Developers present Colony Village concept; neighbors raise traffic, runoff and density concerns

Developers presented an informal concept plan for a 148-acre project called Colony (referred to in materials as Colony Village) and asked the Fairhope City Planning Commission for guidance on design and zoning options on Oct. 6. The session was an informal review — not a public hearing — and the commission took no regulatory action.

Christian Pruis, a landscape architect with CPLA representing the project team, described the proposal as a “traditional neighborhood” that would emphasize green infrastructure, preserved wetlands and a connected network of parks and trails. He said the plan includes a mix of product types — townhomes with rear alleys, cottage lots, manor lots and estate lots — and that over a third of the site would be preserved as civic green space. “We are fronting the homes on the majority of the green spaces, utilizing rear loaded alleys and really making it intentional how every home is oriented,” Pruis said.

Pruis and his team said they are pursuing design solutions to treat stormwater on-site and to use wetlands and restored corridors as amenities rather than constraints. He described a three-acre civic park, a greenway spine, pocket parks, dog parks and a splash pad; the team said they have not completed engineering and the plan is still conceptual.

Residents and nearby homeowners used the commission’s annual public forum to press developers and staff on traffic, stormwater and density. Ben Gould, a Verandas resident, mapped the proposal against existing nearby lot sizes and said the proposed 432 homes would be incompatible with surrounding estate lots and could worsen runoff into the Pensacola branch and Weeks Bay. “When they cover that thing in asphalt and concrete and rooftops, all that water is gonna go right down into the Verandas and into the Fish River and into Weeks Bay,” Gould said.

Several speakers raised related technical concerns. Bobby Shumake urged the commission to consider cumulative runoff from multiple nearby projects and provided planning-level estimates that, if accurate, would increase runoff by 20–50% and peak flows by up to three times for certain storm events. Peggy Wilson, citing Baldwin County school-system data, said rapid regional growth has already strained schools; she relayed county figures showing large numbers of active subdivisions and said Baldwin County is seeking land in Fairhope for another elementary school.

Commission feedback and public comments focused on three recurring topics: - Density and character: Commissioners and residents said the proposed mix of narrow cottage lots and denser townhome areas appeared out of scale with adjacent three-acre estate lots in parts of the Verandas. Commissioners asked for clearer pattern-book standards and for a demonstration that public amenities would be exceptional enough to warrant smaller lot sizes. - Stormwater and wetlands: Staff and residents urged that any development show how stormwater would be managed on-site and avoid sending untreated runoff into the Pensacola branch and Weeks Bay. Developers said they favor low-impact development and green infrastructure, and they plan to preserve more than one-third of the acreage as civic green space (the project team later clarified approximately 51 acres of preserved/amenity space within the 148 acres). - Connectivity and services: Speakers asked about pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby nodes, the 104/181 intersection, emergency access and whether retail or civic uses would be present to support walkability. Commissioners noted that walkable traditional neighborhoods tend to succeed when there is a place to walk to beyond houses (shops, restaurants or community facilities).

Commissioners offered process- and zoning-focused guidance. Staff said the city currently lacks a tailored PUD/Traditional Neighborhood District that easily permits the mix of product types shown; commissioners encouraged the applicant to document the public benefits of smaller lots (pattern book, public amenities, stormwater performance) and to seek a zoning mechanism that provides clear standards for setbacks, lot widths and alley use. Commissioners suggested preparing a pattern book with building materials, setbacks, garage locations and parking standards to provide the “teeth” that ensures the conceptual visuals are replicated in built form.

No formal votes were taken. The applicant left the meeting with staff and commission feedback and was invited to refine the plan, provide engineering-level drainage information and propose specific zoning or PUD standards to allow the mix of housing types.

What neighbors emphasized Neighbors repeatedly raised traffic at the State Highway 104 / Highway 181 corridor, emergency access and on-street parking; several speakers described morning peak traffic congestion on 104 and questioned how several hundred new households would be accommodated. Multiple residents asked that school impacts be considered; one speaker cited county estimates of students expected from nearby developments.

Next steps Because this was an informal review, there is no required action. Developers said they have tabled a formal PUD application in the past while they revise plans; staff and commissioners requested a more detailed engineering package (drainage, utilities, right-of-way sections), a pattern book for architecture and clearer demonstration of public benefits if reduced lot sizes are sought.