Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairhope staff previews broad zoning overhaul, proposes PUD changes and new mixed-residential district
Summary
Planning staff told council the city intends a multiyear overhaul of its zoning ordinance, proposed near-term amendments including changes to PUD rules, a proposed 5-acre minimum, a 33% commercial requirement for mixed-use PUDs, new "mixed residential" district, and removal of some residential uses from commercial zones.
Fairhope — Planning staff briefed the City Council on a proposed multi-year revamp of the city's zoning code and presented near-term regulatory amendments the department plans to send to the planning commission for September consideration and to the council later this fall.
Hunter, planning staff, told council members the city's zoning ordinance dates to 2001 with scattered amendments through 2005 and that significant rewrites have not been undertaken since. Staff proposed a budget item this fiscal year to begin an overhaul of the zoning ordinance and said some regulatory amendments ("Year 1") could be completed ahead of the full rewrite. The timeline presented places planning commission review in September with council consideration in October and November for final adoption of several amendments.
Key topics reviewed included: a reduction in the city's planning jurisdiction in 2023 (from roughly 75 square miles to about 15–16 square miles) that limits the city's review authority for projects in the broader Fairhope ZIP code; alignment issues between the city's comprehensive plan and Baldwin County's long-range plan in several corridors; and recent development statistics from the Eastern Shore Metropolitan Planning Organization showing Fairhope's approvals have been more moderate since the 2021 spike.
On specific regulatory changes, Hunter said staff will propose raising the minimum acreage for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) from 3 to 5 acres and requiring a commercial component for PUD approvals (a proposed 33% commercial floor-area target was discussed). Council members expressed concern that requiring a commercial component could remove PUD as a tool for purely residential creative design; staff proposed a new "mixed residential" zoning district to retain flexibility for residential projects while preserving PUD for truly mixed-use proposals. Staff described the mixed-residential option as a tool that would give design flexibility without creating a loophole to increase density.
Other proposals included new rules to define and cap mixed-use buildings in commercial districts (including requiring ground-floor commercial uses where mixed-use buildings are allowed), removing stand-alone residential uses from some commercial zoning districts to protect commercial tax base, clarifying short-term rental / lodging definitions and related parking/bedroom requirements, establishing recreational zoning districts (active vs. passive), and deprecating village districts that have not been used in two decades.
Hunter said staff plans to draft concrete text and specific dimensional requirements, and will consult council members individually about details before formal advertisement. Several council members repeatedly urged that the code changes need not be perfect at first and that the zoning ordinance should be treated as an evolving document with future amendments as needed.
No final zoning changes were adopted at the work session; staff will bring detailed amendment language to the planning commission and post materials in advance for public review.
