HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-1983 Regular MeetingThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met February 7, 1983
at the Civic Center Complex at 5:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Richard Sanderson; members John Parker, James P. Nix,
Cecil Pitman, Cindy McBrearty, Roy White, Robert Mason, Harrell Holder
Jack Kirk
The minutes of the January 11, 1983 meeting were duly approved on motion
by Harrell Holder, seconded by James P. Nix and unanimously carried.
The public hearing on the rezone request of Robert Van Iderstine for the
property located at the corner of Nichols and Oswalt from R-2 Single
Family Residential to R-3 High Density Single Family was held. Bob briefed
the Commission telling them that these are two sub -standard lots of record
that do not meet the minimum lot area and lot width required for the R-2
medium density single family residential district. That Mr. Van Iderstine
is proposing to build -two rental houses an this property and by changing
to R-3 he can build as the lot requirements would allow it. He also mentioned
that he wished to turn the lot line 90" so both would front on paved street
(Nichols). The Chairman read Mr. Pruitt's comments in that he was of the
opinion that the requested change to R-3 high density residential had merit,
particularly in view of the fact that the lots under consideration do not
meet the minimum lot area and lot width required for the R-2 medium density
single-family residential district. In this connection similar conditions
apply to the area situated generally east of Section Street, south to Far -
land Avenue, east to School Street, and north to Fels Avenue. It was therefore
recommended that the Commission consider including this area in its
recommendation to the City Council for a zoning change to R-3 high density
single-family residential. Further discussion led to a motion by Cecil
Pitman seconded by John Parker recommending approval to the City Council.
Motion carried by the following vote, for approval: John Parker, Dick
Sanderson, James P. Nix, Harrell Holder, Roy White, Cecil Pitman, Cindy
McBrearty, and Jack Kirk. Robert Mason abstained. Against, none.
Green Park Inc. preliminary and final resubdivision of Lot 15A, Greeno Park
was considered. Art Rigas, engineer for the project showed copies of the
plat to the Commission members stating this piece was West of the apartment
project now under construction. This area being zoned B-2. John Parker
asked how the drainage was going to be handled. Mr. Rigas remarked that 63%
of the land area will be still be in grass after the project is built, they
have incorporated surface detention and have a new drainage easement between
Lot 15A and 15D. James P. Nix moved to grant the resubdivision proposal if
it meets requirements, Cindy McBrearty seconded and motion carried unani-
mously.
Mitchell Co came, Chuck Stefan as representative, requesting site plan
approval of 50 more apartment units to be located at Greeno Park. They will
be a mirror of the 50 already there. The drainage question was addressed
by Art Rigas, he mentioned that the soil type was clay which has a rapid
run-off. The water runs due South to -the Southeast corner and there are
3 shallow pond drains. John Parker moved to pass the site plan on to the
Building Inspector with the Commission's approval, Roy White seconded and
motion carried unanimously.
Bob read his comments to the Commission about the Mariott Corporation's
application for a six lot subdivision, Unit Five, Lakewood Club Estates
which contains 1.83 acres. He remarked that the six lots proposed are
to be connected to the existing sewer and the applicant was advised that
such connection can be made only under provision of agreement between the
Grand Hotel and the City which agreement was made prior to the establishment
of a moratorium on out-of-town sewer connections. Therefore, flow generated
by proposed subdivision will be chargeable against the agreed maxim n flow
allocated to the Grand Hotel. Applicant has submitted a copy of flood hazard
boundary map, owners acknowledgement on face of plat, approval of County
Engineer, approval by the Health Department and County Planning Commission
all prerequisites for approval. John Parker moved that subdivision approval
be granted as requested, Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimousl:
The Commission's attention was directed to a site plan review
of a proposed 7 unit apartment complex at 207 Magnolia Avenue.
Dick Shackleford told the Commission that this was scheduled
to come before the Adjustment Board on the 17th of January
as they wished to construct eight apartments rather than the
seven permitted with the area and frontage they had. Dick
Lacey spoke to the Commission mentioning that the residents
in this area wished the Commission to pause and reconsider
what they are doing as they did not wish to have an apartment
row up and down this main thoroughfare. That the property
owners had gone to great expense to keep the old homes and tre
the way it was first developed even though this section had be
rezoned B-3b . It was brought out that this was a permitted us
as Zoned now, that it was thought that apartments would act
as a buffer between the residential and commercial areas on
the eastern corners. The question of approving something
subject to approval from the adjustment board and the proper
sequence was discussed. Roy said he was opposed because of
drainage, and further moved to deny approval until a complete
drainage plan is presented at the next meeting. John Parker
seconded and motion carried unanimously. John Parker further
moved to convey to the adjustment board that the density
of the proposed apartments be kept at seven. It was the con-
sensus of the Commission that this be done.
At this time Mr. Holder wished to clarify his motion on the
Dyas rezone application. He stated that he moved to -convey dei
to City Council because after weighing the evidence presented
applicable to this zoning change, that the proposed change is I
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, and that said
plan specifies low density residential use for the area includ•
ed in the application. The Commission expressed concurrence
with the clarification of this motion.
There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned.
I�
.ial
of