Business Zoning Changes Debated

Wednesday, December 07, 2005
By RYAN DEZEMBER
Staff Reporter

GULF SHORES -- A public discussion that will ultimately determine the extent of high-rise development throughout the city was held Monday and talks on the topic will continue today with municipal planners, residents and developers meeting with the city's Atlanta-based zoning consultants.

At issue is whether to change rules for parcels zoned for general business or commercial development to remove the ability to build high-rise and high-density multi-family projects on such property. That land is primarily located along Alabama 59, the north side of East Second Avenue, the south side of Cotton Creek Drive and along the Intracoastal Waterway.

The discussions were largely prompted by a proposal to replace the Sawgrass Landing shopping center on Alabama 59 with a 17-story, extended-stay hotel and are part of the current administration's efforts to revamp what they say are outdated and unfeasible zoning rules.

Zoning rules along the beach, Fort Morgan Road, the Intracoastal Waterway and in the Plash Island area have already been re-examined and changed by the City Council. Those changes, in many cases, decreased the intensity of the allowable development.

Though city leaders have indicated that they will make changes to decrease the maximum building height and density that can be built on general business and commercial property, no specific proposal has been put forward. An early recommendation from the city's zoning consultants to limit developers to 12 units per acre, as opposed to the 42 allowed now, had some landowners worried Monday, but was deemed unlikely by city officials.

Mayor G.W. "Billy" Duke III said Monday's meeting was intended to gauge the opinions of residents and property owners and also to hear their thoughts regarding a possible moratorium on development proposals for general business and commercial-zoned property.

On Tuesday city officials met with consultants from the Atlanta firm Jordan, Jones and Goulding as well as owners of large commercially zoned tracts to see what sort of development plans may soon be proposed. Then, today, the consultants, which worked on the other area rezonings, will meet with residents and city officials to outline a zoning plan that will reconcile those projects already in the works with the desires to limit high-rise, high-density development, City Councilman Robert Craft said Monday.

Craft told the 50 or so residents and landowners who attended Monday's meetings that decreasing density and building height limits will be necessary to preserve the quality of life in Gulf Shores and prevent overdevelopment.

"It's not easy to do because you have to change things," Craft said. "We're trying to use our best judgment to do it the best way. It's not something we take lightly, it's not something that's easy, but it's something that had to be done."

Some landowners expressed concern that their land values would drop if land use was further limited. Lou Peed said his family has long held property on both sides of the Intracoastal Waterway in hopes of developing it into "something big" and the proposed reduction of density has some of his relatives aggravated.

"It's like buying a bond for 99 years and they're going to pay you 10 percent interest and then when it comes time to collect your money, they tell you it's only going to be 3 percent," Peed said. "It's a big change."

Resident Reg Thatcher said he wondered whether the city had any plans to compensate landowners for the loss of value to their property if changes were made. He said his future decisions on whether to invest in such land would be based on the outcome of the discussions.

"We can't in good conscience take someone else's property, which they have fairly bargained for considering the future value and the present value, and not compensate that person for that," Thatcher said. "It's very unjust of government to use that heavy hand."

Others, however, spoke in favor of limiting high-density projects and towers to certain areas where they already exist. Marci Forrester, a resident, said she favored a moratorium to slow any proposals so that the city can "be sure what it is we want to do and be sure of what the face of Gulf Shores will look like 20, 30 years from now."

Councilman Philip Harris, who has been a proponent of temporarily banning multi-family and hotel proposals for commercial property while changes are made, said, "If we end up with one major project that is a detriment to the community, then we haven't done our job."

Because a moratorium would likely be lifted once the zoning rules are changed to allow less-dense, and therefore less-profitable, projects, landowners may rush to submit development plans that are less desirable than those they could come up with if more time was allowed, several opponents of a moratorium said Monday.

"There may be people out there that are trying to accumulate properties so they can do one development and if we say we're going to put a moratorium on, they're probably going to rush out and do individual site plans," Duke said. "Instead of having one developer we might have four or five."

Kaiser Realty President Leonard Kaiser, like Duke, said he opposed a moratorium because there isn't the same urgency to justify one like there was a year ago in the post-Hurricane Ivan boom, when Gulf-front property was selling rapidly and development plans poured into City Hall.

"Clearly the market has changed," Kaiser said. "I think one thing that's going to stop high-rise buildings up and down 59 is the banks. Banks are not going to loan the money because you're not going to be able to market and sell them."