The member groups and individuals of the Government Street Collaborative have communicated following the recent Tree Commission vote to approve the removal of 55 trees, in the plan for the One Mobile Tiger Grant.  Most feel there was a lack of important information disseminated throughout the planning stage and better public information is now needed, regardless of the outcome of the Tree Commission vote or any appeals that may follow.  Toward that end, my purpose here is to join others in requesting a public forum on the grant.  Our hope is that a successful forum along with cooperative key city staff under the administration’s guidance could result in a better plan that could set a more positive precedent for the remaining grant phases, as well as future city planning, such as the pending Bienville Square or other plans.  

 

Most of our members were represented at the early Grant public informational meetings through August, 2017, and were enthusiastic for a plan to address the connections lost over time in our city to ill-planned expansion. Building on the earlier Bring Back Broad initiative, the One Mobile Grant promised to reconnect Mobilians to the new 3 Mile Greenway, to the transit services at the GM&O, to the Brookley complex, and most importantly, to reconnect neighborhoods from north to south and east to west.  No longer, the grant promised, would Broad Street serve to block and disconnect our people by running an unsafe 8 to 11 lane urban roadway through the heart of Mobile.  Now, it envisioned, Mobilians would walk, drive, and bicycle to destinations on a redesigned, safe, multi-modal  “complete street.”  That complete street would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly, would have been reduced by half to 2, 3, or 4 auto lanes to serve needs in different segments, while providing added pedestrian and bike paths.

 

Naturally, a vast majority of Mobilians loved the vision and goals presented, and their acceptance was further captured by the promise of “enhanced landscaping”  to enrich the Broad Street aesthetic experience.

 

At no time in those early meetings, nor in the grant narrative made available, was there mention of removal of dozens, perhaps over 100, of mature and largely healthy heritage live oaks.  In fact, quite the opposite, as illustrations in the grant clearly promise an abundance of large tree shapes, though the species are not identifiable in the diagrams. The “features” in the grant narrative specifically promise “street trees.”  

 

Further, the landscape plan presented to the Tree Commission, when made available upon request, generated an enormous number of questions and concerns, as it appears to have altered the original plan presented for public input. This is perhaps at least in part because of changes in the state tree law, which undercut the Tree Commission authority and the protections offered.

 

It would be helpful if the city could arrange a public forum to address these issues prior to the appeal deadline.  I am uncertain to whom this request should go, so I am sending it to several city administrators and the Mayor, as well as my Councilman. Further, a Collaborative member will speak at the Council meeting on this Tuesday, February 26, and will join this request for a public forum hosted by the city.

 

I hope you are able to address this request or route it to others who can. Thank you for your work with our city.

 

CC:     Mayor Sandy Stimpson, City of Mobile

          Councilman Levon Manzie

Ms Shayla Beaco, Build Mobile Director

        Nick Amberger, City Engineer

         Peter Toler, City Arborist

A Letter from the Leinkauf Board for the Board of Adjustment May 6 Meeting regarding the 1400 Church Street apartment development

A statement by the LHDNO Board: [read into the record of the May 6 Board of Adjustment meeting by a Leinkauf resident. [Note: The Board of Adjustment decided in favor of the neighborhood in a compromise for a rental limited to a density of 6 units, which existing parking will support under existing Code.]

1. At the February LHDNO community meeting, members who had received the city’s public notice regarding the 1400 Church St development attended and brought copies of the public notice and asked that the President announce the development, which he did.  In the ensuing discussion, there were many questions but no outright support for the project, pending further information.

2. The President and Board contacted the developer and arranged a neighborhood meeting and the developer attended.

3. Following that meeting, neighbors expressed that there were too many remaining concerns and voiced those to the President and some Board members.

4. The President formed an Ad Hoc committee to again meet with Mr. Jackson.  At that meeting, he listened to the concerns and accepted a sample design from the committee which would have been for only 5 units, but larger units which could bring him more monthly rent while offering the district a more stable rental client base than small studios will produce.

5. Mr. Jackson mentioned that his market was transient workers and he would likely require a shorter than one year lease, probably 6 month.

6. At the end of the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting, Mr. Jackson said he would consider the alternate plan.

7. Later, the LHDNO Board learned he may reduce the project from 10 to 8 units, which remains an overly dense development in that location, which will be explained below.

8. The Board has since let it be known they would accept a 5 or 6 unit development of larger apartments more likely to bring a more stable renter base and also meet the city’s  1.5 parking space per unit standard and reduce the issues related to street parking on a  residential street fronting Leinkauf Elementary School.

9.   At this time, and because Mr. Jackson has not committed to a 5 or 6 unit development, the  LHDNO Board cannot support the development.

10. In addition, Board members have spoken to a number of immediately surrounding neighbors, most likely impacted, and none support an 8 or 10 unit plan, and one submitted a letter to be read today.

11.  The LHDNO Board wishes to emphasize it does not object to a good rental plan but objects only to the 8 or 10 unit proposed density.

12.  The Board’s objections are based on:

       a.  The city’s 6 to 10 unit per acre density standard for MxDR or mixed use residential zones, keeping in mind this property is far less than 1 acre.  

       b.  Almost adjacent to this property, and within one acre’s space, are two other apartment buildings facing Everett, and the combined density of those with this building will be far beyond the 10 unit per acre density standard.  This will not do justice to the surrounding neighborhood, failing to protect R1 zoning standards.

       c.  The fact that 10 units was approved a decade ago is irrelevant to this approval, as that approval lapsed due to over a 10 year vacancy period.  It was approved during the worse recession seen since the 1930’s  and the circumstances of that time in 2010 are  completely different and should not be evaluated the same.  It should further be noted that LHDNO is not objecting to rental property but only to the density which will result from this plan.

       d.  Further, that approval was apparently for a church to install some type of emergency barrack style housing, which is no longer the case and is not appropriate to the historic district in which the building is sited.

        e. The parking is not adequate for 8 to 10 units which will result in street parking on a  residential street fronting school property where increased traffic  as well as the  school children’s foot traffic will  create traffic flow problems at take-in and dismissal.

         f.  Finally, this parcel is zoned R1 and is surrounded by R1.  The fact that it once operated as multi-family in the distant past—over 15 years ago —should not sway the Board to approve this application. To approve it at this time does not do justice to the surrounding neighborhood.  The lapse of approvals after a 2 year vacancy exists for a  reason, and that reason is to honor the ways in which neighborhoods change.  In this instance, there is no denying that Leinkauf is in an improvement trend with desirable single family housing becoming more marketable.  Your decision here today can support a trend that will ultimately bring a more stable district to the city and justice to the surrounding neighborhood.

        For these reasons, the LHDNO Board welcomes Mr. Jackson’s rehab of this building and offers him our support — but only if Mr. Jackson will submit a 5- or 6-unit maximum plan for this development.