Article II Design and Development, Zoning Ordinance Revision
Public Comment from
The Government Street Collaborative
Member Groups: Oakleigh Historic Garden Society, ODWA, Leinkauf Historic
District Neighborhood Organization, Midtown Mobile Movement, Flo Claire
Neighborhood Assoc., Lafayette Street Assoc., Church Street East, Lower
Dauphin members, The Loop Group Community Action, and
Historic Mobile Preservation Society
The Collaborative fully supports the addition of building and site design standards.
Building Design
1. The GSC supports the Building and Site Design Standards, but finds some
inadequate to insure the preservation of historic districts, buildings, corridors, centers,
or neighborhoods, even with the historic overlay dimensional standards. Therefore, the
role of the Architectural Review Board is crucial and must continue and be controlling to
cover any “gaps” in the Ordinance for historic properties and adjacencies. The GSC
requests that development in historic districts or along adjacent traditional
corridors require a pre-application meeting that engages the developer and ARB with
resident representatives from impacted neighborhood groups registered with the city.
2. We have a concern about the dimensional building standards in Article III based on the
“150 foot” standard. If historic infill building height or setback maximums are
determined by the greatest height or greatest setback within 150 feet, one inappropriate
building could conceivably establish a height max that would be repeated in 150 foot
increments along a corridor. Further, any building within a historic area that is NOT an
appropriate or contributing building as defined by the MHDC should never be used to
determine a dimensional standard of this type.
There is no mechanism in the standards, as written, that will prevent this “dimensional
creep.” Therefore the GSC requests language which notes this potential and states that
the Architectural Review Board is the appropriate reviewing entity to protect appropriate
articulation and scale in historic areas. ARB standards must be controlling in historic
districts.
3. Because there are no materials standards, the ARB is the appropriate reviewing entity
to address materials and insure the visual and historical appropriateness of infill and
redevelopment in historic districts. This expertise is a protection of property values for
homeowners and for the character of neighborhoods and the sense of place the Map
for Mobile promotes. ARB should be controlling to resolve such standards when
conflicts exist.
4. Because Building Design Type A (single family) does not regulate the Facade or
Windows, the GSC supports the ARB as the reviewing entity for RL or RM infill and
redevelopment in historic areas.
5. Without seeing the Zoning Map which promises to identify acceptable Building Design
and Site Design “types” in each Zoning District, the GSC has a concern about the
range of “Application” standards for each Building Design Type. For example, Building
Design Type D suitable for a suburban application, is also for “limited” application in
traditional centers and on traditional corridors. This undercuts the purpose for creating
building design types and assigning those to specific, appropriate zoning districts.
The concept of “limited use” (which is probably intended to reduce non-conformities)
should be handled by variance applications . Take “limited use” to inappropriate
districts out of the language. These are not “standards” if allowed for use in any zone.
6. A traditional corridor or neighborhood center adjacent to a historic district impacts the
districts’ unique character and property values. Therefore, development should go
through a pre-application meeting with registered neighborhood representatives and the
ARB. These traditional areas greatly impact the character of our historic districts and
therefore property values and quality of life there.
Site Design
The GSC supports the following in Article II, 64-12, Site Design:
1. Site design standards as part of Zoning
2. Civic space standards for each development
3. Adequate riparian buffers
4. Landscaping to buffer surrounding neighborhoods, mitigate stormwater, heat islands, and
visual impacts of development (though further landscaping is yet to be published)
5. Protection of heritage trees, requirements for shade trees in surface parking, and incentives
for developers to allow existing street trees to “count” in the development’s minimum
landscaping requirement
6. Inclusion of minimal standards (height, facade, lot coverage, etc.) in a Historic Overlay
Concerns, Issues, Questions
1. Surface parking in historic and traditional neighborhoods must be limited and must be
buffered by landscape screening alone or in combination with fencing. (See illustrated
in Article II, for D. Site Design Type 3, pg. 16 — Urban Application, Traditional
Neighborhood Centers and Traditional Corridors such as Government Street) The
summary of site design elements (64-12,Table II) states that landscaping in traditional
applications will “reduce visual impacts of parking.” However, the Site Plan illustration
on Page 16 for a traditional area has a lot-width surface parking lot visible from the
main street, the side street, and from the rear lot line with absolutely NO landscaping
screen. This is not acceptable, especially along Government Street where the frontage
parcels are frequently adjacent to residential lots. We realize that Article IV will also
address buffers and parking and we hope this situation is resolved at that time.
However, the dramatic reduction of landscaping requirements east of I-65 creates a
situation where surface parking may be left unscreened to residential and historic
adjacencies. That must be addressed to the benefit of all parties impacted.
2. The GSC finds a 3’ fence or wall height not adequate in side and rear yards, the
concern being where fencing contains pets or separates small children from moving
traffic as at apartments or swim pools, etc. Obviously, special considerations
exist for corner lots where fencing cannot block traffic view, but where
fencing functions as containment for safety, 3’ is inadequate for rear/side yards.
3. Landscaping regulations in Site Design types state that when the “required number of
trees cannot fit within the minimum landscaped area, remaining trees shall instead be
donated to the city tree commission to be planted as public trees.” The GSC requests
that such donated trees be planted within the neighborhood impacted by the
development, provided an appropriate planting location is available.
4. The GSC finds that, like Building Design types, Site Design Types are overly flexible
because the Application for each Site Type includes not only the appropriate
Zoning Districts, but also “limited application” to Zones that are NOT appropriate.
For example, Type 4, Article II 64-12 , pg 17, is clearly a suburban strip mall type
development with front parking, but the Application states it has “limited application” on
Traditional Corridors like Government Street. The GSC finds that the developments at
1616 Govt at S. Monterey, 1500 Govt at Catherine, and 1702 Govt near the Cannon -
are the LEAST appropriate developments on this historic corridor through the city’s
historic residential areas, and no Building Design of this type should be allowed, even in
“limited” application. Therefore, it is distressing that this Site Design Type 4, as well as
Type 3 with its large exposed surface parking along the street in front of the building,
are designated for “limited application” to Government Street. This Site Design type
must NOT be applied to the Traditional Corridor adjacent to historic districts. To include
even a single such development on Government Street is in essence UPZONING
Government Street through designing standards. Strip mall designs are not appropriate
for traditional corridors through historic districts. The Map for Mobile
goals are to move toward more appropriate zoning along the traditional corridor, not l
less.
5. Article II, 64-12, Site Design 2, page 15 states a 3’ maximum for fencing adjacent to RL
or collector streets. 3’ is not adequate to contain pets or small children for their
safety.
6. Sustainability:
The opening statement to the Site Design section states landscaping is to
buffer, to mitigate stormwater and heat islands, and to mitigate the visual impacts of
development. The GSC finds a need for stronger landscaping standards for
traditional neighborhoods such as historic districts, traditional corridors such as
Government Street, and traditional neighborhood centers in midtown, not only for
aesthetic purposes, but for sustainability. While Article IV will address landscaping and
parking further, the GSC hopes to see a stronger focus on sustainability materials and
landscaping to address excess water and runoff and heat, and the use of
incentives to encourage alternatives to pavement. This document at this point
incorporates almost no standards that support and improve Mobile’s natural resources,
sustainability, or the effective handling of water and heat. If incentives can be offered to
protect heritage trees, can incentives also be offered for the use of sustainability efforts
such as pervius parking, courtyard, civic space, and sidewalk materials, landscaping to
increase pedestrian safety, and other functions based on contemporary research?
The lower landscape percentage requirement east of I65 is due to density, but it
is of concern that the entire midtown and downtown areas are left with few progressive
development standards related to these issues. There are some changes which have
the potential to at least balance the scale, such as both reduced parking pavement
requirements and reduced landscaping, but no net gains for a more sustainable
approach to development.
The GSC requests that the Zoning Ordinance impose stronger standards for
sustainability and offer developers further incentives to
incorporate Site Design/Parking/Landscaping design such as: replace internal
site impervious surfacing such as concrete or asphalt with surfacing such as pervious
pavers in parking/alley/sidewalk/courtyard/civic space applications, enlarged tree boxes
for new plantings, use of silva cell and root cell tree planting techniques for large tree
plantings to mitigate future root surface disturbance, use of Site Design areas such as
rain gardens, swales, or bioretention areas to address stormwater and heat islands, and
other effective sustainability measures in Site Design. Resources from EPA such as the
municipal“green streets” initiative provide research about what other “wet” cities such
as Seattle are doing:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/
gi_munichandbook_green_streets_0.pdf
A hot, wet city like Mobile poised to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance
that will be in place for decades into the future must incorporate development
site standards to address these types of issues. it is negligent not to do so.
While the GSC celebrates the incentive to protect heritage trees and reduce parking
pavement requirements, there are many, many other things we are expecting from the
Zoning revision if it is to realize the promise of Map for Mobile in statements such as
these:
“Develop incentives for private development to build to higher energy standards
such as Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) or Green Building
Initiative (GBI).”
“Strategically plan for the mitigation of environmental issues.”
“Embrace low-impact development design standards.”
“Develop a robust and diverse stormwater management program.”
Source: Map for Mobile, Action Plans