Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1973 Regular MeetingFAIRHOPE PLANNING AND ZONNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 5, 1973 The Fairhope Planning and Zonning Commission met in regular session at the City Administration Building, 387 Fairhope Avenue, Monday, November 5, 1973 at 5:00 P. M., with the following members present: Chairman John Parker, Mayor James P. Nix, Mr. Jack Kirk, Dr. Pierce Fredrick, Mr. Chester Billie, Mr. Cecil Pitman, Mr. Ray Gibson, absent: Councilman Sam Box and Mr. Harford Fields. Minutes of previous meeting approved. First order of business was Public Hearing on rezoning from R-1 to R-3; property located on Greeno Road North of Lams Trailer Park, to be used for apartments or condominiums. Applicants being Frances G. and Charles R. Mc Cully. Mr. Leonard Smart being the agent for the Mc Gullys, stated that the plans had not been received and asked for a delay. A motion was made by Ray Gibson, seconded by Jack Kirk that hearing be held on this at the next monthly meeting, December 30 1973, with additional advertising for this new hearing date. Next order of business was Public Hearing on rezoning from R-1 & R-2 to R-3, lots 7, 8, 16, 17, 6 18, Block 12, Volanta. Property fronts on Grand and Gayfer between Bon Secour on East and Section Street on West. Applicant: Glen Keene, Agents Wilson & Yeager: Mr. Wilson explained .that Ladner & Company, were going to build two buildings with one bed- room apartments and three buildings with two bedroom apartments, all electric. The rental to start at $120.00 per month. The buildings are to be set back 55' from the street and parking for apartments are to be in square formed by buildings, thus no "on street parking". Grounds are to be landscaped and maintained by Ladner Company. Twenty four persons within 300' limit were in attendance and all agreed that they did not want the Commission to allow this complex to be built. After discussion by Commission members, a motion was made by Mayor -Jim Nix and seconded by Ray Gibson that the Commission recommend to the .City Council that this application be denied. Motion passed unaniously. The reasons for denial being: (1) The basic characteristics of the neigh- borhood have not been subject to substantive changes. Basically, the area maintains a single-family characteristic and should continue to ex- hibit the same posture. (2) The requested change in zone would alter the population density pattern and thereby increase the load on public facilities, such as streets, schools, parks, sewers, water, etc. (3) It is possible that a change which would permit multiple -family dwellings to be located in the area would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. (4) It is the Commissions considered opinion that a change of zoning in this area ,will constitute a grant of special I I S - 13 privilege to an individual as contrasted to the general welfare. (5) Finally, there are no substantive reasons which appear to be evident that the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning. Claude Arnold presented for approval application for Subdivision by Vincent and Viola Gregorius which is outside the City limits. Motion by Ray Gibson, seconded by Pierce Fredrick that final approval be given if a 35' setback be indicated and the County Health Department grant approval for use of septic tanks on lots. Motion passed. A motion was made by Ray Gibson, seconded by Cecil Pitman that a new B-4 District be recommended to the City Council with the understanding that 'Rise Regulations" section of amendment be stated by South Alabama Regional Planning as to lot size, maximum height for buildings, etc. John Parker opposed. Motion passed. Carlton Niemeyer came before the Commission with a request that Parcel B of the Dyes property pending rezoning application be restated as B-4, and be resubmitted. If denied the Council will hear original application. After discussion a motion was made by Ray Gibson and seconded by Chester Billie that the Council hear the amended application with the inclusion of the B-4 section, Cecil Pitman opposed. Motion passed. Cecil Pitman made a motion that the Commission recommend to the City Council that an Amendment to Zoning Ordinance be passed disallowing rezoning applications for the same parcel of land within twelve months of last application, unless in the Commissions judgment, there is mat- erial change to warrant a more frequent rehearing. Motion seconded by Pierce Fredrick. Motion passed. Chairman Parker reported that about 350 questionairs out of the 1000 that had been sent out are returned. The Commission decided to turn question- aires over to Regional Planning Board and requested a draft form by the end of 1973 at the latest. Chairman Parker reported to the Commission that Mr. Pruitt had caught a major error in the S.A.R.P.C. review of the Building Permit requested for the 21 apartment project on Fairhope Avenue of J. V. Cummings, etal. Y Mr. Pruitt submitted a corrected opinion stating the Zoning Ordinance of the City would not allow that many residence units on the lot proposed -- -that only 12 apartments were allowed on the given lot under the Ordinance. Upon receipt of this information Chairman Parker reported he informed the City Building Inspector he should not grant a building permit but should inform the applicant and suggest he resubmit plans for the site which met Ordinance requirements. the Building Inspector, at the direction of the Mayor did grant the building permit some 4 days later. Mayor Nix reported p�►'� to the Commission that, in his judgment e C ty had to gram the -hermit �' U based on the Planning Commissions' offie al action of October 13 even though there had been an error on which the action was based. ..... �; _�� �-ate-x...,,,... •__ s -4 Chairman Parker reported that he had received a landscaping plan from the developers of Eastern Shore Shopping Center ( Mitchell Corporation ) along with a letter of review from the Planning Consultant recommending endorsement of the plan with the added feature of low shrubbery plant- ings along the North edge of the shopping center on the Fairhope Avenue frontage. The Chairman was asked to convey this desire and approval to the developer. [a" or Nix reported he instructed the Building Inspector to issue the lding permit for the 21 apartments on Fairhope Avenue as had been roved by the Planning and Zoning C, ission. The Building Inspector Mayor, waited 6 days before issuing the permit for the Chairman of Planning and Zoning Commission to call a Special Meeting to recon- er the application, after no move had been made the City Attorney ised that the City was liable if it didn't issue a building permit, approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Being no further business. to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned. Secreta pro -tern AMA PLANNING COMMISSION TEL. 433.6341 RICHARD D. PRUITT AREA CODE 205 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORMAN J. WALTON. CHAIRMAN J. D. SELLARS. GEN[RAL VICC-CHAIRMAN J. C. DAVIS, JR.. PROJECT RCVI[W VICC-CHAIRMAN W. M. MCGOUGH, S[CR[TARY OBED A. MONK. TR[ASURCR October 16, 1973 Mr. Harmon Stearnes Building Inspector City of Fairhope P. O. Drawer 429 Fairhope, Alabama 36532 Dear Mr. Stearns: Re: Letter of October 12, 1973 - Apartment Development on Fairhope Avenue The letter of October 12, 1973 regarding the above referenced apart- ment development used as a basis for the recommendation the July, 1954, version of the City of Fairhope's Zoning Ordinance. The person conducting the review and submitting the recommendation was unaware that this ordinance was revised and the revision reflected in the January 14, 1963 edition. Therefore, the recommendations submitted in the letter are in error. According to my interpretation of the current ordinance, the proposed apartment development, even though it is being constructed in a B-2 (General Business District) Zone District, would be subject to the provisions of the R-3 Multiple Family District Zone. In this connec- tion, the following conditions would reply: Minimum Front Yard 30 Feet; Minimum Rear Yard 35 Feet; Minimum Side Yard 10 Feet Each Side; Minimum Lot Size I 7,500 Square Feet for the First Unit Plus 2,000 Square Feet for each Additional Unit; Maximum Height 60 Feet or 2-1/2 Stories; Maximum Building Area --permitted to cover lot 30 percent; Off-street parking Spaces Required - One (1) for each Dwelling Unit. i Y. Mr. Stearnes October 16, 1973 Page 2 For example, a 21 unit apartment development would require 47,500 square feet of lot area. Of this total, only 14,250 square feet can be occupied by the buildings. The.remainder should be used for off-street parking, open space and/or similar uses. In view of this situation it is suggested that you contact the developer, and discuss the issue with him. Sincerely, .9 Don Pruitt Executive Director DP/bsg cc: John Parker, Chairman, Fairhope City Planning Commission U/',-,/7 4,P7-S It -It, All 30' 45' » C 3 3 H H s H � I y I I to FAIRHOPE AVE. �r Cl 130. 2' 51.38' ;52.5' ?9� I I ' i I � I N N � N _ 1 IDT 2 LOT 3 1 I I I I I I 130.62' 51.3g• 27. 59 . LOT 4 104.5' Lf p� I Future Population There are a number of ways by which the future population of Fairhope can be projected. The methods used here are set forth in some detail in the following. It should, however, be noted that one method - the cohort survival technique - was not used for several reasons. First, a primary variable in Fairhope is migration; and this is one of the major weaknesses associated with the cohort survival technique. Second, because of its com- plexity and demand on a technicians time or the cost of having it programmed for computer application. The methods used to project population are discussed below with a summary table following. Method 1. "Step -Down". A popular technique used for pro- jecting population for small areas is a step down from larger area populations. This technique ignores the independence of the smaller area, to a large extent, and implies that its population growth is determined by the growth pattern of a larger unit. Technically, the step-down technique consists of deriving the smaller area population level as a function of the larger area projection through a ratio. Thus, -the key elements are the projections of the larger area and the ratio of the smaller area expressed as a percentage of the larger area population. In 1970 Fairhope represented 9.6 percent of the Baldwin County population. Assuming that Fairhope can maintain the same ratio in the future, Table presents population projections through the year 2000 for Baldwin County and the City of Fairhope. The. source note indicates in general terms, where the data for the County originated. At this time, these are the "official"