Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-1953 Special Meeting9 SPECIAL 1EETING FAIRH OPE PLANNING BOARD October 7, 1953 2:00 P. M. Chairman of the Planning Board, It. C. Macon, called a specil meeting for the City Planning, 3oard on October 7, 1953 at 2:00 P. 11. Members present were T. J. Klumpp, Sr., Brad C. Niemeyer, R. C. Macon, T. E. Page, Jno. 6. Huffman, Cecil Pitman, (by proxy) Mr. bacon explained that the purpose of the meeting was to elect a new chairman, inasmuch as Mr. Doyle of the Otate Planning Board had notified the Fairhope Commission that it was illegal to have any member of the City Organization, to serve as Chairman of the Coi.nission. 'Aie name of J. L. Woolley was nominated for the job of Chairman, and a counting of the votes disclosed J. E. VV'Oolley unanimously elected. Meeting Adjourned. IF - QUESTION AND OMMENT: STANDARDS M ZONING CHANGES We have several new councilmen this year, and they have asked if there are recognized rules and standards they can use to evaluate requests for zoning changes coming before them. Do you know of any such stand- ards? As far as we know, there is no single publication giving recognized guides for evaluating zoning changes. In the first place, we will assume that it is understood that zoning changes are brought about by amending the zoning ordinance, not by using variances. The clearest case for changing zoning is in a situa- tion in which the wrong distracting was used from the beginning. The area should not have been zoned that way when the ordinance was adopted. The reason for incorrect zoning may have been bad advice or it may have been undue and improper pressure at the time the ordinance was adopted. A second justification for amendment is that changes have taken place. We see today that we were wrong yesterday. The most obvious example of a need for change for this reason is the necessity of getting rid of the enormous amount of strip commercial zoning so popular in the early years of zoning. Strip zoning came during the days when we thought passing traffic was necessary for business. Now we know that parked automobiles are necessary for business and we see the error of our former ways. Zoning changes may also be dictated because tech- nological change and the change in the individual community build up a demand for a type of land use that we did not provide or provide in the right place. Typical here is the village that grew to become a city and found that it had not provided for an industrial tax base; or a city that had industrial districts served only by rail transportation. Nowadays, factories must have both rail and adequate highway transportation. The older industrial district may have to be abandoned and land formerly earmarked residential or commercial changed to permit industrial use. Frequently we find justification for a change in zon- ing in a peripheral situation. Land lying immediately adjacent to an expanding commercial district may be properly rezoned to allow the commercial district to expand. Often land is needed for off-street parking to serve the adjacent business district. Each situation is unique and must be examined as an individual, new problem. But rarely will the case for change be wholly favorable, with no adverse aspects to discourage it. One of the first things to look at is the supply of land of the new classification in other parts of the city. If a man requests creation of a new commercial district, he should be able to prove that there is not enough commercial land already available, just as well located. The fact that he does not own the other land has no bearing whatsoever on the problem. You can actually rob Peter to pay Paul in this situation. By giving the petitioner new value, you take from present owners of commercial land part of its value. Councilmen should always recognize what a zoning change will; do to the surrounding neighborhood. In most cases they will not be allowed to overlook this, because the neighbors will protest long and loud. They L, must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the change to the community (not to the individual owner) . The councilmen must not forget that changing a zon- ing district may incur additional municipal service costs which they may not be prepared to meet. This is particularly true of a change that increases the den- sity of residential development. They must also recog- nize that their duty is to the whole taxpayer, not just to the portion of the taxpayer that foots the bill for regular municipal services. One aspect we find councilmen most frequently for- get is that the type of development which actually takes place after the zoning change is made may have no resemblance to that represented by the petitioner. The change may be requested to put in a "flower shop," but when the flower shop is built, it sprouts gasoline pumps and grease racks and whirligigs. When you change to a new classification, you authorize every possible use that can be built under that new classifica- tion. The councilmen must also realize that any zoning change sets a precedent. It is.more difficult to resist the second and third requests; soon it becomes impos- sible to turn down any requests. It is not a legal im- possibility, of course, but a moral and political impos- sibility. They should be warned against being swayed by the individual who requests the change. We would .phrase this rule: "Beware of widows and cripples!"' -It is, difficult not to be sympathetic to what seems to be a genuine financial hardship case, especially when pre- sented by a highly articulate lawyer. Widows are par- ticularly effective in getting sites rezoned for filling stations. It is a good rule to require the petitioner to present quite detailed justification for any change he requests. This applies especially to the developer trying to get a site for a shopping center. He is claiming that the city council was wrong to zone the property for, say, residential purposes. It should be zoned for his shop- ping center. Make him prove it! Make him give you an accurate and detailed economic analysis, market analysis and design. A developer stands to make a great deal of money out of a shopping center. He can well afford to spend generously in proving his case. Finally, we would say that councilmen should under- stand that they are not in any way forced to amend the zoning ordinance. Amending the zoning ordinance is a legislative procedure and whether or not they undertake to legislate is entirely at their option. The only exception to this is in the case of an initiative petition coming from the citizens. This is so rare that we don't believe we have ever heard of its being used for zoning change. Talen' from an actual inquiry, and the reply from ASPo's PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE. This article courtesy of: American Society of Planning Officials Newsletter MISCELLANEOUS GAS CITY OF FAIRHOPE FAIRH RECEIVED OF THE SUM OF IN PAYMENT OF $ r N° 283 7-7--b-0ETARS CLERK RECEIVED OF THE SUM OF IN PAYMENT $ v -- MISCELLANEOUS GAS CITY OF FAIRHOPEA N° 282 r 019 DOLLARS CLERK r� n) ".� I u . CITY PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD P , ZA-�bB'Y j��� G 13. _��1�s'8-9370 - 4ASTM-M. ✓ �� - R �:� 2J 8-9251 CECIL PITMAN vcr 53 / 8-8368 8-9201 1 ,� -9511 "N PIERCE FREDER C i _ I K 8-8185 r � / -Z . Lac-rLv I - w 1 J10 kJ f �2� M h oee,6 _ 4 For Councilman, Place No. 2 VOTE FOR ONE For Councilman, Place No. 3 VOTE FOR ONE For Councilman, Place No. 4 VOTE FOR ONE For Councilman, Place No. 5 VOTE FOR ONE R. ROY REYNOLDS ❑ BARNEY SHUL L. HULL ❑ CLEVE K. CROW, SR. ❑ E. DEE ElDEESE JACK A. STIPES ❑ FLORENCE G. THANES ❑ H. G. E]BISHOP LRY G. K ERR ❑ ROBERT M. SCHNEIDER, II o SABOX E. BOX ❑ LAYTON J. OVERSTREET o V. A. El B. DON WIGGINS ❑ r 67 T r ell e �. 12 r �P G r SAMPLE BALLOT a JST TURN SWITCH RIGHT WARNING —YOUR a TO CLOSE CURTAINS ® MARKS MUST BE AND MARK YOUR BALLOT AND SHOWING FOR VOTE LEAVE MARKS ti TO REGISTER SHOWING —/ 00 MY TURN SWITCH LEFT 0 For Mayor VOTE FOR ONE For Councilman, Place No. 1 VOTE FOR ONE i OFFICIAL BALLOT MUNICIPAL ELECTION AUGUST 8, 1972 CITY OF FAIRHOPE ALABAMA R. C. MACON o MORRIS M. NELSNNELSON ❑ DAMES P. NIX ❑ DAVID E. (Ed) ❑ BISHOP MARTHA B. HILL ❑ HB. HOLDER ❑ BARBARA LITTLETON El R. J. (Bob) McARTHUR, JR. o GA A. ❑ SANDELL EDWIN WARLEY MARGARET ANNE MEISELBACH r PETTY CASH CAR FARE DATE POSTAGE \ TELEGRAM NO. S E OFFICE EXPEL CHARGE SHOP EXPEN: (�� 4 ADVERTISING ! ` ENE A EXF EXPENDED FOR {( \ \ FREIGHT/EXPI CARTAGE RECEIVED \ AUTO EXPEN: PAYMENT�\� Si►IIAT STANDARD FOAM 2SS `\,� OTAL STANDA DFOMFOAMS, INC., PNIIA 30, PA. //�,�jjL �C�fG� f Z �/6 FAIRHOPE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL Name of Subdivision: No. of Lots in Subdivision: Name of Owner: Name of -Engineer: Name of Applicant: Telephone Number of Applicant: Date of Application: Names and Addresses of Adjacent Land Owners: Legal description of property is as follows: Business: Home: 4 As described and recorded in Book No. , Page No. , in the records of the Office of the Judge of Probate, Baldwin County, Alabama. There are (are no) restrictive covenants or deed restrictions (which are attached). At- tached is a certified check in the amount of $5.00 per lot for the first 10 lots, $2.00 per lot for each of the next 10 lots and $1.00 per lot for each additional lot made payable to the City of Fairhope, Alabama. Submit 5 copies of application and plat. S igned Name of Applicant I F, , ow b II APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY AND FINAI. PLAT REVIEW AND APPROVAL FORM General Requirements Name of Subdivision: Name of Owner(s): Date Submitted: Checked by: Required Number of Copies of Plat Submitted: Topographic Map Required: Yes Location of Subdivision (Section, Range, Township) has Plat been Prepared at the Appropriate Scale: Present Zoning. Classification of Area General Platting Requirements 1. Is the subdivision laid out to conform with the approved master plan of the area? 2. Does the street pattern dis- courage through traffic 3. Do the streets intersect at as nearly 90 degree angles as possible? 4. Are the number of streets converging at one point kept to a minimum? 5. Have provisions been made for principal local streets to be continued in adjacent subdi- visions without creating haz- ardous jogs or angles in the thoroughfare pattern? No Yes No Preliminary Plat Final Plat Yes No Yes No ��� -�. �n� PrelLminary Plat Final Plat Yes No Yes No 6. If cul-de-sacs are shown, do they: a) have adequate turn around facilities? (100 feet diameter minimum) b) remain a conventional length of not more than 600 feet? 7. Are blocks a normal_ size (approximately 1,000 feet in length?) 8. If a block is excessively long (1,200'), has a pedes- trian crossing been provided in the middle of the block? Required Physical Improvements 1. Has due consideration been given by the subdivider re- garding dedication of that portion of land necessary for public use? (school sites, park sites, etc.) 2. Have all necessary easements for utilities been checked to determine whether they meet the requirements of the util- ity company? 3. Have the locations, widths, and other dimensions of pro- posed streets, alleys, lots, easements, and other open spaces been clearly shown? 4. Are all blocks and lots property numbered? 5. Do all streets and courts shown on the plat bear ten- tative names? Pr(�I imiFinal Plat Yes Inc, Yes No 6. list of the names of streets, courts, or boulevards shown on the plat. a. b. c. d. Do any of the tentative names listed conflict with any exist- ing street names? 7. Is the accurate location and description of all monuments clearly shown? (Permanent monuments or natural stone or concrete should be set to fin- ish grade at such critical points as will enable any skilled surveyor to lay out correctly any lot in the subdivision.) 8. Has the length of lines of all lots, the length and bearing of the lines of all streets, alleys, and ease- ments, the length of all arcs, and radii, the points of cur- vature, and the tangent bear- ings in the case of curved lines been checked by the City Street Superintendent? 9. Do all necessary signatures appear on the plat? 10. Is the north point, date, scale, and name of the firm which designed the plat clearly shown? Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Does the zoning classifica- tion of all parcels of land appear on the plat? Preliminary Plat Final Plat Yes No Yes No 2. Are all lots delineated of adequate size to meet the requirements of the appro- priate zoning classifica- tions? 3. Will a performance bond be required? 4. Performance bond set at c Approval Granted 1. Preliminary Plat: 2. Final Plat: List of All Suggested Revisions or Changes 1. 2. 3. 4. FAIRHOPE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL Name of Subdivision: POINT CLEAR VILLA No. of Lots in Subdivision: ------- Name of Owner: Point Clear Villa, Inc. Name of Engineer: PERRY HAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Name of Applicant: Richard A. Boykin, Jr. Telephone Number of Applicant: Business: 4.71-3454 Home: 904-24.4-1108 Date of Application: 7-17-73 P.J. SPotswo_0T_-_17 Blacklawn, Mobile Names and Addresses of Adjacent Land Owners: Dr. C. D. Harrell, 59 N. Secti n St. Legal description of property is as follows: Fairhope, A a. ON ATTACHED SHEET Marvin J. Hopf, Address unknow Mr. Mike Ford is researching r mainder to be presented at Commission eeting. As described and recorded in Book No. , Page No. , in the records of the Office of the Judge of Probate, Baldwin County, Alabama. There are (are no) restrictive covenants or deed restrictions (which are attached). At- tached is a certified check in the amount of $5.00 per lot for the first 10 lots, $2.00 per lot for each of the next 10 lots and $1.00 per lot for each additional 1 t made payable to the City of Fairhope, Alabama. Signed Name of Applicant 1-17-72 Submit 5 copies of application and plat. NOTE: Mr. Don Pruitt advised on 7/16/73 that the fee should be held in abeyance pending the meeting of the Commission on 8/6/73, at whit time the commission would set such fee as required. LEGAL, DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 25, Township 6 South, Range 1 East, Baldwin County, Alabama, run thence S 00-06'-10" E for 1 404.54 feet; run thence West for 652.17 feet; run thence N Ob-04' E for 645.60 feet; run thence West for 254.5 feet to the Eastern right-of-way of Highway 98; run thence N 110-54' E along the Eastern right-of-way of High- way 98 for 773.23 feet; run thence N 890-48'-49" E for 743.5 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said property containing 23.97 Acres. Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 25, Township 6 South, Range 1 East, Baldwin County, Alabama, run thence S 890-48'-49" W for 825.32 feet to the western right-of-way of Highway 98 and the point of beginning; run thence S 110-54' W for 772.96 feet along the western right-of-way of Highway 98; run thence N 880-07'-32" W for 428.0 feet; run thence N 800-03'-25" W for 198.42 feet; run thence N 880-00' W° for 191 feet more or less to the eastern margin of Mobile Bay; run thence in a northern direction along the said margin of Mobile Bay to a point that is S 890-48'-49" W and 871 feet more or less from the Point of Beginning; run thence N 890-48'-49" E for 871 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning. Said property containing 14.48 acres, more or less. d' & i �1J7 �?� 7 C.�,xi`rfoyr y r/ y9-24 legll ---mot 1 %f% /((f V G?��✓ i� / /�/�! i y 1 FAIKHOPE TITLE & SURVEV CO. INC. Y 100 NORTH BANCROFT STREET EN616ER FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36532 CLAUDE W. ARNOLD DIAN STITT ARNOLD CURTIS M. ARNOLD PRESIDENT SECRETARY GEN. MGR. TELEPHONE 928-9163 July 30,1973 Fairhope City Planning Commission, Fairhope, Alabama. Gentlemen: tie present herewith a subdivision of the Eastern 1/2 of Block 47 of the l a�gnolia Beach Addition to Fairhope, Alabama, and on behalf of the Fairhope Single Tax Corp., request FINAL APPROVAL of this subdivision plat. Preliminary approval was granted, several years ago, on this sub- division. Delay in seeking Final !Approval was caused by the time required to secure the necessary right-of-way property. The Corp. couldn't accept the plat and thereby dedicate the CHESTPIUT STREET right-of-way shown thereon until endorsements releasing the r-o-w property had been secured from the various leaseholders. This was accomplished, finally, recently, and the way is now open for fur- ther progress on the project. Fairhope Single Tax Corporation will clear and grade the Chestnut Street right-of-way, and install sanitary sewer in said street, in accord with already approved plan for this construction. Men this has been accomplished, the Corp. will request that the street be placed on paving program for next Municipal Paving Venture, the Corp. to pay, in cash, when due, the full amount of the paving assessment resulting from this project, against lands owned by the Corp. abutting said street. This "Subdivision" represents existing Leasehold ownerships, as the leaseholds have existed over a period of many years, and as they were established prior to Fairhopets adopting Subdivision regulations, EXCEPT as to the changes caused by the establishment of Chestnut street : and the only changed caused by the provision of this street was to shorten the E-11 dimensions of the lots that will face on the street when it is opened. The fact that these leaseholds have been un-recorded and un-mapped over the past many year's has caused a great deal of confusion and difficulty. Final Approval is sought at this time primarily for the purpose of getting this area correctly mapped and recorded: The Planning CommisSiont s Final Approval will be appreciated. Yours very truly, FAIRHOPE TITLE & SURVEY CO-, INC., by: ABSTRACTS OF TITLE - LAND SURVEYING - ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE