Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner, we require a quorum of six to conduct business. Um, so we'll probably be another five minutes or so unless our attorney says otherwise. We'll have to wait. Yeah. Yes. All right. This is the meeting of the Mobile City Planning Commission for February 19th, 2026. I would like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions. is the public hearing session and the deliberation session. In the public hearing session, the agenda item is called. The applicant makes their presentation. Commission members are ask questions. Members of the public make their comments to the

commission. Only four people may speak for an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. At the one at one minute remaining, you will hear hear a warning bell or beep prompting you to summarize your comments. After opposition speakers have finished, the applicant is allowed a two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, come to the podium, speak into the microphone, and provide your name and address for the record. Direct all comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, staff, or audience. After hearing all applications, the commission will go into deliberation. In the deliberation session, commissioners discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. Commissioners then vote on each application. Results of the meeting can be learned from the planning department. If some issues arise during the del deliberation session that were not addressed in the public hearing, the chairman has the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them or call 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. A recusal does not mean that the member is directly involved with the application or the applicant. However, depending on circumstances, ethical rules may require a a recusal, even if there is only the slightest appearance of a conflict. If a regular member accuses, a super numerary will vote in theirstead. The planning commission makes final decisions on subdivisions with appeals of those decisions to the circuit court. The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and plan developments. The city council makes a final decision on these applications. All appeals of city council decisions are to the circuit court. Please turn off your cell phones and electronic devices. Commissioners and staff, please

turn on your microphones when speaking. Now call the role. Our chairman, Mr. Subs, is not here. Uh so I'm sitting as vice chair. Miss Jennifer Densen. present. Mr. Harry Brerlin here, Mr. Larry Dorsey, Mr. Chad Anderson, Mr. Matt Anderson, Mr. Nick Amber here, Mr. Josh Woods here, Mr. Kenny Nichols here,

Miss Ellie Edwards. All right, we have a quorum. We'll move to holdovers. This is number one on the agenda. 4,800 Mafet Road. Is the applicant present? 4,800 Mafet Road. Have we heard from this applicant staff? No. Okay. All right. That is a major modification of a previously approved planning approval. Anyone here from MO? No. All right. Uh, is anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Is anyone here to speak against it? All right. We will move on to agenda item number two. This is 307, 309, 311, and 317 St. Joseph Street. Application for a subdivision. Uh, one lot subdivision going from four to one lots.

Mr. Jerry Bird Bird surveying 2609 Als Road, Mobile. Uh, there's um the number seven condition we would like to address. the owner here is uh going to address that uh more than I will. Other than that, the other recommendations are okay or considerations, I should say. Um well, yeah, number seven,

Robert Bronstein, 401 North Water Street. Um so, you know, looking at number seven, can I see that?

Yeah. um provision of a note on final plat at the time of redevelopment site is denied access to St. Joseph Street and allowed one curb cut along Adam Street. Uh I've got here uh appendix A of the DDD. Um the section regarding vehicular parking access does say that parking shall be accessed from secondary frontage were available. Um it's our interpretation that it doesn't say that it uh may exclusively be accessed from the secondary frontage. Um it just says that it it needs to be accessed from the secondary frontage. And if you go down further to the curb cut standards and limits, it says that uh for a T5 zoning, which uh would be the zoning on this lot uh and proposed subdivision, they're limited to a maximum of one curb cut per lot per street frontage. So, currently there is uh a curb cut on Adam Street and there's three curb cuts on St. Joseph Street. And you know, we agree we don't need three curb cuts, but we would like one curb cut on St. Joseph and one on Adams. And we feel that that would be permitted uh within uh appendix A of the DDD.

Anything staff?

Uh Mr. chairman. Uh I believe in the past the staff has interpreted that to initially uh require a variance application. We had the I believe it was the mariner application on St. Louis where they were looking at having a parking lot that was going to have an access point onto St. Louis and then we asked them to go through the variance process to get that additional curb cut in which and the reason why is you have your A streets which are your primary streets downtown and the B streets. St. Joseph Street in this case is the A street and in this particular location it's also required to have a shopfront style frontage for new construction. So that's kind of the highest standard of pedestrian orientation for development downtown. Thus, staff would stand by that uh the new lot should be limited to access to Adam Street unless they go through the variance process. It it would seem to me that it would be beneficial for the city and the neighborhood to not have the only curb cut be right in at the edge of a neighborhood on Adam Street when there's plenty of businesses down St. Joseph Street that have multiple curb cuts. But one way or another, our interpretation of the DDD remains that we should be permitted one curb cut per street frontage as it says here on the curb cut standards and limits. Doug, is this looking at the staff report at the time of development? It would have to go through the consolidated review committee. Is this a situation where we could wave

this today and then that comes up later at the time of development and then that would trigger the CRC? Well, your the CRC generally provides administrative review and it only has a very limited window of issues that it can address administratively. it would then have to kick it back to either the planning commission or the board of adjustment if a if it's something beyond the CRC's administrative ability.

Any questions, comments from staff or from the commission? Anything else? All right. Uh is anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone here to speak against it? All right, moving on to agenda item number three. This is subdivision of two lots from one lot uh the east terminus of Roseqing Drive. Agenda item number three.

Yeah, applicant here. Uh any have you been able to review the staff report? Okay. All right. Uh, is anyone else here to speak in favor of agenda item number three? Anyone here to speak opposed to agenda item number three? Moving on to number four. Are any questions from the commission on number three? Agenda item number four. This is 3431 clubhouse road subdivision of two lots from one lot. Is the applicant present? Agenda item number 4, 3431 Clubhouse Road. All right, we heard from them, staff. All right. Is anyone here to speak in favor of agenda item number four? Anyone here to speak against it? We had any communication from them? No. All right. Agenda item number five. This is 2237 and 2247 Bare Fork Road subdivision of two lots. Is the applicant present? Yeah. Good to go. All right. Anyone here to speak for agenda item number five? Anyone here to speak against it? Any comments from the commission? Agenda item on five. Have you been able to You're five. Have you been able to review your good without a hold over there, the staff report recommended a hold over says request additional time for the

applicant to address zoning compliance issues. All right. Why don't you come down? All right. I'm Do you have the staff report with you or All right. staff, can you give a little context to this? I think there were some concerns over a secondary structure.

Yes, sir. So, um, in reviewing the plat that was provided by the surveyor, uh, compared to, um, what we have available in terms of our internal GIS data, the, um, lot two that's proposed is currently developed with a single family dwelling and what appears to be an accessory structure toward the rear. So in comparing the plat to the lot lines, uh the reduction in that lot size appears that it might result in the dwelling encroaching into the required side or rear yard setbacks. Um additionally, because the way that the proposed lot line to the rear um would be moved north, it seems that the accessory structure would be placed on the currently vacant lot, which is not permitted. So that might be just a surveying issue, might be an internal mapping issue, but either way, without the presence of those structures um surveyed on the plat, we cannot verify that information. So we're requesting a hold over so that the surveyor can clear that up for us.

Do you know if there's a secondary structure back there? Uh I don't know. They just told me it was going to be quick, easy because it was two lots going to two lots. But a hold over sounds fine if that's what we need to do.

Okay. All right. Anyone here? Anyone else here to speak on agenda item number five? All right. Moving on to six. This is 6970 Leverne Drive South Subdivision two lots. The applicant present. Any concerns? Good to go. All right. Anyone else here to speak for agenda item number six? Anyone here to speak against it? Number seven. This is 1801 Boyin Boulevard subdivision of three lots from one meets and bounds parcel. The applicant present. Yeah. Any been able to review the staff report? Any concerns, questions, comments? Anyone here to speak for agenda item number eight? Anyone here to speak against it? Number nine, 5070 Old Shell Road, subdivision of six lots. Is the applicant present? Oh, I skipped eight. I skipped eight. All right, let me back up. Sorry, I don't do this every month. I'll blame Mr. Stubs. Number eight, we got 362, 364, and 366 Burton Avenue. Mr. Bird, Jerry Bird, Bird Servean, 2609 Halls Mill. Um, on number one consideration, 25 ft radius R is approved. Um, I'd like to ask for waiver of that requirement. The zoning ordinance calls for these lots to be a minimum of 6,000 square ft. The corner lot is 603. Lot two is 603.

I'm not sure what lot three is. It's very very tight on getting the square footage. Uh the streets are developed with um asphalt curbing gutter all utilities ran place. The actually the lot on null street to the east fronts Mobile Street I think it is Bayshore or Mobile and it's recently had a new house built on it. It was an existing lot. It does not have a radius on that corner. Uh that's another reason I'm asking. So that would be number one, the 25 foot.

Yes, number one. Any questions, comments from the commission. It's usually where our engineer pipes up, but I guess he he doesn't have anything to say. Yeah, there's no there's no comments there. I mean, we we always keep that note on there just to kind of gut check ourselves because there might be a scenario where where we can do it or we need it if a tree or something's there. So, I don't see us adjusting that radius any.

All right. Anyone else here to speak for agenda item number eight? Anyone here to speak against it? All right. Agenda item number nine, 570 Shell Road, subdivision of six lots. Is the applicant present?

The uh Mr. Chairman, the applicant sent an email earlier today to Stephen and myself says, "Hey, Stephen, wanted to let you know I'm not able to attend today, nor am I able to have someone present. I resubmitted cottages at Spring Hill and I really need a one-mon holdover. I'm working with a builder to adjust lots and buildable buildable areas. So, since it's on the agenda, is anybody else here to speak in favor of agenda item number nine? Anyone here to speak against it? Mr. Chair.

Yeah. Um, just a question for staff. Obviously, I think this is a version of a resubmitt. Um, as far as community meetings, I mean, have they they they've done everything they're supposed to do, I guess, as far as meeting with the the community, explaining, making everyone aware of of what's going on or or what's the requirement that that they would or is their requirement, I guess, not for a subdivision. Yeah. Um that would be at the discretion of the applicant.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Two two two questions for staff. One um this application appears to be the exact same application that was submitted in November for the December meeting. The same application which failed to get a motion to move forward. Would I be correct in that statement? Correct. Okay. And then my subsequent question would be if the application again fails to get a motion to move forward, is there any limit or restriction on the applicant bringing this back yet once again in the exact same form?

No. Okay. But if but again, if if if we failed to take any action, they could submit it again.

I I would add um or would like to say I wouldn't hear the meeting. It was denied. My associate that was here on my behalf told me about what happened. Um, I would like to see another vote uh on this or another uh design just because I'm not sure that in the record there's a reason for denial. I know there there I was told that there was some discussion, but there might not be a uh a reason in the record uh a legal reason for denial and I want to make sure we have that to protect ourselves.

Right. And and I guess just for the the record and and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, there was not a vote because there was never a motion to bring the application for a vote. Correct. No one on the commission made a motion to I I was told otherwise, but I wasn't here. I was told that I think Nick made a motion. Yeah, I think to deny

that. Well, yeah. And the struggle that we have from the engineering perspective is they're they're trying to they want to use the developer is proposing to use u percolation as his methods of detention. And uh I don't think he wants to commit to doing the complete soil investigations until he's got you know effectively conditional approval. you know, if once he does that that geotechnical work, if he cannot get the cannot satisfy the engineering department with the percolation rates, then the plant just won't be signed. So, it's kind of a unique situation for us and that he wants the subdivision approval where he can move forward before he spends those dollars uh to do the actual geotechnical work that's going to be required. And the difference is is both subdivisions, you know, the retention is above ground so we can see it. it can be calculated by an engineer. In this case, um I I think they've estimated it and George, you may want to correct me. I don't think they have actually done any actual geotechnical work.

Um I think they have I I think they have taken some borings out there. I don't know how extensive it was though. Okay. But but they they did show that they would have a a perk rate at some somewhere. I I don't know. I didn't I didn't review it. And and if they cannot meet the city's requirements, then that would be a legal reason to deny it because you can deny it based if it meets the subdivision regen only if it affects the health or safety. It just needs to be made in the motion or stated in the motion. That is why let's give them another shot and see what they can do. Yeah.

Thank you. What would be the date? What would be the the date if they request a hold? Is that the 19th? March 19th. Yes, sir. All right, moving on to agenda item number 10. Didn't I think I asked anyone else here to speak on number nine? All right, number 10, 4575 Hermitage Avenue. Request to wave construction of a sidewalk.

Uh, good afternoon, commission. My name is Garrett Baker with Delaney Property Group, 3262 Old Shell Road. Uh we are requesting a sidewalk waiver uh for the construction on lot 4575 Hermitage Avenue due to site constraints. Um there there's not enough room to include an onsite sidewalk uh and meet the other site dimensional requirements. happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the commission? I know that I guess I just want to make sure I'm I'm clear in my memory is is correct that uh applicant came before the commission roughly a year ago and there was a partial sidewalk waiver granted. Is that correct? And that was along Nius Road. Correct. Yes. And then refresh my memory of of where we did not grant sidewalk waiver. Oh, along Hermitage Avenue. Long Hermitage. Okay.

Okay. Oh, I see it right there. The the unique piece of it there was that Hermitage the Hermitage side is actually the city limit correct side. And so our record uh didn't reflect us approving that. Um, I've spoken with the applicant and I mean I I'll recommend approval for it uh based on the circumstances, but that was our record just didn't reflect that. But we did wave it along the other front. Okay. Okay. I knew there was something I just could not remember exactly. So, okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Anyone else here to speak in favor of agenda item number 10? Anyone here to speak against it? Moving along to 116130 and 6140 Rangeline Road. This is another sidewalk waiver. Pence La Coast Bethl Engineering 4103 Ridgeline. Um review the staff report. It appears that engineering agrees that this is uh probably is not feasible to construct a sidewalk here. This is an ALDOT rideway. ALDOT doesn't want it the rightway. Plus, it really can't be built in the rightway. And then on private property, there's some really tight constraints as well as this is an existing uh business that is expanding. They're basically adding 70 ft to the back of the building and then doing a lay down yard beside it. Any comments questions from the commission? Anyone else here to speak for or against agenda item number 11? All right. Agenda item number 12 is a conditional use permit at 904 Kentucky Street. Is the applicant present? Hi. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Joan Hendris and I'm the owner of the property at 904 Kentucky Street.

uh appreciate the opportunity to address uh any concerns that you may have uh particularly regarding the refuge placement. Um I understand if there is a concern regarding it uh that it may not technically meet the setback requirements uh of the 20 ft from property line and 100 ft from the dwelling uh from other dwellings. However, I do want to assure the commission that the area will not create any nuisance or any adverse impact to neighboring properties. Um, we currently have beautified the area. Um, the garbage containers will remain strained and stored properly. Uh they will only be placed outside um on the curb side on designated pickup days. Uh and guests of course will be instructed on trash procedures in writing. Uh we currently do have exterior cameras uh to help with that compliance. And of course, um, no excess trash will be permitted to accumulate. So, I'm just trying to give you some ideas of how we're going to meet those guidelines. Um, let's see. My goal is to operate the property in a way that protects the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, the respect to the neighbors and the surrounding areas. Uh, I'm fully willing to comply with any additional conditions that the condition that the commission may deem appropriate. Let's see. Um,

our goal has always been, meaning my my husband and I, uh, to enhance the neighborhood and not to detract from the neighborhood. It's maintained in a high standard. As a matter of fact, we've received several compliments from neighbors about how well we've beautified the area. So, thank you. Any questions, comments from the commission? All right. I have one for the staff. So, this. And I got on there and the GIS map and did some measuring. And this is a 50x 100 lot. And the way this is written is that a garbage can cannot be closer than 20 ft from the property line and 100 ft from a neighboring dwelling. So, as written and legal counsel, correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have any discretion in this because I mean, reading the staff report, we aren't able to grant this because of the essentially the size of the lot. I'll let one of the planning professionals answer that because I'm I'm not an expert that this law on the uh or the ordinance on the short-term rentals has gone through so many different generations and I'm not 100% maybe Shayla can answer it, but I'm not

the best person to answer that because I just don't know um what that ordinance exactly allows and whether I I don't know if it has to meet every one of those criteria that are listed on page four and five of the staff report.

That's correct. So, uh according to the UDC and the way that the uh the short-term rental um section is written that every one of these um listed criteria has to be met to be allowed a conditional use permit for a short-term rental. Is is the intent with the follow the math and everything is the intent because now it's become a commercial use effectively that it doesn't have city garbage service. It has it has to have a commercial garbage service.

I'm just as I'm trying to read into it how how how it got there. Uh if this was just a regular house, the garbage can could be there. But is that the is that kind of the underlying reason before it? Unfortunately, I'm not able to give you a rationale as to the intent. This is an ordinance that was adopted at the council level and at our at our at the staff level, we're basically determining whether it complies with the ordinance or not. Thank you. Um, now this is a legal question. Um, conditional use permits will go before the city council. Correct.

And at that stage, Mr. Anderson. Uh those requirements can be dealt with by the council. Does it go to the council even if we deny it? It is. We're just recommending like a zoning body as a recommendation. Yeah.

Well, I think it's great what you are doing. The house looks great. I live not too far from there. We need investment down there. My garbage can is right next to my property line. It is certainly within 100 ft of Yes. my neighbor. And I have absolutely no problem with this. Uh, if only we had a city councilman here that maybe changes these rules for us. And you guys are asking some of the same things that we asked. You know, what if this was a just a traditional home? Y,

you know, at 50 100 by 100 lot is a small lot. And um as a matter of fact, my husband, he came down to remind me that I believe the only property that uh may be the concern is it's like a um a building in the backyard of another property. I don't know if it has an address or if it was just a It's behind another house, an adjacent house on that lot. But it's only one trash can.

Yeah, I I I agree. I agree with that. But I think that does that is a question that needs needs a legal answer on because you know it becomes a commercial property then and there's difference the city doesn't provide garbage service or trash service to uh commercial properties. Uh, and if we had other ones that came before us, I think it'd just be help it'd be help if we had a final answer on that from what that is, how that's interpreted because, uh, it's just different. It's either it's either commercial or it's not. And this has got a commercial tone to it. So, uh, again, I I appreciate folks taking care of the property and doing doing things as well, but we do have to make sure we have it things tidied up pretty neatly. Well, my hand has been slapped a couple times recently for making legal determinations that um where the council didn't want me to. They wanted their council to. So, I'm going to uh let the city c let this go up to city council and let Mr. Maples advise the council on how best to handle this. And Mr. Chair, um and that's what and Mr. Anderson, you I mean literally this would be the decision here would be just a recommendation to the council. So really there's no there's no bindingness coming from here outside of just that this this body is telling the council this is this is how we feel about this one kind of thing. Before the UDC was passed, the the only process where we were a recommending body was for zoning. And historically, if the council, excuse me, the planning commission denied a zoning application. It only got to the city council if the council person whose uh district that property was in allowed it to go before council. Otherwise, it just died on the vine. Uh if it's if you recommended approval, obviously it automatically

goes to council. I don't know if this uh ordinance is the same as that or if this automatically goes to council no matter what you do. The cups are a two-step process. So it would it would go forward to the city council. And I know this is our only third one we've seen, I guess, theoretically. So just trying to figure out and um this UDC was passed before I was on council. So, uh, I can't opine on the reason that we have this trash can thing, but uh, please look into it. All right. Any other comments from the commission or applicant? Thank you'all. Thank you.

All right. Moving on. Agenda item number 13, 5101 Moffett Road, reszoning of a B2 to a B3. Is the applicant present? Any comments, questions for the commissioner staff? Uh, anyone here to speak in favor of agenda item number 13? Anyone here to speak against it? All right, looking. The staff report has some concerns. Oh, we do have someone coming to speak. Yes, my name is John Mitchell. I live at 1400 Joyce Road. Um, I have a bunch of comments to make, but I've been talking to this guy here, but if you want to hear the details, you can, but basically it I find that this guy or this company or whatever it is is not following the rules. And that's what my main concern is.

He's put up signs on the property saying he's having a resoning neighborhood meeting and the meeting was way across town at the library on Greot Road. I went to that meeting with another neighbor. We went there about 30 minutes ahead of time. We checked in at the front desk at the library. They said they said if the if there's going to be a meeting, it's going to be in the meeting room. So, we went and sat outside the meeting room about 5 minutes before the meeting is supposed to take place. There's nobody showed up. We went back to the front desk to the library and said, "We don't see anybody here." And so, they went checked their log book. They said nobody had ever reserved a room at that library to have a zoning meeting. So we waited about 15 minutes after the set time for the meeting. We left. Nobody ever showed up. That's at the library. Can't and they scheduled another one for far steel school which that's another story.

There's my concern. Go ahead. I'm sorry. My concern is if they can't follow these small rules, they're not going to follow the bigger rules later on. So, we need to hold them to their hold their feet to the fire.

And there there's more of the story not in contradiction to what you say, right? Can y'all Well, I I'll just simply say um my understanding from staff is that the applicant has not complied with the neighborhood meeting requirements. Um, very simply put, there was two failed attempts that did not comply with our requirements as it is spelled out. So, it does not meet from staff's perspective those requirements as a pre-application. Um, this board.

All right. I believe this is detailed in the staff report. Any other comments s about the the other comment that I have in reference to this on the on the resoning board they put on the piece of property it list a place um they listed MMS incororated is the owner of the property and the gentleman here today he he's just a contractor representing that corporation and I looked up on the internet the corporation is a foreign corporation with an address in Texas. And I'm just curious, who are these people? Does the city

do a background check on these companies, these people?

That's my question. Um, well, I I can say the the purpose of the neighborhood meetings is for neighbors to answer or to ask these questions and, you know, get potential answers, which is why we have that in the EDC. Um, any other comments? We do, our rules will require the applicant or give the applicant an opportunity to speak if there is someone that speaks in opposition. Um, and I think based on what we're hearing, this will likely we will vote after this portion, but I do think we need to have the applicant come down and and kind of give his side of of this. Um but your your concerns are detailed in our staff report that we got on these uh two meetings that were scheduled.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would at least just clarify just for your knowledge. So, as far as somebody acting as an agent on behalf, whether it's a property owner or an individual or entity that has a legal right to purchase a property, that's very common where a property owner will will grant an owner authorization form to let, you know, an engineering firm or survey or something like that represent their interest at this meeting. So, to to that end, I would say that at least perhaps, you know, what you've looked up is is is fairly common. I I understand that, but I I would I'd like to see the the face or the people that own this corporation. Who are they? Where are they from?

Now, are you talking about as as far as the the applicant or the the agent for the applicant? The applicant. I mean, it's because the actual the applicant well within their rights to appoint an agent to come and represent their interest. That's why you have sometimes attorneys down here. You have surveyors representing property owners. I mean, it's it's totally within the the rules for for someone to do that. It just throws up a concern that this is a foreign corporation that owns a piece of property. I mean, a foreign corporation is just a corporation that's not registered to do business state of Alabama. That's that's all that means. So, it's an American company.

Could be a a foreign corporation could be a Florida corporation or a Mississippi corporation. It's not necessarily foreign to the United States, but but to do business in Alabama, they would have to qualify with the Secretary of State's office if they're from another state. All right. Any other comments for the commission? All right. The applicant gets a opportunity to respond. Good afternoon, ladies, gentlemen. Uh, thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is George Harb. I do represent my Corporation, the owners of 5101 Moffett Road, and the owner is Mr. Mike Shakura, which I had the pleasure to tell Mr. Mitchell when I met with him. Um, I do represent Mr. Shakura and a lot of the properties that they own here in Alabama. Uh I fixed a lot of properties for them. They also own uh including Mobile Mitsubishi which I've done a lot of work for also. Um and uh I've never applied for zoning in the past. This this was the first time. So um it was a bit complicated. I I should have hired a team for it. I I didn't know how complex it was on on the port portal or so on. Uh unfortunately I did make a couple of mistakes. Uh the first time uh I had three meetings. Uh I called the neighborhood meeting the first time at the location of the property which I wasn't aware that it cannot be on the location of the property. Uh that it has to be off the property. Uh so we did set up a second meeting which was at the library. Um unfortunately the library was more

than one mile away. Uh although when I did make the application to uh uh to zoning uh they told me that it was fine at the library and then later on that they told me that it was too far away and that it has to be within one mile. Um so I knew that the meeting was not going to happen. I did go to the library during the day of the meeting because we did put up signs on the property and I did not go up to the front desk to request a room because I know that I'm going to have to have another meeting. So, I sat on the front door. I opened my laptop and I put a large sign and I can provide photographs of that and dated uh that I was there at the front door at the library and um I sat there for about 2 hours and waited for someone to show um I guess Mitchum Mr. Mitchell must have walked by me and went to the front desk instead of seeing my sign or discussing it with me. So after that, I contacted zoning again and went to zoning and I asked zoning if please they can give me um like where should I have uh the uh uh the meeting. Uh so they requested the elementary school on Muffet Road. Uh I went there and I met with the principal and uh I told her based on the previous meetings that I've had we've you know we haven't had any shows but we have to have the uh meeting and she said um it's fine. Uh we'll give you a location for the meeting on that which was which was okay. Uh I filed all the papers with the commission. Uh on the day of the meeting, I was there at the school at the elementary school and uh the only person that did show up was Mr. Mitchell and I sat with Mr. Mitchell. We had a conversation for about an hour. Uh we agreed to exchange any emails and I told him I'll be more than happy to answer any of his questions by email or if you'd like to

meet again. Uh I sent two emails to Mr. Mitchell and I did not get any response from that. And uh I went to see the principal the day after. uh the meeting and received the letter. She verified that I was there and she signed the letter for me being there and so on. And um so I just filed the paperwork the next day um to the zoning department and um I received a letter to uh to attend here today. Uh 5101 Muffet Road is uh an older building. It used to be a convenience store and uh we're basically reszoning from uh B2 to B3 and it's going to be a garage um sorry it's going to be a car lot uh with very light garage work. We're remodeling the building from scratch. Uh it already has its entrances from each side of the road. Uh it has its dumpster pad already and uh whatever is required is being done by the engineers and so on. Um as for Mr. Mitchell's questions. MYMS is a US corporation. Uh it is incorporated in Texas. Its owners live here in Alabama. They own other corporations here in Alabama and a lot of real estate here in Alabama. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. So, um, Mr. Chair, um, a question for staff. I mean, I guess with I guess are we just lacking documentation for that final meeting, I guess, or is that kind of where we're at, I guess? No. So, so we have documentation for that final meeting, but the meet in the parking lot of the school. Okay.

And the UDC requires it to be held within a public or institutional building. And so the way the UDC is interpreted and read and way you've got legal counsel as well is those meetings can't be held outside. They need to be held inside outside of the elements. All right. Any other questions, comments from the commission? All right. Moving on to number 14, 3244 and 3246 Dolphin Street. This is a subdivision of one lot and a sidewalk waiver. Hello, my name is Stacy Renucci. Uh, my address is 13629 Clarence Dobs Road, Glenn St. Mary, Florida. Um, I am here representing the property owner and Chick-fil-A. I am their agent. We are the consulting, engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, mechanical engineering, plumbing, and surveyor for Chick-fil-A. Um what you see here is we have twopart application tonight. First one is the subdivision which is actually not subdividing. Instead we're combining. Um lots two and three will be combined. Um lot two is currently an outof business Sam's restaurant that's um been vacant for a while. And then lot three is the existing Chick-fil-A. Um, the purpose of combining these parcels is to demolish both structures and to rebuild across with a larger Chick-fil-A and much more drive-thru stacking room to solve the issues of traffic that overflows onto surrounding properties and streets. Um, I did receive the staff report on

there and we agree with the comments from staff. Um, it sounds favorable with everything there and we agree with the comments that were made. The second part of our request tonight was for a sidewalk waiver um along Dolphin. There is currently a sidewalk on Northgate Drive. There is not a sidewalk on Dolphin anywhere along that entire several blocks radius. Um, when we had our pre-application meeting, we were under the understanding that since there was no sidewalk there, we could apply for a waiver because it didn't it wasn't it wouldn't connect to anything more or less and just be out there. After reading staff's comments, we're to understand that the city does have an initiative to get these sidewalks built everywhere. Um, Chick-fil-A is always going to be a partner to the community. they have no problem putting in a sidewalk um if that is the goal of it. Um comments were I think I'll need some extra time with staff to go over the placement of that sidewalk. There doesn't really seem to be room on our parcel because of the landscape buffer requirement. And then we already have two rows of street trees in the rightway and there's a service road in between. Our concern with putting a sidewalk on the other side of that service road is we're forcing pedestrians to walk across a service road. Um but there's really not a feasible location to put it on the parcel without wiping out entire buffer requirements. Um, so we just need to really speak with staff about that for the ideal placement, but we do understand um the city's stance on wanting a sidewalk. Um, it won't currently connect to anything. It's just

going to kind of be end at the end of our parcel. Um, I did uh try to find out and maybe this is another conversation Chick-fil-A would be willing to pay into a sidewalk fund if those funds could be allocated somewhere else that are in better need that could serve um sidewalk construction somewhere else. Um, but we're okay with um staff's comments on both reports. Thank you very much for that. I've been advocating for a sidewalk fund for years, but unfortunately our attorney tells us we don't have the ability to tax people. So, but it's a great idea.

Yes. Many of the places we deal with it's you it's called like in lie of and you pay based on the construction cost. So, it would be no different than them doing it during construction. You would get the same equivalent money. We do this in many places um where they haven't quite established that infrastructure of sidewalks yet. Um, so that's an option, but definitely after this meeting, um, like to have a meeting with staff to go over the placement. There's a lot of utilities and a lot of street trees out in that rightway. It's going to be very difficult to place a sidewalk. Um, so we do kind of maybe need to get a little creative um, and where we put it or might have to ask for another variance on a landscape buffer to get it within the parcel limits. So, but willing to do that.

Well, thank you. Any questions, comments from the commission?

I'll just I'll add that did the city in conjunction with the uh the state and FHWA has a project to basically to reconstruct street that's underway right now. Uh sidewalks were much a discussion of that point. uh as that project developed over many many years because we could not connect them across the interstate they said look we can't spend their funding on it at some point in the future realistically the city probably will come down that entire corridor and add sidewalks make them ADA compliant make them all holistically connected uh I too wish we could accept your payment into a sidewalk fund uh you know for a future effort but today and in the foreseeable future it would be a piece that would be out there uh that's not part of a whole designed segment. Uh so uh in a little bit of a conundrum there, but I from my perspective, I would support a sidewalk uh waiver on it. So

So if staff has any idea of those future roadway construction plans and what your plans are as far as placement of that sidewalk, that's kind of what we would like to know. We are getting into the final stages of our land development permit process. We're going for away um variance next month on a couple things that were needed to make the parcel work and then we're ready to actually submit for building permit. So, we're moving ahead very quickly. So, if we have an idea of where you want that placed, I would like to get it incorporated into our plans so we can get it. The city's project is really just curb curb curb gutter to curb gutter is throat. does not get and it is not you haven't and we are not constructing any sidewalks where

in the in the intersections there might be ADA ramps that are added but there are no linear sidewalks constructed there because they just were not uh because they could not connect across the interstate FHWA said look we're not going to we're not going to fund that as part of this project the city would have to do it at a later date and so we don't have a designed sidewalk project along that entire corridor so uh we don't really have anything to to to share with you if we did we We'd graciously do it, but we don't.

Yeah, we do have a little unique situation in that rightway. Um, double row of street trees because after the Chick-fil-A and that other restaurant were built, they didn't have street trees on the opposite side of the service road. So, they made them put double row on the opposite side. So, then we're also now being asked to put street trees as well on the Chick-fil-A parcel. So, it's going to be like three rows of street trees before development. So, we do have room, you know, if city's willing to work on not having that third row of street trees and keeping it in or we'll have to find a way to make it meander through those existing street trees in the rightway. There are a lot of tree roots and a lot of utilities. So,

yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, a waiver would be great, but I I do want to say that's Chick-fil-A in no way would want is trying to get out of doing something that's by code. That's definitely not the way they do things. Um, and if it benefits the community, they'd be all about it. We just didn't necessarily see the benefit to the community because it didn't seem very safe to have them cross a service road. They do have these sidewalk along Northgate, by the way. All right. Thank you. Okay.

Anyone else here to speak for or against agenda item number 14? All right. That did y'all want me to take this other business now? Yeah. All right. That concludes the public hearing session. We will now move to the deliberation session. Yes.

Uh I don't think I'm allowed to do that, but we will bring it when we get to your agenda item. Uh I'm sure there'll be comments that will come up and I think I can allow you to speak as my one day as chair. I think I have that authority. Um all right. Agenda item number one, 4,800 Mafett Road. This is a major modification of a previously approved planning approval and a uh modification of a PUD. Since this is a major mod, I would prefer that they be here. Yeah.

Especially since what they submitted since the last time it was before you was not sufficient. So I I would say hold over instead of approving it in their absence. All right. If it was just a subdivision be another matter a major modifi chair move to approve hold over to the March 19th meeting. We have a motion second and seconded to hold over to the May meeting. We say May March March March 19th.

Hold on one second with that vote. We're checking to see if it's allowed to be held over again. This is I think it can Okay. I stand corrected. Only uh the UDC only allows one holdover. So, I'll leave that up to y'all as how y'all want to handle.

Mr. Chairman, this being MOA, uh, think I'd like to make a phone call if I could real quick just find out maybe something happened. Uh, I think I unders it looks like I can follow what they're what they're proposing to do. Let me see just why they don't have a why they don't have representation here. If you'll if you'll allow me a quick second. Yeah, we'll we'll come back to one. All right. Number two, Mr. Chair, do I need to resend my motion or anything since we already had a second? We just didn't vote. We'll come back and vote on that.

Uh, number two, 30 307, 309, 311, and 317 St. Joseph Street. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve uh waving item number seven. I'll second in that motion. They've got three existing Yeah.

curb cuts. You're gonna wave that. It'd be better to say allow one on St. Joseph and one on Adams. Yes. If if you would change that motion. Move to approve waving condition number seven or rewriting and just This is a huge agenda. I cannot. All right. Rewriting condition number seven allowing one curb cut on St. Joseph and one curb cut on Adam Street. Second. I'll second the same motion or the properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I

I All right. Item passes. Item number three. This is the east terminus of Roseqing Drive subdivision of two lots. Motion to approve. subject to staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. All opposed. Item passes. Number four, 3431 Clubhouse Road subdivision grade two lots. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Subject staff recommendations. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. I. All opposed. The item passes. Agenda item number five, 2237 and 2247 Bear Fork Road. I believe this was recommended for a holdover. Motion to hold over to the March 19th meeting. Second. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The item passes. Agenda item number six, 6970 Leverne Drive South, subdivision creating two lots.

Motion to approve subject to staff conditions. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I I opposed. Item passes. Number seven, 1801 Boyin Boulevard subdivision creating three lots from one meets and bounds parcel. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Subject to staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I

I all opposed. Item passes. Agenda item number eight, 362, 364, and 366 Burton Avenue, subdivision of four lots from three existing. Move to approve subject staff uh recommendations waiting condition number one. Second, properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

All opposed. Item passes. Agenda item number nine, 5070 Lshell Road, subdivision creating six lots. The applicant was not present. And this is a new application. Okay. So we can the discussion of a hold over. Uh is there a motion move to hold over to March 19th? Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

All opposed. The item will be held over. Number 10, 4575 Hermitage Avenue. This is a request for a sidewalk waiver. Move to approve the sidewalk waiver. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. All opposed. The item passes. Number 11, sidewalk waiver at 6130 and 6140 Rangeine Road. a motion. Move to approve the waiver. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

All opposed. I item passes number 12. This was the conditional use permit at 904 Kentucky Street. Is there a motion? I got a question for staff. The the special a conditional use permit as part of the zoning ordinance. So, can they get a waiver from that and can they get a variance? Is it possible to get a variance from these requirements? I.e. the location of the trash can. I don't think we've been down this road yet. I thought we've we have perhaps had some internal legal discussion that getting a variance from a cup was not possible. Okay.

That it either fully complied with CUP requirements at a PC level at least or didn't. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh,

so with the recommendation this like should this should the council take this up or council should the planning commission take this up to send the council? I guess would would it need to be noted that due to the fact that there is something that is not within the within full compliance that you know maybe plan like hypothetically the commission recommends for the conditional use permit to be approved. Um noting that this is out of compliance and then it would be left at council at that point whether or not to to take that into consideration to to I guess theoretically override what their ordinance is. Am I thinking that right? I I think it would be best, Councilman, if since all since this is a requirement, all conditions be met. Let's not let this

do anything with them. This just either does or it doesn't and then let the council decide how best they want to handle. Gotcha. Well, that pertains to my question. Would it be appropriate to hold this over and allow Mr. Woods to take the message to the council and and let them possibly come to a resolution of this? No. Okay. I would be opposed to hold Holdover's not going to do us any any good. Um I I think it I mean if we're making a recommendation

Yeah. recommend that it be denied and then or make a motion in the most favorable way and then they can talk to their council person to get it on the council agenda. Yeah.

Is there a motion to deny in the most favorable way possible? Um, you want me to undertake? Let's just move you on to the city council. I make a motion to deny uh this zoning application for a uh for a conditional use permit um due to the requ it does not meet the requirements of article 5 section 64-5-6E.11. Is that more favorable? Yeah. All right. Is there a motion? Is there a second? All right. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. I. I. All opposed. All right. We're agenda item number 13, reszoning 5101 Moffett Road. Um, I have a question of the staff because I think I'm I know where y'all might be going to

hold another neighborhood meeting for our requirements of the of the ordinance. How much time does that take to come with all the deadlines? if they wanted to hold it over a month, that's not going to be sufficient.

Correct. So the it cannot be held less than 60 days prior to a planning commission meeting. Um I will mention that with this particular application, the original submittal was in September. So without any action um being that it couldn't necessarily be held over indefinitely, the application subsequently expires and they will have to make a new application. So at that point, it's up to them when they want to hold that neighborhood meeting. They've been provided with all of the applicable dates that would qualify them for all planning commission meetings until I think June or August. I don't know if that answers your question or not.

So yeah. So you're saying at this point in time it this application has expired. This application will expire um by the March meeting. And so they then from that point have to schedule their neighborhood meeting within the appropriate time frame depending on which planning commission meeting is most applicable. But when you say expire, does that mean they have to resubmit or just have to start the process over again with the neighborhood meeting? Well, they're going to be restarting the process over again with the neighborhood meeting anyway, right? But but does that mean they have to file refile that this application was terminated and they have to file it again?

Right. If no action is taken on this um then yes the application would expire.

When was this application submitted? Yeah, it was originally um submitted in September. That requirement that it be held in a building, is that conveyed to the applicants? I mean, do they It is written in the neighborhood information, excuse me, the neighborhood meeting information packet that's provided to all applicants.

So, if we were denied the application, he wouldn't be able to submit for another so many months. Right. Right. In this case, it would be six months. So in the case of a no action, we would just not vote on anything or have the hold over and make them reapply. That was probably a question better answered by illegal. What was the question? So what will we do in this case if we're not going to do no action? Is it just we hold it over, let it expire, get to reapply? We just take no action.

Just take no action. No vote on anything. Right. That would apparently ex expedite the future process because if he withdraws it or it's denied, he has to wait six months. If it's just terminates on its own with no action, I'm not sure he has to wait six months. I wouldn't think so. We've had similar situations where the applications expired due to lack of information given to us. So, it never was advanced commission. Yeah. Right.

Just and I mean this is a reasonzoning. So we're strictly a recommending body, but you're not making a recommendation to the well the staff's position that he has not complied with the Yeah. meeting requirements. So you can't send it up until he does. Yeah.

So would the action be that because he has not met the neighborhood meeting requirement, then it's not a a legitimate application at this point?

Yeah, exactly. Is there a motion? All right. So, there's no motion. The commission dog Doug, so we're just

I mean, we aren't able to vote on this. Vicki, let the record reflect that the commission decided not to take any action on this application at this point in time. All right, moving on to agenda item number 14. This was dual application of a subdivision and a sidewalk waiver at 3244 and 3246 Dolphin Street. Is there a motion? Move to approve and we'll take these separately. I'm sorry. So, we'll start with the subdivision. Move to approve. subject to staff recommendations on the subdivision.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. All opposed. The item passes. Second part of this application is a sidewalk waiver. Is there a motion? Move to approve the sidewalk waiver. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. All opposed. All right. Item passes. All right. That concludes the public hearing. We have other business. Mr. Chairman, do we need to go back to item number one? Oh, number one. Thank you.

I'll speak I'll speak I can speak to it, but I I've uh communicated with MAS and unfortunately their engineer that's in charge of this project's unavailable. uh in looking at their drawings that are submitted. Uh it is a proposed maintenance building and a gate that's internal to their complex. Uh so again, I don't I don't know why they did not have representation here. Uh it looks pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Uh and as I read the as I read what they're doing there, it's a a clarifier, which would be a water clarifier and a pump station. So, with it with it being Mars, I'm I'm I'm kind of uh well, I'm disappointed they're not here, but I'm inclined to want to recommend this for approval. Uh if it were not approved, what would be their process if this is since this has been held over once, could they bring this back? I mean, they're kind of a unique animal here and that they are a utility provider.

Um staff did take that into consideration. Uh we have been in contact with them just over the course of the request. um the engineer that was hired to submit this particular application uh was not hired for the scope of work that we're requiring of the site plan. And so I think that's where the um the the holdup has been. So what we did was recommend um that if it is approved that they have to provide us that site plan before we even consider sending it to city council. And so that kind of puts the ball in their court on their timeline and gives them the two years to comply. I'll make that motion then that they that they have to provide the uh the appropriate site plans before any building permits are issued.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I oppose. The item passes. Now that concludes the deliberation session. We have other business today. We have two. This is uh M Mr. Chair. Yes. We have two items under agenda number one. So, do we need two separate B? Oh, it two. Yes. Yes. So, all right. Let's just back it up. Run it.

We'll take first. So I'll I'll revise my motion to include adopting findings of facts A through H on the planning approval and I'll second properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I I All opposed. I planning approval passes modification of the PUD. Is there a motion? Move to approve subject staff recommendations and adding the requirement for site plan submitt and adopting findings of facts A through H. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I opposed. Item passes. All right. Now on to other business. This is uh the south side of Raven Drive at the south terminus of Cardinal Drive East. uh MAA-acc sub this um I was involved in this uh and got Nick and George involved in this when the this is the U Mobile Airport Authority application for the new Airbus facility on the north side of the interstate. Uh one of the conditions placed on the subdivision approval was a standard engineering department condition uh requisite right away from for the AL DOT for the service road. Uh AL DOT was did not ask for that. It was just a standard uh condition that the staff would put on it. when it got down to uh George engineering department signing the plat or or approving the plat uh Airbus realized that that could affect their uh their development. We talked to Nick, we talked to staff, they said no problem, we don't need it. Uh check with Al DOT. So, Vulkar Engineering got a letter or an email from Vulkar U from ALDOT stating that they do not desire any more right of way. So, this is just going back and removing that dedication uh from the approval and the PL's already been signed. So,

I'll make a motion to remove the condition number two. Thank you. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I All right. And we have uh minutes to approve. Okay. All right. Uh just a reminder that officer elections are scheduled for the March meeting. Sorry, I couldn't hear you.

That officer elections are scheduled for the March meeting. What what he's trying to what he's trying to say is you what he's trying to say is you just passed your audition. Yeah, you passed. That wasn't on me agenda.