Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-1968 Regular and Public Meetingwi Y i Fair[iope Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Aand Public meeting Monday, July 1 ,•, 1968 5:00 P.M. City Hall Present: Members Niemeyer, Bung, Macon, Pitman, Spader, Arnold, Chairman Fredericks Absent: Members Gates, Bagnell Visitors: Mr. Mossholder, Wagner, H(hnes Mr. Pitman served as chairman pro tem. Minutes of previous meeting approved as read. Application received of Robert M. Green to B-2 the following described property: From SI.E. corner SeC.39, T6S, R2E runNorth to the point of beginning; thence run Kest North 631.3 ft; thence run East 300 ft. to run South 631.3 ft. along Greeno Road to the rezone from R-2 to 690 ft. and West 40 ft. 300 ft; thence run Greeno Road; thence point of beginning. or Motion bo Mr. Arnold, seconded by Mr. Niemeyer, that,, there beamg having been no changes affecting the area involved so far as the Planning and Zoning Commission has been�or is,informed, the Commission rejects the application of Robert M. Green for rezoning property on Greeno Road. Motion carried unanimously. RmhiiaxkmaaxmgxemxapptfeatYeroxef Public hearing on application of Vincent J. Klein to rezone to B-1 that part of the land described —below presently zoned R-2 A. C. Wagner adjoining property owner appeared to protest. Motion by Mr. Arnold, seconded by Mr. Bung, that the Planning ant/ Zoning Commssission recommend to the City Council the rezoning as requested provided an eight -foot decorative planting stripD of shrubbery a established and maintained along the north prolarty line. Votin aye;Mr. Macon, Niemeyer, Bung, Arnold, FrBdericK. Voting Nay: Mr. Spader. Motion carried. Next regular meeting, Monday August 5, 1968. Eloise T. Wilson, Secretary THE COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION The Community Planning Division, which adminis- ters 701 local planning assistance in the state, is present- ly working directly with the following communities to assist them in the formulation of a comprehensive plan: Geneva Samson Slocomb Daphne Oneonta Guin Hartford Wadley Lanett Camp Hill Alabaster Calera Leeds Oxford Union Springs Ashland Albertville Boaz Hamilton Crossville Rainsville Triana Detroit Haleyville Millport Communities under consultation contracts (this service consists of periodic consultation with the com- munity concerning planning and related problems) are: Daleville Fayette Guntersville Enterprise Pleasant Grove Tuscumbia LaFayette Sheffield Muscle Shoals Sylacauga Florence Madison Athens Attalla Stevenson Communities engaged in planning done by a con- sulting firm through a third -party contract (super- vised by the Community Planning Division) are: Atmore Ariton Demopolis Phenix City Lineville Clanton Monroeville Jacksonville Andalusia York Aliceville Winfield Cullman Eutaw It is commendable that these communities are en- gaged in comprehensive planning and are actively en- gaged in a program of planned community develop- ment and improvement. If your community is inter- •t1 i1 L Y 1968 VOLUME 3/NUMBER 4 this issue: The Community Planning Division ___._ __ _ ___ ----1 Question and Comment: Standards For Zoning Changes _____________________ _______ _3 Planning Films Now Available --- _------------------ _--------- 4 ested in initiating or- continuing a comprehensive plan- ning program, assistance may be obtained by contact- ing: The Community Planning Division State Planning and Industrial Development Board State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Phone: 265-2341 Ext. 3168 Following is a list of communities which have con- tacted the division and requested urban planning as- sistance: Wetumpka Red Bay Columbia Phil Campbell Abbeville Vina Midland City Reese City Altoona Carbon Hill Cordova Reform Leighton Littleville Vincent Lynn Berry Collinsville Brantley Geraldine Fyffe Loxley Hodges Garden City Wedowee Greenville Tallassee Newville Heflin Kinston Grant Double Springs McKenzie Addison Clayton Jackson Hobson City Gordo Carrollton Anniston Roanoke Ft. Payne Ragland Guntersville Moundville Lincoln North Central Ala. Regional Planning Commission (Decatur) South Alabama Regional Planning Commission Birmingham - Jefferson Co. Planning Commission Section Haleyville New Hope Vernon Attalla Brewton Carrville Tallassee Montgomery Regional Planning Commission Limestone County T___ COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF* Each Community Planner serves a different locality. The letters on the map show the distribution of towns assisted by staff Planners under Federally aided plan- ning programs in 1968. I Ma . Ma • Decatur Mc • Ma Office Y Mc Mc • Mc Mc Mal Y • MI M Y Ci • C Mi S C Montgomery Office MI Y r• C C. Leonard Beard, Director Richard L. Dowdy, Administrator Community Planning Division W. K. Milner, Editor IN MONTGOMERY Richard L. Dowdy, Administrator Y J. William Yates, Area Chief, Montgomery Office C Sloan Cassels, Community Planner S Bob Sternenberg, Community Planner M W. Kent Milner, Community Planner Luther M. Holt, Statistician Gil Gilder, Statistician Joe H. Sherer, Engineering Assistant Betty Pridmore, Librarian Laura B. Query, Secretary Willie C. Lowe, Secretary IN DECATUR Me William A. McLaughlin, Area Chief, Decatur Office Ma Ronald Matthews, Community Planner Halbert Gamble, Community Planner Diane Makemson, Secretary QUESTION A COMMENT: STANDARDS FOR ZONING CHANGES We have several new councilmen this year, and they have asked if there are recognized rules and standards they can use to. evaluate requests for zoning changes coming before them. Do you know of any such stand- ards? As far as we know, there is no single publication giving recognized guides for evaluating zoning changes. In the first place, we will assume that it is understood that zoning changes are brought about by amending the zoning ordinance, not by using variances. The clearest case for changing zoning is in a situa- tion in which the wrong districting was used from the beginning. The area should not have been zoned that way when the ordinance was adopted. The reason for incorrect zoning may have been bad advice or it may have been undue and improper pressure at the time the ordinance was adopted. A second justification for amendment is that changes have taken place. We see today that we were wrong yesterday. The most obvious example of a need for change for this reason is the necessity of getting rid of the enormous amount of strip commercial zoning so popular in the early years of zoning. Strip zoning came.during the days when we thought passing traffic was necessary for business. Now we know that parked automobiles are necessary for business and we see the error of our former ways. Zoning changes may also be dictated because tech- nological change and the change in the individual community build up a demand for a type of land use that we did not provide or provide in the right place. Typical here is the village that grew to become a city and found that it had not provided for an industrial tax base; or a city that had industrial districts served only by rail transportation. Nowadays, factories must have both rail and adequate highway transportation. The older industrial district may have to be abandoned and land formerly earmarked residential or commercial changed to permit industrial use. Frequently we find justification for a change in zon- ing in a peripheral situation. Land lying immediately adjacent to an expanding commercial district may be properly rezoned to allow the commercial district to expand. Often land is needed for off-street parking to serve the adjacent business district. Each situation is unique and must be examined as an individual, new problem. But rarely will the case for change be wholly favorable, with no adverse aspects to discourage it. One of the first things to look at is the supply of land of the new classification in other parts of the city. If a man requests creation of Ea ,new commercial district, he should be able to prove that there is not enough commercial land already available, just as well located. The fact that he does not own the other land has no bearing whatsoever on the problem. You can actually rob Peter to pay Paul in this situation. By giving the petitioner new value, you take from present owners of commercial land part of its value. Councilmen should always recognize what a zoning change will do to the surrounding neighborhood. In most cases they will not be allowed to overlook this, because the neighbors will protest long and loud. They must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the change to the community (not to the individual owner) . The councilmen must not forget that changing a zon- ing district may incur additional municipal service costs which they may not be prepared to meet. This is particularly true of a change that increases the den- sity of residential development. They must also recog- nize that their duty is to the whole taxpayer, not just to the portion of the taxpayer that foots the bill for regular municipal services. One aspect we find councilmen most frequently for- get is that the type of development which actually takes place after the zoning change is made may have no resemblance to that represented by the petitioner. The change may be requested to put in a "flower shop," but when the flower shop is built, it sprouts gasoline pumps and grease racks and whirligigs. When you change to a new classification, you authorize every possible use that can be built under that new classifica- tion. The councilmen must also realize that any zoning change sets a precedent. It is more difficult to resist the second and third requests; soon it becomes impos- sible to turn down any requests. It is not a legal im- possibility, of course, but a moral and political impos- sibility. They should be warned against being swayed by the individual who requests the change. We would phrase this rule: "Beware of widows and cripples!" It is difficult not to be sympathetic to what seems to be a genuine financial hardship case, especially when pre- sented by a highly articulate lawyer. Widows are par- ticularly effective in getting sites rezoned for filling stations. It is a good rule to require the petitioner to present quite detailed justification for any change he requests. This applies especially to the developer trying to get a site for a shopping center. He is claiming that the city council was wrong to zone the property for, say, residential purposes. It should be zoned for his shop- ping center. Make him prove it! Make him give you an accurate and detailed economic analysis, market analysis and design. A developer stands to make a great deal of money out of a shopping center. He can well afford to spend generously, in proving his case. Finally, we would say that councilmen should under- stand that they are not in any way forced to amend the zoning ordinance. Amending the zoning ordinance is a legislative procedure and whether or not they undertake to legislate is entirely at their option. The only exception to this is in the case of an initiative petition coming from the citizens. This is so rare that we don't believe we have ever heard of its being used for a zoning change. Taken from an actual inquiry, and the reply from ASPo's PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE. This article courtesy of: American Society of Planning Officials Newsletter PLANNING FILMS NOW AVAILABLE The following films have been acquired by the Community Planning Division and are available to planning commis- sions, civic groups, and other interested groups upon request. i They are designed to promote public interest in community planning by presenting urban growth problems and pc.: ,ible solutions through planned urban development. All films are 16 mm with sound. Films: 4. 1. "Urban Sprawl" —This film defines the problem created 1 by urban sprawl and the resulting necessity for planned V urban growth. (Color-15 min.) 2. "A Tale of 4 Cities" —How four cities attacked problems 5 such as unemployment, substandard housing, air pollu- tion, -and inadequate governmental structure is the sub- ject of this film. (Color-30 min.) 3. "Battleground, U. S. A." —This film clearly illustrates the problems of urban blight —junk yards, slum housing, mixed land use, trash accumulations, and the public apathy towards improvement. It then shows the im- provements possible through planning and the involve- ment of civic groups and committees in implementing 6 plans and ideas. (black and white-27 min.) COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION ALABAMA STATE PLANNING AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36104 s6und housing in The avoidance of so reputable cons 14 min.) ,ivinq Thing" —The importance of community is the topic of this film. Cady construction practices by not .tioi_k firms is emphasized. (color — "A City Reborn" —This film shows how one city ar- rested and reversed the decay of its central business district. The first part of the film provides a summary of the general problems confronting the "downtowns" of American cities. The film then discusses the way in which the city mobilized for action and the planning approaches used. The final portion of the film depicts the construction of the downtown shopping mall and the role it now plays in the community. (color-21 min.) "All of the People, All of the Time" —This film is speci- fically designed to describe the nature and value of planning in small to medium -size communities. (color- 30 min.) cc ML 03 •�. a A1_P �. p ��.:. rtJ 39,3670 t-_��,., FNoore ICity Clerk City Ball 36532 1,airh0Par 1►la.