Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-1980 Regular Meeting(Mar. 6'80) 149 The City Council, City of Fairhope, met in Special Session at 7:00 p.m. Civic Center, Nbrphy Avenue, Fairhope, Alabama 36532, on Thursday, 6 March, 1980. The purpose of this meeting was to hold a Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 557, known as the Zoning Ordinance. Present were Mayor James P. Nix; Councilmembers Trisha Nelson, C.O. McCawley, Sam E. Box, Sr., Jack A. Stipes, and David Ed Bishop; City Clerk Evelyn Phillips. A large public gathering was present. City Attorney John Duck was absent due to illness. Prior to this meeting, the Council adopted a set of special rules of procedure. Each person was limited to no more than three minutes, each person could only address their remarks to the Head Table (at which were seated the Council and the Community Appearance Committee) and could only speak once, each person had to submit a written copy of his/her remarks prior to meeting if remarks were to be included verbatim in these minutes and the Community Appearance Committee was given ten minutes at the begirnLng of the session for opening remarks. Mayor Nix opened the meeting with the following remarks:" Everyone here by their presence demonstrates their concern for Fairhope its future. Some would like to see any future growth stopped completely. Others would like to remove all controls and let Fairhope grow at will. Others want to find a way to let Fairhope grow in an orderly marmer, but protecting the physical and visual environment, for the public's benefit. At the same time without putting any undue burden and restraint on anyone. The tremendous growth and development in and around Fairhope has caused a large segment of our citizens some months ago to call on the local elected officials to look into ways and means to insure and protect the physical and visual environment of Fairhope. To accomplish this an advisory Community Appearance Board was appointed to study and report back to the council their recommendations as to ways and means to accomplish this objective. The Community Appearance Board has spent and devoted a tremendous amount of time and effort on this report and proposal, that we are here tonight to consider. Whether or not these proposals have the approval and support of the majority of the commun- ity is the purpose of this public hearing. Each person here that wants to be heard will be -given the opportunity. The ones that signed in will be called on first to speak in the order in which they signed. Those of you who did not sign but want to be heard will be given the opportunity last. To insure that this meeting is conducted in an orderly manner the rules that were adopted by the council will be rigidly enforced. I will ask that you refrain from booing, or applauding any speaker. At the end of the public hearing, I will ask for a show of hands to find out how many of you approve or disapprove the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Mary Emma Potts, Chairman of the Community Appearance Committee then addressed the meeting as follows: (Mar 6'80) 150 "Your Study Committee was appointed over two years ago by our Mayor and the City Council of that day to come up with a formula for promoting the beau- tification of our fast growing comrnmity. The Committee was asked to study the ezu6ting Zoning Ordinance and to recommend changes and additions which would achieve this purpose. As one of these additions, we were asked to write an amendment which would create a Community Appearance Board --- the purpose of this Board being to share the workload of the Planning and Zoning Commission in the area, among others of issuance of building permits. Upon obtaining and examining the Alabama State Code 1940 Enabling Act, with the help of the City Attorney, we found the legal parameters within which we were bound. For your information, the first paragraph of Article 4 under the title of Zoning reads: "Each municipal -corporation in the State of Alabama may divide the territory within its corporate limits into business,industrial, and residential zones or districts and may provide for the kind, character and use of structures and im- provements that may be erected, etc." This should adequately answer the questions of a few people regarding the legality of placing some reasonable restrictions on the appearance of a proposed structure. Also the proposed amendments were submitted through the Mayor to the City Attorney for a legal review. The City Attorney reported back to the Mayor that he saw no part of the amendments which were not within the City's Authority granted by state law. I tell you this to let you know that the Committee did not go off "half-cocked" regarding the legal aspect. We did seek and obtain legal guidance. We then set about to find out how other nice comma pities around the country such as Tuscaloosa, Atmore, Vail, Colorado, Boca. Raton and Sarasota, Florida had successfully gotten a handle on commmrnmity appear- ance and each of these graciously sent our secretary copies of their Zoning Ordinance. You might be interested to know that none of. these communities were of the "historical preservation" type. It was by sorting the features of these that seemed to fit our size and type of community that we were guided through the early stages of our studies. You might also be interested to know that all of these communities have gone far beyond the elementary steps taken in these proposals. Also in the later stages we spent hours in joint meetings with the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and the Chamber of Commerce Beautification Committee reviewing our work and seeking input that could be helpful. It now seems so unfortunate that a portion of the latter group took an antaganistic view toward our entire effort from the start. It seems to me that they are the very ones who should be promoting our efforts to create a mare beautiful town. After all, where would our builders, realtors or other business men be if we had not had people to move in from other parts of the country? Or where would they be if the growth should stop? Anyway, now that we have incorporated all of the input from these bodies (Mar 6'80) 151 that we could, let me outline for you the five basic areas we have addressed in these proposed amendments. They are: 1. Landscaping 2. Signs 3. Limitation of curb cuts, 4. Processing building permits 5. Establishing a Community Appearance Board Let me take these one at a time and try to clarify for you some of the aspects of each that we believe would help Fairhope grow more attractive through the years ahead of us. As for the first of these, who could dispute the values of landscaping in making this a more desirable comzunity? And yet, without any ordinance requiring landscaping, just look around you and see what a few commercial developments, such as EasternShore Shopping Center, can do to our town. Do we really want "wall to wall" asphalt? We strongly believe that we need ordinances that require a degree of landscaping, especially on and around off-street parking lots. Contests and educational speakers may certainly help but kindly persuasion wont always get results. As for the second item, "Signs", you are all aware of the efforts we made to expedite the adoption of restrictions on the size of signs before any more objectionable types could be erected. Looking around you, could you forgive us for being a little over, -enthusiastic about our objectives? The proposed amendments change the existing sign ordinances very little to require only that they be proportionate in size to the size of the building on which they are mounted; to prohibit the use of flashing signs, and to limit the use of temporary signs. Regarding curb cuts - The limitations on the width, location and extent of curb cuts on business properties were suggested to us by members of the Planning & Zoning Commission to improve public safety, particularly near street intersections. It is perhaps, in the area of procedures for the issuance of building permits that we find misunderstanding, These provisions as proposed came out of the experiences of two other cities where a real effort had been made to speed up the process of obtaining a building permit. With two architects on our Committee, this section received much special attention as a result of their own experiences. We have tried to improve on the existing procedures by providing for a preliminary review -- if desired by the project owner or builder -- not required -to give guidance and assistance that should be helpful and save him time and money. It is so hard to understand that the builder would go through the exact same procedure as he has been doing except now it would involve the Conv pity Appearance Board rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission? Is this the extra layer o bureaucracy about which some people are so concerned? Our fifth basic area of proposed expansion of our Zoning Ordinance, the creation of a Cam =ity Appearance Board, as first suggested by our Mayor met with the whole -hearted approval of the two mmbers on our Committee from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Each of them spoke of the need to relieve the Commission of the burden of reviewing applications for commercial building permits so that it could give more time to its (Mar. 6'80) 152 planning and zoning portions. One commented on the recent lack of coordinated : planning with the great work that the Recreation Board was and is doing. The Zoning Commission is sometimes stretched pretty thin with its respon- sibilities for planning, reviewing subdivision layouts, applications for rezoning and, on top of all this, reviewing applications for building permits for violations of zoning. So, in creating a Canmumity Appearance Board in these amendments, we see this designed to be a body of civic -minded citizens acting cooperatively with the paid staff of the City's Building Inspection Department to guide our grmath and guard us against the possibility of damage to the beauty of the environment we all hope to preserve and develop around us here in Fairhope. These citizens would be Mayor appointed with the approval of the City Council. The present Committee would by no means become the make-up of the Board. Can we depend on professional engineers the city might hire to accomplish all this for us at great cost we are told we can't afford? The present building inspector can certainly look after the life safety features of build - construction. But we on your Committee believe that six qualified, aid, civic -minded citizens on a Community Appearance Board are needed to ter the visual enviromient. Mr. Byrd bore and Mr. Jimmy Mason made the following remarks: After meeting with local builders, developers and allied businessmen, the following observations reflect the group sentiment towards the actions initiated by the CAB Study Group. At the outset of this writing I must admit that we first decided that none present would fall into the category of "thoughtless and inconsiderate developers who violate without impunity". In fact we were not sure which recent buildings or development has generated enough outcry to warrant the re -writing of the City Zoning Ordinance. One CAB author states that" ------ the creation of a Community Appearance Board whose duty would be to review all applications for commercial or for institutional projects soliciting the issuance of their building permits. This function is now carried by the.Planning and Zoning Commission, whose present work load is much too heavy. Meeting only once a month for two hours they cannot do justice to all aspects of zoning, planning and problems and also to the proper review of building permit applications". First:(Ordinance No. 224 1.2-8-54) provided for review of building applica- tions by the City planning commission -the city clerk issued building permits. Ord. #295 of 1-14-63 provided for the Municipal Building Inspector to be the enforcing officer of said zoning ordinance and to issue all building. permits and certificates of occupancy. The Fairhope Zoning Ordinance of June 1975 designates the Municipal Building Inspector as the Zoning Officer with the sole power to review and issue all building permits and certificates of occupancy except as stated in Article III Sec. 3.16 where the P&Z Board should annrove (Mar. 6' 80) 153 site plans for Multi -family dwellings and in Art. IV sec 4.92 for special exceptional uses, Fairhope also yearly renews the ordinance adopting the Southern Standard Building Code which sets standards for commercial and public construction. The SSBC also designates the Municipal Building Inspector as the enforcing officer who issues all building permits and certificates of occupancy. Now what all this means is, that unless the Building Inspector has asked the P & Z board for help in reviewing building applications, the P & Z Board has been performing an unnecessary function in reviewing building permits. In light of these facts we can only assume that the CAB group would also.usurp the powers of the Municipal Building Inspector. Second: It has been pointed out that the CAB's considerations in the devel- opment of the amendments to the current Zoning Ordinance were (A) to re- quire mare attractive off-street parking with guide lines for required land- scaping. This is a purely mechanical function of existing recorded regula- tions and certainly would not require a 7 person regulatory board to monitor same. (B) To require certain limitations on signs. The sign ordinance has already been publicly defeated -here it is back again. (C) to regulate cer- tain limitations on "incompatable garrish architectual treatment". We have researched this principal and now address our finding to the City Fathers. It is our understanding that compatable neighborhoods can only be designated as historical districts. As Fairhope has.no such districts the City could be challenged in Court by any who might dispute and defy the tastes of who ever might be serving on the CAB at the time of disagree- ment. To regulate ones individual tastes would certainly be an infringement on ones civil rights. (D) to require more adequate provisions for surface drainage following heavy rainfall -this provision like the sign provision, could be implemented in the existing Zoning Ordinance where deficiencies are detected without creating a new governing body. Compliance would again be a mechanical function of the Building Inspector when reviewing a building permit application. (E) and lastly the new re -writing is supposed to speed up issuance of a building permit which at this time is reviewed only once a month by the P&Z board. As we have already pointed out, the P&Z board doesn't have this responsibility to -begin with and as soon as the ordinanced powers of the Building Inspector are returned to his office the issuance of building permits will no longer be held up. If Public beautification cannot be attained by individual achievement, then we also suggest the appointment of a group which could give counsel to the governing fathers. Mr. Byrd Williams stated that, as President of the First National Bank here in Fairhope, he was concerned with this proposed ordinance because he cwa.s well . aware of what delay can mean to builders of commercial projects. To require builders to go before an additional group after the Planning & Zoning requirements and the City Building Inspector requirements were met would further bog down an already lengthy process. In this time of daily -increasing interest rates and inflation, delay means money; therefore, Mr. Williams was opposed to the proposed ordinance. (Mar. 6'80) 154 Ms. Betty Bitters stated she had 34 years experience as a Federal Government employee and had seen first-hand the mushrooming effect of bureaucracy. She was opposed to the ordinance because most of the duties assigned to the CAB were already covered by present Ordinances, so why add more governing by adding on another Board. Mr. Bob Green stated that beauty cannot be legislated. He was.opposed to the Ordinance because he felt we do not need more governmental bodies encroaching upon the rights of the private individual. Mr. Leo Keller stated we have elected officials whose duty it is to enforce the ordinances already on the books. We do not need these officials assigning these duties out to more and more committees. Mr. Keller was opposed to the ordinance because he felt if our elected officials could not handle the job, we need to take care of that at the polls. Pits. Gayle Robinson spoke for the Retail Merchants Association as follows: My name is Gayle Robinson, I own the Sugar Plum in downtown Fairhope at 328 Fairhope Avenue. I am the Corresponding Secretary for the Fairhope Retail Merchants Association. My purpose in speaking to you tonight is to clarify the position of the Fairhope Retail Merchants on the issue of Community Beautification. In recent weeks, we, like you, have been struggling to achieve an under- standing of the proposals made by the Cmmunity Appearance Committee and the objections to these proposals that have been made by the Chamber of Commerce, of which, I am also a member and serve on the board of directors. Certain statements have appeared in our local newspapers.'which indicated to us that we must make our position clear to you and to ourselves. There, after a series of meetings held in January and February.... AFTER hearing Mr. Bill Baldwin speak to us on the Chamber of Connerce position, and AFTER hearing Cindy McBrearty and Mary Emma. Potts speak to us on the position of the Mayor's Conn. =* ty Appearance C Trmdttee we formed the following position statement, which was released to WABF and our local newspapers early this week. The Fairhope Retail Merchants Association by majority vote at their last meeting, February 28, 1980, endorsed the concept of improved community appearance and careful control of the future development of the City of Fairhope. The F.R.M.A. felt that recent opposing statements made in the name of local businessmen did not reflect the majority view of its membership. It was the consensus of opinion that Fairhope is unusual in that a great number of its citizens sought out this area for living and investing because of an undefinable quality of life that exists here. This quality can only be preserved and enhanced by guidelines in order that spoilage does not occur out of neglect. At present Fairhope is a community which enjoys a nationwide reputation which with careful guidelines and planning will serve to encourage invest- ment and also protect a very special area. Mr. 6'80) 155 In summary I would like to make the following comments to further clarify the majority opinion of the Fairhope Retail Merchants Association's position. 1. We are NOT lawyers..., therefore... we have not addressed the legalities of this proposed Community Appearance Board, although it will affect us. 2. We ARE your neighbors and love this community as much as you do. Many of us are risking our financial future by choosing to remain in downtown Fairhope and would like some assurance of preservation of the downtown area. We strongly want to preserve, improve and enhance the appearance of the downtown shopping area, as well as Fairhope as a whole. 3. We believe in FREEDOM OF ENTERPRISE, but we also recognize that, as we have learned to live with residential zoning so must we learn to live with some sort of controls governing the appearnce of local business establishments if we whish to preserve OUR community, which we all love so dearly. 4. We wish to thank both the committies that have given this project so much of their time, and to thak all of you .for being interested enough to come and listen to us tonight. 5. It is our fervent hope that any remaining problem areas in this proposal can be worked out to the benefit and satisfaction of all concerned. Mrs. Albert Noakes spoke for the local chapter of the American Assoc- iation of Retired Persons as follows: " The Board of Directors of the Eastern Shore Chapter #427 of the American Association of Retired Persons supports the adoption of the recommendation of the Community Appearance Board, because of the interest in the appearance and the beauty of the community in which we live. Members of the American Association of Retired Persons have cleaned up debris on Bay Parkland from Orange Street to Pier Street, and weather permuittir�gon Saturday March 15th the members will remove debris from another area of Bay Parkland." Mrs. Jean Kutack stated she had been advised for years each time something came up that "we don't have an ordinance". Since the Planning & Zoning Board is apparently ineffectual, why bother to adopt an Ordinance setting up the CAB. Why not let this matter be settled by referendum. Mr. George Metzger made the following statement: The proposed ordinance under consideration would, in my opinion, if adopted, constitute an undesireable, if not unlawful delegation of authority. With the six year term of office of Board members and the broad authority granted, our City officials would retain no control of those duties and powers exer- cised by the Board. This is the worst type of bureaucracy because the citizenry loses control of matters handled by such Board. Also, the vague provisions of some of the ordinances, the wide discretion of the Board for subjective determinations without proper standards in the ordinance would, in my opinion, render some of its decisions unen- forceable if attacked in Court. We are a nation of laws and not of men; and people have a right to know from the ordinance what is required of them and to expect that once they have complied with its requirements (rear. 6' 80) 156 that a building permit will be granted. In the March 3rd issue of the Courier under "Facts from CAB" one reason given for the proposed Board was to bolster the City Building Inspection Department which had no funds to staff. This reason is no longer valid since our City ended fiscal year as of September 1979, with a surplus of over $200,000 and, I understand, a healthy surplus is expected in the currrent*fiscal year. Another reason given under "Facts from CAB" for establishing a Comrnmity Appearance Board is to relieve the Planning and Zoning Commission of overload. If there is such an overload, I suggest ordinances be passed to relieve the burden -not by spinning off a sort -of "affiliated" Board from the Planning and Zoning Commission- but by placing such authority back under direct control of our City Officials. There has been some disagreement as to whether the proposed Board will constitute a new layer of government. Suffice to say it will be a new governmental entity, with new authority, exercising new supervisory control over our Building Inspection Department. There is no guarantee that Fairhope in the future will be more beautiful if the pro- posed ordinance is enacted. Who can say that the views of a handful of people, perhaps only four in some instances, will be the same as that of a majority of the citizens? I think the ordinance is ill-advised, would create more problems than it would solve, be an excellent source of litigation, and probably mushroom into an extensive bureaucracy. Mr. Harford Field made the following statement: There is one aspect of these proposed amendments to our Zoning Ordinance which, by virtue of m.7 experience as an architect and engineer who has gone thru the process over the years of obtaining a few hundred building permits, I should be qualified to comment on constructively. The proposal is to transfer the review process on applications for commercial building permits from the Planning and Zoning Commission, in its present overloaded condition,(and I repeat it is overloaded) to a newly created C umnity Appearance Board. This doesn't seem to me to be, "another layer of beau- reaucracy" as some have been claiming, but rather a parallel group of civic minded people selected with consideration of their expertise. Some public comments I have heard and read seen to me to leave much to be desired for truth and understanding. Instead of encmrbering the building permit process, your committee worked hard at finding a formula that would in fact expedite the process. Proof of this you will find in Art. 7.24 entitl- ed "Preliminary Review" where provision is made for an owner and his archi- tect to have their preliminary plans reviewed by the Board before entering into the major expense of preparing completed working drawings and specifica- tions as required for the final review and construction. The purpose of this provision was really to assist the builders in their efforts to save both time and money. Let me give you an example: When I was on the Zoning Commission, we were presented with a completed set of plans and specifications for a new office building to house a growing young legal firm. The proposed building was to be built in the downtown fire district. Apparently the owners' architect had failed to check this out before completing his final drawings, for we found the design not of fire resistive construction as required. It even had a wood shingle roof as I remember it. Now one member of this law firm has claimed in his remarks on the radio that they were held up three months by the Zoning Commission. This is obviously an unfair criticism of the Commission, but to help avoid such unfortunate situations in the future these provisions for a preliminary review by the Commtmity Appearance Board have been provided for. (Mar. 6'80) 157 Mr. Mac Ki.11och felt this Ordinance would usurp the powers of the present authorities and such authority as is on the records should be left as is. He was opposed to the Ordinance as written, saying an advisory Board of experts could be helpful but leave the authority where it already exists. Mr. Del Borom said Fairhope is a beautiful little town but may not stay that way in the future. Mr. Boron was in favor of the Ordinance as a way to preserve the aesthetic values -of the community. Ms. Leona Newman, present Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission stated the Commission heartily endorsed the adoption of the Ordinance because the CAB thus established was needed to keep Fairhope beautiful. Mr. Ben Kilborn stated it was naive to think Fairhope would stay beautiful without passing laws to insure correct growth. Why not adopt the Ordinance and then abolish it if things did not work out. Mr. Louis Girdler said he felt the truth lay somewhere in between all the points being brought forward for and against the adoption of this Ordinance. Mrs, Betty Barnhill stated she was opposed to the adoption of the Ordinance due to the fact that in various dealings with the members of the Cogm3nity Appearance Camudttee who drew up the Ordinance, she found said members to be unbending in their attitudes and, by their occupations and backgrounds, unable to empathize with the small businessman...... the very group which will be most affected by the Ordinance. Ms. Barnhill felt present laws and officials bad done alright so far and saw no need for a CAB. Mr. Gilbert Wesley sei d he was for the Ordinance because he felt legis- lation was needed to avoid falling into the trap of looking just like every other small town, Mr. Bill Baldwin spoke for the Chamber of Commerce and stated they were opposed to the Ordinance as presently written by the Commmity Appearance Camrrittee. Everyone is interested in Fairhope and beautification but this should not be legislated by more laws and more Boards. The Chamber is opposed to another level of government but they also feel something should be done about delegation of authority in the Building Inspector's Office, not just have one man to carry the whole load. Mr. Tam McGill said he was for the Ordinance because change is coming and maybe more government is needed to meet the challenge. Mr. Howard Wulff said he was for the Ordinance because he felt the local merchants had not taken care of the beautification efforts in the past. Mrs. Betty Wolff stated she also was for the ordinance becttuise people just are not going to take care of beautification on a voluntary basis. Mr. Sam Ansell stated appeals to the business commnmity do not work so laws are needed, therefore he was,for the ordinance, (Mar. 6'80) 158 Ms. Rae Jackson said she loved Fairhope and was for the CAB. Ms. Bergeron said she was for the ordinance because she could not walk on the beaches any more without having to see junk on the Bay such as the Bay House Apartment complex. Ms. Corky Ellard said she was for the ordinance and would like to close the doors and not let anyone else in. Mr. T.Q. Holobaugh asked if this ordinance was necessary. Was our present government really unable to manage to the point of having to appoint another board. Mr. Jack Cromwell asked if it would be possible to have a Community Appearance Board and elect the members who would serve on it(public elec- tion). No one could answer this question. Mr. John Parker, who served on the Community Appearance Committee, and is a member of the Plan ing'& Zoning Commission, stated more laws were needed to meet the heavy growth of the future, Mayor Nix, after ascertaining that everyone who wished'to speak had been heard, asked for a show of hands of those who lived in Fairhope who were for and then who were against the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. In Fairhope - For - 67 In Fairhope - Against - 36 Mayor -Nix was then going to ask for a show of hands of the general audience but discussion broke out and Mayor Nix instead asked if anyone present was in favor of seeing this question settled by referendum. So many hands went up, Mr. Nix rephased and asked for a show of hands against a refer- endun: Negative vote: 5 Councilman Box moved to hold a referendum on the question of establishing a Community Appearance Board at the time of the City Elections. Seconded by Councilwoman Nelson, the vote was: YEA - Mayor Nix, Councibnembers Box, Stipes, Nelson, Bishop, and McCawley, NAY - none.