Commission recommends package of zoning amendments to city council; package would add impervious limits, clarify mixed-use rules

The Fairhope City Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 4 voted to recommend a package of zoning ordinance amendments to the City Council. Staff presented a multi-part proposal that would, if adopted, impose new impervious-surface limits for single-family lots, clarify how mixed-use buildings and townhome densities are regulated, revise requirements for planned-unit developments (PUDs), create two recreational zoning categories and make other technical and definitional changes.

Planning staff said the amendments respond to the comprehensive plan, neighborhood feedback and operational experience applying the current ordinance. Key elements staff highlighted include: adding an impervious-surface cap for single-family residential lots to address increased runoff from larger additions and hardscapes; creating clearer mixed-use building standards (including a definition for when floor-area-ratio applies); setting a maximum density for townhomes and multifamily in some districts; and tightening PUD requirements so that a commercial component be constructed in the early phases rather than indefinitely deferred.

Staff noted the ordinance package removes three rarely-used "village district" zones but reserves article space so staff can return with alternative tools intended to meet the comp-plan goals for nodes and village centers. Staff and several speakers discussed the trade-offs between preserving flexibility through PUDs and the predictability of standard zoning districts.

Design professionals and residents commented during public hearing. Melissa Hadley of Goodwin Mills and Caywood urged careful review of multifamily density and townhome lot-sizing, saying overly restrictive multifamily standards could discourage future multifamily construction. Taylor Hensler and others urged flexibility for large PUDs so that required commercial percentages scale reasonably with project acreage.

After public comment and discussion, a commissioner moved and the commission voted to recommend the city council adopt the proposed zoning ordinance changes as drafted; the motion passed by voice vote. Staff said the next step will be preparing ordinance language for council advertisement and a council hearing (tentatively late October), and staff indicated some elements — notably building-height definitions — may be finalized with a separated effective date to protect projects currently in the permit pipeline.

The commission’s recommendation does not itself change zoning; final adoption rests with City Council. Staff said additional amendment phases are planned to refine village-node tools and some detailed items that require more outreach or budget for consultant assistance.