Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1992 Planning Commission MinutesM E M O R A N D U M TO: FAIRHOPE PLANNING COMMISSION 'Meeting of: 06 JANUARY 1992 SUBJECT: Re -hearing of Application for Preliminary Approval of PECAN TRACE SUBDIVISION It has been brought to my attention that Section 11-52-32, Code of Alabama, 1975 requires that the name and address of a person to whom notice of a hearing shall be sent shall appear upon the face of the plat and that notice shall be sent to such address by registered or certified mail of the time and place of such hearing not less than five days before the date fixed therefor. It is further required that similar notice be mailed to the owners -of _land immediately ad joining_,the,.,_Pla_t_t..ed I,and_.s In the instant case, the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation is the owner of the platted lands and, since the subdivision is undertaken at the direction of the land owner, certainly the corporation had notice. The Corporation is also the owner of all lands immediately adjoining the platted lands. The complaints of non -notice in this case originate from Bob Collins who is an FSTC leaseholder, owning improvements situated on lands immediately adjoining the platted lands and from Floyd Enfinger, an FSTC leaseholder owning improvements situated across the street from the platted lands. The Corporation acknowledges notice and has not objected to informality of notice. I am led to believe that both lessees had notice prior to the hearing for preliminary approval of this subdivision. I further contend that only the land owner_immediately_Y4ad,Zoin_i_n,g is required to be given formal notice of hearing and that the leasehold owners of improvements have no standing under the language of the statute. The City Attorney concurs in this. Believing that the best interests of all parties will be served thereby, I have placed this rehearing upon the agenda for the January meeting. I am of the opinion that the subject plat met all requirements of the subdivision regulations subject to conditions of preliminary approval recommended. A copy of those conditions as well as the applicable statute is attached. In order to avoid future repetitions of people claiming non -notice, I believe that the Planning Commission may wish to adopt the following policy for plat review and 088-18 This Rev: 10/24/92 1 10/26-29/92 12/1/92 provide that same be spread upon the minutes with a copy to be furnished to future applicants for subdivision approval: 1. No plat for formal approval, preliminary or final, will be accepted for review until the name and address of the person to be notified of hearing is set forth upon the face of the plat and the names and addresses of owners of immediately adjoining lands are likewise set forth thereon. 2. Not less than five days prior to date of hearing, notice by certified mail of the time and place of hearing shall be sent to the person who is shown on the plat to be given such notice and to the persons shown upon the plat to be owners of immediately adjoining lands. Notice shall be given prior to both preliminary and final hearings. Informal reviews shall not require notice since no action granting approval is appropriate to such review. 3. It is the policy and the intent of the City that such notice and only such notice as is specifically required by the applicable statute shall be given. Leasehold owners are not included in the statutory provision. Owners of lands not immediately ad�,joinin.9 the platted lands are not included in the statutory provision. 4. The applicant for subdivision approval shall be assessed the cost of all certified letters required by the statutory provision hereinbefore mentioned. BLUEBERRY ORCHARD, Unit 4 - Application of George B. Klumpp, Sr. and Fairhope Single Tax Corporation for approval of three lots in Lot 1 Unit 2 of Blueberry Orchard (Map Book 10 Page 146, Baldwin County, Alabama.). Two lots comprising some one and one-third acres abut directly upon County Road 27 between County Roads 30 and 48. Lot 3 of this division comprises all the remainder of former Lot 1 of Unit 2, some 85 acres, and is reserved for future development. The subject land is outside the Corporate Limits of Fairhope, hence is not subject to zoning. There are no new roads or utility mains involved, therefore the plat may be considered for both preliminary and final approval. I would therefore recommend that preliminary and final approval be granted, subject to the following: 1. All required signatures appearing on plat. 2. County Engineers review for county requirements. 088-18 This Rev: 10/24/92 2 10/26-29/92 12/1/92 3. Approval of health department for sewage disposal. Developers are cautioned that all driveway turnouts will require a construction permit from the Baldwin County Highway Department prior to beginning work. All parties required to receive notice under provision of Section 11--52--32, Code of Alabama, 1975 have been so notified. DE VERE ACRES SUBDIVISION - Informal sketch plan of Cecil and Arden Ward for proposed division of some 120 lots on the south side of County Road 32 approximately 1/4 mile west of County Road 27. Insofar as is evident from information furnished, the plan of lots and streets appear to be such as would meet the requirements of the subdivision regulations. I would suggest that developers consult with the Fairhope Water Department regarding construction of mains, valves and fire hydrants and with the Fire Department regarding Fire Protection, ingress and egress. I would also suggest that a ten foot easement be provided on both sides of the streets for accommodation of utilities. The development will also be subject to review by the County Engineer. Beyond any appropriate comments by commissioners, there is no formal action to be taken in regard to this presentation. Since there is no formal hearing, there was no notice required and none was given. UNNAMED SUBDIVISION of some 98 Lots on the Burmeister Property lying east of Greeno Park Subdivision in Section 21, T6S, R2E - applicant not identified. There is little useful information provided, beyond the street widths and number of lots. No dimensions whatever as shown on the sketch. THEREFORE THIS SKETCH PLAN HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA. I am led to believe that the land involved is to be the future subject of a conditional petition for annexation with zoning to be established concurrently. Since that will involve a process of some 90 days duration, there will be ample time for subdivision review. 088-18 This Rev: 10/24/92 3 10/26--29/92 12/1/92 STREET AND DRAINAGE STANDARDS: I would respectfully request that the Planning Commission review the general standard drawings provided for the purpose of establishing a standard for construction of streets and drainage and that a hearing be convened at the February meeting for the purpose of considering formal adoption of same. The major change involved is the substitution of a barrier type combined curb and gutter in lieu of the former roll type curb as the required construction standard. The barrier type curb is Administration because it traffic and offers better of the paved traffic way, protection of pedestrians favored by the City better controls drainage and stabilization and protection as well as some measure of upon the sidewalk areas. It is important to note that the drawings furnished are intended to provide a general standard and are in no way to be substituted for the expert design of the professional engineer engaged upon any particular work. Robert Lunsford Building/Zoning Officer CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 088-18 This Rev: 10/24/92 4 10/26-29/92 12/1/92 The Planning 8 Zoning Commission of the City of Fairhope met Monday, January 6, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. at the City Administration Building, 161 N. Section Street Present: Chairman Richard Sanderson; members Cindy McBrearty, William Lucey, Cecil Pitman, Tim Kant, Jeanette Puckett, Maxwell Killoch Zoning Enforcement Officer Bob Lunsford and Secretary Betty Rivenbark The minutes of the December meeting were considered and approved on motion by Maxwell Killoch, seconded by William Lucey with a correction made that Mrs. McBrearty chaired the meeting. The board accepted for public hearing at the next regular meeting a zoning application for 2 parcels, A as R-2(37.71± acres) and B(2.29 acres) as R-3PGH w/annexation the lands of Fred T. and Elizabeth A. Burmeister located off of Cottage Drive immediately East of Greeno Park subdivision. In conjunction with the above application the commission also accepted for public hearing at the next meeting the zoning application of Katherine D. Burmeister w/annexation for R-5 some 30± acres of land lying immediately north of the above. A motion was made by William Lucey to accept both parcels, Tim Kant seconded and motion carried unanimously. A re -hearing of application of preliminary approval of Pecan Trace subdivision jointly with FSTC, a 27 lot S/D located at the southwest corner of Morphy Avenue and Thompson -Hall Road was held. Floyd Enfinger and Robert Collins spoke. Mr. Enfinger raised the issue of the process of notification, which was done correctly, but he asked that we direct the FSTC to notify lessees of development. He expressed concern about the congestion that might occur at the corner of this development, the density and restrictions called for. He said he had seen the plat but wanted to know if the city was committed to maintaining any amenities that might be put on this property. Tim Kant responded that all properties on city right-of-way we maintain. That restrictio s can be written so that the property owners will have to maintain entrances/ exits. It was also pointed out that we cannot go on private property for upkeep. Bob emphasized it being a 2 step process, that when all lots sold then this can be dedicated to the City but 2nd step is City accepting it for maintenance. Bob Collins spoke saying that he understood that a sewer system is being in- stalled in this subdivision but he cannot hook on to it. That he is not on Fairhope electricity but he is paying City taxes. Mr. Killoch questioned the sewer issue and Bob said this is being installed by the developer and we cannot force him to accept other hookups as well as it not being practical for the system. He further explained the problem with the electricity and the territorial legislation that was handed down. Mr. Collins questioned what kinds of houses would be built that allowed window air -conditioners, that he has 5,000 sq ft of house and this would most certainly de -value his property. Mr. Sanderson explained that we have subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance to go by and as long as these criteria met this is what we are guided by and act on. He was requesting a guaranteed minimum value which we can not set. Mrs. Collins spoke saying that when the City put in gas line that they left area so rough it can't be mowed, Tim Kant said he would look into it. Mr. Rowe spoke saying that they were aware of subdivisio development and allegations on notification were true. Mr. Enfinger asked if we would adopt policy asking the FSTC to notify lessees when development planned. A motion was made by Tim Kant to affirm the action of the Commission regarding this subdivision, Cecil Pitman seconded and motion carried unanimou ly. Blueberry Orchard Unit IV was reviewed. This was an application of George B, Klumpp, Sr. and FSTC for approval of 3 lots in Lot 1 Unit 2 of Blueberry Orchard. Two lots comprise some one and one-third acres and abut on Cty Rd between Cty Rd 30 and 48. Lot 3 comprises all the remainder of former Lot 1 of Unit 2, some 85 acres, and is reserved for future deveopment. Bob recomme preliminary and final subject to 1. all signatures appearing on plat, 2. County Engineers review and 3. Health department approval on sewage disposal. Willia Lucey moved to approve as recommended, Cindy McBrearty seconded and motioi carried unanimously. 7 ded Planning & Zoning Commission Page two -January 6, 1992 The commission considered a request from the Zoning Enforcement Officer and reviewed drawings on street and drainage standards for the purpose of establishing a standard for construction of streets and drainage, with the major change being the substitution of a barrier type combined curb and gutter in lieu of the former roll type curb as the required construction standard. He further stated that the barrier type curb is favored by the city administration because it better controls drainage and traffic and offers better stabilization and protection of the paved traffic way, as well as some measure of protection of pedestrians upon the sidewalk areas. Further discussion led to William Lucey making a motion to advertise for a hearing at the February meeting, Cindy McBrearty seconded and motion carried unanimously. The chairman asked the secretary to include a note on the mailouts that anyone wishing to view the sites up for discussion at the meetings can meet at 10:00 a the morning of the meeting at City Hall and Bob Lunsford will go with them to view them. There being no further business, meeting was duly adjourned. M.