Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-1968 Regular and Public MeetingT The F airhope Planning and Zoning Commission mot in regular and public mooting' may, aetokox 7* 1966 at asQQ p.m,., at city Hall,. Presents Chairman F'rederi.ck# members I%oon* gagnell# Nlemaryer. urtC Arnold. Absent = Members t'itman, Gates, _�, pader. Visitors a Mr. gntsmen, Dyson, :tine, .Earl, Ted and Mill Dyer, Rickarby, Carter. MacGregor: Mrss • Taylors Mr. and Mrs. Neel, °ar. and Aires. G. w right, i1r. and Mrs. Gipson Jones. Old business: Application *f Dr. Robert ,Mine to rezone from R-1 to 0-2, the fol- lowing described property: :tart at the N.E. Cornor of � sction 39. (Baron des F orriett Grant) Township 6 '_-outh, pzange 2 East and run 5auth along the eastern boUndory 1031.5 F't., for i,tOINT Of 3WCi1l19If4Gg 14outh 300 feet, SouthS��h ai 330 Nest, 46.5 rt., to East Margin of Groeno Roads, Goiti. N 21 5T' , set 325.5 rest, Cash ifig.s Ft., to POINT Of GECINUW6. Both ter. Dyers vei e sd approval; lickarby,, Cartars M acwrcgor, Tesyfleir, Neale* W it ghte apRaesed. Application of Donald Cldes to rezone from 3.2 to R-3 the following described propertys Lot 3 In Block ?, in Section 37, Township 6 Louthl, Range 2 East; 6eaidessi.n County, Alabama, in accordance with map or plat recorded An Miscellaneous Book 1, "-uget 341 of the Probst* Records of gal- dasin County,, Al+nbs xm,� - €Rr. Earls, agent for Olds had filed with secretary letter from owner stating that he assumed all coasts for installing and main- taining Sewage pump on this property and attaching spascif'icstiOn of pump approved by City Building Inspector to same. Mr. and Mars. Gipson Janes opposed multlr-family ranted property in a- strictly *,no -family o+wnor-accupled neighborhood. Now easinesrs t Ito-subdi.vioton of Ed h1emasyesres leasehold on Inglesido and rairhope Aveer+ou-o far. altesmen heaving examined plat submitted list -of sug- gested changes. =7eillip Stenzel application, to rezone fro* R-2 to Fi-1 lots. 15,I6117, 20, and 21, nl.ock 16. volasnte Jubdividen in action 37, T., 6 .5buth Rene 2 East., was presented for acceptance for advsrtieing for public meeting.. Decisianss Motion by Mr, Arnold that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council than rozcaning as requested by Dr. 1tines be approved. Motion died for lack of a tocond. Motion by mt. Macon, seconded by Mr. Dung that the Feirhops4 planning and Zoning Commission recommend to than City Council that the av- pli.ceti.on of lobert ;tines to rezone from R-1 to 8-2, the following described property be disapproved. IL tart: at Nr. Corner of W�ectjan 39 (i Heron do Furriett mart) T. 6 5 Ranga a Lost and .run �+auth ee100,3 the OREtcrn 90undary 1030.5 Pt., for POINT tT OF wCl ei :U outh 3tj facet . Guth Sao 33' Werst, +40.5 rt . to C*%t *srgiff of rasna kmd, U4 2i0. 511 vest 325.5 feet* East , 169-S ft., to w01t4T CF C&iNftj*(;. Voting Ayys 4190er ":icon* 6agnelle hiew9yer, Bung, Voting y s Member #trnold. 10ntion carried. eatison by Xr. Arnold 88CO deed by fir. Bunn that Satien on the re. zaning applicstiOn of anald (','Ids be tabied until next eeeti" P,onding Ola.rirleation of differences; shown in diaeheiam an plot of property and known d ogn sion of lot. -10tion carried unanimously. Notion by Mr. final approval to dhangas an d Sungs naContlsd by :r. U29nsll that prallainary and * be given roaeubdivislon of Liamayops l.eaj3Gp© sub,jsct e+arrrections as 5UC9*Sted by Per. The COAXiasiGn did not accept for odwartis,ing the .rezoning appl,ioee- tion of h"'ip atenzel 'due to oeeission--i is list of ad, scent Property oamnrel Mr. Z.yson# duil+dfng InSioctorr, prvrante3 plan-3 for i�arl,y buil4trig an North :yatjon atr*ot for c0mvienjons inapgction.. There b8109 no further business, x6et3ng sidjourn+ed. Next avating kcMday, tove ber A p 10460. �.-�"�--� • ,.� >� ram.. �. F:loierr� �.i sue* '�ecre a.cy U 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 wedid 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 i 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 a 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 zoning change. Talen from an actual inquiry, and the reply from ASPo's PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE. This article courtesy of: American Society of Planning Officials Newsletter .4