The Mobile City Planning Commission will hold a Business meeting on
Thursday, August 25, at 2:00 pm in the Assembly Room in Government
Plaza, 205 Government Street, to discuss the proposed amendments to the
Downtown Development District of the current Zoning Ordinance, and
Appendix A - Downtown Development District of Chapter 64, Unified
Development Code, adopted by the City Council on July 12, 2022.
While the public is invited to attend, no public input will be accepted.
Public input will be accepted at the regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting on September 1, 2022, at 2:00 pm in the Auditorium in
Government Plaza, 205 Government Street.
GSC AGAIN Engages with City Leaders on Preserving Valuable Oaks in the Broad Street Project
The Broad Street project has sacrificed many oaks but because of the work of engaged citizens, many have been preserved. You may recall that in 2019 citizens began to organize and work with the GSC to appeal to the city for a plan to preserve more of our oaks. Scroll through this Blog list to February-March 2019 to review all that occurred at that time. The end result was a design plan presented to citizens by the city that identified oaks to be preserved. Three of those oaks, beside the Government Street Methodist Church at Broad and Government Street, were to have been preserved. Mr. Bill Boswell, who led the 2019 interactions with the city, learned that these 3 trees were now on the removal list, reportedly because the roots would be undermined by the road bed, and thus the trees weakened. He immediately began to request the city to meet with citizens to explore options that could save the trees, but in the midst of his efforts the trees were unceremoniously removed. Mr. Boswell has now requested a small group citizen meeting with the Mayor to discuss future plans and mitigation. More as events develop.
Government Street Loses the Latest Pillars Business
Sadly, the proposed events venue and piano lounge that was to have opened at the Pillars has not worked out and is closing soon. We hope the property owners and their realtor will seek a viable and contributing commercial endeavor in this beautiful and historic cornerstone on Government Street.
The UDC, Haber Ctr. Zoning, Welcome to The Pillars Redux, Hello Digital Government St., 1805 Government Street is Back
This has been a newsy week, so forgive the length and skim to find your particular interests in headings.
1. UDC Zoning Code Update with meeting date
On Sept. 28th Council voted to send out for public review and input, the last version of the UDC, with some changes in the "Conditional" and "Special Exception" categories. Those changed would route certain applications to the Planning Commission, instead of Board of Adjustment, thus allowing appeal to Council rather than to Circuit Court. Council declined to discuss the Group Living/Housing Use in terms of adding density regulations (i.e. sq. ft. per person, facilities per person, number of unrelated adults, etc.) The next, and probably final, public hearing, where public input will be accepted, is scheduled for October 19th. As a community, we need to attend to at least show our interest. See the latest version at www.mapformobile.org.
2. HABER zoning Community Meeting, vacant property fronting Gov't. between Etheredge and Lafayette.
Scheduled for Oct. 7th, 6pm, at VIA! on Dauphin St. Expect preliminary site plans, overview, Q&A. At stake is whether property remains R3 (multi-unit housing/apartments) or is changed as proposed to B1/Buffer Business, with Voluntary Exclusions.
3. PILLARS - Welcome to Ms Rebekah Persekian, operator of the new Pillars Event Venue and Piano Lounge. Ms. Persekian offered the community a generous list of Voluntary Exclusions on the property to assure neighbors that unappealing and intense uses would not occur on the site. Her Variance to operate in the B1 zone without a zoning change was passed unanimously and found general support in the nearby historic districts. Ms Persekian made verbal commitments to the St. John's pastor to be mindful of how her operation could impact the church property, hours, and services.
4. Sign Clutter on Government Somewhat Limited by Board of Adjustment- The Collaborative stands in opposition to Variances that depart from the Sign Ordinance for historic districts such as the Government corridor. Re: Texaco Station Everett @ Government, digital signage. We submitted photographs of every street sign from Michigan Avenue (the area of the Texaco business in question at Everett) west to the cannon to demonstrate that there does not exist on that entire distance a single street sign that is digital, and all are variously designed monument signs, meeting the Sign Ordinance, or wall signage in keeping with historic districts. We also submitted research from other southeastern states that support the concerns about driver distraction, safety, sign clutter, and inappropriate signage for historic areas. However, the Board of Adjustment approved a compromise which will allow the new signage with these conditions: New sign may not be pole mounted, must be ground monument mounted, cannot be wider/taller than the current sign, must be static lettering (not moving/flashing), and light level must be adjusted to regulations after dark. With the approval granted, we can expect a succession of similar requests, so the days of completely readable and appropriate halo lighting, interior lighting, and reflected spot lighting are gone, as each more glaring digital will demand another to compete for the driver's eye.
5. 1805 Gov't. Street at the cannon is back
At the next Planning Commission meeting, a subdivision request that was allowed to lapse will be reheard for the brick four-plex building at 1805 Government Street, proposed in 2018 as an emergency shelter for up to 12 clients at a time in addition to staff.
The Staff Report states: "The site is zoned B-1, Buffer Business District, and is developed with a two-story building that is proposed to be restored to its original use as an apartment complex, permits for which are currently in review. Use of the property as an apartment complex is allowed by right in this zoning district. Previous approval of a one-lot subdivision of the site was granted by the Planning Commission at its June 21, 2018 meeting, but the plat was never presented for signatures and the approval expired. The applicant is again requesting approval of a one-lot subdivision to create a legal lot of record from a metes-and-bounds parcel. The site has frontage along Government Street, an ALDOT-maintained roadway requiring a 100’ right-of-way. The plat depicts adequate right-of-way; thus, no additional dedication should be required." Because the use is allowed in B1 by right, there will be no public input. We welcome a restoration of this four-plex to its original commercial apartment use, but let's watch closely.
MR. MANZIE'S DEATH TRIGGERS REVISED ELECTION PROCEDURES
Statement for Members of the Government Street Collaborative re: October 5, 2021, Run-Off Election
Please remember that this information is based on citizen research of public information and in no way is represented as legal opinion.
Many questions have come to the Collaborative, neighboring District members, and appeared on various social media platforms such as NextDoor, regarding the October 5th Run-Off election which was scheduled prior to District 2 Councilman Manzie’s untimely death.
The basic question is whether or not Levon Manzie’s name will appear on the Run-Off ballot.
In a public statement issued by Lisa Lambert, City Clerk, on September 20,2021, “….The run-off election scheduled for Tuesday, October 5, 2021, for the Mobile City Council Districts 1,2, and 6 will still be held as planned as required by controlling Alabama law, a ruling of the Supreme Court of Alabama, and an opinion issued by the Attorney General of Alabama. Consequently, incumbent Levon C. Manzie’s name will remain on the District 2 ballot.”
The obvious following question is what the outcome will be if Levon Manzie’s candidacy wins a majority of votes cast.
The following information is very preliminary and could change with further legal guidance from the responsible officials, but at this point, it appears that if Mr. Manzie’s candidacy
receives a majority of votes cast on October 5th, there would likely be a called special election, the details of which have not been published on official sites at this time.
Of course, if Mr. Carroll receives a majority of certified votes cast in the Run-Off, he will become the new District 2 Councilman.
If new, expanded, or differing information emerges, we will further inform you.
Regardless of future information, YOUR VOTE WILL COUNT.
Mobile Tree Trail Revived-First Meeting Coming Up
The first meeting of the Mobile Tree Trail group is this week and we would love for you to join us! We will say hi, update everyone on the current status of the trail, outline volunteer opportunities, take suggestions, and answer questions!
We will hold two meetings this week at the Boyington Oak at 107 South Bayou Street. Both meetings will cover the same ground, so come say hi whenever is good for you.
Thursday, September 9 at 6:30 pm
Sunday, September 12 at 4:30 pm
Please Feel Free to Share This Email With Anyone Who Might Be Interested
The meetings will be very informal, and socially distanced. If you have any questions you can send them our way. We've got lots of work to do, but a great and manageable project that will help improve our great city!
UPDATE ON THE PILLARS
THE FUTURE OF THE PILLARS:
UPDATE: SINCE our first post in late July (below), the new Pillars operator, Ms Rebecca Persekian, has worked with us to address concerns neighbors have expressed regarding her application for a Variance to operate a piano lounge in addition to the events venue previously operated at this location.
We are happy to report that Ms Persekian has openly discussed her plans and has embraced the expectations we’ve presented for our historic Government Street corridor.
The Pillars Variance, case 6405, comes before the Board of Adjustment on Monday, Sept. 13th. The meeting will be by Zoom for participants and livestreamed for view on YouTube (See instructions at the Board of Adjustment meetings portal.)
The new operator is not seeking a rezoning from B1 to a more intense use. The site will remain B1, Buffer business. She is, however, seeking a Variance to add a piano lounge to the current Events venue variance. Her plans sound lovely, but as in all such cases, the problem is not the operator's current plan, but what may be allowed in the future under that same Variance. Variances, like Zoning, run with the land unless there is an interruption of a specific time period. Each category is fairly broad, and approval for a piano lounge also approves a late hours nightclub, for example, which would not be contributing or appropriate at the site.
A compromise is a Voluntary Exclusion Covenant which the current operator may submit as a part of the Variance and which excludes those more intense uses which are not compatible with the surrounding area, in this case historic districts on historic Government Street, next door to an established church, St. John's Episcopal.
The operator, Ms Persekian, has been cordial and cooperative, and has agreed to a reasonable list of exclusions that are currently, or may become in future, part of any zoning or variance for a "lounge." She agrees to exclude:
nightclub, distillery, microbrewery, music club for the promotion of acts for a fee, hookah lounge.
In addition, she has excluded adult entertainment as defined by Mobile's Code, and has excluded on the Events venue side a circus or a carnival for any purpose other than community, charitable fundraisers or children's carnival.
As a result of her desire to support our vision for Government Street and our surrounding historic districts, we will speak in full support of her Variance before the Board of Adjustment on Monday, September 13th at 2pm. The meeting will be by Zoom, and will be livestreamed on YouTube. See instructions for joining the meeting on the Board of Adjustment portal: cityofmobile.org/planning, View Website, choose Boards and Commissions, Choose Board of Adjustment.
We look forward to welcoming a reopening of The Pillars and enjoying a beautiful piano bar in addition to the events use of that site. Joining other successful Government Street commerce such as ARoy Thai, Saucy Q BBQ, Guncles Bakery, Stokley’s Garden Center, Starbucks, and others, we continue to seek long term, low intensity, locally owned or leased businesses in currently vacant spaces that serve immediate neighborhood needs and contribute to the vibrancy of Government Street while respecting its historic legacy. We anticipate a well run, enjoyable venue at the Pillars that will contribute to the Government Street experience.
Original Post: On August 2nd, the Board of Adjustment will hear a request from a new operator of a business at The Pillars. The variance is a “use, access and tree planting variance,” to allow a lounge and banquet venue. The application and Staff Report have not yet been posted to the city website. You may leave a comment at the following link: https://www.buildmobile.org/board-of-adjustment?meeting=264
Scroll down to the 1757 Government Street case. Click the green COMMENT bar, and leave your comments. THE COLLABORATIVE HAS ASKED FOR A HOLD OVER UNTIL THE NEW OPERATOR MEETS (ON ZOOM) WITH AREA EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS (ODWA, LHDNO, GSC, LOOP). Update: The meeting has been held over to the September BOA meeting. The Staff Report is now posted and the Staff recommended the hold over. No other recommendations at this time. However, the Staff Report language seems to emphasize this is “the same” use as has been made of the site in the past, and that language usually signals a recommentation to approve. We will continue to try to pursue a meeting with the new operator to get full details.
New Development Proposed on Government Street
1. The multi-lot property from Etheredge and Lafayette has a buyer. This was 4 different parcels for a long time, and a combination of 1 R1 and 3 R3 lots. (see posted zone map below)
2. Tax records for 2021 list a single owner of the back lot as Tree Investments LLC and the 1452 Govt frontage as Model Grocers LLC. Tax payments are current.
3. Recently the Cindy Haber foundation, a nonprofit serving disabled citizens, made an offer to purchase that was accepted, and contacted the Collaborative with the information that their intent is to build their offices there. They are currently leasing a smaller building just east of the Walgreens on Government St at Michigan Avenue (Cindy Haber is on north side of Govt St) which is too small for their needs. They also have offices in Robertsdale: 23214 E. Chicago Street, Robertsdale, AL 3656.
4. This parcel is R3, multi-family residential, which is designed for apartments, and also allows a range of group living units of various types. The small lot across the north side facing Etheredge is R1.
5. In 2017, in the early stage of development for the UDC, the Collaborative submitted to Build Mobile the parcel-by-parcel mapping for all of Government Street west of Broad which showed the current use of each lot—which differs from the zoning. We found a number of instances where property was used as residential but carried an old business zoning. The Collaborative advocated--to no avail- -that these properties as well as vacant lots such as these be reset to R1 in an attempt to recapture the residential history of Government Street. At that time, Government Street was zoned residential (R1,R2,R3) at about 44%, and our goal remains 50% residential. This balance assures that needed businesses have a place but residences retain their neighborhood, and it is the perfect mix of uses for a small city like Mobile. The Planning division at that time was considering making zoning adjustments to align parcels with city and/or neighborhood uses and goals. However, as it turned out, the decision was made to not touch current zoning at all because of legal considerations. Therefore, 1452 remained multi-family R3.
6. When Haber contacted the Collaborative with the news that they were purchasing the parcel, they stated that they would seek B1, Buffer Business, which is the least intense business use and designed for office type low intensity - Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm - uses.
7. In the whole scheme of things, a B1 use offers fewer daily intrusions to surrounding neighbors than a multi-family use. Opinions will vary on this issue, of course. B1 business is for a low traffic flow, low pedestrian workday and work week use, typically closed at night, on weekends, and on holidays.
8. Zoning runs with the land, so even if the property is later sold, it remains B1. B1 allows the less intense residential uses as well. Most businesses seek B2 zoning even if they don't need it for offices, because it makes later sales more flexible. Haber committed to seeking only B1 zoning. We need to track and be sure they honor that. Keep in mind that a zoning designation is a "cap" - meaning, B2 allows everything that is less intense than B2 and B1 allows residential uses. A number of the private homes on Government Street still carry “old” B1 and B2 zoning fron previous owners.
9. The Haber group is a situation where the owner is also the user of the property, and that always makes a positive difference in how a building is monitored, maintained and used.
10. The Collaborative is also exploring a Voluntary Buyer Covenant which allows a buyer to commit to returning zoning to the current zone at the time of a future sale. The city cannot legally require such a covenant.
11. The Haber group voiced a willingness to work with neighbors, so the Collaborative suggests neighbor and district groups develop a financially realistic list of conditions to ask that they commit to for the neighborhood meeting they plan to hold soon. Toward that end, that may include, but not be limited to:
a. The depth, height, and types of screening buffers neighbors request (vegetative, fencing, etc.)
b. A fully realized "green" space: frontage landscape plan for Govt, Etheredge, and Lafayette to include hardscape, lighting, vegetation, permeable surfacing, adequate maintained trash bins.
c. Based on the level of interest, consider a small meditation garden open to neighbors by gate keycode, (such as a mini-Cornerstone Gardens on Govt.)
d. A request as to the placement and screening of dumpsters and how picked up. See the strip mall dumpsters at the corner of Monterey and Government behind Pizza Hut, or behind Shoppes of Midtown, for how NOT to install, screen, and maintain a dumpster.
e. A commitment to protect existing oaks according to National Arborist standards during construction and in traffic flow and parking designs.
f. This property and building provide an opportunity to become a contributing street facade that begins to repair the damage done to the Government Street streetscape in the modern era. A building design in keeping with the best historic or traditional Government St frontage buildings in ODWA and Leinkauf is expected. For example, from Michigan Avenue headed west, there are a number of appealing brick, stone, and stucco buildings which reflect the history of Government Street's best development in the last 75 years. Examples include: the churches at Everett, Espejo, and Stocking streets offer traditional materials and appropriate scale for historic Government Street; the brick bank at Government and Espejo offers a commercial building with features, though the profile is too low; the red brick apartments just east of Lafayette, the masonry residential buildings west of Dexter, the stucco, brick, and stone residences from MacDonald and West entrances to Flo Claire, to South Monterey and Park Terrace all offer appropriate materials, styles and scale. All should provide an architect a range of materials and traditional styles from which to propose a historically appropriate, contributing building for this project.
g. The last thing we want is a development that mimics the worst styles west of Michigan, such as the suburban-esque strip malls or the low, featureless, flat-roofed stand-alones that mar a historic street facade. Likewise, we do not want a Disney-esque “fake” Victorian.
UDC NEARS COMPLETION June 14, 2021 Update
The final Version 5 of the Unified Development Code, UDC, received Planning Commission approval and their recommendation that it progress to the adoption stage before City Council. Read the latest version at mapformobile.org.
Council President Manzie referred the UDC to a "committee of the whole" for final study and review, to be followed by a public hearing for input prior to adoption, date TBA. The Committee met and received public comment on June 8 at 2pm. The meeting was live-streamed. A number of citizens from a wide range of influence groups spoke:
Business interest was well represented, including the Port Authority, Mobile Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, Baykeeper, all of whom voiced unified support for the UDC in its current version without change.
Citizen groups were represented by private citizens, including: Government Street Collaborative, Village of Springhill, Africatown, Regency, The Peninsula, Coalition for Intelligent Economic Growth action group.
We were struck by the degree of alignment in citizen comments on a few issues: a. Many objected to the appeal procedures that will send many more cases to the Board of Adjustment with all appeals requiring legal representation in Circuit Court. b. Citizen commentary focused on neighborhood livability and resident property values. c. A number of VOS speakers, including the Sand Hill community that adjoins VOS, presented opposing views of whether or not the current VOS Code should be mandatory or remain voluntary as it is now.
The approximately five year process has seen the new code morph from a paid consultant-based Form Based Code to a consultant-based hybrid code, part modern Form Based and part traditional zoning which for 60 years has brought us to where we are now. The final current code appears to be a very business friendly version of Mobile's traditional zoning code, which was already pretty business friendly.
There are several areas that raise huge red flags for the Collaborative and these were submitted to the City Council Committee on June 8, 2021:
1. Improve Green standards in UDC
a. Improve Green Space requirements and incentives: Required landscaping percentage has been reduced into oblivion (from 12% to %5 with waivers beyond that) east of I65 and to increase green spaces west of I-65 does not “balance the books” (as presented in Planning responses)
b. Better incentivize use of permeable surfacing – avoid a concrete jungle
c. Better address heat island mitigation and street/drainage/waterway litter by implementing better parking lot green spaces, tree cover, and trash collector installation requirements (see Clearwater Revival similar goals to protect marine
Resources)
d. Establish a clearly defined cross reference link between Chapter 65 and Chapter 64 with clear development standards as related to tree protections
2. Set Improved Density and Occupancy Standards: mitigate infrastructure pressures ranging from health considerations to traffic/parking, historical or neighborhood appropriateness, and quality of life and property value impact
3. Adaptive Reuse is presented as a development incentive to address blight and underused properties—worthy goals—BUT as written, becomes a way to simply waive standards indiscriminately to no good purpose, under the guise of incentivizing development. This section should be removed at this time, studied by experts via Performance Contract, and like Chapter 65, redeveloped as a separate Chapter. If this is justifiable for the Tree Ordinance, it is equally justifiable for a new Adaptive ReUse section.
4. Role of Board of Adjustments and BOA Appeals – The Special Exceptions code and new appeal procedures result in too many applications and appeals going to the Board of Adjustments, which is not prepared to effectively deal with the increased burden. More importantly, appeal procedures leave all opponents without recourse other than going to an already burdened Circuit Court system and the expense that entails. This is not an improvement. citizens who have taken cases to Circuit Court in the last 3 years have incurred costs of over $5,000. Clearly, that is tantamount to a DENIAL of a citizen's right to appeal and cannot stand. The procedures should be changed to avoid this roadblock to both development and citizen opposition, by appeals being routed to City Council for final resolution.
There will be a final public hearing before City Council prior to adoption, date TBA.
Mobile Tree Trail Revived
Established decades ago, the Mobile Tree Trail had fallen into obscurity until the current Mobile Tree Commission first uncovered it, then committed to continuing its mission and insure it does not disappear again. The project has begun with a review of all trees that were once listed, some of which have been removed in the decades since, and opening current nominations for new additions to the trail. The hope is that the result will be a living project that can change as Mobile's tree landscape changes, while providing a walking or riding tour of the magnificent heritage trees which Mobile's landscape nourishes and which have defined the city for centuries. Mobile is selected as an official Tree City, and this project hopes to bring attention to the gift of our tree canopy.
A recent al.com article tells the story of the project and the Trail, and includes the link to a nomination page so that citizens across the city can be a part of this project:
Forgotten Mobile Tree Trail could make return from obscurity - al.com
https://www.al.com/life/2021/05/forgotten-mobile-tree-trail-could-make-return-from-obscurity.html
An NBC15 story also tells the story:
ttps://mynbc15.com/news/local/standing-in-the-shadows-of-history-the-return-of-mobiles-tree-trail
Visit the Tree Trail's own website for the story:
UDC FINAL VERSION NEARS COMPLETION
Version 4 of the UDC is being reviewed by the Planning Commission and will next move to City Council for final public hearings and adoption.
Last week, the Mobile City Planning Commission held its first public hearing to hear public comment on the draft Unified Development Code (UDC). Thank you to everyone who provided written comments or spoke at the hearing.
The Commission will convene on Monday, March 8 at 2pm for a "business meeting" to discuss feedback and prepare for a second hearing. This meeting will be viewable via live stream.
READ THE LATEST VERSION AT www.mapformobile.org
UDC Version 4, Tree Trimming, New Animal Tethering Ordinance
NEW ANIMAL TETHERING ORDINANCE PASSED
2021 GOVERNMENT STREET TREE TRIMMING PROJECT TO BEGIN - We are told that the goal is to trim to a vertical clearance of 14 feet above street level.
VERSION 4 OF THE UDC IS REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION IN PREPARATION OF MOVING THE CODE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND FINAL APPROVAL.
The next Planning Commission hearing is March 8 at 2pm and will be livestreamed on the city website.
UDC VERSION 3 INPUT PERIOD HAS ENDED; VERSION 4 PROMISED IN SEPTEMBER
FROM MAYOR STIMPSON’S JULY 15, 2020 NEWSLETTER:
“Thank you to everyone who submitted comments during the public review for UDC version 3. We appreciate the large amount of interest and thoughtful comments on the draft regulations. We are now in the process of reviewing and addressing the comments, and preparing the UDC for adoption.
Over the next 30 days, we will be incorporating feedback and preparing the final draft UDC (version 4). In September, we anticipate releasing UDC version 4 to the Planning Commission and the public, along with a document that responds to comments on UDC version 3. When UDC version 4 is released to Planning Commission, the formal hearing and adoption process begins. Regarding the adoption of the new zoning code, Alabama state law requires at least two public hearings - one with the Planning Commission and one with the City Council. See the graphic below for an outline of the next steps for the UDC process. “
UDC Version 3 Position from Tree Commission
Comments regarding proposed Chapter 65 (replacing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 64-4 E and H)
Major Concerns:
The Tree Commission believes that removing the provisions of the proposed Chapter 65 from inclusion in the UDC will result in confusion, misinterpretation, and an overall failure to meet the objectives stated in Article I. All aspects of this proposed Chapter that apply to removal and replacement of heritage trees should be included in the UDC. Special care should be taken to ensure that the 2 for 1 replacement with heritage trees of 8 inch DBH is indicated in the landscape plan as part of the permit process and that an inspection of the site after work is completed is required to close the permit. If the Urban Forester determines that replacement trees cannot be planted elsewhere on the lot, then the cost of the replacement trees & planting are to be donated to the Tree Bank. The dollar amount equivalent for the cost and planting of an 8 inch heritage tree shall be determined each year & published by the Urban Forester.
As with the proposed ver 3 UDC, the proposed Chapter 65 does not do enough to prioritize retaining heritage trees. As currently written, for lots covered by this Chapter, in cases other than historic districts, a heritage tree may be removed to allow for any structure or improvement. There should be a mechanism in place as part of the permitting process that requires the applicant demonstrate that the structure or improvements can only be placed where a heritage tree is currently located prior to approving the removal of any heritage tree.
Specific Concerns:
Article I:
Proposed Chapter 65 applicability excludes R-1 & R-2 with an existing habitable structure unless in an historic district. Therefore, in many cases, no permit (and therefore no requirement to replace removed heritage trees) is required for heritage trees removal from private property. The recognition that removal of heritage trees in historic districts is of enough civic importance that a permit is required, even for R-1 & R-2 properties, should be extended to all properties in the proposed urban subzone. In this way heritage trees in areas which have been developed for approx. 50+ years, but have not been designated as historic districts, will require a permit for removal. The applicability language should be changed to:
The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all land, other than the public rights-of-way, and areas designated as rights-of-way, located within the corporate limits of the City of Mobile, except single-family and two-family lots in a suburban subzone with an existing habitable structure.
Article II:
The definition of heritage tree needs to clearly state that this includes any tree that is required to be planted to satisfy this code, or was planted as a requirement to satisfy the previously existing Chapter 64-4 Sections E & H.
Article V:
b. Permit Procedure appears to be geared to instances that would also involve a building permit. This section, as written here, should be included in the UDC so that persons being issued a building permit are aware of permit requirements for tree removal. The current proposed ordinance does not require a field inspection, and further allows a permit to be automatically issued if it is not denied within 10 working days of receipt. All permit applications for tree removal in conjunction with issuing a building permit should require a field inspection. Failure to deny within 10 working days of receipt should NOT result in an automatic approval. This language should be removed entirely. For R-1 and R-2 properties covered by this ordinance, where tree removal is requested due to the tree being dead, diseased/injured to the extent that trimming is not feasible, or a hazard to an existing structure, the permitting procedure should cost a more reasonable $30 per tree and allow a properly credentialed arborist to certify that the tree meets the criteria listed in subsection e. 3) of Article V.
Chapter 65 only addresses heritage tree removal or relocation. It does not clearly indicate that the provisions of Chapter 65 also apply to the pruning, cutting or trimming of heritage trees. Article V, Part 1. Permit should be expanded to detail the permitting process for heritage tree trimming/pruning, including cost. The cost for a tree trimming permit should be $25 or less and cover all trimming to be done at that time, regardless of number of trees to be trimmed.
Article VII:
a. Tree protection during construction described does not meet ANSI standards for tree protection zones during construction. Furthermore, any tree not approved for removal should be protected during construction. The language should be changed to read:
It shall be unlawful for any person in the construction of any structures or other improvements to place solvents, material, construction machinery, or temporary soil deposits within the tree protection zone. The tree protection zone (TPZ) extends out in all directions from the tree trunk a minimum of 0.5 ft for each inch DBH. Furthermore, no clearing, grading, or soil disturbance is to occur within the critical root zone (CRZ) which is defined as an area extending out in all directions from the tree trunk 1 ft for every inch DBH. Wherever possible the tree protection zone should extend to cover the critical root zone. No structure shall be placed within 15 ft of the CRZ, and no retaining wall shall be placed within 10 ft of the CRZ. Waiver of any of these requirements is at the discretion of the Urban Forester.
c. Tree protection during construction should be amended to provide better protection of remaining heritage trees. The language should be changed to:
Except for sidewalks, driveways, and streets, no person shall pave with concrete, asphalt or other impervious material within eight (8) inches per one (1) inch of DBH of any remaining heritage tree or heritage live oak tree, not to exceed five (5) feet. Installation of sidewalks, driveways, and streets over any portions of the CRZ of a heritage tree shall follow ANSI standards regarding aeration and use of paving materials to minimize root damage. Waiver of any of these requirements is at the discretion of the Urban Forester.
Tree Commission input regarding UDC version 3
Major concerns:
Tree protection and preservation requirements will be a new chapter of city code. The
Mobile Tree Commission and Urban Forestry’s requirements will not be part of the UDC.” This chapter has not been provided to the general public, and the Tree Commission has had only about a week to evaluate the proposed chapter concerning Tree Protection & Preservation. The input period for this version of the UDC should be extended to allow 30 days of review & comment once the new chapter of the city code covering tree protection & preservation (Chapter 65) is provided to the general public for comment. After viewing the proposed Chapter 65, the Tree Commission holds that requirements regarding tree protection and preservation should also be clearly delineated in the UDC so that these play an integral role in the development and planning process. Failure to include these requirements in the UDC will increase the chances that tree protection and preservation requirements currently included in the zoning ordinance are overlooked during construction planning & permitting.
The current proposed version of the UDC does not address the Tree Commission’s prior concerns regarding the lack of incentives/requirements to retain heritage trees during development, or to replace heritage trees that are removed during development with heritage tree species in the landscape plan. Furthermore, the proposed code does not provide any additional size requirements for replacement trees under these circumstances. The proposed code should clearly indicate that each removed heritage tree is to be replaced by two trees of a species on the heritage trees list with a DBH of 8 inches.
Several aspects of the landscape plan evaluation, such as approval or denial of Landscaping Credits or approval or denial of Alternative Compliance, reside solely with the Director. These types of evaluations should require a mechanism for the Urban Forester to provide input.
Specific concerns:
The proposed code requires at least one overstory tree per 50 ft of road frontage. This is a reduction from the current code’s requirement of one per 30 ft. The code should be modified to state a minimum of one overstory tree per 30 ft, unless the planting requirements for the proposed trees from the Approved Tree List state a larger spacing distance. In no case should trees be placed at less than one per 50 ft. In this way, overstory trees can be planted at distances that will promote their optimum growth, while allowing more density in those instances where trees with smaller distancing requirements are used. Likewise, this should apply to perimeter trees.
The proposed code excludes from plant requirement calculations the portion of the perimeter that abuts commercially-zoned properties. While this seems appropriate where one commercial property abuts another similarly zoned commercial property, it is not appropriate where properties with quite disparate types of zoning intensity abut one another. Therefore, this should be modified to exclude only those portions of a perimeter that abut a like-zoned property, not the general ‘commercial zoning’ language.
Article 10, Section E of the proposed code should be changed to require Tree & Landscape Plans to: 1) indicate the location, species and size of existing trees with a DBH of 3 inches or more, whether they are planned for preservation or not and 2) have location, species, and DBH of all heritage and heritage live oaks indicated with trees of both types to be marked as to whether they are being retained or removed.
Version 3 of Zoning Unified Development Code Released
DEADLINE TO ENTER YOUR FEEDBACK IS JUNE 28, 2020
ZONING CODE, VERSION 3, RELEASED FOR PUBLIC INPUT:
The new Zoning Code, in development for about 3 years, is called the Unified Development Code or UDC. A Version 3 edition was released on May 28 for a 30 day public input period. All LHDNO residents are encouraged to become familiar with the new code, since it will determine commercial and residential zoning and development for decades into the future.
To see the new code:
Visit mapformobile.org Select Unified Development Code (blue bar)
To see video of summaries or the Code articles: Select the View Recorded UDC Meeting and Slides (green bar). Once on that page, you can select to see the slide summary or see the actual text of the articles.
To leave your feedback: Select Feedback icon; Scroll down to the bottom to leave your comments.
These resident concerns have been voiced. Use any of these, or others, in your feedback. (Citizen commentary; not a legal interpretation.)
The percentage of minimum required landscaping of commercial property east of I-65 has been dramatically reduced from current (12% of lot to 5% or less in some cases.)
The new UDC does not adequately incentivize the use of alternative or permeable surfacing, a concern for flood run-off and heat zones in our subtropical climate. The result can be a growing concrete jungle in midtown.
Density/occupancy standards for multi-family development have been increased (more units per acre are allowed than currently) and need to be reduced with an occupancy ceiling for unrelated adults populating any property (sq. footage/per person,bath/private bedroom facilities per person, etc) to insure safe and healthy living conditions and protection of area infrastructure.
The B2 business zone continues to be too broad, and some intense B2 uses that are NOT appropriate for adjacency to residential are allowed “By Right” — meaning NO public notice is posted and NO public input allowed (examples: Bars, lounges, night clubs, convenience stores w/ gas and beer sales, private liquor stores, car washes.)
The Table of Allowed Uses has been reduced, leaving a large number of potential uses UNidentified, and all unidentified uses are decided internally by Planning Division leadership without public notice or input. The public can appeal decisions, but without a public notice procedure in place, no one will know about the decision in order to appeal.
The best part of the UDC for neighborhoods is a requirement for developers to hold a pre-development Neighborhood Meeting to present their plans to area residents and seek resident input. These meetings will be required - if the final version retains this - for all zoning changes (B1 to B2), conditional uses going to City Council for approval, and Planned Development. Other types of development will exempt the meeting (Special Exception development). Be sure to give feedback to keep the Neighborhood Meetings!
Use This "Down Time" to Review Latest Edits, Version 3, Unified Development Code
Version 3 edits, probably the final version posted for public input, is now available for review at mapformobile.org. The Covid-19 shut down delayed the 30 day public input period in March, but we expect that period to be reinstated soon and we need to be prepared to engage on those areas of concern to the Government Street Collaborative member groups and residents.
Set aside time during this shut down to read Version 3. Quite a few changes have been made since Version 2 was released last spring.
Watch this news Blog for updates, and to see the Collaborative’s joint position paper and input on Version 3.
Covid-19 Business Announcements March 21, 2020
Spiffy Fox Pizza on Monroe - Carryout and daily bag lunches for the needy.
Universal Hardware at Five Points on Springhill - Call in your needs and payment for curbside pickup.
Downtown Mobile Alliance Updates on food service options (pick up, delivery, etc) http://www.downtownmobile.org/uploads/pdf/DowntownRestaurants.pdf
Senior Hours posted: Publix - Weds and Thurs morning 7-8am
Mobile Rundown event announcements, miscellaneous city news:
https://www.themobilerundown.com/top-events/
City of Mobile Covid-19 Updates
https://www.cityofmobile.org/COVID-19/
Winn Dixie -Dear Winn‑Dixie Customers,
We are doing our best to protect those who are most vulnerable.
Starting today, all Winn‑Dixie stores and pharmacies will reserve shopping between 8am-9am for seniors and those most at risk of contracting COVID-19. This reserved hour for stores and pharmacies will be in effect Monday – Friday only.
As we continue to show our neighbors that we care, please keep in mind some thoughtful shopping habits:
1) Limit your purchases to what you or your family needs right now
2) Keep a safe distance from other shoppers and be aware of those around you
3) If you're buying an item that has a WIC symbol on the tag but don’t participate in the WIC program, please choose a different brand or similar item
4) Smile! We can't share much right now, but we can certainly share a smile.
Greer’s Facebook Post, 3/14 Your local Greer’s is open regular business hours at this time. Greer’s Groceries to Go was voted Best Grocery Pick Up/Delivery last year and is available 24/7 to place orders for FREE curbside pickup at a number of our locations. We remain committed to you! Whether you shop in store or online, our team will be focused on providing you with a safe, healthy shopping experience. To shop online visit greer.com/shop
LUSH By appointment only Starting Monday, March 23rd we will be open by appointment only until further notice. Please call if you want to discuss rescheduling an event or even need to pick up a furniture order, we are happy to meet one on one! Please come by today or tomorrow & get all the hand sanitizer, flowers, candles you may need to survive quarantine!! To schedule an appointment call us at 251-473-6121! Love y’all!! #nonessential #flowers #flowershop #candles
Stokley’s Garden Express on Government - Shop Outdoors, practice social distancing Clerks are cleaning checkout counter regularly
Starbuck’s DRIVE THRU, Shoppes of Midtown
Guncles Gluten Free Bakery on Government between Ann and S. Georgia Closed temporarily - check back—IMPORTANT UPDATE FOR OUR VALUED GUNCLES GLUTEN FREE CUSTOMERS. AT END OF BUSINESS SATURDAY, MARCH 21ST, GUNCLES GLUTEN FREE WILL BE CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
Callaghan’s Update: We are open! Capacity limited to 50% to achieve distancing. Call in for curbside pickup 433-9374
Bay Gourmet Catering Dauphin at Broad (251) 450-9051 Thank you to all our customers who have been coming in and buying takeout meals. Your commitment to support us helps keep our employees with paychecks. That is the most important thing to us during this time of crisis. We are closed over the weekend and will be back on Tuesday. We will start making more options to fill our takeout selection with. We appreciate you all so very much!!
MO’BAY Beignet Company, Dauphin Street, message: *Closing Until Further Notice* Messasge from owner: I woke up early this morning with one thought- Pray. I prayed for our city, our families, our businesses, our employees, our customers. Then I felt lead to read. The real facts, data, and information from reliable sources, the medical community, and first hand experiences from people living through this in other parts of the world that are weeks ahead of us in facing this virus. I have come to one conclusion, the wise and responsible thing to do at this time as the owner of Mo’Bay Beignet Co. is to close our doors until a full release is given by our leaders to operate at 100% again. Mo’Bay Beignet Co. has been open 6 (amazing) short weeks. I now have 19 employees, thousands of loyal fans and customers, and a bright future in our beautiful city.
My number one goal after the announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic was to stay open as long as possible to continue paying my valued staff and to keep providing my customers with the service and product they have come to love and to do so in the safest way possible.
It is clear to me now, however, that if even one of my customers or staff is exposed to this virus during our take out or curbside pickup, then I wasn’t being safe enough. The facts are in and the symptoms of having this virus may not appear for up to 21 days in carriers. It may also come and go like the flu for many, but for others, especially those with an already compromised immune system, it can be deadly.
There can be a thin line between fear and wisdom. Sometimes we hesitate on doing what’s wise because we don’t want to be fearful. However, with prayer and wise counsel, we can all make decisions that are based completely in wisdom and without any fear.
Wisdom tells me that for the safety of my staff, my customers, and the city, closing fully at this time is the decision that I should make. As a community, we may never know if we overreacted, but we will surely know if we didn’t react or respond enough. Thank you Mobile for an incredible first six weeks. I look forward to serving you all again in the very near future. Stay safe & well.
Blessings, Jaclyn Robinson, Owner Mo’Bay Beignet Co. #makingmobilesweeter #makingmobilesafer
PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD BEGINS ON LAST VERSION OF THE ZONING CODE
While we all try to adjust to the realities of Covid-19, Mobile's Planning Division has released the next, and near final, version of the new zoning Unified Development Code, or UDC. The release on March 16 announced a thirty day public input period. The Collaborative intends to ask for an extension of that period, given the current situation. However, in the event the 30 day period is enforced, we have already lost a week's review and input time. Please read these announcements from Build Mobile, and follow the links provided to see the latest version. Input can be entered online or submitted by snail mail and the instructions are on the website provided.
As we all know, zoning codes, once established, generally remain in place for decades. The UDC has been 3 years in the making. Despite the distraction of our current emergency, we must engage on this legislation.
If you have insights to share, please send those by return email and we will issue a follow-up of our analysIs. Also, please follow the links to give your input to Build Mobile. We are also asking everyone to submit a request for an extension of the public input period due to the Covid 19 crisis. We are uncertain how public hearings will be handled, given the restrictions in place on gatherings, but when we receive new announcements we will send those. Please share this email with others who may be interested.
On another matter, please visit the Build Mobile site to see the agenda for the April 6 Board of Adjustment hearing on the ABC Store variance request for Shoppes of Midtown. Visit www.govstmobile.org (GSC News Blog tab) for the GSC review of that application and position statement.
Sincerely,
Government Street Collaborative
Volunteer Community Action Group
SUPPORT OUR MIDTOWN AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNERS AT THIS TIME! MANY HAVE ALTERED THEIR HOURS AND ARE OFFERING CRISIS SERVICES, SUCH AS DELIVERY, BY APPOINTMENT, SENIOR HOURS, OR PICK-UP OPTIONS. CALL AHEAD, PAY BY PHONE TO REDUCE INTERACTION WHEN POSSIBLE, ARRANGE CARRY-OUT OR PICK-UP WHILE MAINTAINING SAFE DISTANCES. OUR BUSINESS OWNERS ARE ACCOMMODATING US! VISIT THEIR FACEBOOK PAGES AND WEBSITES FOR DETAILS, AND SUPPORT THEM WHERE IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. DON'T FORGET GIFT CARDS, MOST OF WHICH CAN BE ORDERED ONLINE. DOWNTOWN MOBILE ALLIANCE IS POSTING FOOD SERVICE AVAILABLE FOR PICK-UPS. NEXT DOOR IS POSTING SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS AS WELL. LOCAL NEWS AND THE CITY OF MOBILE ARE ANNOUNCING DAILY UPDATES ABOUT IMPOSED AND RECOMMENDED RESTRICTIONS. DON'T FORGET TO MAKE DONATIONS TO THOSE GROUPS ENGAGED IN SERVICES TO THE VULNERABLE. STAY HEALTHY AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU ARE DOING.
Mobile's Zoning Code Update
Unified Development Code Version 3 is LIVE!
You are now able to access, review and comment on draft Version 3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) via www.mapformobile.org. Due to the developing situation with COVID-19, the official comment period will not begin yet. All comments submitted from this point forward, however, will be registered as received. As always, our commitment is to transparency and open communication with the UDC process, so we will be communicating back to our mailing list with updates on our timeline.
As a reminder, the zoning code overhaul, known as the UDC, is the result of nearly three years of effort to modernize the City’s 1960s-era land use regulations and implement the community’s vision in Map for Mobile, our comprehensive plan. Based on a large amount of community feedback on draft Version 2, the current draft UDC (now version 3) has been significantly revised. This information below details important information and benchmarks for upcoming opportunities to learn about and comment on the draft Unified Development Code version 3. We look forward to engaging with citizens and businesses in the City of Mobile, as we take the next steps with this important action item from the Map for Mobile process.
Thank you for your continued support of our implementation of the Map for Mobile initiative!
Sincerely,
Shayla Jones Beaco
Executive Director
Build Mobile
www.mapformobile.org
View and comment on UDC Version 3
The draft UDC document, a summary of changes, and supporting information can be viewed and commented on at mapformobile.orgbeginning Monday, March 16.
Comments can be submitted in three ways:
1. Online at mapformobile.org/
2. By Mail. Send to: Shayla Jones Beaco, Executive Director, Build Mobile, PO Box 1827, Mobile, AL 36633
3. In-Person. Visit Government Plaza: Build Mobile, 205 Government Street, South Tower, Third Floor, Window 1
Timeline for Draft Version 3
March 16, 2020
The draft UDC document and supporting information can be viewed on mapformobile.org.
TBD (This meeting has temporarily been put on hold.)
Zoning Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
Location: Multi-Purpose Room at Government Plaza (Ground Floor)
Time: 2pm
Spring 2020 - Date TBD
Mobile City Planning Commission public hearing to consider the draft UDC.
Note: In addition to the above upcoming benchmarks, we will be announcing other opportunities to engage and comment on the draft UDC document in upcoming newsletters.
ABC Store at Shoppes of Midtown Status
Newsletter From: Government Street Collaborative, A Community Action Group
Not represented as legal analysis.
Current Status:
The Planning Commission heard the first round of applicant and public comments on Thursday, Feb. 20th. On a rainy afternoon, 7 representatives of our area residential historic districts showed up, and three spoke to the Commission about the application from Shoppes of Midtown to: 1) UP-ZONE the 5 acre retail strip mall at Catherine and Government streets from Limited B2 to full B2; 2) in order to allow a state-operated and regulated alcohol sales retail storefront (ABC Store).
The result of the Feb. 20th meeting is a carryover to the April 16 Planning Commission and a pending Board of Adjustment (BOA) hearing for a Use Variance to Limited B2 (instead of up-zoning). Neighbors must attend and speak for the Use Variance to seek a favorable BOA decision. Pending March BOA dates are 2 p.m. on these dates: March 2 (not likely) or April 6. Watch for Date, TBA.
Plan to attend the Board of Adjustment hearing and at the least submit your comments to: planning@cityofmobile.org (identify 1500 Gov't. Street Shoppes of Midtown) or go to the Board of Adjustment website, click on the hearing date, and enter comments: https://www.buildmobile.org/board-of-adjustment?meeting=244
The Hardship Requiring a Variance as the Resolution
Neighbors made the case that the hardship required to support approval of a Use Variance (per policy) is an imminent threat to our community Quality of Life because: A stable and improving Community requires that existing commercial owners and residents be able to establish a cooperative and productive working relationship so that community standards can be maintained and community improvements can occur going forward. This type of commercial-residential mutual support must be the working model for success in traditional areas of mixed use. If a successful commercial-residential balance cannot be maintained (through fine-tuning zoning to reach compromise, for example) then an internal community failure will result: either the area will become over-commercialized or more intensely commercialized--changing the entire fabric of the area and driving out residential stability and improvement--or the commercial needs of residents in a vibrant and growing area will not be met, which again results in a deterioration of residential life and therefore investment.
This mixed use development model requires exactly the kind of compromise a Use Variance would offer in this case, and to deny that Use Variance would not be in the best interest of the community. In fact, a State ABC store is among the very few B2 sort of businesses that would be congruous, in terms of hours and other impact. Therefore a variance keeps the spirit of the original, appropriate, zoning, but gives the landlord a good and stable tenant while providing a product the neighbors would otherwise have to drive some distance to purchase.
Current Case Status and Feb. 20th Outcome
The resolution on February 20 was that the owner asked for a carry-over to allow them to apply for a Use Variance with the Board of Adjustment. The Commission granted the carry over and the BOA date is TBA, and will probably be April 6th.
Neighbors must realize that we must again attend the Public Hearing at the Board of Adjustment at that time and "make the case" for a Use Variance.
Neighbors must also realize that the owner/applicant, while working in good faith with residents, has left open the door for returning to the Planning Commission to pursue the up-zoning to B2 if the Use Variance fails.
We are left with the hope that if they receive their Use Variance, they will not pursue the application to Upzone to B2 (see further explanation of this in Background below).
Call To Action
The GSC asks that residents in the area plan to attend the Board of Adjustment hearing. BOA meets on the first Monday of the month at 2:00 p.m. -- where the goal will be to support a Use Variance to LB2 for this ABC Store.
The next BOA meeting is Monday, March 2, but this case is not yet posted to the agenda and will likely be posted to the April 6 BOA meeting.
We will follow up, or you can check the BOA meetings at: https://www.buildmobile.org/board-of-adjustment/.
Whether you attend or not, at least submit your written comments on the website:
1. Click Agenda to find if the case at 1500 Govt St is listed
2. Click the date, find the case, then click the white down arrow, then click Comment to submit your written comments.
3. Click Report to read the application, Staff summary and Staff recommendation.
What the Future Holds for Shoppes of Midtown
Finally, be aware that we are waiting to hear plans for further developments at this site and will keep the area informed. The owner has commited to meeting with area Board representatives in the future and the GSC will arrange meetings that area Boards are interested in. We must continue cooperative and productive communications.
How We Got Here - Case Background Review
For those who have not followed the case or wish to know its progress to date, this review is provided.
Prior to this meeting, the realtor John Vallas had reached out to neighborhood groups through the Government Street Collaborative Community Action Group, and a meeting was held where the owner representatives responded to neighbor concerns, such as litter, lighting, general maintenance, and vagrancy activities. In response, neighbors were assured of improvements in these areas as well as a promise for private security on site if vagrancy problems persist. The ABC representatives assured neighbors of an attractive storefront with frontage and signage within ARB standards and sensitive to surrounding historic districts, such as low impact signage, professional window signage within the Sign Ordinance for Government Street, low impact security features such as no "riot-style" metal gates on the exterior, and a commitment of management to avoiding vagrancy problems.
Following the meeting, the area historic district and neighborhood association Boards agreed to support a Use Variance to the current LB-2 zoning to operate a state-operated and regulated retail storefront, as resident preference is to retain the existing Limited B2 zoning.
While the owner/applicant's legal representatives made a case to the Planning Commissioners for a need to up-zone to B2, he also reinforced the owner's parallel commitment to maintaining only Limited B2 type commerce with the exception of the ABC store, demonstrated by an extensive restrictions list of ALL of the B2 uses except those allowed in LB2 as a Voluntary Restriction Covenant, thus allowing ONLY a state-operated and regulated retail storefront as an addition. Mr. Pipes, the attorney, characterized this covenant as what neighbors have asked for (which is effectively a Use Variance to LB2.)
So there are 3 pathways potentially running parallel:
1. Up-zoning the entire center to B2 (allowing the ABC Store) without restrictions --which seems to be the potential Staff Recommendation and was the original application
2. Up-zoning to B2 with Voluntary Restrictions Covenant to eliminate all intense B2 possibilities except the ABC store-- which the owner has offered after resident input
3. Retaining existing Limited B2 zoning but seeking a Use Variance to operate only a state operated and regulated retail alcohol store (ABC store)--which the neighbors prefer and which the owner agreed to apply for at the Feb. 20th Planning Commission meeting
It should be noted that the Staff recommended DENIAL of the application with Voluntary Restrictions Covenant. Staff stated a concern over a potential "contract zoning" interpretation, which would not be allowed in Mobile...and Mr. Pipes stated to residents that the owner/applicant is inclined to "see what is the guidance of Staff." This bears scrutiny. Neither the Planning Commission nor Board of Adjustment is required to follow Staff advice; Mr. Pipes undoubtedly knows that. Ultimately, an appeal to either Council (from Planning Commission) or Circuit Court (from BOA) may be necessary in this pursuit. But the ABC representatives have stated to residents that they are not interested in being entangled in a "neighborhood squabble."
The Staff can offer their recommendation to deny the Voluntary Exclusions, but it is on the Applicant to take their case to the Commssion for Commissioners' recommendation and then ultimately to Council or the courts for final resolution as needed. The effect of "following staff advice" here would be to simply leave the B2 up-zoning application in place and remove the exclusions addendum, as '"staff advice." We hope the applicant will not use this strategy, and don't believe they would, for while the Planning Commission has the authority to do this, such action would result in extended challenges.
Neighbors reminded the Commission that the Limited B2 was a compromise promised to area residents when the strip mall opened. Therefore, neighbors request that the LB2 be retained, but are willing to support a Use Variance for the ABC store.
As one speaker said, "We did not want this strip mall in the beginning, but we were given it by the prior owner, and now that we have it, we need to help the new owner stablize it. A vacant and blighted 5 acres in our midst will not improve our area." We add it would be an insurmountable hardship.
The following area historic district and street association Boards signed on to the GSC position:
Leinkauf Historic District - LHDNO
Old Dauphinway - ODWA
Dexter Street Porch Society
Church Street East - CSE
(Oakleigh declined due to a Board member professional conflict but several Oakleigh neighbors attended meetings.)
Other GSC member groups were not contacted, as they do not live near the development. If your neighborhood, district, or association wishes to join future hearings or appeals of this case, please answer this email to that effect.
Councilman Manzie Presents His Annexation Vote Explanation in District 2 Newsletter
Dear Citizens of District 2,
Since entering office, I have worked tirelessly in support of our district and our city. I take this responsibility very seriously and have always done my best to weigh the pros and cons of the important decisions that come before our council.
Two weeks ago, I could have taken the easy way out and moved forward with the vote on the annexation proposal. I did not. We did not. Instead, I've spent the last two weeks in meeting after meeting, from dawn to dusk, listening to our city's business leaders, citizen groups, religious leaders and constituents from across the city and county. After all of that, and after reviewing the materials presented to us by these various groups, and spending time thinking and praying, I came to a decision. I knew my decision would disappoint some and hearten some, but, it is the decision I feel is right for our district and, as a result, our city.
For years we have been focused on our downtown. We knew that reviving this area was key to turning around the whole city and ensuring a bright future. After several years, a lot of infrastructure work, public/private partnerships, forward thinking, investment and encouraging our local residents and entrepreneurs, we are on the CUSP of a true renaissance. We have new restaurants and stores opening nearly every week and hundreds of new residential units becoming available. I am deeply concerned that rather than seeing this progress through, this annexation puts us on the hook for new costs and responsibilities and, worse, sends the message that we were not sincere in our commitment to building up what we already have and investing in our current residents and entrepreneurs.
We also need to keep our focus on all the unfinished work in our District. Our communities are among the OLDEST in the city. While it's wonderful to have historic neighborhoods, it is an everyday struggle to have historic infrastructure from our roads to sidewalks and drainage. On top of having some of the oldest infrastructure, the problems it has presented have gone unaddressed for too many years. This has left an enormous back log of work and communities that feel abandoned. Every day I hear from residents who desperately need us to make good on our current responsibilities. Whether it's parents in Africatown frustrated because they have waited long enough for an updated playground and ball fields at Kidd Park or a wheelchair bound resident in Midtown tired of navigating torn up sidewalks, we STILL have a lot of work to do currently in our city.
In addition, there was not enough information made available to address the long-term impact of bringing in these new neighborhoods. This is also why the misinformation campaign that pushed false facts and figures out into my District and others exacerbated the situation. These discussions and decisions are too important to make without a full picture of the impact to be driven by false information and innuendo and to be rushed.
It is for these reasons that I voted in opposition to the annexation proposal.
With all that said, in the past 24 hours I have been incredibly disheartened by the tone of some of the commentary. Neither the discussion of, nor the decision on this proposal was based on race. I had both white and black citizens, business leaders, elected officials and religious leaders among those who urged me to vote in opposition. Trying to inject race into this vote, not only does a disservice to me but, more importantly does a disservice to our city. Mobile deserves better.
As the Mayor said yesterday following the vote, "I'm as optimistic as ever about the future of our city." I look forward to continuing to work with him and the administration to grow our city and ensure that bright future.
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 208-7441 (Council office), by e-mail at lmanzie@cityofmobile.org or at 509-4239 (cell phone).
Thank You,
Levon C. Manzie, Council President
District 2