Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-1978 Regular MeetingFAIRHOPE PLANNING AND ZOND4G COMMISSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting i The Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Monday, June 5, 1978 at 5:00 pm, at the City Administration Building with Chairman John Parker presiding. The following members were present: Leona Newman, Sam E. Box, E.J. Kirk, Dr. William Workman, and Cecil Pitman.. The following members were absent: Mayor James P. Nix, Hartford Field, and Dr. Pierce Fredricks. The minutes of the May 1, 1978 meeting werelapproved. The first item on the agenda was the applications of Olympia Corte Dyas for zoning changes as follows: I'.CEM A. - R-4 Low Density Multi -Family Residental District and R-1 Low Density Single Family Residental District to B-4 Business and Pro- fessional District for the acreage situated on the north side of U.S. Highway 98 Business Route at the intersection of Baldwin County No. 11. The subject property fronts on the north side of U.S. 98 Business Route which is the major route providing access to the north section of the City. The terrain of this parcel is exemplified by the land that slopes toward the highway. According to the application, the owner intends to construct an office complex on this property. ITEM B. - R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential Development to Rom+ —Low Density Multi -Family Residental Development for the property located on the north side of Alabama Highway 104 approximmtely 350 feet east of the intersection of the intersection of U.S.- Highway 98 Business. Route, Section Street and Baldwin County No. 11 This parcel is densely wooded with rolling terrain. It is situated across Alabama Highway No 104 from Colonial Acres Subdivison. This applicant intends to construct an apartment complex on the property. ITEM C. - R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential District to B-1 Local Shopping District for an acreage parcel flanked by U.S. Highway 98 (4 lane) on the east and U.S. Highway 9,8 Business Route on the North. This parcel is also densely wooded with terrain sloping in a northerly direction towards U.S. 98 Business Route. The character of improve- ments to be constructed on this property consists of a proposed shopping center. According to the application it is the owners intent to begin construction by August this year. I ITEM D. - R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential Development to B-4 Business and Professional District for the property located on the north side of Alabama Highway 104, extending in a westerly direction for approximately 1,230 feet from the northwest corner of Alabama Highway 104I and U.S. 98 (4 lane) . This parcel is situated across Alabama Highway 104 from Colonial Acres Subdivision. The proposal reflects an office complex to accommodate business and professional service to be constructed on the property. Fairhope Planning and Zoning Cammission minutes for dune 5, 1978 page 2 Carlton Niemeyer was present to represent Olympia Corte Dyas in the presentation of the applications. Norborne Stone was present as legal counsel for the applicant. Also present were many concerned property owners with the majority opposing these zoning changes. Chairman John Parker asked Mr. Niammeyer to present each application separately and clearly define to the group what is proposed in each case so that the group can see the entire picture of the development proposal of this area, before Commission action. Carlton Niemeyer then explained each parcel and its intended use. Norborne Stone address the Commission asking then M to consider if the regulations and restrictions on s. Dyas, Property as they now exist have a reasonable relationship_ to one)public health; two) public safety; three) public morals; four) general welfare:of the City of Fairhope. Don Pruitt, representing the South ALabama Regional Planning Commission stated that in a joint public hearing of the Fairhope City Council and Planning Camiision January 5, 1976 at 7:00 pm an application similar to the one under consideration was processed. Subsequent to the proposal being presented by Mr. Niemeyer and hearing testimony of those in attendance for and against the proposed changes in zoning, the Planning Camuission recommended to the Council that the petitioner's requests be denied for the following reasons. 1. The commerical development such as another shopping center would j the economic health of our now progressive shopping district. 2. The commerical development such as another shopping center would require that this extremely high and rolling and wooded property would have to be denuded and bulldozed down to near level with the highway, and thus at th primary entrance to our City create a veritable eyesore and be a'detrimen to the quiet residential character of the commbmnity. 3. Any development other thai low density residential wouldhurt the property value of the high grade residential community, Colonial Acreas, immediate across Highway 104 4. The property with its wooded and rolling topography lends itself to the very kind of residential development with access to lots by way of inter drives, that the applicant has laid out for her property on U.S. 98 just north of the CIty Limits. 5. The rezoning application is a drastic departure from the recently develo comprehensive plan for Fairhope's land use and would nullify several of major tenets of this Plan. 6. This commerical development would Great strip commerical zoning on the two major traffic ways serving Fairhope, thus jeopardizing the princial function of these roadways, i.e., to support vehicular traffic. Observations indicate that conditions in Fairhope and the surrounding vicinity have not changed substantially since the applicant's last request for a change in for the parcels currently under petition. As such, a consisten- determination regarding this application should prevail. II. FAIRHOPE PLANNING AND ZONING COn4ISSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting page three After a show of hands, representing both the property owners within three hundred feet and those residing within the corporate City limits, with the majority opposing the re -zoning changes the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission made the following recommendations: Nbtion made by Leona Newman, seconded by Dr. TJilliam Workman to recommend that the City Council deny the request for rezoning on ITEM A. Motion carried unanimously with six votes. Motion made by Leona Newman, seconded by Dr. William Workman to recommend that the City Council deny the request for rezoning on IT-01 B. Motion carried unanimously with six votes. Motion made by Leona Newman, seconded by Dr. William, Workman to recommend that the City Council deny the request for rezoning of ITEM C. Motion carried unanim. usly with six votes. Motion made by Sam Box, seconded by Leona Newman to recommend that the City Council deny the request for rezoning on ITEM, D. Motion carried unanimous- ly with six votes. Nation made by Leona Newman, seconded by Dr. William Worknan for the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission to ask the City Council to acknowledge the clear majority's expression of opposition in the public hearing of the June 5, 1978 meeting. Motion carried with a vote of five ayes and one nay, by Cecil Pitman These four recommendations will be considered by the City Council on Monday, July 10, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building after adver- tising for public hearing. The next item to come before the Commission was the Application to the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission for a change in zone from R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District to B-4 Business and professional office District for property described as follows: (1) Part of Lots 1,2,7 and all of Lot 8, Block 2, Division 4, lessee Ella Creamer; (2) Lot 5, Block 2, Division 4, Lessee Ed. Roberts; (3) Lot 6 and South 2 of Lot 7, Block 2, Division-4, lessee David Stapleton; (4) Lots 7 and 8, Block 3, Div. 4, lessee Duncan Turnbull; (5) Lot 1, Block 15, Div- ision 4, lessee F.H. Houtkamp; (6) Lot 2, Block 15, Division 4, lessee Irene Pierce; (7) Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 Division 4, lessee Gene Fuqua; (8) Lots 5 and 6, Block 15, Division 4, lessee A.W. Hughes; (9) part of Lots 7 and 8, Block 15, Division 4, Lessee Etta Pedneau; saod parcels being the land,of the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation; situated in Section 17, Township 6 South Range 2 East, Baldwin County Alabama.; located on Bancroft, Pine and Oak Streets. At the May 1, 1978 meeting of the Commission the merits for including the ab, described properties under one(1) application for a change in zone to B-4 Business and Professional District was considered. It is South Alabama Regional Planning Commission staff's opinion that the zoning petition for the change to B-4 is in order. Such change would provide a business transit zone, i.e, a zone buffering a business and professional area from a area zoned for single family residential use. Notion made by Cecil Pitman, seconded by Sam Box to recommend to the City Council approving the rezoning request. Motion carried with a vote of five ayes, one nay, by Dr William Workman. FAIRHOPE PIA' KING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting page four III. II The next item on the agenda was the rezoning 4pplication of Ed. Beard from B -3b to B-3a for the construction improvements of a Motel. Motion made by Dr. William Workman, seconded by Leona Newman to accept the application and advertise for a public hearing for the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried. John Parker announced to the Commission that the July 3, 1978 regular meeting will be postponed until the following Monday, July 10, 1978 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Administration Building. Skipper Tonsmiere, builder for Dr. Diegman's medical office complex on Morphy Avenue approached the Commission with building plans for a new office building, Several questions were raised that Mr. Tonsmiere, without the approval of the owners,could not answer. Motion made by Dr. William Workman, seconded by Sam Box that the presentation of the plans be held over until the questions could be answered. Motion carried. Chairman Parker reported on the Commission's study meeting held May 18, 1978 at the Fireman's Hall with Sam Box, Hartford Field, Cecil Pitman, William Workman, Pierce Frederick, Jack Kirk, Harford Stearns, and the Chairman attending. The following items were concluded at this meeting and are re- ported for the record: 1. A. comprehensive review of the zoning districts and the zoning ordinance will be conducted during the period July 1 to October 1, 1978 to insure an up-to-date land use plan for the City. 2. Storm drainage is a major problem, growing raply due to the amount of sub -division development. An overall drainage plan needs to be develop- ed, possibly creating a "drainage district" as a means of financing and study of needed improvements. It was also brought out that retired hy- draulic or civil engineering talent should be utilized with practical remedies to wash -out problems being implemented in lieu of an elaborate engineered drainage system the City could not afford which would also tend to be over -designed for the engineer's protection. 3. Phil Rutherford will review all future subdivision applications before they are acted on to offer his recommendations on drainage design. He will also inspect improvements in subdivisions during construction to protect the City's interest in construction quality and complete ex- ecution of the designed facilities as approved by the Canm_ission. 4. It was concluded the City Council's recent position regarding explicit invention of each type use allowed in a given zoning district is unmanageable and impractical. Hartford Field reported on his survey of recent businesses developed which are not specifically listed in the present ordinance, but which are consistent with the long standing interpretation by the Commission. 5. The progress of the Community Appearance Board and its desire to colla- borate with the Planning and Zoning Commission were reported. 6. The need to recognize exemplary development in accord with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning ordinance was discussed. 7. There was a thorough discussion of the desirability of stricter sign control which resulted in agreement to recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance prohibiting free standing signs not mounted flush on building walls and limiting their size. There was further agreement on an equitable approach to eventually eliminating "grandfather" sign installations. FAIP00PE PLANNING AND ZONING CONtaSSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting page five 8. Two other ordinance amendments suggested by the Conmmaity Appearance Board pertaining to B-2 building setbacks and maintenance of land- scaping requirements were considered and agree to. 9. There was general discussion regarding key issues of zoning change presently before the Commission with agreenent that previous posi- tions regarding rezoning the "triangle" and Greeno Road frontage north of Fairhope Avenue. should be decisively adhered to so there is no room for public or applicant confusion and unfounded expecta- tion of future changes in the Ccmmission'�s position The next item of business was a motion to recommend to the City Council for adoption three(3) amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to B-2 zone building set back, sign controls, and landscaping maintenance requirements as follows: 1. B-2 Zone Front Setback Requirement In Zoning Ordinance Section 4.724 (b)(1) Yard Regulations - Front DELETE: Existing section All: (1) Front: Each lot shall have a minimum front yard of twenty (20) feet, except where a lot abuts a residential district on either side, a building setback in line with the adjacent structure is required. This front yard requirement can be reduced whenever, in the judgement of the Planning and Zoning Commission, this would not be equitable or feasible. 2. Outdoor Sign Control DELETE: All of Section 6.7 SIGNS. ADD: 6.7 SIGNS: The provisions of this Section shall govern the location, size and height of signs in each of the use districts established in this ordinance in order to insure safe construction, light, air, and open space, to reduce hazards at intersections, to prevent the accumulation of trash, and to protect propertyivalues and beauty of the entire community. i 6.71 General Provisions: 6.711 No permanent signlstructure of a free standing type (i.e., any structure conveying a symbolic or written message which is not mounted flush on a building exterior wall) shall be permitted on private or public property within the municipal limits. Free standing signs of four (4) square feet or less surface area with black lettering on white background dsed for traffic direction only are allowed. This prohibition against free standing signs can be waived in individual cases by the Planning and Zoning Commission when, in their judgement, any reasonable means of communicating the identity of a development would be prevented without such a sign due to the absence of (1) a building exterior surface, or (2) its visible proximity to a public roadway. When a free standing sign is permitted by the Commission under the circumstances above, the surface area shall not exceed eight (8) square feet and it will be subject to review of size, color, positioning and compatibility with the neighborhood. FAIRHOPE PLANNING AND ZONING CONMISSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting page six 6.712 No sign shall be erected on a building except flush against the exterior wall surface. 6.713 No sign shall be erected on a building until a building permit is granted after review and approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission of sign size, position on building,'color, and planned illumination. 6.714 Temporary signs on private property shall be restricted to construction sites (maximum surface area of sixteen square feet) and real property sale locations (maximum surface area of four (4) square feet). Signs used for these purposes can be of the free standing type but must be removed immediately upon completion of construction or sale of the property. 6.715 No private signs, either temporary or permanent in nature, shall be placed on public street or highway rights -of -way. i3.716 No signs or sign structures shall in any way project over public sidewalks or public right-of-way. 6.717 No exterior sign shall be erected on a building exterior surface in such a manner as to prevent free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. 6.718 Any sign erected or painted upon a sloping roof, fence, tree, stand -pipe, fire escape or utility pole is prohibited. 6.719 Any sign which uses the word "Stop" or "Danger" prominently displayed and/or which is a copy or imitation of official traffic control signs is prohibited. 6.7110 No signs shall be permitted to have flashing or intermittent illumination of any type or color. 6.72 Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts: 6.721 R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts: No outdoor signs, either permanent or temporary, are permitted except when selling real property as allowed in Section 6.714 above. 6.722 R-4, R-5 and R-6 Districts: One (1) outdoor sign per lot or development on an exterior building surface with a surface area not to exceed thirty (30) square feet will be allowed subject to review and issuance of building permit. 6.723 B-3a, B-3b, and B-4 Districts: One (1) outdoor sign per business entity on an exterior building surface with a surface area not to exceed fifty (50) square feet will be allowed subject to review and issuance of building permit. FAIRHOPE PLANNING AND ZONING COTic'IISSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting page seven 6.74 6.724 B-1, B-2, M-1 and M-2 Districts: One (1) outdoor sign per business entity on an exterior building surface with a surface area not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet will be allowed subject to review and issuance of building permit. Maintenance of Signs: 6.731 All outdoor advertising signs and sign structures shall be kept in repair and in proper state of preservation. 6.732 Outdoor advertising signs which are no longer functional, or are abandoned, shall be removed at the owner's expense, in com- pliance with the provisions of this ordinance within thirty (30) days following disfunction. 6.733 In the event of the destruction,,partial or complete, of an outdoor advertising sign, the owner thereof shall have the right to reconstruct, rebuild, renovate, or repair said sign sub- stantially to the same condition as before said destruction without an additional building permit. Non -Conforming Signs 6.741 Those outdoor signs legally established in the City of Fairhope prior to August 14, 197E and not conforming to the provisions of this ordinance shall be permitted to continue without alteration of the size or location provided they are maintained in accordance with 6.731 above. If the non -conforming sign is not maintained in the judgement of the Planning and Zoning Commission, it must be removed. 6.742 Any non -conforming sign existing prior to August 14, 1978 shall not be allowed to remain in non-conformance with this ordinance if there is a change of ownership resulting in a change of the business name as recorded on the City's business license or if the sign existing on August 14, 1978 is removed. 6.743 All owners of non -conforming signs are requested to plan for and implement sign changes to eliminate non -conforming signs as soon as practical to assist the community in achieving -the intent of this ordinance. 3. Maintenance of Landscaping ADD: 6.947 The owner, tenant or their agent, if any, shall be n �Q jointly or severally responsible for the maintenance �1 + of all landscaping and landscaping areas. The land- scaping shall be fully maintained as initially required in the above section, including a healthy, neat appear- ance kept free from refuse and debris. 1 FAIRHOPE PD, NING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for the June 5, 1978 meeting page eight On a motion by Mr. Field, seconded by Mr. Pitman, all three(3) amendments were unanimously passed and referred to the City Council. On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Marii Ziegler-, Secretary Approved by Commission: ` 7 d to Chairman IY617g