Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-1978 Regular Meeting01 II III The Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Monday, September 11, 1978 at 5:00 p.m. at the City Administration Building with John Parker presiding. The following rxrbers were present: SamE. Box, Hanford Field, E. Jack Kirk, James P. Nix, Cecil Pitman, Dr. William Workman, Mrs. Leona Newman Inasmuch as this was a public hearing and the commission felt that time was an important factor, Kr. Parker stated he would hold off on discussion of minutes of August 7, 1978 meeting. The first item to be discussed by the Board was the application of Jim Boothe, Jr. for a zone change from R-2 Medium Density Single Family Residen- t DDevelopment to R-4 Low Density Multi -Family Residential Development for the property located on the south side of Fig Street between Liberty and Pomelo Streets. Mr. Parker addressed the public( a large number present to hear this applica- tion). He advised them that the public hearing notice that was advertised in the paper was stated incorrectly, and legally he felt that a public hear- ing on this matter could not be held at this time, but he understood that it was Mr. Boothe's intent to withdraw his first request(a change from R-2 to R--4) and re -submit application as a change from R-2 to R-3(this is what was advertised in the paper). Mr. Parker asked the people present to express to Mr. Boothe their feeling as to his second request that he wished to present before the Board at a later date. After several inquiries were answered to satisfaction, P,r. Parker called for a vote of those who would approve of the application, if presented, from a zone change R-2 to R-3. One person present voted for change. The rest (some forty in number) voted they did not want a zone change.(petition attached', Mr. Boothe stated he wished the public would take the time to look at what he had proposed for this area. He had planned to spend a great deal of money and felt that if they really understood that it could be nothing but an asset to the neighborhood. He thanked the Commission for their time, and withdrew his request. A discussion on the application of Rosetta Lewis for Final Plat approval on the Rosetta Lewis subdivision was held. It was brought out that Mrs. Lewis wished to change her original request from a five lot subdivision to a two lot subdivision after hearing the Commission's recommendations from the August 7, 1978 meeting. She felt that the expense incurred for the five lot sub- division was more than she wished to take on at this time. On NATION by Cecil Pitman, seconded by Jack Kirk, the Commission approved unan- imously the Final Plat approval presented. vh% Jack Lindley representing Mr. Robert Langford, Sr. presented a Preliminary Sketch Plan to the Commission on Foxlawn Estates. A subdivision he wished to help develop outside the City Limits but within the five mile radius of the Planning Commission's authority. There followed discussion on the sketch plan, with mention being made to Mr. Lindley that his omission of curb and gutter in the subdivision might pose a problem in the future. Mr. Lindley stated he felt that if he included curb and gutter, he would have to omit some of the other features which he felt ;could help draw people to buy lots and settle in this subdivision. He was asked, and stated, the price he hoped to set on these lots when they were offer for sale. It was suggested that he might be better off raising the cost of the lots a little bit in order to provide the curb and gutter. He was informed that curb and gutter was not required, but in the growth of the City that this might very well be within the City Limits in a very short time and be a re- quirement, and why not prepare for it now in the initial development. There was also included in the plans a one-way street around the lake front, which brought to mind several questions. It was suggested, that since the plan had to be accepted by the Alabama State Highway Department, that their opinion and approval be received before the Commission stated any further recommenda- tions. Mr. Lindley agreed to this suggestion. Minutes - Planning and Zoning Commission 9/11/78 - page two The application of Mr. Haas for a building permit to construct more storage units at his property on Fairhope Avenue was presented by Ken Pritchard. IV After a review of the plans, discussion was held on the number of parking spaces, entrance and exits provided, and the drainage planned for the new addition. Mr. Pritchard expressed his desire to adhere to all the suggestions made by the CoimLission on these points. Mr. Pitman, in the form of a MOTION, suggested a new drawing be made and sub- mitted reflecting all changes agreed upon. Mrs. Newman seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. V Bruce Knodel and Bill Thomas addressed the Commission on behalf of Trinity Presbyterian Church who wished to make an expansion to the church at its present site, and add parking spaces to the rear of the building to accomodate the ex- pansion. Mr. Fnodel brought out that there is now a 16 ft. variance on the property bordering on Fig Street, and he showed on his proposed plans making this a 10 ft. variance. It was the Commission's opinion that this should be contained to 16 ft. if it did not present too much of a problem to the church's plans for expansion. Mr. Ynodel conferred with the pastor and representative of the church, who were present, and they felt that it would be possible to keep the 16 ft. variance and still accomplish all that they desire in their plans. Mr. Parker told Mr. Ynodel that if he stuck with the plans as presented and the suggestions made at this meeting it appeared there would be no problem in obtaining the building permit when it was requested. VI The Chairman brought before the Coinnission at this time the proposed Amend- ment to the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance on Sign Control. He mentioned that the City Council had asked for a re -study on some of the provisions. As a result of the study session on July 29, 1978, the Commission agreed on three changes as follows: 6.715 Temporary signs on private single family residential property are permitted at the property owner's discretion with the understanding the sign will be removed as soon as the activity (garage or yard sale, political campaign, real property sale, etc.) for which it was placed is completed. These signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in surface area. 6.717 No signs or sign structures shall in any way project over public sidewalks or public right-of-way except in the Central Business District (Section Street from Oak to 11orphy and Fairhope Avenue from Bancroft to Church Streets). In this area, signs with a surface area not exceeding twelve (12) square feet will be allowed to project over sidewalk areas perpendicular to the front facade of a building upon review and issu• ance of a building permit. Overhanging signs will not be permitted on buildings at street corners in the Central Business District. 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 thrity (30) square feet will be allowed subject to review and issuance of building permit. In lieu of a sign on a multi -family structure front face, a free standing sign not in excess of twelve (12: square feet surface area and a height not exceeding 10 feet above ground level shall be allowed. Such free standing signs must not be closer to road right- of-way than six (6) feet. He felt that these changes were in line with the Council's directio for re -study. Mr. Parker asked the Commission if they felt the need for further discussion at this time. They didn't, and it was put into the form of MOTION by Mrs. Newman, seconded by Dr. Workman that the revised proposed Amendment be recommended to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Parker advised Mr. Box that he wished this to be brought before the Council on this date(since there was a meeting scheduled following the Planning Commission meeting). Motion passed unanimously. VII VIII IX Minutes - Planning and Zoning Commission 9/11/78 - page three Mr. Parker called Mike Ford forward to discuss the plans of St. Lawrence Catholic Church for expansion. He showed the Commission the plans and explained that this was only an interior expansion and would not take any parking away from what is now on the premis s. Mr. Pitman moved, seconded by Mr. Field that the Building Permit be granted. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Parker at this time brought to the Commission's attention that we had held over from the last meeting the preliminary plat approv al on Covered Bridge Estates subject to an opinion from John Duck (the City Attorney). It appeared at this time that Mr. Duck had ,)not forwarded his opinion to the City as yet. Mr. Parker took this opportunity to go over with the Commission and the Developer what was stipulated at the last meeting in regards to restrictions There followed discussion on the measurement intended(i.e., middle of gulley or utility line, or bluff) and whether the property owners had the right to build fences on utility easements. Mr. Box stated that he had heard of numerous occasions whe-"re prop- erty owners would not allow the City to come and maintain the utility easements even though they were set out as such. Mr. Parker introduced a letter from petitioners about the Big. Head Gulley drainage problem. The petitioners were residents of Paddock Estates expressing opposition to Covered Bridge Es- tates and asked that it be entered into the minutes(copy attach- ed). Mr. Parker expressed a desire to properly protect all citi- zens in consideration of new sub -divisions and developments. There being no further business introduced, the meeting adjourned. C Betty/ etty Riven ark, Secretary AP ED Y=SION ON11978 CHAIRMAN Page 2 6.714 Temporary signs on private business and apartment 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 Temporary signs on private single family residential property are permitted at the property owner's discretion with the understanding the sign will be removed as soon as the activity (garage or yard sale, political campaign, real property sale, etc.) for which it was placed is completed. These signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in surface area. 6.716 No private signs, either temporary or permanent in nature, shall be placed on public street or highway rights -of -way. 6.717 No signs or sign structures shall in any wav project over public sidewalks or public right-of-way except in the Central Business District (Section Street from Oak to Morphy and Fairhope Avenue from Bancroft to Church Streets). In this area, signs with a surface area not exceeding twelve (12) square feet will be allowed to project over sidewalk areas perpendicular to the front facade of a building upon review and issuance of a building permit. Overhanging signs will not be permitted on buildings at street corners in the'Central Business District. 6.713 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. 6.719 Any sign erected or painted upon a sloping roof, fence, tree, stand -pipe, fire escape or utility pole is prohibited. 6.7110 Any sign which used the word "Stop" or "Danger" prominently displayed and/or which is a copy or imitation of official traffic control signs is prohibited. 6.7111 No signs shall be permitted to have flashing or intermittent illumination of any type or color. A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE ON SIGN CONTROL 2. Outdoor Si ng 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 property values and beauty of the entire community. 6.71 General Provisions: 6.711 No permanent sign structure 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 in business or industrial zoned property within the municipal limits. Free standing signs of four (4) square feet or less surface area with black lettering on white background used for traffic direction only are allowed. (See Paragraph 6.717 for exceptions.) 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. 6.712 No sign shall be erected on a building except flush against the exterior wall surface. (See Paragraph 6.717 for exception.) 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 of building, color, and planned illumination. Page 3 6.72 Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts: 6.721 R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts: No permanent signs are allowed except when granted a home occupation variance as in Paragraph 6.546. Temporary signs are allowed as provided in Paragraph 6.715 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. In lieu of a sign on a multi -family structure front face, a free standing sign not in excess of twelve (12) square feet surface area and a height not exceeding 10 feet above ground level shall be allowed. Such free standing signs must not be closer to road right-of-way than six (6) feet. 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. 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. 6.73 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 compliance 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. Page 4 6.74 Non -Conforming Signs 6.741 Those outdoor signs legally established in the City of Fairhope prior to September 11, 1978 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 September 11, 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 September 11, 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. NOTE: This is a revision of a proposed ordinance presented for public hearing before the City Council on August 14th which was sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission with the request that certain restrictions be reviewed and relaxed. This revision was considered and approved by the Planning Commission on August 2.9, 1978 and is being resubmitted to the City Council for their acceptance for public hearing at their September llth meeting with public hearing to be set for October 9, 1978. 8-31-78 13 v .k I August 11 1978 Mayor and City Council City Of Fairhope Fairhope, Alabama Memo to above city government. Attached hereto is a petition by signees, as Parties In Interest, to the .Planning and Zoning Commission through the Mayor and City Council for their immodiate cognizance because that body holds the ultimate responsibility. ti mN.-; JON -• ri, N N � to d Z y '= ,ice " o �- �;T i ° .`�••Y{. • '_�,.�r , aw.6 ton id' cl �i ;' a iu � ? L-, m m -j •'�7 WWW � � 4 'i - T L.1 �• T d S �� ^, m � O <D �p h m N •� w � � it i � � � ` J A'���"���RRR��, �• b' l i �. O .-. N � O 'n' � ly C •� f �j � ym � P'q' � , ': (. fj NV-7 f=DN Nnf: •�yYCy xqa 'V �a � .i1 4 � � �� J� O l v V j , ; i •� , ' • I A 141 � ci ro �. �c d 1, ! �,. v►+�.� !L' 1 � 1jj�.��f � � ! L r � :.. � }r� � � Y "Tp r. /wit 3311. M►.�1l77 . , ,� ij • fA �� r ui t j� ^ N y � s n r,,� t . RSTUl1ii/ R[CLir{. REQI i! j' .y,,., .�. .. STEREO• INSURED AND tx"IF" YNI ti ;�tio `n t •, ' cn - ? 21 - N N v Mea:o to; The Planning Commission, City of August 10, 1978 Fairhope Attn: Mr. John Parker, President of the Commission and all members Res Storm ,1rainage as concerns Paddock Estates and surrounding environs JJey, the undersigned, residents of Paddock Estates and surrounding areas, wish to have on record our -observations and opinions concerning the proposed subdivision called Covered Bridge Estates and its storm drain- age which is planned to be emptied into Big Head Gully, this gully being adjacent to Paddock Estates and receives most of the critical storm waters from Paddock Estates. We understand the Planning Commission of the City of Fairhope has granted Major I!omes, Inc:. provisional approval of their intention to empty the storm waters from Covered Bridge Estates into Big Head Gully. i As residents of this area, it is our observation and educated opinion that this gully cannot receive more drainage waters without causing irreparable damage to properties in this area. We have observed the ferocity of the current in this canal under moderate rainfall conditions as well as severe rainfalls, and surprisingly, the conditions are -very similar. We feel very strongly that to pour more water into the gully will create a problem for the residents in this area, and the City, which will be of extremely serious proportions. At 'the present; time there appears to be a "back flow,, from the gully into the street of Paddock Estates, even under a moderate rainfall such as occurred August 8, 1978. The rainfall on this day was not at all excessive and flooding was considerable and a "back flow is indicated.. Mr. Jack Pope of Major Homes, Inc. has committed his firm to an additional 24 inch storm water sewer line from Paddock Estates to the gully, ostensibily to to relieve the flooding conditions at the south east corner of Paddock -Estates. Mr. Pope also insisted on constructing a "flood relief flume" on Lot 6 of Paddock Estates which will empty towards the Thomas property to the vest. Thins is intended to provide for unusual conditions in case that the storm miter system cannot accomodate the flood waters. If the drainage from the Covered Bridge Estates is emptied into Big Head Gully it is almost a certainty that "back flow" from the gully into the south east corner of Paddock Estates will become a very common occurrence and flooding will happen. The "flood relief flume" may become very iriportant. The additional 24 inch pipe, or even'a 48 inch pipe, Trill not snake a bit of difference because the flood waters in the gully will be higher than the street. This constitutes poor planning and design, not to mention a lack of consideration for those who are property QTrners and live in this area. We therefore Wish this memo to be read at a public meeting of the Co:dmd-ssion and made a matter of public record. We wish it known that we (2) are is serious opposition to storm waters from Covered Bridge Estates being diverted into Big Head Gully. We also wish to have it clearly understood that the signers of this document, individually or collectively, will hold Major Homes, Inc and/or the City of Fairhope culpable if these storm waters from Covered Brid13e Estates are dum.ped into Big Head Gully and the results are intolerable, worse than it is now. Failure to give proper consideration to the contents of this memo may make it necessary to turn the matter over to an attorney for appropriate legal action.. CC: Mayor Jim. Ni-x Mr. Jack Pope Note: Delivered by Certified Mail with return receipt - - - - - -- •- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - We, the undersigned, agree with the contents of this memo: 17. 3 1 �c V- --_�,� �. r,� �- 2� — ,. 19. �f r 1-3 l 8.. > `�� c 24. 12. - 13 14. A 15. 16. A 26. 27. 28. 29. & 3o 31. /�2 — 32.� City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Post Office Drawer Fairhope, Alabama Commission 429 36532 September 9, 1978 We, the undersigned, hereby protest the rezoning request of James D. Boothe, Jr. for a change in zone from R-2 medium density single family redidential district to R-4 limited multi -family residential district for the following described property: Lots one (1), Two (2), and Three (3) in Block Twenty four (24) and Lots One (1), Two (2), and Three (3) in Block Twenty-six (26), in Magnolia Beach Addition to the Town of Fairhope, as per plat thereof recorded in the Probate Court of Baldwin County, Alabama. (Locatsbon of Property --South side of Fig Street between Liberty September 8, 1978 City of Fairhope Planning and Zoning Commission Post Office Drawer 429 =� Fairhope, Alabama 36532 We, the undersigned, hereby protest the rezoning request of James D. Boothe, Jr. for a change in zone from R-2 medium density single family residential district to R-3 limited multi -family residential district for the following described property: Lots one (1), Two (2), and Three (3) in Block Twenty four (24) and Lots One (1), Two (2) and Three (3) in Block Twenty-six (26), in Magnolia Beach Addition to the Town of Fairhope, as per plat thereof recorded in the Probate Court of Baldwin County, Alabama. (Location of Property -- South side of Fig Street between Liberty and Pome;.o Streets) Z'6 Z J`� au-.Q- d-'c�cic Cam, i4-/ iss F4- PIM) 33. ff--4Z- 5!c 4 , - 3 5 ,)), � r �QQ,._.,, 5 .. ._ - � S7 , 36 5 =T- n • _ � r r 50 59 0, 61 62. 65, 67, 68. 70. 41 - 7 2 -- 73. 53,-1 - 74.- `.' A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FAIRHOPE ZONING ORDINANCE ON SIGN CONTROL (THIRD REVISION) 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 property values and beauty of the entire community. 6.71 General Provisions: 6.711 No permanent sign structure 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 in business or industrial zoned property within the municipal limits. Free standing signs of four (4) square feet or less surface area with black lettering on white background used for traffic direction only are allowed. (See Paragraph 6.717 for exceptions.) 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. 6.712 No sign shall be erected on a building except flush against the exterior wall surface. (See Paragraph 6.717 for exception.) 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 of building, color, and planned illumination. Page 2 ki 6.714 Temporary signs on private business and apartment property shall be restricted to construction sites (maximum surface area of sixteen square feet) and real property sale locations (maximum surface area of six (6) 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 Temporary signs on private single family residential property are permitted at the property owner's discretion with the understanding the sign will be removed as soon as the activity (garage or yard sale, political campaign, real property sale, etc.) for which it was placed is completed. These signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in surface area. 6.716 No private signs, either temporary or permanent in nature, shall be placed on public street or highway rights -of -way. 6.717 No signs or sign structures shall in any way project over public sidewalks or public right-of-way except in the Central Business District (Section Street from Oak to Morphy and Fairhope Avenue from Bancroft to Church Streets). In this area, signs with a surface area not exceeding twelve (12) square feet will be allowed to project over sidewalk areas perpendicular to the front facade of a building upon review and issuance of a building permit. Overhanging signs will not be permitted on buildings at street corners in the Central Business District. 6.718 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. 6.719 Any sign erected or painted upon a sloping roof, fence, tree, stand -pipe, fire escape or utility pole is prohibited. 6.7110 Any sign which used the word "Stop" or "Danger" prominently displayed and/or which is a copy or imitation of official traffic control signs is prohibited. 6.7111 No signs shall be permitted to have flashing or intermittent illumination of any type or color. .� '.'i ,r Page 3 6.72 Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts: 6.721 R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts: No permanent signs are allowed except when granted a home occupation variance as in Paragraph 6.546. Temporary signs are allowed as provided in Paragraph 6.715 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. In lieu of a sign on a multi -family structure front face, a free standing sign not in excess of twelve (12) square feet surface area and a height not exceeding 10 feet above ground level shall be allowed. Such free standing signs must not be closer to road right-of-way than six (6) feet. 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. 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. 6.73 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 compliance 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. Page 4 6.74 Non -Conforming Signs 6.741 Those outdoor signs legally established in the City of Fairhope prior to March 12, 1979 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 March 12, 1979 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 March 12, 1979 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. NOTE: This is a revision of a proposed ordinance presented for public hearing before the City Council on August 14th which was sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission with the request that certain restrictions be reviewed and relaxed. This revision was considered and approved by the Planning Commission on August 29, 1978 and is being resubmitted tb the City Council for their acceptance for public hearing at their September llth meeting with public hearing to be set for October 9, 1978. At the October 9, 1978 public hearing the City Council rejected the proposed sign ordinance indicating the realtor sign size limitations were too restrictive. Subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to seek City Council support by increasing the realty sign size limitations. Public hearing and action by the City Council on this 3rd revision is now set for March 12, 1979. 2-23-79 Chairman Parker submitted the following report for the record regarding an appear- ance he made before the City Council July 24th to report on two(2) problem areas of growing importance which need Council attention: 1. It was reported to the Council that Greenwood Subdivision was grant- ed preliminary approval in 1974 subject to completion of all required read, drainage and utility improvements being installed in a timely & satisfactory manner as per the approved design. Moore Engineering acted as the surveyor/engineer for Eastern Shore Builders, developer of the subdivision. Considerable difficulty has been encountered in getting the developer to complete the approved improvements --- specifically drainage culverts on the south edge of the subdivision. Mr. Ack Moore responded to this report when questioned by the City Council stating the approved design was not feasible so it had bot been built. Mr. Parker asked why the subdivider and his engineer could not proceed with presenting a feas- ible revised plan before the Planning Commission for approval so it could be installed to alleviate problems and neighborhood unrest. The matter was concluded by the City Council directing Mr. Moore to present revised plans as soon as possible before the Planning Commis- sion for their consideration and then proceed with prompt completion of drainage requirements, Mr. Ack Moore, speaking as engineer for Eastern Shore Builders (developer of Greenwood Subdivision) stated he would proceed with design drawings of a feasible drainage plan and present them for Planning Commission approval. 2. Chairman Parker further reported to the Council that the Planning Commission is very concerned about Fairhope's growing surface drainage problems. There appear to be two (2) areas of major importance which require action on the part of the City Council and employed personnel a) 1Jhen subdivisions are granted approval for development, it is essen- tial that the assigned City employees monitor constructions to insure the required improvements are built promptly, as approved, and of acceptable quality for the City of accept maintenance responsibility. b) There are major and growing problems with common drainage ways which cannot be placed on developers to bear the cost of correcting. There are needed improvements to these major storm drain facilities which require competent study and construction by the City. It is obvious to the Planning Commission members that steps must be taken to study overall drainage, secure the required funds, and build drain- age improvements if the rapid growth pressures are to be managed re- sponsibly without jeopardy to life and property of existing citizens. An appeal was made for the City Council to take immediate steps.