Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for today, January 15th. I'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions, public hearing and deliberation. In the public hearing session, an agenda item will be called. The applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions. Members of the public make their comments to the commission. Only four people can speak for an agenda item or four and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. And at one minute remaining, a speaker will have a warning beep to prompt them to summarize your comments. After opposition speakers have spoken on an application, the applicant is allowed a two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, come to the podium at the bottom of the stairs, speak into the microphone, and provide your name and address for the record. Direct all your comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, the staff, or the audience. After we listen to all the applications, we will then go into the deliberation where we will discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. Commissioners then vote on each application and the results of that meeting. Voting can be learned from the planning department. If some issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed in the public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them or call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting. Occasionally, a commissioner may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application. That does not mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant. But depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal. If that member recuses, a super numery on our commission will vote in theirstead. The planning commission makes final decisions on subdivisions with appeals of these decisions to the circuit court. The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and planned

developments. The city council makes the final decision on these applications and all appeals of city council decisions are to the circuit court. At this time, do me a favor. Please turn your cell phones or other devices to vibrate or the silent uh setting so that we can not have any interruptions. Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. I'll go ahead and call the role. Myself, Jay Subs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Densson, Mr. Harry Brlin here. Mr. Mr. Larry Dorsey here, Mr. Chad Anderson, Mr. Matt Anderson here, Mr. Nick Amber here, Mr. Josh Woods here, Mr. Mr. Kenny Nichols and Miss Ellie Edwards here.

We do have a quorum and I will go ahead and move to approve the agenda for today, January 15th. So move. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The motion for the agenda passes. We will now move into number one which is a holdover on the agenda from a previous meeting. This is at 5330 Moffett Road. The conditional use permit to allow community residents for more than five persons in an R1 single family residential suburban district. Is the applicant present?

You are. Your name, sir? Um, sorry for that. U, my name for the commission is Rodney Clemings, uh, co-owner of the property located at 5330 Maf Road. And your address? Same address or a different address? Same address.

Okay. Yes. Um, I'm looking at notes here that we did not submit a revis or you guys did not submit a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the site development standards of article 3 of the UDC which is our unified development code and not address the applicable criteria for the conditional use permit approval uh from the UDC specifically article 5 section 6E slight correction uh we did submit a plan uh but I do agree with you it wasn't in guidelines so we did reach out for additional support and help from uh the company CMG and Patrick Garcesi who's uh willing to assist us in the administration of making sure that these things are covered uh is also here today. So as it stands it's it's still in holdover phase. Do you do you want to ask Mr. Garci to make comments towards the things the items that are outstanding? Yes sir, he can make those comments to the things that are outstanding, but I think our ask is in lie of what he advised us of to take the hold over until a later time uh so that we're able to make the corrections cuz he did go out and see the site and he does agree with the administration for us to make those corrections to be in compliance.

So what I'm hearing you say is you're looking for an additional hold over. Um staff, this has been held over from which which meeting was it? um both the November and December meetings. So it was requested by the applicant. So this would have been they are maxed out on the amount of holdovers that they are permitted under the ordinance. Mr. Garcia, you're in the audience. You want would you like to come down and make comments towards this?

Uh Patrick Garstei, 457 St. Michael Street. Um, I did advise Rodney that it would take a little bit longer than an additional one or two months holdover to meet all the city requirements. So, I believe if if he or we withdraw the application, you have six months. That's correct. I think that's a better timeline. So, if that's the case, I think we just withdraw withdraw this for now and we'll resubmit soon. Is the applicant okay with that time frame?

The time frame? Yes, sir. we are um as long as the resubmission or the withdrawal doesn't disqualify us from opening in that site and somebody else opening that site. We do have a regulatory guideline of being within 1,000 ft of another uh facility of this type. So we would want to make sure that we protect the entity's address. So we don't do it all for nothing. Comments from staff. So your concern would be that in the next six months someone else could open up on the site that you own? No sir. Uh a site that's within a th00and uh ft of the site that we currently have application for.

I don't know how I don't know how planning and zoning could regulate that. I don't think we can. So what is it specifically that you don't want to happen? I know Go ahead. to lose out on the uh business the opportunity to open the business there at that location. If somebody opens a site next door to that location, we would have done all this for for nothing quite honestly. So, Mr. Chair, if I may. Yeah. Uh a conditional use permits required for a residence like this anyways. And so, if someone else were to come in, let's say in two months, they would also have to come before this board for conditional use permit. So what I'm what I'm hearing him say is we it would have to come before this board

for someone else. Yes. And so if they get approved and we're in the process of waiting the 6 months, that's the risk you have to take.

So what exceptions do we have? We choose not to withdraw but ask for the consideration. So, the other option here, um, and I'll get confirmation from staff is if you don't if you want to just withdraw and wait the six-month time frame. Um, if you don't want to do that, then it would be let it go through, we vote. If it is denied, then that denial can be appealed to the city council and it just be at that time you'd have to get on the city council's agenda and we don't have that calendar. So, you'd have to reach out to them. So those are the two avenues you've got a choice of. We know one is for certain six is it six months from today or six months from their application date original

six months from the denial. So from today today so it would be six months from today. So that would be the March April May June July. It would be the July meeting. So everything there Mr. Garci would his staff would know exactly what needs to be turned in by the previous month. Um, so that'd be option one. And option two is let it go through today and then appeal to the city council with the expectation you try to get on their calendar before July. Does that make sense? Makes sense. Am I speaking out of turn here? Correct. All right. Any further comments?

You have you have you don't have to make that decision right now. We're still in public hearing. So once we get to deliberation, it'll be recall on number one on the deliberation phase. So you guys can let us know what you want to do by that time. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Welcome. Any questions or comments from commissioners on that item? Mr. S. Go ahead.

Um just as the city council representative on the planning commission, um I do feel there's a lot of questions that are unanswered. Um you know, dealing with obviously a conditional use permit. we we know what the what the use is going to be intended for. Um I feel and um and I I don't speak out of turn when I say that the city council representative for this area had questions as well. Um you know, how many residents are going to be in this? Um it's adjoining another property with a with a like use um the uh the parking situation. Uh also um you know what what is what is staffing look like? I I do believe there's a lot of questions that need to be answered and um maybe the applicant needs to consider the questions that are outstanding. So,

thank you, Mr. Woods. Any further questions or comments from commissioners? And since it's on the agenda, is there anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application that is currently still on the agenda? All right, seeing none, we'll move on. Number two on the agenda, this is new. All of these items will be new applications. This is a subdivision at the east side of Bayfront Road, 558 ft south of Terrell Road, the Bayfront subdivision. It's one lot at 0.58 acres. Is the applicant present? Any questions or comments? There there are eight listed conditions. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Applicant is present and in agreement with those conditions. uh for commissioner's sake, we would have to consider a waiver of section 6C3 for lot depth. If you have any questions towards that, now is the time. I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience for this agenda item to speak for, speak against, or have a question towards it. Again, this is on Bayfront Road. Okay, seeing none, we will move on to number three on the agenda. This is a subdivision of one lot again at 0.58 acres. I don't think I've ever seen double the same exact acreage. This is at 1558 Ling Street or is it Lulling? Anybody want to correct me? Anybody knows? Six conditions listed. Is the applicant present? Are you in agreement with those conditions listed? The applicant is present. as a thumbs up for commissioner's consideration. We would have to consider a section a waiver of section 6B9 which is the alley right ofway. If there's any questions from or comments from commissioners on that, now is the time.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience for this agenda item at 1558 Lulling Street to speak for, speak against, or have question towards it. All right, moving right along. We'll go to number four. This is a subdivision at 401 St. Louis Street, the RGH St. Louis subdivision. This is one lot at 0.12 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of hand. There are 12 listed conditions. Are you in agreement with those 12 listed conditions? The applicant gave a thumbs up. I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners on this agenda item, St. Louis Street. And now I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have question towards this application. Okay. Number five appears to be the same application applicant, excuse me, at 1313 St. Louis Street, RGH, St. Louis 2 subdivision, subdivision of one lot at 0.51 acres. There are 13 listed conditions here. The applicant is in agreement with those 13 listed conditions. He gave a nod of yes. Again, any questions or comments from commissioners on number five? And again, anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have question towards this application. All right, we'll now move on to number six, subdivision, 61 Ridgelon Drive East

and 4813 Ravine Court, North Ridgelon Ravine subdivision. This is a subdivision of two lots at 1.62 acres. Should this be considered by the commission? There are nine listed conditions. Is the applicant present? Are you in agreement? Yes, the applicant is here and with a thumbs up gave an agreement to the nine listed conditions for this subdivision of two lots. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Is there anyone here in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards 61 Ridgelon Drive East and 4813 Ravine Court? All right, seeing none, we will move on. I didn't see any public comments on that one either. Okay, we will move on. Number seven, this is a subdivision at 1600 University Boulevard South and 4217 Ezekiel Street, the Logan Cottages subdivision. This is uh seven lots at 1.67 acres. Looks like our applicant is present and sir, there are 17 listed conditions. I'm guessing we'll have to uh maybe have some questions towards those. And before you state your name and address for the record, uh, for consideration of commissioners, we would have potential waiverss of section 6C2 for lot width and 6C3 for lot depth. Yes, sir.

Hey, Cory Bronin Camp, 549 Congress Street. Uh, really the only thing I had was item number 12. It's uh, prior to signing of the plat. Um, I'm good with that. I think it just should be uh relevant to phase two uh because the the road is just um isolated to phase two. So I don't want to be subject to that for phase one. So y'all could just add a note prior to signing the plat of phase two. Staff Would you be in agreement with that?

Um that would be acceptable considering this is a composite subdivision. Um the recording of phase one acts as an extension um until phase two can be recorded. So uh essentially while phase one might get recorded the full subdivision would not be finalized until phase two is done. So I think that's acceptable. acceptable to to just wave it at this point or change it in some way. Change it to um prior to signing the plat uh for phase two. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Any questions, comments, or concerns from commissioners regarding that request from the applicant?

All right, seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Bronning Camp. I'll now ask if there's anyone here in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application at 1600 University Boulevard South and 4217 Ezekiel Street. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to number eight. Number eight is a reszone application at 1724 Michigan Avenue, J. Paul McClendon, Larry E. Speaks, and Associates. This is a reszone request of neighborhood business subject suburban district B2 to office distribution district B5 for commissioner's consideration. There are potentially seven findings of fact in addition to full compliance with all municipal codes conditions. Is the applicant present? If you have any questions towards the findings of facts that are listed there or the conditions with full compliance with all municipal codes and ordinances on the reszone. Any questions or comments from commissioners on going B2 to B5 on Michigan Avenue? Give you a chance to take a look. And while you do that, I'll also ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this reszone application.

So, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Well, actually, I'll save my I'll save my stuff till deliberation.

All right. Paused. Other commissioners All right, seeing none, we will move on to number nine. Number nine is a dual application, a subdivision and a sidewalk waiver application at 4,800 Ruters Road. And then 4688, 4702, 4726, 4738, 4758, 4770, 4790 Bowen Road, Portside Industrial Park Subdivision. for the subdivision. Potentially, there are 14 listed conditions for commissioners consideration potentially of a section 67 6C7 waiver for excess street frontage. And we'll hear now from the applicant,

Patrick Garstei, 457 St. Michael Street. Um, on the subdivision, I guess I got on the comments. I have a few questions. one being that waiver of section 6C7. Um, access shall be limited to one street for the entire block face. Is that if we wave that, does that mean we're not limited to one block face for access? That's correct. Yeah.

Okay. Um, also at the bottom of the subdivision comments mentions Al Alabama Powers Rightway on the west side. Um, says a note should be required on the final plat stating that access to this rideway is denied. If we have permission from Alvin Power to have access through that rightway, is that granted? Um, if you can provide that information to our department, that's something that we can consider. Okay. And what I mean by that is either removing that condition or modifying it. And that's number three.

No, that's just the width 10. Ah, thank you. I was just looking for Alabama Power. Yeah. And it's really on the page before under planning comments where it mentions it a little bit more, but um you want to move on to the sidewalk waiver? Go ahead.

Okay. um says engineering comments say that we have sufficient space to construct sidewalks and no offense. I I disagree in a way. We have a ditch right along the road and um existing ditch that potentially will get wider and deeper. And in the first two sections, for example, we have 3T1 and 3T3 to the rightway line, the back of the riderway line to the top of the ditch. And if we go a foot off, now we're looking at 2 foot three or 2T 11, uh, which is not enough room for a 4ft sidewalk. If we keep the sidewalk in the rightway like

what's the nature of this applica or this? Yeah. So, it is a industrial warehouse uh site. I guess it'll be truck court area right next to the rightway line. Um so, we're talking 18 wheeler trucks in and out. And again, not really safe for the ped pedestrians to be walking around this area as well. Um the interstates on the west side, range roads on the north and east, we'll call it. Um the whole area to the west is zoned I1 as well. So it's it's an industrial area now with no real access especially to the west to hope nobody's walking across the interstate. So um I don't think it's a suitable site for the sidewalk.

Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um I think given the industrial uh component of this site and the adjoining um developments and I think a sidewalk waiver is appropriate in this area. Thank you.

I'll ask comm other commissioners if they have any comments or questions regarding the subdivision application or the sidewalk waiver application while the applicant's there. All right. Thank you, Mr. Garsteeki. I'll now ask if anyone in the audience has questions for or against or just regarding this dual application at 4,800 Ruckers Road and the litany of addresses at Bowen Road. All right, seeing none, we will move on for number 10. We do have a recusal. Kirk Mate will be recused from public hearing and deliberation and voting. We still maintain a quorum for this dual application subdivision and modification at 1500 Yogger Pass, which is a private road range crossing subdivision. Phase 4 resub subdivision of lots 1 through 3 and the resubds 6 through 11. In total, it's three lots subdivision, 47 acres. And then the major modification application of a previously approve approved PUB allowing shared access and parking between multiple building sites to modify lot lines in coordination with proposed subdivision. For the subdivision itself, there are potentially 10 listed conditions. And for our modification, there are potentially eight findings of fact and 13 listed conditions. Is the applicant present? All right. The applicant is present by raise of hand. Take them separately on the questions. Do you have any uh issue or have to address any of the 10 listed conditions for the application on the subdivision? The applicant says no. So you're in agreement with those. She says yes. And then on the modification, are you understanding of the potential findings of fact there and then in agreement with those 13 listed conditions? The applicant is in agreement understanding

of the findings of fact and in agreement with those 13 conditions. Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this dual application at Yoger Pass? Seeing none from the commissioners, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience with questions for questions against, comments against, or just in general on this dual application. All right, seeing none, we will move on. We'll welcome back Mr. Mate number 11. Also a dual application modification, two modifications of previously approved planning approvals at 4,800 Mafett Road, Board of Water and Sewer. Um, I have a note here for the modification to potentially hold over this request until February 19th so that required revisions and additional information can be turned in by February 6th. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present with a raise of hand. Are you in agreement with that potential outcome? The applicant gave a thumbs up. Because it's on the agenda, we will ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards this board of water and sewer commissioners dual application modification at 4800 Mafett Road. Questions for or to speak for or to speak against? Yes, ma'am. Would you like to come to the podium and state your name? Yes, ma'am. Your name and address for the record. Make sure you pull the microphone down a little bit so that we can hear you and then proceed. My name is Hazel Breland and I live at

4824 Mercedes Road and my property abuts the uh water department in the back part of the water department. For the past two years, I have endured um a lot of shaking of my sun room windows which are on the second floor. uh my doors on the inside, internal doors rattling. And I have been in touch with uh the person who is in charge of the work, I guess you'd say, that's going on over there. And uh he put out a sensor on the fence that divides my property from the water department property. and um he kept telling me that it was in um approved limits, but I don't approve my house shaking. I've been in that house for almost 27 years, and no storm that has come through has ever shaken my sun room windows or my internal doors. It's a very well-built house and uh so anything that's uh happening over there that's hard enough to shake my doors and windows is too hard. And so I I don't know what they're going to do over there, but I don't want to spend another two years with that going on. I've had nobody reach out to me to say uh we'll make this right. And I would like to know if they're required to make that right. It seems to me that they would be I'm retired social worker so you know I don't have a whole lot of income and so I just I don't have the money to do all these repairs. So I I would like to just for the record if they're going to do this and I'm sure they'll be approved to

do it because we need our water, you know, but um they need to make it right the damage that they're doing. And I'm not the only one. And I have other neighbors across the street from me who've said that they had uh whatnotss fall off the shelves because the shaking was so bad over there. So I just want to enter that into the record. Miss Blandon, thank you for your comments. I will read to you that this uh well, first and foremost, it it is being held over to a future date, so there's an opportunity to have more public comments because it would be held over to next month's meeting.

Okay. Uh, and I'm reading here that this is the con allow the construction of, and I don't know what these items are or how big or to the extent of what that's going to require, but it's the construction of a clarifier, pump station, and associated site improvements. The applicant's representative, he probably can put you in touch with the right folks if you have further questions, and we have a month to get some resolution to your concerns. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Any anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application at 4,800 Mafet Road? God bless you. The final item on the agenda for today is number 12. It's a dual application modification at 65 Mobile Street, US Wright Preparatory School. It's the major modification of a previously approved printing approval existing school in an R1 single family district to allow expansion of an existing private school uh with work on a building site to construct a restroom, basketball court, and covered sidewalk. And with both of these, there are potentially eight findings of fact for commissioners and then three listed conditions per each modification. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Are you understandings of the findings of facts? Yes, he is in nod for both. And are you in agreement with the potential of those three listed conditions? And he is with a thumbs up in agreement with those listed conditions. I'll give commissioners a chance to look at that project. If they have any questions or concerns, now is the time. And I'll also ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this modification dual application at S on 65 Mobile Street. All right. Seeing none, that will close the public hearing and we will move back to number one on the agenda for deliberation. I noticed that the applicant did exit from number one. Mr. Garci, did you have a chance to speak with him? Do we know what the outcome of that decision is?

Six months. Okay. So,

do we want to say question one more time? if if we don't have enough uh staff doesn't have enough information to give us the recommendation for approval for us to even consider that. So option one would be denying and then appealing the denial to the city council of which Mr. Woods then said we'd still get a lot of questions answered and we would be subject to that calendar. The other option would be to withdraw and withdrawal would have the six-month period and takes us to the July meeting. Withdrawal. Thank you, Mr. Garci. No voting is needed. Application is withdrawn. Number two, subdivision at the east side of Bayfront Road. Bayfront subdivision one lot.58 acres applicant is present and in agreement with the eight listed conditions entertain a motion

move to approve subject to staff recommendations in a waiver of section 6C3 properly moved and seconded all in favor I motion for subdivision passes number three 1558 Ling Street CM Shepard subdivision one lot 58 acres, six listed conditions, potential of waiver 6.B.9. The applicant is present and in agreement with those six listed conditions.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The application for subdivision passes. Number four. Subdivision application at 401 St. Louis Street, one lot.12 acres. The applicant is present and an agreement to the 12 listed conditions for number four. Entertain a motion. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

The application for subdivision passes. Same applicant number five, 1313 St. Louis Street. present and in agreement with 13 listed conditions. Entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. I think the address is 313. I don't know how much of a big deal it is, but it might be a big deal if we we use the wrong address. So, is it 313 or 1313? Which one is it? Is that my misspeak? Sorry, I did say 13 listed conditions at 313 St. Louis Street. Entertain a motion. Move to approve. Subject to staff recommendations. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Motion for application passes. Number six. It's a subdivision of two lots 61 Ridgelon Drive East, 4813 Ravine Court. The applicant is present and in agreement with the nine listed conditions. Move to approve staff recommendations. Second. Okay. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number seven. Subdivision application at 1600 University Boulevard South and 4217 Ezekiel Street. The applicant is present. requested modification to number condition number 12 to include prior signing the plat phase two. I think that was all move to approve sub staff recommendations waving section 60 62 and 6C3 and amending the first line of item 12 say prior to signing the FL phase two the applicants to present so on so forth. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The motion for application passes. Number eight. It's a reszone application at 1724 Michigan Avenue. Reszone of B2 to B5. Potentially seven findings of fact and full compliance condition. The applicant is present. did not have any questions on the potential of those findings of fact or the conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A, C, D, E, F, and G. Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A, C, D, E, and G. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for reszone B2 to B5 passes. Number nine, dual application. We will take them separately. Subdivision at 4,800 Ruckers Road and a litany of addresses at Bowen Road. The applicant is present on the 14 listed conditions and was in agreement and did want to make adjustments to number six on the conditions if I'm if I have that notes correct. Number six. Were we supposed to start with 10 too? Uh number 10

and number 10. Six. Number 10. What are we What are we doing with it? Uh there was no question for six, but on number 10, um it currently states placement of a note on the final plat stating that access to the Alabama Power Company rightway along the west boundary is denied. Um, it's suggested to be changed to include unless permission is granted by the easement or the excuse me, unless permission is granted by Alabama Power Company. Is that right? It's granted by Alabama Power Company to Alabama Power Company to the applicant. We're going to have to reward that. Mr. Chair,

go ahead. Um, so I guess what we're trying to accomplish is is not put anything on the plaid guaranteeing the access. Is that I mean I guess I'm confused by what we're trying to accomplish. That's correct. So right now um it's right of way that is owned and operated by Alabama Power Company. Um so unless they the applicant is given permission to operate within their right of way um then they cannot do so. So, what we're wanting is um some sort of condition that either denies them unless Alabama Power Company allows them.

So, could we just say, you know, after the semicolon, instead just say unless otherwise granted because there's only one person that can grant them permission anyway. Include the language saying if Alabama Power were to grant an easement for them to be able to use it or just like you said, unless otherwise granted, which the only grantor could be Alabama Power. We don't have seven. Yeah. And and did we have to do something with six too? Is that I think there it was my mistake. You just had questions on number six. Oh, okay. Okay.

Well, I'll move to approve subdivision uh waving section 6C7 and amending item number 10 uh uh removing the semicolon and adding uh the words unless otherwise granted. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion for the subdivision passes. We'll now take the sidewalk waiver. I'll move to approve based on comments from city council representative. Unless other commissioners have issues with this. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Motion for sidewalk waiver passes. Number 10. We will recuse Mr. Kirk Mate, we still maintain a quorum for the deliberation. Dual application, take them separately. Subdivision 1500 Yoger pass 10 listed conditions. The applicant is present and in agreement. Entertain a motion.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? The motion for the subdivision passes. The modification previously approved PUD potentially eight findings of fact and 13 listed conditions. The applicant is present on that as well. No questions or comments towards those items. Entertain a motion. Move to approve A through H. Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor? I I

motion pass. Any oppose? Sounded quiet. The motion for modification application passes. We'll welcome back Mr. Kirk Mate. We'll move on to number 11. Move to hold over to the February 19th meeting. Second. Properly moved and seconded for hold over to February 19. What is uh then with a date of information submitted no later than February 6th. Mr. Chair, go ahead.

Um just for clarification of where we are right now. Um I guess what's in what's in front of us and this be a question for staff. Um obviously, you know, apparently by the map they're already constructing the reservoir. And I'm I'm guess my question to you would be is um was was there permits associated with that? And and I guess for the sake of planning commission that that's already allowable by some sort of conditional use or or since it is R1, I mean that everything that's occurring right now is allowable. Um and I guess have we seen permits for the the reservoir increase or

That's correct. So uh this actually goes back to 2021 where they received the planning approval for the uh most recent expansions. Um and those are still active. So this was to modify that approval to add the additional modifications to the site. Right. And then um I guess just for the the resident um what's kind of occurring right now I guess is um you know that that's an execution of previously what's happened or or permitted before. Um and and really I kind of I guess what's before us is just the construction of like that that additional pump house and and a couple things I guess more towards the south part of the of the site. I guess that's correct.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, just I wanted to just provide some clarity that um you know this what's in front of us is is for the south part of the site to I guess kind of finish the project and that you know Yes, ma'am. Um so, just I think what you're experiencing right now might be the construction of that reservoir where they're going to hold all the water and but I just want to provide some clarity for you that you know this project's a little separate. It's kind of it's kind of away from what weffect.

Yes, ma'am. just that nuisance of your windows rattling and I'm sure I'm and some damage this but I I definitely think that I think our our mobile water um sewer he might if y'all connect maybe maybe he can kind of provide a little bit more color because I guess you you've apparently been talking to the maybe the contractor uh say but

yes ma'am and talk about it. Yes, ma'am. But you got a fellow up there. I think you might can answer some questions for you. Yes, ma'am. We have a properly seconded motion. All in favor?

I hold over till February 19th. Number 12, dual application, dual modification. Two separate modification sites on the property, so we'll take them separately. 65 Mobile Streets right potentially eight findings of fact and three conditions per modification. I'll reference the first one is 03572. By the way, the applicant is present and understanding the potential findings of fact and the conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for modification passes. The second one 003573. Same findings of facts and listed conditions on the same property separate building site. Entertain a motion. Move to approve. Subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor?

Any opposed? Motion for modification passes. That concludes the agenda items. I'll ask commissioners to stand by for just a second. We have other business to review and approve minutes from the following planning commission meetings. January 16th, 2025, February 20th, 2025, and March 20th, 2025. I'll move to approve and batch. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The minutes from those dates are approved. Any other business? Stay warm out there.