way. (b) If so requested, the Commission may waive the requirement to install sidewalks if, in the discretion of the Commission, sidewalks will not serve the intended purposes due to the absence of other sidewalks in proximity to the subdivision or due to topographical conditions. However, in such cases the Commission shall require sidewalk easements along the margin of lots adjacent to the right-of-way to accommodate the installation of sidewalks in the future. 19AArticle V Planning Design Standards ––Section “E” Lot Standards 3. Lot Access –a.Exceptin rural and agricultural subdivisions under as provided inSection D.7(c) and (d), or as otherwise provided in these regulations, D.6., all lots shall front upon a paved, publicly maintained street, and be accessed via such frontage. The Commission, in its discretion, may (but is not required to) allow deviation from this requirement where such frontage and access to each lot is unattainable due to unique and extraordinarily unusual characteristics of the property. Deviation will not be allowed where it appears to the Commission that that the deviation is proposed, in whole or in part, for the purpose of reducing development costs or increasing density. In allowing such deviation the Commission shall require the creation of easements at least 30’ in width to provide for safe and convenient access for ingress/egress, utilities, and public services. Double frontage lots are prohibited, except where lots consist of more than 66% of a block. 20
AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “B” Streets and Lanes4. Wearing Surface shall consist of a surface course constructed with asphaltic concrete. It shall be constructed in one layer, not less than an average weight of one hundred fiftysixty-five pounds per square yards at an average thickness of not less than one and one half inches. Wearing surface shall conform to the lines, grades, and typical cross sections shown on the Plans. A cross slope of not less than one: quarter inch per foot shall be maintained from centerline to curb line. Plant mix shall conform to state specifications for the type work.21AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “D” SidewalksSidewalks shall be installed on all streets within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Fairhope, except on those streets which are eligible for the rural design standard expressed in Table 5.3, Appendix A of these regulations, or as elsewhere provided for in these regulations. On streets requiring sidewalks, concrete sidewalks which meet the City's standards and specifications expressed in Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances, as amended shall be installed. Sidewalks shall be designed and installed in accordance with good engineering practice.22---
AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “E” Stormwater9. ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles- Electronic ESRI ArcMap shapefiles including but not limited to locations of all storm drainage piping, structures, inlets, ponds, swales, ditches, and any other forms of stormwater storage, treatment, or conveyance.23AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “I” Permanent Monuments ConcreteMonumentsfour inches in cross section and three feet long, with a flat topshall be set at all points where the exterior boundaries of the subdivision intersect, including points of curvature and points of tangency on curved boundaries. The top of the monument shall have an "X" indented therein to identify the exact point and the top shall be set flush with grade.All monuments and interior lot corners shall be marked with a pipe not smaller than three-quarters inch diameter, 24 inches length and shall be driven flush with finish gradeas prescribed by the most recent edition of the Alabama Society of Professional Land Surveyors document Standards of Practice for Surveying in the State of Alabama.24
AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “L” Requirement to Complete Improvements Sub-divider shall be responsible for providing all required minimum improvements in the subdivision. This shallmaybe accomplished eitherby (1) full installation of such improvementsbefore the Final Plat is submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.or (2) after 90%substantial completion of the total cost of the infrastructure the subdivider may provide tothe City a financial guarantee of performance in the form of either a performance bond or aLetter of Credit. Any such performance bond shall be in form and substance acceptable tothe Planning Commission, with oblige riders in favor of the City in the event the bond issuedin the name of the subdivider’s contractor, and shall be issued by a surety that is licensed todo business in the State of Alabama and having a Best rating of A- or better. In the eventthat the subdivision lies within the extra-territorial jurisdiction, such guaranty shall be madejointly payable to the City of Fairhope and Baldwin County, Alabama.The surety and the form and amount of such financial guaranty shall be subject to approvalof the City and/or County.25AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “L” Requirement to Complete Improvements (continued)26Sub-divider shall be responsible for providing all test reports, inspection videos, and ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles including but not limited to the following:1. Submission of all roadway and drainage-related test reports and inspection videos as required by Chapter 19 of the City of Fairhope Code of Ordinances stamped by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Alabama and including the engineer’s stamp and statement certifying the roadway construction meets the requirements of the project plans.2. Submission of ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles are required by Article IV Section D. and Article VI. Section E.3. Submission of all utility-related test reports, inspection videos, and ESRI ArcMap Shapefiles as required by Standard Specifications for Constructing Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Water Facilities with reports stamped by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Alabama and including the engineer’s stamp and statement certifying the utility services constructed meets the requirements of the project plans.
AArticle VII Section “A” - Wavier Standards Except where these regulations elsewhere provide for a wavier as to a specific matter, 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.1.The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider.2.The requested waiver will not have the effect of nullifying the purpose and intent of the regulations, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan.3.The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship;4.The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public;5.The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.27
1 SD 20.25 Mars Hill Subdivsion - July 6, 2020
Planning Commission
July 6, 2020
Subdivision Approval
Case: SD 20.25 Mars Hill Subdivision
Project Name:
Mars Hill Subdivision
Project Type:
Minor Subdivision
Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction
Zoning District:
Unzoned Baldwin County within
County Planning District 17
PPIN Number:
235003
General Location:
Northeast intersection of CR32
and US HWY 98 (Greeno Road)
Engineer of Record:
Dewberry Engineers
Owner / Developer:
CFP Housing, LLC (Curtis F. Pilot)
School District:
Fairhope Elementary,
Intermediate, Middle, and High
Schools
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
Prepared by:
J. Buford King
Development Services
Manager
l
N
2 SD 20.25 Mars Hill Subdivsion - July 6, 2020
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of surveyor of record Mr. Steven Pumphrey and engineer of record
Mr. Jason Estes, PE of Dewberry Engineers on behalf of Curtis F. Pilot of CFP Housing, LLC for the approval of
Mars Hill Subdivision, a three-lot minor subdivision. Subject property is located on the east side of US HWY
98 (Greeno Road) near the intersection of County Road 32, north of the H.L. “Sonny” Callahan Airport.
Proposed Lot 1 is 5.35 acres +/-, proposed Lot 2 is 15.38 acres +/- and proposed Lot 3 is 6.57 acres +/-. No
development activities are known at this time above and beyond the creation of requested lots via minor
subdivision.
Comments:
• Article V, Section E.3.a. Lot Standards – Lot Access
a. The initial application included proposed Lot 1 not fronting upon a paved, publicly-maintained
street
b. The plat has been amended to reflect Lot 1 as a “flag” lot that fronts upon Greeno Road and thus
meets the requirements of this section.
• Article IV, Section C.1.c. Street Plan Requirements
a. The initial application proposed “Mars Hill Lane” which was requested as a private ROW but met
neither the lot nor ROW standards.
b. The private ROW is no longer requested and proposed Lot 1 is now a “flag” lot that includes the
former Mars Hill Lane. An ingress/egress easement across the portion of Lot 1 connecting to
Greeno Road is included on the plat in favor of lots 2 and 3, however proposed Lots 2 and 3 also
meet the frontage requirements of the subdivision regulations.
• Article VI, Section D. Construction Standards-Sidewalks
a. No sidewalks along US HWY 98/Greeno Road and County Road 32 are provided in subject
application or proposed within pedestrian/sidewalk easements
b. A waiver from the sidewalk installation requirement has been requested and the developer
is willing to place a pedestrian access easement along the margin of the affected ROWs
upon which sidewalks may be constructed at a future time.
• Article IV, Section C.1.b.(13) and Article V, Section D.5.a.(9) Tree Protection Plan
a. The applicant indicates no development activities above and beyond the creation of proposed lots
is known for the site at the time of consideration and thus no tree protection is required
• Article IV, Section C.1.h. Traffic Data and Traffic Study:
a. The engineer of record (EOR) has provided correspondence indicating the proposed
subdivision does not trigger a traffic study
• Article IV, Section.D.1.b.(17) Maintenance Plan for maintenance of detention facilities
a. Two existing detention ponds provide stormwater storage and treatment for the site and to
continue to accommodate drainage needs for the entire site after the creation of multiple lots, a
blanket drainage easement is noted on the plat on the entirety of the property.
b. An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and Agreement will be necessary for the detention
ponds and the stormwater system in order to meet the current requirements of the subdivision
regulations, and will be included as a condition of approval.
The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article V.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:
3 SD 20.25 Mars Hill Subdivsion - July 6, 2020
a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City’s Zoning
ordinance, where applicable.
• N/A – subject property is located in unzoned Baldwin County. The 2015 comprehensive plan
contemplates a commercial node near subject property, however subject application does not
present any development activities above and beyond the creation of proposed lots.
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.
• N/A - subject application does not present any development activities above and beyond the
creation of proposed lots for which analysis by the plans described above is triggered.
c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these regulations.
• Meets – pending approval of the partial sidewalk waiver request
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 orproperty within the
planning jurisdiction of the City.”
• Does not appear to endanger health, safety, welfare, or property
Recommendation:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of case number SD 20.25 subject to the following conditions:
1. Acceptance of the applicant’s request for a partial wavier of Article IV, Section “D” sidewalks.
a. In lieu of installing sidewalks along CR 32 and Greeno Road, the applicant is willing to
place a pedestrian access easement on the subdivision plat along the margin of the
frontage of the CR 32 and US 98 ROWs which will allow installation of sidewalks at a
future time.
b. Staff does not object to this waiver request because the nearest sidewalks along the
respective ROWs are more than one road mile from the subject property.
2. Preparation, submission, and recording of a Stormwater Operations Maintenance Plan and Agreement
for the existing stormwater system on subject property as prerequisite to applying staff signatures on
the plat.
4 SD 20.25 Mars Hill Subdivsion - July 6, 2020
Enlarged Zoning Map:
l
N
8211
SUIB,J1ECT PROP ERY
PPIN235003
_,
5 SD 20.25 Mars Hill Subdivsion - July 6, 2020
Enlarged Aerial Map:
GRE ENO ROAD U
N
Page 1 of 1
June 15, 2020
Mr. Buford King
City of Fairhope
161 North Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Re: Mars Hill Subdivision
Minor Subdivision (SD 20.25)
Dear Buford:
With this letter, we are requesting on behalf of the property owner for a waiver from Article VI,
Section “D” Sidewalks of the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations. There are no existing sidewalks
in the proximity of this property and there is no site construction proposed as part of this
subdivision. If desired by the Planning Commission, the property owner is willing to place a
pedestrian access easement along the frontage of US Highway 98 and County Road 32 right-of-
ways.
If you need any additional information regarding this application, please advise.
Sincerely,
DEWBERRY
Steven Pumphrey
Senior Planner
Cc: File: 50120268
(W Dewberry·
Dewberry Engineers Inc
25353 Friendship Road
Daphne , AL 36526
251 .990 .9950
251 .990 .9910 fax
www. dewberry .co rn
SITELEGEND:OLD ORCHARD SUBDIVISION U.S. HIGHWAY 98 (A.K.A. GREENO RD) 225' RIGHT-OF-WAYBALDWIN COUNTY HIGHWAY 32 80' RIGHT-OF-WAYBAAMAL AMAGERIT OVIC RL.NLOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12COMMON AREA NO.1DETENTION POND DETENTION POND POINT OF BEGINNING132SUBDIVISIONMARS HILL25353 Friendship Road Daphne, AL 36526251.990.9950 fax 251.929-9815W:\50120268\PLN\50120268_MINOR SUBDV_REVISED.dwg, 6/15/2020 2:55:28 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY FAIRHOPE PUBLIC UTILITIES: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE E-911 ADDRESSING: -,c N -11~-----"" w E s I 125' HIGHWAY CONtTRUCTION SETBACK i CERT/FICA T£ OF THE BALDWIN COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR CERnFICATE OF APPROVAL BY TH[ COUNTY ENGINEER FLOOD CERT/FICA TE: __l_ VICINITY MAP J" = 1 MILE CERT/FICA T!ON OF OWNERSHIP AND OED/CA T!ON: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC: sr--r>\T1\ 7'.l~lf,C: .JN70~FrJ RAI JW ~ '.:DLHHY PRCP'.lScJ USl: COf.l\llR~IAL N.Ji&!Lli '.)I _'.)IS: j SMAL_cS I L:J I: 5.~ / A'.; I ARGF:'T I '.JT: 1 '.i.:oil A'.: -o-A_ ARE.I,,: 29.39 /:..C, -!l'.J,JIRl~ Sl I 8ACKS: "RONT: 30 °cET ,FAR: 50 "FFT Sil,: 1 C 111T SI-Jr srnrrT: 70 IT,-Wt.ER SE'NICE: c;ITY CF "A ,-0°E ''FWF'< :;0RVIC:0: C TY OF F.AIRH'.;00 Fl "C-R C SFRVICF: RIVIFRA ,JTII ITl"S E_EPH:J~E SC:RVl~E: A.T&-GENERAL NOTES, SURVEYOR: DEWBERRY 25353 FRIENDSHIP ROAD DAPHNE, AL 36526 VICTOR L GERMAIN, PLS L/C. NO. 38473 OWNER, CFP HOUSING, L.L.C. P.O. BOX 91206 MOBILE, AL 36691 SURVEYOR'S NOTES: SURVEYOR'S CERT/FICA TE: JUNE 15, 2020 -SHEET 1 OF 1 BOUNDARY SURVEY AND PIAT OF MINOR SUBDIVISION DESIGN M,S.P. DRAWN A.E.F. CHKD. M.S.P. ENG SURVEYOR V.L.G. PROJ MGR M.S.P. ® Dewberry· SCALE 1 "=80' PROJ, N0.50120268 FILE f.llNOR SUBOV SHEET 1 OF 1
1 SD 20.29 USA Mapp Subdivision – July 6, 2020
Planning Commission
July 6, 2020
2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval
Case: SD 20.29 USA Mapp Subdivision
Project Name:
USA Mapp Subdivision Minor
Property Owner /Applicant:
Mapp Limited Partnership, an
Alabama Limited Partnership
General Location:
The property is located at the
southeast corner of the
intersection of State Highway
181 and State Highway 104
Project Type:
Minor Subdivision inside
Fairhope’s ETJ
Number of lots:
2
Project Acreage:
16.75
Zoning District:
Unzoned
PPIN Number:
77680
Surveyor of record:
Dewberry
School District:
Fairhope East Elementary,
Fairhope Middle, Fairhope High School
Report prepared by:
Carla L. Davis
City Planner
Recommendation:
Approval
N
Subject Property
N
Subject Site
Legend
•••••• Subject Parcel
C I TY OF FAIRHOPE ZON ING
Zo nin g
~ TR Tourist Resort
-R--A Residential /"4ri0ilt11re Dist rid
R-1 Low DensitySin g1e-faml y
llIIlII R 1(11 )
~R1(b)
~ R1(c)
-R-2 Medium DensilySingle-f11m ily
-R-3 High Density Single-Fam i y
R-3 PGH Patio/Garden S in gle Fami y
c=J R-3 TH Tov.nhouse Single F amil y
-R-4 lowDensityMu•i..f amily
R-5 High Density Dv.el ing Residential
-B-1 Local Shoppin9Distrid
B-2 Gener11 I B11i!inessDistrid
-B-3a TouristR esortLodginoDistrid
-B-3b Tourist Resort Commercial Service Distrid
-B-4 Business and Professiona l District
-M-1 lioht lnd11stri11ID istrict
-P-1 Parting
PUD Planned Unit Development
c=]Percel Lotline
t
'------------11§)
2 SD 20.29 USA Mapp Subdivision – July 6, 2020
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of Mapp Limited Partnership, an Alabama Limited Partnership, owner,
and applicant for a 2-lot minor subdivision. The property is located on the east side of County Road 3 just
south of Rose Bishop Lane. The subject property is approximately 16.75 acres and the applicant desires to
divide the property into two separate lots. The proposed Lot 1 is approximately 8.00 acres (9348,263 square
feet). The proposed Lot 2 is approximately 8.75 acres (381,583 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 Subdivisi on Regulations Article VI Section D
requires the provision of sidewalks along all street s in the Planning Jurisdiction of Fairhope. The preliminary
plat depicts a 10’ sidewalk easement along US Highway 181 and Highway 104. The applicant is also requesting
a sidewalk waiver.
Article VI, Section G also requires the provision of fire hydrants to 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. The applicant is also requesting a fire hydrant waiver along US Highway
181 and 104 for the deferral of installation of fire hydrants until the submission of a site plan (the applicant
states it is forthcoming).
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. Power is
supplied by Riviera Utilities. Baldwin County Sewer Service will be provided sewer, and the telephone service
will be provided by AT& T.
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 sidewalk waivers:
On behalf of the owner, Mapp Limited Partnership, an Alabama Limited Partnership, we are
requesting a waiver from the sidewalk requirements along US Hwy 181 and US Hwy 104. We have
depicted a 10-foot sidewalk easement along US Hwy 104 and US Hwy 181.
Article VI, Section G. Fire Hydrants requirement in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations which states,
“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 at otherwise required by the fire authority having jurisdiction.”
The applicant has provided a letter stating the following regarding the request for a sidewalk waiver:
On behalf of the owner, Mapp Limited Partnership, an Alabama Limited Partnership, we are
requesting a waiver from the fire hydrant requirement along US Hwy 181 and US Hwy 104. We
are requesting the deferral of installation of additional fire hydrants to future site plan
application.
3 SD 20.29 USA Mapp Subdivision – July 6, 2020
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 10’ sidewalk easement thus a sidewalk
can be constructed in the future if needed.
Article VI, Section G.- Fire Hydrants: The applicant has not presented any extraordinary hardship;
however, plans to construct fire hydrants at the time of site plan review.
2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Not applicable for this individual case.
Article VI, Section G.- Fire Hydrants: 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.
Article VI, Section G.- Fire Hydrants: Staff finds that this waiver will not nullify the intent of the regulations
because fire hydrants will be added before new construction takes place.
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.
Article VI, Section G.- Fire Hydrants: Because the fire hydrants are being installed prior to development,
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.
Article VI, Section G.- Fire Hydrants: No, the waiver shall not have adverse effects as installment of the
hydrants will take place at a later time.
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Staff is neutral on this standard.
Article VI, Section G.- Fire Hydrants: 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
4 SD 20.29 USA Mapp Subdivision – July 6, 2020
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 20.29 conditional upon the approval of a sidewalk waiver and the fire hydrant waiver
to be deferred until site plan review.
1 SD 20.30 Ferry Road Estates – July 6, 2020
Planning Commission
July 6, 2020
2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval
Case: SD 20.30 Ferry Road Subdivision
Project Name:
Ferry Road Estate Subdivision
Property Owner /Applicant:
Corinne Snyder
General Location:
The property is located on
the east side of Ferry Road
between Keeney Drive and
Ferry Road Circle
Project Type:
Minor Subdivision inside
Fairhope’s ETJ
Number of lots:
2
Project Acreage:
0.89
Zoning District:
Unzoned
PPIN Number:
317
Surveyor of record:
Moore 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
4 .005
17
b
R-1 LowOenHy Slngle-Fam•y
ITIIIll RH•l
16. ~::::
-R-2 Me<lium OensitySlngle-Fami ly
-------; -R-3 Hlg,h Oensty Slngle-Fami y
R-3 PGH Patio1Gardef'ls ;,01efaml y
~R-3ThlTowthouseSlngle Famiy
-R---oi Low Densfy Mull-l"amlly
R-5 Hlg,hOenstyOv.elr10Residentisl
-B--1 LocaJShoppingOislrid.
B--2 General BusinessD~ri a
-B--laToOJri •ResortlodglngDbm<:t
-B-Jb Towisl Resort Commercial Se<Vice Disfflct
-S---4BusinessandProfessional Olsnct
-M-1 Llghllndust,;al01stnct
2 SD 20.30 Ferry Road Estates – July 6, 2020
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request Corinne J. Snyder owner and applicant for a 2-lot minor subdivision.
The property is located on the east side of Ferry Road between Keeney Drive and Ferry Road Circle. The subject
property is approximately 0.89 acres and the applicant desires to divide the property into two separate lots.
The proposed Lot 1 is approximately 0.37 acres (16,378 square feet) and the proposed Lot 2 is approximately
0.51 acres (22,368 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 Subdivisi on Regulations Article VI Section D
requires the provision of sidewalks along all street s 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 and gas services will be provided by the City
of Fairhope. Power is supplied by Baldwin County EMC.; and Baldwin County Sewer Service will provide sewer.
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:
On the behalf of the Owner (Corinne J. Snyder) of the property located on the East side of Ferry Road,
she is requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk construction along Ferry Road. We have added a
15- foot wide easement along Ferry Road for future sidewalk construction. This request is being asked
due to the fact that there are not any sidewalks within miles in all directions of this property.
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.
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.
3 SD 20.30 Ferry Road Estates – July 6, 2020
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 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 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;
• 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, pending acceptance of the sidewalk waiver
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 20.30 conditional upon the approval of a sidewalk waiver.
Emily Boyett
From:
Sent:
Arlene DiPietro <aldipietro928@gmail.com>
Sunday, June 28, 2020 1 :42 PM
To: planning
Subject: Fwd: Planning and Zoning Department, City of Fairhope
----------Forwarded message---------
From: Arlene DiPietro <a1dipietro928@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 1:36 PM
Subject: Planning and Zoning Department, City of Fairhope
To: <planning@fairhope.gov>
Cc: Arlene DiPietro <aldipietro928@gmail.com>
To Whom it may Concern:
I am writing in response to your notification of subdividing the property
on Ferry Road, owned by Corinne J Snyder, Case SD 20.30. I do not
approve of subdividing this property. Reason one is: all the
adjacent properties have houses set on multiple acreage. The properties
are not small lots but generally consist of 2 or more acres. These acres
are not subdivided. Many of us bought our land and built houses years
ago with the understanding that our land was for single family
ownership without subdivision of said properties. Subdividing this Ferry
Road property, Case SD 20.30 will not enhance the aesthetic value of
our neighborhood. Reason two: I was told at the time of purchase of my
land that the plots could only be subdivided one time. The property
listed in Case SD 20.30 has been divided not once but twice and this
subdivision will make it the third time. Reason Three: This property sits
adjacent to Fish River. We have all heard the numerous reports with
regards to the pollution of Fish River. We do not need to take small lots
and then subdivide them to put more houses in a smaller area. This will
not help the pollution of Fish River. Reason Four: This property floods! I
have lived over 30 years in my current home and I can assure you that
1
with each and EVERY hurricane flooding has occurred. In order for a
house built on this property to avoid any flooding it would have to be
built 6-8 feet off the ground. None of the adjacent houses are built on
"stilts." Again this would NOT enhance the aesthetic appearance of the
said property or neighborhood.
In your letter you asked for comments. I hope this email will result in
your reconsideration of allowing this property to be subdivided. I
understand about progress and the changes in time and rules. However,
I bought my house with an agreement that subdivision would never be an
issue. Promises made and promises kept are what this Country, State
and County are all about. These are troubling times and it would be nice
to know that we have the support of our local county
representatives. Promises made over 30 years ago should not be ignored
for the sake of progress but the promises should be kept.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in the matter of the
subdivision of property on Ferry Road, Case SD 20.30.
Arlene DiPiietro
16799 Ferry Road
Fairhope, AL 36532
251-928-1519
2
/PUUP4DBMFOWNER S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE: STATE OF ____ _ COUNTY OF ____ _, This is to certify that, CORINNE JOHNSON SNYDER, the undersigned do hereby certify that I om the Owner of the within platted and described lands and that I have caused the same ta be surveyed and subdivided as indicated hereon, for the uses and purposes herein set forth and ~~r~r~~ca°t~kd~a~~dd~era~td a1ld~g;e~heent!0~~d ud~dfca\~e a11etfrneet~ title to the public or private uses as noted on tliis plat. CORINNE JOHNSON SNYDER Date NOT ARY PUBLIC: STATE OF ____ _, COUNTY OF Notary Public -County, My Commission Expires: _______ _ CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY AT&T-Alabama -TELEPHONE, CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE BALDWIN COUNTY E-911 ADDRESSING The undersigned, as aurhorized by the Baldwin County E-911 Board, hereby approves the Rood names as depicted on the within plat and hereby approves the within plot for the Recording of same in the Judge of Probates Office, Baldwin County, Alabama, on this the __ day of ______ 20_ Authorized Representative Sigr,ature The undersigned, as authorized by _________ hereby approves the within plat for the recording of same in the Office of the Judge of Probate, Baldwin County, Alabama, this the ____ day of ______ 2020. Authorized representative POWER COMPANY CERTIFICATE, The undersigned, as authorized by Baldwin County EMC, hereby approves the within plat for the recording of same in the Office of the Judge of Probate, Baldwin County, Alabama, this the ____ day of ______ 2020. Authorized representative CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF UTILITIES BY CITY OF FAIRHOPE for GAS, & WATER: The undersigned, as authorized by The City of Fairhope, hereby approves the within plat for the recording of same in the Office of the Judge of Probate.Baldwin County, Alabama, this the ___ day of ------~ 20_ Authorized Representative GAS Authorized Representative WATER CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY BALDWIN COUNTY SEWER SERVICE: The undersigned, as authorized by Baldwin County Sewer Service does hereby approve the within plat for the recording o same in the Office, of the Judge of Probate, Baldwin County, Alabama. This the __ day of ________ 2020 Authorized Representative CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF FAIR HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION This plot hos been submitted to and considered by the City of Fairhope Planning Commission and is hereby approved. Doted this the __ day of _____ 20_ Secretory or Authorized Representative CERTIFICATE OF THE BALDWIN COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR: The undersigned, as Director of the Baldwin County Planning and Zonning Department, hereby approves the within plot for the recording of same in tlie Judge of Probates Office, Baldwin County, Alabama, on this the __ day of _____ 20_ 0 u, WEST 894.00' NE Corner of Sec 6, T-7-S, R-2-E RIVER VIEW EST A TES Recorded in Map Book 5, Page 11 05-55-03-06-0-00 1-004.005 PIN: 246622 BLACKLAND INVESTMENTS L L C 12425 BOONE LN FAIRHOPE AL 36532 Residential Not Zoned EAST 291' +/-WEST Deed S 89° 56' 14" E 284.69' Msd SIP 15' Drainage & Utility Easement 221•33' / ~--,--------------15' SSL -------------------,/T , I /Iii I , / !,t ' I~ L O T 2 ,-,v/, ti,., f:; I 1' ~ ~, II 1~ ;;; ] , -0.504+/-Acres VJ() / ✓ /_~ ~ ... ! i ~ 21,968 Square Feet ,/' ,// .. !;? ] !I , ,/ ,, 1~"' ~WI I / I 5}], L __________ 10' SSL ___________ _L _____ f-~ ~~! 10' Drainage & Utility Easement N 88° 56' 08" E 202' +/-FR$c (,1 IP 192.50' / _ 10' Dronoge & Ut~ty Easement __ ---/-~--~-------1;,:-.,,----I , I , I , / , I LOT 1 ;' I j 0.381+/-Acces i i ~ 16,582 Square Feet IE;' I' ti;' !ii ' I CI I I , "~; I ' ~--J,1, _______ L-----f-r---_1_______ 15, Drainage & Utility Eosemel'lt / ' 159.93' FRBC(Arnold) s 87° 13' 02" w 174' +/-05-55-03-06-0-DO 1-016.004 PIN: 344055 GREENE, ANA M 25833 TEALWOOD DR DAPHNE AL 36526 Residential Not Zoned FOP..m Op•n Top Pip• 2-foot Toi O' 50' 100' Graphic Scale 1" -30' 150' Planning Director EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT -0-COUNTY ENGINEER, The undersigned, as County Engineer of Baldwin County, Alabama, hereby approves the within plat for the recording of same in the Probate Office of Baldwin County, Alabama, this the ____ day of -----~ 20_. County Engineer OWNER / DEVELOPER 05-55-03-06-0-001-016.000 PIN, 317 SNYDER, CORINNE JOHNSON PO BOX 2042 BLOWING ROCK NC 28605 RESIDENTIAL NOT ZONED MOORE SURVEYING, INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING 555 NORTH SECTION STREET, FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 PHONE (251) 928 -6777 Email mooresurveying@bellsouth.net SITE DATA, 1. Total Number of Lots 2, Project Size 0.89 Acres Smallest Lot 16,378 Square Feet Largest Lot 22,368 Square Feet JUDGE OF PROBATE ST AMP 2. The Lots are served by AT & T Communications (BELLSOUTH) -Telephone, City of Fairhope Water, Gas, VICINITY SURVEYORS NOTES: 1 Al meosurements were made in occordance with U.S. Standards. DescriptionasfurnlshedbyClient. There may be Recorded or Unrecorded Deeds, Easements, right-of-ways, or other instruments that could affect the Boundaries af said pt"Operties. 4 There was NO attempt la determine the elCistance, location or extent af ony Sub-surfoce features suchasSepticTanks,UndergroundUtiWlies,Foolings,etc. 5 Bearings and Distances shown hereon were "Computed" from actual field traverses. MAP Baldwin County Sewer Service Sewer Baldwin County EMC -Power 6 TheBasisofBearingsforthisSurveyareBasedanGrldNorthasestablishedby LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 3. Property lies Outside the City of Fairhope. 4. Property is NOT Zoned. Building Setbacks FRONT 35 Feet REAR 50 Feet from River Bank SIDE 15 Feet Unless Otherwise Noted Hereon. NO NEW Streets or Utility Lines this Project at this time. Drainage and Utility Easements ore as shown hereon. There is a 15-foot wide Sidewalk, Drainage and Utility Easement along Ferry Road. FLOOD CERTIFICATE: I also state that I have examined the current FIA Official Flood Hazard Map, Community Number 015000, Panel Number 0785 M, (01003C0785 M) and found referenced lot above lies in Flood Zone AE (Elev. 12), Map Dated April 19, 2019. G. P. S. Real Time Network R. T. K., referenced to NAO 1983, Alabama West Zone. 7 There was NO attempt made ta locale any Environmental issues such as but not limited to Wet Londs, Fuel Tonks, etc. 8 Owner Must Verify Wetlands Location if Shawn on Survey with the proper outhorities before any constrL1Ction is to be slorted. 9 RefertoRecordedDeeds,Plats,RestrictiveCavenants for any odditionol lnformotion. 10 Measurements of the Residence are ederlar dimensions oodarenattobeusedforcalculatingsquarefoatage af Residence. 11 F current FEMA maps. 12 bestakedoreosper 13 Building lo<;olion with 14 and Seth Moore. It is ~~y for t~:a!;~:i~;:gd:r~: Named hereon and may not be used by a Third Party. 15 This Survey is Valid for 30 days from the date of survey NO~ iieis u~e~T f~0~~~erit~:r t~u~poTsh~r~ir~~~{ i~~r ~%ten consent from Moore Surveying Inc., or Seth Moore. 16. This Survey is based upon existi~ monumentation found ashereonstatesanddoesnatpurporttarepresenta retracement af the Government Survey. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 3 East. St. Stephens Meridian, Baldwin County, Alabama, thence run West, a distance of 894.00' to a point; thence run South, a distance of 1,169.50' to an iron pin marker lying on the East Right-of-way line of Ferry Road (50 feet Right-of-way at this point) for the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run South 89 degrees 56 minutes 14 seconds East, a distance of 291 feet, more or less, to a point on the West margin of Fish River; thence run Southerly ~~~fh sitd d~;;~e:~r5inm~fut~~h o~ivs8:co0nl~sw~~:: ~f ls\~n~:e;f rr;o;: ?:et5~"or~ ir ~~:it t~e~~eir~~n pin marker lying on the West Right-of-way line of Ferry Road (50 feet Right-of-way at this point); thence run North 00 degrees 23 minutes 05 seconds West, along said West Right-of-way line, a distance of 183.60 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.89 acres, more or less. JOB NO. DATE FIELD WORK ,m SCALE 2020 89 5/20/2020 5/07/2020 SWM 1" = 30' I, Seth W. Moore, a Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, hereby state that all ports of this survey and drawing hove been completed in accordance with the requirements by the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in the State of Alabama to the best of my Knowledge, information and belief, this is a true and correct mop. All according to my survey mode this the __ day of ___ _ 2020. I also state that this drawing and or certification does not reflect any title or easement research, other than what is visible on the ground or provided by the clients at time of survey. Seth W. Moore, P.L.S. Ala. Reg. No. 16671 FERRY ROAD EST A TE A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
1 SD 20.31 Dewberry Estates – July 6, 2020
Planning Commission
July 6, 2020
2-Lot Minor Subdivision Approval
Case: SD 20.31 Dewberry Estates
Project Name:
Dewberry Estates
Minor
Property Owner /Applican
Joey & Janet Langley
General Location:
North side of Dewberry
Lane
Project Type:
Minor Subdivision inside
Fairhope’s ETJ
Number of lots:
2
Project Acreage:
3.80
Zoning District:
Unzoned
PPIN Number:
56024
Surveyor of record:
Smith, Clark & Associates
School District:
J Larry Newton School,
Fairhope Middle, Fairhope
High School
Report prepared by:
Samara Walley, MCP
City Planner
Recommendation:
Tabling
N
N
Subject Site
Hwy. 181
Hwy. 181
Subject Site
2 SD 20.31 Dewberry Estates – July 6, 2020
Summary of Request:
Public hearing to consider the request of Joey and Janet Langley for plat approval of Dewberry Estates, a 2-lot
minor division. The property is approximately 3.80 acres and is located on the north side of Dewberry Lane,
at 9781 Dewberry 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. Gas and 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 preliminary plat illustrates a 2-lot subdivision. There is an existing dwelling on the proposed Lot 1 and an
existing 15’x12’ shed on the proposed Lot 2. There are utilities easements located along the perimeter of each
lot. The proposed lots do not front a paved, publicly maintained road but rather a 30’ ingress & egress
easement. The applicant has submitted a waiver request for frontage on a public street. The applicant has also
submitted waiver requests for a sidewalk and fire hydrant.
It should be noted that Staff received comments via email from the City of Fairhope Fire Inspector official
stating that he would not be in favor of the approval of a waiver for a fire hydrant at this location. He noted
the following reasons for his disapproval: 1) Nearest hydrant location. 2)Road access, width, and condition
3) Hydrant located across major roadway
Waiver Request:
Article V Section E. Lot Standards requirement in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations which states,
“Except as provided in Section D.6., all lots shall front upon a paved, publicly maintained street.”
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.”
Article VI, Section G. Fire Hydrants requirement in the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations which states,
“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 at otherwise required by the fire authority having jurisdiction.”
A. WAIVER STANDARDS: (Staff response in blue)
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 V Section E. – Lot Standards: Though no hardship is presented, the lot has functioned in this
configuration with the 30’ access easement as illustrated.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Though no hardship is presented, currently there are no sidewalks in
the nearby vicinity.
Article VI, Section G. - Fire Hydrants: The applicant has not presented an extraordinary hardship.
3 SD 20.31 Dewberry Estates – July 6, 2020
2. The condition is beyond the control of the sub-divider.
Article V Section E. – Lot Standards: Not applicable for this individual case.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Not applicable for this individual case.
Article VI, Section G. - Fire Hydrants: 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 V Section E. – Lot Standards: Staff finds that this waiver will not nullify the intent of the regulations
because the existing dwelling has been accessed through the existing easement.
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.
Article VI, Section G. - Fire Hydrants: As stated, fire hydrants must be located or installed as required by
Article VI section G. The closest hydrant requires the fire department to lay more than 1000’ of fire hose
to reach the proposed lots for firefighting purposes. Staff will recommend the denial of said waiver. It
should be noted that the construction of fire hydrants (installation of infrastructure) will trigger the
requirement of a 2-lot major subdivision (submission of plans and profiles of the new fire hydrant and water
main).
4. The waiver is the minimum deviation from the required standard necessary to relieve the hardship;
Article V Section E. – Lot Standards: The waiver will be a minimum deviation from the requirements.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: The waiver would be minimum deviation from the required standard.
Article VI, Section G. - Fire Hydrants: The applicant has not presented any hardship associated with site
that would justify the approval of this waiver. Therefore, Staff will recommend the denial of said waiver. It
should be noted that the construction of fire hydrants will trigger the requirement of a 2-lot major
subdivision.
5. The waiver shall not have an adverse effect on adjacent landowners, or future landowners, or the public;
Article V Section E. – Lot Standards: No, the waiver shall not have adverse effects.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: No, the waiver shall not have adverse effects.
Article VI, Section G. - Fire Hydrants: The absence of a fire hydrant within the appropriate radius could be
a potential safety concern for surrounding properties.
6. The waiver is necessary so that substantial justice is done.
Article V Section E. – Lot Standards: Staff is neutral on this standard.
Article VI Section D. - Sidewalks: Staff is neutral on this standard.
Article VI, Section G. - Fire Hydrants: Staff does not find a substantial hardship and would therefore
recommend denial of this waiver.
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
4 SD 20.31 Dewberry Estates – July 6, 2020
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;
• Does not meet – The subdivision does not provide a fire hydrant within the required
distance of the proposed lots.
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.”
• Potentially does not meet - due to the lack of a fire hydrant
Recommendation:
Staff recommends TABLING SD 20.31 (with applicant’s consent) to allow the applicant to submit the following:
1. Submission of Plans and Profiles of a fire hydrant as required by Article VI Section G and
resubmission of the application to reflect a major subdivision containing a preliminary plat
approval request in lieu of concurrent preliminary and final plat approval.
If it is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to approve case number SD 20.31, Staff recommends
the following conditions of approval:
1. Acceptance of a waiver from the requirement to install a fire hydrant as required by Article IV
Section G.;
2. Acceptance of the waiver from the requirement for sidewalk installation as required in Article VI,
Section D; and
3. Acceptance of the waiver request to allow a subdivision that does not front a paved, publicly
maintained road as required in Article V Section E.
1 UR 20.04 AT&T – Twin Beech Road – July 6, 2020
Planning Commission
July 6, 2020
Utility Review
Case: UR 20.04 AT&T – Twin Beech Road
Project Name:
AT&T - Twin Beech Road
Applicant:
AT&T
Owner:
City of Fairhope
Right-of-Ways
General Location:
North side of Twin Beech Rd.
from 8345 Twin Beech Rd. to
County Road 13.
Project Scope:
Proposed installation of
approximately 3,729 linear
foot of underground fiber
optic cable
Jurisdiction:
City of Fairhope
Report prepared by:
Samara Walley, MCP
City Planner
Recommendation:
Approval with conditions
Subject Area
Subject Area
County Rd. 13
N
County Rd. 13
N
Tv.inE'PethRd
2 UR 20.04 AT&T – Twin Beech Road – July 6, 2020
Summary of Request:
Request of AT&T for 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed installation of approximately 3,729
linear foot of underground fiber optic cable. The project will run along the north side of Twin Beech Road
from 8345 Twin Beech to County Road 13.
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 right-of-way (ROW) maintained by Baldwin County or the Alabama Department of Transportation
(ALDOT) shall require permits through the Baldwin County Highway Department or ALDOT.
This application has been reviewed by the Planning Department as well as the Public Works and Utilities
departments. The Right of Way inspector required that all City utility crossings be potholed and verified by City
ROW inspector before crossing. The applicant coordinated with the Right of Way inspector and agreed that potholing
could be completed just prior to the boring process. Elevations for all crossings have been requested on as-built drawings
at the end of the project.
Below is a sketch of the location of work, provided by the applicant.
GENERAL COMMENTS
No open trenches shall be allowed.
Directional boring shall be used in
sensitive areas, such as under roads, in
proximity to trees, on finished lots, etc.
SUPERINTENDENT AND DEPARTMENT
HEAD COMMENTS
The applicant shall contact Alabama One
Call to locate all existing utilities.
Public Works Standard Comments:
• Handholes shall not be located within driplines of Heritage Trees (as defined by the Tree
Ordinance).
• Any proposed trenching shall not be within the dripline of trees.
• If within a tree dripline, consult with the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with
earth work.
• Trees shall not be negatively impacted.
• The applicant shall provide drawings locating their utilities with other utilities and the sidewalks.
Any boxes/handholes cannot be placed in 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.
3 UR 20.04 AT&T – Twin Beech Road – July 6, 2020
• All conduit/cable shall be placed at a depth from existing grade per industry and/or County
Standards. A minimum horizontal and/or vertical clearance (separation) of 36” must be
maintained from 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.
Water and Sewer Standard Comments:
• All existing utilities must be located, and proper separation shall be maintained between utilities.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened by painting the equipment Munsell Green.
Natural Gas Standard Comments:
• Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities.
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).
4 UR 20.04 AT&T – Twin Beech Road – July 6, 2020
• 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 shall be on file with the City of Fairhope Building Department, prior to the issuance
of City of Fairhope permits.
The applicant shall provide as-built profiles of the installed lines, showing the exact depth. The applicant shall
provide full size plans (24”X36” or 11”x17” to correct scale) for this application and for future applications.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of UR 20.04 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 drawing 4 of 11 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 “3” above.
b. Upon satisfactory review and approval by ROW Construction Inspector, as-builts will be
submitted to the utilities GIS technician for inclusion in GIS utility maps as needed.
N
City of FairhopePlanning Commission July 6, 2020Discussion of proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations1
AArticle IV Procedure Exceptions1.One-Time Splita. A one-time split of a single lot/parcel into two lots may be approved administratively by the Planning Director and/or his/her authorized agent without review by the Planning Commission, provided that:i. The lot or parcel existed and has not been divided since March 8, 2007. Sufficient documentation of property status as of March 8, 2007 must be submitted.ii. No new streets or public infrastructure is required.iii. At least one of the resulting lots fronts on and has access to a publicly-maintained street or road. The lot, if any, not fronting on a publicly-maintained street or road shall have access to the publicly-maintained street or road for ingress/egress, utilities, and public services, through an easement not less than 30’ in width. iv. The resulting lots will be in compliance with all lot standards set out in Article V Section E., except those determined by the Planning Director to be inapplicable to the particular split being requested.v. A one-time split shall require the submission of a sketch plat as specified in Article IV, Section B.2., except that the location and dimension of lot lines, and existing facilities shall be exact. vi. Limit to Police Jurisdiction or Permit Jurisdiction or residential districts/units?b. Submittals for “one time split” shall in all other respects meet the minimum requirements of these regulationsc. A certificate of approval shall be reflected upon the sketch plat and signed by the Planning Director and County Engineer, as applicable, and recorded with the Judge of Probate within sixty days of approval by the Planning Director. d. Property undergoing a one-time split may not be subdivided for two (2) years from the date of recording. 2
AArticle VI Construction Standards – Section “G” Fire Hydrants 3Fire Hydrants shall be installed along each street at a maximum interval of four hundred fifty(400450) feet, so that the building envelope of each lot is within 400’ 450’of a hydrant, or at the ends and center of each block (contemplating a maximum block length of 660’), or at such shorter intervals 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. For subdivisions of four or fewer lots/units, located in a remote area of the ETJ where fire hydrants and water mains are not available, fire hydrant installation shall be at the direction of the fire authority having jurisdiction.If so requested, the Commission may waive the requirement to install fire hydrants if the Commission deems an expansion of use requiring additional fire hydrants is not created by the subdivision. Blue reflective markers shall be installed at the street line of streets to indicate the location of fire hydrants. NOTE: applicable building codes, fire codes, or other law may require the installation of fire hydrants or a shorter distance between fire hydrants and buildings or other structures than would result from compliance with this Article VI section G. Compliance with this Article VI Section G shall not render inapplicable the provision of any such codes or other law.