Total entries: 685
Entry: 1343 | April 8, 2019 at 10:15 pm
Property ID:
R022907240002004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This comment is presented by the owner of the property and is in agreement with the many other Chateauguay property owners that object to changing the present R1 zoning, of this neighborhood, to any other zoning designation. The neighborhood should remain single family residential use only. We have had issues in the past where individuals attempted to run businesses out of their residence where clients came to their house multiple times during the day creating significant traffic hazard. A complaint was filed and the appeal board upheld that such a use was not allowed. Why change that now.
This should remain a detached single family residential neighborhood without other uses being allowed.
There is no reasonable need to change the character or use of the existing Chateauguay neighborhood.
Please leave the neighborhood zoning as it is now.
thank you
From:
R. Krchak
krchak@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1340 | April 8, 2019 at 5:00 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I support a change in zoning of the lot on the North East corner of Oak Ridge Road and University Boulevard to CM.
From:
Irma Harold
frederic.tacon@att.net
Entry: 1335 | April 8, 2019 at 4:14 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001075.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
wjr176@gmail.com
Entry: 1334 | April 8, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001074.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
wjr176@gmail.com
Entry: 1333 | April 8, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001073.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
wjr176@gmail.com
Entry: 1332 | April 8, 2019 at 4:12 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001072.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
wjr176@gmail.com
Entry: 1331 | April 8, 2019 at 4:12 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001071.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
wjr176@gmail.com
Entry: 1330 | April 8, 2019 at 4:12 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001070.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
wjr176@gmail.com
Entry: 1329 | April 8, 2019 at 4:11 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001069.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I feel very strongly this section of housing should remain residential. The added CVS pharmacy at the northeast corner of University and Airport is a disappointment and setback for the city especially with plenty of vacant buildings with old Rite Aid’s now sitting vacant.
From:
William Rooks
rookswj@yahoo.com
Entry: 1328 | April 8, 2019 at 4:10 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.009.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I represent the owners and the tenant on the site. The tenant, Alabama Scale and Instrument/ASI Calibration Labs, is an established employer at the site, that provides scale calibration, service, and sales to many industry users throughout the community and the state. Property owners and the tenant object to any re-zoning that would prevent the long-term continuance of the same uses at the site.
From:
Mark Harris
mharris@elcaninc.com
Entry: 1327 | April 8, 2019 at 4:08 pm
Property ID:
R022808283000069.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I am a citizen who lives one block from this location. I wanted to provide support for the intersection of Grelot and Hillcrest as being categorized as Suburban Center. This fits nicely with the vision Map for Mobile has for suburban centers and would fit nicely as a district 6 center.
From:
William Rooks
rookswj@yahoo.com
Entry: 1325 | April 8, 2019 at 3:41 pm
Property ID:
R022901000000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
All the property on Blakely Island is present zoned I-2. All this property on Blakeley Island must remain IH or MH.
From:
Entry: 1324 | April 8, 2019 at 3:40 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002010.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
As one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Mobile, this property should be considered for the DC zoning district. Based on the existing uses of the entire intersection and the development pattern, a DC zoning district could allow for future redevelopment that is more desired. The proposed uses of the NC-S here are a limiting factor in the viability of the real center.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1323 | April 8, 2019 at 3:39 pm
Property ID:
R022808281001001.003.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
As one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Mobile, this property should be considered for the DC zoning district. Based on the existing uses of the entire intersection and the development pattern, a DC zoning district could allow for future redevelopment that is more desired. The proposed uses of the NC-S here are a limiting factor in the viability of the real center.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1322 | April 8, 2019 at 3:39 pm
Property ID:
R022808281001001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
As one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Mobile, this property should be considered for the DC zoning district. Based on the existing uses of the entire intersection and the development pattern, a DC zoning district could allow for future redevelopment that is more desired. The proposed uses of the NC-S here are a limiting factor in the viability of the real center.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1321 | April 8, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Property ID:
R022808281001001.002.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
As one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Mobile, this property should be considered for the DC zoning district. Based on the existing uses of the entire intersection and the development pattern, a DC zoning district could allow for future redevelopment that is more desired. The proposed uses of the NC-S here are a limiting factor in the viability of the real center.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1320 | April 8, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Property ID:
R022901000002002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
All the Blakeley Island property is present zoned I-2. All this property must remain zoned IH or MH
From:
Entry: 1319 | April 8, 2019 at 3:37 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002010.001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
As one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Mobile, this property should be considered for the DC zoning district. Based on the existing uses of the entire intersection and the development pattern, a DC zoning district could allow for future redevelopment that is more desired. The proposed uses of the NC-S here are a limiting factor in the viability of the real center.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1318 | April 8, 2019 at 3:36 pm
Property ID:
R022807262000066.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
The parcel data on the Draft UDC map is inconsistent with the parcel information officially recorded with the county. These parcels should be reviewed for accuracy in this development. Since this parcel is not used for an institutional use, and is currently for sale by the County, it should be considered for a CM zoning district. The CM zoning district is also consistent with the Future Land Use Map which has this as a Mixed Commercial Corridor.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1317 | April 8, 2019 at 3:36 pm
Property ID:
R022808381002104.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The parcel data on the Draft UDC map is inconsistent with the parcel information officially recorded with the county. These parcels should be reviewed for accuracy in this development. Since this parcel is not used for an institutional use, and is currently for sale by the County, it should be considered for a CM zoning district. The CM zoning district is also consistent with the Future Land Use Map which has this as a Mixed Commercial Corridor.
From:
Jimmy Grodnick
jimmy@jwpropinc.com
Entry: 1316 | April 8, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Property ID:
R022207380000003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on all of Blakeley Island is I-2. All This property must remain IH or MH.
From:
Entry: 1315 | April 8, 2019 at 3:33 pm
Property ID:
R022207380000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present Zoning is I-2. This property must remain IH or MH.
From:
Entry: 1314 | April 8, 2019 at 3:32 pm
Property ID:
R023304173000003.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
To be consistent with recommendations on adjacently owned parcels, we believe this should be designated as CM. The county is in the process of a pay-as-you go road which will extend Nevius Road to Sollie Road and with this connection, development will be consistent with elements of the CM designation. In lieu of making a split parcel recommendation of CM and RL, we believe these parcels should be designated as CM with future down-zoning to RL following the subdivision of land.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1313 | April 8, 2019 at 3:32 pm
Property ID:
R023304173000004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
To be consistent with recommendations on adjacently owned parcels, we believe this should be designated as CM. The county is in the process of a pay-as-you go road which will extend Nevius Road to Sollie Road and with this connection, development will be consistent with elements of the CM designation. In lieu of making a split parcel recommendation of CM and RL, we believe these parcels should be designated as CM with future down-zoning to RL following the subdivision of land.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1312 | April 8, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Property ID:
R023304173000001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
To be consistent with recommendations on adjacently owned parcels, we believe this should be designated as CM. The county is in the process of a pay-as-you go road which will extend Nevius Road to Sollie Road and with this connection, development will be consistent with elements of the CM designation. In lieu of making a split parcel recommendation of CM and RL, we believe these parcels should be designated as CM with future down-zoning to RL following the subdivision of land.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1311 | April 8, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013221.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This must be zoned Industry Heavy IH. please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1310 | April 8, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Property ID:
R023304174000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
To be consistent with recommendations on adjacently owned parcels, we believe this should be designated as CM. The county is in the process of a pay-as-you go road which will extend Nevius Road to Sollie Road and with this connection, development will be consistent with elements of the CM designation. In lieu of making a split parcel recommendation of CM and RL, we believe these parcels should be designated as CM with future down-zoning to RL following the subdivision of land.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1309 | April 8, 2019 at 3:30 pm
Property ID:
R023304174000003.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
To be consistent with recommendations on adjacently owned parcels, we believe this should be designated as CM. The county is in the process of a pay-as-you go road which will extend Nevius Road to Sollie Road and with this connection, development will be consistent with elements of the CM designation. In lieu of making a split parcel recommendation of CM and RL, we believe these parcels should be designated as CM with future down-zoning to RL following the subdivision of land.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1308 | April 8, 2019 at 3:30 pm
Property ID:
R023304174000004.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1307 | April 8, 2019 at 3:29 pm
Property ID:
R023304174000005.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1306 | April 8, 2019 at 3:29 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019005.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on this parcel is I-2. This parcel must remain Industry Heavy IH. Please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1305 | April 8, 2019 at 3:28 pm
Property ID:
R023304174000005.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1304 | April 8, 2019 at 3:27 pm
Property ID:
R023304201000001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1303 | April 8, 2019 at 3:27 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on this parcel is I-2. This parcel must remain industry Heavy IH. Please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1302 | April 8, 2019 at 3:27 pm
Property ID:
R023305212000002.001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
To be consistent with our request for CM on adjacent parcels, this should be considered CM as well. A single narrow RL parcel surrounded by CM does not seem like a good development pattern for the area.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1301 | April 8, 2019 at 3:26 pm
Property ID:
R023305212000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1300 | April 8, 2019 at 3:25 pm
Property ID:
R023305213000002.001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1299 | April 8, 2019 at 3:25 pm
Property ID:
R023305213000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing LB-2 of these properties. At the time of annexation, these were brought into the City with them zoned as LB-2 for future commercial use and as such we should maintain a zoning district with commercial use.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1298 | April 8, 2019 at 3:25 pm
Property ID:
R022208440012008.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on this parcel is I-2. This parcel must remain Industry Heavy IH. Please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1297 | April 8, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Property ID:
R023202060003003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This recommendation is based on the development of the county soccer complex immediately to the west of this parcel. We believe future residential development would be highly undesirable being located between a large regional sport complex and Interstate-65. We are recommending a CW designation to be consistent with the adjacent properties to the north along I-65 and Hall Mills Road. This would also be consistent with the surrounding proposed IL designations as well.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1296 | April 8, 2019 at 3:23 pm
Property ID:
R023203070002001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This recommendation is based on the development of the county soccer complex immediately to the west of this parcel. We believe future residential development would be highly undesirable being located between a large regional sport complex and Interstate-65. We are recommending a CW designation to be consistent with the adjacent properties to the north along I-65 and Hall Mills Road. This would also be consistent with the surrounding proposed IL designations as well.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1295 | April 8, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019005.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on this parcel is I-2. This Parcel must remain Industry Heavy IH. Please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1294 | April 8, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003129.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1293 | April 8, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003130.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1291 | April 8, 2019 at 3:21 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003131.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1290 | April 8, 2019 at 3:21 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003132.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1289 | April 8, 2019 at 3:20 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on this parcel is I-2. This parcel must remain Industry Heavy IH. Please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1288 | April 8, 2019 at 3:19 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003133.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. A change to CM with the current use and development of the B-2 and should be considered for adjacently owned property as well. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1287 | April 8, 2019 at 3:19 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003128.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. A change to CM with the current use and development of the B-2 and should be considered for adjacently owned property as well. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1286 | April 8, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003135.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. A change to CM with the current use and development of the B-2 and should be considered for adjacently owned property as well. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1285 | April 8, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Property ID:
R023204340003134.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-2 district. A change to CM with the current use and development of the B-2 and should be considered for adjacently owned property as well. Our recommendation is consistent with the Suburban Corridor designation of the Development Framework in Map for Mobile, and consistent the Gateway Development Opportunity in the Mobile Peninsula Corridor Master Plan.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1284 | April 8, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013226.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Present zoning on this parcel is I-2. This parcel must remain Industry Heavy IH. Please change to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1283 | April 8, 2019 at 3:17 pm
Property ID:
R022906400010334.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
he current zoning of this and surrounding properties are R-B. Down zoning the property to RL would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1282 | April 8, 2019 at 3:17 pm
Property ID:
R023302031001015.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We believe this property should be zoning consistent with adjacently owned property with proposed NCS which has frontage along Demetropolis Road. By being consistent with the adjacent proposed NCS to the west would allow for full use of the property.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1281 | April 8, 2019 at 3:15 pm
Property ID:
R023302031001007.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We believe this property should be zoning consistent with adjacently owned property with proposed NCS which has frontage along Demetropolis Road. This parcel is also separated from the public right-of-way of Dinkins Drive by a parcel owned by the City of Mobile. The right-of-way to the north has been vacated so this parcel is effectively only accessible by adjoining property of the same owner. By being consistent with the adjacent proposed NCS to the west would allow for full use of the property.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1280 | April 8, 2019 at 3:14 pm
Property ID:
R022809321000001.037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a down-zoning from the existing B-1 district. The parcel does have constraints that would prevent the residential development from being contiguous to adjacent residential developments and without a service road along Grelot Road individual parcel access would happen directly on the corridor. With CM being designated on parcels to the east and west, we believe this parcel should have the same designation.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1279 | April 8, 2019 at 3:13 pm
Property ID:
R022807262000002.004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Based on the location and proximity to Airport Boulevard, we believe the use of this property, in conjunction with adjacent properties to be of a regional nature. In the evolution from the Future Land Use to the Proposed Zoning Districts, the district center was extended from Festival Plaza to Downtowner Loop West. We believe this designation should be extended to the Azalea Road intersection and adjacent properties to that intersection.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1278 | April 8, 2019 at 3:12 pm
Property ID:
R022807262000002.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Based on the location and proximity to Airport Boulevard, we believe the use of this property, in conjunction with adjacent properties to be of a regional nature. In the evolution from the Future Land Use to the Proposed Zoning Districts, the district center was extended from Festival Plaza to Downtowner Loop West. We believe this designation should be extended to the Azalea Road intersection and adjacent properties to that intersection.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1277 | April 8, 2019 at 3:12 pm
Property ID:
R022910223004001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and properties to the Everett St to the west are a mix of B1, B2 and R3. Up zoning these properties to NCT would adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1276 | April 8, 2019 at 3:12 pm
Property ID:
R022807262000002.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
Based on the location and proximity to Airport Boulevard, we believe the use of this property, in conjunction with adjacent properties to be of a regional nature. In the evolution from the Future Land Use to the Proposed Zoning Districts, the district center was extended from Festival Plaza to Downtowner Loop West. We believe this designation should be extended to the Azalea Road intersection and adjacent properties to that intersection.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1275 | April 8, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Property ID:
R022807262000002.02
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Based on the location and proximity to Airport Boulevard, we believe the use of this property, in conjunction with adjacent properties to be of a regional nature. In the evolution from the Future Land Use to the Proposed Zoning Districts, the district center was extended from Festival Plaza to Downtowner Loop West. We believe this designation should be extended to the Azalea Road intersection and adjacent properties to that intersection.
From:
Matt White
matt@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 1274 | April 8, 2019 at 3:09 pm
Property ID:
R021908400004001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is the entrance to our property that joins to the East 600 +/- acres this parcel must match the new zoning on our 600 +/- acres to the East that is zoned Water Dependent ML. Please change this parcel to match Water Dependent ML.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1273 | April 8, 2019 at 3:09 pm
Property ID:
R022807354000026.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We believe this property should be considered as a CM based upon the Future Land Use Map in Map for Mobile. The current uses of the property and development pattern is more consistent with the CM than as the recommended NC-S district.
From:
Nathan Handmacher
nhandmacher@stirlingprop.com
Entry: 1272 | April 8, 2019 at 3:08 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006164.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Historically, this property was developed and has been used extensively as a small data processing facility, call center and assembly facility. Because of these uses, this property would be more suited as IL designation. The current B-2 zoning to CT would result in the loss of use and could be considered a downzoning. In general, other properties in this area should be reviewed as many of these are more consistent with the IL district than the CT district.
From:
Nathan Handmacher
nhandmacher@stirlingprop.com
Entry: 1271 | April 8, 2019 at 3:08 pm
Property ID:
R022807262000002.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Based on the location and proximity to Airport Boulevard, we believe the use of this property, in conjunction with adjacent properties to be of a regional nature. In the evolution from the Future Land Use to the Proposed Zoning Districts, the district center was extended from Festival Plaza to Downtowner Loop West. We believe this designation should be extended to the Azalea Road intersection and adjacent properties to that intersection.
From:
Nathan Handmacher
nhandmacher@stirlingprop.com
Entry: 1270 | April 8, 2019 at 3:04 pm
Property ID:
R022910223002009.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and the two surrounding properties are B1. This property was up zoned to CT while the property on either side or down zoned to R1. This seems arbitrary.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1269 | April 8, 2019 at 3:03 pm
Property ID:
R021908400001065.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is the entrance to our property that is 600+/- acres that the new zoning is Water Dependent ML. Please change this parcel to match our property that joins to the East to Water Dependent ML.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1267 | April 8, 2019 at 2:59 pm
Property ID:
R022910214003006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B2. Up zoning these properties to NCT could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1264 | April 8, 2019 at 2:57 pm
Property ID:
R022910214002078.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Down zoning the property would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1262 | April 8, 2019 at 2:55 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003023.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is 21+/- acres and will never be residential and joins the railroad. This parcel must be zoned Industry Light IL or Commercial Warehouse CW. Please change this parcel to Industry Light IL or Commercial Warehouse CW.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1257 | April 8, 2019 at 2:49 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002023.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We think this parcel should be zoned Traditional Mixed Use Corridor CT. Please change this parcel to Traditional Mixed Use Corridor CT.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsout.net
Entry: 1256 | April 8, 2019 at 2:47 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002021.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
we think this parcel should be zoned Traditional Mixed Use Corridor CT. Please change to Traditional Mixed Use Corridor CT.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1255 | April 8, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006257.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Up zoning these properties to NCT could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1254 | April 8, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006160.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Up zoning these properties to CT could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1253 | April 8, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
we think this parcel needs to be zoned Traditional Mixed Use Corridor CT. Please change to Traditional Mixed Use Corridor.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1252 | April 8, 2019 at 2:41 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002018.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We think this parcel needs to be zoned Traditional Mixed use Corridor CT. Please change to Traditional Mixed Use Corridor CT.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1251 | April 8, 2019 at 2:37 pm
Property ID:
R022909291004001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is B1. Up zoning the property to CT-A could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1250 | April 8, 2019 at 2:36 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002017.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We think this parcel should be zoned Corridor Mixed CM. Please change to Corridor Mixed Cm
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1249 | April 8, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and properties to the south are B2. Up zoning these properties to NCT-A could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1248 | April 8, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002017.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We think this parcel should be zoned Corridor Mixed CM. Please change to Corridor Mixed CM.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1246 | April 8, 2019 at 2:30 pm
Property ID:
R022808282000034.02
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The NCS is not suited for this lot but CM is. This lot does not border residential and has a buffer by Piccadilly Dr. This center is like the center at Key # 02126149. CM is more like the B-3 uses that has been at this lot for years. This entire southeast corner of Hillcrest and Airport should have the CM zoning.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1245 | April 8, 2019 at 2:27 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020007.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel has multiple pipelines running across this parcel that will have to be serviced . This parcel can never be can never be residential. This parcel has a radio tower on this parcel and fronts Papermill Rd.. This parcel should be zoned Industry Heavy IH or Industry Light IL.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1243 | April 8, 2019 at 2:25 pm
Property ID:
R022805213001085.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
NCS is not suited for this lot, CM is more appropriate for this area and the more similar to the B-3 uses we have had at this center for the past years. This lot does not border residential and is buffered on the east by Piccadilly Dr. This property has a drive thru food use and needs to continue that ability. This center is like the center with Key # 02126149 and should attain CM zoning.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1242 | April 8, 2019 at 2:20 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020076.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is in a low area we call a pit with multiple Pipelines running across this parcel that will have to be serviced. This parcel can never be zoned residential It should be zoned Industry Heavy IH or Industry Light IL. Please change to Industry Heavy IH or Industry Light IL.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1241 | April 8, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Property ID:
R022805213001085.04
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The NCS zoning is not suited for the lot, CM is more suited for this area and is similar to the B-3 uses for this area. The property does not border residential and the entire southeast corner should be CM.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1240 | April 8, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020048.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is in a low area we call a pit with multiple pipelines running across this parcel that will have to be serviced. this parcel can never be residential. It should be zoned Industry heavy IH or Industry Light IL. Please change to Industry Heavy IH or Industry Light.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1239 | April 8, 2019 at 2:08 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020049.02
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is the parking at the former Scott Credit Union Building. We think it should be zoned Corridor Mixed CM. Please change to Corridor Mixed.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1238 | April 8, 2019 at 2:05 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020049.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is the Former Scott Credit Union Building. We think this parcel should be zoned Corridor Mixed CM. Please change to Corridor Mixed.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1237 | April 8, 2019 at 1:52 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020006.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The Present zoning on this Parcel is I-2 Heavy Industry. This parcel is under a long term lease with Kimberly Clark and is considered in Kimberly Clarks Footprint this property should remain zoned Industry Heavy IH as the rest of Kimberly Clarks Property. Please change this Parcel to Industry Heavy IH to match Kimberly Clarks use.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1236 | April 8, 2019 at 1:51 pm
Property ID:
R022806372002025.005.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Consider Commercial / Mixed Use or RM?
From:
Entry: 1235 | April 8, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002016.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is under a long term lease with Kimberly Clark and is considered in Kimberly Clarks footprint . This Parcel should remain zoned Industry Heavy IH as the rest of Kimberly Clarks Property. Please change this parcel to Industry Heavy IH to match Kimberly Clarks use.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1234 | April 8, 2019 at 12:15 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001080.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This RL zoning does not represent what this land is. The land south of CVS should be CM and they will want access to the traffic light on University south of the corner at Airport and University. That is why this land should be CM and not RL. The noise on University has made these residential lots undesirable. Residential real estate brokers cannot sell the homes for single family homes because of the traffic noise.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1233 | April 8, 2019 at 12:09 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.09
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land has residential nearby like the Airport and General Bullard land which was given the CM zoning.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1232 | April 8, 2019 at 12:07 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.09
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The new NCS zoning does not fit this center. The land has two tenants with drive thrus which serve the neighborhoods and surrounding area. The CM zoning most fits this centers current B-3 users. The entire southwest corner of Airport and University should be CM. The center behind Chick Fil A are also seeking the CM zoning. This property is no different than the center with Key # 02126149.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1231 | April 8, 2019 at 12:02 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The NCS zoning does not fit this B-3 center. The CM is most appropriate for the center as it is close to B-3. The center is no different than the center with Key # 02126149. The entire southwest corner should be CM and the shopping center behind Chick Fil A are also seeking CM. The B-3 users have not been an issue for this location in the past.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1229 | April 8, 2019 at 11:50 am
Property ID:
R022808272002002.06
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The NCS does not suit this B-3 centers users. The CM is the zoning that most fits the users allowed at this center for years. The entire southwest corner at Airport and University should be CM. The shopping center owners behind Chick Fil A are also needing the CM zoning to maintain the B-3 users allowed for years.. The center in no different than the center with Key # 02126149. CM is the most similar to B-3 which has not been a problem for this area. The residential area behind is no different than the corner of Airport and General Bullard. CM is the proper zoning.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1228 | April 8, 2019 at 11:42 am
Property ID:
R022808272002002.03
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land has always had the B-3 zoning and the new proposed NCS does not fit this southwest corner of Airport and University. The neighboring shopping center group are also seeking CM because it most fits the B-3 users. The CM most fits this land and is no different than the center with Key # 02126149.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1227 | April 8, 2019 at 11:36 am
Property ID:
R022808272002002.04
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land should not be NCS but CM like the shopping center on Dauphin with Key # 02126149. This land has always been B-3 and the CM will allow use to continue to lease to the users like B-3. This entire corner of Airport and University should be CM. The shopping center owners behind Chick Fil A on Airport want the CM as well. This land has always been a restaurant and could be needing a drive thru in the future. CM is more appropriate for this high commercial area on Airport.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1226 | April 8, 2019 at 11:30 am
Property ID:
R022808272002002.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land should not be NCS but CM like the shopping center on Dauphin St with Key # 02126149. This land has always been B-3 and the CM will allow us to continue leasing to the users allowed in B-3. The owners of Regency Square behind Chick Fil A are seeking the same CM zoning. The entire southwest corner of Airport and University should be CM and not NCS. This land has always had a restaurant but could be a drive thru in the future.
From:
Matt Cummings
Entry: 1216 | April 8, 2019 at 10:26 am
Property ID:
R022908192001002.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land has been zoned B-3 for many years and is in the same ownership group that owns property on the north side of Dauphin from Sage too the current Wendy’s location near I-65. This land should be the same new zoning of CM like the other properties of NS LTD. The NCS will not satisfy the users previously of B-3, the land borders other CM zoning and does not border residential.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1211 | April 8, 2019 at 10:19 am
Property ID:
R022908192001002.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land has been zoned B-3 for many years and is in the same ownership that owns property north of Dauphin to the current Wendy’s location near I-65. This land should be the same new zoning of CM like the other properties of NS LTD. The NCS will not satisfy the users previously of B-3 and the site does not border residential. This site is a restaurant with a drive thru and will probably remain that use for many years. The site is also next to a convenience store with gas sales.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1206 | April 8, 2019 at 10:10 am
Property ID:
R022908192001002.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land has been zoned B-3 for many years and is in the same ownership group that owns property north of Dauphin from Sage too the current location of Wendy’s location near I-65. This land should be the same new zoning of CM like the other properties of NS LTD. The NCS will not satisfy the users previously of B-3, the site does not border residential, and the site is north of a C-store and fast food restaurant. The NCS should be changed too CM.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1202 | April 8, 2019 at 10:01 am
Property ID:
R022908183002067.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This land has been zoned B-3 for many years and is in the ownership group that owns property north of Dauphin from Sage to the current Wendy’s location near I-65. This land should be the same new zoning of CM like the other properties of Northside LTD. The NCS will not satisfy the users previously of B-3, the site does not border residential but does border other CM property.
From:
Matt Cummings
Matt@Cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 1201 | April 8, 2019 at 9:58 am
Property ID:
R022902440003068.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440003068. (Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile)
This parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped except for what is presumably a MAWSS easement of some sort. The parcel’s current zoning designation is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Given the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
Such possibility would be for the parcel to serve as a walking path connecting the future Africatown Welcome Center site just opposite the parcel across the railroad tracks to the Happy Hills neighborhood. In that case, a Traditional Neighborhood Center or Residential zoning of some sort would be appropriate for this parcel.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1200 | April 8, 2019 at 9:58 am
Property ID:
R022902440003188.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440003188. (Alabama Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation)
This parcel is currently vacant, wooded, and undeveloped except for a rail spur that crosses its property to service the Hosea O Weaver asphalt facility across Bay Bridge Cutoff Road. The parcel’s current zoning is Industrial-2.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Also given its immediate proximity to homes along Chin Street in the Magazine Point neighborhood and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
A Commercial Warehouse designation on this parcel is a much more judicious application of the city’s zoning discretion.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1199 | April 8, 2019 at 9:57 am
Property ID:
R022902440003194.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440003194. (D & M LLC)
This parcel currently hosts the hydraulic system repair shop Lift Parts Service Company Inc. The parcel’s current zoning designation is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for the parcel is Industrial Light, and while the land use as a place of commercial “machinery and heavy equipment sales and service” is permitted under Industrial Light and Industrial Heavy designations, it is also permitted under the less permissive and more appropriate Commercial Warehouse designation.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1198 | April 8, 2019 at 9:57 am
Property ID:
R022902440018004.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440018004. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel is currently vacant with a couple shrubs and a tree while most of the property is covered with various aggregate surfaces. The parcel is currently zoned as Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant overly permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Also given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site and the Happy Hills and Magazine Point communities along Chin Street, as well as the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
An Industrial Light zoning on this site is neither necessary nor consistent with its Telegraph Road public facing neighbors, which MEJAC feels should be zoned in the UDC as Commercial Warehouse. A Commercial Warehouse designation on this parcel is a much more appropriate application of the city’s zoning discretion.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1197 | April 8, 2019 at 9:57 am
Property ID:
R022902440003056.01
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyIDs: R022902440003056.01 and R022902440003056. (Virginia Bryant)
These two parcels together form a tract of land that is currently vacant and undeveloped. Their current zoning designation is Business-2.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for these parcels is Industrial Light, but given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site and the Happy Hills community along Chin Street, as well as the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, changing this parcel’s current Business zoning to Industrial Light when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Traditional Neighborhood Center would be more appropriate and befitting of its current designation and plausible resident-oriented services offered in the future on the site than any Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1196 | April 8, 2019 at 9:56 am
Property ID:
R022902440003197.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440003197. (Bay Bridge Properties Inc)
This parcel currently hosts a fenced parking lot with exclusive ingress from the Young Transport LLC property to its immediate south. The parcel is currently zoned as Residential-2. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29), “parking facilities” are not permitted uses in any Residential zoning. This kind of land use nonconformity is common the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s apparent land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
Furthermore, the UDC proposed Industrial Light zoning for this parcel is overly permissive for the sites function as a place of commercial “truck repair”. While that land use is permitted under Industrial Light and Industrial Heavy designations, it is also permitted under the less permissive and more appropriate Commercial Warehouse designation.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1195 | April 8, 2019 at 9:56 am
Property ID:
R022902440003198.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440003198. (Bay Bridge Properties Inc)
This parcel currently hosts the tractor trailer servicing and dispatch carrier company Young Transport LLC. Its current zoning is designated as Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, and while the land use as a place of commercial “truck repair” is permitted under Industrial Light and Industrial Heavy designations, it is also permitted under the less permissive and more appropriate Commercial Warehouse designation.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1194 | April 8, 2019 at 9:56 am
Property ID:
R022902440018006.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyIDs: R022902440018006. (B & B Industrial Supply Co) and R022902440003199. (Bay Bridge Properties Inc)
These parcels together form a tract which currently hosts the commercial plumbing fittings, valves, and pipe warehouse B & B Industrial Supply. The tracts existing zoning is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation is Industrial Light. However, given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1193 | April 8, 2019 at 9:55 am
Property ID:
R022902440018006.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyIDs: R022902440018006. (B & B Industrial Supply Co) and R022902440003199. (Bay Bridge Properties Inc)
These parcels together form a tract which currently hosts the commercial plumbing fittings, valves, and pipe warehouse B & B Industrial Supply. The tracts existing zoning is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation is Industrial Light. However, given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
m
Entry: 1192 | April 8, 2019 at 9:55 am
Property ID:
R022902440018007.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440018007. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel is currently a vacant lot on Telegraph Road. It’s current zoning designation is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Also given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
An Industrial Light zoning on this site is neither necessary nor consistent with its Telegraph Road public facing neighbors, which MEJAC feels should be zoned in the UDC as Commercial Warehouse. A Commercial Warehouse designation on this parcel is a much more appropriate application of the city’s zoning discretion.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1191 | April 8, 2019 at 9:55 am
Property ID:
R022902440018011.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyIDs: R022902440018011. and R022902440018012. (Gulf Coast Marine Supply)
This tract is composed of two parcels which both currently host the warehouse supplier of quality pipe, valves, fittings, instrumentation, industrial mill supplies, actuation, hose and gasketing known as Gulf Coast Marine Supply, which also owns the parcels. Both parcels are currently zoned Industrial-2.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for these parcels is split between R022902440018011. receiving an Industrial Light designation and R022902440018012. receiving a Maritime Light designation. The current land use on both sites can be best described as “wholesale distribution, warehousing and storage”, which according to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26, 28), is a permitted use in Commercial Warehouse, Maritime Light, Maritime Heavy, Industrial Light, and Industrial Heavy zoning designations.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Maritime or Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1190 | April 8, 2019 at 9:54 am
Property ID:
R022902440018016.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440018016. (Walter C Ernest III)
This parcel currently hosts what appears to be a facility for a “heavy construction equipment dealer”, “machinery and heavy equipment sales and service”, or “outdoor storage” likely for Ernest Construction LLC. It is currently zoned Industrial-2.
The proposed UDC designation is Industrial Light. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26, 28), “heavy construction equipment dealers”, “machinery and heavy equipment sales and service”, and “outdoor storage” are all permitted uses in Commercial Warehouse, Industrial Light, and Industrial Heavy zoning designations.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than either Industrial designation.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1189 | April 8, 2019 at 9:54 am
Property ID:
R022902440018008.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440018008. (City of Mobile)
This parcel currently hosts the City of Mobile’s Henry J Reid Fire Station and is currently zoned as Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning for this parcel is Industrial Light. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26, 28), “Public Safety Facilities” are permitted in every zoning designation provided by the city except for Residential Low Density and Residential Mixed, where it is a conditional land use.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining the fire station’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Traditional Neighborhood Center or Traditional Corridor would be more appropriate.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1188 | April 8, 2019 at 9:54 am
Property ID:
R022902440018009.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440018009. (Olivet Missionary Baptist)
This parcel currently hosts the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church and is currently designated as a Residential-1 zoning.
It is proposed in the UDC to be given an Industrial Light zoning designation. Churches are regulated in the proposed UDC Use Table as “Religious land use” and are conditional land uses in Residential Low Density.
Because this parcel currently hosts a church, and given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, the proposed UDC designation of Industrial Light is not appropriate. This parcel should instead be zoned in conformity to the proposed UDC land use standards as any Residential or Commercial/Mixed Use District appropriate for its location east of Interstate 65, such as Residential Low Density, Residential Mixed, or Traditional Neighborhood Center.
However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
Should a designation other than Residential be ultimately settled upon, a Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1187 | April 8, 2019 at 9:53 am
Property ID:
R022208440020002.01
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440020002.01 (Alabama State Port Authority), R022208440020002. (Alabama State Port Authority), and R022208440020003. (Alabama State Port Authority)
This tract is comprised of three parcels owned by Alabama State Port Authority that currently host a spur from the Terminal Railroad servicing Berg Pipe Mobile Corp and are otherwise vacant. This tract is currently zoned as Industrial-2.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant overly permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. The UDC proposes an Industrial Heavy zoning for these parcels, but given the active transportation easement and otherwise vacancy of these parcels, a different and less permissive zoning such as Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1186 | April 8, 2019 at 9:53 am
Property ID:
R022208440008003.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440008003. (Merchants Transfer Company)
This parcel is the site of the former Multisorb Technologies warehouse and refinery. It was purchased by Merchants Transfer Company, a commercial warehouse and distribution company. It’s current zoning is Industrial-2.
The parcel is proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Heavy zoning, but unless there are other designs for the large warehouse facility on site, it will be operated as a large commercial warehouse and would be better given a designation of Commercial Warehouse, similar to the recommended designation MEJAC has given for Merchants Transfer Company’s other warehouses in the Africatown Planning Area.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1185 | April 8, 2019 at 9:52 am
Property ID:
R022208440013003.001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013003.001. (Alabama Power Company)
This parcel forms a tract with two others to its immediate north and south that hosts a large Alabama Power electrical substation and adjacent high power electrical utility as well as transmission pipeline easements. The other two parcels in this tract are both owned by the State of Alabama and are identified as R022208440013003.002. to the north and R022208440013003. to the south.
The existing parcels are currently zoned as Industrial-2 The proposed UDC zoning is Industrial Heavy, but given that there is no other practical use for any of these properties given the size of the electrical utility easements that traverse them and the existence of transmission pipeline easements, a Public-Institutional zoning designation for its “Minor Utility” land use is much more appropriate.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1184 | April 8, 2019 at 9:52 am
Property ID:
R022208440013015.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013015. (Chippewa Lakes)
This parcel has its jurisdiction split between the City of Prichard and City of Mobile. It is currently zoned as Residential-1. The current land use on the Mobile side of the parcel appears to be a “building and landscaping materials” distribution center operated by Gulf City Shell Corporation. The Prichard side hosts an administrative building for Gulf City Shell Corporation and what appears to be a large vacant warehouse, which may actually be part of Gulf City Shell Corporation, as well, but is unlabeled. “Building and landscaping materials” distribution is not conforming with its current Residential-1 zoning designation. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
The proposed UDC zoning is Industrial Heavy, but given the parcel’s current land use as a wholesale distribution point for “building and landscaping materials”, a designation as a Commercial Warehouse is a much more appropriate zoning designation than either Residential Low Density or Industrial Heavy. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1183 | April 8, 2019 at 9:52 am
Property ID:
R022208440013003.01
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013227. (International Paper Co) & R022208440013003.01 (International Paper Co)
These adjacent parcels are part of a small tract of land that is owned by International Paper Company. They currently host a railroad easement and an Alabama Power electrical utility easement. Otherwise, they are vacant and undeveloped. They are both currently zoned as Industrial-2.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. The UDC proposes an Industrial Heavy zoning for these parcels, but given the active transportation and utility easements that dominate these parcels, any other practical land use is unimaginable. High power electrical transmission lines are defined as “Minor Utility” land use in the proposed UDC Article X Definitions, Section 64-172 (p. 264) and “Minor Utility” land use is permitted in Public-Instutitional zoning designations in the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29). Given the practical restrictions on their land use possibilities, a Public-Institutional zoning designation would be more appropriate than Industrial Heavy for these parcels.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1182 | April 8, 2019 at 9:51 am
Property ID:
R022902440003038.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440003038. (Southern Railroad Co)
This parcel has split jurisdiction between Prichard and Mobile and currently hosts a rail terminal and what is presumably a wholesale distribution point for the concrete and cement manufacturing company Cemex. Almost all of the site is in the City of Prichard with just a sliver in Mobile. The parcel is currently zoned as Residential-1.. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
The proposed UDC zoning is Residential Low Density, but given the parcel’s likely current land use as a wholesale distribution point for “building and landscaping materials” or as “freight depot (railway and truck)”, a designation as a Commercial Warehouse is not an unreasonable proposal. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26), Commercial Warehouse would permit both possible land use types. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1181 | April 8, 2019 at 9:51 am
Property ID:
R022208440018325.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440018325. (Transouth Holdings LLC)
This parcel splits jurisdictional boundaries between Prichard and Mobile and currently hosts an abandoned building on its Prichard side that faces Telegraph Road. The area of the parcel in the City of Mobile is undeveloped and wooded land along the railroad to the property’s eastern most side. The parcel is currently zoned as Residential-1.
The parcel is proposed in the UDC to receive a Residential Low Density designation, and given the land use on the rest of the property, that may be appropriate considering it only hosts an abandoned commercial building. A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s apparent defunct land use is not an unreasonable proposal, but due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1180 | April 8, 2019 at 9:51 am
Property ID:
R022208440018326.001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440018326.001. (unidentified) & R022208440019440.002. (unidentified)
This tract of land splits jurisdiction between Prichard and Mobile. The Mobile side of the jurisdictional boundaries is undeveloped and wooded land. There is one building on the Prichard side and a telecommunications tower that appears connected to the building.
Both parcels in the tract are currently zoned as Residential-1. The proposed UDC designation for both parcels is Residential Low Density, which may be appropriate for the R022208440019440.002. parcel which is the furthest east of the two parcels along the railroad tracks and is entirely within the City of Mobile. R022208440018326.001., the second parcel in this tract that splits jurisdiction between Prichard and Mobile, hosts a telecommunications tower and telecommunications towers are an expressly prohibited land use in Residential Low Density zones according to the proposed UDC Article V Use Regulations, Section 64-84 Telecommunications Facilities (p. 182).
Thus, a zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1179 | April 8, 2019 at 9:50 am
Property ID:
R022208440019440.02
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440019440.02 (Miller Bros LLP)
This parcel of land is part of a larger tract of four parcels all owned by Miller Bros LLP that currently host the containerized chemical and chemical tanker cleaning facility Miller Transporters Inc.
The three other parcels in this tract include R022208440018327. to its west, R022208440019440.001. to its north, and R022208440018326. to its northwest. The two westward parcels split the jurisdictions of Prichard and Mobile.
All of the aforementioned parcels are currently zoned Residential-1, and their land use is in nonconformity with the City of Mobile’s zoning code. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1178 | April 8, 2019 at 9:50 am
Property ID:
R022208440019003.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440019003. (Alabama Power Co)
This single parcel is currently zoned Residential-1 despite it forming part of a larger tract under the land use of a single entity, Merchants Transfer Company, despite the other parcels having various owners and various existing zoning designations. This parcel forms a contiguous tract that currently hosts Merchants Transfer Company warehouses and tractor trailer parking together with R022208440012008.000. (unidentified) to the north and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440013226. (Chippewa Lakes LLC) to the northwest and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440019004. (Woodland Buildings) to the west and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440018001. (Woodland Buildings) also to the west and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440019004.001. (Merchants Transfer Co) also to the west and zoned as Industrial-2, and R022208440019005. (Merchants Transfer Co) to the southwest and zoned as Industrial-1.
Complicating the situation, Merchants Transfer Company has another warehouse directly across Paper Mill Road on parcel R022208440013006. (Chippewa Lakes LLC) that is proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Heavy zoning designation.
The proposed UDC rezoning for all of the contiguous parcels is to Industrial Light, but that designation doesn’t seem appropriate given that the only activities on site are warehouse storage and distribution related.
A zoning designation for all of the of Commercial Warehouse would presumably be more appropriate than an unnecessarily permissive Industrial Light rezoning.
With respect to the single parcel currently zoned Residential-1, it currently hosts part of a Merchants Transfer Company tractor trailer parking light, so is currently in nonconformity. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1177 | April 8, 2019 at 9:50 am
Property ID:
R022208440013221.002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013221.002. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel is currently an undeveloped vacant lot on Telegraph Road with a daycare center to its south, a church to its north, and a metal fabrication facility to its east. It is proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Light zoning designation.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile, and Industrial Light zoning on this site is neither necessary nor consistent with its Telegraph Road public facing neighbors, a daycare center, a church, and a convenience store. A much less intensive zoning designation would be more appropriate like Residential Low Density or Traditional Neighborhood Center.
However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
So, should a higher-than-residential designation be settled upon, a Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1176 | April 8, 2019 at 9:49 am
Property ID:
R022208440013222.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013222. (Church of God Pentecostal Inc)
This parcel together with R022208440013221.01 (Church of God Pentecostal Inc) form a tract of land that is split between the Cities of Prichard and Mobile along Telegraph Road. It is proposed in the UDC to be given an Industrial Light zoning designation.
The land currently hosts the Showers of Blessings Church of God in Christ ministry and is zoned today as Residential-1. Churches are regulated in the proposed UDC Use Table as “Religious land use” and are conditional land uses in Residential Low Density.
Because this is a church, the proposed UDC designation of Industrial Light is not appropriate. These parcels should instead be zoned in conformity to the proposed UDC land use standards as any Residential or Commercial/Mixed Use District appropriate for its location east of Interstate 65, such as Residential Low Density or Traditional Neighborhood Center.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1175 | April 8, 2019 at 9:49 am
Property ID:
R022208440013221.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013221. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel together with R022208440013221.03 (Chippewa Lakes LLC) currently hosts a Metals USA metal fabrication facility specializing in plates, structural beams, pressure vessels, pipes and tubing, and more. The second parcel of this tract crosses jurisdictional lines into the City of Prichard from Mobile along Telegraph Road.
The existing zoning map suggests that part of the facility is zoned correctly, as “Manufacturing, Intensive” which includes metals fabrication is a conditional use in the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29). The rest of the property is currently in nonconformity with its Residential-1 zoning designation, as shown in Illustration 20.3 to the right. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal, and the UDC proposed Industrial Light zoning designation appears to be inappropriate for these particular parcels due to the facility’s on-site metals fabrication, which is properly described as “Manufacturing, Intensive” according to the competing definitions of “Manufacturing” types in the proposed UDC Article X Definitions, Section 64-172 Definitions (p. 261-262). “Manufacturing, Intensive” land use is only conditional under Industrial Heavy zoning according to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29).
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1174 | April 8, 2019 at 9:49 am
Property ID:
R022208440013221.04
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013221.04 (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel is currently zoned Residential-1 despite it currently hosting the A-1 Stop convenience store at the corner of Telegraph Road and Woodland Street in Prichard, Alabama and is proposed in the UDC to be rezoned as Industrial Light.
A convenience store is a nonconforming use in a Residential-1 district, so a zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal, but Industrial Light is not an appropriate zoning designation for a convenience store. Instead, a convenience store within the Africatown Planning Area would be more appropriately zoned as Traditional Neighborhood Center.
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1173 | April 8, 2019 at 9:48 am
Property ID:
R022208440013005.000.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013005.000. (Alabama Power Co)
This tract is actually made up of three parcels, R022208440013005.000. (Alabama Power Co), R022208440012006.000. (unidentified), and R022208440012005. (Alabama State Port Authority) all of which are currently zoned as Residential-1 and proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Heavy zoning.
Currently this tract of land is completely undeveloped and vacant except for electrical power lines.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant the most permissive zoning designations afforded by the City of Mobile.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1172 | April 8, 2019 at 9:48 am
Property ID:
R022208440013009.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013009. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This tract is actually two parcels, R022208440013009. and R022208440008007., both of which are owned by Chippewa Lakes LLC and both of which are currently zoned Residential-1.
The current land use is by DPC Enterprises, which is a bulk chemical distributor for industrial scale use. It regularly handles chlorine, chlorine bleach, ammonia, and caustic sodas that it receives by rail in bulk then repackages and stores on site for distribution from its facility.
Its current land use appears to be in nonconformity with its current Residential-1 zoning designation. It is also split across jurisdictional boundaries between Prichard and Mobile with the railroad bulk chemical offloading facility entirely within Prichard’s jurisdiction and the on-site containerized chemical storage in Mobile’s. Thus, a zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal, however it is unclear which zoning designation is most appropriate because there appears to be no reference to containerized chemical storage in the Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29). That is, unless the definitions for hazardous materials in above ground storage tank farms as conditional land uses under Industrial Heavy zoning are met, but the total storage capacity of this facility is unclear. Of course, under the proposed UDC, these unpermitted and unplanned land uses would be grandfathered as conforming uses.
Which ever designation is shown to be most appropriate, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1171 | April 8, 2019 at 9:48 am
Property ID:
R022208440008013.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440008013. (Energy Asset Management LLC)
This parcel is currently hosts the Turbo Filtration Company, which provides industrial cleaning services with on-site instrument fabrication capacity.
It is currently in nonconformity with its Residential-1 zoning designation. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. This parcel’s on-site instrument fabrication is best described in the proposed UDC Article X Definitions, Section 64-172 Definitions (p. 261-262) as a “Manufacturing, Intensive” land use. The propose UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29) describes “Manufacturing, Intensive” land use as a conditional land use in Industrial Heavy zones. For better or worse, the parcel’s industrial equipment cleaning services doesn’t appear to have a permitted land use in the Use Table definitions.
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1170 | April 8, 2019 at 9:47 am
Property ID:
R022208440008006.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440008009. (Gulf Supply Co Inc)
This parcel together with R022208440003088. (MBW of Alabama Inc) to its north, R022208440008008.000. (unidentified) also to its north, R022208440008010. (Augustine Meaher IV) to its south, R022208440008011. (Tomlinson Investments Inc) to its south, and R022208440008012. (Augustine Meaher IV) to its south form a tract along Telegraph Road in the northwest part of the Africatown Planning Area.
Each of these parcels are currently zoned as Industrial-1 and are proposed in the UDC to be rezoned as Industrial Heavy.
The current land use on these parcels, moving from north to south along Telegraph Road includes a training and testing facility, an industrial facility equipment provider, a vacant lot, a transportation services provider, and a parking lot for an industrial cleaning service provider. None of those uses plausibly justifies an Industrial Light zoning, and none of those land uses justify the proposed Industrial Heavy zoning.
A Commercial Warehouse zoning designation would seem to be much more appropriate on these sites unless other uses for the sites are proposed, in which case, the residents of Africatown have opted into engagement around future plans within the Africatown Planning Area and those concerns should be given precedence via the proposed UDC Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1169 | April 8, 2019 at 9:47 am
Property ID:
R022208440008006.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440008006. (Augustine Meaher IV)
This parcel together with R022208440008005.000. (with an unidentified owner in the City of Mobile’s online GIS software) are proposed to be rezoned in the UDC from Residential-1 to Industrial Heavy.
These parcels are completely undeveloped and wooded with trees except for two clearings following the railroad on its eastern edge. Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant the most permissive zoning designations afforded by the City of Mobile. The undeveloped wooded tract’s current zoning is Residential-1.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1168 | April 8, 2019 at 9:47 am
Property ID:
R022208440008013.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440013015.12 (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel is the site of the former Ladd Supply Company warehouses despite its current Residential-1 zoning designation. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
The warehouse was recently closed and was demolished, which has some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates concerned over possible immediate short-term plans with this property that are not being shared publicly with the neighborhood.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1167 | April 8, 2019 at 9:46 am
Property ID:
R022902440002016.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440002016. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel together with R022208440020006.01 (Chippewa Lakes LLC) form the westward border between the Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co paper mill and Paper Mill Road.
Current zoning of these parcels is mixed across several designations. Along the road underneath the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge, the parcel has a Business-2 zoning. Along the southern length of Paper Mill Road, the parcel has a Residential-2 designation. Just north of that, the parcel has an Industrial-2 zoning.
On September 20, 2018, applicants on behalf of Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co, which presumably leases this land from Chippewa Lakes LLC, sought to have all of these parcels rezoned uniformly to an Industrial-2 designation. They tentatively received this designation from the City of Mobile Planning Commission, but the decision was unanimously overturned by the Mobile City Council on November 17, 2018. The rationale for the Council’s decision was stated as being that Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co offered no rationale for the rezoning and failed to hold any community meetings resembling those proposed in UDC Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198).
To date, neither Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co nor Chippewa Lakes LLC have held any public community meetings conforming to the standards proposed in UDC Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) about this parcel.
Current activity on the site suggests that Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co either hasn’t been informed of the City Council’s decision or is ignoring it. The Residential and Business zoned parcels are being used as an equipment staging ground for the $110 million Kimberly-Clark facility expansion despite its zoning designation.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1166 | April 8, 2019 at 9:46 am
Property ID:
R022902440002023.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440002023. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel together with R022902440002021. (Chippewa Lakes LLC), R022902440002022.001. (Kanta and Roman Patel), and R022902440002020. (Chippewa Lakes LLC) have been vacant for many years except for the Williams Motel on R022902440002022.001. The vacant land was not landscaped to prevent erosion and has seen much topsoil erode into Three Mile Creek to its south.
This parcel is proposed to be re-zoned in the UDC from Residential-1 to Traditional Neighborhood Center (NCT). The parcels across Chin St. to its east, including where the Williams Motel has been operating, currently enjoys a split zoning between Business-1 where the motel sits and Residential-1 to the south of the motel along Chin St and are all proposed in the UDC to be re-zoned as NCT, as well.
The permitted land use standards for Traditional Neighborhood Center found in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 25-27) are less concerning to most residents than the process of getting to that designation. However, due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1165 | April 8, 2019 at 9:46 am
Property ID:
R022208440019002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440019002. (Bean Properties LLC)
This parcel and the triangular parcel to its immediate north, R022208440012007. (Bean Properties LLC), form an area in the Africatown community that many remember as the old “New Quarters” housing subdivision, as shown in Illustration 10.2 below and to the left. Many controversial land uses have been executed upon this parcel of land over the years in nonconformity with the existing zoning code, and controversial land uses have been proposed for these properties in the relatively recent past.
The New Quarters land was purchased by the Alabama State Port Authority from International Paper and was more recently sold to Bean Properties LLC, which sought to re-zone the district from Residential-1 to Industrial-2. Motivated by many of the same concerns which re-manifested during the “Scott Credit Union” re-zoning application process shortly after the New Quarters land planning approval process, residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates came together to oppose the application, and after a well attended community meeting in Africatown, the Planning Commission voted against the re-zoning.
These parcels of land are currently zoned Residential-1, and the proposed UDC would re-zone them as Traditional Neighborhood Center (NCT). A map of the current zoning is shown as Illustration 10.3 to the right.
The permitted land use standards for Traditional Neighborhood Center found in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 25-27) are less concerning to most residents than the process of getting to that designation. However, due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1164 | April 8, 2019 at 9:45 am
Property ID:
R022902440002017.001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440002017.001. (Chippewa Lakes LLC)
This parcel and its related parcels, R022902440002017., R022208440020049., and R022208440020049.02, form an area in the Africatown community that many refer to as “the old Scott Credit Union” land and are shown together highlighted in Illustration 9.2 to the left. They are all owned by Chippewa Lakes LLC. Many controversial land uses have been proposed for these properties in the relatively recent past, and at the Build Mobile Africatown focus group meeting on Tuesday, February 26 at the Robert Hope Community Center some residents expressed concerns that plans of which they were never made aware are being implemented via the potential passage of the UDC.
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of motive.
When the Scott Credit Union business was proposed, the concerns about residential integrity were raised, and the planning approval process permitted the re-zoning of the land to allow the credit union to operate as conditional. This conferred only the use of the land as a credit union, and upon the credit union’s closure, the land reverted back to its previous Residential-2 zoning. This is why the land has a shuttered banking facility on it but is nevertheless zoned Residential-2.
The two parcels where the old Scott Credit Union operated along Paper Mill Road are currently zoned Residential-1. The two parcels that touch the road identified in the UDC as “Paper Mill Road Extension”, which in Africatown is known as “Tin Top Alley”, are currently zoned Residential-2 with a segment of the southernmost parcel along Africatown Boulevard currently zoned as Business-2. All of these parcels are proposed under the UDC to be re-zoned as Traditional Neighborhood Center (NCT), as shown above and to the left as Illustration 9.2. The current zoning of these tracts is shown to the right as Illustration 9.3.
The permitted land use standards for Traditional Neighborhood Center found in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 25-27) are less concerning to most residents than the process of getting to that designation. However, due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1163 | April 8, 2019 at 9:45 am
Property ID:
R022901000008004.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022901000008004. (Arc Terminals Mobile Holdings LLC)
This parcel and the two adjoining parcels to its south, R022901000008005.001. and R022905000002001.002., are on Blakeley Island east of Cochrane Causeway Road, and they appear to be completely vacant and have been for many years. There seems to be very little logic in keeping vacant properties with no activity on them whatsoever designated as Industrial Heavy.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant the most permissive zoning designations afforded by the City of Mobile regardless of current zoning.
These properties are on Blakeley Island, but the principle should be consistently followed with similar properties in places like Africatown, as well, which would include R022208440012002. and R022208440012002.004., both Hydrocarbon of Mobile LLC property.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022901000008004., R022901000008005.001., R022905000002001.002., R022208440012002., and R022208440012002.004.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1162 | April 8, 2019 at 9:45 am
Property ID:
R022208440012002.007.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440012002.003. (Alabama State Port Authority)
This parcel on Hog Bayou and the two parcels to its immediate east, R022208440012002.007. (Alabama State Port Authority) and R022208440011001. (International Paper Co), are all proposed in the UDC to have their zoning districts changed from I-2 to Maritime Light, but the parcels have a natural gas power plant that sprawls across the property boundaries of each of them, which is a land use that would be classified in the UDC as either a Major or Minor Utility.
The Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29) doesn’t provide for Minor Utility land use in Maritime Light districts, and Major Utility land use is neither permitted nor conditional in any Maritime district at all. If the two parcels owned by the Alabama State Port Authority are exempt from conformity with the City of Mobile’s zoning code, shouldn’t the parcel owned by International Paper Co, which appears to have part of the natural gas power plant on its property, be subject still? The tracts highlighted together are shown to the left as Illustration 7.2.
The fact that a Minor Utility could be granted a conditional use for Maritime Mixed Use or Maritime Heavy districts and not Maritime Light districts could be an accident or an oversight, and the City of Mobile GIS web applications that suggest portions of the power plant are sited on International Paper Co property could be inaccurate. In fact, given the construction of two natural gas turbines on Kimberly Clark’s property, this power plant may be slated for decommission, rendering this concern moot. Ultimately, the contradiction of this tract’s proposed UDC zoning designation and its current land use should be addressed and clarified regardless of potential zoning and land use regulatory exemption.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022208440012002.007., R022208440012002.003., and R022208440011001.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1161 | April 8, 2019 at 9:44 am
Property ID:
R022208440021002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022208440021002. (Great Magnolia Properties LLC)
This parcel and the parcel to its immediate south, R022902440001001. (Great Magnolia Properties LLC), were identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to their proximity to the Mobile River waterfront, Magazine Point, and the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge, which has a large footprint owned by Alabama Department of Transportation with Mobile River waterfront, as well.
These sites are all undeveloped and vacant except for the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge overhead and some fencing and derelict security flood lights along what appears to be a former storage yard of some sort on the Great Magnolia Properties LLC land. These tracts are shown together as Illustration 6.2 to the left.
Oral traditional and the available documentation suggests that the Africatown-founding shipmates disembarked the infamous Clotilda schooner while it was anchored nearby and were brought ashore in small groups at what is currently known as Magazine Point to walk on land for the first time since being stolen from Africa. However, given that there is no vacant waterfront property on Magazine Point any longer due to the petrochemical above ground storage tank farm expansion of the 1960s and 70s, the land under the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge and the two properties referenced here, which are to its immediate north, could be utilized as Park & Open Space in recognition of the end of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
The land under the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge is already being used by nearby residents as an informal fishing and recreational space, and a public right-of-way to the parcels already exists. Also, this is another site where Mississippi State University landscape architecture students worked with Africatown residents to draw up potential site plans to honor its significance to the critically important history of Africatown.
Vacant parcels do no warrant Industrial Heavy zoning designations especially when other land uses are plausible. MEJAC would simply like to see that any potential zoning wouldn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and recreational space affording many possible amenities for a city with no other public access boat launch points on the Mobile River at all.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022208440021002. and R022208440021001.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1160 | April 8, 2019 at 9:44 am
Property ID:
R022904102000002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022904102000002.
This parcel location on Three Mile Creek southwest of Conception Street Road was identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to its current informal use as a fishing point along Three Mile Creek.
This site is completely undeveloped and currently vacant and it boasts stunning panoramic views of the confluence of three tributaries of Three Mile Creek.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
The concern with this parcel’s proposed designation is simply the desire to affirm that its potential new zoning doesn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and boat launch point for Three Mile Creek access, recognition of its proximity to Lewis Quarters, and its historic connection to the Africatown Planning Area.
There may be a more appropriate zoning designation given its current land use and the commercial maritime access constraints the parcel currently has.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1159 | April 8, 2019 at 9:42 am
Property ID:
R022904102000002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022904102000002.
This parcel location on Three Mile Creek southwest of Conception Street Road was identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to its current informal use as a fishing point along Three Mile Creek.
This site is completely undeveloped and currently vacant and it boasts stunning panoramic views of the confluence of three tributaries of Three Mile Creek.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
The concern with this parcel’s proposed designation is simply the desire to affirm that its potential new zoning doesn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and boat launch point for Three Mile Creek access, recognition of its proximity to Lewis Quarters, and its historic connection to the Africatown Planning Area.
There may be a better zoning designation given the current land use and the constraints on commercial maritime access to the parcel.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1158 | April 8, 2019 at 9:41 am
Property ID:
R022902440021001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440021001. (Scotch & Gulf Lumber LLC/Canfor)
This parcel located on Three Mile Creek northeast of Conception Street Road was identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to its current informal use as a fishing and boat launch point along Three Mile Creek.
The site is almost entirely undeveloped and currently vacant except for a natural drainage ditch for stormwater runoff from the Canfor lumber treatment facility (formerly Gulf & Scotch Lumber) and some loose aggregated poured onto the site for the benefit of the site’s soil retention and recreational patrons.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
The concern with this parcel’s proposed designation is simply the desire to affirm that its potential new zoning doesn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and boat launch point for Three Mile Creek access, recognition of its proximity to Lewis Quarters, and its historic connection to the Africatown Planning Area.
There may be a more appropriate zoning designation given the current maritime constraints with the property.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1157 | April 8, 2019 at 9:39 am
Property ID:
R022902440017134.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440017134.
This parcel and the parcels immediately around it that comprise the historic Lewis Quarters are proposed to be rezoned from I-2 to Residential Low Density (B), which is a very necessary improvement in the zoning designation for this community of historic Africatown.
However, it is still very concerning that the only road to and from the community, Lewis Quarters, is still not designated as a public right-of-way but as a private drive on the property of Canfor (previously Scotch & Gulf Lumber). It’s hard to imagine that the lack of public right-of-way to their residential neighborhood is a standard land use pattern in conformity with neighborhood design standards anywhere else in the city. Although this may or may not fall out of the scope of zoning concerns within the proposed UDC, the public right-of-way situation ought to be remedied for the sake of property values of and public safety concerns for the residents of Lewis Quarters.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022902440017134., R022902440017135., R022902440017140., R022902440017136., R022902440017137., R022902440017139., R022902440017138., R022902440017133., R022902440017132., R022902440017131., R022902440017130., R022902440017127., and R022902440017128. and are shown above to the left as Illustration 3.2.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1156 | April 8, 2019 at 9:39 am
Property ID:
R022902440018013.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440018013. (Marvin Mostellar Jr)
This parcel and the parcels immediately to its west stretching along Three Mile Creek from Telegraph Road to I-165 including R022902440018013., R022902440018014. (Marvin Mostellar Jr), R022902440018015. (MFBS/Gulf Lumber Co), R022902440017042. (MFBS/Gulf Lumber Co), and R022902440017043. (MFBS/Gulf Lumber Co). are proposed in the UDC to be re-classified from I-2 to Maritime Light.
All of these sites are undeveloped and currently vacant.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
Given the need to support the residential nature of the land adjacent to the former Josephine Allen Housing Projects and for the benefit of residents who live across the street from these properties on Stimrad Road, it doesn’t appear that the proposed Maritime Light designation for these parcels is “removed or buffered from residential uses” at all.
A Maritime Mixed Use designation would certainly be more appropriate, but given the vast swath of undeveloped waterfront along Three Mile Creek and that all Maritime districts are proposed in the UDC to be exempt from the Riparian Buffer standards in Article IV Development Standards, Section 64-59 Natural Resource Protection, C, 6, (d) (p.120), a use designation that affirms the residential nature of these properties’ immediate geographic neighbors and promotes the beautiful waterfront these parcels enjoy, such as a Residential Low Density (C) conforming to Site Design Type 2A (Conservation Subdivision), as described in Article III Composite Standards, Section 64-43 Site Design, D (p. 52), appears to be an ideal alternative designation for each of these properties.
A RL(C) designation would also help nicely tie the potential beautification of lower Three Mile Creek together with the strides being taken further upstream and reinforce the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway planning team’s vision of heritage-oriented recreational water access along lower Three Mile Creek to honor its significance to Historic Africatown.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022902440018013., R022902440018014., R022902440018015., R022902440017042., and R022902440017043.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1155 | April 8, 2019 at 9:38 am
Property ID:
R022902440019003.01
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
PropertyID: R022902440019003.01 (Parker Towing Co Inc)
Previously, both the Planning Commission approved Africatown Neighborhood Plan FLUM and the Map for Mobile FLUM had identified this tract and portions of adjoining tracts as “Parks & Open Space”. Now in the proposed Build Mobile UDC, it is designated as Heavy Industrial.
The National Park Service- facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team had used the Africatown Neighborhood Plan and Map for Mobile FLUMs to identify this site as a Point of Interest in its planning process, and the “Parks & Open Space” tract was envisioned as a boardwalk trail through the site’s undeveloped wetlands to Three Mile Creek to honor the Africatown community’s heritage of Three Mile Creek being a primary location for baptisms and other water-dependent ceremonial uses in the area.
It is disheartening to see a site of opportunity and possibility be excluded from the UDC. Given the current land use on the western parts of most of the Map for Mobile FLUM-identified tract by Parker Towing Co Inc, it would be reasonable to pair down the parcels involved with this potential Park & Open Space parcel tract to those which are currently vacant, undeveloped, and largely composed of wetlands acting as a drainage ditch for stormwater runoff. Those would include the former Terminal Railroad easement land, R022902440019003.01 (Parker Towing Co Inc), the State of Alabama land on which Terminal Railroad’s current easement currently runs, R022902440002006.01 & R022902440019003.01 (State of Alabama), and R022902440002101., a small vacant parcel owned by Chippewa Lakes LLC.
All or any combination of these parcels could still serve as an effective conduit for pilgrimage to where Africatown community members remember their families being baptized in Three Mile Creek. It would not be surprising to learn that there may be assistance to refurbish and re-utilize this land as part of a “rails to trails” program.
Students at Mississippi State University in partnership with the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team developed some preliminary sketches of this and several other possible points of interest.
A path forward with respect to the potential that this corner of Africatown holds for creative placemaking would be very welcome. The Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team is committed to exploring creative ways to capture the unique and under-resourced heritage of the Africatown community as recreational and educational projects for community benefit and as heritage tourism points of interest.
From:
Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 1154 | April 8, 2019 at 9:27 am
Property ID:
R022807362000067.011.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Downzoning this City-owned property to residential use makes no sense. In fact, it seems pretty stupid. Why? The City is never going to develop this property for residential use. If anyone were interested in buying it for building houses, the zoning would have to be changed back to what it was prior to implementation of the Map for Mobil. Moreover, if the City ever decided to sell the property, selling as residential property would generate far less money than a sale of non-residential property would. This makes zero financial sense to me, a concerned citizen. How can anyone in a position of leadership and authority employed by the City say with a straight face that this makes any sense at all? The whole Map for Mobile process was sold to citizens as being smart for Mobile and perhaps that will turn out to be the case. Relative to this parcel, it seems nothing short of idiotic. I wonder how many other City-owned parcels will be negatively impacted if the consultant’s recommendations are implemented?
From:
Entry: 1153 | April 8, 2019 at 9:26 am
Property ID:
R022807362000067.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Downzoning this City-owned property to residential use makes no sense. In fact, it seems pretty stupid. Why? The City is never going to develop this property for residential use. If anyone were interested in buying it for building houses, the zoning would have to be changed back to what it was prior to implementation of the Map for Mobil. Moreover, if the City ever decided to sell the property, selling as residential property would generate far less money than a sale of non-residential property would. This makes zero financial sense to me, a concerned citizen. How can anyone in a position of leadership and authority employed by the City say with a straight face that this makes any sense at all? The whole Map for Mobile process was sold to citizens as being smart for Mobile and perhaps that will turn out to be the case. Relative to this parcel, it seems nothing short of idiotic. I wonder how many other City-owned parcels will be negatively impacted if the consultant’s recommendations are implemented?
From:
Entry: 1145 | April 8, 2019 at 8:07 am
Property ID:
R022208440020004.
Relationship to property:
Resident or Tenant (not the owner)
Comment:
The parcel is currently zoned I-2. This property is currently part of a large industrial facility, Kimberly Clark. I believe this parcel should be zoned IH to coincide with its current zoning and to match all of the surrounding parcels currently owned/operated by Kimberly Clark. This would allow for a proper PUD for the Kimberly Clark Site and the possibility of a subdivision with the surrounding parcels in the future.
From:
Bruce Smith
bsmith@cmg-a.com
Entry: 1144 | April 8, 2019 at 8:06 am
Property ID:
R022208440020005.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The parcel is currently zoned I-2. This property is currently part of a large industrial facility, Kimberly Clark. I believe this parcel should be zoned IH to coincide with its current zoning and to match all of the surrounding parcels currently owned/operated by Kimberly Clark. This would allow for a proper PUD for the Kimberly Clark Site and the possibility of a subdivision with the surrounding parcels in the future.
From:
Bruce Smith
bsmith@cmg-a.com
Entry: 1143 | April 8, 2019 at 8:00 am
Property ID:
R022208440020006.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The Future Land Use Map at cityofmobile.org has this parcel as Heavy Industrial. This property is currently part of a large industrial facility, Kimberly Clark. I believe this parcel should be zoned IH to coincide with the FLUM and to match all of the surrounding parcels currently owned/operated by Kimberly Clark. This would allow for a proper PUD for the Kimberly Clark Site and the possibility of a subdivision in the future.
From:
Bruce Smith
bsmith@cmg-a.com
Entry: 1142 | April 8, 2019 at 7:46 am
Property ID:
R022902440002016.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The Future Land Use Map at cityofmobile.org has this parcel as Heavy Industrial. This property is currently part of a large industrial facility, Kimberly Clark. I believe this parcel should be zoned IH to coincide with the FLUM and to match all of the surrounding parcels currently owned/operated by Kimberly Clark. This would allow for a proper PUD for the Kimberly Clark Site and the possibility of a subdivision in the future.
From:
Bruce Smith
bsmith@cmg-a.com
Entry: 1140 | April 7, 2019 at 11:47 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000015.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Up zoning these properties could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1139 | April 7, 2019 at 11:46 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001010.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B2. Up zoning these properties to NTC could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1138 | April 7, 2019 at 11:43 pm
Property ID:
R022909291004001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is B1. Up zoning the property could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1137 | April 7, 2019 at 11:41 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002045.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is B1. Down zoning the property would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1136 | April 7, 2019 at 11:40 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002088.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is B2. Down zoning the property would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1135 | April 7, 2019 at 11:37 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002057.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Down zoning the property would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Entry: 1134 | April 7, 2019 at 11:35 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002084.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. The FLM has all as RMT, but there is no multi family use. Down zoning the property would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1133 | April 7, 2019 at 11:32 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001094.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is city property obtained through the federal lands to park program to be part of Safety Memorial Park and currently zoned residential. Why would it ever be zoned CT???????
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1132 | April 7, 2019 at 11:26 pm
Property ID:
R022906400008156.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Down zoning the property would adversely affect the property owner.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1131 | April 7, 2019 at 11:22 pm
Property ID:
R022906400008074.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is R1, but is current use is an office so it must have a variance. Up zoning the property to CT will adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1130 | April 7, 2019 at 11:21 pm
Property ID:
R022906400008055.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is R1, but is current use is an office so it must have a variance. Up zoning the property to CT will adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1129 | April 7, 2019 at 11:19 pm
Property ID:
R022907250006050.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is R1, but is current use is an office so it must have a variance. Up zoning the property to CT will adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1128 | April 7, 2019 at 11:17 pm
Property ID:
R022907250007363.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning is R1, but is current use is an office, so it must have a variance. Up zoning the property to CT will adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Entry: 1127 | April 7, 2019 at 11:12 pm
Property ID:
R022907250007285.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Up zoning these properties could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1126 | April 7, 2019 at 11:09 pm
Property ID:
R022907240003065.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of this and surrounding properties are B1. Up zoning these properties could adversely affect the neighborhood.
From:
Ed Oliver
ed@la-olivers.org
Entry: 1122 | April 7, 2019 at 9:50 pm
Property ID:
R022909291005002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This is Little Flower Catholic School current zoning is R1, this shows a P? Color shows as institutional. Same for the Church. Church on the corner of Mohawk has RL same as the current zoning. What is the difference between Institutional and a church or school being R1. These days churches are in strip malls.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1120 | April 7, 2019 at 9:45 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001019.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
I know this property was recently before the BOA to allow used car sales paperwork to be prepared in a B2. We do not have any Buffer Business zoning and it appears that many have been painted with the RL zoning because they are not a strip mall.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1118 | April 7, 2019 at 9:36 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002071.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This property is currently zoned B1 and has a Single Family dwelling and a family owned pet grooming/boarding business behind it. What I saw from the original pass of the zoning where most everything in Midtown was zoned a code of Residential Mixed (it looked like it was trying to be B1-B2) changed with this release and there is no such zoning and it is Residential Multi-family. We have to have something in between RL and TC. This is a low impact business – 8-5 – few vehicles.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1115 | April 7, 2019 at 9:28 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001066.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This and several properties on this street are listed as RM and not a single one is a residential multi family – they all have a current zoning of B or B2 – oh yea we don’t have that! We must have something in line with B1-B2, there is nothing between RL and CT!
The Elevator World owner T. Bruce McKinnon owns several properties on Morgan Ave.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1114 | April 7, 2019 at 9:23 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001094.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property is owned by the city as part of the Land to Parks program and should be zoned to match Public Safety Memorial Park which shows the current zoning as R1.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1113 | April 7, 2019 at 9:10 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002057.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property in 1998 and it was and is zoned B2. I want it to remain B1 – which we do not have have! There must be a zoning between RL and CT! Many of the businesses on Government St from DIP to Pinehill are formerly residential buildings that were rezoned buffer business. They are in sync with the surrounding residences.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1112 | April 7, 2019 at 9:08 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002057.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property in 1996 and it was and is zoned B1. I want it to remain B1 – which we do not have have! There must be a zoning between RL and CT! Many of the businesses on Government St from DIP to Pinehill are formerly residential buildings that were rezoned buffer business. They are in sync with the surrounding residences.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1111 | April 7, 2019 at 9:07 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002058.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property in 1996 and it was and is zoned B1. I want it to remain B1 – which we do not have have! There must be a zoning between RL and CT! Many of the businesses on Government St from DIP to Pinehill are formerly residential buildings that were rezoned buffer business. They are in sync with the surrounding residences.
From:
Kris Enzor
Entry: 1105 | April 7, 2019 at 3:21 pm
Property ID:
R022906400008174.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the owner of a professional office building located at 1325 Dauphin Street (1325, LLC). The property is on the southeast corner of Dauphin and Julia Street. This property has had a Use Variance to operate a business here since 1991. A law firm has been operating here since 1991. We expect the city to honor this Use Variance within any new zoning update. If that is not the case, please contact me immediately. Harry Satterwhite, Attorney at Law, 251-433-8582.
From:
Harry V. Satterwhite
harry@satterwhitelaw.com
Entry: 1103 | April 7, 2019 at 2:04 pm
Property ID:
R022906400009286.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is presently part B-2 and R-1. The neighborhood has previously se appealed the combining of these differing parcels to a B-2. They should not be combined to a single ‘P’ district without a public hearing.
From:
john w klotz
jwklotz@comcast.net
Entry: 1100 | April 7, 2019 at 10:44 am
Property ID:
R022906120004031.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I have a number of complaints and possible solutions regarding the area around my home.
There is frequently a layer of soot/coal on surfaces on my property (house and vehicle included). I recommend that some type of dust mitigation process be put in place to minimize the amount of coal dust affecting nearby residents.
There is also a frequent noxious gasoline/diesel odor present around the Detonti Sq. neighborhood, presumably from some hydrocarbon tank farm or terminal nearby. Stricter controls of leaks should be in place to minimize the odor present around downtown.
There are also a number of dilapidated homes around the Detonti Sq. area, including at 308 N. Joachim st. (next door to my home). These blighted properties are an eyesore to those living in and visiting the community and are a significant fire hazard to surrounding properties. Action should be taken by the city council to either force a sale of these properties or to condemn and demolish these abandoned structures.
As property owners, we have a vested interest in ensuring this area continues to thrive and provides us and our community a safe and enjoyable place to live. Addressing these issues will demonstrate that the city council is serious about revitalizing downtown, ensuring it continues to attract and retain businesses and residents to the area.
From:
Melissa
aspelund09@gmail.com
Entry: 1098 | April 6, 2019 at 11:32 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
My family and I live in Regency. We moved here so our four children would have an enjoyable and safe neighborhood in which to walk and play. I object to the possible rezoning of 4662 Oak Ridge Rd. which would render it B2 or B3. It needs to remain residential. Thank you. Rabbi Steven Silberman, 5778 Chester Ct. 36609.
From:
Rabbi Steven Silberman
Entry: 1093 | April 6, 2019 at 4:26 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We are residents of Regency subdivision. We want “NO TO REZONING 4662 OAK RIDGE ROAD to B2 or B3 use.” LEAVE IT RESIDENTIAL. Oak Ridge Road is an entrance point into our Regency subdivision. A commercial developer wants to rezone 4662 Oak Ridge Road, the corner property, from residential R-1 to Commercial B-3 so he can rebuild the anchor Foosackly’s drive through/eat in restaurant on a residential site. The site plans call for the store, which is open until 10 pm on weekdays and 11 pm on weekends, to empty into our neighborhood. The effect of using our neighborhood as an exit out of this highly patronized restaurant (often 10-12 cars in the drive through line), is OUT OF CHARACTER WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD and belongs in the shopping center where it now sits. The Planning staff recommends denial. And another developer is eager to use this rezoning attempt to justify doing the same on the property adjacent to it across the street.
From:
Gloria and Jerry Bush
bushgk@gmail.com
Entry: 1092 | April 6, 2019 at 4:22 pm
Property ID:
R022808282000034.02
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Property 815 was another missed opportunity for the city to bring existing development up to notice hope to be a more attractive appearance for both residential and business communities. This large leased area made only a minimal effort to green up a huge expanse a parking area for this business mall parking lot. The placement of 10 x 10′ green islands distributed through the parking lot with tree plantings could have been required by the city at a reasonable 1 time expense for the landlord/tenant–see my general comments for more specifics. If could have converted that entire area to the type of attractive business park that Mobile sorely lacks
From:
Philip J Butera M.D.
pbutera1@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1088 | April 5, 2019 at 5:54 pm
Property ID:
R023308342000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please consider changing the zoning on this parcel from RL to CM like the adjoining properties. As the owner of this property, I can tell you we do not have plans developing this parcel into residential.
Thank you, Steve Ladas
From:
Steve Ladas
steveladas@ladasland.com
Entry: 1084 | April 5, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Property ID:
R022809302000001.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The property is currently zoned B-3, and is proposed to be zoned DC-District Center. The property has been approved as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for use as a 180-unit multifamily community of duplex and four-plex buildings. Under the most up-to-date use table, the DC zoning classification allows the uses designated “Apartment House” or ‘Townhouse / Row house’; under the most up-to-date use table, the DC zoning classification does not allow for the use “Dwelling, Multi-Family”. It is unclear what use designation would be appropriate for the owner’s intended use. Cottages at Schillinger’s Pointe, LLC and its principles are opposed to any zoning classification of the parcel that would interfere with the use approved under the PUD.
From:
Cottages at Schillinger’s Pointe, LLC
mharris@elcaninc.com
Entry: 1083 | April 5, 2019 at 3:13 pm
Property ID:
R023204350001006.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The proposed designation for this property is RL-B. Given its close proximity to Brookley Aerocomplex, it is the view of the property owner, Perimeter Road, LLC, and its principles that the parcel should be designated as IH (Heavy Industry). The highest and best use for this parcel is for development that is supportive of the manufacturing, freight, and transportation goals and processes being undertaken at the adjoining Brookley Aerocomplex.
From:
Perimeter Road, LLC
mharris@elcaninc.com
Entry: 1082 | April 5, 2019 at 3:12 pm
Property ID:
R023204350001041.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The proposed designation for this property is RL-C. Given its close proximity to Brookley Aerocomplex, it is the view of the property owner, Perimeter Road, LLC, and its principles that the parcel should be designated as IH (Heavy Industry). The highest and best use for this parcel is for development that is supportive of the manufacturing, freight, and transportation goals and processes being undertaken at the adjoining Brookley Aerocomplex. Alternatively, instead of being designated RL-C, the parcel should be designated RL-B in line with other adjoining parcels (including an adjacent parcel under the same ownership) and with developed residential parcels in the surrounding area.
From:
Perimeter Road, LLC
mharris@elcaninc.com
Entry: 1080 | April 5, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Property ID:
R023302094000001.007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I completely agree with the proposed RL-B residential single-family zoning for this parcel. It backs up to the Preserve neighborhood. If it is zoned commercial or multi-family, it will hurt property values for those citizens who own homes in the Preserve subdivision and have invested greatly in that neighborhood. I am very pleased with Mobile’s initiative to safeguard our family neighborhoods from apartments and businesses. Multi-level apartments look down and into neighborhoods which takes away any privacy that landowners have and diminishes value. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
From:
Kristal Speller
kristal.speller@evident.com
Entry: 1079 | April 5, 2019 at 2:13 pm
Property ID:
R023302094000001.006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I completely agree with the proposed RL-B residential single-family zoning for this parcel. It backs up to the Preserve neighborhood. If it is zoned commercial or multi-family, it will hurt property values for those citizens who own homes in the Preserve subdivision and have invested greatly in that neighborhood. I am very pleased with Mobile’s initiative to safeguard our family neighborhoods from apartments and businesses. Multi-level apartments look down and into neighborhoods which takes away any privacy that landowners have and diminishes value. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
From:
Kristal Speller
kristal.speller@evident.com
Entry: 1071 | April 5, 2019 at 12:06 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013226.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Metals USA have been operating here for many years under I-2 Heavy Industry. Please change on the new Map For Mobile to Industry Heavy IH .
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1070 | April 5, 2019 at 12:00 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013221.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel Metals have been operating here for many years under I-2 and should be changed on the New Map For Mobile to Industry Heavy IH. Please change on the New Map For Mobile to Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1069 | April 5, 2019 at 11:32 am
Property ID:
R022905000004004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The present zoning on this parcel has always been I-2 Heavy Industry we also own the parcel that joins this parcel to the west both of these parcels must remain Industry Heavy IH or Maritime Heavy MH. Please change these two parcels back to Industry Heavy IH on the new Map For Mobile as this will effect our planning use and values. All properties in this area on the Cochran Causeway and around our parcels are zoned Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1068 | April 5, 2019 at 11:23 am
Property ID:
R022905000004004.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The present zoning on this parcel has always been I-2 heavy Industry we also own the parcel that joins this parcel to the East both of these parcels must remain Industry Heavy IH or Maritime Heavy MH. Please change this Back to Industry Heavy IH on the new Map For Mobile as this will effect our planning use and values. All properties in this area on the Cochran Causeway and around our parcels are zoned Industry Heavy IH.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1062 | April 5, 2019 at 10:36 am
Property ID:
R022904010003005.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The present zoning on this parcel is I-1 Industry Light and the parcel just across Conception St. Rd. we own both parcels. The new proposed zoning has both of these parcels changed to RL Density Residential this is apparently a mistake. This property should remain Industry Light IL as it is right by the railroad and could never be Residential. Please change this parcel back to Industry Light on the New Map For Mobile as this will greatly effect our planning use and property values.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1061 | April 5, 2019 at 10:23 am
Property ID:
R022904010003008.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The present zoning on this parcel is I-1 Industry Light. The new proposed zoning has this parcel changed to RL Low Density Residential this is apparently a mistake. This property Should remain IL as it is right by the railroad and could never be residential. Please change this parcel back to Industry Light IL on the New Map For Mobile as this will greatly effect our planning use and values.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1059 | April 5, 2019 at 9:33 am
Property ID:
R022907250007402.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please take into consideration the age and history and population composition of these older, established areas of our city and the impact of overly restrictive land and property use codes. The historic districts have worked at length with the City in order to establish guidelines to maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhoods in order to maintain the neighborhood essence as well as the value of the various eras of architecture and construction represented. Codes too restrictive could have a most adverse affect on these areas, which will be prudent to the City to analyze, which could result in a spiral down of property values thereby creating, potentially, opposite result than, presumed, intended.
My property is best served as single family residential.
Some concern I have for surrounding areas of mixed use is the varied and open to interpretation of this code / zoning. If left too vague, the use of such could result in codes / zones / uses unsatisfactory to the development of the neighborhood feel and use of the areas.
A final consideration is that petitions for variances or revisions to the new code / use of property be practical and obtainable for the average property owner and not made to be so restrictive or cost prohibitive that the owner is not able to enjoy fair use of the property or valuation falls due to overly rigid expectations and restrictions.
From:
Madeline T Rogers
MichelleRogers@bhhsCooper.com
Entry: 1058 | April 5, 2019 at 9:32 am
Property ID:
R022906120001023.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The present zoning on this parcel is I-1 as we own the parcel next door at the 70 Adams street warehouse we consider these parcels as one property together as this parcel is the parking area for 70 Adams St.. We think these two parcel should remain as Industry Light IL. Please change to Industry Light on the new Map For Mobile.
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1057 | April 5, 2019 at 9:04 am
Property ID:
R022906120001016.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The present Zoning on this Parcel at 70 Adams is I-1 we think this property should remain I-L Industry Light not DW downtown Waterfront. Please change to Industry Light I-L
From:
Joseph A. Guess
ja.guess@bellsouth.net
Entry: 1043 | April 4, 2019 at 2:54 pm
Property ID:
R022901000004004.001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1041 | April 4, 2019 at 2:53 pm
Property ID:
R022801124000007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Hello! This property is for sale and I am the listing agent. The property was originally used to manufacture cabinets. We have it under contract to a user that will use it to recycle batteries. We also had a couple of other users that needed industrial zoning. It is setup for manufacturing so I would think a zoning that would allow manufacturing and outside storage would be ideal for this property. Thank you!
From:
Pratt Thomas
pratt@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 1040 | April 4, 2019 at 2:52 pm
Property ID:
R022904101000002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1039 | April 4, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Property ID:
R022904101000003.000.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1038 | April 4, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Property ID:
R022904112000003.000.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1037 | April 4, 2019 at 2:50 pm
Property ID:
R022904010002005.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1036 | April 4, 2019 at 2:50 pm
Property ID:
R022904010003004.000.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1035 | April 4, 2019 at 2:49 pm
Property ID:
R022904101000005.000.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1034 | April 4, 2019 at 2:49 pm
Property ID:
R022904104000001.000.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1033 | April 4, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Property ID:
R022904113000002.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1032 | April 4, 2019 at 2:47 pm
Property ID:
R022903063000145.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1031 | April 4, 2019 at 2:47 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000019.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1030 | April 4, 2019 at 2:46 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000017.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1029 | April 4, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000018.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1028 | April 4, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Property ID:
R023302094000001.007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I totally agree with the proposed zoning for this property. There are too many apartments on Girby and the apartments adjacent to this property on Knollwood should have never been built. In fact, the owner of this parcel lost a lawsuit to residents of The Preserve already when he sold and apartments were built on Southland Drive. Please don’t allow for anything but a residential neighborhood to be built here.
From:
Entry: 1027 | April 4, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000020.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1026 | April 4, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Property ID:
R022903063000081.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1025 | April 4, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000003.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1024 | April 4, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Property ID:
R022902440026004.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1023 | April 4, 2019 at 2:15 pm
Property ID:
R022902440026001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1022 | April 4, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Property ID:
R022903071000002.02
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1021 | April 4, 2019 at 2:13 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000014.02
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
• Undeveloped parcels should not be automatically zoned to a high use zone such as heavy or light industry simply because they are located near an existing IL or IH. We need to protect our natural and open spaces from significant development.
From:
Mobile Baykeeper
lstone@mobilebaykeeper.org
Entry: 1010 | April 4, 2019 at 11:50 am
Property ID:
R022907240002038.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This comment and objection is presented on behalf of the Chateauguay neighborhood with regard to the zoning designation specified for Chateauguay.
Chateauguay is located at mid-town between Levert Street and Woodlands Drive and surrounds the Visitation Convent. The neighborhood was established in 1947 and has always consisted of Single Family Residential as it does now.
The neighborhood does not want the property rezoned from Single Family Residential, which would be Residential Low Density (RLD) under the UDC. The present draft of the UDC issued January 2019, rezones our single family neighborhood to Residential Mixed (RM). Residential Mixed can include apartments, multi-family, retirement homes, elderly housing and other non-single family uses. These non-single family residential uses are not what our neighborhood currently includes, our neighborhood has never included such type uses and we do not want them included now. We are a Single Family Residential neighborhood and want to remain as such.
From:
Joe Collins
joe@elminfo.com
Entry: 1007 | April 4, 2019 at 11:40 am
Property ID:
R022907240002020.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I would like my property to continue to be zoned for single family residential use. I would also like the property next door (2205 Levert Dr) to be zoned consistent with its actual use–park as opposed to residential.
From:
Karen F Webb
karen.feagle.webb@gmail.com
Entry: 1002 | April 3, 2019 at 2:26 pm
Property ID:
R022910282002002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please make this a CM zoning.
From:
J Turner
jt.turner@regions.com
Entry: 1001 | April 3, 2019 at 2:23 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.06
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please make this a CM zoning
From:
J Turner
jt.turner@regions.com
Entry: 1000 | April 3, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please make this a CM zoning.
From:
J Turner
jt.turner@regions.com
Entry: 998 | April 3, 2019 at 11:05 am
Property ID:
R022808272002002.004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel abuts University Blvd should be zoned CM just as numerous corners abutting neighborhoods and fronting on Airport Blvd. west of the University Blvd. intersection are denominated in the FLUM.
From:
william lyon
bj@lyonlawmobile.com
Entry: 997 | April 3, 2019 at 11:04 am
Property ID:
R022808272002002.09
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel should be zoned CM to allow the existing drive in restaurant, just as numerous corners abutting neighborhoods and fronting on Airport Blvd. west of the University Blvd. intersection are denominated CMin the FLUM.
From:
william lyon
bj@lyonlawmobile.com
Entry: 996 | April 3, 2019 at 11:03 am
Property ID:
R022808272001079.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel abuts University Blvd and is fundamentally not suitable for residential use given the heavy traffic and its proximity to existing commercial sites. It should be zoned CM just as numerous corners abutting neighborhoods and fronting on Airport Blvd. west of the University Blvd. intersection are denominated in the FLUM.
From:
William Lyon
bj@lyonlawmobile.com
Entry: 995 | April 3, 2019 at 11:02 am
Property ID:
R022808272001080.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This parcel abuts University Blvd and is fundamentally not suitable for residential use given the heavy traffic and its proximity to existing commercial sites. It should be zoned CM just as numerous corners abutting neighborhoods and fronting on Airport Blvd. west of the University Blvd. intersection are denominated in the FLUM.
From:
William Lyon
bj@lyonlawmobile.com
Entry: 994 | April 3, 2019 at 10:57 am
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Property is not suitable for residential use because of its proximity to University Blvd and it should be zoned CM becuase its highest and best use is for a restaurant with a drive-in–See Airport and General Bullard which is designated CM. CM zoning is also shown for all corners of Pinecrest subdivision at Airport (Linden, Galloway, Schaub, Wesley corners abutting neighborhoods).
From:
William Lyon
bj@lyonlawmobile.com
Entry: 993 | April 3, 2019 at 10:14 am
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
4662 OAK RIDGE
Proposed RL RL – B
The ownership disagrees with the proposed RL zoning for 4662 Oak Ridge Drive (“Lot”). This Lot is owned by Multiple Properties, LLC, as the owner of the abutting shopping center to the north. This Lot was a residential lot developed in the 1940’s as a part of the Government Street Highlands subdivision, prior to University Boulevard being extended. After University Boulevard split the subdivision down the middle, the noise from the new university extension’s 5 lanes of traffic forced the residential owner of this Lot to build a new bedroom on the west end of the house to sleep. The home sold for $165,250 in May 2007. It was For Sale in October 2012 for $100,000 and the price was thereafter lowered to $94,900, $91,900 and $87,900 without a sale. The lender foreclosed its mortgage on the Lot and Multiple Properties, LLC as the owner of the shopping center owners bought at the sale for $87,000. Due to its abutment to the shopping center and University Boulevard, the Lot is unsuitable and undesirable for residential use for single family or group living. For the past seven years no family or developer has expressed any interest in building a residence, residences or townhomes on this Lot. A well-known residential real estate agent stated it is not a desired location for family living and it is doubtful to sell for residential because of the location and noise. The shopping center has a tenant, Foosackly’s, who would like to relocate on this site for a restaurant with a drive thru.
Foosackly’s desires to construct a new building and requires a curb cut on Oak Ridge but only a right in and forced left out towards University Boulevard. The same right in and forced left out curb cut was granted for the benefit of the adjacent CVS store at the southeast corner of University Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. The new Foosackly’s business on the Lot would employ up to 15 and generate sales tax revenue and the property tax would certainly increase from its current $397.35.
The Regency group that is opposing this use and zoning change are concerned that more traffic leaving Foosackly’s will go through the neighborhood to and from Grelot Road via Westbury Drive. Accessing Grelot through Regency by Westbury takes 3 minutes 32 seconds to drive because of the 3 traffic circles and 1 speed bump. Going from the Lot along S. University to Grelot and eventually to Westbury takes 2 minutes 19 seconds to drive. Consequently, the shortest and fastest route to Grelot Road leaving the site is not through Regency—human nature will always take the fastest and shortest route. The current Regency residents visiting the Foosackly’s now will continue to access Morrison Drive, Wicker Way and Oak Ridge Drive to return home. We welcome the City to explore the traffic counts on Morrison, Wicker Way and Oak Ridge Drive during Foosackly’s busy hours during lunch and dinner.
The property values of the homes around Publix at Airport/University have seen 2 homes values go up and one remain the same. (Review the tax records to see all the home values) Also, the Regency owners claim a high vehicle accident rate at Oak Ridge/ University. The City Traffic Department has emailed to state that is not the case (see attached).
The delivery trucks and dumpster trucks will be required to use the shopping center and not Oak Ridge Drive for access to the Lot. The lot with 55’ from 4666 Oak Ridge will have an 8’ masonry wall, retain Heritage Oaks, proper storm water system, landscaping, and a new modern design Foosackly’s with outside eating.
This site should be allowed the similar B-2 zoning change and use like the R-1 residential lots on the Southeast and Northeast corners of University and Airport where CVS and Publix are now built. It should be noted that Bess Rich is strongly opposing this Lot’s zoning change, just like she was in opposition to the Publix and CVS developments.
The zoning classification that most suits the uses for the neighboring shopping center and this particular Lot is CM and CM is needed for a restaurant with drive-thru.
From:
Matt Cummings
matt@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 991 | April 3, 2019 at 9:26 am
Property ID:
R022807390003049.
Relationship to property:
Resident or Tenant (not the owner)
Comment:
As a tenant (outdoor advertising company) with many locations in the proposed “CW” zoning districts, Lamar Advertising believes this push to “permitted by conditional use” to be extremely unfair to our industry. This is the most heavily commercialized zoning district which should promote business and not strangle it. Our industry has been pushed away from residential areas for many many years (rightfully so), but now to be pushed away from some of the more heavily commercialized zones doesn’t make any sense to us. We believe in beautification, and we believe in doing it the right way and not creating a city that is taken over by billboards. Our industry and services provides substantial economic growth to our local and national businesses that are thriving in our city. These thriving businesses rely on our business model to drive traffic and new business. By strangling our permitting process, we believe we are doing a disservice to our clients and local community.
From:
Andrew
alewis@lamar.com
Entry: 990 | April 3, 2019 at 9:22 am
Property ID:
R022806244000008.
Relationship to property:
Resident or Tenant (not the owner)
Comment:
As a tenant (outdoor advertising company) with many locations in the proposed “DC” zoning districts, Lamar Advertising believes this push to “permitted by conditional use” to be extremely unfair to our industry. This is the most heavily commercialized zoning district which should promote business and not strangle it. Our industry has been pushed away from residential areas for many many years (rightfully so), but now to be pushed away from some of the more heavily commercialized zones doesn’t make any sense to us. We believe in beautification, and we believe in doing it the right way and not creating a city that is taken over by boards. Our industry and services provides substantial economic growth to our local and national businesses that are thriving in our city. These thriving businesses rely on our business model to drive traffic and new business. By strangling our permitting process, we believe we are doing a disservice to our clients and local community.
From:
Andrew
alewis@lamar.com
Entry: 987 | April 2, 2019 at 6:06 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Please leave 4662 Oak Ridge Rd zoned strictly for residential use. It will change the character of the neighborhood to put a business there and have its traffic sent into the Regency neighborhood. Thank you.
From:
Daniel Rogers
rogersde@yahoo.com
Entry: 986 | April 2, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Property ID:
R023202060001204.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property was zoned as Light Industry. I do not accept your reclassification of the property as low density residential. The zoning should remain the same.
From:
Joseph S. Norton
Entry: 985 | April 2, 2019 at 4:53 pm
Property ID:
R022805222001093.02
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is currently proposed for an ‘institutional’ zoning. This is a Regions Bank.
From:
Entry: 984 | April 2, 2019 at 3:14 pm
Property ID:
R022910214001053.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I live in a historic district on Dauphin St. and the well being of residential life in midtown is of utmost concern to me. I am totally against this zoning for this entire stretch on Gov’t St and believe that any new business that will impact our community should be published and community opinion given priority in zoning changes.
From:
Judith M. Hornady
jhornady2000@yahoo.com
Entry: 979 | April 1, 2019 at 5:24 pm
Property ID:
R023303051000002.002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Current property resides in residential area. Proposed NCS sounding would allow inappropriate businesses to include entertainment facility, nightclub, theater, parking facility, transit shelter, social assistance and welfare services Center, farm supply office, convenience store with gasoline sales, carwash etc.
From:
Entry: 978 | April 1, 2019 at 5:21 pm
Property ID:
R023303051000002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Current property abuts neighborhood of single-family homes. Rezoning to current proposed NCS status would allow inappropriate businesses in this residential community. Such businesses include entertainment facility, nightclub, Theater, parking facility, transit shelter, social assistance and welfare services Center
From:
Entry: 977 | April 1, 2019 at 5:19 pm
Property ID:
R023303051000002.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Current property abuts residential area. Proposed NCS zoning would allow inappropriate businesses such as entertainment facility, nightclub, theater, parking facility, transit shelter, social assistance and welfare services Center
From:
Entry: 976 | April 1, 2019 at 5:16 pm
Property ID:
R022809321000001.049.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Proposed NCS zone classification of this property(and all properties from 1400 to 1440) would allow for uses inappropriate for a residential area. Potential inappropriate uses include: Entertainment facility, nightclub, theater, parking facility, transit shelter, social assistance and welfare services Center.
From:
Entry: 975 | April 1, 2019 at 5:13 pm
Property ID:
R022809321000001.038.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Rezoning to NCS status would allow inappropriate businesses in this residential area. Currently NCS status allows for: Entertainment facilities, nightclubs, theaters, parking facility, transit shelter, social assistance and welfare services center
From:
Entry: 974 | April 1, 2019 at 5:10 pm
Property ID:
R022808332000003.002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Proposed CM zoning would allow for businesses inappropriate for residential areas such as recreational vehicle park, bar/lounge, Farmer’s market, bail bonds services (conditional), machinery and equipment rental and leasing and automobile dealerships
From:
Dr. Philip. Butera
pbutera1@bellsouth.net
Entry: 973 | April 1, 2019 at 5:07 pm
Property ID:
R022808332000003.005.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Proposed city M zoning would lead to acceptance of businesses inappropriate for a residential area–for example recreational vehicle park, bar/lounge, Farmer’s market, Bail Bond services (conditional), automobile dealerships, machinery and equipment rental and leasing
From:
Dr. Philip Butera
pbutera1@bellsouth.net
Entry: 972 | April 1, 2019 at 5:02 pm
Property ID:
R022808332000003.007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Proposed NCS zoning would allow for uses inappropriate for residential area for example nightclub, parking facility, transit shelter, social assistance and welfare services Center, nightclub, entertainment facility
From:
Entry: 971 | April 1, 2019 at 5:00 pm
Property ID:
R022808283000069.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
New NCS code would allow for use is inappropriate for residential area for example, nightclub, transit shelter, parking facility, social assistance and welfare services Center
From:
Entry: 950 | March 31, 2019 at 2:55 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003068.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped except for what is presumably a MAWSS easement of some sort. The parcel’s current zoning designation is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Given the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
Such possibility would be for the parcel to serve as a walking path connecting the future Africatown Welcome Center site just opposite the parcel across the railroad tracks to the Happy Hills neighborhood. In that case, a Traditional Neighborhood Center or Residential zoning of some sort would be appropriate for this parcel.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 949 | March 31, 2019 at 2:53 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003188.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently vacant, wooded, and undeveloped except for a rail spur that crosses its property to service the Hosea O Weaver asphalt facility across Bay Bridge Cutoff Road. The parcel’s current zoning is Industrial-2.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Also given its immediate proximity to homes along Chin Street in the Magazine Point neighborhood and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
A Commercial Warehouse designation on this parcel is a much more judicious application of the city’s zoning discretion.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 948 | March 31, 2019 at 2:52 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003194.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel currently hosts the hydraulic system repair shop Lift Parts Service Company Inc. The parcel’s current zoning designation is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for the parcel is Industrial Light, and while the land use as a place of commercial “machinery and heavy equipment sales and service” is permitted under Industrial Light and Industrial Heavy designations, it is also permitted under the less permissive and more appropriate Commercial Warehouse designation.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 947 | March 31, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018004.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently vacant with a couple shrubs and a tree while most of the property is covered with various aggregate surfaces. The parcel is currently zoned as Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant overly permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Also given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site and the Happy Hills and Magazine Point communities along Chin Street, as well as the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
An Industrial Light zoning on this site is neither necessary nor consistent with its Telegraph Road public facing neighbors, which I feel should be zoned in the UDC as Commercial Warehouse. A Commercial Warehouse designation on this parcel is a much more appropriate application of the city’s zoning discretion.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 946 | March 31, 2019 at 2:50 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003056.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
These two parcels together form a tract of land that is currently vacant and undeveloped. Their current zoning designation is Business-2.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for these parcels is Industrial Light, but given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site and the Happy Hills community along Chin Street, as well as the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, changing this parcel’s current Business zoning to Industrial Light when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Traditional Neighborhood Center would be more appropriate and befitting of its current designation and plausible resident-oriented services offered in the future on the site than any Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 945 | March 31, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003197.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel currently hosts a fenced parking lot with exclusive ingress from the Young Transport LLC property to its immediate south. The parcel is currently zoned as Residential-2. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29), “parking facilities” are not permitted uses in any Residential zoning. This kind of land use nonconformity is common the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s apparent land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
Furthermore, the UDC proposed Industrial Light zoning for this parcel is overly permissive for the sites function as a place of commercial “truck repair”. While that land use is permitted under Industrial Light and Industrial Heavy designations, it is also permitted under the less permissive and more appropriate Commercial Warehouse designation.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 944 | March 31, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003198.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel currently hosts the tractor trailer servicing and dispatch carrier company Young Transport LLC. Its current zoning is designated as Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, and while the land use as a place of commercial “truck repair” is permitted under Industrial Light and Industrial Heavy designations, it is also permitted under the less permissive and more appropriate Commercial Warehouse designation.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 943 | March 31, 2019 at 2:43 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
These parcels together form a tract which currently hosts the commercial plumbing fittings, valves, and pipe warehouse B & B Industrial Supply. The tracts existing zoning is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation is Industrial Light. However, given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 942 | March 31, 2019 at 2:42 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently a vacant lot on Telegraph Road. It’s current zoning designation is Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for this parcel is Industrial Light, but parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. Also given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary.
An Industrial Light zoning on this site is neither necessary nor consistent with its Telegraph Road public facing neighbors, which I feel should be zoned in the UDC as Commercial Warehouse. A Commercial Warehouse designation on this parcel is a much more appropriate application of the city’s zoning discretion.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 941 | March 31, 2019 at 2:41 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018011.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This tract is composed of two parcels which both currently host the warehouse supplier of quality pipe, valves, fittings, instrumentation, industrial mill supplies, actuation, hose and gasketing known as Gulf Coast Marine Supply, which also owns the parcels. Both parcels are currently zoned Industrial-2.
The proposed UDC zoning designation for these parcels is split between R022902440018011. receiving an Industrial Light designation and R022902440018012. receiving a Maritime Light designation. The current land use on both sites can be best described as “wholesale distribution, warehousing and storage”, which according to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26, 28), is a permitted use in Commercial Warehouse, Maritime Light, Maritime Heavy, Industrial Light, and Industrial Heavy zoning designations.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this tracts’ current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than any Maritime or Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 940 | March 31, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018016.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel currently hosts what appears to be a facility for a “heavy construction equipment dealer”, “machinery and heavy equipment sales and service”, or “outdoor storage” likely for Ernest Construction LLC. It is currently zoned Industrial-2.
The proposed UDC designation is Industrial Light. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26, 28), “heavy construction equipment dealers”, “machinery and heavy equipment sales and service”, and “outdoor storage” are all permitted uses in Commercial Warehouse, Industrial Light, and Industrial Heavy zoning designations.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining this parcel’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater and more attractive residential-serving flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate and befitting of its current use than either Industrial designation.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 939 | March 31, 2019 at 2:38 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018008.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel currently hosts the City of Mobile’s Henry J Reid Fire Station and is currently zoned as Industrial-1.
The proposed UDC zoning for this parcel is Industrial Light. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26, 28), “Public Safety Facilities” are permitted in every zoning designation provided by the city except for Residential Low Density and Residential Mixed, where it is a conditional land use.
Given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, maintaining the fire station’s current Industrial zoning when other designations could allow for greater flexibility in the future seems unnecessary. A zoning designation of Traditional Neighborhood Center or Traditional Corridor would be more appropriate.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 938 | March 31, 2019 at 2:37 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018009.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel currently hosts the Olivet Missionary Baptist Church and is currently designated as a Residential-1 zoning.
It is proposed in the UDC to be given an Industrial Light zoning designation. Churches are regulated in the proposed UDC Use Table as “Religious land use” and are conditional land uses in Residential Low Density.
Because this parcel currently hosts a church, and given its proximity to the Mobile Housing Authority’s former Josephine Allen public housing site, and the critical need to attract residential investment back into the community as identified in the Africatown Neighborhood Plan, the proposed UDC designation of Industrial Light is not appropriate. This parcel should instead be zoned in conformity to the proposed UDC land use standards as any Residential or Commercial/Mixed Use District appropriate for its location east of Interstate 65, such as Residential Low Density, Residential Mixed, or Traditional Neighborhood Center.
However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
Should a designation other than Residential be ultimately settled upon, a Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 937 | March 31, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020002.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This tract is comprised of three parcels owned by Alabama State Port Authority that currently host a spur from the Terminal Railroad servicing Berg Pipe Mobile Corp and are otherwise vacant. This tract is currently zoned as Industrial-2.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant overly permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. The UDC proposes an Industrial Heavy zoning for these parcels, but given the active transportation easement and otherwise vacancy of these parcels, a different and less permissive zoning such as Commercial Warehouse would be more appropriate.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 936 | March 31, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Property ID:
R022208440008003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is the site of the former Multisorb Technologies warehouse and refinery. It was purchased by Merchants Transfer Company, a commercial warehouse and distribution company. It’s current zoning is Industrial-2.
The parcel is proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Heavy zoning, but unless there are other designs for the large warehouse facility on site, it will be operated as a large commercial warehouse and would be better given a designation of Commercial Warehouse, similar to the recommended designation MEJAC has given for Merchants Transfer Company’s other warehouses in the Africatown Planning Area.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 935 | March 31, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013003.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel forms a tract with two others to its immediate north and south that hosts a large Alabama Power electrical substation and adjacent high power electrical utility as well as transmission pipeline easements. The other two parcels in this tract are both owned by the State of Alabama and are identified as R022208440013003.002. to the north and R022208440013003. to the south.
The existing parcels are currently zoned as Industrial-2. The proposed UDC zoning is Industrial Heavy, but given that there is no other practical use for any of these properties given the size of the electrical utility easements that traverse them and the existence of transmission pipeline easements, a Public-Institutional zoning designation for its “Minor Utility” land use is much more appropriate.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 934 | March 31, 2019 at 2:28 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013015.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel has its jurisdiction split between the City of Prichard and City of Mobile. It is currently zoned as Residential-1. The current land use on the Mobile side of the parcel appears to be a “building and landscaping materials” distribution center operated by Gulf City Shell Corporation. The Prichard side hosts an administrative building for Gulf City Shell Corporation and what appears to be a large vacant warehouse, which may actually be part of Gulf City Shell Corporation, as well, but is unlabeled. “Building and landscaping materials” distribution is not conforming with its current Residential-1 zoning designation. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
The proposed UDC zoning is Industrial Heavy, but given the parcel’s current land use as a wholesale distribution point for “building and landscaping materials”, a designation as a Commercial Warehouse is a much more appropriate zoning designation than either Residential Low Density or Industrial Heavy. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 933 | March 31, 2019 at 2:27 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013003.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
These adjacent parcels are part of a small tract of land that is owned by International Paper Company. They currently host a railroad easement and an Alabama Power electrical utility easement. Otherwise, they are vacant and undeveloped. They are both currently zoned as Industrial-2.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile. The UDC proposes an Industrial Heavy zoning for these parcels, but given the active transportation and utility easements that dominate these parcels, any other practical land use is unimaginable. High power electrical transmission lines are defined as “Minor Utility” land use in the proposed UDC Article X Definitions, Section 64-172 (p. 264) and “Minor Utility” land use is permitted in Public-Institutional zoning designations in the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29). Given the practical restrictions on their land use possibilities, a Public-Institutional zoning designation would be more appropriate than Industrial Heavy for these parcels.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 932 | March 31, 2019 at 2:25 pm
Property ID:
R022902440003038.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel has split jurisdiction between Prichard and Mobile and currently hosts a rail terminal and what is presumably a wholesale distribution point for the concrete and cement manufacturing company Cemex. Almost all of the site is in the City of Prichard with just a sliver in Mobile. The parcel is currently zoned a Residential-1. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
The proposed UDC zoning is Residential Low Density, but given the parcel’s likely current land use as a wholesale distribution point for “building and landscaping materials” or as “freight depot (railway and truck)”, a designation as a Commercial Warehouse is not an unreasonable proposal. According to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 26), Commercial Warehouse would permit both possible land use types. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 931 | March 31, 2019 at 2:25 pm
Property ID:
R022208440018325.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This parcel splits jurisdictional boundaries between Prichard and Mobile and currently hosts an abandoned building on its Prichard side that faces Telegraph Road. The area of the parcel in the City of Mobile is undeveloped and wooded land along the railroad to the property’s eastern most side. The parcel is currently zoned as Residential-1.
The parcel is proposed in the UDC to receive a Residential Low Density designation, and given the land use on the rest of the property, that may be appropriate considering it only hosts an abandoned commercial building. A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s apparent defunct land use is not an unreasonable proposal, but due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 930 | March 31, 2019 at 2:23 pm
Property ID:
R022208440018326.001, R022208440019440.002
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This tract of land splits jurisdiction between Prichard and Mobile. The Mobile side of the jurisdictional boundaries is undeveloped and wooded land. There is one building on the Prichard side and a telecommunications tower that appears connected to the building.
Both parcels in the tract are currently zoned as Residential-1. The proposed UDC designation for both parcels is Residential Low Density, which may be appropriate for the R022208440019440.002. parcel which is the furthest east of the two parcels along the railroad tracks and is entirely within the City of Mobile. R022208440018326.001., the second parcel in this tract that splits jurisdiction between Prichard and Mobile, hosts a telecommunications tower and telecommunications towers are an expressly prohibited land use in Residential Low Density zones according to the proposed UDC Article V Use Regulations, Section 64-84 Telecommunications Facilities (p. 182).
Thus, a zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 929 | March 31, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019440.02
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel of land is part of a larger tract of four parcels all owned by Miller Bros LLP that currently host the containerized chemical and chemical tanker cleaning facility Miller Transporters Inc.
The three other parcels in this tract include R022208440018327. to its west, R022208440019440.001. to its north, and R022208440018326. to its northwest. The two westward parcels split the jurisdictions of Prichard and Mobile.
All of the aforementioned parcels are currently zoned Residential-1, as shown in Illustration 24.3 to the right, and their land use is in nonconformity with the City of Mobile’s zoning code. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 928 | March 31, 2019 at 2:20 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This single parcel is currently zoned Residential-1 despite it forming part of a larger tract under the land use of a single entity, Merchants Transfer Company, despite the other parcels having various owners and various existing zoning designations. This parcel forms a contiguous tract that currently hosts Merchants Transfer Company warehouses and tractor trailer parking together with R022208440012008.000. (unidentified) to the north and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440013226. (Chippewa Lakes LLC) to the northwest and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440019004. (Woodland Buildings) to the west and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440018001. (Woodland Buildings) also to the west and zoned as Industrial-2, R022208440019004.001. (Merchants Transfer Co) also to the west and zoned as Industrial-2, and R022208440019005. (Merchants Transfer Co) to the southwest and zoned as Industrial-1.
Complicating the situation, Merchants Transfer Company has another warehouse directly across Paper Mill Road on parcel R022208440013006. (Chippewa Lakes LLC) that is proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Heavy zoning designation.
The proposed UDC rezoning for all of the contiguous parcels is to Industrial Light, but that designation doesn’t seem appropriate given that the only activities on site are warehouse storage and distribution related.
A zoning designation for all of the of Commercial Warehouse would presumably be more appropriate than an unnecessarily permissive Industrial Light rezoning.
With respect to the single parcel currently zoned Residential-1, it currently hosts part of a Merchants Transfer Company tractor trailer parking light, so is currently in nonconformity. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area. The existing zoning for this tract is shown in Illustration 23.4 to the left.
A zoning designation change to accommodate this parcel’s current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 927 | March 31, 2019 at 2:18 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013221.002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently an undeveloped vacant lot on Telegraph Road with a daycare center to its south, a church to its north, and a metal fabrication facility to its east. It is proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Light zoning designation. Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant permissive zoning designations from the City of Mobile, and Industrial Light zoning on this site is neither necessary nor consistent with its Telegraph Road public facing neighbors, a daycare center, a church, and a convenience store. A much less intensive zoning designation would be more appropriate like Residential Low Density or Traditional Neighborhood Center.
However, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
So, should a higher-than-residential designation be settled upon, a Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 926 | March 31, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013222.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel, together with R022208440013221.01 (Church of God Pentecostal Inc), form a tract of land that is split between the Cities of Prichard and Mobile along Telegraph Road. It is proposed in the UDC to be given an Industrial Light zoning designation.
The land currently hosts the Showers of Blessings Church of God in Christ ministry and is zoned today as Residential-1. Churches are regulated in the proposed UDC Use Table as “Religious land use” and are conditional land uses in Residential Low Density. The existing zoning for this tract is shown in Illustration 21.3 to the right.
Because this is a church, the proposed UDC designation of Industrial Light is not appropriate. These parcels should instead be zoned in conformity to the proposed UDC land use standards as any Residential or Commercial/Mixed Use District appropriate for its location east of Interstate 65, such as Residential Low Density or Traditional Neighborhood Center.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 925 | March 31, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013221.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel together with R022208440013221.03 (Chippewa Lakes LLC) currently hosts a Metals USA metal fabrication facility specializing in plates, structural beams, pressure vessels, pipes and tubing, and more. The second parcel of this tract crosses jurisdictional lines into the City of Prichard from Mobile along Telegraph Road.
The existing zoning map suggests that part of the facility is zoned correctly, as “Manufacturing, Intensive” which includes metals fabrication is a conditional use in the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29). The rest of the property is currently in nonconformity with its Residential-1 zoning designation, as shown in Illustration 20.3 to the right. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal, and the UDC proposed Industrial Light zoning designation appears to be inappropriate for these particular parcels due to the facility’s on-site metals fabrication, which is properly described as “Manufacturing, Intensive” according to the competing definitions of “Manufacturing” types in the proposed UDC Article X Definitions, Section 64-172 Definitions (p. 261-262). “Manufacturing, Intensive” land use is only conditional under Industrial Heavy zoning according to the proposed UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29).
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 924 | March 31, 2019 at 2:05 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013221.04
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently zoned Residential-1 despite it currently hosting the A-1 Stop convenience store at the corner of Telegraph Road and Woodland Street in Prichard, Alabama and is proposed in the UDC to be rezoned as Industrial Light. A convenience store is a nonconforming use in a Residential-1 district, so a zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal, but Industrial Light is not an appropriate zoning designation for a convenience store. Instead, a convenience store within the Africatown Planning Area would be more appropriately zoned as Traditional Neighborhood Center.
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 923 | March 31, 2019 at 2:05 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013005.000.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This tract is actually made up of three parcels, R022208440013005.000. (Alabama Power Co), R022208440012006.000. (unidentified), and R022208440012005. (Alabama State Port Authority) all of which are currently zoned as Residential-1 and proposed in the UDC to receive an Industrial Heavy zoning.
Currently this tract of land is completely undeveloped and vacant except for electrical power lines.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant the most permissive zoning designations afforded by the City of Mobile.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 922 | March 31, 2019 at 2:03 pm
Property ID:
R022208440013009.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This tract is actually two parcels, R022208440013009. and R022208440008007., both of which are owned by Chippewa Lakes LLC and both of which are currently zoned Residential-1.
The current land use is by DPC Enterprises, which is a bulk chemical distributor for industrial scale use. It regularly handles chlorine, chlorine bleach, ammonia, and caustic sodas that it receives by rail in bulk then repackages and stores on site for distribution from its facility.
Its current land use appears to be in nonconformity with its current Residential-1 zoning designation. It is also split across jurisdictional boundaries between Prichard and Mobile with the railroad bulk chemical offloading facility entirely within Prichard’s jurisdiction and the on-site containerized chemical storage in Mobile’s. Thus, a zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal, however it is unclear which zoning designation is most appropriate because there appears to be no reference to containerized chemical storage in the Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29). That is, unless the definitions for hazardous materials in above ground storage tank farms as conditional land uses under Industrial Heavy zoning are met, but the total storage capacity of this facility is unclear. Of course, under the proposed UDC, these unpermitted and unplanned land uses would be grandfathered as conforming uses.
Which ever designation is shown to be most appropriate, due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 921 | March 31, 2019 at 2:01 pm
Property ID:
R022208440008013.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is currently hosts the Turbo Filtration Company, which provides industrial cleaning services with on-site instrument fabrication capacity.
It is currently in nonconformity with its Residential-1 zoning designation, as shown in Illustration 16.2 to the left. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
A zoning designation change to accommodate its current land use is not an unreasonable proposal. This parcel’s on-site instrument fabrication is best described in the proposed UDC Article X Definitions, Section 64-172 Definitions (p. 261-262) as a “Manufacturing, Intensive” land use. The propose UDC Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29) describes “Manufacturing, Intensive” land use as a conditional land use in Industrial Heavy zones. For better or worse, the parcel’s industrial equipment cleaning services doesn’t appear to have a permitted land use in the Use Table definitions.
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of reason.
A Neighborhood Meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration might be prudent. A meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 920 | March 31, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Property ID:
R022208440008006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel together with R022208440003088. (MBW of Alabama Inc) to its north, R022208440008008.000. (unidentified) also to its north, R022208440008010. (Augustine Meaher IV) to its south, R022208440008011. (Tomlinson Investments Inc) to its south, and R022208440008012. (Augustine Meaher IV) to its south form a tract along Telegraph Road in the northwest part of the Africatown Planning Area.
Each of these parcels are currently zoned as Industrial-1 and are proposed in the UDC to be rezoned as Industrial Heavy.
The current land use on these parcels, moving from north to south along Telegraph Road includes a training and testing facility, an industrial facility equipment provider, a vacant lot, a transportation services provider, and a parking lot for an industrial cleaning service provider. None of those uses plausibly justifies an Industrial Light zoning, and none of those land uses justify the proposed Industrial Heavy zoning.
A Commercial Warehouse zoning designation would seem to be much more appropriate on these sites unless other uses for the sites are proposed, in which case, the residents of Africatown have opted into engagement around future plans within the Africatown Planning Area and those concerns should be given precedence via the proposed UDC Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 919 | March 31, 2019 at 1:58 pm
Property ID:
R022208440008006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel together with R022208440008005.000. (with an unidentified owner in the City of Mobile’s online GIS software) are proposed to be rezoned in the UDC from Residential-1 to Industrial Heavy. The parcel tract is shown in Illustration 14.2 to the left.
These parcels are completely undeveloped and wooded with trees except for two clearings following the railroad on its eastern edge. Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant the most permissive zoning designations afforded by the City of Mobile.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 918 | March 31, 2019 at 1:57 pm
Property ID:
R022208440008013.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is the site of the former Ladd Supply Company warehouses despite its Residential-1 zoning designation. This type of zoning nonconformity is common in this part of the Africatown Planning Area.
The warehouse was recently closed and demolished, which has some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates concerned over possible immediate short-term plans with this property that are not being shared publicly with the neighborhood.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 917 | March 31, 2019 at 1:55 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002016.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel together with R022208440020006.01 (Chippewa Lakes LLC) form the westward border between the Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co paper mill and Paper Mill Road.
Current zoning of these parcels is mixed across several designations. Along the road underneath the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge, the parcel has a Business-2 zoning. Along the southern length of Paper Mill Road, the parcel has a Residential-2 designation. Just north of that, the parcel has an Industrial-2 zoning.
On September 20, 2018, applicants on behalf of Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co, which presumably leases this land from Chippewa Lakes LLC, sought to have all of these parcels rezoned uniformly to an Industrial-2 designation. They tentatively received this designation from the City of Mobile Planning Commission, but the decision was unanimously overturned by the Mobile City Council on November 17, 2018. The rationale for the Council’s decision was stated as being that Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co offered no rationale for the rezoning and failed to hold any community meetings resembling those proposed in UDC Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198).
To date, neither Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co nor Chippewa Lakes LLC have held any public community meetings conforming to the standards proposed in UDC Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) about this parcel.
Current activity on the site suggests that Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co either hasn’t been informed of the City Council’s decision or is ignoring it. The Residential and Business zoned parcels are being used as an equipment staging ground for the $110 million Kimberly-Clark facility expansion despite its zoning designation.
Due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 916 | March 31, 2019 at 1:52 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002023.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel together with R022902440002021. (Chippewa Lakes LLC), R022902440002022.001. (Kanta and Roman Patel), and R022902440002020. (Chippewa Lakes LLC) have been vacant for many years except for the Williams Motel on R022902440002022.001. These parcels together are shown in Illustration 11.2 to the left. The vacant land was not landscaped to prevent erosion and has seen much topsoil erode into Three Mile Creek to its south.
This parcel is proposed to be re-zoned in the UDC from Residential-1 to Traditional Neighborhood Center (NCT). The parcels across Chin St. to its east, including where the Williams Motel has been operating, currently enjoys a split zoning between Business-1 where the motel sits and Residential-1 to the south of the motel along Chin St and are all proposed in the UDC to be re-zoned as NCT, as well.
The permitted land use standards for Traditional Neighborhood Center found in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 25-27) are less concerning to most residents than the process of getting to that designation. However, due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 915 | March 31, 2019 at 1:50 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel and the triangular parcel to its immediate north, R022208440012007. (Bean Properties LLC), form an area in the Africatown community that many remember as the old “New Quarters” housing subdivision, as shown in Illustration 10.2 below and to the left. Many controversial land uses have been executed upon this parcel of land over the years in nonconformity with the existing zoning code, and controversial land uses have been proposed for these properties in the relatively recent past.
The New Quarters land was purchased by the Alabama State Port Authority from International Paper and was more recently sold to Bean Properties LLC, which sought to re-zone the district from Residential-1 to Industrial-2. Motivated by many of the same concerns which re-manifested during the “Scott Credit Union” re-zoning application process shortly after the New Quarters land planning approval process, residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates came together to oppose the application, and after a well attended community meeting in Africatown, the Planning Commission voted against the re-zoning.
These parcels of land are currently zoned Residential-1, and the proposed UDC would re-zone them as Traditional Neighborhood Center (NCT). A map of the current zoning is shown as Illustration 10.3 to the right.
The permitted land use standards for Traditional Neighborhood Center found in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 25-27) are less concerning to most residents than the process of getting to that designation. However, due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 914 | March 31, 2019 at 1:49 pm
Property ID:
R022902440002017.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel and its related parcels, R022902440002017., R022208440020049., and R022208440020049.02, form an area in the Africatown community that many refer to as “the old Scott Credit Union” land. They are all owned by Chippewa Lakes LLC. Many controversial land uses have been proposed for these properties in the relatively recent past, and at the Build Mobile Africatown focus group meeting on Tuesday, February 26 at the Robert Hope Community Center some residents expressed concerns that plans of which they were never made aware are being implemented via the potential passage of the UDC.
Due to the erosion that has been perpetrated upon the residential integrity of the Africatown community, any loss of land zoned as Residential makes many uncomfortable, regardless of motive.
When the Scott Credit Union business was proposed, the concerns about residential integrity were raised, and the planning approval process permitted the re-zoning of the land to allow the credit union to operate as conditional. This conferred only the use of the land as a credit union, and upon the credit union’s closure, the land reverted back to its previous Residential-2 zoning. This is why the land has a shuttered banking facility on it but is nevertheless zoned Residential-2.
The two parcels where the old Scott Credit Union operated along Paper Mill Road are currently zoned Residential-1. The two parcels that touch the road identified in the UDC as “Paper Mill Road Extension”, which in Africatown is known as “Tin Top Alley”, are currently zoned Residential-2 with a segment of the southernmost parcel along Africatown Boulevard currently zoned as Business-2. All of these parcels are proposed under the UDC to be re-zoned as Traditional Neighborhood Center (NCT), as shown above and to the left as Illustration 9.2. The current zoning of these tracts is shown to the right as Illustration 9.3.
The permitted land use standards for Traditional Neighborhood Center found in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 25-27) are less concerning to most residents than the process of getting to that designation. However, due to the longstanding, thoroughly documented, and legitimate concerns over losing Residential and Business zoned land to any other designation, some residents, residential stakeholders, and regional advocates would rather see a process that helps actually shed light to residents about any potential plans for the parcels.
Many residents feel deliberately left out of consultative processes rumored to be happening with small groups of residents. While this concern appears to be remedied for future re-zoning planning approval processes in accordance with Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198), to apply so many changes to a neighborhood in the adoption of a document with many good aspirational goals when so many feel left out of the process of positive change-making in their neighborhood would be a truly wrong foot to start on for the UDC.
As the proposed UDC recognizes, communities deserve to be involved in the development of their neighborhoods. Because political transparency and equitable community participation has been a struggle for some residents in Africatown who have otherwise proven consistently committed to participating in neighborhood planning efforts and also due to the recent heightened community interest around this site, a proper public rezoning hearing after the UDC adoption process may be the best path forward unless those seeking this rezoning hold a neighborhood meeting similar to what is prescribed in Article VI Procedures, Section 64-104 Neighborhood Meetings (p. 198) before the UDC is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration.
A neighborhood meeting of this nature would help usher the Africatown community closer to the more equitable and inclusive future envisioned by the Africatown Neighborhood Plan.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 913 | March 31, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Property ID:
R022901000008004.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel and the two adjoining parcels to its south, R022901000008005.001. and R022905000002001.002., are on Blakeley Island east of Cochrane Causeway Road, and they appear to be completely vacant and have been for many years. There seems to be very little logic in keeping vacant properties with no activity on them whatsoever designated as Industrial Heavy.
Parcels that are vacant and undeveloped do not warrant the most permissive zoning designations afforded by the City of Mobile regardless of current zoning.
These properties are on Blakeley Island, but the principle should be consistently followed with similar properties in places like Africatown, as well, which would include R022208440012002. and R022208440012002.004., both Hydrocarbon of Mobile LLC property and shown to the right as Illustration 8.3.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022901000008004., R022901000008005.001., R022905000002001.002., R022208440012002., and R022208440012002.004.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 912 | March 31, 2019 at 1:45 pm
Property ID:
R022208440012002.007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel on Hog Bayou and the two parcels to its immediate east, R022208440012002.007. (Alabama State Port Authority) and R022208440011001. (International Paper Co), are all proposed in the UDC to have their zoning districts changed from I-2 to Maritime Light, but the parcels have a natural gas power plant that sprawls across the property boundaries of each of them, which is a land use that would be classified in the UDC as either a Major or Minor Utility.
The Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-31 Use Table (p. 29) doesn’t provide for Minor Utility land use in Maritime Light districts, and Major Utility land use is neither permitted nor conditional in any Maritime district at all. If the two parcels owned by the Alabama State Port Authority are exempt from conformity with the City of Mobile’s zoning code, shouldn’t the parcel owned by International Paper Co, which appears to have part of the natural gas power plant on its property, be subject still?
The fact that a Minor Utility could be granted a conditional use for Maritime Mixed Use or Maritime Heavy districts and not Maritime Light districts could be an accident or an oversight, and the City of Mobile GIS web applications that suggest portions of the power plant are sited on International Paper Co property could be inaccurate. In fact, given the construction of two natural gas turbines on Kimberly Clark’s property, this power plant may be slated for decommission, rendering this concern moot. Ultimately, the contradiction of this tract’s proposed UDC zoning designation and its current land use should be addressed and clarified regardless of potential zoning and land use regulatory exemption.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022208440012002.007., R022208440012002.003., and R022208440011001.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 911 | March 31, 2019 at 1:43 pm
Property ID:
R022208440021002, R022208440021001
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel and the parcel to its immediate south, R022902440001001. (Great Magnolia Properties LLC), were identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to their proximity to the Mobile River waterfront, Magazine Point, and the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge, which has a large footprint owned by Alabama Department of Transportation with Mobile River waterfront, as well.
These sites are all undeveloped and vacant except for the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge overhead and some fencing and derelict security flood lights along what appears to be a former storage yard of some sort on the Great Magnolia Properties LLC land.
Oral traditional and the available documentation suggests that the Africatown-founding shipmates disembarked the infamous Clotilda schooner while it was anchored nearby and were brought ashore in small groups at what is currently known as Magazine Point to walk on land for the first time since being stolen from Africa. However, given that there is no vacant waterfront property on Magazine Point any longer due to the petrochemical above ground storage tank farm expansion of the 1960s and 70s, the land under the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge and the two properties referenced here, which are to its immediate north, could be utilized as Park & Open Space in recognition of the end of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
The land under the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge is already being used by nearby residents as an informal fishing and recreational space, and a public right-of-way to the parcels already exists. Also, this is another site where Mississippi State University landscape architecture students worked with Africatown residents to draw up potential site plans to honor its significance to the critically important history of Africatown.
Vacant parcels do no warrant Industrial Heavy zoning designations especially when other land uses are plausible. MEJAC would simply like to see that any potential zoning wouldn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and recreational space affording many possible amenities for a city with no other public access boat launch points on the Mobile River at all.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022208440021002. and R022208440021001.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 910 | March 31, 2019 at 1:41 pm
Property ID:
R022904102000002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel location on Three Mile Creek southwest of Conception Street Road was identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to its current informal use as a fishing point along Three Mile Creek.
This site is completely undeveloped and currently vacant and it boasts stunning panoramic views of the confluence of three tributaries of Three Mile Creek.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
The concern with this parcel’s proposed designation is simply the desire to affirm that its potential new zoning doesn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and boat launch point for Three Mile Creek access, recognition of its proximity to Lewis Quarters, and its historic connection to the Africatown Planning Area.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 909 | March 31, 2019 at 1:40 pm
Property ID:
R022902440021001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel located on Three Mile Creek northeast of Conception Street Road was identified by the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team as a potential Point of Interest for its blueway project due to its current informal use as a fishing and boat launch point along Three Mile Creek.
The site is almost entirely undeveloped and currently vacant except for a natural drainage ditch for stormwater runoff from the Canfor lumber treatment facility (formerly Gulf & Scotch Lumber) and some loose aggregated poured onto the site for the benefit of the site’s soil retention and recreational patrons.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
The concern with this parcel’s proposed designation is simply the desire to affirm that its potential new zoning doesn’t preclude development of this site as a formal fishing and boat launch point for Three Mile Creek access, recognition of its proximity to Lewis Quarters, and its historic connection to the Africatown Planning Area.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 908 | March 31, 2019 at 1:39 pm
Property ID:
R022902440017134.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel and the parcels immediately around it that comprise the historic Lewis Quarters are proposed to be rezoned from I-2 to Residential Low Density (B), which is a very necessary improvement in the zoning designation for this community of historic Africatown.
Illustration 3.2 – Lewis Quarters tract highlighted green in the proposed UDC composite map
However, it is still very concerning that the only road to and from the community, Lewis Quarters, is still not designated as a public right-of-way but as a private drive on the property of Canfor (previously Scotch & Gulf Lumber). It’s hard to imagine that the lack of public right-of-way to their residential neighborhood is a standard land use pattern in conformity with neighborhood design standards anywhere else in the city. Although this may or may not fall out of the scope of zoning concerns within the proposed UDC, the public right-of-way situation ought to be remedied for the sake of property values of and public safety concerns for the residents of Lewis Quarters.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022902440017134., R022902440017135., R022902440017140., R022902440017136., R022902440017137., R022902440017139., R022902440017138., R022902440017133., R022902440017132., R022902440017131., R022902440017130., R022902440017127., and R022902440017128
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 907 | March 31, 2019 at 1:38 pm
Property ID:
R022902440018013, R022902440018014, R022902440018015, R022902440017042, R022902440017043
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel and the parcels immediately to its west stretching along Three Mile Creek from Telegraph Road to I-165 including R022902440018013., R022902440018014. (Marvin Mostellar Jr), R022902440018015. (MFBS/Gulf Lumber Co), R022902440017042. (MFBS/Gulf Lumber Co), and R022902440017043. (MFBS/Gulf Lumber Co). are proposed in the UDC to be re-classified from I-2 to Maritime Light.
All of these sites are undeveloped and currently vacant.
The Maritime Light designation for this site and others similarly to the west of Telegraph Road are not appropriate, because the bridge at Telegraph Road is not navigable by any type of commercial barge that could potentially service a “Maritime Light” district.
“Maritime Light” is described in Article II Zoning Districts, Section 64-24 Maritime (MM, ML, and MH) Purpose (p. 15) as including “maritime supporting, commercial uses within the Downtown Waterfront (DW) future land use category, and maritime light industrial and support activities that occur adjacent to water dependent uses, all of which are removed or buffered from residential uses”.
Given the need to support the residential nature of the land adjacent to the former Josephine Allen Housing Projects and for the benefit of residents who live across the street from these properties on Stimrad Road, it doesn’t appear that the proposed Maritime Light designation for these parcels is “removed or buffered from residential uses” at all.
A Maritime Mixed Use designation would certainly be more appropriate, but given the vast swath of undeveloped waterfront along Three Mile Creek and that all Maritime districts are proposed in the UDC to be exempt from the Riparian Buffer standards in Article IV Development Standards, Section 64-59 Natural Resource Protection, C, 6, (d) (p.120), a use designation that affirms the residential nature of these properties’ immediate geographic neighbors and promotes the beautiful waterfront these parcels enjoy, such as a Residential Low Density (C) conforming to Site Design Type 2A (Conservation Subdivision), as described in Article III Composite Standards, Section 64-43 Site Design, D (p. 52), appears to be an ideal alternative designation for each of these properties.
A RL(C) designation would also help nicely tie the potential beautification of lower Three Mile Creek together with the strides being taken further upstream and reinforce the National Park Service-facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway planning team’s vision of heritage-oriented recreational water access along lower Three Mile Creek to honor its significance to Historic Africatown.
The parcels relevant to this comment include R022902440018013., R022902440018014., R022902440018015., R022902440017042., and R022902440017043.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 906 | March 31, 2019 at 1:34 pm
Property ID:
R022902440019003.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Previously, both the Planning Commission approved Africatown Neighborhood Plan FLUM and the Map for Mobile FLUM had identified this tract and portions of adjoining tracts as “Parks & Open Space”. Now in the proposed Build Mobile UDC, it is designated as Heavy Industrial.
The National Park Service- facilitated Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team had used the Africatown Neighborhood Plan and Map for Mobile FLUMs to identify this site as a Point of Interest in its planning process, and the “Parks & Open Space” tract was envisioned as a boardwalk trail through the site’s undeveloped wetlands to Three Mile Creek to honor the Africatown community’s heritage of Three Mile Creek being a primary location for baptisms and other water-dependent ceremonial uses in the area.
It is disheartening to see a site of opportunity and possibility be excluded from the UDC. Given the current land use on the western parts of most of the Map for Mobile FLUM-identified tract by Parker Towing Co Inc, it would be reasonable to pair down the parcels involved with this potential Park & Open Space parcel tract to those which are currently vacant, undeveloped, and largely composed of wetlands acting as a drainage ditch for stormwater runoff. Those would include the former Terminal Railroad easement land, R022902440019003.01 (Parker Towing Co Inc), the State of Alabama land on which Terminal Railroad’s current easement currently runs, R022902440002006.01 & R022902440019003.01 (State of Alabama), and R022902440002101., a small vacant parcel owned by Chippewa Lakes LLC. All or any combination of these parcels could still serve as an effective conduit for pilgrimage to where Africatown community members remember their families being baptized in Three Mile Creek. It would not be surprising to learn that there may be assistance to refurbish and re-utilize this land as part of a “rails to trails” program.
The Africatown Connections Blueway Planning Team is committed to exploring creative ways to capture the unique and under-resourced heritage of the Africatown community as recreational and educational projects for community benefit and as heritage tourism points of interest.
From:
LELLA LOWE
rollread@bellsouth.net
Entry: 905 | March 31, 2019 at 11:59 am
Property ID:
R022910214001053.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property (currently takeout pizza and small retail) should NOT be CT. Bar/lounge or drive through should not be permitted by right, backing up to residential properties. In general, properties along Dauphin & Government west of Broad and East of Pinehill (on Govt) or Sage (on Dauphin) would be inappropriate to zone for high intensity/late night operations without individual zoning approval
From:
Anna Bush
annalbush@yahoo.com
Entry: 904 | March 31, 2019 at 11:37 am
Property ID:
R022907240004254.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is appropriate for additional single-family housing on both the east and north of the existing home (addresses would be 2018 Dauphin and 2 and 4 N. Fulton) There is sewer to the rear of the property.
From:
Anna Bush
annalbush@yahoo.com
Entry: 903 | March 29, 2019 at 1:47 pm
Property ID:
R022809294000006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I live in Hillcrest Crossing adjoining this property and support the low density residential zoning for this property.
From:
Joe Steen
Entry: 902 | March 29, 2019 at 10:26 am
Property ID:
R022908181003088.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Request Zoning CT plus Option Zoning to utilize a drive thru restaurant as this property was purchased with the intent to develop along with adjacent property to the East to Davenport and the adjacent properties to the South to Fay Ct. Both neighboring properties Zara and Popeye’s are developed through the entire block.
To date we have entertained 5 projects utilizing the Springhill property frontage through to Fay Ct and East to Davenport. 3 of those proposals included drive thru restaurants.
From:
Wendell Sawyer Jr
del8431@gmail.com
Entry: 901 | March 29, 2019 at 10:24 am
Property ID:
R022908181003089.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
2853 Springhill
Request Zoning CT plus Option Zoning to utilize a drive thru restaurant as this property was purchased with the intent to develop along with adjacent property to the East to Davenport and the adjacent properties to the South to Fay Ct. Both neighboring properties Zara and Popeye’s are developed through the entire block.
To date we have entertained 5 projects utilizing the Springhill property frontage through to Fay Ct and East to Davenport. 3 of those proposals included drive thru restaurants.
From:
Wendell Sawyer Jr
del8431@gmail.com
Entry: 900 | March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am
Property ID:
R022908181003089.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Request Zoning CT plus Option Zoning to utilize a drive thru restaurant as this property was purchased with the intent to develop along with adjacent property to the East to Davenport and the adjacent properties to the South to Fay Ct. Both neighboring properties Zara and Popeye’s are developed through the entire block.
To date we have entertained 5 projects utilizing the Springhill property frontage through to Fay Ct and East to Davenport. 3 of those proposals included drive thru restaurants.
From:
Wendell Sawyer Jr
del8431@gmail.com
Entry: 899 | March 29, 2019 at 10:13 am
Property ID:
R022908184001010.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Request Zoning CT as this property was purchased with the intent to develop along with property fronting Springhill Ave. Both neighboring properties Zara and Pop Eyes are developed through the entire block.
To date we have entertained 5 projects utilizing the Springhill property frontage through to Fay Ct and East to Davenport..
From:
Wendell Sawyer Jr
del8431@gmail.com
Entry: 898 | March 29, 2019 at 10:11 am
Property ID:
R022908184001010.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Request Zoning CT as this property was purchased with the intent to develop along with property fronting Springhill Ave. Both neighboring properties Zara and Pop Eyes are developed through the entire block.
To date we have entertained 5 projects utilizing the Springhill property frontage through to Fay Ct and East to Davenport..
From:
Wendell L Sawyer Sawyer Jr
Entry: 897 | March 28, 2019 at 12:34 pm
Property ID:
R022907230004014.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I would like zoning to be low density residential.
From:
Denise Thompson
denisethompson20@gmail.com
Entry: 896 | March 28, 2019 at 11:16 am
Property ID:
R022907240002075.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I agree with this zoning of LOW Density. This is a small neighborhood and homeowners do not want the larger multi-unit property developments.
From:
Misty Hellman
mdlhellman@gmail.com
Entry: 894 | March 27, 2019 at 10:47 am
Property ID:
R023301013000049.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I am a resident of a single-family home adjacent to this property, whose proposed zoning is for multi-family housing. This property is entirely wooded and appears to have never been developed. It is adjacent to two residential streets lying in two different residential subdivisions. If this property were ever developed as multi-family housing, it would deeply impact the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as their value. It would especially impact Skyview Drive if the property were developed as multi-family housing, with increase in traffic caused by the potentially large number of apartment units which might be placed on the property. Accordingly, I oppose the zoning of this parcel as multi-family housing. I would be in favor of the property being instead zoned as single-family housing.
From:
Mark E. Harris
markharrisjd@gmail.com
Entry: 893 | March 26, 2019 at 10:07 am
Property ID:
R023308343000040.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I agree with B-3 zoning for this property …All of property around it is commercial.
From:
Joe Steen
Entry: 884 | March 25, 2019 at 3:33 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001068.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property (351 Morgan) as well as 353,355 (commercial parking) and 357 Morgan are all owned by Elevator World Inc. I am the owner of that company. These are all commercial properties for many years and no longer suited for residential.
From:
Ricia Hendrick
ricia@elevatorworld.com
Entry: 883 | March 25, 2019 at 3:30 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001069.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
319 Morgan Avenue is a commercial property. It is no longer suitable to be residential due to work done on it. It has been rented as a business several times and is back on the market to be rented.
From:
Ricia Hendrick
ricia@elevatorworld.com
Entry: 882 | March 25, 2019 at 3:26 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002093.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
this is a business owned by Elevator World Inc. I am the owner of the company
From:
Ricia Hendrick
ricia@elevatorworld.com
Entry: 881 | March 25, 2019 at 3:23 pm
Property ID:
R022909291002084.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
352, 354, 356 and 358 have been business properties for over 30 years.
I personally or my company, Elevator World own these and four other properties across the street. They are all businesses.
From:
Ricia Sturgeon-Hendrick
ricia@elevatorworld.com
Entry: 879 | March 22, 2019 at 4:34 pm
Property ID:
R022911341001096.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Property is currently zoned B-2. Lamar advertising has a billboard which is seen on I-10. The proposed RL zoning is wrong. Please correct. It is not clear if a billboard is allowed or which zoning will allow a billboard.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 878 | March 22, 2019 at 4:28 pm
Property ID:
R022909510003052.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is currently zoned R-3 and allows for multi-family apartment complexes and should be zoned RM and not RL as shown on map.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 877 | March 22, 2019 at 4:28 pm
Property ID:
R022909510003059.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is currently zoned R-3 and allows for multi-family apartment complexes and should be zoned RM and not RL as shown on map.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 876 | March 22, 2019 at 4:27 pm
Property ID:
R022909510003059.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This parcel is currently zoned R-3 and allows for multi-family apartment complexes and should be zoned RM and not RL as shown on map.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 875 | March 22, 2019 at 4:25 pm
Property ID:
R022909510003059.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am currently zoned R-3 which allows multi-family apartment complex therefore this parcel should be under RM zoning and not RL as shown on the map.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 874 | March 22, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Property ID:
R022907240006305.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 873 | March 22, 2019 at 4:12 pm
Property ID:
R022908204000104.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 872 | March 22, 2019 at 4:11 pm
Property ID:
R022908204000098.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 871 | March 22, 2019 at 3:52 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 870 | March 22, 2019 at 3:50 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 869 | March 22, 2019 at 3:49 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 868 | March 22, 2019 at 3:49 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000024.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 867 | March 22, 2019 at 3:48 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000025.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 866 | March 22, 2019 at 3:47 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000026.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 865 | March 22, 2019 at 3:47 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000027.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 864 | March 22, 2019 at 3:40 pm
Property ID:
R022910282002001.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is an ATM machine which would be denied under the proposed map. This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 863 | March 22, 2019 at 3:39 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 862 | March 22, 2019 at 3:32 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 861 | March 22, 2019 at 3:30 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 860 | March 22, 2019 at 3:29 pm
Property ID:
R022910282002001.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 859 | March 22, 2019 at 3:29 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001005.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel along with the other four parcels on this block are owned by Catranis. These five parcels should be zoned NC-S and not NC-T as shown of future map.
These five parcels in this PUD act as a neighborhood shopping center.
It is not appropriate to restrict the use of this property based on which side of the interstate it is located. You are basically redlining my property. You are denying the residents of this neighborhood of goods and services that are currently available in their neighborhood by proposing a more restrictive zoning than is allowed on the other side of the interstate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 858 | March 22, 2019 at 2:57 pm
Property ID:
R023301024001009.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We have no idea what is an allowed use as shown on Table 64-31 Use Table. Can we have signage, dumpsters, banners, etc.? (A=allowed only as an accessory use).
We do not comprehend why P&Z is trying to micro-manage common standard business practices.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 857 | March 22, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Property ID:
R023301024001010.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
On this parcel, 3958 Gov’t blvd., “Job Corp” (jobcorps.gov) specializes in training young adults age 16-24 for skills and education to find carriers. This vocational school would not be allowed under the new zoning and this is typical for one type of use in this type of strip center.
As an example, the category “Entertainment Facility” is very broad and needs to be better defined in order to know what would be allowed. Families typically bring their children to shopping centers for entertainment.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 856 | March 22, 2019 at 2:47 pm
Property ID:
R023302102000086.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please leave the zoning for my residence and surrounding area as is.
From:
J C Smith – 251.610.2451
jcsmithmba@gmail.com
Entry: 855 | March 22, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Turning this corner lot commercial will ruin this neighborhood. Cars speed through Regency all day and night. If this corner lot is turned commercial it will increase the danger to the neighborhood.
From:
Elizabeth Ruland
eliza1@bellsouth.net
Entry: 854 | March 22, 2019 at 2:31 pm
Property ID:
R023301024001001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is a currently a gas station on an out parcel hard corner to a 90,000 sf shopping center. If this gas station were to close the best alternative use would be a drive-thru restaurant or a stand alone ATM drive-thru. These are conditional or are not permitted on the new proposed zoning.
From:
George Catranis
gcatranis@ceproperties.com
Entry: 853 | March 22, 2019 at 10:32 am
Property ID:
R022909291001069.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
315 and 317 morgan ave have served as both residential and business locations for over 20 years and they have parking lots for those needs. Please do not take away business buffer units as they are critical for new business development
From:
Tom Carwie
rudyathome@comcast.net
Entry: 852 | March 22, 2019 at 9:57 am
Property ID:
R022909291001080.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
319 Pinehill drive has been business buffer for over 20 years. Many business’s already operate in this immediate area like Elevator World and Sanctuary Therapies and several attorneys. These businesses all have low traffic footprints and are very quiet. The noisiest thing around is the city recycle center on Pinehill Drive. Please leave this intact.
From:
Nan Woddail-Smith
snwsmith@comcast.net
Entry: 851 | March 22, 2019 at 9:53 am
Property ID:
R022909291001078.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
These properties along morgan Ave and Pinehill drive have been business buffer units for over 20 years. Many established business’s are already operating in this immediate area 316 Morgan Ave, 315 Morgan Ave, 317 Morgan Ave, 319 Pinehill drive etc… are all properties that serve as residential and or business or were serving as business locations. They all have low traffic footprints and are very quiet. The noisiest thing around is the city recycle center on Pinehill Drive.
From:
Rudy Smith
sanctuaryinmobile@comcast.net
Entry: 850 | March 22, 2019 at 9:00 am
Property ID:
R022907240005302.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Realtor/Investor. This property is currently multi-family and is occupied by multiple families. It should remain that way.
From:
Entry: 849 | March 21, 2019 at 7:58 pm
Property ID:
R022801123001056.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
What specifically does the proposed new zoning entail? Presently, me property actually goes into the middle of three mile creek so what could possibly be developed? What is RL – B2 exactly. Not happy
From:
Cornelia Tisher
nenetisher@bellsouth.net
Entry: 845 | March 20, 2019 at 10:34 am
Property ID:
R022907240003100.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I think RMF-A is great for this property. With the amount of new development along Old Shell, and necessities within a walkable distance, I think this is the appropriate zoning for this parcel.
From:
Stephen Howle
stephen@crescentcd.com
Entry: 844 | March 20, 2019 at 10:34 am
Property ID:
R022907240003101.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I think RMF-A is great for this property. With the amount of new development along Old Shell, and necessities within a walkable distance, I think this is the appropriate zoning for this parcel.
From:
Stephen Howle
stephen@crescentcd.com
Entry: 843 | March 19, 2019 at 4:57 pm
Property ID:
R023308271000003.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is actually owned by Alabama Power Company and part of the abutting parcels. APC acquired this property, rezoned it to I-1 and also went through subdivision to take all the parcels and combine them into 1 parcel. These matters were approved by the BZA and the City Council on January 15th and 22nd. The Tax ID of the parcels that should now be all 1 parcel are as follows: Mobile County Tax ID:
R023308271000002
R023308271000003.001
R023308271000003.004
R023308271000003
R023308271000003.005
R023308274000001.033
R023308274000001.034
From:
Ward Henneker
whenneke@southernco.com
Entry: 842 | March 19, 2019 at 2:12 pm
Property ID:
R022906120004031.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Dear zoning board,
I have a number of complaints and possible solutions regarding the area around my home.
Firstly, there is a layer of soot/coal on surfaces on my property from time to time (including on my vehicle). I presume it is from the coal terminal nearby. Some type of dust mitigation process should be in place to minimize the amount of coal dust affecting nearby residents. Secondly, there is a frequent noxious gasoline/diesel odor present around the Detonti Sq. neighborhood, presumably from some hydrocarbon tank farm or terminal nearby. Stricter controls of leaks should be in place to minimize the odor present around downtown. Lastly, there are a number of dilapidated homes around the Detonti Sq. area, including at 308 N. Joachim st. (next door to my home). These blighted properties are an eyesore to those living in and visiting the community and are a haven for rodents, termites, and other pests that affect nearby residents. Action should be taken by the city council to either force a sale of these properties or to condemn and demolish these abandoned structures.
If the city council is serious about revitalizing downtown Mobile and attracting residents and businesses alike to the area, then these issues need to be addressed.
Thank you.
Arkadiusz Turolski
310 N Joachim st.
From:
Arkadiusz Turolski
aturolski@aerostar.net
Entry: 841 | March 19, 2019 at 12:11 pm
Property ID:
R022910213000001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property is stuck between 2 CT zoned properties.
Seems like this should be CT also.
From:
Entry: 840 | March 19, 2019 at 12:10 pm
Property ID:
R022910214001067.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property is stuck between 2 CT zoned properties.
Seems like this should be CT also.
From:
Entry: 839 | March 19, 2019 at 12:08 pm
Property ID:
R022907250006052.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
Old Dauphin way member
This property should be CT. It’s been an office for as long as I can remember.
Thanks,
From:
Entry: 838 | March 19, 2019 at 12:07 pm
Property ID:
R022907250006051.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
Old Dauphin Way member.
Seems like this property and the one adjacent to the west should be zoned CT like the lawyers office to the east.
These properties have been offices for as long as I can remember.
Thanks,
From:
Entry: 835 | March 18, 2019 at 4:16 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001017.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property should be in a CM zoning
From:
Entry: 834 | March 18, 2019 at 3:49 pm
Property ID:
R022909291001017.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
NCT zoning should apply to this property.
From:
Entry: 833 | March 18, 2019 at 3:20 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006054.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
A business has occupied this property for decades and should be zoned to allow to continued use as a professional office building.
From:
Entry: 832 | March 18, 2019 at 1:21 pm
Property ID:
R023212400008012.01
Relationship to property:
Comment:
I’m commenting for the owner. Commercial building has been located on this property for over 30 years. I’m a Real Estate Broker and concerned about this being zoned low density residential on this busy corner.
From:
Entry: 830 | March 15, 2019 at 2:43 pm
Property ID:
R023206400002010.02
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
CM zoning is the appropriate zoning for this parcel
From:
Entry: 829 | March 15, 2019 at 2:42 pm
Property ID:
R023206400002010.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
CM zoning would be more appropriate for this site. This corridor is difficult to attract businesses as it is, if the area is restricted against traditional retail and restaurant uses the area will continue to decline.
From:
Entry: 828 | March 15, 2019 at 2:24 pm
Property ID:
R022805213001085.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
CM zoning would be a better fit for this property.
From:
Entry: 827 | March 15, 2019 at 2:23 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.004.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The CM zoning would be more appropriate for this site.
From:
Entry: 826 | March 15, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Commercial uses should be allowed on this site.
From:
Entry: 825 | March 15, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002002.06
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This historically commercial area should include more allowable uses. The CM zoning is appropriate.
From:
Entry: 824 | March 15, 2019 at 1:59 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001002.002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel contains an existing drive thru restaurant and should be included in the CM zoning
From:
Entry: 823 | March 15, 2019 at 1:57 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006055.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel is a part of the existing development on the corner of Dauphin and Florida and should be included in the CT zone.
From:
Entry: 822 | March 15, 2019 at 1:33 pm
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Due to the high traffic volume on Grelot Road, and the large number of homes and apartments in the surrounding area, we do not wish to see this parcel zoned for retail usage. There are enough issues with accessing the commercial properties already in the area. Adding another strip mall would only contribute to the existing problems we face on a daily basis. Please designate as office space or other classification that would keep traffic volume to a minimum. Thank-you.
From:
Brad Dombroski
Entry: 821 | March 14, 2019 at 10:40 pm
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I am concerned about safety issues in event retail stores are built. There already has been (I’ve been here for 17years) a great increase in traffic along University Blvd & Grelot. A safer plan would be to develop executive/office space.
From:
Trudy Cornwell
trudy8525@gmail.com
Entry: 820 | March 14, 2019 at 8:57 am
Property ID:
R022808273000078.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The location at Grelot and University is adjacent to several residential areas. This is already a heavy traffic area and problems with speeding and accidents at the Regency Oaks/Regency entrance. Zoning should be for small offices or office related business only and not retail that would only exacerbate the existing problems.
From:
Dianne Jones
dijones59@bellsouth.net
Entry: 817 | March 13, 2019 at 5:15 pm
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As one who lives in the Regency Oaks Subdivision, we hope not to see any zoning above light retail or light commercial such as small offices or small retail space similar to the space at the corner of Grelot and Knollwood. Many residents back up to this property and don’t need traffic, noise or light pollution.
From:
Lillan Berls
febsr@comcast.net
Entry: 816 | March 13, 2019 at 4:51 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001107.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel should be in the CM zone.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 815 | March 13, 2019 at 4:51 pm
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
Because of traffic congestion, light pollution, and other factors this area should not be zoned for retail shops. Business office zoning would be preferable. We live behind St. Luke’s and have to put up with the light and noise pollution that they produce.
From:
John Paul Bradley Jones
jpbj47@juno.com
Entry: 814 | March 13, 2019 at 4:50 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001106.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel has had a drive thru dry cleaner business for over 40 years. It should be allowed to remain the same. The property zone for this parcel should be CM.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 813 | March 13, 2019 at 4:49 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001107.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The appropriate future zoning for this parcel is CM just like the Dauphin Square Shopping Center across the street.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 812 | March 13, 2019 at 4:46 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001103.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The appropriate future zoning of this parcel should be CM. This property is no different than the Dauphin Square Shopping Center across the street.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 811 | March 13, 2019 at 4:44 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001104.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel was originally developed for a grocery store. It now is a variety store and freestanding drive thru Smoothie King. The appropriate future zoning for this parcel is CM.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 810 | March 13, 2019 at 4:41 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001105.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel has a freestanding bank with drive thru. A new deal has been in the works for this site that will require a drive thru component. This site should be CM.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 808 | March 13, 2019 at 4:37 pm
Property ID:
R022808282000034.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I have a survey plat that shows two ‘out parcels’ in the parking lot for Sugar Mill Village. I have recently been contacted by a company seeking to rent space for a coffee drive-thru (similar to Smoothie King on Dauphin @ Sage). Drive-thrus are currently listed as a conditional use. What would determine this type of use given that there is a Krispy Kreme Shop with a drive thru due north of my center? Could this be changed to P? There are a lot of business which buffer this property.
From:
Ann White-Spunner
ann@mcaleertunstall.com
Entry: 807 | March 13, 2019 at 4:32 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001104.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property has had a freestanding drive thru restaurant for almost 40 years. The existing Tenant plans to rebuild a modern facility with a drive thru. This site and the surrounding shopping center should be classified as CM.
From:
Marl Cummings
marl4@cummingsassoc.com
Entry: 806 | March 13, 2019 at 4:30 pm
Property ID:
R022907250007035.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
CT-A is the correct choice – some conditional uses need to be removed.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 805 | March 13, 2019 at 4:25 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006261.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Great choice – should definitely be zoned NCT-A.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 804 | March 13, 2019 at 4:25 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006262.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Great choice – should definitely be zoned NCT-A.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 803 | March 13, 2019 at 4:25 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006264.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Great choice – should definitely be zoned NCT-A.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 802 | March 13, 2019 at 4:24 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006263.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Great choice – should definitely be zoned NCT-A.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 801 | March 13, 2019 at 4:21 pm
Property ID:
R022906400008174.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Should not be zoned residential. Site has a commercial structure used currently as a law firm. It was built in the 90’s. Should be CT-A.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 800 | March 13, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.02
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I just checked, this property is presently zoned B-3 and your attempting to rezone it RL. That is not consistent with surrounding property. This property will never be used for residential purposes. Should be CW as should the property to the south and east.
From:
Entry: 799 | March 13, 2019 at 4:16 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.008.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I just checked, this property is presently zoned B-3 and your attempting to rezone it RL. Insanity! This property will never be used for residential purposes. Should be CW as should the property to the north and east.
From:
Entry: 798 | March 13, 2019 at 4:14 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property should never be zoned RL it will never be used as residential.
Should be zoned CW as should the parcel to the south and west.
From:
Entry: 797 | March 13, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.011.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property should never be zoned RL it will never be used as residential.
Should be zoned CW as should the parcel to the north and west.
From:
Entry: 795 | March 13, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
As a neighboring property owner, I would prefer to see the property zoned for office space only. Retail zoning would negatively impact the traffic flow, the pedestrian traffic, the noise and lighting. Please help keep our area a “neighborhood”.
From:
Jeanne Hammons
Entry: 794 | March 13, 2019 at 1:43 pm
Property ID:
R022807390004015.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property was built with a B3 zoning and should all be classified as such. Currently the zoning map shows Bailey Enterprises, LLC split down the middle with 2 different zoning codes. It was built and designed primarily for office/retail spaces. All spaces should be classified the same.
From:
Brian Bailey
baileystvinc@bellsouth.net
Entry: 793 | March 13, 2019 at 11:24 am
Property ID:
R022908181003088.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The proposed UDC zoning allows only a “conditional” use for a drive thru at this location. Given that the adjacent property “popeys” has a drive thru and others along this stretch of Springhill Ave. as well, I think that is only fair that this parcel be afforded the same uses as it’s neighbor(s).
From:
John M. Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 792 | March 13, 2019 at 9:14 am
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel should not be zoned commercial. This is a residential area and rezoning this parcel to commercial would result in a horrible traffic situation. In addition, it would create noise and light pollution for the residents of Regency Oaks and Regency.
From:
Lisa Cooper
ldcooper@handarendall.com
Entry: 791 | March 13, 2019 at 8:22 am
Property ID:
R022808273000084.001.
Relationship to property:
Resident or Tenant (not the owner)
Comment:
This parcel backs up to dense residential. This parcel needs to be light commercial, such as professional office space. Definitely not retail due to noise, traffic and light pollution.
From:
Entry: 785 | March 11, 2019 at 7:01 pm
Property ID:
R022807253000075.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
along Michael blvd. and creek needs to have a wider berth for cyclist and pedestrians. Railing could be moved closer to road or creek and use the wider space for a path.
From:
W3
Entry: 784 | March 11, 2019 at 5:25 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002045.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I live across the street and was just informed this property can put in unlimited apartments. I would like to see a reasonable limit to this. It seems there is little to no zoning to this at all! Maybe 2 or 4 units but I would not like a hotel.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 770 | March 9, 2019 at 8:43 am
Property ID:
R022906400002026.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property is abandoned, pays no taxes, and is a detriment to surrounding properties. It should be seized by the city and sold to the highest bidder that will develop it within a time-frame. It is a disservice to the neighborhood and the city for 10 people that meet an hour once a week to get tax-exempt status.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 769 | March 9, 2019 at 8:01 am
Property ID:
R022906400002256.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property needs to be fined/seized by the city for resale to someone who will develop it instead of keeping it an eyesore and rat-invested mess.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 768 | March 9, 2019 at 7:58 am
Property ID:
R022906400002045.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I would like this residential, owner-occupied, maximum of 4 units.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 761 | March 8, 2019 at 4:11 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002045.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
down zone to 4 units and owner occupied only. No apartments or business
From:
Entry: 756 | March 8, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Property ID:
R022805212000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Requesting zoning to CM which aligns with the business next door (Bebo’s car wash).
From:
James Grant for Old Shell USA
grantjim@usa.net
Entry: 753 | March 8, 2019 at 10:07 am
Property ID:
R022808272001070.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Want zoning to commercial-property backs up to university and 1 door away from CVS-Subdivision already been given permission to the first four houses. Same opportunity Should be given to other owners on a case by case basis.
From:
Entry: 752 | March 8, 2019 at 9:55 am
Property ID:
R022907250006052.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Used as on office for the last 45years. Should be reclassified CT as should the property to the East.
From:
Entry: 751 | March 8, 2019 at 9:44 am
Property ID:
R023307400003010.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Based upon the characteristics of the surrounding properties and subject property, I request this property be zoned Light Industrial.
From:
Entry: 748 | March 7, 2019 at 11:47 pm
Property ID:
R022904112000001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This tiny parcel between Telegraph Road and the Port of Mobile Industrial Canal appears to be accidentally proposed to be designated as an Industrial Heavy district when all of its surrounding parcels are designated as Maritime Heavy.
From:
Ramsey Sprague
infomejac@gmail.com
Entry: 728 | March 7, 2019 at 5:01 pm
Property ID:
R023307370003016.009.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I would prefer the subject property to be zoned light industrial; This property is a 146,850 square foot industrial building that was built and set up for manufacturing and heavy distribution. Subject site contains +/-8.57 acres.
From:
Entry: 712 | March 7, 2019 at 3:42 pm
Property ID:
R022904520003002.000.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Please keep HAZMAT and other protections for the waterways, bayous and rivers in this area in place. I’d like to see our City to keep these areas as free of pollutants and toxic chemicals as we can. Follow all rules and laws for these protections. The trickle effect will seep into our communities if all policies, rules and laws are not followed.
Get creative! The workers in these companies and agencies are great people working for them. Surely there’s new ways of protecting the coastline by these intelligent people!
Our future depends upon it!
From:
Joie Johnson
Johnson_Jo@outlook.com
Entry: 682 | March 7, 2019 at 1:18 pm
Property ID:
R022807390004064.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Agree with UDC zoning
From:
John M. Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 681 | March 7, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Property ID:
R022803074000004.002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Agree with proposed UDC zoning
From:
John M. Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 680 | March 7, 2019 at 1:11 pm
Property ID:
R022906400007260.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I support this proposed zoning
From:
John M. Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 679 | March 7, 2019 at 1:08 pm
Property ID:
R022805212000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the owners real estate broker and we would like to request a change for this parcel in the UDC to CM which is consistent with the neighboring property to the West. This property has been on the market for over a year and all inquiries have been for a commercial use. The West neighbor Bebo’s has even showed interest, but has not wanted to purchase due to the current R-1 zoning. The UDC if adopted would help benefit this property’s marketability if changed now to CM. The current zoning has been a detractor. Please consider.
From:
John M. Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 672 | March 7, 2019 at 11:16 am
Property ID:
R022806233000048.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We are the owners of the Pinebrook Shopping Center which is the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport Blvd and McGregor/Azalea. This area, including our shopping center, is shown as NCS on the proposed zoning map. This is an inappropriate zoning classification even if we were to assume some additional uses will be added to NCS. The correct zoning classification for this property is District Center (“DC”).
This intersection connects commercially with the DC district shown immediately to the East. Our tenants, and the tenants at the other quadrants, have a regional draw which goes well beyond a neighborhood or two in the City of Mobile. For example, Whole Foods and Fresh Market are niche grocery stores which have broader draws and which do not have any other stores in the City of Mobile. Other tenants at Pinebrook, such as Stein Mart, BAM!, Zoe’s and MOD pizza are similarly national companies with no other locations in Mobile County. These companies all selected this location after doing extensive research identifying it as a regional center with broad reach. This shopping center and those adjoining at this intersection simply do not fit in the “neighborhood” category. This is one of the busiest intersections in the City of Mobile for car traffic. This property was developed commercially as a regional shopping center before there were any residential properties in the vicinity (and before I-65 went through the Wragg Swamp). This area has continued to serve as a major, regional commercial location since that time. It was not developed as a neighborhood-scale commercial development, and it will be mis-classified if it is now assigned to a neighborhood-scale center.
I would be happy to discuss and meet with the City concerning this issue.
From:
William Youngblood
Bill@youngbloodre.com
Entry: 667 | March 7, 2019 at 8:31 am
Property ID:
R022910223003030.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
1. We have a serious concern about a few Uses currently allowed by right (without public notice and input) all along Government Street (CT zone) and at intersections (NCT zone) on Government Street. The Uses of concern include:
A. Community Residential/Group Living (which includes emergency shelters, temporary housing for homeless, etc) is currently designated as a “By Right” Use (no public notice or input). The Collaborative strongly requests a designation of “C” for this Use. One of the properties so designated is at 1805 Government Street, currently zoned B1, low impact business. The Collaborative advocated against this site becoming an emergency shelter and prevailed. This new zoning would allow the same project by right, with no public notice or input. This Use, which has the potential for high impact on property values and quality of life, must never develop without public notice.
B. Convenience stores (without gas sales) are statistically targeted for armed robbery in fairly high numbers. Every parcel on Government Street, including at intersections, shares a property line with a family’s home. When armed robbers flee a crime scene, they do not run along wide, lighted, well-trafficked, and visible Government Street. They are going to flee in less lighted areas where shrubs are plentiful and outbuildings hide them. They are going to flee where children are playing or sleeping, in family homes. Further, the traffic in and out of a convenience store is problematic on busy Government, snacks served in convenience stores create litter, hours are late, including on holidays and weekends when our adjacent historic district families are at home for family life. For all these reasons, any convenience store should be a Conditional Use to insure each unique site can be assessed on its merits. It should be noted that this does not prohibit but rather requires public notice and input.
C. Bar, Lounge – Should be conditional use (Proposed to be Permitted by right on Gov’t St-CT, where parcels share a back property line, and sometimes a side property line, with family homes.)
D. Night Club – Should be conditional use (Permitted by right at intersections on Gov’t St, (NCT) such as at the end of S. Monterey, Catherine St, Dexter St, etc., all family residential areas.
2. For historic properties and downtown, the MHDC, ARB procedures should remain in place and the DDD standards should remain for downtown.
HIstoric district signage standards should remain in place and the Government Street corridor should be extended to Pinehill Drive which is the natural neighborhood division between midtown and the more suburban Govt Blvd..
3.Pre-development neighborhood meeting: The historic districts strongly encourage the city to insure that the pre-development meeting step be retained. Where these meetings have been voluntarily held recently, the results have been satisfactory to all parties and avoid oppositional and acrimonious appeals. Further, developers’ commercial endeavors have a better chance to succeed in a neighborhood that welcomes them.
4. Government Street (Broad to Pinehill) and Dauphin Street (Broad to Florida) are unique Traditional Corridors that touch the boundaries of all the residential historic districts.
As such, the uses and use categories allowed should offer protections for the unique character of historic neighborhoods. Insure that development serves the daily commercial needs of area residents in buffer business models or other low impact commerce. This can be accomplished by making ALL POTENTIALLY HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCE “CONDITIONAL” TO INSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT GOES THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND APPLICATION PROCESS ALLOWING PUBLIC INPUT. For example, –at this time in the new Ordinance–Night Clubs can be developed BY RIGHT (no public input) at Neighborhood Center areas such as Catherine at Government, Dauphin at Sage, etc. Bars/ Lounges can be offered BY RIGHT (no public input) on Government and Dauphin Streets. This is not acceptable, as these NCT properties touch residential R1 property lines! We request Conditional Uses for Traditional Corridors, Government and Dauphin, so that neighbors will have input into what goes into their neighborhood.
5.We ask for site designs that reduce hard surface, paved heat islands and incentivize permeable surfacing alternatives.
6.Insure language is in the new Ordinance that specifies that for nonconformities or parcels zoned with restrictions (properties that do not meet new standards but are grandfathered) that all of the restrictions applied under the current Ordinance carry forward into the new Ordinance for that parcel, to be applied going forward until such time as the property is rezoned. Specifically and as an example, the Shoppes of Midtown are currently zoned Limited B2 and carry 12 Use Restrictions. This was a compromise developers offered to residents. We want to be sure such restrictions, whether voluntary or imposed, carry forward.
7.WE DON’T WANT A CONCRETE JUNGLE. It should be noted that the percentage of landscaping required for midtown has generally been REDUCED significantly for commercial development. The current standard is 12% (often reduced by variance however) and the new minimum is 5%, and existing street trees “count” in the 5%. This warrants a close examination as to how that will impact our streets and especially our corridors like Dauphin and Government in regard to our tree canopy. The recent Broad Street project where 160 trees are to be removed in order to install bike lanes is a perfect example of how lowering the bar for green spaces east of I65 can produce, over time, concrete funnels for moving people in cars, concrete pads for holding parked cars, concrete pathways for other mobility modes…in other words, a return to a 1960’s style concrete jungle, lacking any regard for the very real quality of life benefits of landscaping, green space, and a tree canopy that go far beyond “mere beauty” and include reducing heat zones, improving air quality, mitigating flood waters and pollution, absorbing carbon dioxide, providing shade and breeze in our tropical heat and humidity, mitigating street level hurricane wind strength—to name a few.
While the UDC retains the Tree Commission and the Tree Act, the reduction in landscaping will have the consequence of de-prioritizing our tree canopy. Therefore the Collaborative requests language in the UDC to safeguard the tree canopy through development incentives, mitigation plans, etc.
8.The Collaborative joins the Loop group and asks others to also join in supporting extending the Government Street signage regulations all the way to Pinehill Drive, where Government “street” becomes a more suburban commercial area as Government “Boulevard.” There is no reason that this final section of Government Street should not control signage in line with that in the Broad to Memorial Park section.
9. Adaptive Reuse – This use group is confusing. It is allowed by right (without public notice and input) in every zone. Does this mean, as it appears, that any building vacant more than 2 years which is rehabbed for a new use can be used in all of our zoning districts by right, regardless of the planned use? If this is the correct interpretation, this is completely unacceptable. We support incentivizing reuse of old buildings in adapted ways, but we cannot support in any instance a complete waiver of all public notice and input in regard to the proposed USE of such a building. Please clarify the “by right” use permitting in all zones for these buildings.
Given everything that this city has went through from its inception, one would think that planning would consider the tax payers thoughts and concerns more than they currently do. Ill and improper planning has almost ruined parts of Mobile and parts of the historic districts and we can not allow this to continue. It is time for Mobile to catch up with other cities and move forward. It is time for Mobile to listen to its residents and not just look at a project from the investors side of it. Investment is always good for the city, but it has to work for its residents as well. It is past time for “old money” to stop influencing what goes on in this city and everyone’s input equally taken into consideration. A city is never successful without quality tax paying residents…..no matter how many businesses try to succeed.
From:
Tim Maness
urbstmn@aol.com
Entry: 666 | March 6, 2019 at 9:10 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006281.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is a commercial office/warehouse building that has been occupied by a carpet distributor for 20 or 30 years. The Proposed zoning category of RL is totally in appropriate. The more appropriate zoning is CW. The FLUM category should also be CW.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 665 | March 6, 2019 at 9:08 pm
Property ID:
R022907230006270.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This is a commercial building currently zoned B-2. The proposed zoning is RL which is totally inappropriate. A more appropriate zoning would be CM. the FLUM category should also be CM.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 664 | March 6, 2019 at 9:03 pm
Property ID:
R023301024001012.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
I have this property listed for sale and I speak for the owner. This property is currently a Bar/Lounge and has been for many years. The Property is currently zoned B-2. The proposed zoning category of NCS does not allow for Bars/Lounge. the more appropriate zoning category is CM. The FLUM category should also be CM.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 663 | March 6, 2019 at 8:51 pm
Property ID:
R023301024002017.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-2. The proposed zoning category of NCS is the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM category is Suburban Center and probably should also be NCS.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 661 | March 6, 2019 at 8:46 pm
Property ID:
R022801124000025.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of CM is not the appropriate zoning category. The building is 50% retail and 50% warehouse. The appropriate zoning for this property and all of the properties along this stretch of Moffett Road is CW. The FLUM category is CM is also inappropriate. The FLUM category should also be CW.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 660 | March 6, 2019 at 8:43 pm
Property ID:
R022908193003086.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of CM is the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM category is CM and that is also the appropriate zoning category.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 659 | March 6, 2019 at 8:42 pm
Property ID:
R022807252000006.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of DC is the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM category is DC and that is also the appropriate zoning category.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 658 | March 6, 2019 at 8:40 pm
Property ID:
R022806374000107.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of CW is the appropriate zoning category. However, the proposed FLUM category is CM and that is not the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM category should be CW.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 657 | March 6, 2019 at 8:38 pm
Property ID:
R023202060002019.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of CW is the appropriate zoning category. However, the proposed FLUM category is CM and that is not the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM should also be CW
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 656 | March 6, 2019 at 8:36 pm
Property ID:
R023202060002019.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property. The Property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of CW is the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM category is CW and that is also the appropriate zoning category.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 655 | March 6, 2019 at 8:34 pm
Property ID:
R022706130000041.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category of CM is totally inappropriate. The entire make up of the subdivision is office/warehouse. The property should be zoned CW and a minimum and probably could be zoned IL to provide some IL zoning in west Mobile for business that require IL but want to be close to the airport. The FLUM category should also be CW or IL.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 654 | March 6, 2019 at 8:28 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001032.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. The current zoning is B-3. The proposed zoning category is CW and that is the appropriate zoning category. However, the proposed FLUM Category is Mixed Commercial Corridor which is not appropriate. The Flum category should also be CW. In Fact the FLUM category for the entire subdivision should be CW.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 653 | March 6, 2019 at 8:24 pm
Property ID:
R022909294003048.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Holcombe Avenue is an older section of Mobile and will probably never a sought after retail area. Many of the users in the area are automotive repair or body shops that will not be allowed in CT. A more appropriate category would be DC.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 652 | March 6, 2019 at 8:15 pm
Property ID:
R022909510007245.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. The current zoning is B-3. The proposed zoning category is CW and that is the appropriate zoning category. The FLUM Category is also CW and that is also the property category.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 651 | March 6, 2019 at 8:13 pm
Property ID:
R022909510007244.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. The property is currently zoned B-3. The proposed zoning category is CW and that is correct. The FLUM category is CW and that is also correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 650 | March 6, 2019 at 8:10 pm
Property ID:
R022909510007116.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned B-3. The Proposed CW category is appropriate. The FLUM category is ICW and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 649 | March 6, 2019 at 8:08 pm
Property ID:
R023301121000017.011.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I have this property listed for sale and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 648 | March 6, 2019 at 8:07 pm
Property ID:
R023301121000017.010.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I have this property listed for sale and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 647 | March 6, 2019 at 8:05 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.005.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 646 | March 6, 2019 at 8:05 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 645 | March 6, 2019 at 8:04 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 644 | March 6, 2019 at 8:04 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.18
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 643 | March 6, 2019 at 8:03 pm
Property ID:
R023301121000023.06
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 642 | March 6, 2019 at 8:03 pm
Property ID:
R023301121000023.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 641 | March 6, 2019 at 8:02 pm
Property ID:
R023301121000023.05
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 640 | March 6, 2019 at 8:02 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.019.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
j
Entry: 639 | March 6, 2019 at 8:02 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.07
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 638 | March 6, 2019 at 8:01 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.033.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 637 | March 6, 2019 at 8:00 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.032.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager for this property and I speak for the owner. This property is currently zoned I-1 and should be placed in the IL category. The Proposed CW category is not appropriate, in fact the entire subdivision which is currently zoned I-1 Should be zoned IL. The FLUM category is IL and that is correct.
From:
Entry: 636 | March 6, 2019 at 7:57 pm
Property ID:
R022907230007164.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the property manager of this property. A NC-T category is acceptable.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 635 | March 6, 2019 at 7:51 pm
Property ID:
R023307370002010.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Our current zoning is B-3 and we have had a Carpet distributor in the building for the past 15 years. A CW Use Category is acceptable, however, all of Rangeline Road should be zoned IL which would allow more uses in an area that is obviously filled with distribution and light industrial uses. Mobile needs some areas where a IL business can locate. Rangeline Road is one area where this would be quite appropriate.
From:
Joey Betbeze
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 622 | March 6, 2019 at 4:09 pm
Property ID:
R022801122002015.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the broker for the owner. This property and all the property on this side of down to Wolf Ridge Rd is owned by the same owner and currently zoned B-3 and proposed to be changed to RL-B. This would have a major adverse effect on value and use potential. This should be at least CM-A
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 619 | March 6, 2019 at 3:56 pm
Property ID:
R022801122002017.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the broker for this property. The proposed change to RL-B is not consistent with the adjoining property owned by the same owner for commercial use and will have a detrimental effect on value and development and should be at least the same as the as the adjoining property which is CM-A
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 617 | March 6, 2019 at 3:36 pm
Property ID:
R022808332000003.007.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the broker and leasing agent for this property, It currently is Zoned B-3 and proposed to be changed to NCS-SU. This will limit the use and lower the value of the property. It should be at least DC
From:
Ronnie L Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 616 | March 6, 2019 at 3:15 pm
Property ID:
R022805223002097.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the leasing broker for this property. The change to NCS-B will limit the use of this high traffic parcel and lower its value, This should be changed to CM-B
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 615 | March 6, 2019 at 3:05 pm
Property ID:
R022910273002001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This tax parcel has an electric substation on it, which is a “major utility” facility. This parcel is surrounded by property owned by Alabama Power Company and used as an office, warehouse, repair, and storage area. All of this property is proposed to be zoned IL. Please add “major utility” as a use permitted by right in IL, or please change the zoning for this one tax parcel to “P” and leave the other Alabama Power parcels that surround this site as IL.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 614 | March 6, 2019 at 3:03 pm
Property ID:
R022706240000001.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This site is used as a West Mobile operational office and crew headquarters for Alabama Power Company. The site is used as an office and as a storage, maintenance and staging area for vehicles and utility equipment. The current use at this site is most closely associated with the uses allowed by right in IL or CW. Please consider changing the zoning classification to one of these districts.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 613 | March 6, 2019 at 2:59 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002077.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This tax parcel is used in conjunction with the two other tax parcels (xxx-75 and xxx-76), which comprise the entire block inside St. Anthony, Royal, St. Joseph and St. Louis Streets, as one unified facility. This block is the Mobile Division Main Office of Alabama Power Company. Most of this block is proposed to be zoned T6, but this one tax parcel is proposed to be zoned T5.2. Because the entire block is all being put to one unified use, we request that the zoning classification for this parcel be changed to T6 like the balance of this block.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 612 | March 6, 2019 at 2:46 pm
Property ID:
R022908181003006.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 611 | March 6, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022004310000003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 610 | March 6, 2019 at 2:42 pm
Property ID:
R022910284002046.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 609 | March 6, 2019 at 2:41 pm
Property ID:
R022910284003001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 608 | March 6, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Property ID:
R022910284003024.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 607 | March 6, 2019 at 2:37 pm
Property ID:
R022208440020008.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 606 | March 6, 2019 at 2:36 pm
Property ID:
R022906400011140.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 605 | March 6, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Property ID:
R022911360008002.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 604 | March 6, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Property ID:
R023305224000012.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 603 | March 6, 2019 at 2:32 pm
Property ID:
R022805222001018.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 602 | March 6, 2019 at 2:31 pm
Property ID:
R022906120002012.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 601 | March 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm
Property ID:
R022904113000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 600 | March 6, 2019 at 2:28 pm
Property ID:
R023203360004108.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 599 | March 6, 2019 at 2:27 pm
Property ID:
R022903072000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 598 | March 6, 2019 at 2:23 pm
Property ID:
R022903071000004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 597 | March 6, 2019 at 2:21 pm
Property ID:
R022902440026003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 596 | March 6, 2019 at 2:20 pm
Property ID:
R022902440014334.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 595 | March 6, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Property ID:
R022909510006016.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Changing the zoning to single family is wildly ludicrous. This parcel was an American Motors Jeep dealership over 40 years ago and is currently a Mitsubishi car dealership. It has been zoned B-3 for the 49 years I have been a real estate broker here in Mobile. It has consisted of it’s present configuration for that same period. If the adjacent single family lots adjacent at the rear of the property is of concern require a wooden privacy fence. The entire parcel should be zoned CM if that is the current equivalent to B-3.
From:
Charles E Christmas
chuckxmas@aol.com
Entry: 594 | March 6, 2019 at 2:18 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 593 | March 6, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Property ID:
R022208440019053.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 592 | March 6, 2019 at 2:15 pm
Property ID:
R022903074003026.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property a few weeks before the zoning update was published the Mobile Chamber of Commerce weekly email. The warehouse on this property is in deplorable condition and cannot be used. In addition, it is adjacent to our current property which remains IL as opposed to CW.
I am excited to see the much need zoning overhaul for the City of Mobile and look forward to our continued cooperative support. It would be a welcomed opportunity for a representative to arrange a time for a tour of these facilities. Thank you.
From:
J. Lee Leavitt
lee@asmrecycling.com
Entry: 591 | March 6, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Property ID:
R022808284002135.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 590 | March 6, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Property ID:
R022808284002136.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 589 | March 6, 2019 at 2:13 pm
Property ID:
R022903074003026.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property a few weeks before the zoning update was published the Mobile Chamber of Commerce weekly email. The warehouse on this property is in deplorable condition and cannot be used. In addition, it is adjacent to our current property which remains IL as opposed to CW.
I am excited to see the much need zoning overhaul for the City of Mobile and look forward to our continued cooperative support. It would be a welcomed opportunity for a representative to arrange a time for a tour of these facilities. Thank you.
From:
J. Lee Leavitt
lee@asmrecycling.com
Entry: 588 | March 6, 2019 at 2:13 pm
Property ID:
R022808284002134.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 587 | March 6, 2019 at 2:12 pm
Property ID:
R022808284002125.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 586 | March 6, 2019 at 2:11 pm
Property ID:
R022903074003026.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property a few weeks before the zoning update was published the Mobile Chamber of Commerce weekly email. The warehouse on this property is in deplorable condition and cannot be used. In addition, it is adjacent to our current property which remains IL as opposed to CW.
I am excited to see the much need zoning overhaul for the City of Mobile and look forward to our continued cooperative support. It would be a welcomed opportunity for a representative to arrange a time for a tour of these facilities. Thank you.
From:
J. Lee Leavitt
lee@asmrecycling.com
Entry: 585 | March 6, 2019 at 2:10 pm
Property ID:
R022903074003026.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property a few weeks before the zoning update was published the Mobile Chamber of Commerce weekly email. The warehouse on this property is in deplorable condition and cannot be used. In addition, it is adjacent to our current property which remains IL as opposed to CW.
I am excited to see the much need zoning overhaul for the City of Mobile and look forward to our continued cooperative support. It would be a welcomed opportunity for a representative to arrange a time for a tour of these facilities. Thank you.
From:
J. Lee Leavitt
lee@asmrecycling.com
Entry: 584 | March 6, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Property ID:
R022903074003027.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property a few weeks before the zoning update was published the Mobile Chamber of Commerce weekly email. The warehouse on this property is in deplorable condition and cannot be used. In addition, it is adjacent to our current property which remains IL as opposed to CW.
I am excited to see the much need zoning overhaul for the City of Mobile and look forward to our continued cooperative support. It would be a welcomed opportunity for a representative to arrange a time for a tour of these facilities. Thank you.
From:
J. Lee Leavitt
lee@asmrecycling.com
Entry: 583 | March 6, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Property ID:
R022808284002125.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 582 | March 6, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Property ID:
R022903074003027.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I purchased this property a few weeks before the zoning update was published the Mobile Chamber of Commerce weekly email. The warehouse on this property is in deplorable condition and cannot be used. In addition, it is adjacent to our current property which remains IL as opposed to CW.
I am excited to see the much need zoning overhaul for the City of Mobile and look forward to our continued cooperative support. It would be a welcomed opportunity for a representative to arrange a time for a tour of these facilities. Thank you.
From:
J. Lee Leavitt
lee@asmrecycling.com
Entry: 581 | March 6, 2019 at 2:05 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001118.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 580 | March 6, 2019 at 2:01 pm
Property ID:
R022802103000001.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 579 | March 6, 2019 at 1:59 pm
Property ID:
R022910273001098.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 578 | March 6, 2019 at 1:50 pm
Property ID:
R022808341001090.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 577 | March 6, 2019 at 1:48 pm
Property ID:
R022806144000005.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 576 | March 6, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Property ID:
R022806243000101.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 575 | March 6, 2019 at 1:44 pm
Property ID:
R022801012001024.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 574 | March 6, 2019 at 1:41 pm
Property ID:
R022910370008067.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 573 | March 6, 2019 at 1:39 pm
Property ID:
R022903062000009.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 572 | March 6, 2019 at 1:32 pm
Property ID:
R023204350002016.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I strongly do not agree with the proposed zoning change for this parcel. The property is currently zoned b-3 and the proposed zoning would be a downgrade of the existing zoning and use and unacceptable. The property currently used for a automobile Sales dealership. I have looked at the new zones and it seems that IL Light Industrial would be the minimum zone for a automobile sales dealership. please make the needed adjustments to the proposed zoning for this parcel
From:
Pam Helland
numberonesalesllc@aol.com
Entry: 571 | March 6, 2019 at 1:32 pm
Property ID:
R022807264000019.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 570 | March 6, 2019 at 1:28 pm
Property ID:
R023212400004003.
Relationship to property:
Resident or Tenant (not the owner)
Comment:
I strongly do not agree with the proposed zoning change for this parcel. The property is currently zoned b-3 and the proposed zoning would be a downgrade of the existing zoning and use and unacceptable. The property currently has a 22,000 + sqft industrial warehouse and is used for a automobile dealership. I have looked at the new zones and it seems that IL Light Industrial would be the minimum zone for a industrial warehouse of this size with an automobile dealership. please make the needed adjustments to the proposed zoning for this parcel
From:
number one sales llc
numberonesalesllc@aol.com
Entry: 569 | March 6, 2019 at 1:25 pm
Property ID:
R023212400004003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I strongly do not agree with the proposed zoning change for this parcel. The property is currently zoned b-3 and the proposed zoning would be a downgrade of the existing zoning and use and unacceptable. The property currently has a 22,000 + sqft industrial warehouse and is used for a automobile dealership. I have looked at the new zones and it seems that IL Light Industrial would be the minimum zone for a industrial warehouse of this size with an automobile dealership. please make the needed adjustments to the proposed zoning for this parcel
From:
John David Helland
johndhelland@yahoo.com
Entry: 558 | March 6, 2019 at 12:16 pm
Property ID:
R022806144000064.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The change to NCT-A will limit the use of this property, thus lowering the value, The change should be to at least CM
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 557 | March 6, 2019 at 12:02 pm
Property ID:
R022906400010298.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The proposed change to CT-A will lower the potential use the limit and lower the value of this property. The change should be at least CM
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 555 | March 6, 2019 at 11:52 am
Property ID:
R022907230006129.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The use is proposed to be changed to CT-A, this will limit use and lower the property value, as with other property is the area it should be at least NCT-A
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 550 | March 6, 2019 at 11:30 am
Property ID:
R022804202000043.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The use code is proposed to be changed to CM-B, which would limit its use in this location, thus its value.
This should be change to no less than CW
From:
Ronnie Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 547 | March 6, 2019 at 11:15 am
Property ID:
R022808283000069.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I represent the owner as managing agent. This property was developed for food, drug and multi purpose tenants. The proposed change is to NCS-SU which does not allow food stores, restaurants and multiple use tenants which now are allowed. This will have a major impact on property valve, sales tax and sells value. The property should be at lease DC
From:
Ronnie L Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 546 | March 6, 2019 at 10:48 am
Property ID:
R023302042002074.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property was developed as a Food and Drug center with outparcel food and multi use tenants. It is proposed to be changed to NCS-SU with no food store and limited food users.
This will have a major impact on value, sales tax and sell value. This center should be changed to at least DC
From:
Ronnie L. Johnson, CPM, Broker
rjohnson@mitchellcompany.com
Entry: 545 | March 6, 2019 at 10:25 am
Property ID:
R023903010004001.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 544 | March 6, 2019 at 10:23 am
Property ID:
R022910370008226.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 543 | March 6, 2019 at 10:21 am
Property ID:
R022907240006351.000.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 542 | March 6, 2019 at 10:20 am
Property ID:
R022907250003131.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 541 | March 6, 2019 at 10:18 am
Property ID:
R023802044000089.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 539 | March 6, 2019 at 10:17 am
Property ID:
R023301113002039.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 538 | March 6, 2019 at 10:15 am
Property ID:
R022807264000018.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 537 | March 6, 2019 at 10:13 am
Property ID:
R022907240004275.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 536 | March 6, 2019 at 10:12 am
Property ID:
R022910282004079.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 535 | March 6, 2019 at 10:09 am
Property ID:
R022908182001089.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 534 | March 6, 2019 at 10:08 am
Property ID:
R022804173000041.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 533 | March 6, 2019 at 10:05 am
Property ID:
R022908182002082.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 532 | March 6, 2019 at 10:03 am
Property ID:
R022907230006245.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 531 | March 6, 2019 at 10:01 am
Property ID:
R022902440029077.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 530 | March 6, 2019 at 10:00 am
Property ID:
R022807390004001.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 529 | March 6, 2019 at 9:57 am
Property ID:
R022208440012008.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 528 | March 6, 2019 at 9:54 am
Property ID:
R022905000003018.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 527 | March 6, 2019 at 9:52 am
Property ID:
R022909302000029.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 526 | March 6, 2019 at 9:50 am
Property ID:
R022208440002013.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 525 | March 6, 2019 at 9:48 am
Property ID:
R022208440001008.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 524 | March 6, 2019 at 9:47 am
Property ID:
R022208440002004.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 523 | March 6, 2019 at 9:45 am
Property ID:
R022208440002010.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 522 | March 6, 2019 at 9:44 am
Property ID:
R022802032002078.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 521 | March 6, 2019 at 9:42 am
Property ID:
R023301123000007.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 520 | March 6, 2019 at 9:38 am
Property ID:
R022910284002047.000.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 519 | March 6, 2019 at 9:37 am
Property ID:
R022910370008232.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 518 | March 6, 2019 at 9:31 am
Property ID:
R022208440013003.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is improved as an electric substation. Substations are a “major utility” under the Code and are only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 517 | March 6, 2019 at 9:25 am
Property ID:
R021907360000001.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is owned by Alabama Power and is being held for future use as a “major utility” facility. A major utility is only allowed by right in the P District. Please make the initial zoning of this property the P District.
From:
Alabama Power Company
apcmdudc@southernco.com
Entry: 476 | March 4, 2019 at 3:27 pm
Property ID:
R022906400007260.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We feel a restaurant with a drive through should be allowed.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 475 | March 4, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Property ID:
R022908184001010.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We feel a restaurant with a drive through should be allowed. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 474 | March 4, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Property ID:
R022908181003088.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We feel that a restaurant with a drive through should be allowed. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 473 | March 4, 2019 at 3:21 pm
Property ID:
R022805212000002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We will be the listing agent for this site. Highest and best use would be for commercial uses such as retail, office, or multi family. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 472 | March 4, 2019 at 3:14 pm
Property ID:
R022908182003069.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Working on mixed use development to include retail, office, and boat/rv storage. Currently being used as a contractor facility. Would need zoning to allow for all these uses. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 471 | March 4, 2019 at 3:13 pm
Property ID:
R022908182003068.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Working on mixed use development to include retail, office, and boat/rv storage. Currently being used as a contractor facility. Would need zoning to allow for all these uses. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 470 | March 4, 2019 at 3:13 pm
Property ID:
R022908182003065.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Working on mixed use development to include retail, office, and boat/rv storage. Currently being used as a contractor facility. Would need zoning to allow for all these uses. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 469 | March 4, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Property ID:
R022908182003067.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I am currently working on a mixed use development to include office, retail, and boat/rv storage. Currently being used as a contractor facility. Would need zoning that would allow for all these uses. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 468 | March 4, 2019 at 3:04 pm
Property ID:
R022910223002018.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We feel that a restaurant with a drive through as well as an ATM stand alone should be allowed at this site.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 467 | March 4, 2019 at 3:00 pm
Property ID:
R022908192001046.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I have this property under contract to purchase and proposed zoning is acceptable. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 466 | March 4, 2019 at 2:57 pm
Property ID:
R023308331000036.16
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Proposed zoning is acceptable. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 465 | March 4, 2019 at 2:53 pm
Property ID:
R023301122000073.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Proposed zoning is acceptable. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 464 | March 4, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Property ID:
R023301122000071.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The proposed zoning is acceptable except that this location could potentially be used for general retail use, Can we include retail use for this site? Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 463 | March 4, 2019 at 2:29 pm
Property ID:
R022805211000056.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The proposed zoning is acceptable. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 462 | March 4, 2019 at 2:28 pm
Property ID:
R022805211000059.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We feel that the proposed zoning is an acceptable zoning for this property. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 461 | March 4, 2019 at 2:24 pm
Property ID:
R022804203000008.050.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We feel mixed corridor zoning is appropriate for this property. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 460 | March 4, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Property ID:
R022808283000069.020.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We feel mixed corridor is an appropriate zoning for this property. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 459 | March 4, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Property ID:
R022804204000108.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We feel mixed corridor is appropriate for this property. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 458 | March 4, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Property ID:
R022804203000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We feel mixed corridor zoning is appropriate for this property. Thanks
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 456 | March 4, 2019 at 11:35 am
Property ID:
R022808272002003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This should be zoned for commercial or at least multifamily. It is unrealistic to believe that anyone would ever build single family here. This zoning will make potentially high property tax generating property into virtually valueless empty property. By the way, I line in Regency and do not believe my property value would be effected.
From:
Ben tipton
btipton12@comcast.net
Entry: 455 | March 4, 2019 at 10:51 am
Property ID:
R022706130000041.28
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We are marketing this lot for the owners as well as the other Dejuan (original developer) lots. We disagree with the proposed zoning. We feel that it should be zoned CW, which would be more in line with the current uses in this subdivision. We feel the entire subdivision should be zoned CW. Mobile Airport Authority owns the seven lots at the end of the cul de sac more also be more appropriate to be zoned CW.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 454 | March 4, 2019 at 10:49 am
Property ID:
R022706130000041.27
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
We are marketing this lot for the owners. We disagree with the proposed zoning. We feel that it should be zoned CW, which would be more in line with the current uses in this subdivision. Mobile Airport Authority owns the seven lots at the end of the cul de sac more also be more appropriate to be zoned CW.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
Entry: 453 | March 4, 2019 at 10:46 am
Property ID:
R022706130000041.16
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We disagree with the proposed zoning. We feel that it should be zoned CW, which would be more in line with the current uses in this subdivision.
This is a office warehouse building. Mobile Airport Authority owns the five lots at the end of the cul de sac more also be more appropriate to be zoned CW.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
pratt@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 452 | March 4, 2019 at 10:45 am
Property ID:
R022706130000041.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We disagree with the proposed zoning. We feel that it should be zoned CW, which would be more in line with the current uses in this subdivision.
This is a office warehouse building. Mobile Airport Authority owns the five lots at the end of the cul de sac more also be more appropriate to be zoned CW.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
pratt@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 451 | March 4, 2019 at 10:44 am
Property ID:
R022706130000041.40
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We disagree with the proposed zoning. We feel that it should be zoned CW, which would be more in line with the current uses in this subdivision.
This is a office warehouse building. Mobile Airport Authority owns the five lots at the end of the cul de sac more also be more appropriate to be zoned CW.
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
pratt@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 450 | March 4, 2019 at 10:35 am
Property ID:
R022707251000001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
DC is an appropriate designation. However, it appears that a restaurant with a drive in, and a stand alone ATM is not allowed. It would seem to us that both of these uses should be allowed in DC. Also, we are curious why “mobile vendor” is only allowed by conditional approval in NC-T?
From:
Pratt and Merrill Thomas
pratt@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 443 | March 1, 2019 at 3:52 pm
Property ID:
00866637/00866646
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The current zoning of B-2 and B-3 for these two parcels allows for the most flexibility of use for this vacant lot, however, with the proposed zoning change will decrease the potential to generate sales tax income for the city. The proposed change to MCC will eliminated the possibility of a drive through tenant i.e. a coffee shop, QSR, etc. on the morning side of the road for residents on their way to work in the morning. It is my opinion that in doing so, the city will be missing out on a potentially great addition to the surrounding neighborhood that could not only revamp the area, but also provide job opportunities in service to the people residing in that area.
From:
Garrett Baker
garrettb@delaneyinc.net
Entry: 442 | March 1, 2019 at 3:39 pm
Property ID:
R022809292000001.003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I live near this area. There are enough apartments in this sector. The added traffic and congestion is too much for this area.
From:
Cheryl Shelley
cshelley27@gmail.com
Entry: 441 | March 1, 2019 at 3:39 pm
Property ID:
00852955
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is currently zoned as B-2. It was recently constructed as a three bay strip center with an end cap drive through. To say that the proposed zoning would take away the drive through is the single most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. If Goldfingers leaves the 3,000 SF space it is currently in, the proposed zoning would hurt everyone. The owner would be damaged because it would be very difficulty to replace a tenant at this location without a drive through. The city would be hurt because sales tax would not be generated on an empty space. We would like to maintain all of the rights we currently have under the B-2 Zoning. We are investing millions of dollars and generating income to the city through sales tax. For the city not to consider the needs of its investors during this process is appalling and will lead to an exodus of investors.
From:
Scott Delaney
scottd@delaneyinc.net
Entry: 440 | March 1, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Property ID:
R022804203000008.032.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This part of Cody Road doesn’t need the added traffic from more apartments. There are enough apartments near this sector already.
From:
Cheryl Shelley
cshelley27@gmail.com
Entry: 439 | February 28, 2019 at 5:28 pm
Property ID:
R023308272000015.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is currently a Krystal. Our firm needs the property to be zoned in such a manner that we can re-lease it to another fast food restaurant if the need arises. Thanks!
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 438 | February 28, 2019 at 5:20 pm
Property ID:
R023308272000015.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property needs to be classified so that a retail shopping center with no restrictions may be developed in this area. Thanks!
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 437 | February 28, 2019 at 5:10 pm
Property ID:
R022804192000031.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property should be zoned for the suitability of the development of a retail center. The property’s proximity to the busiest intersection in West Mobile should allow for it to be developed into its highest and best use. Please reconsider your future zoning classification.
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 436 | February 28, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Property ID:
R022706244000006.02
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As the property owner, I want to be insured that I can utilize my property for the highest and best use. Shopping centers and restaurant tenants will allow for more jobs and more taxes to be generated by and for the city of Mobile. Please reconsider your proposed zoning to allow for the best possible developments for West Mobile.
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 435 | February 28, 2019 at 5:03 pm
Property ID:
R023301013000003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As a property owner and real estate developer, I take issue with the proposed zoning. Currently, my company controls a good bit of the real estate at the Azalea Road and Highway 90 intersection. We have several tenants in the food service industry. Under the newly proposed zoning, we would not be able to lease to a new food user if one of our current tenants moved out. We have a large financial investment in our properties, and we cannot understand why food service would be disallowed under the new regulations. Thank you for your consideration!
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 434 | February 28, 2019 at 5:02 pm
Property ID:
R023301012000062.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As a property owner and real estate developer, I take issue with the proposed zoning. Currently, my company controls a good bit of the real estate at the Azalea Road and Highway 90 intersection. We have several tenants in the food service industry. Under the newly proposed zoning, we would not be able to lease to a new food user if one of our current tenants moved out. We have a large financial investment in our properties, and we cannot understand why food service would be disallowed under the new regulations. Thank you for your consideration!
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 433 | February 28, 2019 at 5:01 pm
Property ID:
R023301013000010.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As a property owner and real estate developer, I take issue with the proposed zoning. Currently, my company controls a good bit of the real estate at the Azalea Road and Highway 90 intersection. We have several tenants in the food service industry. Under the newly proposed zoning, we would not be able to lease to a new food user if one of our current tenants moved out. We have a large financial investment in our properties, and we cannot understand why food service would be disallowed under the new regulations. Thank you for your consideration!
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 432 | February 28, 2019 at 4:59 pm
Property ID:
R023301024001052.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As a property owner and real estate developer, I take issue with the proposed zoning. Currently, my company controls a good bit of the real estate at the Azalea Road and Highway 90 intersection. We have several tenants in the food service industry. Under the newly proposed zoning, we would not be able to lease to a new food user if one of our current tenants moved out. We have a large financial investment in our properties, and we cannot understand why food service would be disallowed under the new regulations. Thank you for your consideration!
From:
Jeffrey H. May
jmay@gulfdirt.com
Entry: 431 | February 28, 2019 at 4:30 pm
Property ID:
R022807261000062.011.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This building is currently zoned B-3, UDC proposed DC. This is a down zoning and will tremendously affect the value and uses for the property. The building is 7,500 sf of which only 1,500 is heated and cooled and remaining 6,000 is un conditioned open warehouse storage with 20′ ceiling height. Needs to be at least UDC CW to maintain its current marketability.
From:
John Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 430 | February 28, 2019 at 4:25 pm
Property ID:
R022807261000062.003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Currently B-3, UDC proposed DC. This is a down zoning and will affect tremendously the value and uses for the building. The building is 12,500 sf of which 7,500 is office and 5,000 is un conditioned warehouse with some mezzanine storage. building needs to be at least CW to maintain its current marketability.
From:
John Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 429 | February 28, 2019 at 3:25 pm
Property ID:
R022910281003056.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Under current zoning this parcel and several surrounding parcels are zoned I-1, The new proposed zoning is CW-A. This is considered down zoning and can greatly affect the properties value and restricts tremendously the use it currently affords. The UDC has an IL zoning and I feel this would be the proper zoning assigned to this parcel.
From:
John Delchamps
john@merrillpthomasco.com
Entry: 428 | February 28, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Property ID:
R022910281004024.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I own this property where I have operated my business Southern Ornamental Security since 2000. I have a variance to operate as a I-1. you have a proposed zone as a CW. I would like it zoned 1-L. This property has rail access which makes this property valuable. The proposed zoning will devalue this property. I own 3 property which could all be used for the 1-L on Weinacker Ave
From:
Ray Carney
raycarney@bellsouth.net
Entry: 427 | February 28, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Property ID:
R022910281004051.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I own this property and I am presently using it for a new business I started called Carney Enterprises DBA The Plant Tree. You have the proposed zoning of CW . I will be using it as a 1L. this property is across the Street from another piece I own at 915 Weinacker Ave. which is presently zone I-1. which want to change as a CW. I also own the property at 560 Weinacker Ave. which you want to change to a CW. This property has been used as a I-1 for over 19 years with a variance. this was my company Southern Ornamental Security. Would like all 3 properties zoned 1L.
From:
Ray Carney
raycarney@bellsouth.net
Entry: 426 | February 28, 2019 at 1:37 pm
Property ID:
R023306142000056.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
4718 Halls Mill Road is currently zoned B-3, which is appropriate for the historic uses of the property. However, being sandwiched in between residential and light industrial classifications and situated on a commerial/industial corridor, a designation of CW-Commerical Warehouse would be more appropriate.
Adjacent properties zoned Light Industrial should all be designated similarly.
From:
Ruffin Graham
ruffin@rjgrealestate.com
Entry: 424 | February 28, 2019 at 12:52 pm
Property ID:
R022910281003056.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
thid
this property I own has always been zoned I-1 if you rezone it CW it will greatly reduce the value of the property and what I bought it for.
I am presently working with someone who is interested in leasing with the option to buy. This could kill the deal.
From:
Ray Carney
raycarney@bellsouth.net
Entry: 423 | February 28, 2019 at 12:23 pm
Property ID:
R022910282004012.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I own the adjacent property at 467 Houston st as well as this property and it has always been commercial that is why I bought it. That way it could be used as a office are shop. All the adjacent property on that side of the street is commercial.
From:
Ray Carney
raycarney@bellsouth.net
Entry: 420 | February 27, 2019 at 4:15 pm
Property ID:
R022802102001043.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I have several options right now on this piece of property, one of which is a storage facility and have already spent money of several studies as to the best use/lay out for this facility based on the current zoning. Can this please be zoned CM-A, not CM-B if possible.
From:
william (Billy) cox
billy@ionsouth.com
Entry: 419 | February 27, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Property ID:
R022706130000041.002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property and this entire subdivision is currently zoned B-3. Most buildings in the subdivision are office/warehouse buildings. At a minimum the zoning category should be CW but IL would be more appropriate. There is a need for an IL subdivision in west Mobile.
Please change the zoning category on this property to IL and the FLUM category to IL also.
I am the managing partner of Airway Investments, an Alabama General Partnership.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 418 | February 27, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Property ID:
R023301014000001.18
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is currently zoned I-1. We believe that the proposed zoning category of IL is the appropriate zoning for this property. The proposed FLUM category of IL is also appropriate. I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
The entire subdivision has an I-1 Zoning and should be zoned I-1.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 417 | February 27, 2019 at 11:59 am
Property ID:
R023301014000001.07
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We believe that the proposed zoning category of CW is the correct zoning for this property. I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 416 | February 27, 2019 at 11:54 am
Property ID:
R023306142000053.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is currently zoned I-1. The property has been occupied for the past ten years by Delta Stone, a granite stone shop. The proposed zoning category of CM is totally inappropriate. The building is a 6,000 square foot office/warehouse. Warehouse uses are only conditional uses. There are very few business that fall within the uses allowed in a CM category that would ever choose to located in a building of this nature and in this location.
This property should be placed in the CW or IL category and the FLUM category should also be CW or IL.
Please reconsider the proposed zoning category.
I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 415 | February 27, 2019 at 11:19 am
Property ID:
R023307400007023.008.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I prefer light industrial zoning
From:
Entry: 414 | February 27, 2019 at 11:18 am
Property ID:
R023307400007022.012.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I prefer light industrial zoning
From:
Entry: 413 | February 27, 2019 at 10:29 am
Property ID:
R022807390003080.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I believe the proposed zoning category and the FLUM category for this property and this subdivision are correct. I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 412 | February 27, 2019 at 10:29 am
Property ID:
R022807390003037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I believe the proposed zoning category and the FLUM category for this property and this subdivision are correct. I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 411 | February 27, 2019 at 10:27 am
Property ID:
R022909292000131.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I believe the proposed zoning category and the FLUM category for this property and this subdivision are correct. I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 410 | February 27, 2019 at 10:27 am
Property ID:
R022909292000131.01
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I believe the proposed zoning category and the FLUM category for this property and this subdivision are correct. I am the property manager and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 409 | February 27, 2019 at 10:23 am
Property ID:
R022903073000005.05
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We believe that the proposed zoning category and FLUM category for this property are correct. I am the listing agent and speak for the owner.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 408 | February 27, 2019 at 10:22 am
Property ID:
R022903072000014.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The owners of this property believe that the proposed zoning category and FLUM category are correct. I am the listing agent for the property and speak for the owners.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 407 | February 27, 2019 at 10:20 am
Property ID:
R022903073000005.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I believe the proposed zoning category and FLUM category for this property is correct.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 406 | February 27, 2019 at 10:16 am
Property ID:
R022903073000005.06
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We Believe that the proposed zoning category and FLUM category for this property is the correct. The owner of this property is CDS, LLC. I am the property manager and speak for the owners.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 405 | February 27, 2019 at 10:14 am
Property ID:
R022208440019002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is to the east of another property that I own. It has proposed LI to the west and HI to the north. South is a power line easement and south of that is residential. The chances of someone risking their capital under TC zoning are practically nil. If you want to encourage development that creates jobs and adds to the tax base it should fall under the LI proposed zoning. Thank you
From:
Bob Collins
bayinc@bellsouth.net
Entry: 404 | February 27, 2019 at 10:13 am
Property ID:
R022807254000007.03
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I failed to mention in my previous email that the FLUM category for this property should also be CW or IL.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 403 | February 27, 2019 at 10:12 am
Property ID:
R022807254000007.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I failed to mention in my previous email that the FLUM category for this property should also be CW or IL.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 402 | February 27, 2019 at 10:08 am
Property ID:
R022807254000007.03
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel contains 1 building, a 16,400 square foot multi-tenant office/warehouse. The property is currently zoned I-1.
The more appropriate zoning for this parcel would be CW or IL which would allow for both warehouse uses.
The proposed use category is DC which would mean that the building on the site could not be used. Warehouse uses do not even appear as a conditional use in the DC Category. This property will never have any retail value and from a market stand point would only be used by two or three of the permitted uses that are allowed in the DC category.
The entire West I-65 Service Road area from Cottage Hill Road north to Southeastern Salvage and west to Hutson Drive should be zoned CW or IL. Most of the business in that area are currently B-3 or I-1 uses. Almost none of the permitted uses in the DC Category would choose to located on Hutson Drive. This area would eventually become deserted if the use category remains DC.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 401 | February 27, 2019 at 10:07 am
Property ID:
R022208440012007.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is east of LI proposed zoning and south of HI proposed zoning. There is a utility easement(powerline) to the south with residential south of it. The location is not favorable for TC investments. It should be zoned LI in order to create jobs and contribute to the tax base. If this zoning stands, you have basically rendered my property worthless.
From:
Bob Collins
bayinc@bellsouth.net
Entry: 400 | February 27, 2019 at 9:53 am
Property ID:
R022807254000007.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel contains 5 buildings, two of which are retail in nature, and two that are office/warehouse facilities and the fifth is a small mini-warehouse facility consisting of 15 units. This property is currently zoned I-1.
The more appropriate zoning for this parcel would be CW which would allow for both office, retail and warehouse uses.
The proposed use category is DC which would mean that three of the five buildings on the site could not be used. Warehouse uses do not even appear as a conditional use in the DC Category.
The entire West I-65 Service Road area from Cottage Hill Road north to Southeastern Salvage and west to Hutson Drive should be zoned CW or IL. Most of the business in that area are currently B-3 or I-1 uses. Almost none of the permitted uses in the DC Category would choose to located on Hutson Drive. This area would eventually become deserted.
From:
Joseph G. Betbeze, Jr.
JoeyBetbeze@BetbezeRealty.com
Entry: 399 | February 26, 2019 at 9:20 pm
Property ID:
R022807261000062.011.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I own this additional property and feel any change of my zoning to DC from B-3 will devalue my property. Additionally I feel it is the city’s responsibility to notify property owners of any proposed changes that would affect the zoning and use of property, I have NOT been notified of these proposed changes and feel if the new UDC is to be implemented my property should be more aligned with the CW code. I may be reached on my cell at 251-209-7836
From:
Larry Emrich
emrichl@bellsouth.net
Entry: 398 | February 26, 2019 at 9:12 pm
Property ID:
R022807261000062.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I just found out about this proposed change to the zoning of my properties I own on Downtowner Loop S. Both Buildings contain office and warehouse space and it appears the property may be changed to a more restrictive DC from my current zoning of B-3. I feel this change will greatly devalue my property and it should be more closely zoned to the new code of CW which better fits why I invested in the cost of building within the City.
Additionally, as a property owner I find it very disturbing that I have not been notified of these proposed changes and certainly want to become a part of any future hearings or decisions that are to be made regarding my buildings
From:
Larry Emrich
emrichl@bellsouth.net
Entry: 396 | February 26, 2019 at 3:33 pm
Property ID:
R022807261000018.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am not in agreement with the proposed zoning change. This is an office complex.
From:
Entry: 390 | February 25, 2019 at 6:47 pm
Property ID:
R022808283000069.013.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the agent for the owner. We feel strongly that the property should continue to be used as a restaurant with a drive through.
From:
Brent Cumbest
brent@millingre.com
Entry: 389 | February 25, 2019 at 6:24 pm
Property ID:
R022706244000045.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I think the the zoning of DC on this property is appropriate. We have potential office and retail users.
From:
Brent Cumbest
brent@millingre.com
Entry: 381 | February 22, 2019 at 3:10 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000027.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
These comments are being made relative to the following parcels owned by Montcliff, Ltd.:
28 07 36 2 000 067.008
28 07 36 2 000 067.02X
28 07 36 2 000 066.XXX
We request that our property zoning under the Map for Mobile rezoning process be changed to CW—Commercial Warehouse—for the reasons outlined below.
After acquiring the property in 1991, the Mobile City Council agreed to rezone it to B-3, a classification which would accommodate warehouses, office/warehouses, or apartments. Approximately 12 years ago, a PUD that contemplated an office/warehouse development was approved by the Mobile Planning Commission. The PUD approval was subsequently extended. Unfortunately, development plans were placed on hold as a result of the 2008-09 financial crisis. However, at no time did we cease our efforts to market the property either for sale or as a possible opportunity for a build-to-suit development—a type of investment in which a tenant specifies a particular property type and size and a developer agrees to build and own it, while leasing the improved property back to the tenant. Additionally, we have also marketed the property for sale as a potential apartment development site. In fact, we have had the property under contract in the past for exactly such a purpose, the most recent occasion being in late 2016.
The ‘Map for Mobile rezoning process’ proposes to down-zone our property to permit only single-family residential development. We find this not only curious, but ill-informed, as there is no market for new single-family residential in the immediate area surrounding our property. In fact, except for a cluster of quite old single-family development to the west (40+ years old), no residential exists; typical uses for surrounding properties are pawn shops, used car dealers, boat dealers, industrial equipment dealers, carpet warehouses, bars, mini-storage facilities, office/warehouses, distribution centers, service stations, and other types of commercial uses. Should the proposed single-family residential rezoning occur, the potential economic loss to us will be substantial. The potential economic loss to the city will also be substantial and more importantly, irreversible.
Consider that our property is approximately 21 acres. After deducting 5 acres or so for the necessary developed streets, utilities and drainage systems, using the city’s minimum single-family lot size of 7,200 square feet, the remaining 16 acres would yield approximately 100 lots. According to the University of South Alabama’s Center for Real Estate and Economic Development, the average sales price of all new single-family homes sold in 2018 in Mobile was $226,600. We have absolutely no reason to believe that new single-family homes built on our property would sell for anywhere near this amount. In fact, given the commercial uses and population demographics of the area surrounding our property, it is highly likely that values for any new homes built on our property would be substantially less than the 2018 new home average price.
However, for the sake of illustration, and not including any site development costs (i.e. streets, utilities, and drainage systems), assume the 2018 average new home sales price applies and that it includes 20% land and 80% improvements. This would mean the lots would have to be sold for $45,320 each and the improvements would cost $181,800 on average. This equates to total improvement costs at 100% buildout of $18.18 million dollars, and a total development cost of $22.67 million, including the lots. Applying the 10% residential property assessment rate and the applicable city millage rate of 7 mils, the total residential development value would produce annual property tax revenues to the City of Mobile of approximately $15,869. Again, we restate our strongest belief that new houses built on our property would sell for far, far less than the 2018 new home average sales price. If we are correct, then logically it follows that Mobile’s property tax revenues would be far, far less as well.
In contrast, were our property to be developed and fully-built out based on the previously-approved PUD design mentioned earlier, approximately 418,000 square feet of warehouse would be built. Again, ignoring the costs to develop streets, utilities, and drainage systems for the overall site, at an approximate building cost of $60 per square foot, warehouse buildings improvement costs would total $25.09 million. Using a $2.00 per square foot land sale price, the total development value would be approximately $26.47 million. Applying the 20% commercial property assessment rate and the applicable city millage rate of 7 mils, this amount would produce annual property tax revenues to the City of Mobile of approximately $37,064—134% more than the residential scenario illustrated above—and way more should homes sell for much less as we believe they would.
Continuing with the contrasting developments outlined above, changing our property’s zoning will also potentially result in less revenues, but greater expenses for the City of Mobile. Consider that the total linear footage of streets required to be built to accommodate 100 single-family homes would be approximately three times the total linear footage of streets built for the office/warehouse commercial development outlined above. The implications of course would be substantially higher future street maintenance costs. On the Map for Mobile’s website, the banner reads: “We’re implementing Map for Mobile, our community-wide plan for growth.” If as a result of the Map for Mobile’s rezoning, more properties than not result in decreased city revenues and increased city expenses, we will be interested to learn how Mobile’s leaders plan to pay for sustaining its future growth.
Respectfully,
Montcliff, Ltd. (Richard Weavil, Reid Cummings, David DeLaney)
From:
Reid Cummings
cummings@southalabama.edu
Entry: 380 | February 22, 2019 at 3:08 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.02
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
These comments are being made relative to the following parcels owned by Montcliff, Ltd.:
28 07 36 2 000 067.008
28 07 36 2 000 067.02X
28 07 36 2 000 066.XXX
We request that our property zoning under the Map for Mobile rezoning process be changed to CW—Commercial Warehouse—for the reasons outlined below.
After acquiring the property in 1991, the Mobile City Council agreed to rezone it to B-3, a classification which would accommodate warehouses, office/warehouses, or apartments. Approximately 12 years ago, a PUD that contemplated an office/warehouse development was approved by the Mobile Planning Commission. The PUD approval was subsequently extended. Unfortunately, development plans were placed on hold as a result of the 2008-09 financial crisis. However, at no time did we cease our efforts to market the property either for sale or as a possible opportunity for a build-to-suit development—a type of investment in which a tenant specifies a particular property type and size and a developer agrees to build and own it, while leasing the improved property back to the tenant. Additionally, we have also marketed the property for sale as a potential apartment development site. In fact, we have had the property under contract in the past for exactly such a purpose, the most recent occasion being in late 2016.
The ‘Map for Mobile rezoning process’ proposes to down-zone our property to permit only single-family residential development. We find this not only curious, but ill-informed, as there is no market for new single-family residential in the immediate area surrounding our property. In fact, except for a cluster of quite old single-family development to the west (40+ years old), no residential exists; typical uses for surrounding properties are pawn shops, used car dealers, boat dealers, industrial equipment dealers, carpet warehouses, bars, mini-storage facilities, office/warehouses, distribution centers, service stations, and other types of commercial uses. Should the proposed single-family residential rezoning occur, the potential economic loss to us will be substantial. The potential economic loss to the city will also be substantial and more importantly, irreversible.
Consider that our property is approximately 21 acres. After deducting 5 acres or so for the necessary developed streets, utilities and drainage systems, using the city’s minimum single-family lot size of 7,200 square feet, the remaining 16 acres would yield approximately 100 lots. According to the University of South Alabama’s Center for Real Estate and Economic Development, the average sales price of all new single-family homes sold in 2018 in Mobile was $226,600. We have absolutely no reason to believe that new single-family homes built on our property would sell for anywhere near this amount. In fact, given the commercial uses and population demographics of the area surrounding our property, it is highly likely that values for any new homes built on our property would be substantially less than the 2018 new home average price.
However, for the sake of illustration, and not including any site development costs (i.e. streets, utilities, and drainage systems), assume the 2018 average new home sales price applies and that it includes 20% land and 80% improvements. This would mean the lots would have to be sold for $45,320 each and the improvements would cost $181,800 on average. This equates to total improvement costs at 100% buildout of $18.18 million dollars, and a total development cost of $22.67 million, including the lots. Applying the 10% residential property assessment rate and the applicable city millage rate of 7 mils, the total residential development value would produce annual property tax revenues to the City of Mobile of approximately $15,869. Again, we restate our strongest belief that new houses built on our property would sell for far, far less than the 2018 new home average sales price. If we are correct, then logically it follows that Mobile’s property tax revenues would be far, far less as well.
In contrast, were our property to be developed and fully-built out based on the previously-approved PUD design mentioned earlier, approximately 418,000 square feet of warehouse would be built. Again, ignoring the costs to develop streets, utilities, and drainage systems for the overall site, at an approximate building cost of $60 per square foot, warehouse buildings improvement costs would total $25.09 million. Using a $2.00 per square foot land sale price, the total development value would be approximately $26.47 million. Applying the 20% commercial property assessment rate and the applicable city millage rate of 7 mils, this amount would produce annual property tax revenues to the City of Mobile of approximately $37,064—134% more than the residential scenario illustrated above—and way more should homes sell for much less as we believe they would.
Continuing with the contrasting developments outlined above, changing our property’s zoning will also potentially result in less revenues, but greater expenses for the City of Mobile. Consider that the total linear footage of streets required to be built to accommodate 100 single-family homes would be approximately three times the total linear footage of streets built for the office/warehouse commercial development outlined above. The implications of course would be substantially higher future street maintenance costs. On the Map for Mobile’s website, the banner reads: “We’re implementing Map for Mobile, our community-wide plan for growth.” If as a result of the Map for Mobile’s rezoning, more properties than not result in decreased city revenues and increased city expenses, we will be interested to learn how Mobile’s leaders plan to pay for sustaining its future growth.
Respectfully,
Montcliff, Ltd. (Richard Weavil, Reid Cummings, David DeLaney)
From:
Reid Cummings
cummings@southalabama.edu
Entry: 379 | February 22, 2019 at 3:07 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000066.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
These comments are being made relative to the following parcels owned by Montcliff, Ltd.:
28 07 36 2 000 067.008
28 07 36 2 000 067.02X
28 07 36 2 000 066.XXX
We request that our property zoning under the Map for Mobile rezoning process be changed to CW—Commercial Warehouse—for the reasons outlined below.
After acquiring the property in 1991, the Mobile City Council agreed to rezone it to B-3, a classification which would accommodate warehouses, office/warehouses, or apartments. Approximately 12 years ago, a PUD that contemplated an office/warehouse development was approved by the Mobile Planning Commission. The PUD approval was subsequently extended. Unfortunately, development plans were placed on hold as a result of the 2008-09 financial crisis. However, at no time did we cease our efforts to market the property either for sale or as a possible opportunity for a build-to-suit development—a type of investment in which a tenant specifies a particular property type and size and a developer agrees to build and own it, while leasing the improved property back to the tenant. Additionally, we have also marketed the property for sale as a potential apartment development site. In fact, we have had the property under contract in the past for exactly such a purpose, the most recent occasion being in late 2016.
The ‘Map for Mobile rezoning process’ proposes to down-zone our property to permit only single-family residential development. We find this not only curious, but ill-informed, as there is no market for new single-family residential in the immediate area surrounding our property. In fact, except for a cluster of quite old single-family development to the west (40+ years old), no residential exists; typical uses for surrounding properties are pawn shops, used car dealers, boat dealers, industrial equipment dealers, carpet warehouses, bars, mini-storage facilities, office/warehouses, distribution centers, service stations, and other types of commercial uses. Should the proposed single-family residential rezoning occur, the potential economic loss to us will be substantial. The potential economic loss to the city will also be substantial and more importantly, irreversible.
Consider that our property is approximately 21 acres. After deducting 5 acres or so for the necessary developed streets, utilities and drainage systems, using the city’s minimum single-family lot size of 7,200 square feet, the remaining 16 acres would yield approximately 100 lots. According to the University of South Alabama’s Center for Real Estate and Economic Development, the average sales price of all new single-family homes sold in 2018 in Mobile was $226,600. We have absolutely no reason to believe that new single-family homes built on our property would sell for anywhere near this amount. In fact, given the commercial uses and population demographics of the area surrounding our property, it is highly likely that values for any new homes built on our property would be substantially less than the 2018 new home average price.
However, for the sake of illustration, and not including any site development costs (i.e. streets, utilities, and drainage systems), assume the 2018 average new home sales price applies and that it includes 20% land and 80% improvements. This would mean the lots would have to be sold for $45,320 each and the improvements would cost $181,800 on average. This equates to total improvement costs at 100% buildout of $18.18 million dollars, and a total development cost of $22.67 million, including the lots. Applying the 10% residential property assessment rate and the applicable city millage rate of 7 mils, the total residential development value would produce annual property tax revenues to the City of Mobile of approximately $15,869. Again, we restate our strongest belief that new houses built on our property would sell for far, far less than the 2018 new home average sales price. If we are correct, then logically it follows that Mobile’s property tax revenues would be far, far less as well.
In contrast, were our property to be developed and fully-built out based on the previously-approved PUD design mentioned earlier, approximately 418,000 square feet of warehouse would be built. Again, ignoring the costs to develop streets, utilities, and drainage systems for the overall site, at an approximate building cost of $60 per square foot, warehouse buildings improvement costs would total $25.09 million. Using a $2.00 per square foot land sale price, the total development value would be approximately $26.47 million. Applying the 20% commercial property assessment rate and the applicable city millage rate of 7 mils, this amount would produce annual property tax revenues to the City of Mobile of approximately $37,064—134% more than the residential scenario illustrated above—and way more should homes sell for much less as we believe they would.
Continuing with the contrasting developments outlined above, changing our property’s zoning will also potentially result in less revenues, but greater expenses for the City of Mobile. Consider that the total linear footage of streets required to be built to accommodate 100 single-family homes would be approximately three times the total linear footage of streets built for the office/warehouse commercial development outlined above. The implications of course would be substantially higher future street maintenance costs. On the Map for Mobile’s website, the banner reads: “We’re implementing Map for Mobile, our community-wide plan for growth.” If as a result of the Map for Mobile’s rezoning, more properties than not result in decreased city revenues and increased city expenses, we will be interested to learn how Mobile’s leaders plan to pay for sustaining its future growth.
Respectfully,
Montcliff, Ltd. (Richard Weavil, Reid Cummings, David DeLaney)
From:
Reid Cummings
cummings@southalabama.edu
Entry: 376 | February 22, 2019 at 12:46 pm
Property ID:
R022901000007001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
The majority of the area East of the Cochrane Causeway on Blakeley Island is dredge spoil disposal area. This use type is not likely to ever change. This area is also proposed to be zoned ML. “Dredged Material Management Facility” is a prohibited use in this zone. I suggest that either this area be re-zoned to a district that allows this use, or this zone is revised to allow this use.
From:
Casey Pipes
Entry: 375 | February 22, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Property ID:
R022806233000048.001.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
Why is this entire intersection not zoned DC? It seems to have a broader draw to its tenant offerings than just the local neighborhood. Whole Foods, Fresh Market, Zoes, etc do not exist elsewhere in Mobile.
From:
Entry: 373 | February 22, 2019 at 8:41 am
Property ID:
R022903074001004.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The definition of General Manufacturing must include various techniques and processes. For example, we weld both steel and aluminum pipe frames. We sew. We use equipment to join different types of plastic to create an seamless bond. We paint. We screen print. Will we be allowed to continue operating as we do now?
From:
Ken Robinson
ken@etpinfo.com
Entry: 371 | February 22, 2019 at 12:09 am
Property ID:
R023307263000007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This part of Todd Acres Dr is ALL Light Industry uses and always has been. There are no warehouse users here. This is a wrong zoning here
From:
Pete Riehm
priehm@nai-mobile.com
Entry: 370 | February 22, 2019 at 12:07 am
Property ID:
R023307263000002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
3904 Camellia Dr
From:
Pete Riehm
priehm@nai-mobile.com
Entry: 369 | February 22, 2019 at 12:01 am
Property ID:
R023308331000036.04
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
As long as the new Light Industry zoning is the same as the old I1, this is OK.
From:
Pete Riehm
priehm@nai-mobile.com
Entry: 368 | February 21, 2019 at 7:50 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001069.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
If The City is not going to allow for commercial development on other properties, then a 10 foot concrete barrier wall should be constructed between our property and along Dogwood Dr. According to CVS, the City has only required a 6 ft wooden fence between our properties. Little compensation since our property is 2 ft higher in some places. Further, the City has allowed CVS to have an entrance/exit onto Dogwood Dr, a residential street. If other properties are not to be allowed to develop, this entrance/exit should only be to University Blvd. We all suffer enough without having the increased traffic on our street.
From:
Nancy Doolittle
pantsyd@gmail.com
Entry: 367 | February 21, 2019 at 7:41 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001069.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The City allowed CVS to all but devoid the approximately 3.5 acres next to our property of trees, including some 100+ year old live oaks, in construction of a CVS. This has destroyed of our way of life, health and property values. Our once private sanctuary in our back yard is now open to everyone that passes Airport and University Blvds (the busiest intersection in the State of Alabama according to State Farm Insurance) Our yard, once protected by the trees, is now blown by wind to the point that we have had damage to plants and other items in our yard. We have withstood hurricanes with less damage than we have had since this development began. We accepted this development with the understanding that the City was to rezone the neighborhood and allow Commercial development for all our properties. With The City now looking to retract the very reason we and our neighbors accepted the CVS, we are stuck with devalued property and the stress of living next door to this development. How does the City intend to compensate us for our loss in property values, health and basic way of life?
From:
Nancy Doolittle
pantsyd@gmail.com
Entry: 366 | February 21, 2019 at 7:36 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001069.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The City allowed CVS to all but devoid the approximately 3.5 acres next to our property of trees, including some 100+ year old live oaks, in construction of a CVS. This has destroyed of our way of life, health and property values. Our once private sanctuary in our back yard is now open to everyone that passes Airport and University Blvds (the busiest intersection in the State of Alabama according to State Farm Insurance) Our yard, once protected by the trees, is now blown by wind to the point that we have had damage to plants and other items in our yard. We have withstood hurricanes with less damage than we have had since this development began. We accepted this development with the understanding that the City was to rezone the neighborhood and allow Commercial development for all our properties. With The City now looking to retract the very reason we and our neighbors accepted the CVS, we are stuck with devalued property and the stress of living next door to this development. How does the City intend to compensate us for our loss in property values, health and basic way of life?
From:
Nancy Doolittle
pantsyd@gmail.com
Entry: 365 | February 21, 2019 at 4:30 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001069.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Its unconscionable for the City to spot zone the corner of Airport and University and allow the total destruction of 3.5 acres of a well established, beautifully wooded neighborhood using the misdirection of changing the zoning and promoting development along the length of University Boulevard and now do a 180 degree spin and proposed the remaining lots stay low density residential under this latest proposal.
Everyone involved should be removed from the decision making process.
From:
David Doolittle
Captaind353@gmail.com
Entry: 364 | February 21, 2019 at 10:00 am
Property ID:
R022807390004061.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
We have owned this property for over twenty years. All of this time, it has been used as a warehouse and distribution center. The building is constructed for warehouse use not retail. It is also set back off of the roadway with virtually no visibility to the passing traffic. It would be useless as a retail site and that would make it impossible to lease to retailers. This poses an extreme hardship on the owners. Please consider an exemption for this property to remain a commercial warehouse. Thank you.
Robert Arendall, Jr.
From:
ROBERT a ARENDALL
raajr@hotmail.com
Entry: 362 | February 20, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Property ID:
R022910272001017.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Please be vigilant against developers trying to erode the protections for our historic districts, including: inappropriate business types, inappropriate building design, multi-family development in less-than-4 family areas.
From:
Graham
grahamjones@email.com
Entry: 359 | February 20, 2019 at 1:25 pm
Property ID:
R022807390004061.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
My name is Danny McAleer, I am an owner of 3675 Government Blvd. This building is a dock high warehouse (and has been for over 30 years). If the zoning is changed to Cm (mixed use) the building will soon be vacant and renovations to change the building to Cm will be un-workable and un-affordable. The building will then remain vacant and we will be unable to pay property taxes. As a warehouse, the building has been an asset to my family AND the City of Mobile for over 30 years. Please don’t fix what ain’t broke.
From:
Danny Mc
Entry: 358 | February 20, 2019 at 12:24 pm
Property ID:
R022808283000069.013.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I am the real estate agent representing the owner. The proposed zoning will have a devastating affect on the value of the property. It has been used as a restaurant for over 20 years and is currently being marketed as a restaurant, which is the highest and best use.
Thank you,
From:
Brent Cumbest
brent@millingre.com
Entry: 357 | February 20, 2019 at 9:12 am
Property ID:
R022807390004061.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
we need to change the zoning for this building from CM to CW. this building is not on Hwy 90. it only has a 25′ drive on Hwy 90. its topography places the building down hill from Hwy 90 and it is 300 ‘ from the road. It is hidden behind 2 buildings facing hwy 90. WE don’t have any residential property around us and we back up to woods. All the buildings on the I65 service road south of us except the church back up to the same wooded area and are zoned CW.
The building is built out as an all dock high building for warehouse distribution and other B3 type uses. going cm makes the building unusable. When the Current tenants vacate it will be nearly impossible to lease out the vacancies because the building is not compatible with retail type uses mostly allowed in the cm district.
the buildings has to have most of the uses listed in cw especially in the sections for manufacturing, employment and in warehousing, storage and distribution allowed in CW. Without these uses this building is most likely to be a vacant abandoned building
I would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and show you in person the problems that will be caused if this zoning isn’t changed to CW. I have other owners involved in this property. can you please call me as soon as possible at 251-422-3336 and let me know how this will be handled so I can report back to the other owners.
Thank you.
Mike McAleer
From:
Mike McAleer manager gov 65 joint venture
mike@mcaleertunstall.com
Entry: 355 | February 19, 2019 at 3:29 pm
Property ID:
R023204350006075.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
The proposed zoning would NOT allow this building to be used for the purpose which it was built for! This 30,000 sqft building was purposefully designed for a PODS Storage facility, Commercial and residential storage, this parcel needs to be classified in the new CW zone,
I will be happy to meet with anyone onsite to discuss what options might be available, thanks for taking a look
From:
Greg Marshall, 251-421-2401
gregmarshall@mindspring.com
Entry: 354 | February 19, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022808272002031.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
It is my family’s (Teaford Wittmann, Inc.) unified opinion that there are limited residential advantages or usages for this plot. It’s highest and best use would be to serve the immediate and surrounding community with commercial services and business access. We envision easily accessible medical or social service entities eventually occupying our property.
From:
Harry H Teaford
teaford@outlook.com
Entry: 353 | February 19, 2019 at 1:03 pm
Property ID:
R022808272001060.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I don’t understand how the 4 properties across the street from my property at 259 Dogwood Drive have been zoned to allow for a CVS to be constructed, and this property is considered residential. My property value as Residential will plummet, with no one in their right mind wanting to buy a residential lot facing this CVS. I should have the right, as my neighbors across the street to list this as a commercial property. It has little value moving forward as a residential property.
From:
Stephen Stokes
stephen.stokes24@gmail.com
Entry: 352 | February 19, 2019 at 12:11 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property should be zoned CW as should be property adjacent to the West and South. This would never be developed for residential purposes.
From:
Entry: 351 | February 19, 2019 at 12:10 pm
Property ID:
R022807362000067.011.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This property should be zoned CW as should be property adjacent to the West and North. This would never be developed for residential purposes.
From:
Entry: 348 | February 15, 2019 at 4:03 pm
Property ID:
R023302043000044.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
My company manages this property for the Marx marital trust. the multi tenant building at cottage hill and hillcrest has office uses such as real estate company home health care a credit union and insurance offices as well as some retail. A NCS zoning would do irreparable harm to this building. this multi use professional building has been a very well received facility in this area since it was built in the 1990’s. The types of uses are very prevalent all over this area of Cottage hill and HIllcrest and not allowing them would create a tremendous number of vacancies. As on line ordering replaces typical retail the flexibility to allow offices to use retail space is becoming extremely necessary in order to keep the buildings productive. this facility needs to be more in line with DC or many of the uses allowed in NCT or DC need to be allowed in NCS.
Thank you for your consideration . please let me know as soon as possible so I can report back to the trust.
if you would like to discuss this in greater detail I will be happy to meet at your convenience. my cell is 251-422-3336 or email mike@mcaleertunstall.com
From:
Mike McAleer
mike@mcaleertunstall.com
Entry: 347 | February 15, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002112.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This lot should be t5-1 to match every other lot on it’s block.
From:
Entry: 346 | February 15, 2019 at 3:01 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002111.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This property should be T5.1 to match it’s adjoining neighbors in this urban transition zone.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 345 | February 15, 2019 at 2:59 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002225.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This parcel is a prime site for a multistory mixed use parking deck to support Dauphin Street/CBD retail and hospitality interests. It should be categorized as T5-2 to allow for the appropriate utilization of that function, and, to match the properties across the street from it.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 344 | February 15, 2019 at 11:57 am
Property ID:
R022906400010320.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This lot is right off of the Government/Broad intersection and directly across the street from a grocery store parking lot and box crusher. It will never be single family residential and It’s classification should match it’s next door and across the street neighbors and be T5.1
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 343 | February 15, 2019 at 11:57 am
Property ID:
R022906400010321.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This lot is right off of the Government/Broad intersection and directly across the street from a grocery store parking lot and box crusher. It will never be single family residential and It’s classification should match it’s next door and across the street neighbors and be T5.1
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 342 | February 15, 2019 at 11:56 am
Property ID:
R022906400010322.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
This lot is right off of the Government/Broad intersection and directly across the street from a grocery store parking lot and box crusher. It will never be single family residential and It’s classification should match it’s next door and across the street neighbors and be T5.1
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 341 | February 15, 2019 at 11:28 am
Property ID:
R022911360002063.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This tract, as well as all of the tracts surrounding it, is far too small to support any viable commercial warehousing, even if they were aggregated, which is highly unlikely due to the nature of the owning entities. This parcel, and those surrounding, would be much more appropriately zoned Light Industry to allow for small office/warehouses, it’s natural constituency.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 340 | February 15, 2019 at 11:28 am
Property ID:
R022911360002064.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This tract, as well as all of the tracts surrounding it, is far too small to support any viable commercial warehousing, even if they were aggregated, which is highly unlikely due to the nature of the owning entities. This parcel, and those surrounding, would be much more appropriately zoned Light Industry to allow for small office/warehouses, it’s natural constituency.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 339 | February 15, 2019 at 11:17 am
Property ID:
R022906400010265.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is a pre-existing multi-tenant, office/warehouse property which has housed B-3 uses for over 60 years. It abuts a cemetery and a brewery. It should have a T5.1 classification.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 338 | February 15, 2019 at 11:03 am
Property ID:
R023306231000001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 337 | February 15, 2019 at 11:02 am
Property ID:
R023306234000064.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 336 | February 15, 2019 at 11:01 am
Property ID:
R023306234000064.006.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 335 | February 15, 2019 at 11:01 am
Property ID:
R023306234000064.003.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 334 | February 15, 2019 at 11:00 am
Property ID:
R023306233000001.001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 333 | February 15, 2019 at 10:59 am
Property ID:
R023306232000002.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 332 | February 15, 2019 at 10:59 am
Property ID:
R023306232000001.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 331 | February 15, 2019 at 10:58 am
Property ID:
R023306231000001.008.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This is listed to be zoned for commercial warehouse space, and that is one potential use, but that is unreasonably limiting. This property, due to it’s location in the Rangeline Road interchange, with rail service, should have a more general description as “light industrial” which will allow for other inherent uses natural to the location and existing infrastructure of this property.
From:
John Peebles
jpeebles@NAI-Mobile.com
Entry: 330 | February 15, 2019 at 4:37 am
Property ID:
R022808282000072.29
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is currently Multi family and should remain as it is currently zoned.
From:
Entry: 329 | February 14, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Property ID:
R023212400004004.
Relationship to property:
Community Area Organization
Comment:
As we understand the proposed Maritime Mixed Use, we support this location of a cluster of parcels for this light maritime use.
From:
Debi Foster
thepeninsulaofmobile@gmail.com
Entry: 328 | February 14, 2019 at 10:46 am
Property ID:
R022908193003092.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
I am the agent representing this property for sale. It is in an opportunity zone. My concern is that the opportunity zone timeline is tight and the new development requirements will extend the time for the city to approve new development. The risk for an opportunity zone investor to lose the tax advantage could certainly kill a deal. A 1031 exchange would be less risk, but provide little development incentive.
From:
Marietta Urquhart
marietta@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 327 | February 14, 2019 at 10:04 am
Property ID:
R022908191001008.000.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
Marietta@white-spunnerrealty.com
I am representing the owner as agent for sale of this property. It is a
condominium association. How will these be handled in the future? How will new construction condominiums be handled in the future?
From:
Marietta Urquhart
marietta@white-spunnerrealty.com
Entry: 326 | February 14, 2019 at 9:43 am
Property ID:
R022903074003045.02
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property should remain an intensive light industrial and warehouse zoning.
From:
Madeleine Downing
mdowning@gclyon.com
Entry: 325 | February 14, 2019 at 9:36 am
Property ID:
R022909301000037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
A wide range of retail and office uses should be permitted at this location.
From:
Madeleine Downing
mdowning@gclyon.com
Entry: 323 | February 8, 2019 at 4:05 pm
Property ID:
R022910282002100.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property is Zoned B-3 Sept 1985. Key #988435, 505 Holcombe Ave. Mobile 36606
From:
Edsel Wayne McAhren
masterprinting@bellsouth.net
Entry: 319 | January 31, 2019 at 10:53 am
Property ID:
R022805211000020.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Why would you zone this piece low density residential when it is surrounded already by high density residentially zoned properties? It is less than 1/4 mile to the USA main campus and its highest and best use would be for student housing of some kind.
From:
Kevin Carter
kevin@kevincarterrealty.com
Entry: 318 | January 31, 2019 at 9:22 am
Property ID:
R022909301000037.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Property owner wants office or retail permitted at this location (301 S. Sage Ave).
From:
Madeleine Downing
mdowning@gclyon.com
Entry: 317 | January 30, 2019 at 11:04 am
Property ID:
R022907250006051.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
This property has been under a use variance and used for my office for 40 years. The property adjacent to the west is an office building and to the west of that a parking lot for McGill. The adjacent property to the East is a lawyers office and proposed under the Map to be zoned CT. Actually all four properties from the lawyers office to the parking lot at the corner of Lafayette and Dauphin are B-1 uses. Through the years I have been approached by over 20 different users that wanted to purchase my property for office use. I request that my property also be zoned CT just as my neighbor to the east.
Thank you.
From:
Richard Weavil
sanssocs@aol.com
Entry: 316 | January 29, 2019 at 12:23 pm
Property ID:
R022910223001028.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Down zone Government St. from Broad to memorial park to residential multi unit. Leave residential single family the way it is. Let Broad St be the heart of all the businesses. Of course you would have to grandfather existing businesses on Government.
From:
Timothy M lloyd
timlloyd123@msn.com
Entry: 315 | January 28, 2019 at 5:13 pm
Property ID:
R022910282001040.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I do not foresee any better opportunity than this one, to finally and accurately, match up the zoning with the actual structure on this property. This property has been in limbo between 2 identities. Structurally, it is a 4 plex, however, it is zoned as a single-family. It can finally be corrected, and renovations can begin.
From:
keith knizley
keith.knizley@arcelormittal.com
Entry: 314 | January 28, 2019 at 9:41 am
Property ID:
R023212400004003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Proposed zoning district does not match current B-3 zoning or historical use. The property should be zoned CW to avoid down-zoning to more restrictive use.
From:
Lewis H. Golden
lewis@hamiltonpropertyco.com
Entry: 313 | January 25, 2019 at 9:44 am
Property ID:
R022909301000245.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Why is this property allowed to have a garage that services large trucks and motorcycles on the property when it creates loud noise for the rest of the community.
From:
Entry: 312 | January 25, 2019 at 8:15 am
Property ID:
R022906400003261.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
rezone the entire wh district to NCT
From:
Entry: 311 | January 25, 2019 at 8:13 am
Property ID:
R022906400003285.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Please rezone to NCT with 160 foot height limit. Provide shady street tree canopy. No 6 foot security fence allowed within 20 feet of sidewalk and must be hidden by shrubbery and trees.
From:
Entry: 310 | January 25, 2019 at 6:54 am
Property ID:
R022909510010114.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I believe the property located at 2611 and 2615 halls mill road should be included within the CW / CW-A zoning category. It is adjacent to and across the street from CW / CW-A and would “square up” the zone boundary
From:
gerald byrd
jerry@byrdsurveying.biz
Entry: 309 | January 24, 2019 at 6:25 pm
Property ID:
R022910282001040.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
I think this is a great opportunity to align the zoning of the this property, to the designated purpose of the house. 259 Cherokee is set up as a multifamily unit, but cannot be used as such, due to its current R1 rating. It was last used(prior to vacancy) as a multifamily. There is plenty of parking space behind the house , so street parking would not be an issue. Renovating this property would significantly improve the value of the neighborhood, as this property would be well managed similar to the other multifamily unit directly across the street. Please take the time to look at this property, and you will see that it is a multifamily unit. As the housing shortage is becoming a bigger issue in Mobile, this would be a much more efficient use of this of this property, rather than a 3000 sq ft single family home in the loop area. I have owned this property for 3 months and have not been able to repair it, sell it, or trade it. I currently have the all the necessary funds to complete this renovation project. I simply need this multifamily unit to be zoned correctly.
From:
keith knizley
keith.knizley@arcelormittal.com
Entry: 308 | January 24, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Property ID:
R022906400011244.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 307 | January 24, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Property ID:
R022906400010426.03
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 306 | January 24, 2019 at 4:21 pm
Property ID:
R022906120004002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 305 | January 24, 2019 at 4:20 pm
Property ID:
R022906400002039.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 304 | January 24, 2019 at 4:19 pm
Property ID:
R022906120004006.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 303 | January 24, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Property ID:
R022906400011027.002.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 302 | January 24, 2019 at 4:17 pm
Property ID:
R022906400003301.000.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 301 | January 24, 2019 at 4:16 pm
Property ID:
R022906400010095.01
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Mandatory large shade trees in all ROWs regardless of “infrastructure”.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 300 | January 24, 2019 at 4:15 pm
Property ID:
R022906400003285.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
Make shade trees mandatory in the street right of way to make the area walkable
From:
Timothy M lloyd
timlloyd123@msn.com
Entry: 299 | January 24, 2019 at 3:40 pm
Property ID:
R022906130001001.001.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This property was part of a manufactured gas plant site, owned and operated by Mobile Gas (Spire Gulf) and its predecessors. It has been the subject of an environmental remediation supervised by ADEM and cannot be developed for residential use or otherwise and must remain passive greenspace.
From:
edgar.downing@spireenergy.com
Entry: 298 | January 24, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Property ID:
R022906130001009.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
This property is the site of the former manufactured gas plant owned and operated by Mobile Gas (Spire Gulf) and its predecessors. It has been the subject of an environmental remediation approved by ADEM. It cannot be developed and must remain passive green-space.
From:
edowning@spireenergy.com
Entry: 297 | January 24, 2019 at 2:56 pm
Property ID:
R022906400003285.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
rezone from wh to mixed use residential, retail, bus. Please no more security fences!! It gives people the false impression this is a high crime area. According to the latest statistics it is one of the lowest in the entire city.
From:
Timothy M lloyd
timlloyd123@msn.com
Entry: 296 | January 24, 2019 at 2:55 pm
Property ID:
R022906120004007.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
No more dumpsters allowed in fields. The entrance to historic Detonti Square is marred by a huge bright blue dumpster overflowing with trash. It’s a disgrace! The lots needs to be cleaned up by its owner or sold to the highest bidder.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 295 | January 24, 2019 at 2:53 pm
Property ID:
R022906400003014.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I would like to see the residential lots separated from the school and rezoned as residential or business.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 294 | January 24, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Property ID:
R022906120001023.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Would like this rezoned to multi-use residential and business.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 293 | January 24, 2019 at 2:50 pm
Property ID:
R022906400003309.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Would like this rezoned to multi-use residential and business.
This is no longer mostly warehouses I don’t believe.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 292 | January 24, 2019 at 2:49 pm
Property ID:
R022906400012005.
Relationship to property:
Comment:
Would like this rezoned to multi-use residential and business.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 291 | January 24, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Property ID:
R022906400012008.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Would like this rezoned to multi-use residential and business.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 290 | January 24, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022906120004001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
I would like to see this rezoned for muti use residential, retail and business from St Francis to Beauregard. It is underutilized with temporary storage for the port and could be a muti million dollar waterfront mixed use development. At the very least I would like to request a feasibility study. I think there is potential for creating a huge tax base in this area.
From:
Timothy M Lloyd
timlloyd123@msn.com
Entry: 289 | January 24, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Property ID:
R022906400001001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Would like this rezoned as multi-use residential and business.
From:
JIM GILBERT
jim188@hotmail.com
Entry: 288 | January 22, 2019 at 8:50 pm
Property ID:
R022907240001115.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel would be great for RMF-A, particularly as it has proximity to 3 Mile Creek.
From:
Entry: 287 | January 22, 2019 at 8:50 pm
Property ID:
R022801114000081.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel would be great for RMF-A, particularly as it has proximity to 3 Mile Creek.
From:
Entry: 286 | January 22, 2019 at 8:49 pm
Property ID:
R022801114000076.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This large parcel would be great for RMF-A, particularly as it has proximity to 3 Mile Creek.
From:
Entry: 285 | January 22, 2019 at 8:48 pm
Property ID:
R022806372002025.005.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
Given location next to a business and across from a school, this would make a great multi-family property (RMF-A). It’s been for sale for a long time as low density residential with no takers…
From:
Entry: 284 | January 22, 2019 at 8:45 pm
Property ID:
R022907240004240.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This would be a great candidate for RMF-A.
From:
Entry: 283 | January 22, 2019 at 8:43 pm
Property ID:
R022907240003003.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel would be perfect for RMF-A zoning.
From:
Entry: 282 | January 22, 2019 at 8:42 pm
Property ID:
R022907240003003.001.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
This parcel would be perfect for RMF-A zoning.
From:
Entry: 281 | January 22, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Property ID:
R022907240003100.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
RMF-A seems like the exact appropriate use for this parcel as it is sandwiched between a commercial building and a residence. It is also in the fast growing Midtown area which has little open land for development. We appreciate the proposed RMF-A zoning.
From:
Sarah Stashak
sarah.stashak@gmail.com
Entry: 280 | January 22, 2019 at 8:40 pm
Property ID:
R022907240003101.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
RMF-A seems like the exact appropriate use for this parcel as it is sandwiched between a commercial building and a residence. It is also in the fast growing Midtown area which has little open land for development. We appreciate the proposed RMF-A zoning.
From:
Sarah Stashak
sarah.stashak@gmail.com
Entry: 279 | January 17, 2019 at 9:08 am
Property ID:
R022911341001011.
Relationship to property:
Property Owner
Comment:
178 Chatham Road
From:
Michael Curtis
michaelandrewcurtis@gmail.com
Entry: 278 | December 13, 2018 at 8:29 am
Property ID:
R022805154002055.
Relationship to property:
Concerned Citizen
Comment:
test
From:
test
test@test.com
