Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-05-2024 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 1 The Planning Commission met Monday, August 5, 2024, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Lee Turner; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Erik Cortinas; Paul Fontenot; Clarice Hall-Black; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager; Michelle Melton, Planner; and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk. Absent: Jay Robinson, Hollie MacKellar and Rebecca Bryant Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. Approval of the Minutes July 1, 2024: John Worsham made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 1, 2024. Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. Old/New Business • SD 24.06 Waiver request for the Preliminary Plat approval for Montrose Preserve PUD from the standards of Article VI, Section M (Underground Utilities). Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning Director, presented the waiver request for the preliminary plat approval for Montrose Preserve PUD from the standards of Article VI, Section M (Underground Utilities). Mr. Simmons shared the aerial showing existing power lines and powerlines associated with this phase. Staff is in support of this request. Staff recommends approval of SD 24.06 waiver request subject to the following condition: 1. This waiver only applies to Lots 1-3 of the Montrose Village PUD. Hollie MacKellar joined the meeting. Erik Cortinas made a motion to approve the waiver for the preliminary plat approval for Montrose Preserve PUD. John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 2 Consideration of Agenda Items: A. SD 24.12 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner, Two Hands Design & Development LLC, for Final Plat Approval of Hill Top – Lot 29. The property is approximately 1.131 acres and is zoned a PUD – Planned Unit Development. The property is located at 18655 Section Street. PPIN #: 389630 Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner, Two Hands Design & Development LLC, for Final Plat Approval of Hill Top – Lot 29. Mr. Simmons stated that a fire flow test needed to be performed and since that passed, no infrastructure is needed. Staff recommends approval of SD 24.12: Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 5:12pm. Having no one present to speak the public hearing was closed at 5:12pm. John Worsham made a motion to approve SD 24.12. Hollie MacKellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. B. SD 24.15 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Dewberry, acting on behalf of the Owner, Tommy Thomasson et al, for Final Plat approval for Montrose Preserve PUD, Ph. 1, a 3- lot major subdivision. The property is approximately 8.94 acres and is zoned as a PUD – Planned Unit Development. The property is located on the west side of Greeno Road and south of Sibley Street. PPIN #: 75979 Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of the Applicant, Dewberry, acting on behalf of the Owner, Tommy Thomasson et al, for Final Plat approval for Montrose Preserve PUD, Ph. 1, a 3-lot major subdivision. Mr. Simmons shared the zoning and aerial maps. A main goal was screening the subdivision from the highway and the cemetery. A 40’ buffer has been added to the common area to accommodate this goal. There is a 20’ buffer on lot 1. The City has accepted the ROWs and within the resolution, the City acknowledges that they do not plan to open those ROWs at this time. Follow-Up Activities Required by Final Plat Process: • Staff will not sign the Final Plat until the road has been installed, tested, and inspected by our Public Work Department. No punch list has been generated because road work has not been performed. • Copy of the recorded plat (Final Plat must be recorded within 120 days). • Maintenance and Guarantee Agreement document is not considered fully executed until the Mayor signs said agreement. August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 3 o Remember to include the instrument # from the recorded plat o Remember to include 30 days in paragraph 3 Staff recommends conditional approval of SD 24.15 subject to the following conditions: 1. In lieu of fire flow requirements of the preliminary plat approval, there shall not be any further building permits given for the three lots until (a) Daphne completes the 10” water main extension AND (b) the Engineer confirms in writing the fire flow at the newly installed hydrant meets International Fire Code standards. The following note shall be added to the Plat as part of this condition, “No building permit will be issued for any lot within this subdivision until a fire flow report confirms there is adequate water to meet the fire protection requirements of the International Fire Code.” 2. Roads will need to be paved and tested. Public Works shall review test results and confirm the road has passed Final Inspections prior to Staff signing the Final Plat. 3. As-builts drawings with Engineer’s Certification shall be required prior to Staff signing the Final Plat. 4. Install bollard as required by Public Works. Chairman Turner stated that he is uncomfortable passing the final plat without the roads being installed. Jason Estes, Dewberry, stated that the work should be done in the next week. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 5:20pm. Having no one present to speak the public hearing was closed at 5:20pm. Harry Kohler asked if the construction that is underway on the south side is part of the project. Mr. Estes stated that may be Daphne Utilities. Mr. Simmons stated it may be ALDOT performing drainage repairs. Chairman Turner requested that the trees are considered during the project. Hollie MacKellar reiterated the protection of historic trees. Mr. Simmons stated that the preconstruction meeting with the contractor will address that. John Worsham made a motion to approve SD 24.15 with staff recommendations. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. C. SD 24.18 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, S.E. Civil, acting on behalf of the Owner, 68V Overland 2021, LLC for Final plat approval of Overland Subdivision, Phase 2, a 29- lot subdivision. The property is approximately 12.48 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 48 and River Mill Drive. PPIN #: 618027 Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Applicant, S.E. Civil, acting on behalf of the Owner, 68V Overland 2021, LLC for Final plat approval of Overland Subdivision, Phase 2, a 29-lot subdivision. Mr. Jeffries shared the zoning and aerial maps. Mr. Jeffries shared pictures August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 4 of the current mulch trails and his concerns of the long-term viability. Signs need to be placed on the path. Mr. Jeffries shared a second mulch trail that should be restored at the entrance next to the model home. Follow-Up Activities Required by Final Plat Process: • Copy of the recorded plat (Final Plat must be recorded within 120 days) • Copy of the recorded O&M Agreement (Add Ph2 to the Ph1 O&M Agreement) • Maintenance and Guarantee Agreement executed by the subdivider – this document is not considered fully executed until the Mayor signs said agreement. o Remember to include the instrument # from the recorded plat o Remember to include 30 days in paragraph 3 Staff recommends conditional approval of SD 24.18 subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the Site Data table to read “Current Zoning: P.U.D. Ordinance #1713” 2. Add General Notes to plat: o Drainage and Utility easements exists over all common areas. o The Property Owners Associate is responsible for the maintenance of the walking trails and keeping them in good working order. 3. Remove Planning Director signature block from the plat. 4. Add trail markings to indicate the path through the woods to be approved by the Planning Director. John Worsham asked why we allow mulch paths. Mr. Simmons stated that the City does not have a standard for paths. Paths have been allowed to be counted as greenspace. The maintenance plan stated the paths will be remulched four times a year along with, if there is an area of wash out, there are instructions to dig it out, fill it with rock and remulch, creating a type of French drain to stop the water from washing out the mulch. Aaron Collins, S.E. Civil, had conversations with the client about permanent solutions to the walking trail. Chairman Turner asked if the mulch would get pushed down with people using it. Mr. Simmons stated that a liner may help, but the slope of the path is the main issue. Paul Fontenot suggested a liner to contain the mulch and using different types of mulch and stated larger chunks of mulch will float. There are spray products that would stiffen up the mulch. The main issue would be to identify the areas of washout and take care of that. Mr. Simmons asked about the slope and would a log, cross ties or stairs help. Mr. Fontenot agreed that would help. Hollie MacKellar asked if they had expected this and are they proud of the project. Larry Smith, S.E. Civil stated that the issue with the mulch trail is that the area has been a construction site. As the developers begin to take over, the area will get better. Ms. MacKellar asked what would make it better. Mr. Smith replied that trying to create step landings, by adding a railroad tie or timber every so often to hold the mulch and create a flatter area. Mr. Smith is proud of the boardwalk and the bottom area looks very nice with benches placed throughout. Ms. MacKellar feels like mulch should be removed all together on paths and gave an example where it had to be replaced with pine straw. Chairman Turner continued that the preliminary plats come for approval without elevations being shot. Mr. Simmons agreed that Planning Staff only sees grading plans for common areas and not the lots. A grading plan for the whole site may be needed at the preliminary stage. August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 5 Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 5:40pm. Having no one present to speak the public hearing was closed at 5:40pm. John Worsham made a motion to approve SD 24.18 with modified staff recommendations. Clarice Hall-Black seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. D. ZC 24.07 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Christopher Lieb, acting on behalf of the Owner, Gerald W. Haring, to rezone property from R-1, Low Density Single-Family Residential District, to B-4, Business and Professional District. The property is approximately 0.69 acres and is located at 7671 Parker Road. PPINS #: 98380, 7684 Michelle Melton presented the request of the Applicant, Christopher Lieb, acting on behalf of the Owner, Gerald W. Haring, to rezone property from R-1, Low Density Single-Family Residential District, to B- 4, Business and Professional District. Ms. Melton shared the zoning and aerial maps. Staff recommends approval to the City Council of ZC 24.07 with staff conditions: 1. Regardless of the allowed uses in Table 3-1 of the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance, the following uses shall be prohibited on the subject property: a. Elementary School b. Secondary School c. Library d. Public Utility e. Grocery f. Convenience Store g. Convalescent or Nursing Home h. Outdoor Recreation Facility i. Mortuary or Funeral Home j. Personal Storage k. Boarding House or Dormitory l. Limited Manufacturing 2. Rezoning request is for the use as Professional Office. Any change in use other than Professional Office shall meet all applicable laws and regulations at the time of application. Chris Lieb, Lieb Engineering, stated that this is a personal project to convert the home into his personal office and bring his business back to Fairhope. As a resident of Montrose, he appreciates the Planning Commission protecting the trees. Harry Kohler asked what type of business this was. Mr. Lieb stated it is an Engineering company. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 5:46pm. Having no one present to speak the public hearing was closed at 5:46pm. August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 6 Hollie MacKellar made a motion to recommend approval of ZC 24.07 to the City Council with staff recommendations. Erik Cortinas asked to confirm the wording of condition #2. Mr. Simmons stated that if anyone requests a use other than Professional Office, that individual would need to come back for another rezoning approval. John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. E. ZC 24.08 Public hearing to consider the request from the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department, for various proposed amendments to the City of Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request from the City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Department, for various proposed amendments to the City of Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance. This amendment would require parking in the CBD for certain uses. The life blood of Fairhope has been retail and restaurants. The current trends of the recent projects are office and residential. The only one that has specific parking is residential units. The City is proposing to add a new parking requirement table in the CBD which mimics Section IV of the Zoning Ordinance verbatim. The amendment would add Table 5-1. Mr. Simmons shared the proposed parking space changes and the study that brought about these proposed changes. Mr. Simmons then shared the locations of the proposed parking spaces, the dimensions and sizes and parking credits. Chairman Turner suggested giving debits for public parking spaces being given away and a possible impact fee/fine for every public parking space given away. Mr. Simmons stated the stance has always been that staff will not support on street parking. Mr. Simmons suggested that parking credit approvals be given by the Planning Commission. Chairman Turner stated that it should come when the Site Plan approval application is presented. Hollie MacKellar agreed with Chairman Turner and that the City needs to look at a parking plan. Ms. MacKellar suggested looking at loading zones. Mr. Simmons and Chairman Turner agreed. Ms. MacKellar suggested that business owners parking in front of their business should be penalized. Mr. Simmons stated that this amendment would only affect new developments. Chairman Turner supports these amendments. Mr. Simmons continued by sharing slides of the CBD and the parking. Mr. Simmons stated that by placing parking on site, it limits the size of the building. One business had installed a gate arm to keep the public from parking in the private parking. Ingress and egress are important when considering parking. Staff recommends approval of ZC 24.08 to City Council. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing at 6:08pm. Mac Walcott asked if there is actually a parking problem. How are we identifying it? After driving around to find a spot, he may be a block and half away or two blocks away. We take a fresh look at walkability. Do the cars matter more than the people do? It’s not the end of the world to have to walk a few blocks to your destination. Mr. Walcott looked at the Comp Plan which embraces mixed use. Most August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 7 of downtown is small lots. The changes that are being considered now indirectly or directly discourage development on the small lots. How do you determine the 300’ thing? Because of the may category instead of a shall, the property owners are at risk way into the project. Mr. Walcott suggested crafting an ordinance with clarity. Chairman Turner stated that a big problem that staff has recognized is that we are not getting a balance of requests now. Since we have gone to a 40’ height, many buildings are going lot line to lot line without much architectural attractiveness. Chairman Turner continued that we are trying to avoid a parking emergency. The concern if we take what we have today and add more on street parking with each development, how will the retailers stay in business. Mr. Walcott suggested impact fees to build another garage. Mr. Simmons added that the parking authority is driving through every day to create a parking study. Larry Smith, S.E. Civil, is concerned with small lots, rear parking and a lot of driveways getting to the back. Any time there needs to be parking in the rear, a business has to figure how to get to the rear which would make a lot of different driveways. Mr. Smith acknowledged that office staff also eats at the restaurants and the City is not only for visitors and asked the Planning Commissioners to keep that in mind. Ryan Baker, 460 Elwood, stated that the parking amendment will destroy downtown. Driveways taking up parking spaces for curb cuts will create a whole new downtown. It will disincentivize multistory buildings, street front approach and businesses that may want to move here. A building may need to be torn down to build a parking lot. This amendment favors restaurant and retail and not office space. This would limit the overall feel of downtown. Gary Gover, 300 Lincoln Street, stated that he attended the Parking Authority meeting who is working hard on these same issues. This problem needs broader participation. This also may affect pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The public hearing was closed at 6:25pm. Mr. Simmons stated that staff has worked with the Parking Authority. Hollie MacKellar asked how many people were on the Parking Authority. Mr. Simmons continued that many options were on the table to help with parking in the CBD. If a retail store converts into an office space, then parking would be required. Clarice Hall-Black stated that she has not experienced a parking problem. Mr. Simmons reiterated that this amendment focuses on new development. Mr. Simmons stated that one of the main reasons for this amendment is that so people on the front end know what is required. Ms. MacKellar stated that we need to look at what the City will look like in the next 30 years and not a knee-jerk reaction. John Worsham and Chairman Turner suggested tabling this item until the next meeting. John Worsham made a motion to table ZC 24.08. Erik Cortinas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: August 5, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes 8 AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. Adjournment John Worsham made a motion to adjourn. AYE: Lee Turner, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Hollie MacKellar, Erik Cortinas, Paul Fontenot, Clarice Hall-Black NAY: None. Adjourned at 6:34pm. _______________________ ________________________ Lee Turner, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, 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 SD 24.19 Rockwell Place Resub Preliminary – September 5, 2024 Summary of Request: Public hearing to consider the request of the applicant, Sawgrass Consulting, LLC, acting on behalf of the Owner, FST Rockwell, LLC, for Preliminary Plat approval of Rockwell Place Resub, a 10-lot Major Subdivision. The property is approximately 11.70 acres and is zoned B-2, General Business District. The property is located on the east side of State Highway 181, south of the Harvest Green East Subdivision and across from The Waters Subdivision. Site Data Site Plan 2 SD 24.19 Rockwell Place Resub Preliminary – September 5, 2024 Comments: The development is a re-subdivision of lot 1 of Rockwell Place Subdivision and was recently rezoned to B-2. The infrastructure for this development already exists and is available along Bushel Drive. - A multi-use path has been constructed along Hwy 181 along with landscaping and connects to the multi- use path to the south in the Encounter Development. - A portion of sidewalk will be installed along the northern property line to connect the multi-use path along Hwy 181 to the existing sidewalk on Bushel Drive and connect to a sidewalk in the Harvest Green East Subdivision. - Drainage is being master planned and designed for the entire site. A very shallow landscaped depression will be created along the front of the lots. During normal conditions they will be dry and sodded. Detention easements are located along the front of the lots. - The drainage has been reviewed and meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. - Access points have been designated to limit the number of road cuts along Bushel Drive. - Greenspace is provided a 30’ wide Greenway along the north and west property lines that includes and the multi-use path and landscaping. None of the areas around the detention ponds are being credited as greenspace. - A revised landscape shall be submitted incorporating landscaping around the detention areas along Bushel Drive. The subdivision regulations contain the following criteria in Article IV.B.2. Approval Standards. “2. Consistency with Plans, Regulations and Laws - The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if the Commission makes a finding that such land is not suitable for platting and development as proposed, due to any of the following: a. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and/or the City’s Zoning ordinance, where applicable; • Meets b. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan or any other plan or program for the physical development of the City including but not limited to a Master Street Plan, a Parks Plan, a Bicycle Plan, a Pedestrian Plan, or the Capital Improvements Program; • Meets c. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with these Regulations; • Meets d. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with other applicable state or federal laws and regulations; or • Meets e. The proposed subdivision otherwise endangers the health, safety, welfare or property within the planning jurisdiction of the City.” • Meets Recommendation: Staff recommends Conditional Approval of SD 24.19 Rockwell Place Resub subject to the following condition: 1. Review and approval of a revised Landscape Plan. Page 2 August 13, 2024 Re-S u b Rockwe l l Place 8 . Add a note to plat "Access to lots 1-7 shall be from Bushel Drive ." Updated p lat attached. 9 . Add a note to plat referencing dra inage requirements. TBO on what t he drainage solution/plan w ill become. Updated plat attached. If y o u hav e an y q uest ions or need ad d itional i nform ation, p lease contact me at 251-544-7900 or at tl awley@sawgrassl lc.com. Si ncerely, -;£;1,w Timothy D. Lawley, PE Sawgr ass Consu lting, LLC Project De scription Rockwell Place is located along the east side of State Highway 181 approximately 1,800 feet North of County Road 104. The address of the property is 23100 Hwy 181. The property currently consists of 2 lots, 2 common areas, and 2 public ROW's. Lot 1, common areas 1 and 2, and the public ROW for both Bushel Dr and Rockwell Blvd lie within the City of Fairhope; Lot 2 is in Baldwin County. The development will consist of a 20.8 apartment site on lot 2, and a 11.7-acre, 10 lot commercial subdivision on lot 1. This drainage report covers the 11.7-acre commercial subdivision on lot 1. The site naturally slopes from the west to the east. Two detention ponds have been constructed on both ends of Bushel Drive to provide detention for the public ROW (for Bushel Dr. and Rockwell Blvd), lot 1, lot 9, and lot 10. Four additional ponds are proposed to be constructed to serve lots 2-8. There will be a detention pond located on the east side of lots 2&3 that serves lots 2&3, a detention pond located on the east side of lots 4&5 that serves lots 4&5, a detention pond located on the east side of lots 6&7 that serves lots 6& 7, and a detention pond located on the east side of lot 8 that serves lot 8. The detention pond located at the south end of Bushel Drive will provide water quality for lots 1-3 . The large detention pond located in the SE corner of the development (Lot 2) will provide water quality for lots 4-10. Affected Drainage Areas Pre and Post Development The affected drainage area for the commercial development includes Lots 1-10 and the public ROW for both Bushel Drive and Rockwell Blvd . There is also a small area draining from the ALDOT Row onto the subject property from the west (approximately 1.31 acres). Under both predeveloped and post developed conditions, this water will be routed to the pond located on the east side of lots 4&5. All onsite stormwater will be collected and conveyed to the stormwater detention ponds located at the north end and south end of the development via underground piping. The detention pond and release structure were designed to release stormwater below Pre-Development release rates for the additional stormwater runoff generated through the development of the site as noted below. The project is located within the Fish River Watershed which has been modeled. I n this watershed, detention ponds are designed to detain the 2-, 5 -, 10-and 25-year storm events and withstand the 100- year storm event. For this project, the detention ponds are designed to detain all storm interval including the 100-year storm event and release peak runoff below pre-development levels. Pre-Development vs . Post Development Surface Conditions The property was previously used for agriculture and row crops. A conservative C-value of 0.25 was used for the existing conditions calculations. AC value of 0.5 was used for the offsite A LDOT ROW under both the predeveloped and post developed condition. For the post development condition, a C-value of 0.25 was used for undeveloped areas, 0 .85 used for developed lots, and 0.9 used for internal ROW areas. To be conservative, 25 mins was input for the time of concentration for both predeveloped drainage basins and 5 mins for all post developed basins. Hydro CADD© Modeling for Stormwater Detention The Hydro CADD© Modeling program was utilized to analyze the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events using the rational method for determining stormwater run-off and detention requirements. The peak pre-development and post development discharge rates {Q) for each Return Period are provided in Appendix A. The results reflect that the Post-Development Discharge Rates are less than the Pre-Development Discharge Rates for each storm event analyzed and there is no breach of the pond during a 100-year event. Retention Pond Outlet Control Structure and Water Quality Pond 1 is a detention pond designed to hold water at a minimum depth of 4 feet below normal pool elevation. This is done to meet the 80% removal requirement of total suspended solids (TSS) by the City of Fairhope. The treatment volume provided within the normal pool volume of pond 1 is 15,806 CF. This is being used to provide water quality treatment for 1.17 acres of internal ROW and the developable areas of lots 1-3 {2.55 acres). The required treatment volume for the 1.17 acres of ROW {considering 70% coverage) is 5,290 CF. The required treatment volume for the 2.55 acres of developable areas on lots 1-3 {considering 80% site coverage and reduction for 60% TSS removal by the proposed dry detention pond) is 3,128 CF. Total water quality required for the referenced 3.72 acres {as calculated above) is 8,418 CF; less than what is provided by pond 1. Pond 1 is located on the south side of the development. Pond 1 has a normal pool of 109 feet and berm elevation of 115 feet. The internal side slopes of the pond are 3:1. Pond 2 is located at the north end of the development. Pond 2 has a bottom of 108 feet and a berm height of 115 feet and does not retain water below normal pool depth. This is because Pond 2 discharges to the large retention pond in the NE corner of the site, which will provide the 80% TSS removal required. The treatment volume provided within the normal pool volume of the NE pond is 146,062 CF. This is being used to provide water quality treatment for the 1.08 acres of internal ROW and the developable areas of lots 4-10 {6.57 acres). Total water quality required for the referenced 7.65 acres (considering 80% site coverage and reduction for 60% TSS removal by the proposed dry detention pond(s)) is 8,059 CF; less than what is provided by the NE Pond. The Outlet Control Structures for all ponds consist of concrete box structures with slotted weirs along one side and weir openings at the top. Details of the outlet structures are provided on the plans. Table 1 provides the peak discharges for post developed flow compared to the pre-developed flow for each storm interval for Pond 1. Table 2 provides the peak discharge comparison for Pond 2. Table 1: POND 1 DISCHARGE Pre Post Storm Deve lopment Development Total Frequency On-Site from Pond 1 "Q" "Q" (cfs) (cfs) 2 yr 6.6 6.1 5 yr 7.9 7.3 l0yr 9.1 8.3 25 yr 10.7 9.8 50yr 11.9 10.9 l00yr 13.2 12.1 Table 2: POND 2 DISCHARGE Pre Post Storm Deve lopment Development Total Frequency On-Site from Pond 2 "Q" "Q" (cfs) (cfs) 2 yr 10.0 9.4 5 yr 12.0 11.4 l0yr 13.7 13.2 25 yr 16.0 15.5 50yr 17.9 17.4 l00yr 19.8 19.4 As shown i n Tab le 1 and Table 2 above, the sto r mwat er detent ion ponds w i ll deta i n stormwate r r unoff from t he deve loped site w ith a contro l led discharge rat e l ess t han the d ischarge rate p ri or t o deve lopment fo r each st o r m ret u rn pe ri od . Stormwater Collection and Conveyance System The Sto r mwate r Co ll ectio n and Conveyance System i s show n on the as bu i lt plans. The syste m has been designed to ca r ry the 25-yea r sto r m event. Des ign ca lculations fo r th is have been p r ev ious ly approved. 1 '-,,•,,~1 -,JI -~ ! (_ ~ . . ,-. , ') ,. < -<.~-' t ,... ' ,. --~ .... . - ' . r:-✓ ~· 2 . \ ,. .) ' W' ·v I J ,-: ,J _.l • • ~ • \. , ,. . • > "?"Z --,· ·, ) t_, ~ -, '. r I • , , .. \ . .> ··.r·'r · I'".' > ). j , .•J I .. "'\ •• 1)'",·, ._;, ... '. . ,... .. ',. ) '• I t 1 , J( • ! t -) • -, J. . r ' . J., -.. -·~ " ( . .... '-. .' j • . ... , ., ., (S;AWGRASS ROCKWELL PLACE COMMUNITY MEETING MINUTES Date: Location: Time: Attendees : July 15, 2024 3 C ircle C hurc h South Campus 5:15 p.m, Tim La w l ey, Sawgrass Ethan Ivey, Sawgrass Tom Mitchell, Rockwell Jene lle Fe rn and ez Aaro n Seims Dowe Li ttleton Wafers Tim Lawley, Sawgrass opened the m eeting at 5:20 p.m. and welcomed attendees. Tim La wley g ives brief desc ript i on of the project. He then opens the floor fo r questi o n s. Dowe asked anti ci p ated start date tor a ny const ru cti on. Tim responded with Sawgrass will be s ubmitting to t h e City on July 23 which w ill put Rockwell on the September Planning Commission Agenda, i deally get approved September or October. At that point lots could be so ld and it would likely take a minimum of 3 -4 months of add itio n al t i me b efore any construction could b eg in . Dowe asked about lighti ng, street lighting, add itiona l lighting. Ti m respo nd ed that n o additional light ing is proposed at this t ime (other t h an t he street lights along th e internal roadways). Li ght in g for individual lots w ill be reviewed up on site plan approval. Dowe asked w hen w ill apa rt m e nts h ave occupants? Tom Mitc hell rep lied at the end of September, at t he earliest. Dowe asked about any water impacts o n t h e west si de of Highway 181 . Tom Mitchell states th er e w ill b e no impact of the water across the roa d. Tim explained most of the drainage (with the excepti o n of a s ma ll area at t h e m a in ent rance) on this site drains back t o th e east. Jenelle asks for clarificatio n of the 10-lot si te locati o n . Tim clarified a nd showed on plan s. Tim thanks attendees for comin g and meeting en ds at 5:28 p.m. Sherry Sullivan Mayor Council Members: Kevin G, Boone Jay Robinson Jack Burrell, ACMO Jimmy Conyers Corey Martin Lisa A. Hanks, MMC City Clerk Kimberly Creech Treasurer 1 61 North Section St. PO Drawer 429 Fairhope, AL 36533 251 -92 8-2136 (p) 251-928-6776 (f) www.fairhopeal.gov JuJy 19, 2024 Sawgrass Consu lting, LLC 202 Government St, Su.ite 225 Mobile, AL 36602 RE: Reg arding your availability request for Rcsubdivision of Lot 1 Rockwell Place , PARC:EL NUMBER 46-01-02-0-000-001.503. Water & Sewer: Based upon review of the proposed resubdiv ison of Lot 1 of Rockwell Place , waler and sewer Fairhope Public Utilities is cwTently available. All tap fees and system development charges (SDC's) wilJ apply, and all necessary infrastructure improvements will be at the developer's expense. Sincerely, AT&T Alabama 2155 Old Shell Rd Mobile, AL 36607 www.att.com T: 251.471.8361 F: 251.471.0410 w.mitchell@att.com December 4, 2023 Tim Lawley Sawgrass Engineering RE: Service Availability – Rockwell Place Subdivision Dear Mr. Lawley, This letter is in response to your request for information on the availability of service at the above location by AT&T. This letter acknowledges that the above referenced property is located in an area served by AT&T. Any service arrangements for this location will be subject to later discussions and agreements between the developer and AT&T. Please be advised that this letter is not a commitment by AT&T to provide service to this location. Please contact me at the phone number included in this letter with any questions. Thank you for contacting AT&T. Sincerely, Wade Mitchell Professional – OSP Design Engineer AT&T Alabama 2155 Old Shell Rd Mobile, Alabama 36607 Gulf District/ Mobile Office R IVIERA U TILITIES 413 E ast Laurel Avenue - Foley, AL 36535 Phone (251) 943-5001 7/19/2024 Tim Lawley Sawgrass, LLC 30673 SGT EI “Boots” Thomas Drive Spanish Fort, AL 36527 RE: Rockwell Place Lot 1 This letter is to confirm based on the site plan received; Riviera Utilities is willing and able to provide electric service to above referenced property . Riviera Utilities requires a 10 ’ easement along all side property lines and a 15 ’ easement along all front and rear property lines. Please ensure all property plats reflect the easements. Upon final design, Riviera Utilities will provide estimates for service fees and system installation requirements to meet all Riviera specifications. Please contact the following Riviera employees concerning costs and requirements. Name Department Email Wes Abrams Electric wabrams@riviera utilities.com If you have any questions or comments, contact Riviera Utilities at 251 -943-5001. Thank you, James Wallace ZC 24.02 - Legends at Point Clear City of Fairhope Planning Commission September 5, 2024 SOUTHLAND BLVD CRAFTSMAN AVE GREENO RDMCCLELLAN BLVDSHARPSBURG AVE BURNSIDE AVE OLD BATTLES RD FLOURNOY WAY MANLEY RDDUNKER AVE GARRISON BLVDKEMPER LNGREENO RDPALE MOON CT MUSKET AVE BARTLETT AVE VIVIAN LOOP GUARISCO LN MCARTHUR LNWRIGHT BLVDCOUNTY RD 34 WRIGHT BLVD PALE MOON CT Road Corporate Limit Parcel Zoning District B-2 HTD PUD R-1 µ µ Project Name: Legends at Point Clear Site Data: 13.80 acres Project Type: Rezone from B-2 to PUD Jurisdiction: Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction Zoning District: B-2 PPIN Number: 39376, 210314 General Location: West side of Greeno Road South, North of Old Battles Road/CR-34 Surveyor of Record: SCorUSA Engineer of Record: SCorUSA Owner / Developer: Steven W. Corbett School District: Fairhope Elementary School Fairhope Middle and High Schools Recommendation: Denial Prepared by: HS and MM 1 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Summary of Request: Applicant, SCorUSA, LLC requests to rezone two (2) parcels of approximately 13.3 acres from B-2 “General Business District” to Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). The development is to be known as Legends at Point Clear and is located at 18323 Greeno Road (South). It is north adjacent to the Publix Shopping Center at Point Clear (B-2) and directly east of Old Battles Village (PUD). Baldwin County residential zoned parcels (RSF-E, RSF-1, and High Density Residential “HDR”) also border the subject property. JADE Consulting, LLC “JADE” is the authorized agent. MOP and Site Plan Review to follow. 2 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD There are eight (8) buildings proposed. There are two (2) commercial buildings facing Greeno Road with a total of 12,400sf. Access is by way of Greeno Road, which is a public paved road and Wright Blvd to the south from the Publix Shopping Center, which is private. A plaza is proposed facing Greeno Road. Buildings 1 and 2 are two-story mixed-use with 23 residential units, ~16,000sf of commercial space, and ~5,000 sf of residential clubhouse. Buildings 3-6 are multi-family residential ranging from 24 to 30 units each and are three stories high. There are 108 residential units proposed in Buildings 3-6. In total there are 131 residential units proposed with 28,579 sf of commercial space. Conceptual Site Plan There is also a multi-use trail proposed that will link Old Battles Village to the Publix. The private trail is proposed to connect to the Burnside Avenue public right-of-way. Much of the trail will be a boardwalk that transects the low area, but will be designed to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and low-speed vehicular traffic. As drawn, the proposed trail transects over private property. Applicant stated that there will have to be easements granted at the Site Plan/MOP review phase. 3 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Additional Comments Phasing Applicant should take measures during the initial phase of development to make sure there is diversity among the residential and commercial components, i.e., the residential units built without any commercial units. Uses Since the development is to be zoned PUD the allowed uses are determined by the Ordinance and Master Development Plan. Applicant is comfortable limiting the uses allowed within the mixed-use and commercial units in the Legends at Point Clear PUD. For example, there is a plaza on the conceptual site plan between the commercial outparcels that is an open public (civic) space that should be an enjoyable gathering place not beside an automotive repair/service garage at a commercial lot. If approved, Staff would recommend alterations to the proposed uses as stated below. Greenspace Greenspace is provided by way of a plaza between the strictly commercial buildings, courtyards in front of Buildings 3 and 4 (including around a pool in front of Building 3), and a park type of greenspace in the rear. The Applicant states 3.3 acres are required to achieve the minimum 25% greenspace requirements. The Applicant’s Greenspace plan illustrates 3.95 Acres of Greenspace, Staff calculated eligible items to equate to 3.4 acres IF the courtyards front public rights-of-way. It is important to note the street frontage types shown on the plan are requirements of the Village Districts or Table 4-2 and are not Greenspace types. Greenspace may be further impacted by the results of the third-party environmental review. Eligible Greenspace Connectivity and Buffers With Publix to the south this project is a logical extension and should emphasize connectivity and walkability. Property to the north is currently zoned residential and buffers are required and accommodated. Old Battles Village lies to the west. A major drainageway lies on the westernmost side of the subject property. While roadway connectivity is always an important goal in 4 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Fairhope, and there is a stub-street available at Burnside Avenue, considerations of natural areas are an exception to the rule. Preliminary plans illustrated the westernmost area as wetlands; however, a further study stated there are no wetlands on the property. Staff has contracted a third-party review to be certain. In any case, pedestrian, bicycle, and even connectivity for low-speed vehicles should be provided at a minimum. The Applicant proposes to accommodate this access by way of wooden boardwalks that span the low areas. Staff received concerns from several residents of Old Battles Village regarding proximity to existing homes. While minimum buffers can be as little as 10’, no building is proposed within 275’ of the western property line. Combined with the common areas in Old Battles Village, no private lot would be within 300’ of a proposed building. Burnside Avenue ‘Stub Street’ Location The current Comprehensive Plan does not prescribe more intense development near this property. However, with the development of the Publix shopping center to the south, the intersection of Greeno Rd and Old Battles Rd is contemplated as a new node, or Suburban Mixed-Use node, within the currently proposed Comprehensive Plan. The new Comprehensive Plan builds on the historic concept of a “Village Node”, but introduces concepts to create places, otherwise known as Place Types. A draft copy of the Suburban Mixed-Use Center is included below. Developments within these identified Centers emphasis walkability, mixed of housing types, blended with commercial uses. 5 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD It is important to note that design guidelines, i.e., “Regulations”, are critical to achieve the desired results from a visionary document like a Comprehensive Plan. Policy must be created to support desired results, which is not yet in place. For example, the summary below illustrates buildings that may be 1-3 stories tall. Current regulations limit buildings to 2 Stories/35’. It is not the intent of the new Comprehensive Plan to allow three stories on all developments for the sole purpose of increasing density, but instead to provide clear guidelines to enhance architectural details. Excerpt of the Suburban Mixed-Use Place Type from the Draft Comprehensive Plan: Parking Per the Parking Schedule (Table 4-3), a mixed-use dwelling unit requires one space per dwelling unit. All other dwelling units require 2 spaces per dwelling unit. Per the Applicant’s Site Data Table, they provided 1 space for each of the residential units. Staff feels this is an incorrect interpretation. While the development itself is a mixed-use development, four (4) of the buildings are solely apartment buildings. Staff recommends each of the 108 units in Buildings 3-6 would require two spaces per dwelling unit. However, because this is a mixed-use development, Staff would support the parking as proposed based on a shared parking agreement where there are no reserved parking spaces for any use. 6 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Street Frontages The proposed project uses the street frontage guidelines of Table 4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Streets must be publicly accessible and future plats must define accessibility and maintenance responsibility. Access to the south is challenging because Wright Blvd is a private road. Architecture Applicant provided an Architectural Narrative that should be implemented throughout the complete build out of the village concept creating active streetscapes and “buildings are designed to create an eclectic mix of small businesses, small scale, pedestrian nature, and a blend of outdoor to indoor integrated into the topography and natural landscapes.” Commercial Buildings Elevations 7 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Proposed Plaza with Commercial Mixed-Use Buildings 8 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Elevation Floor Plans 9 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Multi-Family Residential Buildings Example Elevation Example Floor Plan Current regulations limit buildings to two-stories and 35’. Since height is measured to the mean point of the roof, the roof peak is oftentimes higher than 35’. Staff estimates ridgelines could commonly be approximately 39’. The commercial buildings and mixed-use buildings fall within this range, but the request for 48’ max roof height AND three-stories does not align with current regulations. The Applicant supplied the following cross-section to illustrate the elevation difference throughout the site. 10 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Staff has concerns about creating a precedent for three-story buildings over the prescribed height limits and does not feel that is the only available option. Additional height might be supported in some unique cases, such as increasing greenspace or preserving natural areas above and beyond required minimums. While this project, as currently proposed, meets minimum requirements it does not significantly go above those requirements. Alternatively, Staff questions whether a change in unit types, i.e., replacing 3-bedroom units with 2- or 1-bedrooms units, would allow the Applicant to maintain the same unit counts within a two-story footprint that falls within the height limit. The Applicant may have other options. Article II Section C.1.e Criteria Fairhope’s Zoning Ordinance contains nine (9) criteria by which an application for re-zoning shall be reviewed: (1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; (3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; (4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; (5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions; (6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; (7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; (8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; and, (9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values. The review comments for each criterion are discussed in detail below. (1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; Response: The development was designed with components of the village districts. This intersection was not called out as a potential village opportunity in the 2015-1016 Comprehensive Plan; however, the Publix Shopping Center and later phases of Old Battles Village have created a Suburban Mixed-Use Center opportunity with the city zoned parcels. The City is in the process of adopting a new Comprehensive Plan that points out the Greeno Road and Old Battles Road (County Road 34) intersection (all corners) as a Suburban Mixed-Use Center. The primary land uses for a Suburban Mixed-Use Center are retail, dining, personal and professional services, offices, and a mix of housing types. The different use types are connected by pedestrian friendly streets/sidewalks with usable spaces like the proposed plaza and greenspace(s). This area is largely county zoned. (2) Compliance with the standards, goals, and intent of this ordinance; Response: PUD Planned Unit Development: This district is intended to encourage innovative development that meets comprehensive plan goals and is tailored to the unique constraints and conditions of a particular site. This district allows flexibility in uses, designs, and building layouts as opposed to other zoning districts to better serve community needs. This development appears to meet the definition of a PUD and the intent of this ordinance. 11 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD (3) The character of the surrounding property, including any pending development activity; Response: The surrounding properties are mostly county zoned residential including High Density Residential; thus, a mix of retail/commercial and more residential units with city mandated green and civic spaces and connectivity should complement the surrounding property. (4) Adequacy of public infrastructure to support the proposed development; Response: Public infrastructure is readily available at the Publix development, but final details and associated development costs will be determined during future phases. (5) Impacts on natural resources, including existing conditions and ongoing post-development conditions; Response: Wetlands may be present on the subject property although Applicant has a June 12, 2024, EcoSolutions opinion stating that the potential wetland is a dry drain. See below. Nonetheless, Staff requested an independent 3rd party to assess and delineate the subject property. If wetlands are determined to be present, then appropriate buffers will be required during the development process. A 100’ drainage easement is currently proposed. The City’s 3rd party review may guide more restrictions of this easement/buffer. (6) Compliance with other laws and regulations of the City; Response: At the time of development all applicable laws of the City will be applied. (7) Compliance with other applicable laws and regulations of other jurisdictions; Response: At the time of development all applicable laws will be applied. (8) Impacts on adjacent property including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values; Response: This is a growing Suburban Mixed-Use Center and as such there will be impacts. Details such as traffic will be fleshed out as development begins with a traffic study. The City requires landscaping and screening when incompatible land uses are adjacent. The project has amenities that are available to adjacent properties. (9) Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood including noise, traffic, visible intrusions, potential physical impacts, and property values.; Response: Staff do not anticipate any significant issues relating to these criteria. A traffic study will be required. All required buffers and setbacks will apply to address any concerns. The project will be thoroughly reviewed as development takes place. There will be a MOP and Site Plan Review following this initial rezoning case that will take a deeper dive into all impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 12 ZC 24.02 Legends at Point Clear Rezoning B-2 to PUD Conclusion and Recommendation The ‘new’ comprehensive plan is still a draft and currently under review. If approved, design guidelines that are incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance will be critical. In this case, the buildings have been designed and the architecture can be reviewed. Staff feels this can be evaluated, but current regulations, even within the Village Centers would limit buildings to two stories 35’. Without design guidelines, we hesitate to make a positive recommendation for this project fearing a precedent for future projects but do acknowledge there are many positives found within this proposed plan. Baring unforeseen results of the third-party environmental review, Staff would recommend approval of the project as proposed if all buildings were two-stories 35’. However, there seems to be no gain from the additional height/story of the four buildings other than additional/larger units. Due to the height, in particular, we must recommend denial. Recommendation: Staff recommends Denial of ZC 24.02 to rezone PPINS: 39376 and 210314 from B-2 “General Business District” to Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) and to be known as Legends at Point Clear with the following condition(s): 1. Building Heights of Buildings 3-6 Application For: PUD Rezoning Request For Legends at Point Clear A Planned Unit Development August20,2024 Applicant: SCorUSA, LLC P O Box 1609 Pheni." City, AL 36868 Prepared by: DE ONSULTING 208 G reeno Road North, Suite C Post Office B ox 1929 Fairhope, Alabama 36533 T elephone: 251 -928-3443 • Fax: 251 -928.3665 Pla nn ing Aug ust14,2024 Page2 5. Provide a sect ion detail of t he m ulti-use trai l. A boardw alk w as mentioned in the meeti ng . Response: An example of the proposed multi-use board walk has been provided. The final design included all required structural details to ensure the structure meets all applicable building code will be provided during site plan approval. 6. Provide profile sect ions to show height. Response: Diagrammatic site section provided. 7. Req u ired upgrades to lift station on Old Battles Road is likely. TBD by the Sew er Department. Response: Noted. We look forward to working with city utility staff for more information about these requirements. Respectfully , JADE CONSUL TING, LLC Paul Marci nko Proj ect Manager Enclosure PM \mp From:Mary Pat Gallagher To:planning Subject:ZC 24.02 Rezone of 18323 Greeno Road Date:Sunday, August 25, 2024 1:41:58 PM Good Afternoon Ms. Beaudreau and team, I understand that there is a request to re-zone 18323 Greeno Road to allow building of a multi family, or apartment, complex there. I live in Old Battles Village, the neighborhood behind this lot, and I have a few concerns that I hope you could address? If approved, how would the new multi family complex effect the traffic, water infrastructure (especially considering recent years of water restrictions), sewers; and what plans and budgets are in place to mitigate these effects? Also, how do all of these recent multi-family projects affect our schools, their budgets and their ability to continue providing a quality education? What plans are in place to increase the police and fire departments to better serve a more dense population and how is that to be budgeted? Our prior town experienced very fast growth (with a significant increase in apartments over single family homes) that had a negative effect on the community as a whole. Crime increased, traffic (congestion and safety) became a problem, our schools experienced overcrowding, water was restricted every summer, infrastructure (bridges and roads) wore out and were costly to repair. But more than all of that, our community became just another suburb and most of the locals moved away. I know from experience that overbuilding apartments has a negative impact on a community and I am concerned that we have smart growth plans in place so that Fairhope grows in a healthy, planned manner that can be maintained long term. Thank you so much for your help. Kind regards, Mary Pat Gallagher 617 Sharpsburg Ave. Fairhope Sent from my iPhone From:Brad Illingworth To:planning Cc:Jessica Illingworth; Brad Illingworth Subject:Case ZC24.02: Rezone 18323 Greeno Road from B-2 to PUD Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:11:51 PM August 27, 2024 Regarding Case ZC24.02 Request: Rezone 18323 Greeno Road from B-2 to PUD To whom it may concern: At a minimum, we urgently request you do not connect the proposed apartment complex with the Old Battles neighborhood! Connecting will negatively impact our property values! In addition, I request you leave as large of tree buffer as possible between the houses on McArthur Lane and the proposed apartment complex! We respectfully challenge this development! wequestion the following: A- The capability of Fairhope’s infrastructure (utilities, etc) to support the impact of this development B- The proposed development is a lack of alignment with Fairhope’s long standing pride and draw to single family homes (and not ‘apartments’) C- The data demand for more apartments with existing volume already in development (note the large apartments being constructed at 104 and 181) D- The workforce and labor demand within Fairhope does not support the demand for such a development Sincerely, Brad and Jessica Illingworth 662 McArthur Lane Sent from my iPhone From:2516435085@mms.att.net To:planning Date:Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:13:37 AM We were planning on attending the meeting on the 5th, but now will be unable to. We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed development known as Legends at Point Clear and especially our opposition to Burnside becoming a thru street. Dale and Julie Roark 667 McArthur Lane From:greg_marx@comcast.net To:planning Cc:"mary marx" Subject:Rezoning 18323 Greeno Rd Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:44:12 AM Dear Cindy, We have concerns about the new zoning for an additional 133 apartment units. We are a small community that also has an HOA and if this new development should be developed Burnside street could become an access for residents for the apartment complex. This could possibly be an additional 200 vehicles going through our neighborhood. Since we are an HOA and pay monthly fees, this gives us skin in the game. The vehicles using our neighborhood for access have no skin in the game. Our speed limit is 20 mph, and I am in fear that the speed limit will not be obeyed. We have many children who ride their bikes and will be in danger of possibly getting injured. I am currently researching the possibilities of having HOA making OBV a gated community. Please reconsider what is best for our community and children. Thanks Greg Marx 901-361-0807 655 McArthur Lane From:PETER OLESKY To:planning Subject:Opposition to 18323 Greeno Rd PUD Date:Sunday, August 25, 2024 4:11:45 PM I am writing in reference to 18323 Greeno Rd request for rezoning B2 to PUD. I live in Old Battles Village (OBV) and I suspect they may connect into our streets. The grid that we live in, Old Battles to Twin Beech and Greeno to Section St, already has Old Battles Place apartments and Shellbrooke Pointe apartments. This would be another 133 apartment units on 13.3 acres, already listed on the developers website as “coming soon”, they are pretty confident. Our friends at the county approved more high density residential on that little strip between Publix and Bridgette Mitchell on Old Battles Rd. When the county was making the future land use map they listed the farm fields next to OBV as potential high density residential. I called Matt McKenzie’s office and was told that “we know these folks and they will never sell”. I asked what legal standing that gave me, silence. I can’t find the current future land use map so I don’t know what it says now. Hunter may remember a man who presented more high density residential on Section just south of the Dragonfly going east, turning north to Twin Beech near the Shellebrooke Apts. I think that the man said it was going to emulate an alpine village, little cottages built on top of each other. Call it what you like, it’s just more high density residential. I didn’t want that Publix and most of the neighbors didn’t either but I think that it was unzoned county and there were no options. The once or twice I go to Publix in a week I can drive up to the O.G. Publix. Everything that has been built or approved since OBV was approved is commercial or high density. This is not the fruit and nut or the CBD but people are trying. I understand that land values are making it difficult for developers. That’s not our problem, it’s a problem for the land owners and the developers. Negotiate a different deal that considers the density at under 10 units per acre. The county gave more density to the developer on the land across from the Newton School on 32, Matt was the only no vote. I thought that the initial density was generous to a fault. More density can’t be the answer to every zoning issue but, that’s what the developers think. OBV used to be what the city wanted future development to look like but now we are being surrounded by things that look nothing like OBV. I also have some thoughts on B2 that includes RV parks. That’s not good either, people are buying these RV’s, bringing them to the RV park on a drive out tag and living in them. RV parks should be in R6 or provide proof on length of stay under 90 days. Peter Olesky 929 Charleston Loop Fairhope 470-351-7102 From:ChristineWeeks To:planning Subject:Case ZC 24.02, rezone 18323 Greeno Road from B-2 to PUD Date:Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:25:55 PM Fairhope Planning Commission, My husband and I live in the Old Battles Village neighborhood and received a letter regarding the rezoning of 18323 Greeno Road from B-2 to PUD. While we do not necessarily object to the rezoning of the property known as 18323 Greeno Road, we would like to express our concerns about how this development could impact our neighborhood. We would strongly urge you to have the developer keep as many trees as possible as a buffer from the new development and our neighborhood. We would also ask that no through street be constructed into our neighborhood to attach the development to our neighborhood. Also, there is a portion of the dry creek, Point Clear Creek, that runs behind our neighborhood but is also part of the parcel in question. Will the developers be granted permission to build on the dry creek or is that protected property? Thank you for your consideration to our concerns. As new residents to Fairhope and to the State of Alabama, we are hopeful to continue to enjoy our new home and community in the way we purchased it. Guy and Christine Weeks 651 McArthur Ln. Fairhope, AL 36532 this parcel to be considered an ephemeral stream . The area off site, south of the subject parcels, does have consistent bed and bank so it meets the definition of ephemeral stream see attached maps. The site is in the Point Cleai· Creek watershed and historic USGS Topo maps do show a solid blue line through the site. The unnamed tributaiies in the upper reaches of the Point C lear Creek watershed have been impacted by development. Off site, north of these parcels, is a grass yard with no bed or bank characte1istics. The unnamed t1ibuta1y shown on the topo maps to n01th and west of the pai·cels is now a sto1m water detention basin, chy culve1t under Ganison Blvd, and grass swale in the Old Battles Village subdivision. The ch·ainage area to the n01th of the site does not meet the definition of ephemeral stream ai1d is not connected to any sti·eams north of the site in the Point C lear Creek watershed. No areas within the two parcels meet the ephemeral criteria. All comments are based on the professional judgment of the inspector and the conditions that existed on the site at the time of the inspection. Please give u s a call at 251-621-5006 or email Lewis@ecosolutionsinc .net if you have any questions or need any additional info1mation. Best regai·ds, -~~ Lewis Cassidey EcoSolutions, Inc . Stream Assessment of PPINs: 39376 & 210314 2