HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2022 Planning Commission Agenda PacketE, ZC 22.10 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Aaron Collins
With SE Civil, acting on behalf of Owner, Burgess Thomasson, Jr., et al., to amend the
existing PUD (Planned Unit Development) for Montrose Preserve PUD. The properties are
approximately 53.94 acres and are located on the west side of US Highway 98, across from
the Rock Creek Subdivision .
PPIN#:75979,75980,75981,59675,75978
F. Executive Session -To discuss pending or potential litigation pursuant to Alabama
Code Section 36-25A-7(a)(3).
S. Adjourn
August 1, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met Monday, August 1, 2022, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairman; Art Dyas; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Clarice Hall-Black;
Hollie MacKellar; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries,
Development Services Manager; Casey Potts, City Planner; Michelle Melton, City Planner;
Allie Knutson, Secretary; and Chris Williams, City Attorney.
Absent: Rebecca Bryant, Vice-Chair; and Corey Martin, City Council Liaison.
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM.
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, announced that Item A, ZC 22.09, was being
held off of the agenda till next month’s meeting per the request of the Applicant. Property lines
are going to be adjusted so the request will need to be readvertised.
Approval of the Minutes:
June 6, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting
Allie Knutson, Secretary, stated that the minutes from the June 6, 2022, Planning Commission
Meeting received a motion, but did not receive a second and needed to be voted on again.
John Worsham made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 6, 2022, meeting.
Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote.
AYE: Lee Turner, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, and Hollie
MacKellar.
NAY: None.
July 7, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting
John Worsham made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 7, 2022, meeting.
Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote.
AYE: Lee Turner, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, and Hollie
MacKellar.
NAY: None.
SD 22.21 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, David Martin, acting on
behalf of the Owner, FST 404 Oak LLC, for Preliminary Approval of 404 Oak Avenue, a 4 -unit
Multiple Occupancy Project. The property is approximately 0.18 acres and is located at 404 Oak
Avenue. PPIN #: 14546
Summary:
Casey Potts, City Planner, presented the case summary.
August 1, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
2
There are three residential units and one office unit proposed. All connections and work in City of
Fairhope ROW will require permitting from City of Fairhope. The site will utilize existing water, sewer,
power, and gas services to the building and the services to each unit will be included in the rental rates.
Communications will be provided by AT&T. Trash pickup will be collected via shared rolling cans and
picked up by the City of Fairhope. A traffic study was not triggered for this project. The building is
existing, stormwater will be conveyed through existing stormwater conveyance systems. Sidewalk will
be installed at along Oak Street, within the right-of-way. The applicant met with Public Works and the
approved sidewalk is shown in the plans and is ADA compliant. Three parking spaces have been
provided for the three residential units. One space is handicap and is van-accessible, which ADA
requires. The van-accessible space and its surrounding sidewalk will be made of concrete. An extension
of the concrete sidewalk adjacent to the van-accessible space is required. The remaining spaces and the
access drive will be made of gravel.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of SD 22.21, 404 Oak Avenue MOP, with the following conditions:
1. A replat to remove common lot lines shall be recorded.
2. Extend the concrete along the rear of the ADA-compliant, van-accessible parking space.
Chairman Turner invited the Applicant to speak, but the Applicant was not present.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing.
Joan Moore, 152 N. Section Street, asked if this building would have apartments or Airbnb units as it
has always been used as an Airbnb. Chairman Turner stated that three residential were being proposed
along with one office unit, but that short-term rentals were allowed.
Chairman Turner closed the public hearing.
John Worsham asked where the bathroom would be on the ground floor because there was not one shown
on the plans. Mr. Simmons stated that Erik Cortinas would be looking at that at time of permit.
Motion:
Art Dyas made a motion to approve Case SD 22.21, subject to staff recommendations.
John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, and Hollie
MacKellar.
NAY: None.
SD 22.22 Request of the Applicant, Sawgrass Consulting, LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner,
Eastpark LLC, for Final Plat Approval of Parkstone Subdivision, a 41-lot Major Subdivision. The
property is approximately 12.84 acres and is located on the east side of US Highway 98, north side
of Parker Road, across from the Fairhope Publix. PPIN #: 32028
Summary:
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the case summary.
August 1, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
3
The approved landscape plans called for a 12’x12’ gazebo on the northern common area, walking trails
through the common areas, and benches placed in common areas. The applicant requested the benches
be installed once homes are constructed for fear of theft. Due to a drainage inlet installed in the wrong
location, the applicant requested permission to shift lots 38 and 39. The shift and slope of the land due
to a detention pond made a walking path impracticable. The applicant provided a sketch of the alteration,
including two additional pavilions and additional trees and flower beds, which staff supported. The
walking paths have been installed and are made of a rock/slag material. The path was not built with the
edging to control overgrowth of vegetation and spread of rock/slag material. The 12’x12’ gazebo has
been installed. One pavilion has been installed that overlooks the detention pond, the second pavilion
has been removed, but not installed.
The applicant was allowed to use existing infrastructure for this development. A final inspection was
performed, and some outstanding items remain that the developer has agreed to correct. The work cannot
be completed because the items are on back order. The developer is waiting for rain stoppers and
chimney seals to come in. The Water and Sewer Department will verify that they have all been installed
before signing the final plat. The road to the lift station is currently gravel and had areas of wash out and
erosion. The applicant has lined a drainage swale with filter cloth and rip rap. Due to concerns of this
not being a permanent fix, the City reserves the right to reinspect the road after six months and at the
discretion of the Water and Sewer Superintendent, require a new solution which could include an asphalt
or concrete drive to be installed in the easement to service the lift station at the developer’s expense.
The manhole at the intersection of Loris Way and Treadstone Way will be monitored and may require
a modification to include a sweep to the west and a corner of the concrete cut out. The fence around the
lift station has not been completed.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of SD 22.22, Parkstone Subdivision, with conditions:
1. All Water and Sewer items remaining are corrected and approved by the Water and Sewer
Department.
2. The Water and Sewer Department shall re-inspect the road to the lift station as described in the staff
report.
3. The Water and Sewer Department will monitor the manholes and may require some modifications of
the inverts during and/or at the end of the maintenance period.
4. The benches in the common areas shall be installed prior to issuance of the first C/O.
5. The walking trails shall be redone according to the approved detail.
6. The second pavilion shall be installed.
Art Dyas asked Mr. Jeffries if the subdivision was substantially completed aside from the items in staff’s
recommendations. Mr. Jeffries replied that it is, a couple of items have not been finished, but there was
work done on some of the inverts, grates have been installed, the striping across Parker Road has been
completed, Public Works has no further comments, and there has been an effort to complete the
remaining items with the weather possibly being part of the delay.
Applicants, Tom Granger with Sawgrass and Chris Brewer, had nothing further to add.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion:
August 1, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
4
Art Dyas made a motion to approve Case SD 22.22, subject to staff recommendations.
John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, and Hollie
MacKellar.
NAY: None.
Old/New Business
Discussion of proposed amendments.
Mr. Simmons stated that staff will be scheduling meetings with some of the Commissioners and went
over a timeline for amendments. The proposed timeline includes presenting to City Council regarding
the Moratorium and what projects are approved, in August. In September, there will be an agenda item
for discussion and to receive feedback from Architects, Engineers, and Developers. In October, a list of
items to be adopted will be presented for Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulation amendments.
In November, revisions can be made, and zoning amendments will go to City Council. In 2023, the
Revised Comprehensive Plan will be adopted, and ordinances can be revised. Amendments needing to
be made during the Moratorium have a higher sense of urgency, long-term goals include the
Comprehensive Plan. A list of the potential amendments will be sent to the Commissioners. Zoning
Ordinance Amendments include new zoning districts, such as a Conservation District. Subdivision
Regulation Amendments include new exemptions such as utility and conservation lots, and MOP
closeout procedures. Fire protection amendments for fire flow tests, stormwater, environmental,
greenspace, and road and traffic amendments. There are several procedures that will be looked at
including the County’s new zoning districts, MOP’s, final plats and bond closeouts, and agendas. Other
items include the Right-of-Way Ordinance, revising the Planning Department’s fee schedule, Utility
“DRC” Reviews, Bike/Ped items, and Citizenserve. Michelle Melton, City Planner, looked at other
City’s regulations regarding stormwater and what amendments could be made to ours. Waivers could
be required and a pre and post development form that could be signed by the engineer. Stormwater being
diverted onto an adjoining property line has been brought up several times, three options could be the
solution to that issue; limiting discharge to the pre-development flow from a ten-year storm, a signed
waiver from the owner of the adjoining property or designing to retain water for a one-hundred-year
storm but release it at two-year frequency.
Art Dyas asked if this would be doable because the weather is so radical. Mr. Simmons stated that it is
doable and that the regulations being shown are the City of Mobile’s. This would give different options
for drainage issues.
Chairman Turner had concerns about the waivers, and utilities, stating that there may be a need for
Planning and Zoning to be more involved. He would also like short-terms rentals to be encouraged and
to have more areas to be able to have short-term rentals, stating that they could help the downtown
business district. Mr. Simmons stated that they may need to approve a use for short-term rentals, short-
term rentals are currently allowed in the CBD. Chairman Turner suggested doing short-term rentals in
the Fruit and Nut District and an overlay may be what is needed. Hollie MacKellar agreed. John
Worsham was concerned about one-night renters damaging homes. Chairman Turner mentioned short-
term rentals for cottages and gave the example of how well short-term rentals are working in Carmel.
August 1, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
5
Art Dyas asked where the City stood regarding discussions with the County about the ETJ. Mr. Simmons
stated that the County has not replied to letters that were sent from the Council and the Mayor. Chris
Williams, City Attorney, stated that they had been waiting for the County election as well, but SB-107
has some time frame parameters that will be starting next year when we can start applying. Art Dyas
asked how we can build a Comprehensive Plan when we do not know what areas we are going to have
the capability of planning within. Chris Williams replied that the County’s position has been to have an
agreement signed and then discuss whether or not the jurisdiction would expand beyond the Corporate
Limits. The original agreement that was proposed by the County is that after a year and a half, the
Planning Jurisdiction will be reduced to the Corporate Limits. A letter was also received from the County
stating that, that was their intent. The City had responded and proposed a uniform Planning, Police, and
Permitting Jurisdiction of about a mile and a half beyond the Corporate Limits. The County wants an
agreement signed first before discussing the uniform boundary. Art Dyas asked who the contact is at the
County. Chris Williams replied that it was their council. Matthew Brown and the Commissioners have
all been involved in the discussions as well.
Adjournment
John Worsham made a motion to adjourn.
Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, and Hollie
MacKellar.
NAY: None.
Adjourned at 5:38 p.m.
____________________________ ________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman Allie Knutson, Secretary
This digital package has been condensed for size and some documents may not
contain all the original pages. All submittals were reviewed in full by staff in
preparation for the reports prepared for the Planning Commission.
1 UR 22.12 C-Spire – September 8, 2022
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission
September 8, 2022
~ ~~ .,,.,..,:
UR 22.12 -C-Spire
C·Sl;!ire Di rectional Bore Fi be r Inst allati on
Site Data:
Fa irhope Pl an ning Jurisdiction
General Loc-ation:
County Roa d 13, from Fairhope Ave nue
north t o Mos ley Road
Owner I Oevelop_er.
C-5 ire
School District:
Fa irhope El ementary School
Fa irhope Middle an d Hi gh Schools
Recommendation:
A roved w Co n di tions
Prepared b :
Chris Ambron
Legend ..,_ .. __ --·· g ·--__ ...,.. __ _
-··-------·----...... u,,~~--•• , .... _°"""'~'·--
aA-, .... ~~-----·-~'-
•A·•·'-~~ ··~-•-.;~-····~---
5
1----IM.~1) ~ ,, i
,..., .. 9 :~---...j
i
~--ll!!li;;-.. .,.• TUN j •
•11----1· ! 6 ~~
J
\.0¥1111Y~
2 UR 22.12 C-Spire – September 8, 2022
Summary of Request: Request of C-Spire for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed
installation of approximately 5,536 linear feet of buried fiber along routes outlined on the below location
map.
3 UR 22.12 C-Spire – September 8, 2022
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.
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 (750ft max per day).
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 tree dripline, consult the City of Fairhope Horticulturist before proceeding with earth work.
• Trees shall not be negatively impacted.
The applicant shall provide profile drawings with existing utilities, and proposed utilities. Hand holes/boxes
shall not be allowed to be installed in sidewalks. Any boxes/handholes cannot be placed in the sidewalk.
The applicant shall review the sidewalk plan to determine if there are any conflicts. The applicant shall
coordinate work with John Thomas ROW Inspector to resolve any potential conflicts.
All conduit/cable shall be placed at 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 applicant is to avoid any tree drip lines with handholes and equipment. If sidewalk panels
need to be removed, the subgrade must be compacted to the satisfaction of the ROW inspector. Sidewalk
panels shall be a minimum of 4000 psi and be inspected within 24 hours of pouring concrete. Anything over
one sidewalk panel shall be poured via concrete truck (no bag mix allowed).
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 & shall have a copy of the ROW
permit for review onsite. The permit 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 & 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. (BMP’s shall be placed at all affected storm inlets.)
• If site is within 100' of a critical area (wetland, etc.), red soils/clay shall not be allowed as fill material,
per the City’s Red Clay/Soil Ordinance.
4 UR 22.12 C-Spire – September 8, 2022
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, permits, & City permit application shall be available for review at all times.
• 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.
• No blue lined conduit is to be used for communication lines to prevent possible confusion with water
service lines. Materials colors shall match APWA uniform color code.
• Water and sewer mains/services must be potholed prior to bore crossings. If street cuts are necessary
for potholes, please contact Right of Way inspector for restoration.
• No Blue Lines/Stripes on the HDPE
Natural Gas Standard Comments:
• Contractor shall provide proper separation from the gas main and all other utilities.
The applicant is advised of the following:
• No work shall begin until a ROW permit is issued by the City of Fairhope Building Department or other
applicable jurisdiction. Permit not valid until approved and paid for on Citizen Serve online portal.
• 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 drawings of all installed lines depicting exact depths.
5 UR 22.12 C-Spire – September 8, 2022
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of UR 22.12 subject to the following conditions:
1. A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the City prior to issuance of any permits.
2. Consultation with the City’s horticulturalist, 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.
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. Follow-up activities below required by staff and the applicant:
a. Upon satisfactory review and approval by ROW Construction Inspector, as-builts will be
submitted to the mapping technician for inclusion in GIS utility maps as needed.
5. Provide draft door hanger for approval at time of pre-construction.
6. Provide a Traffic Control Plan to ROW Inspector prior to commencement of any work.
7. Ensure enough space for proposed work is available within existing easement, if not applicant is
responsible for either expanding existing easement or acquiring an additional easement.
8. Applicant shall contact Alabama One Call to locate all existing utilities (750ft max per day).
The Zoning Ordinance defines B-2 General Business District as follows:
"B-2 General Business District: This district is intended to provide opportunity for activities causing noise and heavy
traffic, not considered compatible in the more restrictive business district. These uses also serve a regional as well as a
local market and require location in proximity to major transportation routes . Recreational vehicle parks, very light
production and processing activities are included."
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance's Use Table, highlighting allowable uses in B-2, is attached within the packet.
Criteria -The application shall be reviewed based on the following criteria:
(l) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Response:
Meets
(2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Response: Staff is appreciative of the application, which intends to annex into the City of Fairhope and fall
under the City's development guidelines.
(3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
Response: Meets
(4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Response: This is a re-zoning request, without a Site Plan review . Future projects within the subject property
shall ensure adequate public infrastructure.
(5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions;
Response: Staff does not anticipate an issue at this time.
(6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Response: At the time of any development all applicable laws of the City will be applied. If granted, any use
within B-2 zoning will be allowed 'by right'.
{7} Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Response: At the time of a development all applicable laws will be applied.
(8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and
property values; and,
Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant iss.ues relating to this criterion at this time.
{9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values.
Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant issues relating to this criterion.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case: ZC 22.08 PPIN# 91211 be approved for conditional annexation, with initial zoning
of B-2 General Business District.
2 ZC 22.08 PPIN# 91211-September 8, 2022
ArticlellI
Zoulllg Di.stricts
Zoniug Distric1
'u
..0 :!: 5 I-
Uses C'.at'egories / < -~ '? "' "' Soecific Uses ct:
Dwcllin•
Sinale-familv • • •
Two-familv
Townhouse •
Pa1io.l-l01lle
Muhiole-fomilv / Auaruncu 1
Mauufacnircd H.ome
MLxcd-use
Accesso,y Dwelli11J1.
Estalc
Cl\,c
Eleweu1arv School • •
Secoudarv School • •
Ed ucation Facilitv • •
Librarv • • Pl ace of Worshio
Ccmetcrv 0 0 0
Hos o,1al
Publ ic Open Soace • • • CoU11oou Oneu Suace • • •
Communirv Center or Club 0 0 0
Public U1ilitv 0 0 0 0
Office
General
Professional
Hom e Occuua1ion • 3 • • Retail
Grocerv
Couvc11ience Store
General Merchandise
Shonniu• Cen1er
Automobile Service Station
Outdoor Sales Luuited
Outdoor Sales Lot
Garden Cen ter
Service
CouvaJesceut orNursin2 Ho111e 0 0 0
Clinic 0 0 0
Outdoor Recreation Pacilitv 0 0 0
Dav Care 0 0 0
General Personal Services
Monnmv or Funeral Home
Automobile Rt,.,air
Judoor Recreation
Drv Cleaner I Lannclrv
Pcrsoual Storai,,c
Bed &.B reakfast
Mote l / Moiel
Boardine. House or Donnitorv
Rt"<reat ioua l Vehicle Pa,·k
Restaurant
Bar
Eu1c11aimneut Venue
M;i.rim1
Kenne l or Ani.nrnl Hosuita l
Warehouse
Junk Yard or Sa lvaoe Yard
MnnufocmriJ 1J!
Limited
Li,wl
General
food Proccss in ._
Rural
A~culture •
Rural Market • Plan t Nurser.• •
• Pcnnit1C'<I subjec t 10 gc111.:ral ordiurmcc staudards and 011d i1i o11s .
J Pennined su.bjec1 10 special cond i1ions li ste d in 1he ordinance
0 Pennitt cd only 011 appea l and subject to special cond itio ns
FAIH IIOPl: ZONING 0HOINAJVC£ 19
Table 3-1: Use table
:!:
0
0: ,., M 'i "' "? "' "' ct: ct: ct:
• • • • •
➔ • • ,, • •
• • • • • • • • • • • •
0 0 0
• • • • • • 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
• • ➔ • •
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
S ecliOII 8
Allow ed Uses
~ ~ 0 ~ u u ~ -r, c:• d, 6 d, d, "!" i ::. ::) > > "' "-> z u -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • •
• I 0 0 • • • 0
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • 1:! • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • 'E • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • ,,, :s • ~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 t1 0 0 0 " • • • • • • "O • • • • " • • • • • • " • • • • e
0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 ,,,
1! • • • • • • .. • • • .,,
• • • • • • ~ • • •
3 ) • • • " 3 3 • • -5
Se • • • • • ~ • • • , • • • ~ • ) • • • • • • 0 • • 0 • g
0 0 0 0 a • • Q. 0 0 0 g 0 0 0
0 0 0 E
0 0 0 0 8-0 0 0 .;
>
0 0 0 0 0 0 " • • 0 .,,
0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0
0 0 • 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 -0
0 0 0 0 0 0 " • • • ~ • • • • .,, • .,, • 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 "' • • • 1 0 0 • • 0 • • • • • 0 0 0 1l 0 0
0 • • 0 0 -;; 0 0 • • ~ 0 • • • " 0 • • ~ • • • • • i5 • •
) 3 > 3 0
0 • 0 • 0 ::) • • "-• 0 • " • • -= • 0 0 ·= 0 0
0 0 0 ~ 0 0
0 0 0 ::)
• • 0 0
0 0 • • • • 0 • • 0 • 0
S O U T H L A N D BLVD
GARRISONBLVDGREENO RDMUSKET AV
MCCLELLAN BLVDCRAFTSMANAVSHARPSBURG AVE
PEMBERTONLOOPOLD BATTLES RD
FLOURNOYWAY
BONHAM LN
ATWATERAV
BARTLETT AV
GARRISONBLVD
KE
MP
E
RLNGREENO RDWRIGHTBLVDPALE MOON CT
BRIGITTEMITCHELL LN
VIVIANLOOP
GUARISCO LN
MCARTHURLNSAGE LNCOUNTY RD 34
City of FairhopePlanning Commission
September 8, 2022
¯
CROSSOVEROLD BATTLES RD GREENO RDGREENO RDFLOURNOY WAY WRIGHT BLVDCOUNTY RD 34BRIGITTE MITCHELL LNZC 22.09 Shoppes at Point Clear
Legend
Roads
Parcels
Corporate Limits
Zoning Classification
PUD - Planned Unit Development
Planning Jurisdiction
^
Project Name:
Shoppes at Point Clear Site Data:
21.18 AcresProject Type:
Cond. Annexation w/ Rezoning to B-2Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:
UnzonedPPIN Number:
17515, 391379, 391372, 391373, 391374,
391375, 391376General Location:
Northwest corner of Greeno Road and
Old Battles RoadSurveyor of Record:
Engineer of Record:
Trey Jinright, Jade ConsultingOwner / Developer:
RW Battles, LLCSchool District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
ApprovalPrepared by:
Hunter Simmons
µ
µ
1 ZC 22.09 Shoppes at Point Clear – September 8, 2022
Summary of Request:
Applicant, Jade Consulting LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner, RW Battles LLC, is requesting to establish an
initial zoning of B-2, General Business District, concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of
Fairhope. The property is approximately 25.08 acres and is located on the northwest corner of Greeno Road
and Old Battles Road.
Comments:
The subject property is currently outside the City of Fairhope’s municipal boundary and un-zoned. The subject
property lies within the City of Fairhope’s permitting jurisdiction and a permit has been issued for the site.
Construction has begun on Publix and one outbuilding. The property to be annexed is generally located on
the map below. The property to north currently has an application for conditional annexation to B-2 as well.
The annexation of the northern property will make this property contiguous to Fairhope Corporate Limits.
This site is not within a commercial/village node within Fairhope’s current Comprehensive Plan. However, the
City is currently in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and acknowledge the intersection of Greeno
Rd and Old Battles Rd development pattern change since the last update and will need to be considered a
future node at this intersection. If annexation and B-2 Zoning are approved, future uses for the outparcels
shall meet the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance requirements.
2 ZC 22.09 Shoppes at Point Clear – September 8, 2022
The outparcels were created via an Administrative Replat (City)/Common Lot Line Exemption (County). The
Publix site received approval for a 16-unit Multiple Occupancy Project (Case SD 21.09) in 2021. Important to
note, this is a straight re-zoning request and does not include a site plan for intended uses.
Update: When this application was received the subject property was un-zoned, but within the City of
Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction. On July 19, 2022, the Baldwin County Commission enacted zoning for
Planning Districts 8 and 37. The subject property is now zoned B4 (Major Commercial District) as shown on
the map below.
The Zoning Ordinance defines B-2 General Business District as follows:
“B-2 General Business District: This district is intended to provide opportunity for activities causing noise and heavy
traffic, not considered compatible in the more restrictive business district. These uses also serve a regional as well as a
local market and require location in proximity to major transportation routes. Recreational vehicle parks, very light
production and processing activities are included.”
Criteria – The application shall be reviewed based on the following criteria:
(1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Response:
J2
2'
0 er o ·
~
oJ II er "'
26
RSF-E
3 ZC 22.09 Shoppes at Point Clear – September 8, 2022
Meets
(2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Response: Staff is appreciative of the application, which intends to annex into the City of Fairhope and fall
under the City’s development guidelines.
(3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
Response: Meets
(4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Response: This is a re-zoning request, without a Site Plan review. The subject property lies within the City’s
permitting jurisdiction. Site Construction has begun on the approved Multiple Occupancy Project.
(5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions;
Response: Construction was permitted through the City of Fairhope.
(6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Response: At the time of any redevelopment all applicable laws of the City will be applied. If granted, any use
within B-2 zoning will be allowed ‘by right’.
(7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Response: At the time of a redevelopment all applicable laws will be applied.
(8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and
property values; and,
Response: Prior to application for annexation and rezoning, the subject property was reviewed as a Multiple
Occupancy Project for Lot 5. That review considered the above-mentioned impacts. Future development on
outparcels may require further reviews, depending on the projects proposed on those parcels.
(9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values.
Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant issues relating to this criterion.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends 22.09 Shoppes at Point Clear be approved for conditional annexation, with initial zoning
of B-2 General Business District, with the following condition:
.
1. Case ZC 22.11 shall be approved by City Council, or lot lines adjusted, to ensure subject
property is contiguous to Fairhope Corporate Limits.
RW BATTLES, LLC
418 Scott St.,
Montgomery, AL 36106
July 6, 2022
Mayor Sherry Sullivan
City of Fairhope
555 South Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36533
Re: Shops at Point Clear, Fairhope, AL
Dear Mayor Sullivan:
RW Battles, LLC is the corporate entity which is developing the 21-acre project
known as the Shops at Point Clear. This development is located on the NWC of U.S.
98 (Greeno Road) and Old Battles Road. The Shops at Point Clear will consist of a new
48,387 square foot Publix Grocery Store as well as 18,800 square feet of new retailers
and five (5) new outparcels. This is a development that should be very convenient to
those living in the Point Clear area of Fairhope.
Construction has been underway at the site since the Spring of 2021, and the
project should open in October 2022. RW Battles, LLC is excited to bring this new retail
project online for all those customers who were not served by a development such as
this in the area. Some developers build a project and then sell it when it opens.
However, RW Battles, LLC plans on keeping this project for years to come, and to
operate it efficiently and maintain it as a Class-A center.
A lot of money is being spent on landscaping this project. It should be a very
attractive landscaping area of Fairhope. Many trees have been kept in different areas
of the site and coupled with the new landscaping, the Shops at Point Clear should stand
out to the citizens of Fairhope.
Sincerely,
RW Battles, LLC
Revised 06/2006
U.S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
0 Size of property (acres or square feet),_2_5_._o_a ___________ _
O If property is occupied, give number of housing units _O ________ _
O Number of Persons residing in each unit, and their race_O ________ _
0 If property is unoccupied, give proposed use_M_O_P __________ _
D If property is being developed as a subdivision, give subdivision name
D Number of lots within proposed subdivision ____________ _
I, N_ A, 1'L,\,+{-t!.Y-a Notary Public in and for said State and County, hereby
certify that C!b1e L S-IA.,l i~M.P N whose name(s) is/are signed to the forgoing
Petition and who is /are known to me, this day appeared before me and, being first duly sworn,
acknowledge that he/she/they have voluntarily executed this Petition on this day same bears date.
Given under my Hand and Seal this I f ~ay of J LJ y , 20~,
~. Nancy A. Butler ~ a A J. I}~. fr.Ii NOTARY PUBLIC • rt,,~ -(./.):(,A;;{,..U,'L,'
:~~-· • ~% Muscogee County~ Georgia Notry Publi
\~ . l'!r j My Commission Expires
't::~~1•./ MayS,2025 M · · • ~ /, "o"e: ··~ y comm1ss1on expires ~ , t?-,,.:J
I, _____________ a Notary Public in and for said State and County, hereby
certify that ____________ whose name(s) is lare signed to the forgoing
Petition and who is/are known to me, this day appeared before me and, being first duly sworn,
acknowledge that he/she/they have voluntarily executed this Petition on this day same bears date ,
Given under my Hand and Seal this ___ day of _____ , 20 __ ,
(Seal)
Notary Public
My commission expires _______ _
I, _____________ a Notary Public in and for said State and County, hereby
certify that ____________ whose name(s) is/are signed to the forgoing
Petition and who is/are known to me, this day appeared before me and, being first duly sworn,
acknowledge that he/she/they have voluntarily executed this Petition on this day same bears date .
Given under my Hand and Seal this ___ day of _____ , 20 __ ,
(Seal)
Notary Public
My commission expires _______ _
Backroom :Users :mray :Library :Ma1l :POP,
i nl'n0,(,h,.rnrl""n ...,..-.ln':n ;e!RiJ:'4-:O n•t•Jf\..U:anV m k.-.v ~J;"U.' C:-;,11,"'"'"' rAr ,1,,,. o ,. m;n,.-"ltt 'li.-.h •P,..titinn rn-P' -'J"n ?'t ,.,,. ,-1 .,,.
July 23,2022
Ms. Casey Potts
Planner
City of Fairhope
555 S. Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36533
Re: Zoning Change, Greeno and Old Battles Roads Area
Dear Ms. Potts:
Thank you again for your assistance the other day. You provide excellent customer service. It is
our understanding the Planning Commission will be considering a zoning change on August 1,
2022, for an area north of the Shoppes at Point Clear shopping center and east of the Old
Battles Village subdivision. The change will allow for high density residential development,
which potentially could mean the construction of apartment buildings. We also understand the
zoning change was approved by the Baldwin County Commissioners; However, the zoning
change is within the extraterritorial area of Fairhope for zoning and planning purposes. Our
concerns are threefold:
1) Drainage. It is our understanding Truland Builders had to buy out the owners of five
homes on Craftsman Avenue that have their backyards abutting Point Clear Creek due
to flooding. We also understand that drainage issues on Point Clear Creek are a point of
contention between the City of Fairhope and Baldwin County as to which entity bears
responsibility for improvements. We suspect the construction of apartments and sizeable
parking lots with resulting increases in runoff will only exacerbate the drainage problem.
2) Traffic. We think most homeowners in Old Battles Village are looking forward to the
opening of the Shoppes at Point Clear. However, we are sure many of them have
concerns about traffic congestion on Old Battles Road and the intersection of Old Battles
and Greeno.
3) Property values. If the construction of high-density residences impacts drainage and
traffic issues, it might impact property values adversely in Old Battles Village.
Thank you for sharing our concerns with the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Terry and Judith Ullrich
Terry and Judith Ullrich
229 Garrison Blvd.
Fairhope, AL 36532
(504) 625-5809
tullri@bellsouth.net
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
STATE OF ALABAMA
COUNTY OF BALDWIN
LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9, RW BATTLES LLC REPLAT, AMENDED PLAT, AS RECORDED ON SLIDES 2785 A‐C
OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA;
STATE OF ALABAMA
DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC)
CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
1. THE NAME OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
3.THE NAME AND STREET (NO PO BOXES) ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED AGENT LOCATED AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE (MUST BE LOCATED
IN ALABAMA):
MAILING ADDRESS IN ALABAMA OF REGISTERED OFFICE (IF DIFFERENT FROM STREET ADDRESS):
5. CHECK ONLY IF THE TYPE APPLIES TO THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BEING FORMED:
2. THIS FORM WAS PREPARED BY:
4. THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY THAT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
NON-PROFIT LLC
NON-PROFIT SERIES LLC
PROFESSIONAL SERIES LLC
PROFESSIONAL LLC COMPLYING WITH TITLE 10A, CHAPTER 5A, ARTICLE 8
SERIES LLC COMPLYING WITH TITLE 10A, CHAPTER 5A, ARTICLE 11
(FOR COUNTY PROBATE OFFICE USE ONLY)
(FOR SOS OFFICE USE ONLY)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
Probate Judge:
J C LOVE, III
Filed:06/25/2020 04:46 PM
Total:$55.00 3 PAGES
Certified Copy 5101469RW Battles, L.L.C.
Ray W. Roark II
Ray W Roark II
418 Scott Street
Montgomery, AL 36106
MONTGOMERY
AlabamaSec. Of State635-732 DLL06/25/202016:47:00$100.00$0.00 -------$100.00DateTimeFileExpTotal□
□
□
□
□
6.THE UNDERSIGNED SPECIFY AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE AND THE TIME OF FILING
ATTACHED ARE ANY OTHER MATTERS THE MEMBERS DETERMINE TO INCLUDE HEREIN
7.ORGANIZER(S) - OPTIONAL
Not Applicable
06/25/2020 Ray W Roark II Manager/Member
DATE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE & TITLE
06/25/2020 16:41:40
□
GA R R I S ON B LV D
CRAFTSMANAVBARTLETT AVMCCLELLAN BLVDDUNKER AV
SHARPSBURG AVE
MANLEY RD
FLOURNOY WAY GREENORDGARRISONBLVD
REGIMENTST WRIGHTBLVDPIRATE DRGREENO RDGARRISONBLVDCHARLESTONLOOP
S O U T H L A N D BLVD
BRIGITTEMITCHELLLNPALE MOON CT
MUSKETAV
D A V IS O N
L O O P
VIVIANLOOP
S O U T H W A R K
AV
GUARISCO LN
MCARTHURLNCity of FairhopePlanning Commission
September 8, 2022
¯BURNSIDEAV
GREENO RDGREENO RDWRIGHTBLVD
PALE MOON CT
ZC 22.11 - 18323 Greeno Road Annexation
Legend
Roads
Parcels
Corporate LimitsZoningDistrict
Zoning Classification
PUD - Planned Unit Development
R-1 - Low Density Single-Family
Planning Jurisdiction
^µ
µ
Project Name:
183232 Greeno Road AnnexationSite Data:
13.30 acresProject Type:
Annexation / Zoning Change: B-2Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:
RSF-E (Baldwin County)PPIN Number(s):
39376, 210314General Location:
West side of US Highway 98, just south
of Pale Moon Court Surveyor of Record:
JADE Consulting, LLCEngineer of Record:
JADE Consulting, LLCOwner / Developer:
The Grand Reserve at Pelham LLCSchool District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
Prepared by:
Hunter Simmons
Approval
1 ZC 22.11 18323 Greeno Road – September 8, 2022
Summary of Request:
Applicant, Jade Consulting LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner, The Grand Reserve at Pelham LLC, is
requesting to establish an initial zoning of B-2, General Business District, concurrent with conditional
annexation into the City of Fairhope. The property is approximately 13.30 acres and is located on the
northwest corner of Greeno Road and Old Battles Road.
Comments:
The subject property is currently outside the City of Fairhope’s municipal boundary and un-zoned. The subject
property lies within the City of Fairhope’s permitting jurisdiction. The property to be annexed is generally
located on the map below. The properties to the south currently has an application for conditional annexation
to B-2 as well.
This site is not within a commercial/village node within Fairhope’s current Comprehensive Plan. However, the
City is currently in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and acknowledge the intersection of Greeno
Rd and Old Battles Rd development pattern change since the last update and will need to be considered a
future node at this intersection. If annexation and B-2 Zoning are approved, future uses shall meet the
Fairhope Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Please note, this is a straight re-zoning request and does not include a site plan for intended uses. There are
no approved development plans for this site.
On July 19, 2022, the Baldwin County Commission enacted zoning for Planning Districts 8 and 37. The subject
property is now zoned RSF-E (Residential Single Family Estate District) as shown on the map below.
2 ZC 22.11 18323 Greeno Road – September 8, 2022
The Zoning Ordinance defines B-2 General Business District as follows:
“B-2 General Business District: This district is intended to provide opportunity for activities causing noise and heavy
traffic, not considered compatible in the more restrictive business district. These uses also serve a regional as well as a
local market and require location in proximity to major transportation routes. Recreational vehicle parks, very light
production and processing activities are included.”
Criteria – The application shall be reviewed based on the following criteria:
(1)Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Response:
Meets
(2)Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Response: Staff is appreciative of the application, which intends to annex into the City of Fairhope and fall
under the City’s development guidelines.
(3)The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
Response: Meets
(4)Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Response: This is a re-zoning request, without a Site Plan review. The subject property lies within the City’s
permitting jurisdiction.* /./Gl,-:////c /,/1/):,' /%'TI· '//r/c:: / // (fl
3 ZC 22.11 18323 Greeno Road – September 8, 2022
(5)Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions;
Response: There are no current development plans.
(6)Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Response: At the time of any development all applicable laws of the City will be applied. If granted, any use
within B-2 zoning will be allowed ‘by right’.
(7)Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Response: At the time of a development all applicable laws will be applied.
(8)Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and
property values; and,
Response: Future development will require further reviews depending on the projects proposed.
(9)Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values.
Response: Staff cannot not anticipate any significant issues relating to this criterion.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case ZC 22.11 18323 Greeno Road be approved for conditional annexation, with initial
zoning of B-2 General Business District.
USHWY98MONTROSE WOODS DR
MAIN
ST
SOUTH DR
VIALEBELLEZZA3RD ST
SIBLEY ST
SOUTHDR
T
O
P
E
LNJUBILEELN 3RDSTHIGHPINESRDGADAMS ST
HIGHRIDGERDECOR
DECHENE CT
C
L
U
B
H
O
U
S
EDR
JAY LN
OLDMILLRDU S HWY 98W IN D M E R E PLV I A
M A R IA
K E AR L E Y L N
DOV
E
COT
EL
NFORESTPARKDR2ND ST
STEDMAN'S L
N
ROCK C R E E K PK W Y
ROCKCREEKPKWY
ROCKCREEK DRS T A N F O R D LN
CH APM AN S T
REDO A K S L N
PRESBYTERI
ANDRMCINTOSHBLUFFR D
City of FairhopePlanning Commission
September 8, 2022
¯MAIN
STUSHWY98CROSSOVER3RD ST
SOUTH DR
VIALE BELLEZZA HIGH PINES RDGHIGHRIDGERDU S HWY 98SOUTH
DRTOPEL
N
J U B I L E E L N
MONTROSE WOODS DR
3RDSTA D A M S S T
ECOR DECHE
N
E
C
T
STEDMAN'S
LN
ROCKCREEK DR
JAY LN
WINDMEREPL
KEARL EY L N
TAYLOR ST
RED OAKS LN
DOVECOTELN
S T A N F O R D L N 2ND ST
F O R E S T PA R KDR
ROCK C R E E K P K W Y
R O C K CREEKP K W Y
CHAPMAN ST
PRESBYTERI
ANDRMCINTOSHBLUFFRDZC 22.10 - Montrose Preserve PUD Amendment
Legend
Roads
Parcels
Corporate LimitsZoningDistrict
Zoning Classification
B-2 - General Business District
PUD - Planned Unit Development
R-1 - Low Density Single-Family
Planning Jurisdiction
^µ
µ
Project Name:
Montrose Preserve PUD AmendmentSite Data:
53.94 acresProject Type:
Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:
PUDPPIN Number:
75979, 75980, 75981, 59675, 75978General Location:
West side of U.S. Highway 98, across
from Rock Creek SubdivisionSurveyor of Record:
Engineer of Record:
Owner / Developer:
Burgess Thomasson, Jr. et alSchool District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
Prepared by:
Hunter Simmons/Michelle Melton
Denial
18 Residential Lot PUD
1 ZC 22.10 Montrose Preserve PUD – September 8, 2022
Summary of Request:
Aaron Collins, PLS, S.E. Civil, LLC, acting on behalf of the owners, Burgess A. Thomasson, Jr., Leigh Thomasson
Brown, and Albert Daniel Thomasson, request an amendment to the Montrose Preserve (formerly
Thomasson) PUD, originally approved in 2017 by Ordinance 1596, as amended by Ordinance 1742 in 2021.
Copies of the Ordinances are included within the packet along with the Staff Report(s). Other authorized
agents include Larry Chason with Chason & Earle Real Estate Brokers and Developers, L.L.C., as well as David
Connor with Blackburn & Connor Attorneys At Law.
The currently approved PUD (Ord. 1742) allows for 18 single-family lots on 53.94 acres. The Applicant is
requesting to amend the current PUD, but still maintain 18 single-family lots. The layout generally remains the
2 ZC 22.10 Montrose Preserve PUD – September 8, 2022
same. The Applicant provided a revised narrative, which is attached. Essentially, this proposed amendment
is two-fold:
1) Provide options to allow Lots 4-6 to be sold individually (“Option A”) or combine Lots 4-6 as one (1) lot to
be sold (“Option B”); and
2) To add five (5) development phases.
Otherwise, the PUD remains the same with one slight exception. The new entrance from U.S. Hwy 98 has been
shifted to align with an existing median crossover. Setbacks and other dimensional requirements, as well as
uses, shall follow R-1, Single-Family Residential requirements unless otherwise referenced on the proposed
site plan.
Comments:
This review focuses on the differences between the currently approved PUD and the proposed amendments
included within this application. The staff reports for the currently approved PUD are included for reference,
but the following is a bullet point list of highlights.
• 40 ft “Common Area Buffer” along the U.S. Hwy 98 side from Lot 1 down to Lot 9
(Ledyard Street).
• 20 ft buffer on Adams Street
• Increased open space from 13.8 acres (25.6%) to 15.55 acres (28.8%)
• Specific guidelines for fences/walls.
• All common areas labeled on the Site Plan shall remain undisturbed, except for minimal
clearing to construct walking trails.
• Avoiding accessing existing roads in Montrose.
Ideally, an Applicant applying for a PUD has a clear vision that does not include options, but in this case the
request for Option A or B appears reasonable assuming the overall intent of the PUD is achieved. Staff has
concerns the phased development of these options could create problems. To be clear, staff is not opposed
to phased construction, i.e. actually building required improvements prior to the creation of new lots, but
does believe the PUD should be comprehensively planned and not be piecemeal. While unconventional,
perhaps our concerns are best explained with an example.
The subject properties are currently under unified ownership. Any required easements, rights-of-way, lot line
adjustments, etc. can be accommodated to ensure the overall intents of the PUD are achieved. Suppose in
Option B, Phase 2, Lots 4-6 are combined and sold to a separate entity. The Applicant suggests, potentially,
the historically unopened rights-of-way be vacated. In this case, Lots 4-6 are combined, along with the
vacated ROW, with the lot to the west. It is currently unclear how utilities will connect to Lots 7-14. Extending
existing infrastructure from the northern portion of 3rd St. would be blocked without permission from the new
owner, who may/may not be agreeable.
Whether likely or not, the above scenario is but one possibility that could be resolved with an overall plan to
ensure access to infrastructure is provided. Other concerns that could be resolved with a more detailed plan
include, but are not limited to:
3 ZC 22.10 Montrose Preserve PUD – September 8, 2022
• Common areas that should be created separate from the residential lots along with a documented
maintenance plan by the 18 (or 16) individual owners as proposed by the Applicant.
• Definitive delineations of wetland boundaries, stream protections, floodways, and flood zones.
• The 40’ undisturbed buffer provided adjacent to U.S. Hwy 98 is conceptually illustrated on the site plan,
but may require adjustments due to an existing powerline to meet the intentions of the PUD.
• Will each lot manage their own drainage? Each phase? Or will there be a shared drainage area? Is that
best located in an existing common area or will a new common area need to be created? If shared, an
operation and maintenance plan will be required.
• The rights-of-way are currently under the jurisdiction of Baldwin County and the 3rd Street ROW is NOT
vacated. Moreover, two (2) former County Commissioners went on record stating that they would not
support a vacation of this ROW nor a ROW Use Agreement. Fairhope may be agreeable to accept the
rights-of-way if requested by Baldwin County. However, the Baldwin County Commission makes that
request to the Fairhope City Council. The Applicants are responsible for discussions with Baldwin
County to initiate that process.
• If the rights-of-way are accepted by the City of Fairhope, the City Council may choose to keep the
rights-of-way unopened, open them, agree to a limited use agreement, including hold harmless
agreements, or even vacation. The City cannot determine which option is preferable prior to accepting
the rights-of-way. Staff is willing and prepared to draft an Acceptance Resolution to present to our
City Council if/when the request is made.
• If rights-of-way remain unopened access to Lots 7-14 (and potentially including 4-6) would be through
private easement agreements among the individual lot owners.
• Garbage collection was discussed in previous reviews. Lots 1-14 were to be collected along a route
that generally followed the 3rd St. and Ledyard St. unopened rights-of way. Removing access through
Lots 4-6 would require garbage trucks to re-route to the U.S. Hwy 98 entrance to access Lots 7-14. ,
This re-route may be acceptable, but increased travel times and expanded garbage routes will need to
be reviewed/approved by Public Works.
• Approval of U.S. Hwy 98 entrance, including any potential improvements. Applicants are responsible
for discussions with ALDOT to initiate that process.
The concerns expressed above, among others, were recognized early in the City’s review processes in 2021.
To accommodate the Applicant’s desire, staff suggested conditions that would allow expediated approval of
the PUD, but would require clarifications during Preliminary Plat. Among other conditions, the following was
the first recommendation made by staff:
“A preliminary plat shall be required that includes the entire acreage. At minimum, the preliminary plat
shall provide street access to each of the 18 lots and be in substantial conformance with the street
layout as proposed on the Master Site Plan. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Fairhope
Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits for any property located within the PUD.”
4 ZC 22.10 Montrose Preserve PUD – September 8, 2022
It has been implied staff added this condition prior to the City Council public hearing on January 24, 2022. For
clarification, this condition was discussed at the first Development Review meeting and remained unchanged
during the following instances. Throughout the process, no one expressed opposition to this condition.
Pertinent Dates
November 30, 2021 Staff reports posted
December 6, 2021 Presented at Planning Commission
December 31, 2021 Newspaper Advertisement, 1st Run
January 7, 2022 Newspaper Advertisement, 2nd Run
January 21, 2022 Press Packet release for City Council public hearing
January 24, 2022 Public hearing at City Council meeting
February 10, 2022 Press Packet release for City Council second reading
February 14, 2022 Second reading at City Council
February 25, 2022 Advertisement ran in newspaper for final adoption.
Ordinance 1742 was finalized on February 25, 2022. A complete copy of the Ordinance is attached.
Staff received a Preliminary Plat application in March 2022 that only included Lots 1-6. The application was
rejected because, in part, the first condition of approval was not met. This proposed amendment intends to
remove the conditions of approval that would require the entire site to be comprehensively planned. While
staff supports the conceptual design of 18 “estate” lots we do not recommend approval of a phased
development and maintain our recommendations as adopted.
For clarification, the aforementioned limitations within Ordinance 1742 are listed below. As a reminder, along
with the Preliminary Plat application, Applicant may request waivers from requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations if necessary to accommodate the goals of the PUD. The Planning Commission has the authority
to grant waivers when deemed appropriate. Construction phases are also acceptable within a Preliminary
Plat.
Existing Conditions of Approval:
1.) A preliminary plat shall be required that includes the entire acreage. At minimum, the preliminary plat
shall provide street access to each of the 18 lots and be in substantial conformance with the street
layout as proposed on the Master Site Plan. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Fairhope
Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits for any property located within the PUD.
2.) Street access to every lot shall be determined and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction prior to
submitting for Preliminary Plat or building permits.
3.) Access from US HWY 98 shall be approved by ALDOT, and any required improvements shall be installed
solely at the Developer’s expense.
4.) Access from Main Street shall be approved by Baldwin County Highway and any required improvements
shall be installed solely at the Developer’s expense.
5.) If street access, in substantial conformance of the proposed site plan cannot be achieved within two
years, the approved PUD shall revert to the Montrose PUD approved in Ordinance 1956. The two-year
time frame may be extended only by the City Council.
6.) A 40’ buffer shall be required on any lot abutting US HWY 98. The area within the buffer shall be
common area.
5 ZC 22.10 Montrose Preserve PUD – September 8, 2022
7.) The buffers shown on the plans, and those required by condition, shall remain natural, except for the
allowance of plant materials to be installed where a visual buffer does not exist.
8.) Where a visual buffer does not exist within buffer areas shown on the plan, or required by a condition of
approval, plant materials shall be installed to provide a visual barrier.
9.) Any item not specifically outlined in the PUD Ordinance shall meet all pertinent regulations and
ordinances, including, but not limited to, those outline in R-1.
10.) All streets, whether public or private, shall be approved by the City of Fairhope Public Works Director.
11.) Connections to existing utility infrastructure shall be determined prior to application for preliminary
plat.
12.) Any outside agency permits (ALDOT, Baldwin County, ADEM, etc.) required shall be obtained prior to
submission of building permits.
Regarding Option A vs. Option B the City of Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides that the Planning Director
may administratively approve minor amendments to PUD’s that are in substantial conformance with the
approved plan. If Planning Commission and City Council agree, and assuming clarifications are provided with
the Preliminary Plat and the intentions are transparent, administrative approval could allow a reduction in
lots without requiring a full PUD amendment, which can take 3-4 months. Taking potential administrative
approval into account, staff makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case: ZC 22.10 Montrose Preserve PUD Amendment be Denied.
1 | P a g e
Montrose Preserve
A Planned Unit Development
An Amendment to the Thomason PUD of 2022
Land Owner:
The Thomasson Family
c/o Burgess A. Thomasson Jr.
362 Ridgelawn Drive West
Mobile, AL 36608
~l~Civil q.j .... Engineer~ng
,&Surveying
2 | P a g e
Site Map
FIGURE 2A
Overall Summary
Montrose Preserve is a 53.94 Acre Planned Unit Development previously approved February 6, 2017 as a 77 lot
Residential development and amended in early 2022 to a 18 lot Estate development. The developer is
requesting that Phasing be allowed in order to develop the property is stages. In addition, an Option is
requested that would reduce the total lot count to 16 lots.
3 | P a g e
Parcel Legal Descriptions
LOTS 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK ONE OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
AND
BLOCK 18 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388
OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE
OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE
JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, AND RUN THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 21
SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WETS MARGIN OF SAID BLOCK 19 (AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 3RD STREET), A
DISTANCE OF 667.23 FEET TO A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK
19; THENCE RUN NORTH 75 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 201.20 FEET TO A ONE
INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE ON THE WEST MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98; THENCE RUN ALONG THE WEST
MARGIN OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY 98, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED COURSES: NORTH 02 DEGREES 44 MINUTES
09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 313.93 FEET; SOUTH 86 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR (CA 1109LS); NORTH 02 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 46 SECONDS
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 299.79 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; NORTH 86 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 18
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; NORTH 02 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 02
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 68.62 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR (CA 1109LS) AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE
WEST MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98 AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDYARD STREET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 74
DEGREES 48 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDYARD STREET, A DISTANCE OF
339.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINS 4.06 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 20 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 21 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
4 | P a g e
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 22 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Land Owner
The Thomasson Family
c/o Burgess A. Thomasson Jr.
362 Ridgelawn Drive West
Mobile, AL 36608
Neighborhood Character
Montrose Preserve consists of long standing parcels that are part of The Village of Montrose. Nearby lots within
The Village of Montrose have been resubdivided and some have been combined. There are several other
residential developments in the area, such as Taylor Oaks, Forest Park, The Pleiades, and Ecor Dechene, with lots
ranging from 20,000 square feet to about 1 acre. Along our northern boundary lies the Montrose Cemetery and
Rock Creek lies across Highway 98 to the east. With a Base Zoning of R-1 underlying the PUD, The large estate
lots proposed with this PUD Revision range from 30,000 square feet to over 3 acres and are a suitable use to the
surrounding area.
5 | P a g e
FIGURE 5A
Existing Zoning
Nearby properties that lie in the Fairhope Corporate Limits are zoned R-1 and PUD as shown below. Properties
that lie outside the Corporate Limits are zoned B-2, B-3 and RSF-2 in Baldwin County Planning District 16 as
shown below. The Proposed Amendment to Montrose Preserve blends well into this mix of zones. A Base Zoning
of R-1 underlying the PUD is proposed.
Fairhope Zoning
6 | P a g e
Baldwin County District 16 Zoning
7 | P a g e
Relative Density
The proposed single family lots in Montrose Preserve consist of lots 139 feet wide up to 208 feet wide and range
from 30,000 square feet to over 3 acres. With a wide range of neighboring lots, ranging from one-half acre to 6
acres, the existing density is around 0.82 units/acre. The proposed density with this revision is 0.33 units/acre,
well in keeping with the surrounding area.
Comprehensive Plan
This property and the most of surrounding properties are recommended for Residential use by the “Preferred
Land Use Plan” as outlined in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Our development is in harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan.
FIGURE 7A
Preferred Comprehensive Plan
Development Timeline
Developer hopes to obtain approvals for the Planned Unit Development Revision by November 2022, and will
follow up with Preliminary Plat submittal by January 2023. Montrose Preserve will have an estimated overall
construction completion time of 9 months, with anticipated build-ready lots by December 2023. Portions may be
submitted in Phases to speed up the timeline and provide Lots sooner.
........... , ..
8 | P a g e
Home Ownership
Homes will be privately owned with no anticipated leasing. No house plans are proposed with this revision but
given the nature and cost of the Lots, estate type homes are envisioned.
Land Use
100% of the single family lots will be privately owned, single family residential. The Common Areas will remain
private and will be solely for the use and enjoyment of the Montrose Preserve residents. Maintenance of the
Common Areas shall be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association. Streets will be constructed 16 feet
wide to minimize impacts and provide an estate feel.
Greenspace
The site will have 13.8 acres of greenspace, or 25% of total site.
FIGURE 10A
GREJ1.IU'tcl:
9 | P a g e
Utilities
Fairhope Utilities will Sewer for Montrose Preserve and Daphne Utilities will provide water. Riviera will provide
Power and AT&T will provide telecommunications for the development.
Pedestrian Circulation
With such large Estate Lots, pedestrian circulation will be provided with the 18 foot wide asphalt roadways
throughout the development.
Lighting
Streetlights will be standard Acorn style lights, 18 feet high, at a maximum of 300 foot spacing along roadways.
Accessory Structures / Equipment
Accessory structures will be permitted as per standard R-1 residential zoning regulations regarding location,
percentage of coverage, and setbacks from property lines. Exterior AC units and generators (if elected) will be
screened from street by landscaping.
Fencing
Fencing will not be constructed with initial construction. Individual Owners may elect to install fencing. Walls or
fences constructed or erected on any Lot shall be of ornamental iron, wood, black painted metal or masonry
construction. No wall or fence shall be constructed from the front property line to the rear corners of the House.
No fences may be constructed without the prior written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
Parking
Parking will be provided for each residence with construction of the homes. A minimum of 3 spaces shall be
provided for each residence including driveways and garages.
Options for Montrose Preserve
Option A
By this requested amendment, the owner is requesting approval of an OPTION A that retains the previous
approvals from early this year, with the additional request that phasing be allowed in order to develop the
property in Five Phases. In addition, the entrance road has been shifted slightly to align with the existing median
opening on U.S. Highway 98.
10 | P a g e
OPTION A
PHASES ONE AND TWO
11 | P a g e
OPTION A
PHASES THREE, FOUR AND FIVE
12 | P a g e
Option B
By this requested amendment, the owner is requesting approval of an OPTION B that would create a single
parcel for Block 21 (previously lots 4 through 6), for the purpose of sale to the adjoining land owner to the West.
This land owner desires to purchase this parcel as a buffer and has no other plans for development. This single
parcel would create a Phase Two under Option B, with no improvements proposed due to reasons stated above.
In the event that the 3rd Street Right-of-way is vacated, this will create a seamless parcel for this owner. As in
Option A, the entrance is aligned to the existing median in U.S. Highway 98, and the remaining phases are
identical in both Options.
OPTION B
PHASES ONE AND TWO
!:I I l ' .... ,.... -, r r.~!:.
13 | P a g e
OPTION B
PHASES THREE, FOUR AND FIVE
===========================================================================================
ATTACHMENTS
Sht 1A PUD Master Plan-Option A
Sht 1B PUD Master Plan-Option B
Sht 2 Boundary Survey
Sht 3 Aerial Overlay
LOT 18LOT 19LOT 20COMMON AREALOT 11LOT 10LOT 4LOT 12ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISIONMB 7PG 103LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4ECOR DE CHENESLIDE 1290-BLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12COM
M
O
N MONTROSE CEMETARYLOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 1U.S. HWY 98R/W VARIESU.S. HWY 98R/W VARIESBROWN, RUSSELL B ETALBROWN, LENA
LP O BOX 287MONTROSE AL
36559
INSTRUMENT 1194886
U.S.HWY 98
SP
E
C
I
A
L
F
L
O
O
D
H
A
Z
A
R
D
A
R
E
A
SU
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
I
N
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
B
Y
T
H
E
1%
A
N
N
U
A
L
C
H
A
N
C
E
F
L
O
O
D
.SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREASUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.(R)
S76°00
'00
"W624.67
'(R) N14°04'58"W244.75'(R)
N76°20
'07
"E(R) 97
.61
'(R) 417.12'(R
)
625
.68
'(R) 417.12'(R) 417.12'(R) 625
.68
'(R) N01°34'25"W313.83'(R) S88°09'41"W(R) N01°26'02"W(R) N88°03'01"E(R) N01°35'19"W(R) N01°35'19"W(R) N13°53'52"W315.66'(R)
S76°00
'00"W626.85
'(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S10°10'08"E354.47'(R) 105.56'(R) S88°13'12"E909.60'(R) S88°30'31"E73.39'(R) N01°34'25"W311.96'(R) 509.84'(R) 99.73'(R) 102.38'(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"E(R
)
N76°20
'07
"E201.76
'N74°48'05"E504.44'N74°48'51"E490.92'S74°50'08"W624.96
'N15°16'54"W417.17'N15°13'12"W244.88'97.59
'N75°11'22"EN74°46'15"E624.56
'S15°20'15"E417.87'N15°13'27"W245.64'N15°22'18"W417.63'N74°47'16"E626.11'N74°49'03"E626.67
'N02°44'09"W313.93'105.34'N15°10'21"W667.23'N74°48'27"E339.02'S75°06'10"W201.20
'N86°59'57"E20.00'N02°35'46"W299.79'N86°50'18"E10.00'N02°48'02"W68.62'N15°10'21"W666.70'N02°44'09"W311.96'N89°43'36"W73.38'S89°26'17"E907.81'N11°22'58"W354.69'S75°06'10"W267.20'S02°48'02"E569.76'C1C2C3N15°11'00"W625.89'N74°48'27"E353.89'N15°11'33"W624.69'S74°48'27"W598.17'S15°08'41"E315.75'S15°13'03"E626.35'S74°48'27"W604.62'509.26'99.57'102.57'102.57'66.44'66.00'
N3
5
°
1
5
'
5
8
"
E
76
3
.
9
0
'N15°09'18"W208.54'104.28'104.26'N15°16'13"W208.51'N15°03'20"W208.75'N15°24'23"W623.11'207.57'207.61'207.93'N74°50'42"E623.95'N15°10'47"W624.82'416.39'208.43'97.10'528.35
'N74°43'13"E625.45'(R) N13°56'17"W208.52'(R) 104.26'(R) 104.26'(R) 623.11'OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)5"x6"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)(DISTURBED)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)(DISTURBED)(3.4' EASTOF CORNER)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)1/2"OEPF1/2"RBF1/4""RBF1/2"OEPF1/2"CRF1/4""RBF1/2"CTIF1/2"OEPF1/2"CTIF1"OEPF1"OEPF5/8"CRF1/2"OEPF1"CTIFWATTIER1/2"CRF1"CTIF1/2"RBF1"CTIF(0.3' NE OF4"x4"CMF(NO ID)1"CTIFCORNER)1"OEPF(0.44' SE OF4"x4"CMFCORNER)5/8"CRF(GCS)5/8"RBF& 1/4"OEPF5/8"RBF5/8"CRF(EDS)5/8"CRF(EDS)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)CRS(15' REF)CRSCRSCRS1"CTIF1"CTIF1"CTIFCRSCRSCRSCRSCRSCRSRRSFT5S R2ET6S R2ESEC 32SEC 5SEC 32SEC 32SEC 5GRANT 7GRANT 43GRANT 7GRANT 43SEC 32SEC 32SEC 321212131416171920F
L
O
O
D
W
A
Y
A
R
E
A
C4Common Area13.8 Acres ±123456789101112131415161718Common Access40 ft. Common Area (Buffer)40 ft. Common Area (Buffer)40 ft. Common Area (Buffer)208.78'208.78'208.78'208.23'208.23'208.23'N74°48'51"EN74°48'39"EN74°48'27"EN74°48'27"E208.63'208.63'208.63'N74°48'51"EN74°48'51"ES43°45'02"E237.66'S43°45'02"E237.66'193.38'139.06'139.06'S74°50'08"W419.96'N74°50'08"E205.00'208.94'208.94'431.17'158.61'158.36' 158.36'291.61'208.70'208.70'208.70'663.27'S3
2
°
5
5
'
5
0
"
W
55
8
.
7
0
'S75°06'10"W208.57'
27
9
.
0
6
'
27
9
.
6
4
'N74°50'08"E268.99'N74°50'08"E344.48'N74°47'30"E318.09
'N15°18'19"W664.41'S15°14'20"E478.20'358.73
'404.54'501.79'533.20'580.69
'586.41'586.67'0.17 ACR/W DEDICATED209.70'210.58'156.88'1
9
9
.
4
4
'257.09'80250 SF1.84 AC119050 SF2.73 AC138368 SF3.18 AC78249 SF1.80 AC54621 SF1.25 AC53150 SF1.22 AC42653 SF0.98 AC32177 SF0.74 AC148179 SF3.40 AC.122451 SF2.81 AC122129 SF2.80 AC119648 SF2.75 AC113720 SF2.61 AC107874 SF2.48 AC95607 SF2.19 AC89038 SF2.04 AC79621 SF1.83 AC70059 SF1.61 ACADAMS STREETCHAPMAN STREET3RD STREET2ND STREETTAYLOR STREETLEDYARD STREETECOR DECHENEJUBILEE LANERE-PLAT OF THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 3OF SQAURE 15, IN THE TOWN OF MONTROSETRENTINOSLIDE 2104-E &F66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/WTAYLOROAKSSLIDE 1827-BFORRESTPARKDRFORREST PARKMB 8PG 95MAIN STREETR/W VARIES3RD STREET66 FT. R/WMONTROSE WOODSROCK CREEK
PARKWAY(NOT OPEN)(NOT OPEN)16' ASPHALT(TYP.)DOVECOTE LNDOVECOTE LN(NOT OPEN)OPEN AND IN USE(R) N13°53'52"W315.66'(R) S14°00'00 E(R) S14°00 0(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00 0C3S15°08'41"E315.75'S15°13'03"E626.35'2'N15°09'18"W208.54'104.28'104.26'N15°16'13"W208.51'3'20"W3'20"WW208.75'208.75'(R) N13°56'17"W(208.52'(R) 104.26'(R) 104.26'OHEOHEOHEOHE7575OHEOHEOHEOHE4"(N(NO ID)4(N2"RBFR1/2"CRF1/4""RBFRRSFRR2340 ft. Common Area (Buffer)208.78''208.78'208.78'N74°48'51"EN74°48'39"E580.69
'586.41'122451 SF2.81 AC122129 SF2.80 AC119648 SF2.75 ACOF LOT 366 FT. R/W(NOT OPEN)2C2OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE4" 4"CMFNCRSR4540 ft. Common Area (Buffer)N74°48'27"EN74°48'27"E501.79'533.20'09.70'210.58'156.88'113720 SF2.61 AC107874 SF2.48 ACS74°48'27"W598.17'S74°48'27"W604.62'"xN2066 FT. R/W(R) 417.12'417417..44N15°16'54"WWW"W417.17'N(0.3' NE OF4"x4"CMF(NO ID)1"CTIFCORNER)1"OEPF4" 4"CMF15essesommon Accesommon AccesCooeso193.38'139.06'139.06'N74°50'08268.9432177 SF0.74 ACW VARIESES5N02°4409 W311.9699 57'102 57'102 57'OHEOHEOHEOHEHEOHEOHEOHEC/CCRSOHOHCC4LOT 11LOT 10LOT 4LOT 12ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISIONBEKMB 7PG 1031LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3OR DE CHENEDSLIDE 1290-BELOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12COM
M
O
N LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5BROWN, RUSSELL B ETALBROWN, LENA
LP O BOX 287MONTROSE AL 36559INSTRUMENT 1194886(R) N14°04'58"W244.75'(R)
N76°20
'07
"E(R) 97
.61'
(R
)
625
.68
'7.12'R) 4177(RRR7.12'(R) 4177(R) 625
.68(R) 625
.68
'(R) 625
.68((R) N01°26'02"W(R) ((R) N01°35'19"W(R) S10°10'08"E354.47'(R) 105.56'(R) S88°13'12"E909.60'S14°00'00ES140E(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"ES140E(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"EN76°20'07"E201.76
'N74°48'05"E504.4504.44'504.4N74°48'51"E490.92'N15°13'12"W244.88'97.59
'N75°11'22"E74°46'15"E624.56
'20'15"E5°22S15°5°2417.87'N15°13'27"W245.64'N15°22'18"W417.63'N74°47'16
EN74°47'16"EN74°47'16
E622626.11626.11'626.1162N105.34'N15°10'21"W667.23'N74°48'27"E339.02'W201.20
'NN02°35'46"WN02299.79'N8N15°10'21"W666.70'S89°26'17"E907.81'N11°22'58"W354.69'S02°48'02"E569.76'C1N15°11'00"W"W"WN15°11'00"WN15°11'00"W0"W625.89'625.89'625.89'N74°48'27"E353.89'50966.44'N74°50'42"E623.95'N15°10'47"W624.82'416.39'208.43'97.10'528.35'N74°43'13"E625.45'OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEEOHEOOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE4"x4"CMF4NO ID)(NO ID)NO ID)D)NOID(4"x4"CMF4(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMFO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)5"x6"CMF"x4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)1"OE5/8"CRF1/2"OOEO"OEPFOE1"CTIFWATTIER1/2"CRF1"CTIF1/2"RBF5/8"CRFR(GCS)5/8"RBF& 1/4"OEPF/4"OE4"x4"CM44(NO ID)OHOHCR(15CRSCRSRCRSCCRSCRSSEC 32SEC 32GRANT 7GRANT43T 4GRANT 43SEC 32SEC 32121141617192020202F
L
O
O
D
W
A
Y
A
R
E
A
Comm13.8 A3.867891011121340 ft. Common Area (Buffer)3'208.63'208.63'208.63'N74°48'51"EN74°48'51"EN74°50'08"E205.00'4C4C(NO ID(NO ID208.94'208.94'431.17'291.61'208.70'208.70'208.70'MFF663.27'S3
2
°
5
5
'50
"
W
55
8
.
7
0
'S75°06'10"W208.57'
27
9
.
0
6
'
27
9
.
6
4
'30"E09'N15°18'19"W664.41'S15°14'20"E478.20'358.73
'404.54'0.17 ACR/W DEDICATED1
9
9
.
4
4
'257.09'80250 SF1.84 AC119050 SF2.73 AC138368 SF3.18 AC54621 SF1.25 AC95607 SF2.19 AC89038 SF2.04 AC79621 SF1.83 AC70059 SF1.61 AC2ND STREETTAYLOR STREETLEDYARDSTREETN74°43'13"EN74°43'13"EOR DECHENEJUBI
LEE LANE66 FT. R/W4545666T. R/W66 FT. R/FT. R/R/WFT.666 FT. R/WTAYLOROAKSSLIDE 1827-BE PARKDRFORREST PARKT PMB 8PG 9516' ADOVECOTE LNDLNNLNDOVECOTE LN(NOT OPEN)OPEN AND IN USEOPEN AND IN USEmmonLOT 4ECOS(R)
S76°00'00
"W624.67
'S74°50'08"W624.96
'141617S43°45'02"E237.66'S43°45'02"E237.66'S74°50'08"W419.96'158.61'158.36'158.36'8"E99'N748'N74°47'3318.078249 SF1.80 AC53150 SF1.22 AC42653 SF0.98 ACN74°50'08"E17344.48SP
E
C
I
A
L
F
L
O
O
D
H
A
Z
A
R
D
A
R
E
A
SU
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
I
N
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
B
Y
T
H
E
1%
A
N
N
U
A
L
C
H
A
N
C
E
F
L
O
O
D
.
(R
)
N762S75°06'10"W20S75°06'10"W267.20'99 57'102 57'66.00'
N3
5
°
1
5
'5
8
"
E
76
3
.
9
0
'1"CTIF1"CTIF1213mmon AreaeaeaAAcres ±±es18148179 SF3.40 AC.N207EPF3RDSTREET(R) S14°00'00"ES14 00(R) S14°00'00"ES14 00(R) S14°00'00"EN15°11'33"WN15°11'33"WN15°11'33"W624.69'624.69'624.69'N15°24'23"W623.11'207.61'4"x4"CMF(NO ID)208.23'208.23'REET6207.57'(R) 623.11'1/2"CTIF1"OEPF208.23'66 FT. R/WASPHALT(TYP.)6PHASE ONEPHASE THREEPHASEFOURPHASE TWOPHASE FIVEEPFBFO ID)x4"CMFOID)IF(R)
S76°00'00"W626.85
'N74°49'03"E626.67
'"x4"CMFNO ID)1586.67'122451 SFADAMS STREET66(NR)
S76ADAMS S1NO ACCESSCONNECT TOEXIST
ROADWAYNO ACCESSNO ACCESS20' BufferNO ACCESSSITE SUMMARYTotal AreaTotal LotsDensityOpen SpaceStreets53.94 Ac180.33 / Acre15.55 Ac (28.8%)3,299 L.F.Max. Height35 Ft.Max. Coverage 40%Walls or fences constructed or erected onany Lot shall be of ornamental iron,wood, black painted metal or masonryconstruction. No wall or fence shall beconstructed from the front property lineto the rear corners of the House. Nofences may be constructed without theprior written approval of the ArchitecturalControl Committee.FencingZoningPUD (R-1 Base)010020030066'33'16' ASPHALT (TYPICAL)
33' UNDISTURBED STRIPRIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL2nd Street, 3rd Street and Ledyard StreetOPTIONASht 1 of 3An Amendment of The Thomason PUD of 20220
ECOR DECHENEJUBILEE LANE
50
FT. R/WFLOOD CERTIFICATE:VICINITY MAP1" = 1 MILELOT 3LOT 2 66 FT. R/W66 FT.
R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/WLOT 3LOT 2 LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2 LOT 3LOT 3LOT 2 LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2 LOT 3LOT 1LOT 2 LOT 3LOT 1LOT 2 LOT 3FORRESTPARKDRP.O.B.SURVEYOR'S NOTES:SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE:LEGEND:SITE&LYLO(251) 990-6566880 HOLCOMB BLVDFAIRHOPE, AL 36532(QJLQHHULQJ 6XUYH\LQJPROJ MGROFSHEETFILEPROJECTSCALEDED21BDY-SURVEY202110331"=100'CHKD. JAFDRAWNDEDBOUNDARY SURVEYw I I / 32 ,,,,,, _____ ,,, I I / / / / / / //_/ / / I / I I , /~ /P,l , , I , I , I , I I ,-------
LOT 18LOT 19LOT 20COMMON AREALOT 11LOT 10LOT 4LOT 12ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISIONMB 7PG 103LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4ECOR DE CHENESLIDE 1290-BLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12COM
M
O
N MONTROSE CEMETARYLOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 1U.S. HWY 98R/W VARIESU.S. HWY 98R/W VARIESBROWN, RUSSELL B ETALBROWN, LENA LP O BOX 287MONTROSE AL 36559INSTRUMENT 1194886
U.S.
H
W
Y
98
T5S R2ET6S R2ESEC 32SEC 5SEC 32SEC 32SEC 5GRANT 7GRANT 43GRANT 7GRANT 43SEC 32SEC 32SEC 32SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREASUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREASUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.C4WALKING TRAIL130801 SF3.00 AC130485 SF3.00 AC128023 SF2.94 AC122108 SF2.80 AC116297 SF2.67 AC109088 SF2.50 AC97713 SF2.24 AC88165 SF2.02 AC78602 SF1.80 AC80250 SF1.84 AC119050 SF2.73 AC138368 SF3.18 AC78249 SF1.80 AC54621 SF1.25 AC53150 SF1.22 AC42653 SF0.98 AC32177 SF0.74 AC148179 SF3.40 AC.ADAMS STREETCHAPMAN STREET3RD STREET2ND STREETTAYLOR STREETLEDYARD STREETECOR DECHENEJUBILEE LANERE-PLAT OF THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 3OF SQAURE 15, IN THE TOWN OF MONTROSETRENTINOSLIDE 2104-E &F66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/WTAYLOROAKSSLIDE 1827-BFORRESTPARKDRFORREST PARKMB 8PG 95MAIN STREETR/W VARIESD STREET66 FT. R/WMONTROSE WOODSROCK CREEK
PARKWAY(NOT OPEN)(NOT OPEN)16'
ASPHALT(TYP.)DOVECOTE LNDOVECOTE LN(NOT OPEN)130801 SFNO ACCESSCONNECT TOEXIST ROADWAYNO ACCESSNO ACCESS20' BufferNO ACCESSCO 66 FT. R/. RTR/WR/(NOT OPEEADDSTREETET66(ADAMS SADSSCCONNECTCONECCONCOYYAYAYOADWADWEEXIST ROASTOEXISATROADWAOW20' Bufferer20' Buffer20' Bufe2.94 AC94SOACCESSOACCESOACCESSCESSSSACCENO ACCENO ACNO ACCENOACN66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/WFSACCESSSACCESSCCESSNNNO ACCO ANO ACNOAC66 FT. R/WFT R/W6F6666 F666T 4NNNONNO ACCNOACCNOLOT 4ECOSS1.22 ACAC221W VARIESSRIVASES3213230.70.C4C4119052.732.653 SFS3 5365F98 ACA8949 SFSF82478249 S71.80 AC180 AAC53150 S515SFF0.990.98 ACACA898T 788L B ETANA L287AL 3655119488OM 986AL59MMO
N 6LOT 4SEC 3232SEC3FT R/WR/WTR/WFEC 32C 36FT. RT. RTF66LEDYARYADYDYLEDLEDYARDSTRESTRD SRD ARDLEDYTREETETEETRESTREYARLELE66 FT.TF66 666666 FT. 6FTR/WWR/W.R66 FT66REETTEEEETREED STRTRTSSR3RDDRR3DASPHSPHA(TYP(TYPSSACCESSSACCSESAREETTEEETTRERRHHP.)P)ETTTEETR/W/WWRFT. FFTT66 F6666 66FRHALTLTHAP)P)OF LOT 3OFLOT3OT 3T380250 SF80250 SF802501.84 ACC1.84 AC10 SF0SACFFF5003 ARD AREAARREAACIAL FLOOD HAZARD AALAL FLOOOD HAARAZASPECIASPEUNDATION BY THEATIOONBYTHSUBJECT TO INUNDAECUBJJECTECCTTO IINUNSUL CHANCE FLOOD.CHANANCE FFLOOOD1% ANNUAL CHAN1% AANNUALNUTRAILRAAIILING TRANGGTTRWALKINGWAALALKKINWAW148179 SF48179 SF143.40 AC.3.40 ACCommon Area13.8 Acres ±123456789101112131415161718Common AccessSht 3 of 3An Amendment of The Thomason PUD of 200100200300M@II11 a:;r@§~ AERIAL OVERIAY WITH LIDAR
LOT 18LOT 19LOT 20COMMON AREALOT 11LOT 10LOT 4LOT 12ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISIONMB 7PG 103LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4ECOR DE CHENESLIDE 1290-BLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12COM
M
O
N MONTROSE CEMETARYLOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 1U.S. HWY 98R/W VARIESU.S. HWY 98R/W VARIESBROWN, RUSSELL B ETALBROWN, LENA
LP O BOX 287MONTROSE AL
36559
INSTRUMENT 1194886
U.S.HWY 98SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREASUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREASUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.(R)
S76°00
'00
"W624.67
'(R) N14°04'58"W244.75'(R)
N76°20
'07
"E(R) 97
.61
'(R) 417.12'(R
)
625
.68
'(R) 417.12'(R) 417.12'(R) 625
.68
'(R) N01°34'25"W313.83'(R) S88°09'41"W(R) N01°26'02"W(R) N88°03'01"E(R) N01°35'19"W(R) N01°35'19"W(R) N13°53'52"W315.66'(R)
S76°00
'00"W626.85
'(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S10°10'08"E354.47'(R) 105.56'(R) S88°13'12"E909.60'(R) S88°30'31"E73.39'(R) N01°34'25"W311.96'(R) 509.84'(R) 99.73'(R) 102.38'(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"E(R
)
N76°20
'07
"E201.76
'N74°48'05"E504.44'N74°48'51"E490.92'S74°50'08"W624.96
'N15°16'54"W417.17'N15°13'12"W244.88'97.59
'N75°11'22"EN74°46'15"E624.56
'S15°20'15"E417.87'N15°13'27"W245.64'N15°22'18"W417.63'N74°47'16"E626.11'N74°49'03"E626.67
'N02°44'09"W313.93'105.34'N15°10'21"W667.23'N74°48'27"E339.02'S75°06'10"W201.20
'N86°59'57"E20.00'N02°35'46"W299.79'N86°50'18"E10.00'N02°48'02"W68.62'N15°10'21"W666.70'N02°44'09"W311.96'N89°43'36"W73.38'S89°26'17"E907.81'N11°22'58"W354.69'S75°06'10"W267.20'S02°48'02"E569.76'C1C2C3N15°11'00"W625.89'N74°48'27"E353.89'N15°11'33"W624.69'S74°48'27"W598.17'S15°08'41"E315.75'S15°13'03"E626.35'S74°48'27"W604.62'509.26'99.57'102.57'102.57'66.44'66.00'
N3
5
°
1
5
'
5
8
"
E
76
3
.
9
0
'N15°09'18"W208.54'104.28'104.26'N15°16'13"W208.51'N15°03'20"W208.75'N15°24'23"W623.11'207.57'207.61'207.93'N74°50'42"E623.95'N15°10'47"W624.82'416.39'208.43'97.10'528.35
'N74°43'13"E625.45'(R) N13°56'17"W208.52'(R) 104.26'(R) 104.26'(R) 623.11'OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)5"x6"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)(DISTURBED)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)(DISTURBED)(3.4' EASTOF CORNER)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)1/2"OEPF1/2"RBF1/4""RBF1/2"OEPF1/2"CRF1/4""RBF1/2"CTIF1/2"OEPF1/2"CTIF1"OEPF1"OEPF5/8"CRF1/2"OEPF1"CTIFWATTIER1/2"CRF1"CTIF1/2"RBF1"CTIF(0.3' NE OF4"x4"CMF(NO ID)1"CTIFCORNER)1"OEPF(0.44' SE OF4"x4"CMFCORNER)5/8"CRF(GCS)5/8"RBF& 1/4"OEPF5/8"RBF5/8"CRF(EDS)5/8"CRF(EDS)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)CRS(15' REF)CRSCRSCRS1"CTIF1"CTIF1"CTIFCRSCRSCRSCRSCRSCRSRRSFT5S R2ET6S R2ESEC 32SEC 5SEC 32SEC 32SEC 5GRANT 7GRANT 43GRANT 7GRANT 43SEC 32SEC 32SEC 321212131416171920F
L
O
O
D
W
A
Y
A
R
E
A
C4Common Area13.8 Acres ±12345678910111213141516Common Access40 ft. Common Area (Buffer)40 ft. Common Area (Buffer)40 ft. Common Area (Buffer)208.78'208.78'208.78'N74°48'51"EN74°48'39"E208.63'208.63'208.63'N74°48'51"EN74°48'51"ES43°45'02"E237.66'S43°45'02"E237.66'193.38'139.06'139.06'S74°50'08"W419.96'N74°50'08"E205.00'208.94'208.94'431.17'158.61'158.36' 158.36'291.61'208.70'208.70'208.70'663.27'S3
2
°
5
5
'
5
0
"
W
55
8
.
7
0
'S75°06'10"W208.57'
27
9
.
0
6
'
27
9
.
6
4
'N74°50'08"E268.99'N74°50'08"E344.48'N74°47'30"E318.09
'N15°18'19"W664.41'S15°14'20"E478.20'358.73
'404.54'580.69
'586.41'586.67'N5
9
°
1
0
'
0
0
"E
2
4
4
.
9
4
'0.17 ACR/W DEDICATED80250 SF1.84 AC119050 SF2.73 AC138368 SF3.18 AC78249 SF1.80 AC54621 SF1.25 AC53150 SF1.22 AC42653 SF0.98 AC32177 SF0.74 AC148179 SF3.40 AC.122451 SF2.81 AC122129 SF2.80 AC119648 SF2.75 AC317336 SF7.29 AC89038 SF2.04 AC79621 SF1.83 AC70059 SF1.61 ACADAMS STREETCHAPMAN STREET3RD STREET2ND STREETTAYLOR STREETLEDYARD STREETECOR DECHENEJUBILEE LANERE-PLAT OF THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 3OF SQAURE 15, IN THE TOWN OF MONTROSETRENTINOSLIDE 2104-E &F66 FT. R/WEXIST. 66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/W66 FT. R/WTAYLOROAKSSLIDE 1827-BFORRESTPARKDRFORREST PARKMB 8PG 95MAIN STREETR/W VARIES3RD STREET66 FT. R/WMONTROSE WOODSROCK CREEK
PARKWAY(NOT OPEN)(NOT OPEN)16'
ASPHALT(TYP.)DOVECOTE LNDOVECOTE LN(NOT OPEN)OPEN AND IN USE(R) N13°53'52"W315.66'(R) S14°00'00 E(R) S14°00 0(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00 0C3S15°08'41"E315.75'S15°13'03"E626.35'N15°09'18"W208.54'104.28'104.26'N15°16'13"W208.51'3'20"W3'20"W208.75'208.75'(R) N13°56'17"W(208.52'(R) 104.26'(R) 104.26'OHEOHEOHEOHE7575OHEOHEOHEOHE4(N(NO ID)4(N2"RBFR21/2"CRF1/4""RBFRRSFRR2340 ft. Common Area (Buffer)208.78''208.78'208.78'N74°48'51"EN74°48'39"E580.69
'586.41'122451 SF2.81 AC122129 SF2.80 AC119648 SF2.75 ACOF LOT 366 FT. R/W(NOT OPEN)(R) S14°00'00"EC2N15°11'33"W624.69'N15°24'23"W623.11'207.61'OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE4"x4"CMF(NO ID)CRSRN440 ft. Common Area (Buffer)317336 SF7.29 ACTREET6S74°48'27"W598.17'S74°48'27"W604.62'"xN66 FT. R/WLOT 11LOT 10LOT 4LOT 12ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISIONBEKMB 7PG 1031LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3OR DE CHENEDSLIDE 1290-BELOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12COM
M
O
N LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5BROWN, RUSSELL B ETALBROWN, LENA
LP O BOX 287MONTROSE AL 36559INSTRUMENT 1194886(R) N14°04'58"W244.75'(R)
N76°20
'07
"E(R) 97
.61'
(R
)
625
.68
'7.12'R) 4177(RRR7.12'(R) 4177(R) 625
.68(R) 625
.68
'(R) 625
.68((R) N01°26'02"W(R) ((R) N01°35'19"W(R) S10°10'08"E354.47'(R) 105.56'(R) S88°13'12"E909.60'R) S14°00 00(R) S14°00'00"ER) S14°00'00(R) S14°00'00"ER) S14°00'00E(R) S14°00'00"E(R) S14°00'00"EN76°20'07"E201.76
'N74°48N15°13'12"W244.88'97.59
'N75°11'22"E4°46'15"E624.56
'S15°20'15"E5°225°2417.87'N15°13'27"W245.64'N15°22'18"W417.63'N74°47'16
EN74°47'16"EN74°47'16
E626.112626626.11'626.1162N105.34'N15°10'21"W667.23'N74°48'27"E339.02'W201.20
'NN02°35'46"WN02299.79'N8N15°10'21"W666.70'S89°26'17"E907.81'N11°22'58"W354.69'S02°48'02"E569.76'C1N15°11'00"W"W"WN15°11'00"WN15°11'00"WN15°11'00"W0"W625.89'625.89'625.89'625.89'N74°48'27"E353.89'50966.44'N74°50'42"E623.95'N15°10'47"W624.82'416.39'208.43'97.10'528.35'N74°43'13"E625.45'OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEEOHEOOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE4x4CMF(NO ID)ID)ID))ID(4"x4"CMF4(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMFO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)4"x4"CMF(NO ID)5"x6"CMF"x4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)4"x4"CMF(W/DISK)11"OEPF1"OE5/8"CRF1/2"OEEPFE1"CTIFWATTIER1/2"CRF1"CTIF1/2"RBF5/8"CRFR(GCS)5/8"RBF& 1/4"OEPF/4"OE4"x4"CM44(NO ID)OHOHCR(15CRSCRSRCRSCCRSCRSSEC 32SEC 32GRANT 7GRANT43T 4GRANT 43SEC 32SEC 321211416171920202020F
L
O
O
D
W
A
Y
A
R
E
A
Comm13.8 A3.856789101140 ft. Common Area (Buffer)208.63'208.63'208.63'N74°48'51"EN74°48'51"EN74°50'08"E205.00'4C4C(NO ID(NO ID208.94'208.94'431.17'291.61'208.70'208.70'208.70'MFF663.27'S3
2
°
5
5
'50
"
W
55
8
.
7
0
'S75°06'10"W208.57'
27
9
.
0
6
'
27
9
.
6
4
'30"E09'N15°18'19"W664.41'S15°14'20"E478.20'358.73
'404.54'80250 SF1.84 AC119050 SF2.73 AC138368 SF3.18 AC54621 SF1.25 AC89038 SF2.04 AC79621 SF1.83 AC70059 SF1.61 AC2ND STREETTAYLOR STREETLEDYARDSTREETN74°43'13"EN74°43'13"EOR DECHENEJUBI
LEE LANE66 FT. R/W454566 FT. R/WTAYLOROAKSSLIDE 1827-BE PARKDRFORREST PARKT PMB 8PG 9516'
ASPHALTS(TYP.)TYDOVECOTE LNDNLNDOVECOTE LN(NOT OPEN)OPEN AND IN USEOPEN AND IN USEN74°48'05"E505045074°48'51"E490.92'C1207.57'(R) 623.11'4"x4"CMF1/2"CTIFOR/W66 FT. R/WEXIST. 66 FT66 FTFT66 66 FT. R/W(R) 417.12'417417..44N15°16'54"WWW"W417.17'N(0.3' NE OF4"x4"CMF(NO ID)1"CTIFCORNER)1"OEPF4" 4"CMF131essesommon Accesommon AccesCooeso193.38'139.06'139.06'N74°50'08268.994260.932177 SF0.74 ACW VARIESESLOT 4ECOS(R)
S76°00'00
"W624.67
'S74°50'08"W624.96
'121415S43°45'02"E237.66'S43°45'02"E237.66'S74°50'08"W419.96'158.61'158.36'158.36'8"E9'N748'N74°47'3318.078249 SF1.80 AC53150 SF1.22 AC653 SF98 ACN02°4409 W311.9699 57'102 57'102 57'OHEOHEOHEOHEHEOHEOHEOHEC/CCRSOHOHCC4L FLOOD HAZARD AREALSPECIALLECT TO INUNDATION BY THESUBJEANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.AN1% ANAN(R
)
N762S75°06'10"W20S75°06'10"W267.20'99 57'102 57'66.00'
N3
5
°
1
5
'5
8
"
E
76
3
.
9
0
'1"CTIF1"CTIF1213mmon AreaeaeaAAcres ±±es16148179 SF3.40 AC.2mmonN74°50'08"E15344.48504.404.44'04.4NN5
9
°
1
0
'
0
0
"ENN5
9
°
1
0
'
0
0
"EN5
9
°
1
0
'
0
0
"EN5
94444
2
4
4
.
9
4
'
2
4
4
.
9
4
2
4
4
.
9
4
2
4
4
.
9
4
9
40.17 ACW DEDICATEDPHASE ONEPHASE THREEPHASEFOURPHASE TWOPHASE FIVEEPFBFO ID)x4"CMFOID)IF(R)
S76°00'00"W626.85
'N74°49'03"E626.67
'"x4"CMFNO ID)1586.67'122451 SFADAMS STREET66(NR)
S76ADAMS S1NO ACCESSCONNECT TOEXIST
ROADWAYNO ACCESSNO ACCESS20' BufferNO ACCESSOPTIONBSITE SUMMARYTotal AreaTotal LotsDensityOpen SpaceStreets53.94 Ac160.30 / Acre15.55 Ac (28.8%)2,771 L.F.Max. Height35 Ft.Max. Coverage 40%Walls or fences constructed or erected onany Lot shall be of ornamental iron,wood, black painted metal or masonryconstruction. No wall or fence shall beconstructed from the front property lineto the rear corners of the House. Nofences may be constructed without theprior written approval of the ArchitecturalControl Committee.FencingZoningPUD (R-1 Base)010020030066'33'16' ASPHALT (TYPICAL)
33' UNDISTURBED STRIPRIGHT-OF-WAY DETAIL2nd Street, 3rd Street and Ledyard StreetSht 1 of 3An Amendment of The Thomason PUD of 20220 PHASE TWO
address neighbor's concerns and was unanimously approved by Commission and d ty Counci l,
While reviewin g recent development proposals for the subject property, staff agrees, in this case,
conhectivity to existing streets is not necessary and a PUD provides the proper tool to al low such
exceptions and flexibility in design . Staff views the currently proposed development, with a reduced
number of lots and the proposed use, as an improvement to the currently app roved p lan and would
like to recommend approval, but the following conslderatfons exist.
Setbacks and other dimensional requirements, as well as uses, shall follow R-1, Single-Family
Residential requirements. Bui lding height is limited to 35' -and total lot coverage is limited to 40%.
Proposed fencing has special requirements as illustrated on the Site Plan.
Street Access: No access to existing roads in Montrose, other than lots 1 -3, which utilized the 3rd St
ROW. Access to each lot will be provided via Hwy 98 and/or Main St. Mechanism for providing
access to each lot not finalized, but the final solution may include, but not be limited to, the
following options: Vacation of ROW's, Agreements to inclu d e a private ly maintained road in a publ ic
ROW, shared access via easements inside lot lines. Garbage and recycling wil l be provided by the City
of Fairhope Public Works. All streets shall be approved by the Director of Pub lic Works.
Sewer is serviced by Fa irhope Utflities, Water is serviced through Daphne Utilities, Power servfced by
Riviera, Telecommunlcations will be through AT&T . Adequacy of public utility infrastructure shall be
required prior to submitting for a pre liminary plat app l ication.
By reducing t he number of lots and increasing the size, the acreage of greenspace was reduced, but
the 13.8 acres of greenspace provided, or 25.6%, exceeds the minimum 10% required. If approved,
the 401 buffer strip could increase the greenspace further. Th ere is -a 20' visua l greenspace buffer
required on the north side of lot 1 and adjacent to the cemetery. The existing PUD contains a 40'
buffer along HWY 98 that is described as a visual barrier and highlighted on the plans below. During
reviews for the proposed development, staff failed to ask the applicant to include this 40' buffer on a
revised site plan but believes it to be important and suggest requiring it as a condition of approval. If
approved, the 40' buffer shall also be Included on Lot 18.
Lots 1-9 exist as historical lots of record, but conflict With the PUD approved in 2017. Lots 10-18 will
require a subdivision to creates new lots of record. Staff recommends preliminary plat, including all
18 lots, that clearly defined potential floodways, wetlands, buffers, access to utilities, drainage (if
required), and vehicular access.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case: ZC 21 .15 Montrose PUD Amendment be Approved with the following
conditions:
1. A preliminary plat sha ll be required that includes the entire acreage. At minimum, the preliminary
plat shall provide street access to each of the 18 lots and be in substantial conformance with the.
street layout as proposed on the Master Site Plan . The pre liminary plat shall be approved by the
Fairhope Planning Comm ission prior to issuance of any building permits for any property located
within the PUD
Mr. Barlow mentioned that this PUD contains non -standard roads with many walkers and asked
about the buffer on Greeno Road .
Ack Moore, 22789 Ecor Rouge Lane, stated that he was born and raised on Rock Creek which is now
more like a ditch than a creek. He thought that the easement needed to be addressed and that the
topography wa s not shown.
Amy Thompson, 108 Alsway Creek, wanted assurance that there would not be any rentals.
Eddie Webster, 18 Viale Bellezza, asked if the large lot (Lot 18) was a lot and was concerned about
the creek.
Sabrina Ruffin, 23679 3rd Street, asked for clarification of 3rd Street access. Mr. Simmons stated
that 3rd Street will only provide access to lots 1-3.
Debbie Quinn, 7172 Tay lor Street, stated that she had gone to Baldwin Co unty two years ago to get
rid of accesses and that the county was supposed to give access to the city, but that did not happen.
Now, she is concerned with Taylor Street and historic trees and also stated that the conservation
easement for this PUD had been changed.
Rebecca Bryant c losed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Simmons addressed the concerns. Short-term rentals are not allowed in R-1 zoning districts and
neither is an accessory unit that can be rented out. Lot 18 wi ll have a limited bu ridab le area due to
the topography of the lot. The conservation easement was never approved at City Council during the
original PUD, it was required to be a common area.
Motion:
John Worsham to approve ZC 21.15, subject to staff recommendations with an added 13th
condition:
1. A preliminary p lat shall be required that inc ludes the entire acreage. At minimum, the preliminary
plat shall provide street access to each of the 18 lots and be in substantia l conformance with the
street layout as pro.posed on the Master Site Plan. Th e pre liminary plat shall be approved by the
Fairhope Planning Commission prior to issu ance of any b uil ding permits for any property located
within the PUD.
2. Street access to every lot shal l be determined and approved by the Authority Havi ng Jurisdiction
prior to submitting for Preliminary Plat or building permits.
3. Access from US HWY 98 shall be approved by ALDOT, and any required improvements shall be
installed solely at the Developer's expense.
4. Access from Main Street shall be approved by Baldwin County Highway and any required
improvemen ts shal l be installed solely at the Developer's expense .
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
~
lllannlno
IQm
ZC20.l0
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3:40:21 PM
SE T FROM A N EX TE RNAL ADDRESS
Allie Knuts on.
I did not receive a letter reque ting the zoning changes, I own t be property at 23089 Main St Fairhope AL 36532,
(can you please advi e where my notice letter wa • sent!) I wa just shown a letter by a neighbor. I want to be put on
record as opposed to the neborhood zoning change a we are under a building moratoriwn. The infrastructure needs
to be in place before any more zoning change or building. hould be considered.
Kim Dye (aka)
Pixie Dust LLC
23089 Main Street
FaiThope Al 36532
251-348·029 l
Mai ling address of record
Kim Dye
POBox 103
Robet dale Al 36567
Sent from my iPbone
Sent from my i Phone
From:Martha Rester
To:planning
Subject:Case ZA 22.10 PUD Amendment
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 5:25:27 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Importance:High
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
I am vehemently opposed to the PUD Amendment for the Montrose Preserve.
The community cannot handle the traffic or water runoff which will occur from this development.
Fairhope has done a very POOR job in controlling development in their jurisdiction – and hopefully,
you will not continue to do so in Montrose. I moved out of Fairhope to get away from the
congestion and I do not want Montrose to become the same nightmare as Fairhope has become.
It seems Fairhope is only interested in the income from development – not in the historical value of
the community.
Regards,
Martha
Martha Rester
Account Executive
VSS IBM Premier Business Partner
O: 251-928-8034
C: 251-421-4147
Thinkvss.com
vss
A CONV ERG E COMPANY
ORDINANCE NO. 1742
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1253
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE :'JO. 1596: A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE THOMASSON PUD; TO
APPROVE A SITE PLAN; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DA TE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA as
follows:
The City ofFairhope has approved a request to zone property to a PUD -Planned Unit Development
to be known as Thomasson PUD on the 12th day of June, 2017;
Burgess A . Thomasson, Jr. made an application to amend said ordinance and rename to the Montrose
Preserve PUD; and
After the appropriate public notice and hearing of the Planning Commission of the City ofFairhope,
Alabama has forwarded a favorable recommendation,
The property of Burgess A. Thomasson, Jr. generally located on the west side of US Hwy. 98 from
the south side of Adams Street to just south of Ledyard Street, Fairhope, Alabama.
TAX PARCEL 05-43-09-32-0-000-058.000
05-43-09-32-0-000-059.000
05-43-09-32-0-000-064.000
05-43-09-32-0-000-066.000
05-43-09-43-0-000-023.000
Legal Description: (Case number ZC 21.15)
LOTS 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK ONE OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
AND
BLOCK 18 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN
DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA .
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN
DEED BOOK uEu. PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, AND RUN THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES IO MINUTES
21 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST MARGIN OF SAID BLOCK 19 (AND THE EAST
MARGIN OF 3RD STREET), A DISTANCE OF 667.23 FEET TO A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON
PIPE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 19; THENCE RUN NORTH 75
DEGREES 06 MINUTES IO SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 201.20 FEET TO A ONE INCH
CRIMPED IRON PIPE ON THE WEST MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98; THENCE RUN
ALONG THE WEST MARGIN OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY 98, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
COURSES:
Ordinance No. 1742
Page -2-
NORTH 02 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 313.93 FEET;
SOUTH 86 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A
CAPPED REBAR (CA l 109LS); NORTH 02 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 46 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 299.79 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; NORTH 86 DEGREES 50
MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A CONCRETE
MONUMENT; NORTH 02 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
68.62 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR (CA 1109LS) AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST
MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98 AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDY ARD STREET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 74 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID
SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDY ARD STREET, A DISTANCE OF 339.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINS 4.06 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 20 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 21 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING WEST OF U.S.1-TIGHWAY 98.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 22 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
1. That, Attached as "Exhibit A" is an approved site plan . The property must develop in
substantial conformance with the approved site plan and supporting documents. Any
substantial deviation from the attached site plan, as determined by the Planning Director,
will require re-approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of
Fairhope, Alabama, as a PUD amendment.
2. That, the following development regulations shall govern :
Lots: There shall be 18 total lots.
U e: Lots shall be single-family residential based on R-1, Low Density Single-Family
Residential District with exceptions listed within this Ordinance and on the site plan.
Setbacks:
• Front -40', Rear -35 ', Side -IO', Street side -20'.
Prin c ipal Structures:
• Maximum lot coverage shall be 40%.
• Building height shall not exceed 35' as measured per the City of Fairhope Zoning
Ordinance.
Fencing:
• Walls or fences constructed or erected on any lot shall be of ornamental iron,
wood, black painted metal, or masonry construction. No wall or fence shall be
constructed from the front property line to the rear comers of the house. No fences
may be constructed without the prior written approval of the Architectural Control
Committee.
Buffers:
• All buffers labeled on the Site Plan shall remain natural, with the exception that
where a visual buffer does not exist buffer plant materials shall be installed.
along with the Staff Report and Minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The
developer is Larry Chason. While the approved PUD allows for 77 total lots, the proposed amendment
proposes 18 single-family lots on the same acreage-53.94 acres. The gross density is .33 Units/Acre.
Setbacks and other dimensional requirements, as well as uses, shall follow R-1, Single-Family Residential
requirements. Building height is limited to 35' and total lot coverage is limited to 40%. Proposed fencing has
special requirements as illustrated on the Site Plan.
Comments:
Originally presented in 2015 and approved in 2017, many revisions accommodating Commissioners as well as
surrounding neighbors lead to the approved PUD. Central to those concerns were connections to existing
public roads within Montrose. Consequently, the street layout of the Thomasson PUD, as adopted, is not
consistent with the City's connectivity requirements, but did address neighbor's concerns and was
unanimously approved by Commission and City Council.
While reviewing recent development proposals for the subject property, staff agrees, in this case, connectivity
to existing streets is not necessary and a PUD provides the proper tool to allow such exceptions and flexibility
in design. Staff views the currently proposed development, with a reduced number of lots and the proposed
use, as an improvement to the currently approved plan and would like to recommend approval, but the
following considerations exist.
Streets
As proposed, only lots 1-3 will connect to internal streets within Montrose by way of the 3rd Street ROW. Staff
reviewed different options for connecting to lots 4-14, and the proposed plan assumes the right-of-way can
be vacated. The ROW's are currently Baldwin County's. At this time, staff cannot be assured the ROW's will
be vacated, but are willing to explore that solution. Alternatively, the drive can be moved onto private
property. Unfortunately, this is a causality dilemma, or a 'chicken or the egg' situation. Should the PUD be
approved first, or the road accesses clarified? Because there is an existing PUD that conflicts with the
proposed street layout as well the historic ROW's, staff believes approval of the PUD, as proposed, is
appropriate, but assumes the general street layout, as presented, will be achieved with substantial
conformance. Specifically, access to existing roads in Montrose are prohibited, access to lots 4-14 will require
access from U.S. Hwy 98 and be approved by ALDOT, and lots 15-17 will require access from Main Street and
be approved by Baldwin County Highway Department.
In the event the existing layout can not be achieved, staff believes a contingency should be in place. Under
current regulatiqns, PU D's that expire revert to R/ A, Residential/ Agricultural District. Alternatively, conditions
of approval can be utilized to ensure the proposed plan is achieved, including a prohibition on future
applications and/or building permits until access is provided to all 18 lots, a reversion to the currently
approved PUD (Ord. 1596), or other thoughts Commissioners may propose.
Garbage and recycling will be provided by the City of Fairhope Public Works. All streets shall be approved by
the Director of Public Works.
Greenspace
The current PUD, with 77 lots that were mostly 60' wide, provided buffers abutting existing residents in
Montrose. In addition to the buffers, 18 acres were provided as common area and labeled as "Conservation
2 ZC 21.15 Montrose PUD -December 6, 2021
Easement". The proposed revision includes 13.8 acres of greens pace, or 25.6% of the proposed development,
more than the 10% required. Staff asked if lot 18 could be included in the proposed common area as originally
approved, but the applicant would like to retain lot 18 as a residential lot to offset the cost of reducing lot
counts from 77 to 18.
The City Council, ultimately, did not adopt Ordinance 1596 with a contingency that 18 acres of common space
shall be placed into a conservation easement. The PUD site plan is sufficient to preserve the area as common
area. Staff agrees, but clarifies, this does not prevent the area to be place into a conservation easement in the
future.
Like the approved PUD, a 20' undisturbed buffer has been provided on the north side of lot 1 adjacent to the
Cemetery. If Adams Street is vacated, or otherwise left unimproved, an additional 66' undisturbed area will
be provided. The approved PUD also included a 40' undisturbed buffer along Hwy 98. During reviews for the
proposed development staff failed to ask the applicant to include this 40' buffer on a revised site plan but
believes it to be important and suggest requiring it as a condition of approval.
Utilities
The subject property is serviced by the following utilities:
Sewer -Fairhope Utilities
Water -Daphne Utilities
Power-Riviera
Telecommunications -AT&T
Utility infrastructure upgrades are likely. Typically, PUD's are followed by a preliminary plat review to resolve
infrastructure concerns. Conflicts with the current PUD aside, lots 1-9 currently exist and technically do not
require preliminary/final plat. While lots 10-18 will require a subdivision to divide, those may be done in later
phases. To ensure the proposed project is comprehensively developed, including access, drainage, and
utilities, staff recommends a mandatory preliminary plat the entire acreage that clearly illustrates approved
street access to each of the 18 lots, along with any utility or drainage easements that may be required.
Criteria -The application shall be reviewed based on the following criteria:
(1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Response: Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Response: Staff does not anticipate any conflicts other than those mentioned above.
(3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
Response: The surrounding properties vary in terms of zoning district classification. The adjacent property
east of Hwy 98 is zoned Baldwin County RSF-2 to the north, City of Fairhope R-1 and Baldwin County RSF-2 to
the west, and City of Fairhope R-1 and PUD and Baldwin County RSF-2 to the south. Lot 18 is adjacent to
Trentino PUD and City of Fairhope B-2 to the south. The proposed development does not conflict with the
character of the surrounding property.
(4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Response: Future preliminary plat reviews shall confirm adequacy of public infrastructure.
3 ZC 21.15 Montrose PUD -December 6, 2021
(SJ Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions;
Response: Flood zones are present within the proposed common areas. Future preliminary plats will address
the technical requirements of the City of Fairhope Subdivision Regulations.
(6J Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Response: At the time of any redevelopment all applicable laws of the City will be applied.
(7J Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Response: At the time of a redevelopment all applicable laws will be applied.
(BJ Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and
property values; and,
Response: Assuming access can be provided, staff does not anticipate any issues that will not be address
during preliminary plat reviews.
(9J Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical
impacts, and property values.
Response: Again, accepting that street access will need to be clarified, staff cannot anticipate any significant
issues relating to this criterion.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Case: ZC 21.15 Montrose PUD Amendment be Approved with the following conditions:
1.) A preliminary plat shall be required that includes the entire acreage. At minimum, the preliminary plat
shall provide street access to each of the 18 lots and be in substantial conformance with the street
layout as proposed on the Master Site Plan. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Fairhope
Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits for any property located within the PUD.
2.) Street access to every lot shall be determined and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction prior to
submitting for Preliminary Plat or building permits.
3.) Access from US HWY 98 shall be approved by ALDOT, and any required improvements shall be installed
solely at the Developer's expense.
4.) Access from Main Street shall be approved by Baldwin County Highway and any required improvements
shall be installed solely at the Developer's expense.
5.) If street access, in substantial conformance of the proposed site plan cannot be achieved within two
years, the approved PUD shall revert to the Montrose PUD approved in Ordinance 1956. The two-year
time frame may be extended only by the City Council.
6.) A 40' buffer shall be required on any lot abutting US HWY 98. The area within the buffer shall be
common area.
7.) The buffers shown on the plans, and those required by condition, shall remain natural, except for the
allowance of plant materials to be installed where a visual buffer does not exist.
8.) Where a visual buffer does not exist within buffer areas shown on the plan, or required by a condition of
approval, plant materials shall be installed to provide a visual barrier.
9.) Any item not specifically outlined in the PUD Ordinance shall meet all pertinent regulations and
ordinances, including, but not limited to, those outline in R-1.
10.) All streets, whether public or private, shall be approved by the City of Fairhope Public Works Director.
11.) Connections to existing utility infrastructure shall be determined prior to application for preliminary
plat.
4 ZC 21.15 Montrose PUD -December 6, 2021
12.) Any outside agency permits (ALDOT, Baldwin County, ADEM, etc.) required shall be obtained prior
to submission of building permits.
13.) Designate the greenspace as a preserve . App licant has satisfied th is condition as shown in Exhibit A ,
the Master PUD Development Plan .
5 ZC 21.15 Montrose PUD -December 6, 2021
Montrose Preserve .~· ~ ,.Civil
A Planned Unit Development • • • !1t~c:~::
An Amendment to the Thomason PUD of 2017
Land Owner:
The Thomasson Family
c/ o Burgess A. Thomasson Jr.
362 Ridgelawn Drive West
Mobile, AL 36608
ll Page
Site Map
FIGURE 2A
Overall Summary
Montrose Preserve is a 53.94 Acre Planned Unit Development previously approved February 6, 2017 as a 77 lot
Residential development. The developer elected not to move forward with the development plans and is now
requesting a PUD Revision to allow development of the property more in keeping with the large parce ls as they
exist today.
21 Page
Parcel Legal Descriptions
LOTS 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK ONE OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
BLOCK 18 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388
OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE
OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE
JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, AND RUN THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 21
SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WETS MARGIN OF SAID BLOCK 19 (AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 3RD STREET), A
DISTANCE OF 667.23 FEET TO A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK
19; THENCE RUN NORTH 75 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 201.20 FEET TO A ONE
INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE ON THE WEST MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98; THENCE RUN ALONG THE WEST
MARGIN OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY 98, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED COURSES: NORTH 02 DEGREES 44 MINUTES
09 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 313.93 FEET; SOUTH 86 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR (CA 1109LS); NORTH 02 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 46 SECONDS
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 299.79 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; NORTH 86 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 18
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT; NORTH 02 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 02
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 68.62 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR (CA 1109LS) AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE
WEST MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98 AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDYARD STREET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 74
DEGREES 48 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDYARD STREET, A DISTANCE OF
339.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINS 4.06 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 20 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 21 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, LYING
WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
3I Page
FIGURE SA
Existing Zoning
Nearby properties that lie in the Fairhope Corporate Limits are zoned R-1 and PUD as shown below. Properties
that lie outside the Corporate Limits are zoned B-2, B-3 and RSF-2 in Baldwin County Planning District 16 as
shown below. The Proposed Amendment to Montrose Preserve blends well into this mix of zones. A Base Zoning
of R-1 underlying the PUD is proposed.
Fairhope Zoning
SI Page
Baldwin County District 16 Zoning
GI Page
FIGURE 10A
Utilities
Fairhope Utilities will Sewer for Montrose Preserve and Daphne Utilities will provide water. Riviera will provide
Power and AT&T will provide telecommunications for the development.
Pedestrian Circulation
With such large Estate Lots, pedestrian circulation will be provided with the 18 foot wide asphalt roadways
throughout the development.
Lighting
Streetlights will be standard Acorn style lights, 18 feet high, at a maximum of 300 foot spacing along roadways.
Accessory Structures/ Equipment
Accessory structures will be permitted as per standard R-1 residential zoning regulations regarding location ,
percentage of coverage, and setbacks from property lines . Exterior AC units and generators (if elected) will be
screened from street by landscaping .
Fencing
Fencing will not be constructed with initial construction. Individual Owners may elect to install fencing . Walls or
fences constructed or erected on any Lot shall be of ornamental iron, wood, black painted metal or masonry
construction. No wall or fence shall be constructed from the front property line to the rear corners of the House.
No fences may be constructed without the prior written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
Parking
Parking will be provided for each residence with construction of the homes. A minimum of 3 spaces shall be
provided for each residence including driveways and garages.
ATTACHMENTS
Sht 1 of 3
Sht 2 of 3
Sht 3 of 3
PUD Master Plan
Boundary Survey
Aerial Overlay
9IPage
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
1a1221s@reagan com
.l2lannirul
PUD Amendment Case:ZC21.15
Saturday, November 27, 2021 2:52:57 PM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
Dear Ms. Knutson:
I distinctly remember the issue of this PUD coming up approximately 3-4 years ago. We were opposed to
it then for a multitude of reasons, and our position has not changed. Nothing could do more harm to our
property values than this PUD. We do not want any cut-through streets in our beautiful Montrose nor the
inescapable influx of unanticipated amounts of traffic and people wandering around that none of us know
or have probably never even seen before. This is a terrible idea being perpetrated against the citizens
and long-time inhabitants of this beautiful area. We moved here 41 years ago from Mobile to get away
from this kind of "neighborhood planning" and never want to see it here, not ever.
Thanks for listening. I would appreciate it very much if you would let us know that you received this E-
mail and have noted our concerns.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Lenzi
Francoise Lenzi
From:
To:
SUbject:
Date:
1a1121s @reagan.com
Jllanaing
PUD ZC 21.15
Saturday, November 27 , 2021 6 :26 :38 PM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
Dear Ms. Knutson:
I forgot to include our address. We live at 7245 Rock Creek Drive Fairhope, AL 36532
Sincerely,
Lawrence Lenzi
Francoise Lenzi
February 6, 20 I 7
Planning Commission Minutes
The Planning Commission met Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the City
Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers .
Present: Lee Turner, Chairperson; George Roberds, Vice-Chair; Jennifer Fidler; Bernie
Fogarty; Bob Clark; Ralph Thayer; David Martin; Jimmy Conyers; Jonathan Smith,
Wayne Dyess, Planning Director; Nancy Milford, Planner; Emily Boyett, Secretary; and
Ken Watson, City Attorney
Absent: Hollie MacKellar
Chainnan Turner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM and announced the meeting is
being recorded.
Mr. Turner introduced Wayne Dyess to the Planning Commission as the new Director of
Planning.
The minutes of the January 3, 2017 meeting were considered and Bernie Fogarty moved
to accept the minutes as written and was 2nd by Ralph Thayer. The motion carried with
one abstention by Bob Clark.
ZC 15.12 Public hearing to consider the request of Larry Chason to rezone property
from R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District to PUD, Steve Pumphrey.
The property is located on the west side of US Hwy. 98 across from the entrance of Rock
Creek. Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the property consists of approximately
53.94 acres and 77 single family lots are proposed. The applicant is proposing 3 different
size lots for a cluster style design. The proposal includes approximately 29.92 acres of
open space and one acre of detention area, for a total site density of approximately 1.4
units per acre. Staff recommendation is to approve the proposed PUD zoning contingent
upon the following conditions:
1. The buffers shown on the plans shall remain natural, with the exception of the
allowance of plant materials to be installed where a visual buffer does not exist.
2. Where a visual buffer does not exist where buffers are shown on the plans, buffer
plant materials shall be installed.
3. Any outside agency permits required shall be obtained (ALDOT, Baldwin
County, ADEM, etc.)
4. Any item not specifically outlined in the PUD ordinance shall meet all City
regulations and ordinances that govern development.
~-Pumphrey addressed the Commission saying the design is completely single family
residential. He explained the design is a mix of lots with buffers and most of the site
being left natural. He said the applicant is not proposing to open the existing right-of-
ways or connect to the streets in Montrose. Their request includes reduced setbacks, 35'
building height, and 40% of lot coverage.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Debbie Quinn of 7172 Taylor Street -She spoke in support of the request and thanked
Larry Chason for working with the residents of Montrose on this proposal. She said the
lots are small but the houses can be as large as 2,500 to 4,000 square foot. She had
questions and concerns with the area labeled "Conservation Easement" regarding
maintenance and acceptance. She also requested a third-party review of the drainage be
completed when the time comes.
February 6, 2017
Planning Commission Minutes
Diane Thomas of23389 Main Street-She spoke in favor of the request and thanked Mr.
Chason for listening to the requests of the Montrose residents. She had questions
regarding ownership of the conservation easement and asked who will provide the sewer .
Linda McCullough of 73 88 Taylor Street -She spoke in opposition of rezoning the
property from R-1. She stated concerns with drainage, sewer, access, and traffic.
Martin Pitts of 7225 Ecor Dechene Court -He spoke in favor of the request and said it
will allow him access to the rear of his property to maintain the existing drainage way.
Wayne McCullough of 7388 Taylor Street -He asked that 2nd Street not be opened.
Paul Klutes of 108 Alsway Court -He asked that 2nd Street not be opened.
Debbie Quinn of 7172 Taylor Street -She stated the proposal does not include opening
2nd Street.
Lynn Barnes of 23950 3rd Street-She asked what size homes will be built and what price
point.
Clay Rankin of Taylor Oaks Property Owners Association -He asked if the site will be
bound by the specific plan proposed tonight. Mr. Turner responded a specific plan is
approved with a PUD but it does not prevent the property owner from coming back
before the City to amend it as many times as they want. Mr. Rankin said the residents do
not want 2nd Street opened. Mr. Turner stated 2nd Street is a County right-of-way and it
would be up to the County to open it or not.
Larry Lenzi of 7245 Rock Creek Drive -He stated concerns with the drainage and
potential flooding of Rock Creek and the adjacent properties.
Steven Cook of7335 Wild Oaks Road -He spoke in opposition of the zoning change
request. He stated concerns with drainage and traffic.
Bill Smith of 23591 3rd Street -He asked if the lots will have septic tanks or sewer. Mr.
Turner responded sewer service will be required.
Having no one else present to speak , Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chason addressed the comments saying the engineer took the comments from the
previous meetings and worked with the residents to design this development. He stated
the proposed density is less than the R-1 requirements but the lots will still allow a
footprint of 2,700 square feet to be built. He said the cost of the lots will dictate the size
and type of house built. Mr. Chason said they are building their own roads and not
opening any of the existing right-of-ways. He explained the section ofroad to be
constructed on 2nd Street will only be a hammerhead turnaround and will not open 2 nd
Street to connect to Taylor Street. He said the conservation easement and the trails will
be owned by the Property Owners Association of the development and under their
control. Dr. Thayer asked if the applicant plans to build the development and will there
be architectural guidelines for the houses and Mr. Chason stated they are only seeking to
have a site plan approved but there will be guidelines to protect their investment. Dr.
Thayer and Mr. Turner stated conc erns with the conservation easement being controlled
by the POA. Mr. Chason said they are open to other alternatives for the easement but the
POA is the easiest option and it will be restricted to prevent development. Mr. Turner
suggested the City attorney review the conservation easement agreement as a condition of
approval. Mr. Fogarty asked why staff recommends approval since there is a moratorium
and Mr. Smith responded this request is land use and the applicant cannot move forward
with plat approval until the moratorium is over . Mrs . Fidler asked for a comparison of
the allowable density for R-1 and the proposed density for the PUD. Mr. Chason stated
R-1 would allow approximately 80 lots and 77 lots are proposed in the PUD. Mrs. Fidler
recommended the hammerhead be reviewed to verify it is large enough to accommodate
2
February 6,2017
Planning Commission Minutes
the City vehicles such as garbage and fire trucks. She added she would like to see
connectivity but she understands the situation in this area. Mr. Conyers reiterated there
are 17 existing plotted lots but 80 lots would be allowed with the R-1 zoning and the
applicant is not using the existing right-of-ways. He asked how the drainage will be
handled on the north end of the property and Mr. Chason stated the drainage has not been
studied at this time but it will meet the City's regulations.
Jennifer Fidler made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to approve the
proposed PUD zoning contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The buffers shown on the plans shall remain natural, with the exception of the
allowance of plant materials to be installed where a visual buffer does not exist.
2. Where a visual buffer does not exist where buffers are shown on the plans, buffer
plant materials shall be installed.
3. Any outside agency permits required shall be obtained (ALDOT, Baldwin
County, ADEM, etc.)
4. Any item not specifically outlined in the PUD ordinance shall meet all City
regulations and ordinances that govern development.
5. The City attorney shall review the conservation easement to assure it is kept in
perpetuity as a park.
6. The hammerhead shall be adequate to accommodate access of all service trucks
for the property.
Ralph Thayer 2nd the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
SD 16.32 Public hearing to consider the request of Chris Haley for Multiple
Occupancy Project approval of Portico, a 56-unit project. The property is located at
the northeast corner of Fairhope Avenue and Brown Street. Mr. Smith gave the staff
report saying the property is approximately 3.52 acres and is zoned B-2 General Business
District. The applicant is proposing 7 two-story buildings with 33 residential units and
23 commercial units. Mr. Smith cited the following issues with the proposal 1) it does
not meet the City's minimum greenspace requirement of 20' along Fairhope Avenue, 2)
safety concerns with the proposed on-street parking, and 3) all comments from Larry
Smith of S.E. Civil Engineering shall be satisfied. Staff recommendation states while the
majority of the project layout appears to be of good design, due to the issues outlined in
the staff report, staff is unable to support the application; however, if the Planning
Commission and City Council approve the subject development as proposed or with any
changes, staff recommends all of Larry Smith's comments be addressed.
Mr. Haley stated he is a local developer and has been here for 15 years. He said the
issues with the buffer and parking would not be a concern if the property was within the
Central Business District (CBD) and he is asking for an exception. He explained he
could have done a PUD but chose not to because the property is already zoned for what
he is proposing. He said he has met with Mrs. Fidler and Mr. Smith regarding the
landscaping and he is willing to enhance the greenspace. Mr. Haley cited multiple
examples where the city already has 45 ° parking and said he does not understand why it
is an issue for his site. He stated the traffic engineer he hired has approved the design.
Mr. Turner opened the public hearing.
Tony Taylor of 560 Fairhope Avenue -He stated safety concerns with the on-street
parking for Fairhope Avenue. He said the 18-wheelers already have a difficult time
turning into ACE Hardware.
3
February 6, 2017
Planning Commission Minutes
Bob Griffin of 203 Fairhope Avenue -He asked if the City's parking requirements are
being met by the applicant and if there will be underground drains for retention.
Having no one else present to speak, Mr. Turner closed the public hearing.
Mr. Haley stated the on-street parking will not protrude into the lanes on Fairhope
Avenue. He said he can't do anything about the l 8-wheelers not being able to access
ACE Hardware. Chris Lieb stated the site will incorporate 7 LID techniques and will
make the drainage better for the area. Mrs. Fidler stated the surface water for this
watershed drains through the subject property and she noted there are drains that run
under the site . Mr. Lieb stated they are aware of the drainage through the site. Mrs.
Fidler asked if the on-street parking will be public or private and Mr. Haley said it will be
public. Mrs. Fidler said the design is superb but she supports the Tree Ordinance and the
City needs to maintain the green canopy and greenspace requirements. She also noted
safety concerns with the on-street parking. Mr. Clark asked if the main parking will be
on-street parking and Mr. Haley responded no, the majority of the parking is in the
northeast corner of the property. Mr. Turner commended the project and said he is fine
with the on-street parking. He liked that the site keeps with the Downtown feel as long as
it is not violating the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Roberds said this is a terrific project and he
does not have a problem with the on-street parking. Mr. Martin asked what percentage
the greenspace is increasing with the new design and Mr. Haley said he is not sure . Mr.
Martin said it seems to be a huge increase of greenspace. Mr. Conyers said this is a great
project and the on-street parking is not a concern. He stated the greenspace does not
really start until east of Fairwood Blvd. He said the applicant can work with staff to
address additional concerns. Mr. Haley responded he has been working with staff since
May and it is his intent to have an attractive development. Dr. Thayer asked about
building signage and Mr. Haley answered all signage will meet the sign ordinance
requirements.
Jimmy Conyers made a motion to grant a waiver to the greenspace and LID
requirements. David Martin 2nd the motion due to the amount of greenspace being
provided throughout the entire project. The motion carried with the following vote:
A YE-Bob Clark, Bernie Fogarty, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, George Roberds, Jimmy
Conyers, and David Martin. NAY -Jennifer Fidler.
David Martin made a motion to approve the multiple occupancy project with the
following condition:
1. Toe applicant shall address all comments by Mr. Larry Smith of S .E. Civil
Engineering.
Jimmy Conyers 2nd the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE-Bob
Clark, Bernie Fogarty, Ralph Thayer, Lee Turner, George Roberds, Jimmy Conyers, and
David Martin. NAY -Jennifer Fidler.
SR 16.05 Request of Chris Haley for Site Plan approval of Portico, a 56-unit project.
The property is located at the northeast comer of Fairhope Avenue and Brown Street.
Mr. Smith gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 3.52 acres and is
zoned B-2 General Business District. The applicant is proposing 7 two-story buildings
with 33 residential units and 23 commercial units . Mr. Smith cited the following issues
with the proposal 1) it does not meet the City's minimum greenspace requirement of 20'
along Fairhope Avenue, 2) safety concerns with the proposed on-street parking, and 3) all
comments from Larry Smith of S.E. Civil Engineering shall be satisfied. Staff
recommendation states while the majority of the project layout appears to be of good
4
February 6, 2017
Planning Commission Minutes
design, due to the issues outlined in the staff report, staff is unable to support the
application; however, if the Planning Commission and City Council approve the subject
development as proposed or with any changes, staff recommends all of Larry Smith's
comments be addressed.
Mr. Turner opened the floor to public comments.
Gary Gover of 300 Lincoln Street -He cited concerns with the angled parking and the
bicycle lanes on Fairhope Avenue.
Chuck Earp of 550-A Mershon Street-He stated concerns with speeding on Fairhope
A venue with the on-street parking. He asked if the spaces could be a little further into the
property.
Mayor Wilson addressed the Commission saying she is planning to have a
Comprehensive Plan done for Downtown and just because the parking has been done a
certain way does not mean we should keep doing it. She stated the parking is a hazard
and there are multiple accidents daily due to the angled parking on Section Street and
Fairhope Avenue. She recommended the applicant to be creative and work on the
parking. Mrs. Fidler asked about the bicycle and pedestrian access and Mayor Wilson
noted the City has adopted Complete Streets and this development needs to meet those
requirements. Mr. Haley stated his traffic engineer has approved the design and said it
meets the requirements for up to 35 mph. Mr. Martin asked if the parking could be
converted to parallel and Mr. Haley responded parallel parking is more dangerous than
angled parking. Mr. Conyers asked if the site meets the parking requirements without the
on-street parking and Mr . Haley answered yes. Dr. Thayer stated he likes the project but
hates the parking and he feels the project would not suffer without the on-street parking.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Turner both said they like the project. ~-Clark said backing out into
traffic is a concern and Mr. Turner said maybe the parking will help with speeding.
Jimmy Conyers made a motion to approve the request as presented. David Martin 2nd the
motion and the motion carried with the following vote: A YE -Bob Clark, Bernie
Fogarty, Lee Turner, George Roberds, Jimmy Conyers, and David Martin. NAY -
Jennifer Fidler and Ralph Thayer.
SD 17.05 Public hearing to consider the request of HMR, LLC for Final Plat
approval of South Pointe at Fairhope, a 6-lot subdivision, Tim Lawley. The property
is located on the north side of Pecan A venue and the west side of Section Street. Ms.
Milford gave the staff report saying the property is approximately 2.44 acres and is zoned
R-3 High Density Single Family Residential District with 6 lots proposed. Staff
recommendation is to approve contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a IO' easement along the property lines with the 30"
pipe to accommodate for maintenance of the pond and the drainage pipe. The
setback for Lot 6 shall not be less than the drainage easement setback.
2. The applicant shall add the following notes on the plat clarifying the issues listed
below:
• Fences shall not be located in any of the drainage easements on the
property as pipes in drainage easements require access for maintenance.
• The water meters for Lots 2 & 3 shall not be moved per the City of
Fairhope Water and Sewer Superintendent for maximum tree preservation.
• The requirement for maintenance for the homeowner and the City of
Fairhope existing pipe.
5
STATE OF ALABAMA
COUNTY OF BALDWIN
)(
)(
The City Council. City of Fairhope. met in regular session at
6:00 p.m .. Fairhope Municipal Complex Council Chamber.
161 North Section Street. Fairhope. Alabama 36532. on
Mondav. 12 June 2017.
7415
Present were Council President Jack Burrell. Councilmembers: Jay Robinson.
Jimmy Conyers, Robert Brown. and Kevin Boone. Mayor Karin Wilson. City
Attorney Marion E. Wynne. and City Clerk Lisa A. Hanks.
There being a quorum present, Council President Burrell called the meeting to
order at 6: 13 p.m. The invocation was given by Deacon George Yeend of St.
Lawrence Catholic Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited .
Council President Burrell stated there was a need to add on one agenda item
ai'ter Agenda Item Number 18: a Resolution that Andrew Richard Craze and Zachary
Brendon Regan be added to the Fairhope Police Reserve.
Councilmember Boone moved to add on the above-mentioned item not on the
printed agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Robinson. motion passed unanimously
by voice vote.
Councilmember Conyers moved to approve minutes of the 18 May 2017.
regular meeting; minutes of the 18 May 2017. work session: and minutes of the 18
May 2017. agenda meeting. Seconded by Council member Brown, motion passed
unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Wilson addressed the City Council and said she would be attending the
U. S. Conference of Mayors in Miami Beach from June 23, 2017 to June 26, 2017.
Mayor Wilson mentioned one of the session would be on broadband connectivity.
Economic and Community Development Director Sherry-Lea Botop
addressed the City Council regarding the Gulf of Mexico Alliance grant proposal.
She commented the Tatumville Gulley Watershed area will be our focus; and our
match can be given with in-kind services. Ms. Botop announced a community
resilience index meeting being held Thursday evening which will run by someone
from NOAA. She said this meeting will be to identify needs and opportunities for the
community.
Lieutenant John Hamrick introduced Raymond Clark and Ashley Carlisle to
the City Council and Mayor as our newest Fairhope Police Officers.
7416
12 June 2017
• The following individuals spoke during Public Participation for Agenda
Items:
I) Debbie Quinn, 7172 Taylor Street, addressed the City Council on Agenda Item No .
6: an ordinance to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 1253 and to rezone the property of
Burgess A. Thomasson , Jr. from R-1 to PUD. Ms. Quinn said that the residents
worked tirelessly with Mr. Thomasson lo get this PUD as it is now. She thanked Mr.
Chason and Mr. Thomasson for all oftheir help with this development.
2) T. J . Murphy, 204 Tensaw Avenue, addressed the City Council on Agenda Item No.
7: an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 1588 to extend Moratori um of the tiling of
Subdivision and Multiple Occupancy Project Applications for 90 days. He read over
severa l reasons for the moratorium; requested more information on agenda items
prior to meeting; and the need to adopt a Masler Plan.
Planning Director Wayne Dyess stated our major issue is utility capacity and lift
stations; Master Comprehen s ive Plan updated; ordinances and regulations for
stonnwater; and review proce ss. Mr . Murphy said we are losing the character of the
City. Mr. Dyess said the Comprehen s ive Plan is a guide and will be used in our
revie~ process. He reiterated our basic concern is our utilities.
3) Maggie Mosteller, resident of Fairhope, addressed the City Council and thanked
everyone on the dais. Ms. Mosteller said we need a prayer for conflict resolution .
She said we voted for change ; and need to respect changes that the Mayor will make
toward responsible growth . She said we need lo find a common ground to focus on
for the City of Fairhope and move beyond the bickering; and work together in
harmony . Ms. Mosteller said God has blessed us with a beautiful town.
Councilmember Robinson announced that on Thursday, Friday , and Saturday
Fairhope will be hosting an All-Star Baseball Tournament. He said another
tournament will also be held the following weekend and we need volunteers.
Councilmember Robinson stated that nobody has been perfect up here the last six
months . He said the citizens voted for change and for doing away with a stagnant
government; and we need to help with rapid growth . Councilmember Robinson said
the biggest concern was rapid growth ; and we need to take what we have and make it
better. He said the State, County, and region look at us as an example: and we need
to try and be respectful at all times .
Councilmember Conyers said he reiterates that the citizens voted for change,
but we need to find a balance : a common ground . He mentioned the Fairhope
Environmental Ad isory Board wants the Clean Marina policy included in the leases
at the marina and boatyard when these are redone. Councilmember Conyers stated
that the Library Board will meet next week.
Councilmember Brown mentioned the City is looking at using the Dan
Burden program for traffic issues . He said we need building maintenance for our
long-range plans with a maintenance schedule.
7417
12 June 2017
Councilmember Boone announced the Personnel Board meeting will be held
Thursday at 7: 15 a.m. and invited everyone to join them .
Bill Nixon with Pioneer Athletics presented Recreation Directo r Tom Kuhl
with the .. Field of Excellence" award for the third year. Mr. Nixon stated there are
over 5.000 entities that Pioneer Athletics does business with each year; and 1,500
entities apply for this designat ion . He said Fairhope's field is the best field he has
ever walked on; and has been in Pioneer·s calendar twice already .
Planning Director Wayne Dyess addressed the City Council and explained the
proposed rezone from R-1 to a Planned Unit Development. He stated Staff supports
the PUD , but does not agree with the adoption of the ordinance being contingent with
the conservation easement. Mr. Dyess stated the "Sile Plan" would take care of this
issue which is between the developer and the residents.
Councilmember Boone moved for final adoption of Ordinance No. 1596, an
ordinance to Amend Zoning Ordinance No. 1253 and Request to rezone the property
of Burgess A. Thomasson, Jr. from R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential
District to PUD (Planned Unit Development). This property is generally located on
the west side of Adams Street to just south of Ledyard Street, Fairhope. Alabama.
Parcels No. 05-43-09-32-0-000-058.000. 05-43-09-32-0-000-059.000, 05-43-09-32-
0-000-064 .000, 05-43-09-32-0-000-066.000. and 05-43-09-43-0-000-023 .000.
(Introduced at the May 18, 2017 City Council Meeting) The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Conyers not contingent upon the conservation easement. Council
President Burrell asked Councilmember Boone if he would like to amend his motion
as stated by Councilmember Conyers.
Councilmember Boone withdrew his initial motion; and moved to amend the
ordinance by removing number 5 from the Planning Commission·s recommendation
as a contingency: "'the City Attorney shall review the conservation easement to assure
it is kept in perpetuity as a park:· The motion was seconded by Councilmember
Conyers as amended .
Council President Burrell stated he appreciated the residents working with the
developers ; and how Ms. Quinn helped steer the community with how they wanted
this developed . He said this eliminated ingress and egress for the subdivision; and the
Comprehensive Plan is being ignored. Ms. Quinn responded that it would have
required streets in Montrose to be widened : and the one-way streets would be
eliminated . She said the 60 foot right-of-ways would have been reduced to 30 foot
right-of-ways. Councilmember Robinson commented that variations for this
development were not pretty: and this is a great compromise for all involved.
After further discussion . motion for final adoption passed by the following voice
votes: A YE -Burrell. Robinson . Conyers. Brown . and Boone. NAY -None .
7418
12 June 2017
Councilmember Robinson introduced in wntmg Ordinance No. 1597, an
ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 1588 to extend Moratorium of the filing of
Subdivision and Multiple Occupancy Project Applications for 90 days. Planning
Director Dyess addressed the City Council and stated too long of a moratorium could
be an issue. so we have requested it be extended for 90 more days.
Council President Burrell requested that staff bring forth changed in ordinances and
regulations for early discussions. Councilmcmber Brown said we need objectives:
and public input to weigh in during extension. Councilmember Robinson stated if we
meet objectives earlier than needed. we can suspend moratorium. Council President
Burrell commented we must extend because we have not met objectives.
In order to take immediate action. Councilmember Boone moved for
immediate consideration. Seconded by Councilmember Conyers. motion for
immediate consideration passed unanimously by the following voice votes: A YE -
Burrell. Robinson. Conyers. BrO\vn. and Boone. NAY -None. Councilmember
Boone then moved for final adoption of Ordinance No. 1597. Seconded by
Councilmember Conyers. motion for final adoption passed by the following voice
votes: A YE-Burrell, Robinson. Conyers, Brown. and Boone. NAY -None.
Councilmember Robinson introduced in writing, and moved for the adoption
of the following resolution. a resolution authorizing the Submission of a Grant
Application to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance ( .. GOMA .. ) for implementation of high
priority actions identified in existing community plans. such as Storm Water
Management plans, to help protect the City·s watersheds; and authorizing Mayor
Karin Wilson to sign all required grant application documents on behalf of the City.
This is a 50/50 match with a total project cost estimate of $45,000.00 (City match
with be $22.500.00 cash or "in-kind" contributions). The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Conyers.
Economic and Commw1ity Development Director Botop addressed the City Council
and said this grant will help define a plan for the Tatwnville Gulley Watershed. Kim
Burmeister with the Planning Department addressed the City Council and said the
Public Works Building is in this watershed. Ms. Burmeister said the watershed
begins a Magnolia Beach: and its head at Morphy A venue and Young Street. Both
Ms. Botop and Ms. Burmeister recommended demonstration projects within the
watershed with a possible regional detention at our O\'lfl1 facilities.
Councilrnember Conyers mentioned the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation's proposal
for a Park with Low Impact Designs being used within the Tatumville Gulley
Watershed. After further discussion. motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
7420
12 June 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 2760-17
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope, Alabama, has certain items of personal property
which are no longer needed for public or municipal purposes; and
WHEREAS, Section 11-43-56 of the Code of Alabama of 1975 authorizes the
municipal governing body to dispose of unneeded personal property;
NOW . THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ClTY COUNCIL OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That th following personal property owned by the City of Fairhope,
Alabama, is not needed for public or municipal purposes, and hereby declared
surplus:
No. 57 -Blower PTO Driven from Golf Department
(inadvertently left off the initial list)
SECTION 2. That the Mayor and City Treasurer are hereby authorized and directed
to dispose of the personal property owned by the City of Fairhope, Alabama,
described in Section 1, above, by receiving bids for such property. All such property
shall be sold to the highest bidder, provided, however, that the City Council shall
have the authority to reject all bids when, in its opinion, it deems the bids to be less
than adequate consideration for the personal property .
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
/ad
Karin Wilson, Mayor
ATTEST:
~
City Clerk
7421
12 June 2017
Councilmember Robinson introduced in writing, and moved for the adoption
of the following resolution, a resolution that the City Council approves the selection
of Jason Thomas, Inc. to perfonn Professional Consulting Services for Graphic
Design and Layout (RFQ No. PS032-17), and hereby authorizes Mayor Karin Wilson
to negotiate a fee schedule, and establish a not-to-exceed limit with th is finn.
Seconded by Councilmember Brown, motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Wilson said that this finn would help with all graphic design, website, and
strategic needs.
RESOLUTION NO. 2761-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, that the City Council approves the selection of Jason
Thomas, Inc. to perfonn Professional Consulting Services for Graphic Design and
Layout (RFQ No. PS032-17), and hereby authorizes Mayor Karin Wilson to negotiate
a fee schedule, and establish a not-to-exceed limit with this finn.
DULY ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE , 2017
;(jw/
Karin Wilson , Mayor
Attest:
~
City Clerk
Councilmember Boone introduced in writing, and moved for the adoption of
the following resolution, a resolution that the City Council approves the selection of
Keet Consulting Services, LLC to perfonn Professional Consulting Services to
Upgrade City's GIS with Online Mapping System (RFQ No. PS026-l 7), and hereby
authorizes Mayor Karin Wilson to negotiate a fee schedule, and estabHsh a not-to-
exceed limit with this finn. The motion was seconded by Council member Robinson.
Planning Director Dyess addressed the City Council and stated the online mapping
system will be modernizing our GIS system. Information Technology Director Jeff
Montgomery addressed the City Council and said GPS points would help with service
requests; and would also integrate with Utility billing. After further discussion,
motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
7425
12 June 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 2766-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, as follows:
[1] That the City of Fairhope has voted to purchase a John Deere 5065E Utility
Tractor for the Recreation Department in the amount of Twenty-One Thousand Seven
Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Eighty-One Cents ($21,716.81), and the equipment is
available for direct procurement through the National Joint Powers Alliance
("NJPA; Buying Group Contract; and therefore, does not have to be let out for bid.
This has been nationally bid through the NJPA's bid process.
Adopled on this 12th day of l!!ru;~
Karin Wilson, Mayor
Attest:
er11&L
City Clerk
Councilmember Brown introduced in writing, and moved for the adoption of
the following resolution, a resolution to purchase One Vehicle (2017 Ford F250
Super Cab ¾ Ton Pickup Truck) for the Gas Department and the type of vehicle
needed is on the Alabama State Department of Purchasing bid list and therefore does
not have to be let out for bid. The total c-0s1 is $25,365.00. Seconded by
Councilmember Boone, motion passed unanimously by voice vote .
•
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 1596
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1253
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Of-THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA as
follows:
The ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance (No. 1253). adopted 27 June 2005, together with
the Zoning Map of the City ofFairhope. be and the same hereby is changed and altered in respect
to that certain propeny described below :
After the appropriate public notice and hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of
Fairhope. Alabama has forwarded a favorable recommendation.
The property of Burgess A. Thomasson. Jr. generally located on the west side of US Hwy. 98
from the south side of Adams Street to just south of Ledyard Street. Fairhope, Alabama.
TAX PARCEL 0S-43-09-32-0-000-058.000
OS-43-09-32-0-000-0S9.000
0S-43-09-32-0-000-064.000
OS-43-09-32-0-000-066.000
OS-43-09-43-0-000-023.000
Legal Description: (Case number ZC 15.12)
LOTS 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK ONE OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY. ALABAMA.
AND
BLOCK 18 OF THE VILLAGF. OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN
DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PR OBA TE OF BALDWIN
COUNTY. ALABAMA.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY. ALABAMA. LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
BLOCK 19 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN
DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE OF PR OBA TE OF BALDWIN
COUNTY. A LABA MA. A ND RUN THENCE SOUTH IS DE.GREES IO MINUTES 21 SECONDS
EAST. ALONG THE WEST MARGIN OF SAID BLOCK 19 (AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 3RD
STREET). A DISTANCE OF 667.23 FEET TO A ONE INCH CRIMPED IRON PIPE AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 19: THENCE RUN NORTH 75 DEGREES 06
\11NUTES 10 SECONDS EAST. A DISTANCE OF 201.20 FEET TO A ONE INCH CRIMPED
IRON PIPE ON THE WEST MARGIN OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98: THENCE RUN ALONG THE
WEST MARGIN OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY 98. THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED COURSES:
NORTH 02 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST. A DISTANCE OF 313.93 FEET;
SOUTH 86 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST. A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO A
CAPPED REBAR (CA I 109LSJ: NORTH 02 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 46 SECONDS WEST. A
DISTANCE OF 299.79 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT: NORTH 86 DEGREES 50
MINUTES I 8 SECONDS EAST. A DISTANCE OF I 0.00 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT:
Ordinance No. 1596
Page -2-
NORTH 02 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST. A DISTANCE OF 68 .62 FEET TO A
CAPPED REBAR (CA l 109LS) AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST MARGIN OF U.S.
HIGHWAY 98 AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDY ARD STREET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 74
DEGREES 48 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST. ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN OF LEDY ARD
STREET, A DISTANCE OF 339.02 FEETTOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT CONTAINS
4.06 ACRES. MORE OR LESS .
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 20 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY. ALABAMA. LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 21 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY. ALABAMA, LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF BLOCK 22 OF THE VILLAGE OF MONTROSE AS PER A PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "E". PAGE 388 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JUDGE
OF PROBATE OF BALDWIN COUNTY. ALABAMA, LYING WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 98.
I. That, Attached as --Exhibit A•· is an approved site plan. The propeny must develop in
substantial conformance with the approved site plan and supporting documents. Any
substantial deviation from the attached site plan, as determined by lhe Planning Director,
will require r~approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of
Fairhope, Alabama. as a PUD amendment.
2. That, the following development regulations shall govern:
Lots: There shall be 77 total lots.
~ Lots shall be single family residential.
Setbacks:
• 60' lot setbacks shall be as follows: Front -25', Rear-25 ', Side -S', Street
side -15'.
• Estate lot setbacks shall be as follows: Front -30 ', Rear -30', Side -10',
Street side -30 '.
Principal Structures :
• Maximum lot coverage shall be 40%.
• Building height shall not exceed 3S' as measured per the City of Fairhope
Zoning Ordinance .
Accessory Structures :
• Maximum lot coverage shall be 25% of the required rear yard.
• Building height shall not exceed 30' as measured per the City of Fairhope
Zoning Ordinance.
• Setbacks shall be as follows: Rear-5'', Side-10'. Street side-20', Separation
from principal structure -10'.
zc 15.12
CITY OF FAIRHOPE
PLANNING COMMISSION COVER SHEET
February 6, 2017
Public Hearing to consider the request of Larry Chason of Chason
& Earl Real Estate to rezone property from R-1 Low Density Single
Family Residential District to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
The property is located on the west side of US Hwy. 98 across
from the entrance of Rock Creek.
STAFF INTERPRETATION:
The subject property is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Single Family
Residential District) and located in the City of Fairhope. The property consists of
approximately 53. 94 acres and per the applicant's narrative, there are 17 platted
lots currently. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to PUD
(Planned Unit Development). On October 5, 2015 the applicant presented the
Planning Commission with an Informal Review of two potential development
designs consisting of multi-family and commercial components for the subject
property. The response from Commissioners and the surrounding property
owners was unfavorable for both plans presented. The applicant met with
Montrose residents and came back before the Commission on March 7, 2016, for
additional feedback between a traditional R-1 layout, a cluster design, or a
combination of the two styles. The residents objected to proposed improvements
and additional traffic on the existing right-of-ways. The Commissioners
recommended more buffers and natural greenspace be incorporated and the
character of the surrounding neighborhood be maintained . The plan currently
under review appears to embrace the concerns of the Commission and
residents .
Based on the comments received during the Informal Review process, the
applicant has redesigned the site and the proposed layout consists of 77 single
family residential lots in a cluster style design. There are 6 estate lots which
range from 44,284 to 32,164 square foot. Forty 60'x135'-150' lots and 31
60'x115' lots are proposed. The proposal includes approximately 29.92 acres of
open space and one acre of detention area, for a total site density of
approximately 1.4 units per acre.
The setbacks for the 60' lots are as follows: front-25', rear-25\ side -5', and
street side -15'. The estate lot setbacks are proposed as follows: front -30',
rear-30', side-10', and street side-30'.
The maximum building height proposed is 35' (measured per the City's definition)
and the maximum lot coverage is 40%. The applicant is proposing that accessory
structures may cover up to 25% of the required rear yard, which is consistent
with the City's Zoning Ordinance provisions.
The street layout is not consistent with the City's vision/requirement of
connectivity, but due to concerns of the citizens in the Montrose area and
Baldwin County Officials, the current street design is proposed. The PUD
provisions in the Zoning Ordinance provide for flexibility in design.
There are multiple buffers and an abundance of greenspace/openspace shown
on the plat. A walking trail throughout the project is also shown on the PUD plan.
Detailed drainage plans shall be submitted upon the submittal of a Preliminary
Plat application. The applicant has stated in the Project Narrative that Low
Impact Development (LID) techniques will be used to accommodate the City's
stormwater requirements.
The surrounding adjacent properties are zoned PUD (Rock Creek) and R-1 by
the City of Fairhope, and B-2 and unzoned County property to the east: PUD
(Trentino), R-1, and B-2 City zoned property to the south; R-1 City zoned
property and RSF-2 County zoned property to the west; and RSF-2 County
zoned property to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although major subdivision developments are currently under a moratorium, staff
recommends approval of the proposed PUD zoning contingent upon the following
conditions:
1. The buffers shown on the plans shall remain natural, with the exception of
the allowance of plant materials to be installed where a visual buffer does
not exist.
2. VVhere a visual buffer does not exist where buffers are shown on the
plans, buffer plant materials shall be installed.
3. Any outside agency permits required shall be obtained (ALDOT, Baldwin
County, ADEM, etc.).
Respectfully Submitted for Consideration,
Jonathan I. Smith, MPA
Planning and Zoning Director
City of Fairhope
r
November 22, 2021
Hunter Simmons
City of Fairhope
Planning and Zoning Manager
ZC 21.15 Montrose Preserve PUD
Dear Mr. Simmons,
.~,.Civil
Engineering
... &Swveying
Below, please find our responses to your comments for the above referenced project:
Note that the letter to the City of Fairhope is addressed to Hunter Smith, not
Hunter Simmons.
RESPONSE: Corrected
There is an existing PUD approved in 2017 named the Thomasson PUD (ZC
15.12). On the narrative and site plan, please make the following revision.
Instead of "Revision" use "An amendment of the Thomason PUD of 2017".
RESPONSE: Revised as Noted
The narrative refers to "standard residential zoning regulations" regarding
accessory structures. This is OK, but a base zoning district will need to be
proposed for each lot, such as R-1, for example.
RESPONSE: R-1 base zoning added to Narrative language
Also in the narrative, fencing is mentioned that has standards different than that
of any City of Fairhope base zoning. Any special requirements that do not follow
base zone regulations need to be noted on the site plan and recorded on the plat
when timing is appropriate.
RESPONSE: Plan Revised as Noted
The proposed ingress/egress onto HWY 98 shall be approved by ALDOT. Please
provide confirmation.
RESPONSE: ALDOT has been contacted and we await their response. We are
aware that any PUD approval does not include access approval and is subject
to the approval of the governing body.
Internal streets are illustrated as we discussed in previous meetings. Note t hat
these ROWs are currently under the review of the Baldwin County Highway
Department and the Baldwin County Commission. These connections will
require further coordination. A condition of approval will likely be required.
RESPONSE: Noted
Lots 15, 16, and 17 are accessed from the Main St ROW. Evidence the plans have
been submitted to the County Engineer shall be provided.
Chapman St, does not illustrate "No Access". Is that the applicant's intention?
RESPONSE: No Access is proposed on Chapman at all. We have added a "No
Access" on Chapman along Hwy 98. We have contacted the County concerning
the proposed shared access on Main Street. Again, we understand that PUD
approval does not guaranty that we will be able to connect and this may
require revisions and/or resubmittal at a later date.
Are physical barriers proposed where the map is labeled "No Access"? Provide
details.
RESPONSE: We are not proposing physical barriers in these County ROWs.
What is the proposed use of Lot 18?
RESPONSE: Lot 18 will be Residential
Notes regarding concerns from previous approvals:
Provide a 20' undisturbed buffer along the northern side on Lot 1 to address
concerns about the adjacent Montrose Cemetery.
RESPONSE: Revised as Noted
An additional buffer was included along the western edge of the proposed Lots
1-3.
RESPONSE: The west side of Lots 1 through 3 will be the point of access for
these lots. We don't see why a buffer is needed?
In the Thomasson PUD, Lot 18 was illustrated as a preserved area that would be
placed in a conservation easement. Can Lot 18 be removed and preserved as the
previous plan proposed?
RESPONSE: With the Amendment, we have reduced the overall lot count from
77 to 18 lots. Lot 18 is needed to help offset those losses.
Please feel free to contact me at (251) 990-6566 with any questions or additional
comments.
Sincerely,
~~-
David E Diehl, PLS
Thomasson Family Property Montrose
Ms. Allie Knutson
Planning Clerk
City of Fairhope
Re: Agent Authorization:
Dear Ms . Knutson :
Please be advised that David Diehl of SE Civil Engineering or any repre sentati ve
of E Civil. as well as David Connor of Blackburn and Connor Attomey·s at Law.
and Larry Chason of Chason & Earle LLC are authorized to speak on beha If of the
Thomasson Family in regards to our application to amend the PUD on
approximately 52 acres in Montrose of Sibley Street and along an unopened
portion of 3rd street. The undersigned represent I 00% of the ownership of the 52
acres described in the application.
Sincerely,
Burgess A. Thomasson, Jr
Date -------Leigh Thomasson Brown, As Trustee
---------------------------------------------------Date --------
Albert Daniel Thomasson. As Tru stee
Date --------
Thomasson Family Property Montrose
Ms. Allie Knutson
Planning Clerk
City of Fairhope
Re: Agent Authorization:
Dear Ms. Knutson:
Please be advised that David Diehl of SE Civil Engineering or any representative of
SE Civil, as well as David Connor of Blackburn and Connor Attorney's at Law , and
Larry Chason of Chason & Earle LLC are authorized to speak on behalf of the
Thomasson Family in regards to our application to amend the PUD on
approx imately 52 acres in Montrose of Sibley Street and along an unopened
portion of 3 rd street. The undersigned represent 100% of the ownership of the 52
acres des cribed in the application.
Sincerely,
Burgess A. Thomasson, Jr
Leigh Thomasson Brown, As Trustee
Date --------
Albert Daniel Thomasson, As Trustee
Date --------