Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1973 Special Meetingrlr r SUPPLEIENT TO 1-1INUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF kFAIRHOPE PLAt:NI14G AIM ZONING C0;•: USSION ON ' ~ - 4y ;`• February 19, 1973 G Reasoning behind decisions made by Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission in Dyas e1hite-Spunner and Carlton and Kenneth Niemeyer rezoning applications is supplied as per City.Council request of March 2, 1973. A. Dyas - White-Spuriner request to -rezone from R1 to B2 and B3 1. The present demand for commercial space would not.support the quantity of cow..ercial square footage proposed without undue damage to existing commercial services of the community. 2. This spot zoning request is not in accord with the present development and zoning of the area. 3. Commission members felt it unwise to approve such a major change in the developmental plan of the City without benefit of the new compre- hensive plan presently under study. 4. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent R1 Colonial Acres area and the level of opposition by these residents was a considerable facto.: in the Commission's consideration. Further the Co=ission has recommended denial of this request with the specific point in mind that this land area previously had been studied and designated for R1 use prior to the present applicant gaining control. of land. The Commmission, in conjunction with this recommendation, certainly feels that a review of this matter, after completion of the Comprehensive plan and prompted by a new application, should be entertained. B. Carlton and Kenneth Niemeyer's request to rezone from R1 to R3: 1. It was felt by a majority of the Commission members that rezoning this parcel of land would have a detrimental effect on R1 home sites on the west facing In-leside Street, and the potential home sites in the area to the north. 2. The unusual amount of opposition by 'M ediate adjacent property owners on west and north sides further supported the majority opinion. 3. The proposed development did not allow an R2 buffer zone between the proposed multi -family dwellings and the R1 area. 4. The density of traffic and people into Fairhope Avenue with the proposed traffic flow was felt to be unwise. ' It is hop•�d this response will meet the Council's needs. If there are any further questions, your representatives on the Planning Commission, fir. Nix and Mr. Box, should be able to answer them. JSP/ tcm John S..Parker, chairman 3-23-73 Fairhope Planning & Zoning Cc=ission I ` —art. . a SUPPLEICNT TO IMINUT1ES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF N FAIRHOPE PLADiNING AND ZOVING C0:d,1ISSION ON February 19, 1973 f Reasoning behind decisions made by Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission in Dyas-44hite-Spunner and Carlton and Kenneth Niemeyer rezoning applications is supplied as per City.Council request of March 2, 1973. A. Dyas - White -Spurner request to -rezone from R1 to B2 and B3 1. The present demand for commercial space would not.support the quantity of commercial square footage proposed without undue damage to existing commercial services of the community. 2. This spot zoning request is not in accord with the present development . and zoning of the area. 3. Commission members felt it unwise to approve such a major change in the developmental plan of the City without benefit of the new compre- hensive plan presently under study. 4. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent R1 Colonial Acres area and the level of opposition by these residents was a considerable factor in the Commission's consideration. Further the Commission has recommended denial of this request with the specific point in mind that this land area previously had been studied and designated for R1 use prior to the present applicant gaining control. of land. The Commission, in conjunction with this recorLmendation, certainly feels that a review of this matter, after completion of the Comprehensive plan and prompted by a now application, should be entertained. B. Carlton and Kenneth Niemeyer's request to rezone from R1 to R3: 1. It was felt by a majority of the Commission members that rezoning this parcel of land would have a detrimental effect on R1 home sites on Ike west facing Ingleside Street, and the potential home sites in the tfi area to the north. 2. The unusual amount of opposition by immediate adjacent property owners on west and north sides further supported the majority opinion. 3. The proposed development did not allow an R2 buffer zone between the proposed multi -family dwellings and the R1 area. 4. The density of traffic and people into Fairhope Avenue with the proposed traffic flow was felt to be unwise. It is hop•,d this restonse will meet the Council's needs. If there are any further l.,. questions, your representatives on the Planning Cormission, I'ir. Nix and I.:r. Box, should be able to answer them. i JSP/ tc:n 3-23-73 John S..Parker, chairman Fairhope Planning & Zoning Connission ......Y n — — — EE ,f 0 I - Ei L� tom. SUPPIMENT TO iffNUTES OF SPECIAL METING OF � y FAIRHOPE PLAD NING AND ZONING C01-11ISSION ON Jr February 19, 1973 ti, CI Reasoning behind decisions made by Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission in Dyas-White-Spunner and Carlton and Kenneth Niemeyer rezoning applications is supplied as per City Council request of March 2, 1973. A. Dyas - White-Spunner request to•rezonp from R1 to B2 and B3 1. The present demand for commercial space would not support the quantity of commercial square footage proposed without undue damage to existing commercial services of the community. 2. This spot zoning request is not in accord with the present development and zoning of the area. 3. Commission members felt it unwise to approve such a major change in the developmental plan of the City without benefit of the new compre- hensive plan presently under study. 4. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent R1 Colonial Acres area and the level of opposition by these residents was a considerable factor in the Commissions consideration. Further the Co -mission has recommended denial of this request with the specific point in mind that this land area previously had been studied and designated for R1 use prior to the present applicant gaining control_ of land. The Commission, in conjunction with this recommendation, certainly feels that a review of this matter, after completion of the Comprehensive plan and prompted by a new application, should be entertained. B. Carlton and Kenneth Niemeyer's request to rezone from R1 to R3: 1. It was felt by a majority of the Commission members that rezoning this parcel of land would have a detrimental effect on R1 home sites on the west facing Ingleside Street, and the potential home sites in the area to the north. 2. The unusual amount of opposition by immediate adjacent property owners on west and north sides further supported the majority opinion. 3. The proposed development did not allow an R2 buffer zone between the proposed multi -family dwellings and the R1 area. 4. The density of traffic and people into Fairhope Avenue with the proposed traffic flow was felt to be unwise. It is hop -id this response will meet the Council's needs. If there are any further "r questions, your representatives on the Planning Commission, I-1r. Nix and Mr. Box, should be able to answer them. JSP/ tcm 3-23-73 • John S..P4rker, chairman Fairhope Planning & Zoning Commission tr