Multi-Family Dwellings Part V

We find it strange that at a time in America when communities are embracing SmartGrowth development and trying to leave as little impact on the environment while still growing for the future, that Leeds is taking an approach of low density development.

Of course if you want no development at all this approach works. The question is can we afford no development at all?

We possibly could have before we invested in the new schools, but that ship has sailed to the tune of over $40 million in bonds.

Show me a way to pay for schools without new development or saying to simply tighten our belts and I'll shut up right now and delete everything I have written.

The first payment on the schools is $2.8 million dollars and that is about one fourth (1/4) of our budget. If you can shave that out of our budget then we must be the most wasteful city in America. Not to mention our services need increasing, not decreased.

Cities raise revenue through property owners and business. All the rest is chump change when you are talking millions of dollars. We can become the "speed trap" of America and it won't put a dent into the payment of our schools.

As we've said time and time again - we are already in debt. We will not get out of it without development.

We've heard that this zoning is about stopping developers from making money off the citizens. If that is true our goose is cooked, because developers indeed expect to make money. That is the reason they develop in the first place, along with a desire to truly help communities grow and prosper. Those that don't are the ones not willing to make reasonable changes and alter plans where needed.

We have much bigger problems in Leeds than the number of apartments in an acre when it comes to development.

Are you concerned about any of the following in Leeds:

• Empty houses?
  
• Empty shopping centers?
  
• Empty downtown stores?
  
• Empty strip malls?
  
• Empty overgrown lots in the middle of neighborhoods?
  

There are numerous solutions from infill development to SmartGrowth development and they do not try to control density to a point that it keeps development away.

SmartGrowth development is the new trend across America, so what is it?

From the Environmental Protection Agency and the Northeast Midwest Planing Institute:

Good codes are the foundation upon which great communities are built. They are the framework that regulates where and what type of development may occur. Codes guide everything from permissible land uses, to building densities, locations, and setbacks, to street widths and parking requirements. When done well, codes make it easier for a community to implement its vision. However, when they are out of date or don't line up with the community's vision, codes can actually keep communities from getting the development they want. For example, the standard zoning practice of the past few decades has separated residential, retail, and office uses. Today, however, this zoning stands in the way of communities that want to create vibrant, walkable neighborhoods that mix these uses and give residents the option to walk to the store, walk to work, or own a home business.

Communities are finally discovering an alternative to conventional development patterns that cause suburban sprawl, destroy open lands, siphon vitality from existing communities, and create gridlocked lifestyles.

A major solution to these problems is infill development—the creative recycling of vacant or underutilized lands within cities and suburbs. Every city, town, and suburb has these types of properties. They range from the single vacant lot to surface parking lots to empty shopping malls.

Once considered eyesores, such sites are becoming prized as catalysts that improve solid communities and revitalize those facing problems. Successful infill, for example, addresses traffic issues by creating communities where people live closer to work and school, and where biking, walking, and transit can substitute for auto travel.


Successful infill development can offer these rewards for communities:


• provide housing (both affordable and market rate) near job centers and transit;
• increase the property-tax base;
• preserve open space at the edge of regions;
• provide new residents to support shopping districts and services;
• capitalize on community assets such as parks, infrastructure, and transit; and
• create new community assets such as child-care centers, arts districts, and shopping areas.


Successful infill expresses not what a community will settle for but what it really wants. To be considered successful, it must be financially viable while demonstrating excellent design.

Excellent design refers not to the architectural design of a single building but to the quality of place created by a fabric of well-designed buildings and public spaces. Each element of public and private spaces, from awnings and windows, to benches and sidewalks, to roads and transit stations, needs to be carefully crafted. Excellent design creates places that are safe and attractive, that give people a variety of transportation options, and that encourage private investment and development.

For communities to define and plan for successful infill development, recommended strategies include:

• Build a common vision and create a plan.
• Take action to implement the plan.
• Encourage mixed-use infill development that includes housing.
• Demand quality design.
• Address transportation issues at the community level.



MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA - An example of SmartGrowth development.

Below is taken from the SmartGrowth plan code of Montgomery, Alabama.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Code is to enable, encourage, and qualify the implementation of the following policies.

1.2.1 The Region
a. That the region should retain its natural infrastructure and visual character derived from topography, woodlands, farmlands, riparian corridors, and coastlines.
b. That growth strategies should encourage infill and redevelopment in parity with new communities.
c. That development contiguous to urban areas should be structured in the neighborhood pattern and be integrated with the existing urban pattern.
d. That development non-contiguous to urban areas should be organized in the pattern of clusters, traditional neighborhoods or villages, and regional centers.
e. That Affordable Housing should be distributed throughout the region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty.
f. That transportation corridors should be planned and reserved in coordination with land use.
g. That green corridors should be used to define and connect the urbanized areas.
h. That the region should include a framework of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems that provide alternatives to the automobile.

1.2.2 The Community
a. That neighborhoods and regional centers should be compact, pedestrian-oriented, and mixed--use.
b. That neighborhoods and regional centers should be the preferred pattern of development and that districts specializing in single-use should be the exception.
c. That ordinary activities of daily living should occur within walking distance of most dwellings, allowing independence to those who do not drive.
d. That interconnected networks of Thoroughfares should be designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips.
e. That within neighborhoods, a range of housing types and price levels should be provided to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.
f. That appropriate building densities and land uses should be provided within walking distance of transit stops.
g. That civic, institutional, and commercial activity should be embedded in downtowns, not isolated in remote single-use complexes.
h. That schools should be sized and located to enable children to walk or bicycle to them.
i. That a range of open space including parks, squares, and playgrounds should be distributed within neighborhoods and urban zones.

1.2.3 The Block and the Building
a. That buildings and landscaping should contribute to the physical definition of Thoroughfares as civic places.
b. That development should adequately accommodate automobiles while respecting the pedestrian and the spatial form of public space.
c. That the design of streets and buildings should reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility.
d. That architecture and landscape design should grow from local climate, topography, history, and building practice.
e. That buildings should provide their inhabitants with a clear sense of geography and climate through energy efficient methods.
f. That Civic Buildings and public gathering places should be provided locations that reinforce community identity and support self-government.
g. That Civic Buildings should be distinctive and appropriate to a role more important than the other buildings that constitute the fabric of the city.
h. That the preservation and renewal of historic buildings should be facilitated to affirm the continuity and evolution of society.
i. That the harmonious and orderly evolution of urban areas should be secured through graphic codes that serve as guides for change.


How about we break out that Master Plan and work on that and consider development that has proven to take care of the same problems we have in Leeds instead of just passing an ordinance that addresses apartment density?

Leeds can be all it can be, with a vision that is created by all of us with some proper planning and discussion.

We'll continue the series Monday morning.

Multi-Family Dwellings Part IV

continued from yesterday.

Yesterday in this series we provided links to the governing laws for zoning and a copy of the Leeds Zoning Ordinance. Let take a peek at the opening of that zoning ordinance book we scanned in.





Note the underlined sections we marked in red above.

Do these two sections of words oppose one another? One desires to keep land from being overcrowded and the other wants to avoid undue concentration of people.

So how can they exist together?

Read on. Note the final statement above about the "character of districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses..." This is the "tie that binds" the opposing sets of wording and ideals.

A master plan and consideration for the districts and suitability of the land.

Is the proposed ordinance giving consideration of all the varying districts in the City of Leeds? Is it giving consideration and being proposed in accordance with the Master Plan, as all the other ordinances were and stated so in the article above that comes before the actual ordinances?

One could make that argument based on the very R-3 district itself. So there you are. Which leads us to the Master Plan and another question.

Why are we targeting one section of a zoning book over ten years old to control density in multi-dwelling structures and not looking first at our Master Plan?

The Master Plan as outlined in the Code of Alabama is a living document that is to be reviewed, updated, discussed and used to keep the zoning ordinance on track with the plan.

The last two major developments that had apartments or town homes were the "Towns on 78" which was purchased by the new administration for our high school road and the Grand River Project that had the residential development taken off the table. Neither of these happened.

Is there some other development of apartments we are not aware of, that encroach on existing property owners?

Did the nestle of pine trees and dirt bike trails on the north side of I-20 where the Grand River residential phase was to go, have some hidden homes and residents we are not aware of? Do people seriously believe that an area on the north side of I-20 encroaches on the rest of Leeds with an entire section of interstate to separate it from the rest of our city?

Are we actually giving consideration to particular and suitable areas for apartments or simply saying we don't want them ... anywhere?

Many people opposed the Towns on 78 especially those in my neighborhood of Brian Drive. Many in this area were fine with the town homes until they tried to squeeze the boundaries of the area within feet of the back fences of homes on Brian Drive and took out the trees that acted as buffers.

My point is there are justifiable places where many property owners do not want apartments at all, as they do not fit the pattern of the neighborhood; but is a blanket wide ordinance needed to stop such?

Would an alternative to this, be to possibly consider the actual zoning districts and see if they should remain an R-3 district given the current makeup of the area?

I'm not sure, and I'm no expert, but I see the wisdom in a master plan and the need for more rooftops in Leeds to support things like grocery stores we all want, and I fail to see where building apartments in areas that are not inhabited or even close to existing homes, as part of planned, mixed use communities hurt anyone, when done with consideration to the environment and a master plan.

You may possibly get around this limitation of 8 units per gross tract acre through a PUD, PCD, or overlay district, but who knows unless that is given consideration in the Master Plan.

So I return once again to the earlier question; why is this being targeted out of a zoning book that has 160 pages?

Tomorrow, we'll show examples of where high density development works and where it does not, based on examples around the country and right here in Alabama. We'll also show the increasing desire to plan what is known as "SmartGrowth" around the country.

Multi-Family Dwellings Part III

continued from yesterday

This is going to be a boring albeit highly necessary part of this series as it deals with state and local law.

The zoning ordinance and public hearing to set the number of multi-family dwellings to 8 per gross tract acre carries a recommendation from the Leeds Planning Commission to the Leeds City Council to hold the hearing and adopt the amendment to the ordinance.

In Leeds we have the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustments, both which operate under the laws of the State of Alabama as defined in the Code of Alabama, Title 11, Chapter 52 PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS.

The Code of Alabama is online and in fact Alabama was one of the first states to put their code and constitution online. The online code is lacking in a friendly navigation structure using one of the earlier designs of two frames for viewing. The left frame shows the titles and the right frame shows the corresponding sections.

The problem is the left frame does not update when you choose a title and consequently you will have to use your browser back button on the right frame to navigate the various sections. You’ll catch on after reviewing a few sections. The Code of Alabama is at:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm (NOTE: we caution you to continue reading before visiting the site to avoid common pitfalls many make with the Code of Alabama.

Click Title 11 Counties and Municipal Corporations, then click Title 2 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ONLY on the right side, and finally scroll down to Chapter 52 PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS.

What do you expect? The constitution of Alabama is one of the largest ones in the entire country.

As with all of Alabama code you must be careful in sections about local government to pay attention to the class of municipality. Cities are classed by population and many sections of Alabama law will apply only to certain classes.

The class structure creates another problem with the code in that much of it is written with exceptions. What this means is while there are some sections that deal only with a specific class of municipality, there are more that intermingle all the classes and will note an exception for one or the other. This has many viewers thinking that a section of the code only applies to a certain class, when in fact only the exception mentioned to that class applies and the remainder of the section would apply to all classes.

CONFUSED? Many are, so don’t feel bad. My point is simply that you have to carefully read the sections and if you are prone to pick and choose parts of law to suit you, then you are asking for big trouble with Alabama law.

For the record the City of Leeds is a CLASS 7 Municipality.

Later in this series we’ll make some references to the state zoning laws and feel you should have the tools to review them.

The City of Leeds has a zoning book that has been around for some time and efforts are being made to update it. The city has hired Bob House, a planning consultant, to assist in this effort. House works for Hoover and other cities in planning and zoning matters.

We took the zoning book and scanned in all 160 pages for the benefit of all citizens. But as the commercial goes – WAIT THERE’S MORE. The book does not have all the additions since 1997 as that is when it was signed and attested by Mayor Whitfield.

One of the forms in the back of the book shows the City of Gardendale on it, but most have the City of Leeds. This has lead many to think the ordinance was nothing more than a copy of Gardendale’s zoning ordinance. We have not been able to verify that, but have no doubt that a template from somewhere would have been used in the creation.

The scanned PDF are images only and therefore the file size is large. The original scanned document was over 50mb in size before we optimized the resolution of the pages. The document is now just over 12mb in size and available at:

http://www.leedsalabama.com/pdf/col_zoning_ord.pdf

Now that we’ve laid out some legal governing of zoning and provided the actual zoning ordinance book we’ll turn our attention tomorrow back to the proposal before us and also to the MASTER PLAN you will see mentioned in Alabama code that Planning Commissions are to carry out.

There has been a lot of talk about this Comprehensive Master Plan for Leeds with some asking where it is and some saying we do not have one. In fact we do have one and it was created in 1987 and we verified that with former city inspectors and clerks. We’ll see if City Hall still knows where it is.

More tomorrow.

Multi-Family Dwelling Part II

continued from the Leeds Herald Monday Edition.

If you are talking about limiting the amount of multi-family dwellings in a gross tract acre with the June 15, 2009 Public Hearing then you are talking about – zoning. Zoning has always fostered controversy since its inception at the turn into the 20th century in America.

In 1916 the City of New York passed the first U.S. zoning laws to restrict the height and setbacks of buildings and stop industry from moving into the Manhattan department store district.

In the mid 1920’s the town of Euclid, Ohio passed a zoning ordinance and Amber Realty sued the town, claiming that "their land was taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, without just compensation."

In 1926 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case, Village of Euclid, Ohio, v. the Amber Realty Company, and found that zoning is constitutional, provided that it is designed to protect the public health, welfare, and safety.

In less than ten years from its inception zoning had made it to the highest court in the land. In less than two years after Euclid the Supreme Court decided against zoning in Nectow v. City of Cambridge for violating the 14th Amendment due process clause.

These two cases formed the basis for an explosion of zoning ordinances that has touched huge cities to small towns all across America with Houston, Texas being one of the major holdout cities to have no zoning ordinances.

With the growing concern of environmental issues being put before the public in the 1970’s zoning laws were coming under fire for creating what was called “urban sprawl” (Haphazard growth or extension outward, especially that resulting from real estate development on the outskirts of a city) which many believe leads to an unnecessary encroachment on wilderness areas, water runoff problems, pollution from more cars driving, loss of land that would otherwise be wilderness or used in farming or ranching, segregated rich and poor citizens and numerous other complaints.

This movement and concern prompted the creation of “Planned Use Development” (PUD) allowing cities to zone a new section of development with mixed uses and to allow single family homes near apartments and offices and grocery stores near residential areas so people can work and shop close to home.

PUD’s are not without their own controversy as developers sometimes overlook the idea of bringing things close to home and simply try to pack more units in a given area without a true plan for the environment and the community.

The City of Leeds was involved with a controversial PUD in the late 90’s with Woodruff Farms being developed by builder Charles Kessler Jr. that carried into the turn of the century as the city, the developer, and nearby land owners all expressed their desires and concerns through the development.

We’ll continue this series tomorrow and invite you to take a look at PUD’s on the Wikipedia web site for further reading and understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Unit_Development

The original Grand River project plan included PUD's and a newer form of planning known as Planned Community Districts or PCD. These have been placed on the table for later discussion as the current proposal is targeting only the retail aspect of the original three phase project.

Rabies Clinic

I recently advertised a Jefferson County approved Rabies Clinic in Leeds and we will continue to do so as they occur all through the year.

HOWEVER, I have mixed feelings about the clinic and in no way have a problem with the service offered, it's a valuable one.

What I have a problem with are those that use these clinics as the only source of medical care for their pets. I take advantage of the low cost of the shot myself, but I still believe in getting my dog to a vet for heartworm and other checks.

Consider having your pet checked at least once a year and I know that means money and pets are very resilient, but for most of us they are a part of the family and deserve a little medical TLC.

Thanks

David

Faith in the Mayor - Part II

Faith in the Mayor - Part II

As noted we are responding to comments from Mayor Patterson in the May 07 edition of The Leeds News.

Fine tune, tweak, do what is best, the days are over. Yes, you would have seen those words in the article by our mayor. A few good words will not get you out of your campaign promises and the only reason this publication endorsed you just before the election.

No matter how much our mayor thanks the "majority" as he put it that supports him, he openly and in writing said the following in our Q & A before the elections: (Mayor's text in italics and our responses are in red)

4. How will you address Leeds Magazine request to be more open with government?

EP:First, I plan to issue a statement as Mayor every month as to what is going on in the city and what I am considering and what are the hot issues in the news and on this website if I am allowed.

LH: Mayor, you left out - until someone questions you. The very article we are commenting on you did not deliver to us, but we received earlier ones until we began questioning what you were doing behind closed doors.

EP:Second, I plan to publish one week before council what issues are coming up at the next council meeting in the news and on this website if allowed.

LH: So much for this one, we'd get excited if we got your agenda earlier than a late Friday afternoon before a Monday meeting. And we would remind you that you knew about a work session all last week and waited until 4 minutes until 5:00 p.m. this past Friday before sending us one with the wrong date. YET we still brought it to your attention and offered to make the correction. When Kevin Fouts emailed us back Saturday noting the mistake we thanked him, and made the correction. Yet, you cancelled this very needed meeting, and one of your councilors told me you said it was my fault for objecting.

EXCUSE ME, if you are going to wait until the last minute to put something out, you leave little time to correct your mistakes and we made no objection, only a request for clarification of which your own staff thanked us for catching. Don't blame others for your own mistake, especially when they would help you from putting them out if you allowed enough time in your notices.

EP:Third, I also plan to hear public comments before we vote on general issues so we have public input instead of hearing comments after the vote which is just a way for people to express their unhappiness because the vote is done.

LH: We're waiting on this one, and since you have proven you have no intention of keeping your promise, please at least, thank those that take the time to address the council. Let me also remind you that several months ago we addressed you in the public comments section of a council meeting, nicely asking you to do this and not bringing up that you had already made a pledge and were not fulfilling it.

This one is the most damning one of all and you have NO EXCUSE for not following through with this one.

EP:I know the government is for the people and not a few. I promise no more secret meetings, backroom deals, inconvenient meeting times and locations, and keeping what we do as a city from the press or the citizens of Leeds.

LH: Until it suits you to do otherwise? You ask for blind faith and trust and thank those that give it to you, yet we asked you for months what were your problems with agreements you were addressing behind closed doors.

You have blamed an audit, which other administrations have been through and produced a budget, but not produced one for your administration, not even a projected one.

You are authorizing millions of dollars to be spent, making decisions that you would not share with the press or anyone but attorney's, and have yet to put out in open council what their monthly fees are.

You and other council members said you would keep attorney fees in check by reviewing their cost on a monthly basis and we have that on audio tape, and I have not heard their fees discussed since then.

We repeatedly asked you to discuss agreements and deals with all parties involved in the Grand River project and the Cooperative District General agreement, yet you had "backroom deals", but stated in your pledge those days are over, and state in your article you are proud of everyone who focused on what needed to be done. What would that be as you were not sharing it with the press or the public?

You've openly proclaimed how great and wonderful "your" attorneys are, and yet the citizens of Leeds did not elect them, and have no idea what they are being paid each month. When we asked you to step in a room with everyone, which you would not do afterwards, you were insistent that if you did, your attorneys must be there. Aren't you an attorney? I thought that was supposed to be an area of knowledge you brought to the table.

There is a time and a place for attorneys, but we wonder if you can make any decisions at all without them. Tout them all you want but until we know the business of the city and the cost of this expert advice, it falls on deaf ears with us. The same will be said of any excuses or justifications you may make for not keeping your word to the citizens of Leeds as noted above.


To the Citizens of Leeds from the Leeds Herald. I sincerely apologize that I ever endorsed our Mayor. I did so based on his own pledges named above, and I most definitely had the wool pulled over my eyes.

Let our above statement serve to further enroll our publication into his comments about "outside factions", as we will continue to hold him accountable and there are many other items to come. If that makes us an "outsider" we'll wear that label as a badge of courage.

This government is for ALL the people, not those that think they know best and ask us to have faith in them, while conducting their business behind closed doors, and ignoring the pledges that got them elected in the first place.

Caught YOU!

Checking on me were you? And you thought I was going to write something controversial, didn't ya? Nope, gone fishing and I hope you have a nice day until next time.