Orange Beach tables new development over parking concerns

By Crystal Cole
Posted 1/25/17

Orange Beach city leaders tabled the approval of a new planned unit development after more concerns were raised about the issue of parking.

The Gulfstream PUD had come before the council before …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Get the gift of local news. All subscriptions 50% off for a limited time!

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

Orange Beach tables new development over parking concerns

Posted

Orange Beach city leaders tabled the approval of a new planned unit development after more concerns were raised about the issue of parking.

The Gulfstream PUD had come before the council before for discussion, and council members continued to take issue with the number of spaces and whether or not on-street parking would be allowed.

“This came before planning and received a split 4-4 vote,” Councilwoman Annette Mitchell said. “The major issue was parking. It was felt that there was not enough parking off street. Another concern that came up during discussions was rental control, and, although we did not require it at planning commission, I think we should discuss restricted rentals in the covenants that cannot be changed.”

One of the property’s developers addressed those concerns with the council.

“We considered what was talked about at the last meeting and went back to the drawing board,” Grant Rish, a representative for the developer, said. “We’ve added eight more spaces. The developer has agreed to put in the restrictive covenants, and I think it’s already in there. No boats, no trailers, no jet-skis, no RVs - none of those things will be allowed within this development. That’s about the best we feel we can do.”

Rish said as far as rental restrictions, they were amenable to a six month limit.

Mayor Tony Kennon said he wanted to make sure the covenant could not be changed in the future to get rid of the city’s requests, so he wanted those restrictions to be attached to the PUD.

Kennon also raised further concerns about parking, since from his perspective, it boiled down to a public safety issue.

“It has strictly to do with our problem with on-street parking,” Kennon said. “All the cars are going to be on the street, and that’s a concern for public safety issues. How are we going to get a fire truck down there, an ambulance down there on Fourth of July weekend, on Labor Day weekend? We bring that to the table because we know that’s an issue we deal with every year.”

Several council members said they were concerned the garages attached to the unit would only be used as storage space and not parking, compounding the potential issue of street parking.

Rish said the covenant would have restrictions in place to try to prevent that from happening as much as possible and that a management group would be contracted to make sure it wasn’t an issue.

“We hear your concerns, and we’re trying our hardest to address all of these,” Rish said. “It’s just gotten to the point on our end where we’re running into a last straw. At this point, we’re in over six figures on this thing with engineering and our due diligence.”

Councilwoman Joni Blalock said the city has had similar problems in similar developments.

“We have other developers that have the same covenant restrictions, and we still are seeing problems,” Blalock said. “They’re still bringing in boats, they’re still bringing in jet-skis. The next thing you know, all of the other residents are calling the city because they can’t get in their place. You may have someone there on site that’s supposed to be in charge, but that doesn’t mean anything sometimes. It’s a very legitimate concern the council has.”

Blalock said she appreciated the developers wanting to work with the city and being open to making changes, but the lack of parking remained a serious concern.

“The hard facts are with the lack of parking and people not doing what they’re supposed to do, we’re going to have problems,” Blalock said.

Rish urged the council to consider the benefits that would come as a part of the development, including street improvements and the high quality that the development would have.

Police and fire officials echoed the council’s concerns about on-street parking, saying it could potentially be a problem for them in responding to emergencies.

“We’d try to get it done as best we can, but it would not be optimal,” Interim Fire Chief Justin Pearce said.

Kennon told the council the developer had modeled the changes in parking to reflect another unit that had previously been approved by the council, but said he felt the city needed to show developers they were taking the issue of parking seriously.

He asked the developers if they wanted to withdraw the motion, but city staff said that could cause additional costs and could force them to back before the planning commission. They declined the offer, so the council voted to table the motion.

Cotton Bayou

City officials also took time to inform the council Cotton Bayou would be closed in two weeks for needed upgrades to the parking facilities.

“It may be closed for two to three months,” Kit Alexander, Orange Beach engineering and environmental director, said. “We’re hoping closer to two months. They’re doubling the amount of parking there, which is good, but it’s going to take a while to get it done.”

Lifeguard stands

Mitchell raised questions about the variance in price for new lifeguard stands for the city, as they came in several thousands over what had previously been budgeted.

“There were four of these lifeguard stands in the budget, and we approved one of those as a council for $27,000 or so,” Mitchell said. “The area of concern is that there is not an ability to get a competitive bid because I guess there’s only one company that does this. And, now, we’re $5,000 over.”

City staff explained the change is price was due to having a stainless steel structure instead of a galvanized steel structure.

Kennon questioned why the company would even offer a galvanized option when they already offered stainless steel.

“They make them for all over the world so they give you the option of galvanized or stainless steel,” Melvin Shepard, aquatics director, said. “Of course, the stainless steel is going to hold up better, especially in our environment. If you can’t afford the upgrade, at least you have the galvanized.”

Shepard said most towers are budgeted on a 15 to 20 year life cycle, so while the $34,000 seemed like a lot, it would be a cost that wouldn’t reoccur for some time.

“Hopefully, in my lifetime, we’ll never have to buy another one,” Shepard said. “It’ll be healthy, it’ll be clean and it’ll be safe.”

Mitchell cautioned purchases like this and other made that evening were already eating away at the established budget.

“We just need to tighten up and do a better job because a budget should last more than 16 days,” Mitchell said.

Kennon said new items like these were not in the budget so council members could decide on the necessity of items on a case by case basis. He added his concerns about continuing to go over budget.

“We’ve got to start reeling it in because in the next three years, we’re going to get really tight on our spending,” Kennon said. “I gave that sermon to staff today, so we’re going to work hard. We’re not questioning the need here. This is just the perfect storm of issues that’s kind of happening all at once.”