HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2022 Planning Commission Agenda PacketNovember 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
1
The Planning Commission met Monday, November 7, 2022, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal
Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Lee Turner, Chairman; Rebecca Bryant, Vice-Chair; Art Dyas; Harry Kohler; Clarice
Hall-Black; Hollie MacKellar; Corey Martin, City Council Liaison; 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: John Worsham.
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:01 PM.
Approval of the Minutes October 3, 2022:
Corey Martin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented from the October 3, 2022,
meeting.
Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following
vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin,
and Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
Old/New Business:
• Approval of the 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Dates and Deadlines
Motion:
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to approve the 2023 Planning Commission Dates and Deadlines
Hollie MacKellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin,
and Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
ZC 22.06 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Kenneth Kleban with Kleban
Properties, on behalf of the Owner, FST Fairhope East, LLC, to amend the existing PUD (Planned
Unit Development) for Idlewild Place PUD. The property is approximately 10 acres and is located
on the west side of State Highway 181, south of Fairhope Avenue.
PPIN #: 261908, 310693
Summary:
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the case summary and showed a map and
aerial of the subject property.
Ordinance 1402 was approved in 2009. In the last thirteen years, the property changed owners but has
not been developed. The approved Idlewild PUD, as described in Ordinance 1402, consists of 5 lots
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
2
fronting US Highway 181, with no buildings being approved at the time of the ordinance. The site plans
from Ordinance 1402 and the proposed PUD Amendment were shown on the screen. Mr. Simmons
noted that in 2009, there was a road proposed that connected Orleans Drive to the entrance on State
Highway 181 that was changed to allow pedestrian connectivity with an emergency access when the
PUD was heard before City Council.
The proposed amendment and Site Plan includes a hotel, restaurants, retail, and office/residential mixed-
use. A boardwalk is being provided for connectivity to the north and south and an internal plaza
courtyard has been created. A signal light and turn lanes will be installed on State Highway 181.
Rebecca Bryant asked why the development previously had two pedestrian connections while this plan
only showed one. Mr. Simmons confirmed that only one connection is being proposed and suggested
that if the Commissioners would like to see connectivity, they should add that requirement within the
amendment.
A drone video of the property was shown as well as architectural elevations. The hotel has been
significantly altered as it was originally proposed at three-stories, was then brought down to two-stories
with a rooftop pool, and is currently proposed at two-stories without the pool. There are 12 buildings
proposed on the Site Plan, one with a drive thru. Four buildings described residential on the 2nd floor,
which will be separate units.
The previous setbacks were 110’ in the front (Highway 181) and 40’ in the rear. The currently proposed
setbacks are 60’ in the front and 20’ in the rear, however, on the Site Plan, the building lines are shown
at around 110’. Mr. Simmons suggested making the front setback be what is shown on the Site Plan and
having the Applicant provide the correct dimension. The maximum building parapet height is 30’ with
one exception of 38.5’ for the Hotel, the Hotel is proposed at two stories maximum. Building Coverage
is proposed at 19% while the previous Ordinance’s maximum was 30%. Lot Coverage is proposed at a
maximum of 39% while the previous ordinance maximum is 80%. The elevations provided are
conceptual. Ordinance 1402 requires “All Buildings shall have “four-sided” architecture. This
requirement will carry-over to this PUD amendment.
Many adjacent property owners were concerned with light pollution from the development. There is a
requirement in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance that regardless of what the light
height or style is, it cannot penetrate on the property line. The current Photometric Plan has
accommodated this. The previously approved PUD limited exterior lighting to 10’ high. This plan
proposed 14’-24’ high lights that would be shielded. The Commissioners may limit the light height now
or review it during Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) Review. 228 parking spaces are proposed, but
276 are required to meet the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant has provided a draft parking agreement
for shared parking. Hours of operation were not provided for the proposed drive thru. Staff recommends
hours of operation for the drive thru, at minimum, be provided.
Art Dyas asked for an example of a draft parking agreement for shared parking. Mr. Simmons stated
that some businesses will have their peak hours during the daytime while some will have their peak
hours in the evening. The agreement protects the City when future property owners know that there is
an established parking agreement for the development. All of the parking spots utilize pervious pavers
rather than asphalt. Casey Potts, City Planner, stated that the impervious lot coverage is shown at 36%,
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
3
the building area as 19%, so approximately 20% is asphalt and sidewalk. Crushed aggregate is shown
on the south side for the parking as well.
Rebecca Bryant mentioned that the drive-thru did not fit with the overall idea of a pedestrian plaza.
Councilman Martin agreed. Mr. Simmons replied that the Applicants have wanted a drive-thru from the
beginning and had revised the internal roads to accommodate the drive-thru.
The greenspace plan and landscape plan was shown. The existing PUD included an 8’ fence, a 20’
heavily landscape buffer with planting details provided, three rows of trees, and shrubs. The proposed
plan includes a 20’ buffer, but guidance from the previously approved PUD needs to be maintained
regarding the landscaping. Comments from neighbors requested evergreens to be planted, which was
accommodated, but hollies and overstory trees could help with screening as well. A boardwalk will be
installed over the stormwater drains and around the detention pond and wetland buffer area, but some
of the landscaping needs to be resolved.
A 50’ ingress/egress/utility easement has been added from Orleans Drive to the proposed internal road.
Orleans Drive is not proposed to connect to the development at this time. Golf cart parking is proposed
in the drainage easement and a pedestrian bridge is shown from Orleans Drive to the development. The
pedestrian connectivity will allow residents in Idlewild to access restaurants easily and would alleviate
some traffic on State Highway 181. The proposed plan shall provide pedestrian connectivity by way of
a 12’ wide bridge/walkway, but does not include the access for an emergency vehicle as previously
approved.
Staff supports the proposed monument sign at the State Highway 181 entrance depicting the “Boardwalk
Village”. All internal signage shall comply with the City of Fairhope Sign Ordinance.
The Hotel building materials include brick veneer, painted siding, asphalt shingle or metal roof panels,
aluminum clad, French Quarter style windows and doors, cast iron columns, wrought-iron railings, and
copper awnings.
Drainage was not fully reviewed during the PUD Amendment review and will be reviewed in detail
during the MOP. However, the property owner purchased PPIN 310693, half of the detention pond that
services Jackson Place and Idlewild. Detention flows from this pond into the Idlewild property along a
drainage ditch that leads to the wetlands, into a culvert across State Highway 181, and into a swale. An
O&M was not found for maintenance of the multi-owner pond that discharges into the Idlewild property.
The drainage easement is overgrown and will need to be cleaned up to drain properly. Art Dyas
suggested that the Applicants stay out of the tree’s driplines in order to preserve them.
All Multiple Occupancy Project and Site Plan requirements and standards not specifically addressed on
the PUD Site Plan and this ordinance shall be as per City of Fairhope zoning, subdivision, and building
requirements.
Rebecca Bryant brought up light pollution and asked if the Zoning Ordinance required shielding. Mr.
Simmons responded that the lights need to meet the footcandle requirements and cannot penetrate onto
neighboring properties. Councilman Martin mentioned that Rebecca Bryant had brought up light
shielding during the Informal Review for the proposed development.
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
4
PUD amendment approval is only for the conceptual aspects of the project. Potential revisions and/or
points of clarification will need to be addressed at time of multiple occupancy project application.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. The boardwalk landings needed to cover the outfalls into the detention pond are shown to stop over
dry land. Boardwalk amenity shall extend over the drainage pond. Boardwalks shall be connected to
each other in a manner subject to Planning staff approval.
2. The walkway canopy shown with the hotel shall be constructed at a height that can be cleared by
delivery trucks.
3. Golf cart parking in the drainage easement needs to be clarified. A stormwater pipe may be required
beneath this improvement.
4. Staff would like the engineer to explain the grading across the trees.
5. The proposed hotel parapet height (38.5’) seems high for a maximum 2-story building. Staff would
like clarification. Height limits within the existing PUD are 30’.
6. Proposed building materials indicate painted siding. What is the proposed siding?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZC 22.06 Idlewild Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
with the following conditions:
1. A revised Greenspace Plan will be required for staff review prior to City Council.
2. A revised Master Development Plan will be required for staff review prior to City Council.
3. Maintain the Landscaping, Screening and Buffers as required in Ord. 1402.
4. Rear setback shall be 40’. Front setbacks shall be as shown on the Site Plan, applicant shall supply
dimension prior to City Council hearing.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing.
Gary Gover, 300 Lincoln Street, stated that some of the plans depicted pedestrian crossing across State
Highway 181 from Walmart to the proposed development, which would require reworking that
intersection. Chairman Turner stated that while connectivity is desired, that location would be in
ALDOT’s control. Mr. Simmons added that the pedestrian crossing is not included in the most recently
revised plan. Mr. Gover also mentioned that there is a difference between golf carts and low-speed
vehicles (LSV’s) and that, “golf carts” should not be noted on the plans. He expressed concerns with
golf carts crossing State Highway 181 to get to the development.
Susan Jones, 205 Margaret Drive, stated that her home backs up to the Idlewild pond and asked if the
pond was being removed and what way the drainage would travel. Mr. Simmons stated that the pond
was not being removed and that the drainage would be flowing away from her property.
Steve Irvin, 220 Orleans Drive, expressed concerns regarding the proposed drive-thru and was opposed
to the connection on Orleans Drive as he was when the original PUD was approved in 2009. He stated
that he likes the current buffer and wanted the trees to be saved. He was also concerned what the hotel
will look like in 20 years. He stated that light shields would only work if the lights were facing the east
and requested the light height be limited to 20’.
Paula Budnovich, 213 Margaret Drive, stated that they currently have a privacy fence with trees and
brush behind the fence and asked if this development would be installing a fence as well and if so, will
there be space left between both fences. Mr. Simmons stated that they would need to install an 8’ privacy
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
5
fence. Chairman Turner added that if Ms. Budnovich’s fence is on her property line, no space would be
left in between the fences.
Tracy Brown, 239 Royal Lane, lives next to the Orleans Drive easement. Ms. Brown asked if the trees
and brush could be left intact from the drainage easement to the fence line, stating that it would help
with noise and view of the hotel. She added that the pedestrian easement is not needed and would create
a parking lot for LSV’s outside her home.
Phillip Wilson, 231 Royal Lane, stated that the proposed drive-thru would be located by the back
window of his home. The subject property has been zoned for a long time and he would like it to
accommodate the neighborhood as much as possible. Mr. Wilson stated that he has met with Mr. Kleban
who has made many revisions to the plan. Royal Lane is already being used a cut -thru to Walmart, but
that connectivity is what the City is looking for. He stated that he would be agreeable to having the
pedestrian easement being by his home rather than Ms. Brown’s. A fence will need to be maintained
and will not help as much as a buffer and a berm would. He suggested moving the entire development
closer to State Highway 181, away from the residents. There is already noise pollution from the car wash
in front of Walmart and thinks that dense trees are needed to prevent light and noise pollution.
Dawn Wilson, 101 Orleans Drive, stated that she agreed with the comments that had already been made
regarding the noise, landscape buffer, objection to having a drive-thru, and the hotel use. Her home is
located in the middle of the neighborhood. She stated that the light from Walmart can be seen at night
and the traffic is loud on State Highway 181. She requested that the hotel parking spaces be located by
181, not Idlewild due to noise and safety concerns.
Chairman Turner closed the public hearing and asked for the developer to address comments.
Steve Fisher, Element 3 Engineering, asked Mr. Simmons if a fence was required on the western
property line, noting that one had been added on the southern property line. Mr. Simmons replied that a
revised Landscape Plan had just been received on Friday, so the buffer requirements of the 2009
Ordinance are being used as a safeguard. The requirement for a fence may not be the best solution in
every area, but he did not believe that there currently is not a substantial amount of buffer.
Chairman Turner asked Mr. Fisher what type of business was being proposed for the drive thru. Mr.
Fisher stated a coffee shop was being proposed with hours of operation that can be provided.
Chairman Turner brought up the lighting and shields for light pollution. In the past, the 10’ requirement
for the lighting was so the fence and lighting would be the same height. Mr. Irvin stated that a shorter
light would be better. Mr. Fisher added that there is about 5’ of elevation change from Orleans Drive to
the site, the site is higher. Mr. Simmons had concerns with installing taller lights on higher elevation
and asked if any of the existing buffer in the drainage easement or 20’ landscaping buffer could be saved.
Mr. Fisher replied that he would prefer to save anything that can be saved so there is less disturbance on
the site. Mr. Simmons suggested changing the grading plan during the MOP review and asked if the
drainage easement could remain undisturbed during construction. Mr. Fisher replied that, the drainage
easement could be included in a later phase. Mr. Simmons thinks the screening can be accommodated
without a fence in most areas. Councilman Martin added that during the Informal Review of the
development, Commissioners were in agreement that a natural buffer was preferred, rather than a fence.
Mr. Fisher added that there is a good buffer on the site, but during some months, it will lose some
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
6
density. Rebecca Bryant asked for clarification on the types of shrubs and trees that would be included
in the buffer and wanted to ensure that the details of the buffer would not be limited to shorter shrubs.
Art Dyas suggested switching the drainage easement and the buffer so that the drainage easement was
on the inside of the development and would preserve the vegetation.
Hollie MacKellar brought up the pedestrian and golf cart connectivity. Mr. Simmons stated that
accommodations were made in 2009 to not allow full vehicular access, but that stub streets are built for
a reason. Connectivity keeps roads from being overcrowded. Chairman Turner added that it would be
safer and more convenient for residents to not have to use Fairhope Avenue and Highway 181 to get to
the development. Councilman Martin added that LSV’s are not legal on Fairhope Avenue as the speed
limit changes.
Mr. Fisher stated that a berm is a great idea, but it would end up blocking the drainage and would be
difficult with the elevation change. Hollie MacKellar clarified that the Developer would be responsible
for maintaining the pond, the fence, vegetation, and the berm, if applicable. Mr. Fisher replied that they
would be responsible for those items and Mr. Simmons stated that those items would be included in the
O&M Plan.
Rebecca Bryant added that landscaping and buffering requirements should include two rows of trees
and one row of shrubs. Chairman Turner added that lighting should be mentioned as well and to state
that the landscaping and buffering will be heavily reviewed at time of MOP.
Camilla Lataday, Landscape Architect, stated that she understands the resident’s concerns. There are
many options available for LED lights with dimming options, but need to adhere to the health, safety,
and welfare of those who will be navigating the site after hours.
Motion:
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZC 22.06 to City Council, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A revised Greenspace Plan will be required for staff review prior to City Council.
2. A revised Master Development Plan will be required for staff review prior to City Council.
3. Significant landscape screening and buffers as well as light pollution prevention, with the buffer
requirements being similar to Ordinance 1402, but with two rows of trees.
4. Rear setback shall be 40’. Front setbacks shall be as shown on the Site Plan, applicant shall supply
dimension prior to City Council hearing.
Art Dyas seconded the motion.
Attorney Chris Williams clarified that the intent of the motion was to have the details of the landscape
buffer and lighting be reviewed and approved by the Commissioners at time of MOP. Rebecca Bryant
and Chairman Turner agreed.
Art Dyas mentioned that switching the drainage easement and existing buffer would make a lot of sense.
Mr. Simmons replied that there is a challenge with doing that because it is graded in the landscape buffer
to elevate the whole site, allowing the drainage to flow to the north. Art Dyas added that the buffer is
going to be disturbed any time work is done on the drainage easement.
Attorney Chris Williams asked that the motion be restated.
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
7
Motion:
Rebecca Bryant made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZC 22.06 to City Council, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A revised Greenspace Plan will be required for staff review prior to City Council.
2. A revised Master Development Plan will be required for staff review prior to City Council.
3. Provide a strong landscape buffer to provide screening, such as evergreens, in addition to providing
significant light pollution prevention to be reviewed at time of Multiple Occupancy Project approval.
4. Rear setback shall be 40’. Front setbacks shall be as shown on the Site Plan, applicant shall supply
dimension prior to City Council hearing.
Councilman Martin seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin,
and Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
ZC 22.15 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Dewberry, acting on behalf
of Owner, Live Oak Properties, LLC, to rezone property from PUD (Planned Unit Development)
to R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District. The property is approximately 3.79 acres
and is located on the east side of Main Street, south of Parker Road.
PPIN #: 11947
Summary:
Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the case summary.
Parker Place PUD was approved January 12th, 2009, with the following requirements: 15’ Front Setback,
20’ Rear Setback, 10’ Side Setback, and a 20’ Front Garage Setback. Landscape Buffers (natural and
heavily wooded creating a dense buffer) of 30’ along Scenic Highway 98 and 20’ along Parker Road.
Building height of 35’ from finished floor to peak of roof, and internal s idewalks were to be routed to
have maximum tree preservation. Adding the sidewalk along Parker Road was required.
Rezoning to R-1, if approved, will essentially erase all the requirements of the PUD and any future
development would have to conform to R-1 dimension standards and meet the requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations.
The potential lot layout was showing depicting four lots while the approved PUD depicted eight lots.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZC 22.15 to City Council.
Cathy Barnett with Dewberry was present, but had nothing further to add. The Owner, Chris Haley, was
not present.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing.
James Allen, 7270 JV Cummings Drive, stated that when the PUD was approved in 2009, the Developer
stated that he would provide a buffer between the PUD and his property. Mr. Simmons stated that no
buffer is required between residential properties. Mr. Allen clarified that there would be no buffer, only
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
8
setbacks. Mr. Jeffries added that there are also only four lots proposed instead of eight. Chairman Turner
stated that the layout of the lots needed to not be suggested when the current case was only for a rezoning
to R-1. Mr. Allen stated that he felt like he had no protection from having someone near his property
line.
Cathy Barnett, Dewberry, stated that they decreased the density from eight lots to four. The proposed
lot layout would be conforming if that plan were to move forward and that they are aware that
subdivision application would be next.
Chairman Turner suggested that Mr. Allen explore the option of buying a 5’ strip from the Developer.
Ms. Barnett added that it did not look like they would need to lose any trees with the lot configuration
when overlaying the tree protection and the size of the lots.
Chairman Turner closed the public hearing.
Motion:
Art Dyas made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZC 22.15, to City Council.
Hollie MacKellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin,
and Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
SD 22.29 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Aaron Collins with SE Civil,
LLC, on behalf of the Owner, Lafayette Acres, LLC, for Plat approval of a 3-lot resubdivision of
Lots 25 and 26 in the Colonial Acres Subdivision. The property is approximately 2.94 acres and is
located south of Triangle Drive, between Hancock Road and U.S. Highway 98.
PPIN #: 71837, 41871
Summary:
Casey Potts, City Planner, presented the case summary.
The application for a 3‐lot minor subdivision was originally considered and conditionally approved at
the May 2, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. The conditions of approval were:
1. In the General Notes, add a note specifying maintenance of the planting strip. Add a note that “Lots
1‐3 shall only be accessed via Hancock Road and Lafayette Drive. Access is restricted vi a City
Hwy 104 and Greeno Road.”
2. Rename of City Hwy 104, subject to approval by City Council.
3. Revision of subdivision name and lot numbering, subject to approval by Baldwin County Revenue
Department.
4. Provide Covenants and Restrictions to Planning Staff prior to plat recordation.
5. Inspection and approval of completed sidewalks along Hancock Rd. and Lafayette Rd. by City of
Fairhope Building Department.
6. The buffers shown on the plans, shall remain natural, except for the allowance of plant materials
to be installed where a visual buffer does not exist and a potential pedestrian path within the
proposed pedestrian access easement.
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
9
7. 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.
Final plats must be recorded within 120 days after the date of final approval. The applicant was not able
to complete this condition, causing the application to expire.
Sidewalks have since been built along Hancock Road and Lafayette Drive. While not required, a
sidewalk connecting Hancock Road to Triangle Drive was discussed with the applicant originally. Due
to the reduction of one lot, providing the sidewalk was cost prohibitive. The applicant depicts a 15’
public access easement from Hancock Road to Triangle Drive in lieu of the sidewalk. The intent of the
public access easement is to provide the capacity for pedestrian connectivity in the future. There are no
plans to install improvements at this time, nor is there a funding source for said future improvements.
The applicant agreed to implement a 35’ landscape buffer that shall remain undisturbed, with the
exception of new planting materials to fill in the visual landscape screen along the Triangle Drive and
Greeno Road ROW’s. The buffer shall remain undisturbed and maintained by the POA. Access to lots
1‐3 from Triangle Drive and Greeno Rd shall be prohibited. The applicant is also preserving the historic
landscape buffer adjacent to Lafayette Drive, which shall also remain undisturbed in perpetuity.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of SD 22.29 Colonial Acres Subdivision, A Resubdivision of Lots 25 and
26, Colonial Acres Part 2 minor subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The buffers shown on the plans, shall remain natural, except for the allowance of plant materials
to be installed where a visual buffer does not exist and a potential pedestrian path within the
proposed pedestrian access easement.
2. 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.
Rebecca Bryant clarified that there were only two conditions for this case because the previous
conditions in the last case had been satisfied. Mrs. Potts confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion:
Art Dyas made a motion to approve Case SD 22.29, subject to staff’s recommendations.
Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin, and
Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
Executive Session – To discuss pending or potential litigation pursuant to Alabama Code Section
36-25A-7(a)(3).
Chairman Turner closed the public portion of the meeting and announced that there would be no business
conducted after the Executive Session.
November 7, 2022
Planning Commission Minutes
10
Attorney Chris Williams read the declaration to move to Executive Session.
Motion:
Councilman Martin made a motion to move to Executive Session.
Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin,
and Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
The Commissioners left the dais at 7:01 p.m.
The Commissioners returned to the dais at 7:46 p.m.
Adjournment
Art Dyas made a motion to adjourn.
Rebecca Bryant seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, Clarice Hall-Black, Corey Martin,
and Hollie MacKellar.
NAY: None.
Adjourned at 7:47 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 22.13 AT&T – December 5, 2022
City of Fairhope
Planning Commission
December 5, 2022
~ ~~ ".,.,..,.
UR 22.13 -AT&T Utility Review
Project Name:
AT&T Utility Review
Site Data:
3590 Li n ea r Footage
Project Tvn,,:
Directi onal Bore & Fi b er I nstallation
Jurisdiction:
Fai rh ope Planning Ju ri sdiction
Zoning Di strict:
R-l &R-2
PPIN Number:
N/A
Generol Location:
North & South of Fai rhop e Ave w ithin
Gayfe r Est at es Pl antat i on, Ri ve r St at ion,
&River M ill
Surveyor of Record:
AT&T
Enaineer of Record:
AT&T
OWner I Deve/on,,r.
AT&T
School District:
Fai rh op e El ement ary Sch ool
Fai rh op e Mi d dle an d Hi gh Sch ool s
Recommendation:
A pproved w ith Con di t i ons
Prepared by:
Chris Am bron
?o.1,,..o.111ce __ .., ____ _
.... -.... --,01-
PU!l •---"-
p,. • ..._~~ .,..:.1r,1,, __ ,.,......,. ...... -~ ..... -..~...,,.
.11-A•-~O-
l'lo---
2 UR 22.13 AT&T – December 5, 2022
Summary of Request: Request of AT&T for an 11.52.11 Utility Review and approval of the proposed
installation of approximately 3,590 linear feet of buried fiber along routes outlined on the below location
map.
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.
LOCATION MAP:
-= JOB RO UT I NOT TO SC ALE: I
EASTWOOD AVE
NO TE · SOM E ROADS CM IIIED FOR Cl AR IT Y
I
GAYFER RD EXT I
----------4
I
I
WT'"~~~~~~
a:i l t§ I _J :~ :
I -' I
-a I~ PETZ AVE I ______ _j_ ______ --l
PET z""iivr"' ----: 3
-MA:ILYN AVE--~ i
I ~
I ""
I 3
0
~ :r
1-
ix:
0
2
FA I RHOPE AVE I en -----------T--~------------------L _________________ _
I I COUNTY RD 48
-B
I a:
I QC C
_____ ...J ~j
JACOB ST ""~
CONS TRUCTION NO TE S
'a::i I
1. ALL CO NSTR UC TI ON MUS T HAV E A CO PY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY PERM I T WITH THE M AT ALL
TI MES. PO STE D ON SITE . OR IN WINDOW OF VEHI CLE ,
2. DISTURB ED AR EAS SHALL BE COVERED AT THE END OF EAC H DAY
.3 . DISTURBED AR EAS SHALL BE SODD ED \'II THI N 10 DAYS OF COMP LETI ON
3 UR 22.13 AT&T – December 5, 2022
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.
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.
4 UR 22.13 AT&T – December 5, 2022
• 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 22.13 AT&T – December 5, 2022
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of UR 22.13 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).
PIRATEDRCHARINGCROSS STBLACKFRIARS STFARRINGDON BLVD
ELLINGTON AVE
BLOOMSBURY AVE
S O U T H W A R K AVEMANLEY RDGREENO RDGREENO RDCity of FairhopePlanning Commission
December 5, 2022
¯
FARRINGDON BLVDBLACKFRIARS STMANLEY RDSOUTHWARK AVEGREENO RDGREENO RDZC 22.16 - Street Property, Rezoning
Legend
Roads
ParcelsZoningDistrict
Zoning Classification
PUD - Planned Unit Development
R-1 - Low Density Single-Family
Planning Jurisdiction^µ
µ
Project Name:
Street PropertySite Data:
3.5 acresProject Type:
4 Lot RezoningJurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning JurisdictionZoning District:
R-1PPIN Number:
267236, 257637, 356677, 356679General Location:
West side of Greeno Road, North of
Manly Road. Farringdon Blvd runs
between the parcelsSurveyor of Record:
Engineer of Record:
Owner / Developer:
Street, Clifford Etal JeanSchool District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation:
Prepared by:
Michelle Melton
Approval
1
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
Summary of Request:
Applicants, Clifford M. Street, Jr. and Kendall Charles Street, as co-trustees of the Street Living Trust, request
the subject property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District to Highway
Transitional District (“HTD”). The property consists of four (4) parcels (PPINs: 267236, 257637, 356677, and
356679) totaling +/- 3.5 acres. The parcels straddle the entrance to Huntington Woods on Farringdon
Boulevard, off of South Greeno Road (US Hwy 98). There is one (1) parcel located north of Farringdon
Boulevard and the rest are situated south of Farringdon Boulevard. See below.
Applicants contend that the property is better suited for commercial/business use, which is the intent of the
Highway Transitional District, rather than as residential use. Moreover, some of the parcels are taxed as
commercial by the Baldwin County Revenue Commission. Applicants would like the opportunity to
potentially build office space(s) on the parcels justifying their request. This is merely the rezoning request
and there are no imminent plans for development at this time.
Site History:
Three (3) of four (4) of the parcels are currently vacant. The southernmost parcel has a well-established ice
machine located on its South Greeno Road facing side. The ice machine was placed on the southernmost
parcel prior to the R-1 zoning designation and was more or less grandfathered in. See below.
2
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
Last visited on November 21, 2022.
The three (3) parcels south of Farringdon Boulevard make up the 2014 platted Street’s Commercial Park
(Slide 2512-A, Baldwin County Probate Records) and shown below. The three (3) parcels making up the
Street’s Commercial Park are taxed as commercial property by the Baldwin County Revenue Commission.
However, commercial use beyond the ice machine has not come to fruition.
The subject property has been in the Street family for 20+ years.
3
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
Slide 2512-A, Baldwin County Probate Records
Requirements for the Highway Transitional District:
The Highway Transitional District was added to the Zoning Ordinance in February 2021 as Ordinance 1702.
(See Exhibit A). According to Article V, Section I (1), of the Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 1253), the intent of the
HTD is three-fold.
)
/
. r
: i ' '
-1 ~ ' I
I
/_
/ ( I
/
✓ " \
--\ ,I
/
' / ' . .,
'
1,
I
i
\
\
\
----'--
' '·
'
TREET' CO 1i\tIERCIAf. P "{ f(
(A RE P '\1)
,, 1,,
I i~ I
"'" ! r:! •'#'J·Jl~
I
.,:,, .... , I I
I
I
I
I
/ I
I
I
I
I
..J
... ,
"/I'd,;.'"
~";;::;:'~--..... -:-:;-;:;: ... ■■ ___ ..,_ ...
-..._ ___ w_,_.,._ai:<1£,..'T"
_..,~ ..... -_,,, •• 1 •• --
-...
■ ,
~--::.:.~ -~ =--~~--~ ~
~':;~~1 .. ~--=-~.i--
• ~-G.) --.. ~'-(~
'$11tfn':S: COIII IIIE R~L PltR K (A. J!l:1'1,.AT)
1m.4:S CftDIO RDJ,D , r NffiDPC, ~A
4
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
Applicants desire for the property to be commercial/business use, especially since ¾ of the property is being
taxed as commercial. Since the parcels are adjacent to a major highway, the HTD zoning makes sense and is
reasonable. Furthermore, general and professional office use are acceptable uses by right according to Table
3-1 as shown below and attached as Exhibit B.
Size: Article V, Section I(2) mandates that the size of each lot be a minimum of 20Kft² and under three (3)
acres. Lots being synonymous with parcels for the sake of clarity, all four (4) parcels meet the size
requirement of the HTD.
Location: Each parcel has frontage at least 100 ft along South Greeno Road, which is a location requirement
for the HTD per subsection (4).
Intent - T he special st an d ards listed in thi s section for the highway transitio nal distr ict ar e intended t o:
• Provid e an alternative to properties along state highways w ithin the C ity of Fairhope th at are beyond the area
o f influen ce o f the V illage Nodes and Commerc ial Nodes as contemplated b y the Ci ty of Fairhope
C ompreh ensive P lan.
• Provid e development opportunities consisten t w ith the C ity 's vision for commercial c orridors to better serve
community needs.
• Unlike othe r distric ts within this section, the H T D is not an overlay dis tri ct and does no t affect any property
owner s, other than those who vo lu ntarily apply for rezoning to this di strict.
~.Dt-,.-,,-..,:.1
U....c.mcnCX<J.1 -<
~ .. ~u.-"" --~-..
1\&.-o-:r:9ft'Tln.-
T'~
!?atio P"..az»
Mui&-&-~,.
~ .
"'""'""" Ciric ·~
~-Scboo1
~ i'~-u----.-
l?b=<lf"W~ ... -
c_... 0
IC'1.D'"'.iur.,;;ut
~~..u:.r --~,Q ..
e:a.z::.mo.-.~--..
C.a=amir.· C-... a, C h:b 0
Pde::.-:: c~ ...... 0
0&<a,
~
;>r-,,&,,;sicxmJ
HJ:a»1f" ..
•P,;,:,m::odmbjoc-.a,~~,m,d.,rd..m,ic;:,:,dcm.
• Plm:::zmd d:,..a a,,pocul ca:d£a,:; lismd ja dw ,:r.li,m,n,
0 !'a:m::acl~-<11~ =!ni,pa to ~=>:litm,
-ll i=
a; p: ~
• •
"
.. . --• -• •
0 0 .. ..
• •
0 0
0 0 0
,. ,. "
T ahl-e, 3-1 : Lo;e rnlble
-i .. ---, ''7 ~ ":' ~ ~ ~ ~ l .... '1' .:.: ... "' ~ d: ;:;; ;:;;
• • • • • •· • • • .. • • • • ,. .. ... ,. . .. .,
"' • 0 0 ., • • • • • ,. ,. ,. ,. ,.
.. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. --•· .. .. .
• .. .. • -• .. •· • • •· • • • •· • • •
0 0 0 0 •O 0 0 0
u 0 .., u 0 .., .. .. .. .. . . .. .. ..
• • • • • .. • • •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. -.. -.. .. .. .. . .. . . ,. .. ,. :, .. ,. ,. " ,. ..
A
:it
i
-:I
]
l
11
1 i=
.:i
~ ~ ..... ~ G > 7"
• • • •
~ • • •· , ., ,. ,. 0
• • • "' ,. " ,.
• .. . . .. .. -. -.. •· • • • •· • 0 0 0
0 0 0
U' u u .. . .. . . .. • • •
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -.. .. .. . •1 ,. ,. " ..
5
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
Dimension Standards: Article V, Section I(5)(b) calls for the following setbacks in the HTD, all of which can be
accomplished in each of the four (4) parcels.
Maximum building heights of 30’ or 35’ shall be applicable to any buildings on the parcels.
Parking shall be located behind the front building line if and when buildings are anticipated.
Per subsection (e), any stand-alone single use or tenant retail building shall not exceed an 8Kft²
footprint.
Subsection (f) states that “all lands within twenty (20) feet of the boundaries of U.S. Highway 98,
Alabama Highway 104, and Alabama Highway 181…are required to be reserved by owners or
developers…as greenspace and tree protection zones…” If there is no other vegetation beyond grass at
the time of development, then new landscaping and plantings shall be installed at the time of the
development. Said landscaping and plantings shall be approved by the City Horticulturalist.
The City of Fairhope Tree Ordinance considers the HTD as commercial/business regardless of the actual
use.
Pursuant to Article II, Section C(1) “Zoning Amendments,” subsection (e) “Criteria” the application shall be
reviewed based on the following criteria:
(1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Response: The current Comprehensive Land Use Plan (circa 2016) supports a village concept with
village centers containing the highest intensity of business uses with commercial nodes located on
Greeno Road, Highway 181, and Section Street. The preferred plan places village centers at North
Village (current Fly Creek PUD), Greeno Road, intersection of Fairhope Avenue and Highway 181, and
downtown, with downtown considered the ultimate village center. The nearest village nodes are
located at Greeno Road and Twin Beech Road and Greeno Road and County Road 32. An additional
node is at Section Street and County Road 34. The “subject” property is triangulated among the
aforementioned commercial nodes. See below.
The subject property is not appropriate for a full-blown commercial node; however, staff does believe
the property is appropriate for HTD by definition and location.
b.Setbacks
i.Front Setback shall be 20'.
ii.Rear Setback sh all be 20 '.
iii.S ide setbacks shall be 10'.
6
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Preferred Use Land Map
(2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance;
Response: Currently, all the parcels are zoned R-1. R-1 is most likely not the best use for smaller
parcels that directly front a major highway since R-1 is a more appropriate designation for larger
parcels. Moreover, “screening” is an important attribute that runs throughout this ordinance and HTD
requires the first twenty (20) feet of the parcel from the highways be vegetated beyond that of just
grass; whereas, R-1 does not. Also, HTD is transitional and these parcels ease the transition from busy
highway to the residential subdivision behind them.
(3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity;
Response: Each parcel fronts S. Greeno Road (US Hwy 98). Each parcel is backed by the Huntington
Woods subdivision. Parcels north of the stand-alone northern parcel are zoned R-1. There are two (2)
such parcels and they are much larger and have what appears to be one (1) residence on each. Parcels
located south of the parcels known as Street’s Commercial Park are unzoned as are parcels across S.
Greeno Road (US Hwy 98). There is not any known anticipated pending development in the immediate
surrounds of the subject property.
Subject Property
7
ZC 22.16 Street Parcels Rezoning – December 5, 2022
(4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development;
Response: There is no proposed development at this time. At least one (1) parcel (ice machine) is
energized. Future development project(s) shall confirm the adequacy of the public infrastructure.
(5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development
conditions;
Response: The Applicants have no known plans of construction or redevelopment at this time.
(6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City;
Response: Rezoning complements the Tree Ordinance. At the time of any redevelopment all applicable
laws of the city will be applied. If granted, any use within HTD zoning will be allowed ‘by right’.
(7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions;
Response: At the time of 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: Applicants do not have any immediate plans for development. Nonetheless, the parcels are
situated in an area that fits the bill for HTD by definition. If the property is developed commercially there
very well may be potential impacts; however, any future building permits will be reviewed by staff prior
to any construction and development shall follow all of the appropriate setbacks, footprints, and buffers.
In addition, since the parcels front a major highway then ALDOT will also weigh in on any future
development plans.
(9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential
physical impacts, and property values.
Response: Since this is a straight rezoning request where a solidified future use and/or site plan is not
yet even fully contemplated then it is impossible for staff to determine any specific impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood although it is reasonable to assume that there will be some impacts with
any future development. Nonetheless, any future development will have various approval processes
where these concerns and more will be thoroughly vetted.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of ZC 22.16.
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO. 1702
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1253
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance (No. 1253), adopted 27 June 2005, is changed
and altered as described below;
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope Planning Commission directed the Planning Department to
prepare amendments to our Zoning Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments relate to the establishment of the Highway Transitional
District; and,
WHEREAS, after the appropriate public notice and hearing of ZC 21.02, the Planning
Commission of the City of Fairhope, Alabama has forwarded a favorable recommendation;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA;
1. THAT, Article V, be hereby amended to add the following:
I. HTD -Highway Transitional District
I. Intent -The special standards listed in this section for the highway
transitional district are intended to:
• Provide an alternative to properties along state highways within the
City of Fairhope that are beyond the area of influence of the Village
Nodes and Commercial Nodes as contemplated by the City of
Fairhope Comprehensive Plan.
• Provide development opportunities consistent with the City's visi on for
commercial corridors to better serve community n eeds.
• Unlike other districts within this section, the HTD is not an overlay
district and does not affect any property owners, other than those who
voluntarily apply for rezoning to this district.
2. Size -Lots shall be a minimum of 20,000 s.f and under 3 acres.
3. Use-Uses for the HTD are listed in Table 3-1: Use Table. Rezoning to
HTD may be conditioned so that uses permitted on appeal require a site
plan.
4. Location -Eligible lots must have minimum of 100 feet on on e side
.fronting the rights-of-way of US Highway 98, Alabama Highway 104,
or Alabama Highway 181 and lie within the Corporate Jurisdiction of
the City of Fairhope.
5. Dimension Standards -
a. Lot .frontage shall be adjacent to the highway.
b. Setbacks
i. Front Setback shall be 20 '.
ii. Rear Setback shall be 20 '.
iii. Side setbacks shall be 10 '.
c. Building Height
i. Maximum Height is 30 '.
ii. A mixed-use building may have a height of 35 'if it contains both
residential and commercial space. The residential us must make
up at least 33% of the total area of the building and the located
on the second and/or third floor, and retail or office space must
make up at least 50% of the total area of the building and be
located on ground and/or second.floor.
Exhibit A
Ordinance No. 1 702
Page -2-
d. Parking
i. Parking shall be located behind the front building lin e.
e. Any freestanding single-use or tenant retail building shall not ha ve a
building footprint larger than 8,000 square feet.
f. All lands within twenty (20) feet of the boundaries of U.S. Highway
98, Alabama Highway 104, and Alabama Highway 181 within the
corporate limits of the City of Fairhope are required to be reserved
by owners or developers of such lands as greenspace and tree
protection zones. The required greenspace may include land a
required by the front setback.
1. Where no vegetation, other than grass exists, new land caping
and plantings shall be installed at time of development within the
20-foot strip that meet the requirements of the City of Fairhope
Tree Ordinance and receives approval by the City Horticulturist;
otherwise the land may be left in its natural state and enhanced
with the addition of trees and shrubs.
g. Any future rezoning to HTD may be conditioned so that the goals
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Article V , Section 1.1. of
the Zoning Ordinance are achieved.
h. For the purposes of Article IV, Section B.2.b. and the screening
requirements of the City of Fairhope Tree Ordinance, the Highway
Transitional District shall be considered commercial/business
regardless of use.
2. THAT, Article III, Section B. Table 3-1: Use Table, be hereby amended to add a
column to read as follows:
HTD
Uses Permitted subject to general ordinance standards and conditions : Singl e-
family, Two-family, Townhouse, Mixed-use, Elementary School, Se co ndary School,
Education Facility, Library, Public Open Space, Common Open Spa ce , General
Office, Professional Office, Day Care, and Bed & Breakfast.
Uses Permitted subject to special conditions listed in the ordinance : Access ory
Dwelling, Home Occupation, and Convenience Store.
Uses Permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions: Multiple-
family/Apartment, Place of Worship, Cemetery, Hospital, Community Cent er or
Club, Public Utility, General Merchandise, Outdoor Sales Limited, Garden Center,
Convalescent or Nursing Home, Clinic, Outdoor Recreation Facili ty , Mortuar y or
Funeral Home, and Limited Manufacturing.
3. THAT, Article III, Section B. Table 3-2: Dimension Table, be hereby amended to
add a row to read as follows:
HTD -See Article V, Section/.
Exhibit A
Ordinance No. 1702
Page -3-
Severability Clause -if any part, section or subdivision of this ordinance shall be held
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such holding shall not be construed to invalidate
or impair the remainder of this ordinance, which shall continue in full force and effect
notwithstanding such holding.
Effective Date -This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its due adoption and
publication as required by law.
Adopted and approved this 22nd day of February, 2021.
Attest:
~~
City Clerk
Adopted and approved this 22nd day of February, 2021.
Article III Section B
Zoning Districts Allowed Uses
FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE 19
Table 3-1: Use table
Zoning District
Uses Categories /
Specific Uses R-AR-1(a,b,c)R-2R-3 THR-3 P/GHR-3R-4R-5R-6B-1B-2B-3aB-3bB-4M-1M-2PUD VRM NVC CVC HTD Dwelling Uses in the PUD District shall be specified based on a development plan according to the standards and procedures of this ordinance Single-family
Two-family
Townhouse
Patio Home
Multiple-family / Apartment
Manufactured Home
Mixed-use
Accessory Dwelling
Estate
Civic
Elementary School
Secondary School
Education Facility
Library
Place of Worship
Cemetery
Hospital
Public Open Space
Common Open Space
Community Center or Club
Public Utility
Office
General
Professional
Home Occupation
Retail
Grocery
Convenience Store
General Merchandise
Shopping Center
Automobile Service Station
Outdoor Sales Limited
Outdoor Sales Lot
Garden Center
Service
Convalescent or Nursing Home
Clinic
Outdoor Recreation Facility
Day Care
General Personal Services
Mortuary or Funeral Home
Automobile Repair
Indoor Recreation
Dry Cleaner / Laundry
Personal Storage
Bed & Breakfast
Hotel / Motel
Boarding House or Dormitory
Recreational Vehicle Park
Restaurant
Bar
Entertainment Venue
Marina
Kennel or Animal Hospital
Warehouse
Junk Yard or Salvage Yard
Manufacturing
Limited
Light
General
Food Processing
Rural
Agriculture
Rural Market
Plant Nursery
Permitted subject to general ordinance standards and conditions.
Permitted subject to special conditions listed in the ordinance
Permitted only on appeal and subject to special conditions
Exhibit B
From:Jacqueline Turner
To:planning
Subject:Case ZC 22.16
Date:Monday, November 28, 2022 8:09:30 AM
SENT FROM AN EXTERNAL ADDRESS
Hello,
With the Thanksgiving Holiday, there really was not enough time to properly draft a response
to the letter recently received regarding the above requested rezone.
However, as an impacted homeowner, as well as a representative of the almost hundred
member HOA, we are VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to this zoning change! None of our key
concerns, such as traffic and the safety of our children, have changed. In fact, they have been
increasingly exacerbated by the additional traffic due to residential development behind ours
and the overall influx of area development. In addition, commercial driveways would not be
feasible off Farringdon as it is a tree lined entrance that we maintain. Placing the entrances off
of Highway 98 would only add to everyone's nightmare of school traffic as it is across the
street from the main high school entrance. Keeping the current zoning is the only common
sense choice.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jacqueline Turner
Erik Perrin, Huntington Woods Resident
Mr. Perrin called on November 28th, 2022, to voice his opinion regarding Case ZC 22.16, the rezoning of
the Street property to HTD. He stated that he was not against the rezoning, he would like to the see the
property develop, but did ask that the ingress/egress for the lots be located on Greeno Road rather than
Farringdon Boulevard and entrance to the Huntington Woods Subdivision. He added that there is a lot of
traffic from Old Battles Village being developed.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE,
ALABAMA, TO DISCONTINUE THE REGULATION OF
SUBDIVISIONS OUTSIDE OF THE
CORPORATE LIMITS WITHIN THE PLANNING JURISDICTION
WHEREAS, Baldwin County has provided notice to the City of Fairhope and Fairhope
Planning Commission of its intent to assume responsibility for the regulation of
subdivisions outside of the corporate limits of the City of Fairhope and within
Fairhope’s planning jurisdiction pursuant to Alabama Code § 11-52-30(e) based upon
changes to the law created by Act 2021-297 (SB107); and
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with
Baldwin County for the regulation of subdivisions in the Fairhope planning jurisdiction
outside of the corporate limits by the Fairhope Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA, AS FOLLOWS:
Pursuant to Alabama Code § 11-52-30(e) and the changes created by Act 2021-297
(SB107), the Fairhope Planning Commission hereby discontinues the enforcement of
the Fairhope Subdivision Regulations for any new development outside of the corporate
limits of Fairhope within Fairhope’s planning jurisdiction. Baldwin County shall
assume responsibility for regulation of all new subdivision developments outside of the
corporate limits of the City of Fairhope. The City of Fairhope and Fairhope Planning
Commission shall not accept any applications for new subdivisions or multiple-
occupancy projects located outside of the corporate limits of Fairhope.
The Fairhope Planning Commission shall continue to regulate subdivisions, multiple
occupancy projects, and other developments pursuant to the Fairhope Subdivision
Regulations for projects that have already received preliminary plat, MOP, or similar
approval from the Fairhope Planning Commission, or as otherwise set forth under
Alabama Code § 11-52-30 et seq.
Page -2-
The City of Fairhope planning staff shall work with Baldwin County to transition
pending applications for projects located outside of the corporate limits in Fairhope’s
planning jurisdiction. Nothing in this Resolution modifies, diminishes, or reduces the
authority of the Fairhope Planning Commission to regulate subdivisions within the
corporate limits of the City of Fairhope.
Severability Clause. The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this
resolution are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this
resolution shall be declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then
such ruling shall not affect any other paragraphs and sections, since the same would
have been enacted by the Planning Commission without the incorporation of any such
unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAIRHOPE,
ALABAMA AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE 5th DAY OF
DECEMBER, 2022.
__________________________________
Lee Turner, Chairman