HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1981 Regular MeetingThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met on February 2,
1981 at the City Administration Building at 5:00 p.m.
Those present: E. Jack Kirk, Cecil Pitman, James P. Nix,
Cindy McBrearty, Ted Bennett, John Parker, Roy White, Pierce
Frederick
The minutes of the January 5, 1981 meeting were approved on motion
by Cindy McBrearty, seconded by Cecil Pitman and unanimously carried.
Chuck Stephan of the Mitchell Co addressed the Commission on the
application for a building permit for the property located at the
junction of Spring Run and East Gate Drive(Lot 15-A Greeno Park Subdiv-
sion) . The Mitchell Co proposes to build a 50 unit complex.
This will consist of 10-3 bedroom, 16-1 bedroom and 24-
2 bedroom apartments. Mr. Stephan remarked he had just
learned that they were short on parking but they could
add the 8 spaces needed. Mr. Bennett remarked that he
would like to -see local people used in this project, and
Mr. Stephan assured him every opportunity would be given
locally for labor and materials. J.P. Nix moved the building
permit be granted contingent upon Mitchell Co. adding the
8 parking spaces required by the ordinance. Roy White seconded
and motion carried with Mr. Pitman voting against.
Skipper Tonsmeire came before the Commission for a site plan
review of a building permit that was granted for Shoreham
Condominiums. The original plan showed 6 apartment complexes,
and was approved for this, but only 3 were built. He was now
requesting approval for the 4th building and omitting the 5th
and 6th building completely. He remarked that he had plans
to rennovate the existing buildings, adding siding and new
roofing. There was some discussion as to whether he should
try and build a 12 apartment unit or 9 unit as he indicated
to the Commission. It was decided that a 9 apartment unit
would be better, and this did fall under the"grandfather clause'
as to zoning, that it should continue as already developed.
Cecil Pitman moved that the building permit be granted for the
9 apartment complex, J.P. Nix seconded and motion carried unan-
imously.
Hilary Nelson and John Marshall came before the Commission on
a subdivision application of McKenzie Acres. This had been
approved by the Commission at the November 1976 meeting but
had inadvertently not been recorded. Mr. Lunsford was asked
if there was any problem with this, he replied no, other than
it needed to be recorded. J.P. Nix moved to regrant approval
of the subdivision , seconded by Cecil Pitman, motion carried
unanimously.
Mike Ponder came before the Commission with a sketch plan
of a 36 lot development for townhouses, South of Carmel Square
located on the East side of U.S. 98 at Battles Wharf. He was
seeking input. He remarked that for drainage he had planned a
detention pond on one the lots or one of the present lots in
Carmel Square, and would not add any more than we now have
running to Sweetwater Branch. Mr. Ponder was asked what zone
he was planning to build by. He was also told that the City
had developed and passed a resolution that required developers
outside the City Limits who wished to hook up to City utilities
to develop subdivisions under the Zoning Ordinance requirements
as well as agreeing to be annexed as soon as the City Limits
was contiguous to the development. Mr. Ponder was told he
would have to seek approval from the City Council as to tying
into the City utilities, and also make known what zoning requir(
ment he wished to build under. He remarked that he intended to
do all the Commission asked of him, but the Board was unable
to give him a definite answer on whether or not if he proceeded
with the sketch that they would give hi_R approval
Planning & Zoning Commission
2/2/81 meeting -page two
Mr. Ponder's sketch plan led to a discussion among Commission
members as to what plans we wished to make for development
South of town. The Commission agreed to have a study session
February 16, 1981 at 6:00 p.m. at the Fireman's Hall to discuss
this further. Mr. Ponder was asked to wait until the March
meeting for further comment from the Commission.
There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned.