Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1986 Regular MeetingThe Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met November 3, 1986 at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street, at 5:00 p.m. Present: Maxwell Killoch, Cecil Pitman, Wm. Lucey, James P. Nix, Cindy McBrearty, Jeanette Puckett, Tim Kant, and Richard Sanderson The minutes of the September 9, 1986 meeting were considered. They were amended to read on the 4th page as follows... Cindy McBrearty commented that there were several reasons for denying application. First, that Mr. Evans stated that one reason for denying a rezone application is if there is "legitimate apprehension of an evil" both a decrease in property values to residents of Colonial Acres and the dilution of the downtown and existing business district would in her opinion be cause for legitimate apprehension. Also that Colonial Acres exists well as residential and is surrounded by the same three traffic arteries and therefore the Dyas property could exist equally as well as residential, and last that this is a violation of the comprehensive plan. Dick Sanderson moved for approval as amended 2nd by Wm Lucey, motion passed unanimously. The October 6, 1986 minutes were approved as written on motion by Tim Kant, seconded by Cindy McBrearty, and unanimously carried. At this time Mr. Sanderson called the Commission's attention to a point of order. He made reference to 8.66 in the Zoning Ordinance quoting "A property owner, or .his appointed agent, shall not initiate action for a zoning amendment affecting the same parcel of land more often than once every twelve(.12) months." He felt that Mr.- Corte's public hearing on the agenda was out of order and moved that it be deleted from the agenda and meeting as this was acted on by the Planning Commission September 9th and a recommendation for denial had been forwarded to the City Council. Under discussion Mr. Nix remarked that the Council position was that they looked at it as the same application even though they were proposing to change the R-5 portion to B-4, and either had to act on it as advertised or remand it back to the Planning Commission, which they did. Mr. Nix further remarked it looked like a matter of interpretation, but it was his understanding that this had come up a few months back and the Commision had decided that the twelve month period started after Council action or if the application was withdrawn. Tim asked if a new application was submitted. Bob said no, he had contacted Jim Reid by telephone and was told verbally that this could be handled this way. Bob mentioned that the secretary had notified all of the property owners on the list from Mr. Corte and put an ad in the paper also telling that this would be re -considered this meeting. Cindy said since this action was taken that she thought it should remain on the agenda. Mr. Killoch called for a second to Mr. Sanderson's motion, motion died for lack of a second. At this time Ron Stratis came forward to speak for the Gabel Station subdivision seeking R-3 zoning concurrent with annexation. Bob's comments were sought. He pointed out to Mr. Stratis that drainage would be a major consideration and would certainly be looked at when the time was right for submittal of plans. Mr. Stratis said he was aware of this. James P. Nix moved to recommend approval to City Council, Richard Sanderson seconded and motion carried unanimously. Mr. Starke Irvine came before the Commission on the Corte re -zone request. Mr. Corte now wished to change a portion of his re -zone request from R-5 Higi Density Multi -Family to B-4 Business & Professional District. That the R-2 Medium Single Family would remain on Edwards Avenue and the 160 ft. buffer strip would remain. Mr. Irvine said that the reason for the change was that they felt that B-4 would be more desirable and better for the neighborhood, professional offices that would only be used from 8-5 p.m. Elouise Lucassen addressed the Commission reading a statement in essence saying that they do not object to B-4 , it would be better ihan R-5, but in the manner in which it was made. Cindy said she had no objection to the B-4, she also felt it better than R-5 but that it looked like when they saw the B-I was going to be denied they saw an opportunity and seized it. That if we do it for Mr. Corte we will have to do it time and again with other applicants. Starke said that they felt the application was still alive until the City Council says it is voted down, that they were only trying to make an even transition of zones. Cindy pointed out what Mrs. Lucassen said in her Planning & Zoning Commission November 3, 1986 - Page Two statement that she didn't see how we could continue to ask people to come to these public hearings time and again, she asked Mr. Irvine if he could come up with some restrictive covenants like what Mrs. Lucassen was asking for?(She had asked that if B-4 approved that: I. The R-2 buffer on Edwards would be maintained and actually developed. 2. A brick fence with a minimum height of 8 ft. would be built and maintained separating the R-2 from B-4. 3. No outlet from the property would be allowed onto Edwards Avenue. 4. That the City/state put a traffic light at the intersection of Edwards and Greeno Road. Mr. Irvine replied that he would have to go back to Mr. Corte with these requests that he could not make promises without having discussed these with him, certainly something could be worked out. Mr. Sanderson said he too agreed that B-4 was a better use, that his objection was to the procedures not the proposal. James P. Nix moved to have the Chairman write the City Attorney for an opinion on whether revised plan constitutes a new application or an allowed revision of initial application and when does 12 month period begin on zoning requests denied. Richard Sanderson seconded and motion carried unanimously. This to 1pe back by next meeting and residents again to be notified by certified mail. Cindy asked Mr. Irvine if doing this time he could get from Mr. Corte what he could live with on the four things Mrs. Lucassen had requested. Lorena Gregorius asked if we could also get clarified if applicants have the right to amend application at any point in time or have to go straight thru as initially made. There was no one present to discuss Matt Dial's Huntlee subdivision so it was carried over to next meeting. There was no one present to discuss Matt Dial's question regarding changing the subdivision regulations from 5 acres vs. 3 acres, so this too was carried over to next meeting. Final approval was sought on South Rolling Oaks subdivision. Mr. John Glover was present requesting this. Bob recommended approval, although the streets will need acceptance for maintenance by the City. William Lucey moved for final approval, Tim Kant seconded and motion carried unanimously. Ron Kopesky was present for Taney Brazile. Mr. Lunsford had written Mr. Brazile a letter regarding improper subdivision of his property. Mr. Kopesky told the Commission that this involved 4 parcels of land Mr. Brazile had sold off and that Mr. Brazile had soughtan engineer': advice before subdividing and that he had told them that they were not under the jurisdiction of Fairhope, which proved to be wrong. Mr. Kopesky contended that an innocent mistake was made and they were present trying to rectify it. It was suggested that they try and make all 4 parcels 5 acre tracts to try and comply. Mr. Kopesky said he had a maintenance agreement from the 4 owners saying they wish to maintain their own road. That he wished them to consider this an exception under 8.463 of the Zoning Ordinance a hardship case. Tim suggested to Mr. Kopesky that he make a plan to submit to the City that would come as close to subdivision regulations as could regarding this property. It was pointed out that drainage plans would have to be submitted, and the County would have to maintain the road, if they would sign off on a privately maintained road would have to beaddressed to them. Tim moved to have them submit a plat and application for subdivision and meet all the qualifications as best they could. Jeanette Puckett seconded and motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned.