Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-1983 Regular MeetingI II III IV V The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met December 5, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. at the Council Chamber in the City Complex 161 N. Section Street, Fairhope, Al. Present: Chairman, Roy White; members Cindy McBrearty, Mary Doug Foreman, Jack Kirk, Harrell Holder, Robert Mason The minutes of the November 7, 1983 meeting were approved as written The Chairman asked if their were any comments on the proposed Zon.Amendment under B-2 General Business District:. Section 4.723 -Uses Prohibited. There were none. Harrell Holder moved to recommend to the City Council approval of this change Jack Kirk seconded and motion carried unanimously. Mr. Ernest Bailey addressed the Commission on the Greeno Road Partnership rezone request for the property located 300 ft. of the N.W. corner of Fairhope Avenue and Greeno Rd. Request being from R-5 High -Density Multi Family to B-2 General Business He mentioned that Fairhope has grown and is expected to continue to grow and the only direction left to us is in this area. That we need to have a facility to serve the population as it currently exists. Mr. Herman Maisel was introduced to the Com- mission and he stated that he wished to build something that Fairhope would be proud of, a shopping center with 50 ft. buffer', for screening and landscaping abutting the residential property,', containing grocery store, pharmacy and small rental stores, building to be of Spanish design and stucco materials, being a secluded development. They are aware of the drainage problems' and have drawn plans to hold the water.underground, let run off at a pace they set. The Chairman called for comments from the audience, there were none. He stated that he thought that the Commission needed time to study this, it was futher commented that this needed to be studied to see if it was part of a comprehensive plan as called for by the City. Mrs. McBrearty asked about the traffic flow pattern, further discussion led to Mr. Maisel deciding to carry this over to the January meet- ing rather than have it turned down and them wait for a year to re -apply. It would give him time to get with Don Pruitt who will be working on an updated land use plan. The date for the January meeting was -set for Tuesday the 3rd at 5:00 p.m. Larry Chason came forward with a sketch plan review for proposed condominiums on Autumn Drive. He remarked he had subdivided Lot #18, a 12 acre lot into two lots one being 7 acres in size and one 5 acres in size. Propose 62 units over a period of time four plexes. Two buildings in the first phase, eight units, and build that many per phase as they sell. He showed a sketch to the Commission. He complies with density and ground use area. The zoning is B-2 which allows what proposed. He is here to let Commission know that he has taken care of drainage for this area and project. (This piece of propeYfywas piece agreed to 15ft e:CGn drainage ditch from centerline certified by registered engineer) Mr. White said he felt this was something that Bob Lunsford could handle and if he is comfortable with what presented he can issue permits. Bob said he was comfortable with it, on this note Harrell Holder moved to let Bob handle it, Jack Kirk second- ed and motion carried unanimously. Fran Faust was present to present redrawn plans on Olsen Acres. She stated she had met with the Colony and gotten their approval of the new plat, that the lots are no longer landlocked Bob's comments were noted in that he recommended final approval of revised plat subject to 1. signature and acknowledgement of lessees, 2. approval of County Engineer, and 3. Endorsement of Health Department approval on plat. It was also noted that if there is any further subdivision this would have to come back. ►i VI VII VIII IX Page Two -Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 1983 Robert Mason moved to approve subject to the 3 points Bob mentioned, Cindy McBrearty seconded and motion carried unani- mously. Curtis Gordon came before the Commission with an old request I an application that was basically approved subject to drainage.1 He has made changes in site plan to be shared with Commission. Land being that property fronting on Magnolia brought before j the Commission by Faye L'Orange a couple of months back. Site plan revealed 9 condominiums in a mixture of town homes and flats. Showed aesthetic drawings and drainage plans. He said that opposed to letting water run to problem area he has actually decreased water shed off this property. There was a discussion held on whether or not this was R-4 or R-5 requirements, there being a conflict in the Ordinance on density - 7 Vs. 9. In this case the most restrictive should apply which would mean 7 units.or the Commission could specify. Mr. White asked Mr. Pruitt what he thought and he also said go with the most restrictive which would be R-4 and 7 units. Mr. Gordon did not agree with this interpretation and pointed places in the ordinance that he had drawn from. Mr. Pruitt stated that in a situation like this it would be subject to an interpretation from the building inspector, and then if there was still a disagreement it could be taken to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Gordon said he did not understand before the meeting that there was a problem and Bob asked him what requirements he was trying to reach and he said R-5. Mr. Pruitt further recommended that since this brought up that we recommend to the Council a change in the ordinance, "unless otherwise indicated, any use established in any business distric must comply with minimum requirements set forth in Article IV Section 4.5, R-5 High -density multi -family residential district Mr. White said that it would appear that the decision would be up to the Bldg. Insp. Bob commented that he wished the Commissio to be aware of this as to drainage question. Within the limits of the design for a ten year period it is adequate for nine units. Mr. White remarked that the Commission should only be concerned with whether or not the drainage is adequate the density question should be left up to the enforcement officer. With this in mind, Harrell Holder moved to accept the proposal as presented as far as drainage concerned, Jack Kirk seconded motion carried, further discussion led to Robert Mason moving to amend the motion to include following the Bldg. Inspector's recommendation. Cindy McBrearty seconded and motion carried unan Bob reported to the Commission on Commercial Park paving. He had a request from George Roberds to eliminate the shelled portion along the E. side of the parking area as agreed on by the Plan. Com. Mr. Roberds and Mr. Dial and his atty. that he did not feel comfortable with making a decision until the Plan Comm. reviewed. That the semi -trailer truck has been removed. The Comm. felt that this situation could change momentarily and so4no reason to eliminate what agreed on. Robert Mason so moved that we not grant any changes on what we previously stipu- lated, Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimously. Ack Moore came forth with Covered Bridge III, prelim. sub. revie Ack remarked that he had received prelim. on the master plan and was hoping for final approval. Bob remarked that if this was essentially what submitted before no major changes, final could be given subject to his recommendations: 1. submitting revised Master Plan showing remaining lots to be developed, together wit those proposed in this phase; 2. submitting plan profile drawing showing the relationship of streets and utilities yet to be in- stalled to those now existing; a master street and utility plan. 3. signatures on owners certificate and notary's acknowledgement 4. show zoning designation on plat and corp. limits boundary. 5. Note placed on plat as to maintenance of bridge superstructur and sloughing easements. Harrell Holder moved to approve Jack Kirk seconded and motion carried unanimously. There being no further business meeting was duly adjourned.