HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1973 Special Meeting (3)SUPPIFICEW TO MINUTES OF SPECIAL 1EETIUG OF -
F AIRHOPE PLAD.`NING AND ZONING CO:-IIISSION 021
February 19, 1973
t
'1
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 -rezone from R1 to B2 and B3
1. The present demand for commercial space would not support the quantity
of co=ercial square footage proposed without undue damage to existing
commercial services of the co=unity.
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 Co -mission has recommended denial of this request with the
opecifie 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•:d this response will meet the Council's needs. If there are any further
questions, your representatives on the Planning Commission, Mr. Nix and Mr. Box.,
should be able to answer them.
JSP/ tcm
3-23-73
• John S..Parker, chairman
Fairhope Planning & Zoning Go, -,mission
I
M