Emily Featherston
At a special called session, the Homewood City Council’s planning and development committee broached a subject more than two years old—residential structure height limitations in Neighborhood Preservation Districts (NPD).
The committee took up the subject as part of a set of proposed changes to the city’s zoning code. The changes stem from an effort to align the language provided by the Regional Planning Commission with the general spirit of Homewood’s existing code.
City Planner Vanessa McGrath explained that the majority of the proposed changes were minor, with some being “typos” or other small changes such as taking out the requirement for reverse-angle parking in certain zones or fencing updates.
The proposed change to the height restrictions hinges on the way that the height of a structure is measured, or, more specifically, where that measure begins.
As the ordinance currently reads, based on the decision the council made in September 2016, homes on lots 55 feet wide or less can have a maximum height of 29 feet, as measured from the front door threshold to the highest point, or 32 feet from the median grade on the lot. Houses on lots wider than 55 feet have a maximum height of 35 feet measured from the front door threshold to the highest point.
McGrath said that over the last 16 to 17 months since the change was made, builders and zoning officials have had concerns that the language in the ordinance might be too restrictive for lots with hilly terrain.
“The median grade is very arbitrary,” McGrath said, though she added that “arbitrary” perhaps wasn’t the best word, and she meant it is arduous and complicated to find the median grade and enforce such language.
McGrath read the committee excerpts from similar ordinances in Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook, but noted that in both cities the maximum height for residential structures is 35 feet.
Committee members went back and forth with city staff about whether changes are needed and what the language could be changed to, bringing out some comments from the audience. Suggestions included using Mountain Brook’s method, which limits structures to a maximum height with the measurement starting at the grade level of the front exterior wall, but limiting that height to 29 feet, or 32 feet, and putting a limit on crawl spaces.
The conversation concluded with the committee carrying over conversation until McGrath and staff can provide a “red-line” version of the ordinance showing potential changes. The issue will come up again at their next planning and development committee meeting in two weeks.
Also at Monday night’s meeting, multiple committees discussed sidewalks, including the finance committee which discussed committing $1 million of the city’s bond proceeds to sidewalk projects.
Council President Bruce Limbaugh sponsored the request, and said that he believed that based on projected costs of the new public safety building, the city should easily have the funds left over.
“Chief [Tim] Ross has promised me that his project is going to be at or below $20 million … so therefore I feel confident that there’s a million dollar opportunity for sidewalks,” Limbaugh said.
Ward 3 Representative Walter Jones said he thinks the committee and greater council should consider other funding options for sidewalks, such as some of the funding currently planned for Phase 2 of the Shades Creek Greenway project, which is still going through right-of-way procurement.
"‘I’m not saying I’m not committed to phase two … [but] I don’t feel comfortable with where we are with all of our projects yet,” Jones said. “I just want us to look at different options.”
The committee carried the topic over for another two weeks to give time for alternative funding options to be evaluated.
