The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-12-1983 Regular MeetingThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met July 12, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Complex, 161 N. Section Street, Fairhope, Alabama Present: Chairman Roy White; members John Parker, Cecil Pitman, Cindy McBrearty, Mary Doug Foreman, James Nix, Robert Mason, Harrell Holder and Bob Lunsford, Zoning Official The minutes of the June 1, 1983 regular meeting and June 6, 1983 special meeting were duly approved on motion by JP Nix, seconded by Harrell Holder and unanimously carried. The public hearing on the zoning ordinance changes was held, the proposed changes were as follows: I. Amend provision for Height Limitation in R-5, B-1, B-4 and M-1 by adding the following sentence as is contained in B-2, B-3a and B-3b: Building height may exceed this maximum limit subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. White asked for comments and Mrs. McBrearty said she was a ainst rt this zone change. Mr. Parker remarked that the -matter. of 'buil q h o '' should riot be left to Planning,Cow. for arbitration but sho e discussion led to a motion to approve this change by Harrell Holder, m seconded by Cecil Pitman. The vote was for change: Jim Nix, H. Holder Cecil Pitman. Against change: Robert Mason, Cindy McBrearty, John Parke Mary Doug Foreman. Motion did not pass. 0 N c � II. To Section 7.13 add the following: Provided, however, where lots of irregular configuaration make c�'t strict application of minimum requirements of the ordinance impracti- cal, the zoning enforcement officer is empowered to make reasonable a interpretation of the ordinance requirements within the following � o limits: ¢� 1. No yard may be reduced below the minimum area required v by the ordinance for a minimum, rectangular lot in the particular district o 2. In no case shall the building cover a greater percentage of the 7�1- lot than allowed by the Ordinance. 3. Where building and lot lines are parallel, the minimum distance from the lot line shall not be reduced. C 4. Where building and lot lines are convergent, the average distance h' H o frown mid wall to lot line shall not be less than that specified {� by the ordinance. 5. In the case of lots having only three sides, the house shall be o shown on the plot plan as proposed with front and side yards meeting ¢ cc the minimum requirements. The rear line of the building extended to 'u the side lot lines will then determine limits of rear yard. If o the minimum distance from rear corners measured perpendicular to the house to lot line and the maximum distance from house to extreme lot corner are averaged, the following formula shall be applied: fi rl Where a = area of subject yard b = area of rear yard minimum rectangular lot o y = distance to rear yard required by ordinance ro x = minimum rear yard distance allowed sr a _ Y solving for"x" where a value obtained is equal - N N b x FJ to or less than the average obtained above, the structure is permitted. If "X" is greater than average obtained, no permit shall be issued until and unless a variance is obtained. U) n John Parker moved to recommend approval to the City Council for this zoning change, Cindy McBrearty seconded and motion carried unanimously. Page Two Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 12, 1983 Preliminary discussion was held on the resubdivision of Lot 18, Greeno Park, one lot into two. Mr. Art Rigas spoke for Larry Chason. He said this lot contained some 16-17 acreas and was split down the middle with a natural drainage easement. Bob's points were noted in that: all utilities are abutting, both lots have frontage upon existing street. Bob further recommended that the 30 ft easement along existing drainage ditch be omitted from the plat since the ditch is an existing waterway and the City did not wish to assume same for maintenance. Mr. Rigas said his client had no problem with what Mr. Lunsford had pointed out. A discussion was held on whether or not the City should keep the easement for maintenance and whether or not we had a choice. John Parker suggested that we offer guidance by indicating the need for the 30 foot easement on the application when submitted, and put that in the form of a motion, further discussion led to Mr. Parker being asked to withdraw his motion until legal advice could be sought. He wished motion to stand, Cecil Pitman seconded and motion was defeated by JP Nix, C. McBrearty, H. Holder, R. Mason and M. D. Foreman voting against. Mr. Rigas was told that the easement would not be required on the plat, but should legal counsel determine that the city has no choice in the matter, the city will acquire the easement from the developer. Eastgate Subdivision preliminary discussion was held. Bob had recommended that the subdivision should be considered in its entirety, not just the 19 lots on Hoffren Drive on application presented tonight. His reason being avoiding piecemeal design of streets and utilities and land will be subject of petition for annexation by the City Council. He also mentioned prior preliminary review and approval will lend some assurance to Council that the land they deliberate for annexation is developable. Further discussion with Mr. Ack Moore representing Byrd Moore led to a motion by Cecil Pitman moving to grant preliminary approval subject to Bob's points, which are: 1) at the time Unit 1 presented for final approval, master plan be also submitted complete with storm drain, sanitary sewer, water mains and appurtenances and street grades as a final utility plan. 2) That water and sewer lines shown in 20 foot easement be relocated to public right of way(this already taken care of) 3) That provision be made to lower pipe under Morphy Avenue, increasing the size if necessary and cleaning ditch North and South of Morphy. 4) that the complete Master Plan referred to in 1 above be included with any petition for annexation coming before the Council.(already have). Cecil Pitman moved to grant preliminary approval subject to Bob's 4 points. Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimously. At this time Roy asked if the Commission would hear a request from the floor from Tom Brown and Major Bashinsky. John Parker suggested they get on the agenda. James P. Nix moved to hear this request, Cecil Pitman seconded, motion to hear was denied by a majority vote. At this time Jack Glover came forward to discuss his Rolling Oaks subdivision. He had brought new plats of this subdivision Bob brought to his attention 5 things that the Planning Co udssion needed:(1 a copy of restrictive covenants 2) Separate Notary on plat copy for corporation 3) Health Department approval on remainder of lots, 5 ft easement on side 1 lia 4) all improvements installed or bond signed, 10 ft easement both sides of d..tree- 5) S.W. corner right of way shown dedicated on plat and.City water line shown. Bob said he would recommend approval subject to these five points being completed. James P. Nix moved for preliminary and final subject to these 5 points, Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimously. Jack Mayhall came forward to discuss Windmere subdivision. He stated that he has been forthright and if guilty of anything it is in not enough advice, or poor advice . That when he bought Windmere he did not buy a subdivision because it had never been recorded. That he built like he did to protect the integrity of Montrose beveloping a private residential area without a dedicated public street^ street maintained by the residents through �Sroperty owners' association. He was asked to come forth as under Fa lope's ordinance this is illegal subdivision. He said he did not mean to circumvent this board. He tated he had City of Daphne water, Faincc gas, Riviera electricity and South -"-'Bell telephone. He said that what he bought after Hurricane Frederic was a piece of property that looked like a war zone. He further said he is not asking to be eliminated from paying taxes on a public street but asking that they be given consideration with the way it had been structured, that if he is wrong, he is willing to do whatever necessary to right that wrong. Further discussion led to Mr. Mayhall being asked to present an "as built" plat at the next regular meeting. The Commission stated that this could set a precedent, and if the subdivi_ ion regulations are not adhered to why have ations at ally' said the fine for this illegal subdivision $100.00 for�ea lot developed or court order that houses already built be torn down. Mr. Mayhall U16L+�� to be at the next meeting. Cecil Pitman remarked that he thought was the exception and not the rule. At this time Mr. Lunsford presented a drawing showing outline of City's jurisdiction. It was suggested having the City Council adopt this by ordinance and inform the utility companies that they could not serve this area until they check with the City. Robert Mason put this in the form of a motion John Parker seconded and motion carried unanimously. (copy atched to minutes 4-A3 Therrl being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned. ,� p ((� 9)