Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-1984 Regular MeetingI II III The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met December 3, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. at the City Complex, 161 N. Section Street, Fairhope, Alabama Present: Chairman Roy White; members John Parker Mary Doug Foreman, Robert Mason, Cecil Pitman, Harrell Holder The minutes of the November 5, 1984 meeting were approved on motion by John Parker seconded by Harrell Holder and unanimously carried. Final approval of Eastgate Unit II was being sought by Byrd Moore. Bob advised the Commission that he had reviewed the plans but we still need signatures of the Colony and Lessee, he recommends approval subject to completion of the utilities or posting bond. John Parker moved for approval of the subdivision application as tendered w/Bob's points noted, Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimously. Bill McCrory came forward to discuss LeaBrook re -subdivision lst addition, Mr. Fleming's property. Mr. McCrory stated that they were here to see if the Commission would accept open ditch on this planned unit, that they plan to build to County standards. Roy mentioned that the curb and autter was not required on original subdivision. General discussion followed on waterflow, boundary of Mr. Fleming's property undeveloped road and easements and what portion is dedicated road right of way. Mr. Stratis told the Commission that they were going to call one road Nichols and Mr. Parker told him that unless centerline lined up with what is now Nichols St. it would be confusing and should not be called that. Mr. McCrory said they would know definitely by the time they presented preliminary plans. It was further discussed that the County would approve road w/60 ft. R.O.W. or curb and gutter w/50 ft. R.O.W. Mr. Parker felt the question before the Commission was to require they build up to City standards or County requirements, pointing out that they could possibly be brought into the City Limits in not too distant future he recommended curb and gutter. Bob remarked that curb and gutter is preferred arrangement and also a second exit, that it would also make a higher quality subdivision. John Parker said he thought it would be prudent for the Commission to require he build to City standards of curb and gutter w/50 ft. R.O.W. and put this in form of a motion, Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stratis said that this is what they were seeking, guidance before plans submitted. Dr. Walsh came before the Commission w/request to tear down existing structure on Mobile Avenue, R-2 zone and build a new dome house(property located next door to Shoreham Apts). Bob remarked that he brought this forward because he needed to know if Commission wished him to build remaining in scope of structure there now, and whether or not we would require him to say in setback limitsrequired. The existing side and rear yard are non -conforming. Dr. Walsh offered that new structure would be 44 sq. ft. w/porch. It was determined that he might be having to apply for as much as 10 ft. variance. He would meet height requirement. It was pointed out that Or- dinance says if new structure is not built to conform w/one torn down it would have to built to meet requirements. Mr. Evans brought up the dispute of the property line and Commissil n pointed out that it had no bearing on what Dr. Walsh desires from Commission. Mr. Parker asked if he tears down non-conforp- ing structure does he not have to comply w/current zoning withiin scope of conforming use. Bob replied that the dome planned wound be in that scope but not garage, Mr. Parker asked if the setbalcks would be achieved with the expanded scope. Bob said an 8-10 ftl difference rear/front would exist. John pointed out to Dr. Walsh that non -conforming now perpetuation but not expanding non conformance. IV V Planning & Zoning Commission - Dec. 7, 1984 Page Two Further discussion led to a motion by John Parker in which he construed the requested construction as increased scope of building on the lot and the guidance be that R-2 setback re- quirements be met. Harrell Holder seconded and motion carried unanimously. Under old business the Commission discussed with Don Pruitt the Comprehensive Study update and how much and how long it would take to complete. Don stated that he did not see any way we could accomplish this with a grant as he did not feel we would qualify for any available now. Roy advised Commission that there was budgeted $10,000 that could be used for this. John asked if we can meet our objective by choosing the most essential steps in updating. Don responded that printing is a big cost that he feels an adequate update can be accomplished within this budget, he would use same approach, same verbage just update. The time frame needed was talked about and it was thought that it could be accomplished by September 85 and a completed draft copy presented at that time. With this information John Parker moved that we enlist Mr. Pruitt and his staff to carry forth with updated comprehensi plan (4 updated items being land use, transportation, population and economy) for $10,000 subject to City Council's approval of this expenditure, Mary Doug Foreman seconded and motion carried unanimously. There being no further business meeting was duly adjourned.