Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, we're going to do that. Good afternoon. This is the March 19th, 2026 meeting for the Mobile City Planning Commission. Like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions. the public hearing session and then deliberation. In a public hearing session, the agenda item is called, the applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions if any. Members of the public make their comments to the commission. Reminder, for any agenda item, four people can speak for an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. At one minute, a speaker will hear a warning bell or beep, and we ask that you summarize your comments. If there is an opposition to an agenda item, those speakers uh uh will have an opportunity to two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, please come to the bottom of the stairs at the podium, speak into the microphone, provide your name and address for the record, and direct all your comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, the staff, or the audience. After hearing all the applications, we will then go into deliberation where we will discuss each application with input from the from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. Commissioners then vote on each application and the results of that 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 those to those issues in order to resolve them or we will 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 applicant or the application, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules do require a recusal. If there is

a recusal, a super numerator will vote in theirstead. This is a reminder that 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 application and all appeals of city council decisions are to the circuit court. Do me a favor, turn off your cell phones and your dings from your brackets. Any electronic devices to vibrate. If you do need to take a call, please exit the auditorium. Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. Call the role. Myself, J. Stubs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate, present. Miss Jennifer Densson. Mr. Harry Brlin

here. Mr. Larry Dorsey here. Mr. Chad Anderson. Mr. Matt Anderson here. Mr. Nick Amber here. Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols here. Miss Ellie Edwards. We do have a quorum. Go ahead and move to pass the agenda for today, March 19th. So moved. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

The motion passes. We will move into our two holdovers from previous meetings. Number one on the agenda is a resubdivision of the Leadian M. Williams subdivision, subdivision of two lots of just over 4 and a half acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Show of hand. Uh it's got 10 listed conditions here. Are you in agreement with all those conditions? The applicant is a thumbs up for those listed conditions. I'll ask if there's any questions or comments on this application from any commissioners. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience who is here to ask questions about, in favor of, or against this agenda item at 2237 and 2247 Bear Fork Road. All right, seeing none, we will move on. Second holdover on the agenda. It's a subdivision at 5070 Old Shell Road, the cottages at Spring Hill. It's a subdivision of six lots at just over half an acre. Is the applicant present? Applicants coming down. Just a reminder that there are 16 listed conditions here. Please state your name and address for the commission. microphone on

test. There we go.

Corey Bronin Camp, 549 Congress Street. Uh, appreciate y'all holding this over from last meeting just to give us an opportunity to do a couple of items to to button things up. Um we were in in that time we were able to hold a uh meeting with the country club village community um and had some good dialogue um that Miss Kelly Meyers was um able to uh organize for us. It seemed like everybody was in support of the proposed development. Miss Meyers was certainly in support of it. I think a handful of people if y'all look through the file have submitted uh letters in in support of it and some of the neighbors as well. Um I did want to point out as well that uh I met with village of Spring Hill folks and um they seem to be in support and um and also Councilwoman uh Gina is also in support of of this uh subdivision. Um, I know a couple of the items that uh were issues from the last time that I was before y'all, of course, storm water. Um, we were able to do some engineering and and work with Commissioner Amber Burgerer and uh Mr. George Davis. I think um we're on the same page with that as as it relates to how that's going to be handled. Um, so I think everyone was able to reach a certain comfort level. Um, and further design obviously will occur during land disturbance permit. Um there are some considerations that I would ask for waiverss on. It'd be number two and number three. Um and that is the additional rideway. I think in a previous meeting someone from uh engineering had mentioned that there uh likely is no future uh road expansion on either of those roads. Um, also in some dialogue with the neighbors, uh, it didn't seem like there was much appetite to have parking in front of those houses

there. So, um, I kindly ask if if you all can consider, uh, removing those, uh, considerations. And then looking for a little bit of, uh, clarification on item number seven. It's, uh, it's not abundantly clear to me if the sidewalks and streetscapes are responsibility of the developer or builder. Um, I guess I would I would ask or propose that it would be the responsibility of the builder um that way the um when it comes time for development, they're just going to get torn up during house construction. So, it would just make sense to do them uh when the builder does them in time to the CEO. So, I don't know if there's someone who can add some color to that number seven.

Question for staff on number sevens specifically. Yeah, we would view that as when when the property is developed by the owner that they would develop, they would create their own sidewalk or streetscape. It's not not you as the developer, but when you sell it when the house is being built when the house be okay. So, it's tied to CEO for Okay. I mean, just so that's on on the record. Um because I could just see it now installing sideworks and then having to reinstall them uh once the builder comes along. But um that's all I have and unless anyone has any questions for me be happy to answer.

We do have a question from staff and uh we'll go staff first and then commissioners. Go ahead.

Okay. Um it's really a a comment. Usually when um there are um requirements to be constructed with a subdivision, we get those constructed before the homes are allowed to be um built and get a CO. So, I I I don't really know what exactly he's asking to to to delete or change on here and how would it how how that would affect because both of the alleys need to be improved before the houses can get a CO.

I think he's asking after he puts in the infrastructure, the sidewalks will not be constructed until the house is being constructed and before the CO is issued. Okay. So, it's just delayed. Just the sidewalk. Yes. Just the sidewalks. Okay. All right. And it said streetscape, so I didn't know if that included rideway improvements or the alley improvements. I just want to clarify that.

Yeah. I mean, and any non-lot improvements obviously will be done during the time of lot development. So, I'm good there. And if there's any sidewalks that fall in common area, we're good there. It was just uh simply um clarifying that the the individual lot sidewalks won't be built until time of uh building. Okay. Yeah. And I I agree with that and that's typically the way we do it with the home constructions to allow the sidewalk to be constructed then. Thank you. Thank you too for clarifying it for me. Sure. We'll now move up here. Any questions, comments from commissioners? Mr. Anderson?

Yeah. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So you said that you had met with engineering and y'all came to an understanding regarding water detention and everything. Yes sir. Um what is the solution?

Yeah. So um we had put forth and and maybe I'll let uh Mr. George uh elaborate a little bit but my engineer uh got with Mr. George and uh basically put together um some schematics or an initial design. Um we we had we did a a percolation test and surprisingly the soils perked pretty well. It was about 5 in per hour. Um and so uh my engineer got with Mr. George put together just a a provisional design uh and based upon the the email that I have right here. Um you know everyone was comfortable w with what was conceptually designed. I mean obviously the the full design is going to come out during land disturbance permit. So, it's just an initial design. Um, one thing I will tell you, and um, I I told this to the neighbors as well, cuz I know storm water is a huge concern in this area. Obviously, it's come up every single meeting. Um, and I'm if it comes down to it, um, it it's conceivable that we do lose one lot. So, lot one is the low point. So, if you're looking on the northwest corner, that's the low point of the site. There's there's also a handful of pretty sizable oak trees there. And so it may be nice to go ahead and pull that as a lot and uh create some uh storage there for water and then preserve some oak trees. So that's always an option if we run out of room during the design process. We want to keep it on there because my understanding is if we back down the five lots, it's administrative. If we go up and we have to come back here. So um that's kind of the general approach. I don't know if uh Mr. George, if you want to add anything as as it related to the conversations you had with my engineer, if you um awesome.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners?

All right. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here for this agenda item to have questions towards it, to speak for it, or speak against it. All right, seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Bronnamp. Moving on to new agenda items. First new item is a subdivision at 2449 and 2453 is Lava Creek Parkway sheet metal workers local union 441. This is a subdivision of one lot at 085 acres. As you come down to the podium, reminder to speak your name and address for the record. And there are nine conditions uh that we'll need to obviously address. Make sure you're comfortable with or if you have questions towards those. Go ahead.

Yeah. George Kohl's 457 St. Michael Street. Um we'd like to uh we'd like to discuss consideration one. Just to give you some background, uh earlier we we applied and were granted a uh front setback variance to reduce the setback to 10 ft. um due to a hardship imposed by the sewer easement on the south side of the of the property. So if if we were to agree to consideration one that would place the rightway line where our setback line is and would essentially render the project unbuildable. Um we haven't found any other lots in this area that have a 60oot rideway. Um so we don't necessarily feel like it's appropriate for this site.

So only discussion on number one two through nine are okay. Yeah. We we also we also were just wanted to ask for some clarification under engineering comments G asking for the uh flood zone to be changed from 13 ft to 13 1/2 ft. We weren't really sure where that came from. No, we don't really have a problem with it. We just were want some clarification on it. Uh that that came from the FEMA profile information. Okay. 13 is a little bit further downstream. Okay.

And and the 14 is upstream and and sometimes we'll usually we go to the higher number and and sometimes we'll round it to half a foot. So Okay. Thank you. You're good on that? Yeah, we're good on that. All right. Back to number one. Um, I'll ask staff any opinions there and then get a comment after review from Mr. Amber or any other commissioners for that matter. So, being landlocked with the creek, you're just simply from the development of the lot and the space, you're just trying to make sure you've got enough room for everything.

Yeah. Yeah. We had to get that variance to even be able to fit the building on the site and and so it just it wouldn't work if we had to move the ride away that much closer.

Staff have a problem with that request. Thank you, Tom. I got a question for staff. Is is this really just trying to get things to uh line up with the the major street plan? Is that what this getting that right away along there? Because I don't think this road's ever going to have any any widening done to it anytime anytime soon or Yeah.

Even that's correct. Okay. Is there do we do we know what the what the existing rightway is now? I mean, we're not in a scenario where the rightway is just jammed right up against the road to where there's no rightway in there.

That sounds that sounds about right. 20 ft. Yeah, that's what you're Yeah. I mean, I think the main thing we wanted to make sure of was that the

ditch, it looks like there's a ditch and if there's any utilities out there within that within the city's rightway, but beyond that, I don't think there's anything more that's needed. The plat we have doesn't show the really doesn't show the edge of the road. It shows the center line of the road relative to all the property lines and stuff. Um, yeah, another 10 ft looks like it would be inside of a fence that's already out there. So, I just don't I don't I don't I understand the the intent to request it, but I just don't think that it's I don't think it's anything we need to do. Nick, I had a hard time hearing you.

I'm sorry. I said I don't I don't think it's anything that uh I mean, I think we can strike number one. I don't I don't see a problem with with strike number one unless staff seeing something something differently. Logan, you need a couple more minutes. Are you uh There we go. Yeah.

Thank you. Uh so if what I hear is we're okay with the potential of striking number one, we'll go consider that under uh at at appropriate time. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience well any further questions or comments from commissioners on this agenda item at Islava Creek Parkway. Is there anyone in the audience that is here to speak for have questions towards or speak against this agenda item? So moved. We will move on to number four. Subdivision 360 Palmetto Street, the Holiday Inn, Relo Tower subdivision. It's two lots at 0.14 acres. Is the applicant present? As you make your way to the podium, reminder for name and address for the record. And there are nine listed conditions.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Naomi McGuya. I'm with the Baker Donaldson Law Firm, so I don't have an address here in in town. Um, but I don't have any concerns or comments regarding the conditions. I'm just happy to answer any questions that the commissioners or staff might have in regards to the application. Can you repeat your last name, please? Magoya. M I G O Y A. And then regardless of your address, it's still for the record. So, even if it's out of state. Oh. Uh, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama.

Got it. On this agenda item, I'll ask if there's any questions from commissioners as the applicant is here to answer them. Seeing none, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here for this agenda item to speak for, have questions towards, or speak against at 360 Palmetto Street. All right, seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you, ma'am. Number five on the agenda. 5536 Surman Road West and 5660, 5680 Surman Road North, the Willis Surman Connector Subdivision. Uh, this is a application that is should be considered for holdover until the May 21st meeting. Is the applicant present? Are you aware of that suggestion? Are you in agreement with that suggestion? The applicant is present and nodding with a thumbs up that he is in agreement with that. Uh that means any required revisions uh fees all due by May 3rd for the May 21st meeting. Good to go there. And because it's on the agenda, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, have questions towards, or speak against this agenda item. If so, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and fire away.

My name is Tony Cooper. I'm the owner of Birkshshire Hathway Cooper and Company Real Estate. Um, I've been in the real estate business for 55 years. Done quite a few developments in Mobile, Alabama. Um, residential all the way to commercial industrial parks. Um, I remember when I first got in the real estate business, uh, there wasn't a lot of restrictive covenants. There wasn't a lot of planning and it everything was done sort of on a hodgepodge basis. But I want to commend this this group of people over here in this board for the outstanding job that you've done to try to protect our property values. Um, I think you've done a great job. My concern that I have here today, I don't necessarily have a concern about this road that the road is already in. There's a lot of truck traffic that comes up and down that road and it goes through um the business park. This is zone B3. That business park is a beautiful park and an asset to u to Theodore and Tilman's Corner. the the planning, excuse me, the planning commission has done an outstanding job protecting it with restrictive covenants and and I have built two buildings. I own three lots in there and built two buildings and they're probably in the range of 750 to a million dollars. My concern is this. I was told from the owner that the the people in the rear where those big buildings are and those big parking lots are have a have a a plan to change the zoning from B3 to B5 and have truck parking and spillover parking for all those trucks in in the rear. My concern is that's going to hurt the community.

That's going to hurt our tax base. If you had say 15 or 20 buildings, $750,000 a piece, think of the tax revenue for the for the city of Mobile. So, my concern would be not to get ahead of this because you haven't heard about it yet, but I think that's coming down the pike. I'm I wouldn't be for that. You know, I like I said, I own three lots and there are other there a couple other owners that aren't here today. I'm sure they would have I'd have to ask them, but I'm sure they if they knew about it, they'd have a similar feeling. U if you get a chance, the commissioners here and you're in that area, just drive through there one time and see how nice it is. And if you've seen some of these parking lots with these semitrs parked up with fences around and and and papers flying everywhere, all you got to do is drive in the back and you can see what it looks like. you might not want that exposure to Highway 90 because you're trying to take that corridor and make it nice. So, I just lay that out to you ahead of time before you get your minds made up that that's that you want to change the zoning. Consider what I'm telling you. And um again, I don't have a problem with the road that they want to whatever they want to do with that. Um that's about it. So, thank you for taking time to listen to my comments. U thank you Mr. Cooper. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions or comments towards this agenda item. I just have a question after looking at this just to clear it up. It appears to me the adjoining property that Mr. Cooper referencing is currently zoned I1. Is that correct? No further questions.

I have one more comment. If they did decide they need Tony Tony, your concerns have nothing to do with this application itself. This is a subdivision and what you're talking about is something that's going to come down in the future possibly. I was making a comment. That was that was all I was doing was making a comment. If they did want extra parking, there's 14 acres in the rear for truck parking that they could rent.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Any further questions, comments from commissioners? All right, we'll move on to number six on the agenda. This is at 720 Museum Drive, the Armory Subdivision, subdivision of three lots at 4.56 acres. Mr. Kenny Nichols is recused and even with a recusal, we'll maintain a quorum for the agenda item. Uh, is the applicant present? you like to come down for any questions or comments or if you just as a reminder name and address for the record and then there are 11 conditions listed and then for the commissioners this would be the potential of a waiver of section 9.3 C3B8 uh which would deal with turning lanes for Museum Drive and North McGregor. Yes,

Kathy Sherman here for Museum Partners, 41 West I 65 Service Road North, sweet 310, Mobile 36608. Um, we um are good with all the conditions listed. Um, the only thing to clarify maybe would be an item number six. What we're really seeking there is a waiver of that sixoot planting strip required.

A planting strip, streetcape. Number six is the streetscape consistent with other developments when the village of Spring Hill. I think different subdists of the village have different requirements for the front part and the one the subdist we're in requires a six foot planting strip which is not what exists across the street from us in other areas. So we're just trying that's what it means when it says we're trying to be consistent. I was just clarifying that we're not we're seeking a waiver of the sixoot planting strip to go between the building and the curb. We're doing tree wells and a 12oot sidewalk like a larger sidewalk rather than the planting strip. That's what the village wants and that was discussed with the village. Yes. Gotcha.

And so they have plans for that improvement corridor which involves tree wells and a wider sidewalk and so we're trying to do it consistent with their plans. Staff okay with that suggestion pertaining to that? Get a nod of yes. Any questions or comments from commissioners?

Well, do we need to do we need to change the wording of number six then? or is a wide sidewalk with tree wells consistent enough with that subdista that was this is the subject of that meeting we had with them and a lot of different departments talking about the size of the sidewalks right and we kind of came to an agreement at that meeting that as long as they were consistent with what was there and they and they discussed the tree wells that and that's how the condition is written based on the plans that they submitted which shows ly consistent with Village of Spring Hill as developed elsewhere. So,

so we don't need to change anything then because it is consistent because y'all just used the word consistent several times. Be consistent. Okay. Okay. Great. So, what I'm hearing is it can stay as is, but since Miss Sherman is here and has it on the record of her clarification that we should be okay with that. I'm with that long. We got a nod from Doug, so that means we're okay there. Thank you. Any further questions, comments from commissioners? Thank you, M. Sherman. I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience here to speak for, have questions towards or speak against agenda item number six at 720 Museum Drive. Yes, sir. Actually had a question regarding proposed lots two and three. Are both of those going to have driveways internally?

Um, lots two and three would not have a curb cut for a driveway. that the intent is that lot one is going to contain all of the storm water detention areas and the parking associated and required for lots two and three. Okay. Good to go. Yeah. Any others? Mr. Chair, go ahead. And for clarification, I guess give or take about a year ago, um the city the city forfeited some land and the detention that you're representing in lot one um that's going to really contain some of the city's water as well. Correct. It'll take from the fire station. It'll go in that same pond. Correct. Yes, sir. Thanks.

All good.

All right. Uh we will now move on to agenda item number seven. uh we will recuse Mr. Mate and for the purposes of efficiency we'll go ahead and combine agenda items seven and nine since they are the same roughly the same uh project development uh applicant and then we will move number eight uh will go in behind. So if you were here for number eight just bear with us here. So agent item number seven at 2200 Green Street the resubdivision of lots 4 567 and 8 block D division 1 Owens Sims Griffin and Earl subdivision of the St. Louis track subdivision three lots at just over half an acre. There are 10 listed conditions. Yes ma'am.

Um yes we will be removing Name and address for the record please. Terry Kumanis um 150 Government Street Mobile Alabama 3662. Yes ma'am. So, we will be re removing the um the 25 foot setback on um I'm sorry, I'm on the other that's the other one. On number one, we are asking of a waiver of the 25 foot dedication that's under consideration number one. Well, it reads unless a waiver of section B 6B9 of the subdivision regulations is approved. So, does that put that in our purview?

Yes, sir. And that would be consistent with uh recent subdivisions along this corridor. The commissioner is okay with that request from the applicant specific to us discussing or approving this with the waiver. Any questions? All right, M. Commanders, is that all of them on all those on number seven? Uh, yes.

All right. I'll now ask u if there's anyone here in the audience for this specific agenda item at 2200 Green Street to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards it. All right. Seeing none, we will move on to number nine on the agenda. 11:05, 11:07, 11:09, 1113, 15 Edward Street reubdivision of the Plat of Henry Cisco subdivision. four lots at 47 acres. Uh this would consider a potential waiver of section 6C2A1 for substandard lot area and 6C2B3 for lot width. And Mr. Commandis, there are eight listed conditions here. Go ahead.

Um likewise, we will be requesting a waiver of section 6B.9 which is the additional setback for a future rightway expansion. So this is the same request on this uh on this different application. I'll now ask if there that is question okay with staff and then of course any commissioners if you have any questions towards that.

All right seeing none good on go ahead Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just make a comment in general when we get down to these these like super super narrow rideways. I mean, most of the time we're not going to change anything, but I mean, it'd be beneficial if when they came to us, if we had a a survey that maybe captured some things because we just want to make sure we capture the things that should be in the rightway in the rightway. Water meters, uh if there's and if there's fences that should be on private property, uh you just we just it'd be helpful. Okay? you know, because again, we recognize we're not going to go and probably going to get 30 feet there, but it might be that a sliver here or there needs to be done just to just to make sure we kind of do little housekeeping as good as we can.

Certainly. Yeah, we can keep that in mind in the future and um and if there is something out there we need to work on, we can take a second look at it later. Certainly. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll ask on this agenda item if there's anyone here in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards it. All right, seeing none, we can welcome back Mr. Mate. We will now go to number eight on the agenda, which is 1805 Larkwood Drive, the Larkwood Miller Lane subdivision, subdivision of four lots at 74 acres. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present with raised hand. There are eight conditions listed. Are you in agreement with those eight conditions? We got a thumbs up from the applicant. I'll see if there's any questions or comments on this application for commissioners at Lakewood Larkwood Drive. And if not, I will ask if there's anyone here in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision at 1805 Walkwood Drive. All right, seeing none, we will move on. We're now at number 10 on the agenda. This is a subdivision sidewalk waiver request at 3180 Dolphin Street, Brew Horizons LLC. This is a specific request to wa wave the construction of a sidewalk along Dolphin Street.

Yes. Uh Crawford Stit with Brew Horizons LLC, 3201 Dolphin Street. I'm actually with White Spawner, but I'm tenant rep for Brew Horizons. Their civil couldn't make it in town. Um, they're requesting a sidewalk waiver for the seven brew projects on Dolphin Street. Okay. Can you give me a little bit more on the reason why? And then we are in the

there's no sidewalk to tie into and then Chick-fil-A was approved the February 19th meeting on their sidewalk waiver. Aren't we in the middle of major streetscape? Okay, Nick. Yeah, we we are we're in a major in a in a major reconstruction project through there. Uh sidewalks, you know, if they were constructed in the future, they'd be done by the city to kind of clean it up and tie them all in together. So, I would recommend that we approve this waiver. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Mr. Chair,

go ahead. But also too, I mean, uh, just because we do it for one one area doesn't mean we do it for other. And, um, sidewalks are not part of this project, but, um, to Mr. Amber's point, um, they're not in the plan, but if done in the future, the city would do it. So, but, um, I personally don't find just because we did it for somebody else a good reason to wave the sidewalk. So, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Woods. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience who has questions for or against or for this or whatever. Anybody in the audience for this side wall maybe? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you'all.

Final agenda item today is a uh modification. This is a malls modification 1879 Conception Street. Major modification of previously approved PUD plan unit development allowing multiple structures on a single building site to allow the construction of two electrical buildings with a combined total area of approximately 1,200 ft. For commissioners there are potentially eight findings of fact and if approved we would have specific seven conditions following the UDC. Just want to make sure that the appallet is in agreement with or understands those findings, potential findings of fact, and then the uh uh conditions listed. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. I'm David Carr with Jacobs Engineering. Uh we're the project manager on the design side of this project. Um my address is 3557 Laguna Court, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32563. We've read through the considerations and other findings. Have no objections. So, you're all good with the potential findings of fact as well as the conditions? Yes, sir.

All right, Mr. Card. Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this agenda item? Seeing none, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application for the modification at 1879 Conception Street Road. All right, seeing none, we will now close the public hearing session. We'll move back to number one on the agenda. We'll have two uh to go through from former holdovers. Then we'll dive into the new ones. On number one, subdivision application at 2237 2247 Bear Fork Road. Two lots, 4 and a half acres. The applicant is present and in agreement with the 10 listed conditions.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The motion for subdivision passes. Number two, subdivision application at 5070 Old Shell Road, the cottages at Spring Hill subdivision. The applicant is present. Mr. Chairman, um if I may just make a comment regarding the dedication on Parkway Street East, that still would not wave the requirement for the 6' wide planning strip and the associated six wide sidewalk that's part of the village of Spring Hill requirement. Just letting you know that. Thank you sir.

So the applicant was present in 16 listed conditions. There was a request for the dedication of or excuse me number two and number three conditions for that 20 ft center line of parkway and 20 ft center line of east border and we did discuss condition number seven that that was uh something to be done at building time of building. Entertain a motion. Move to approve staff recommendations. Second properly moved and seconded. Are we Yeah. Are we going to two and three? Striking two and three.

Right. I I need to amend my motion to remove items number two and three. Second. Second. properly moved and seconded with omission of conditions two and three. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number three on the agenda, new application at 2449 and 2453 is Lava Creek Parkway. The applicant is present and was in agreement with the nine listed conditions, but specifically on condition number one to remove or amend. Move to approve sub staff recommendation striking of number one. Second properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

The motion for subdivision passes. Number four, subdivision application at third 360 Palmetto Street N tower subdivision nine listed conditions. The applicant is present. Uh made herself available for any questions or comments in agreement with all nine listed conditions. Move, excuse me, entertain a motion. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second, properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The motion for subdivision passes. Number five has been recommended for holdover till May 21st. Move to approve properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. The agenda item will be moved till May 21st. And a reminder that all requirements are due in by May 3rd. Number six, we will recuse Mr. Kenny Nichols. We still maintain a quorum for voting on this. This is a subdivision application. 720 Museum Drive. The applicant is present and in agreement with the listed conditions and clarified the provision for the streetscape on condition number six. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second.

And that does include the waiver of section 93C3B8. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes on number six. We'll welcome back Mr. Kenny Nichols. We will recuse Mr. Mate. We will combine well, we'll do them separately, but we're going to do seven and then nine as a reminder. Uh number seven is 2200 Green Street sub reubdvision of those stated lots. The applicant is present in an agreement with the 10 listed conditions and will remind commissioners of the specific waiver that was requested and discussed.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations waving condition one. Second. Just to clarify, we're waving one or do we want to give it the waiver of of 6B9? We would wave 6B9. Yep. Second. properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number nine. Same uh application or applicant I should say. Those stated addresses at Edward Street. The applicant again is in is present and in agreement with the eight listed conditions, but specifically looking for the waiver of number one's condition. Move to approve. of staff recommendations waving 6B9, 6C2 A1 and 6C2B3. Second. Properly moved and seconded with those waivers. All in favor? I

think they had also requested uh waiver condition one. I'm not sure if that was articulated. So we did that. It was actually unless a waiver. Okay. It was the same as the previous agenda item. Making sure. Yeah, we're good. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion for subdivision. That again, agenda item nine. It passes. Move back in the agenda to number eight. We'll welcome back Mr. Mate. Subdivision at 1805 Larkwood Drive. Subdivision four lots 74 acres. The applicant is present and in agreement with the eight listed conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve sub staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes. Number 10, sub sidewalk waiver application 3180 Dolphin Street. Uh discussion up here. We got we got uh some verbal okays from our city engineer. Move to approve. Second. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Modification application at 1879 Conception Street Road Malls. The applicant Mr. car is present and in agreement or excuse me in understanding of all eight findings of fact potentially and then all seven and bulletointed conditions of the application. Entertain a motion. Move to approve search staff recommendation on the findings of fact A through H. Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A B C D E F G H. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? The motion for modification passes. That concludes our deliberation of the planning commission for this date. We do have other business. We have a and for anyone that likes to stay. You can stay. Call for public hearing on April 16th, 2026 to consider additional amendments to appendix A, Downtown Development District of the UDC, chapter 64 of the Mobile City Code, dated 2022. Miss Boco, do you have any comments towards this or or Bert?

Well, Mr. Chairman, the planning commission approved a major overhaul of the DDD amendments through reorganization back at the October meeting and the city council approved that at their January 20th, 2026 meeting with an effective date of July 20th, 2026. As part of that major reorganization of the document, a few items that were in the original uh regulations were left out. And so these amendments are to reinccorporate those procedures into the document so that we can continue forward uh with the process that everyone is aware of but in a better format. Got it. Miss Bo,

um I would just add that you can expect to see um future work on the DDD. We we had a complete assessment that was done by a consultant um and we are working in phases to incorporate those changes. So this will be the second phase but there will be future phases that um come before the commission and we'll follow the same process to be able to share that information for uh public hearings and to get feedback from the public before they go on to the city council for adoption. Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from commissioners? All right. Move to approve public hearing on April 16th, 2026. Just need a second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. Motion for the public hearing passes. We will batch the review of the minutes from previous meetings, April 17, May 15, June 12th, June July 17, and August 21 of 2025. Believe it or not, we're almost caught up. Move to approve. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I those minutes are passed. Election of officers. Move to approve Mr. J. Stubs as our chair. Second.

All in favor? Do we need any other elections?

Are there any others? We don't have to do anything for Mr. Mate. All all all positions uh vice chair and secretary. All positions remain the same. Happy to do it as long as Jay comes to every meeting. Okay. Vote by acclamation. All in favor? Any opposed? Nick, I mean uh Kirk, you're good. All right. Any further business from staff or commissioners?

Um Mr. Chairman, I would like to um give a special kudos to Miss Victoria Burch with regarding these minutes. She has spent countless hours working to get us caught up and so we're most appreciative of her work with that. So I just wanted to thank her for that. Yeah. But we're not done yet. We will have a celebration party when we catch up. But kudos. Thank you so much for your efforts. Um that we will adjourn. Good luck in everybody's brackets.

Hello I already.