Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You go. Great.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for April 16th, 2026. I'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions, public hearing and then deliberation. In the public hearing session, an agenda item will be called. The applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions if there are any and then the members of the public can make their comments. Only 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 beep or a bell and that is asking you to please summarize your comments. If there is any opposition or questions from the public and and those uh applicants are allowed a twominute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, come to the podium at the bottom of the stairs, speak into the microphone and provide your name and your resident address for the record. Please direct all your com questions to the commission only and not to the applicant, the staff or the audience. After hearing all applications, we then go into the second phase, which is deliberation, where we will discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. Commissioners then vote on each application, and the results of that vote 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 to address those issues in order to resolve them or we will call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting meeting. Occasionally, a commissioner may recuse themselves from discussing a vote or voting on a given application. That does not mean that they are directly involved with the application or applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal. And if there is a recusal, we have super numeratories that will vote in theirstead. A reminder that the planning commission makes final decision 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 planned developments. The city council makes the final decision on those applications, and all appeals of city council decisions are to the circuit court. Do me a favor. Please turn off your cell phones or turn them to the vibrate position and any other electronic devices. Commissioners and staff reminder to please turn on your microphones when speaking. We'll go ahead and call the role. Myself, Jay Stubs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate here. Mr. Jennifer Densen, Mr. Harry Brlin here. Mr. Larry Dorsey here. Mr. Chad Anderson. Mr. Matt Anderson here.

Mr. Nick Amber. Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols, Miss Ellie Edwards here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. We do have a quorum and I'll entertain a mo or go ahead and move that we pass today's agenda item or agenda. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

We will move into our agenda. There are 12 items on here. The first one is a subdivision application at 4103 Mafet Road, the Brown Square subdivision. It's a subdivision of one lot at 1.1 acres. Is the applicant present? I do not see the applicant present. There are eight listed conditions. I'll ask if staff is any knowledge of this applicant and if they're in agreement with any of those. All right, seeing none, I will give the commissioners a chance to review that. I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards agenda item number one at 4103 Mafet Road. All right, seeing none, we will move on. This is number two, a subdivision application at 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway, the Perch Creek subdivision. It's one lot at 4.75 acres. There are 14 listed conditions, one of which might cover excess street frontage. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Are you in agreement with the 14 listed conditions?

Yes, sir. The applicant is present and in agreement by verbal yes. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application of subdivision at 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway. All right, seeing none, we'll move right on to number three. This is a subdivision application at 2590 Dolphin Island Parkway, the DIP Triangle subdivision, one lot at 1.85 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present the same as number two. Are you in agreement, sir, with the eight listed conditions there? Yes,

the applicant is present and in agreement verbally to the eight listed conditions. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions for this agenda item to hear to speak against it. All right, seeing none, we will now move on to number four. This also is a subdivision application 4047 Dawson Drive, the Shreves Estates subdivision. This is a one lot at 34 acres. Uh there are nine listed conditions, one of which might consider the substandard right of way from section 6B9 of our regulations. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a show of a hand. Are you in agreement, sir, with the nine listed conditions or have any questions about them?

Yes, sir. Okay. The applicant is present and in agreement with the nine listed conditions. I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application. A reminder at the podium to please state your name and address. Make sure the p the microphone's down clear enough so we can hear you.

Yes, I'm Lewis Cassidy from Eco Solutions. I'm Mr. Rub Shreves, consultant for his wetland issues and permitting through the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Um, this is the approval of this is an important part of allowing him to build his home on this lot as the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management requires this subdivision to be approved before we can move forward with the rest of the permitting. All right. And you said Cassidy. Cassidy. C Ssy.

All right. Thank you, sir. So, that was just simply a comment letting us and the commissioners know about the procedures steps if you will. Thank you sir. I'll now ask if you have any questions if on this application if there's anyone here to speak for speak against or have questions about. So I have the two of you. Are you going to combine yours and only one speaker or is this going to be two separate two speakers and then a gentleman in the back with his hands raised. So that's three. We're maxed out at four. Is there anyone else that is going to question on this app? Uh on number four.

All right. Yes sir. Go ahead. State your name and address for the record. Nick Nick lily and I live at 5309 Worth Drive which is directly across from the waterway adjacent to the lot that is being u in question here. Uh a comment opposed to the uh uh approval. Uh this is a lot that you have to see to understand it is a small tiny scrub piece of land that's going to require over 50% more additional fill to on a waterway uh to make it habitable or or buildable. Uh we've had an experience with this in the past and the uh uh the lot directly across from us was done in a similar fashion. My property has in has experienced about a 50% increase in flooding because the water would in fact seep up on the other side of the canal and it is now backing up on my over my bulkhead on directly across. So, um there's an incredible amount of fill required. I think 50% of the land has has to be increased and the lot was sold for $15,000 and a piece of waterfront property in Mobile that sells for $15,000 is not a buildable lot. So the bu the the land was purchased with the intention of destroying the the wetlands, increasing the size of the lot uh in order to uh do whatever they want to do with it. uh it's going to directly affect all of us that are on the other side of the canal and I think several of the other folks will talk about it. Uh the the waterway has been decreased. There was a bulkhead illegally constructed until we asked the core of engineers to stop the construction. Uh

they were attempting to uh sever uh build an area. That construction has stopped and now it has protruded or extended into the waterway. And in addition to denying the request, we'd like to ask that that bulkhead or partial bulkhead be removed. Uh construction was stopped by the core of engineers. There was no permit uh awarded or assigned. There was no u contact with the core or with the city about building the property in the first place. Uh that's all I have. All right. Thank you, sir. Next in line. Yes, ma'am. Reminder to please state your name and address for the record.

Yes. Ann Marie Nikolai. I'm at 5312 Worth Drive directly across from the proposed lot. Um, so I am in opposition to the landowner's application to create this lot by bulkheading in a significant area of wetland and public navigable canal um by backfilling it to double its size of the dry land that he currently owns. Um this will um if you propose if you approve the lot it will impact have significant impact on the wetlands increase flooding on not only on my property but neighboring properties destroy valuable wildlife habitat and um as previously stated if you look at the the survey maps about 50% of the proposed lot is underwater um and water that is part of the canal waterway. way. It's important for the commission to understand that this prospect hatch section on the application survey map is not just land that is wet. It is land is land that's 5 to six feet underwater closest to the unpermitted partially constructed bulkhead that was put in and probably two to three feet underwater um nearest a stallet land. There is tidal flow in the canal, but even at low tide, all that cross-hatch section is underwater. In addition, there's a natural spring that runs through a portion of that. The as previously um commented um the work on the bulkhead was started without getting a permit or authorization from the core. The core did come out to investigate and based on the application um with the core to approve the 186 foot bulkhead. Um it would require filling in over 6,000

square ft of wetland and public canal area totaling approximately 670 cubic yards of fill. Um I did submit about 10 to 12 pictures um of the the property and from the pictures you can see how much water I mean it 50% is water um and and not land. So by um bulkheading approving the subdivision lot and allowing um the bulkhead to be constructed the significant have water um would be I'm sorry I'm nervous. Um the um that area across the shoreline the canal has always had an irregular shoreline. I've lived there for 13 years um with inlets and coes and it's currently like that at the whole time. I think the pictures really um show that the land has not eroded. It's just the nature of that shoreline uh on the canal and um it continues down the canal like that. This property was never really meant to be buildable. the um original construction when the the road went in is properties on the canal were generally owned by the people on the other side of the canal as a a buffer um and to enjoy the the canal. They're all, you know, majority of them are very small, unbuildable, unbulkheaded lots with just uh two current houses um you know, on that side of the canal. um because most of them are unbuildable. So in conclusions, for all the reasons that I stated above and my additional comments in the core protest to the core application, which I submitted as comments to you, um I would like to voice my opposition to the creation of

this subdivision. Um, the lot would be created by backfilling significant wildland and portions of a public canal to double the usable square footage of the proposed lot. I don't believe this is appropriate or acceptable and I respectfully request that the application be denied. All right. Thank you very much, Miss Nikolai. Just to confirm, this will be the finer final speaker for this agenda item that either has questions towards uh is for or against. Is that correct? No one else on this application. All right. Reminder, sir, for your name and address for the record.

Uh my name is Gary Johnson. I live at 5316 Worth Drive. I'm uh directly across from the proposed lot. Um been there for about five months. Uh recently uh I realized how uh how tight it is there from the end of my uh my pier to where the bulkhead is. It's about 14 1/2 ft. Um I started looking into it a little bit more and you know like when I put my boat in into the boat ramp when you have 14 ft and you have a 20ft center console it's just about impossible to turn around to get it to the pier. So, if you want to try to do it by motor, you have like three feet to work with in the canal to try to turn it around. I've already scratched up my boat a few times. Started looking into it and uh section 91180 public and private waters. Uh Alabama goes by the Riperian, if I'm saying that correctly, laws.

Riperian, is that correct? And this is this is blocking public access to the waters currently with the bulkhead. So it's currently u it's currently breaking the state laws right now because it's it's blocking the waterway. It specifically says it in the Rapirian law if it's dredge natural waterway. This is this is a natural waterway that it's it's blocking my access to my boat ramp and to my boat dock. It's um it's a natural habitat for wood ducks and all and all kind of things. I mean, it's a it's a beautiful section. I can't believe that we would we would fill that in. I can't imagine the disturbance that it would cause on top of making it impossible for me to use my property. Um, that's the that's the biggest complaint that I have with it, the environmental concerns and then also not being able to use my property and it's uh it's completely against the the state law. And so if someone is to allow a variance after the fact when the law was broken, then it's uh seems to me it would cause a civil suit and some issues. And um and that's really the main thing. uh that I have to say about it. I mean, it's obvious that it's not a buildable lot. It's, you know, you got 15 feet of of buildable area that doesn't give you enough room for the rightway for the for the street currently. And so there there's just so many things that this would affect negatively if this was approved in any way. Not just that, when someone goes ahead and builds like this knowing that it's not going to be approved um and and then they apply for a

variance. This would have never been approved if it was done the correct way. And so to give someone a variance on something that was done illegally is it's pretty ridiculous. And so I mean it's like all the people that do it the right way uh would never be approved. And so to give someone a variance after the fact is I don't know just seems really off to me. So um that's basically all all that I have to say. I mean it's pretty evidence. We can submit any more photos if you if you need it, but it's um you know it's a no-brainer in my opinion. What what is blocking the uh the waterway? The bulkhead.

Yeah, the bulkhead. Well, the frame of the bulkhead. There was an original bulkhead that was 5 ft behind that. And so now the new bulkhead goes out into the the canal five more feet. And so, you know, in my opinion, if they would have stayed five feet towards their land and not into the middle of the canal, it may have made it possible to turn around. But right now, we're going to be limited to a small johnboat being able to go up and down the canal. And um it's just it's it's not enough room um for anyone to use the canal uh properly. on top of it's, you know, I mean, I can I can uh I can read this Riperian law what it says right here. No, we we we're good.

It's pretty obvious, I think.

Um, any other comments from staff from Mr. Johnson? All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your for your uh comments today. Um, I will have the uh we'll turn it back over to the applicant uh for a rebuttal period and certainly to address the concerns that were brought up. And I like to remind the commissioners while the applicant or their representation is coming down. There are um public comments in the public comments folder of your devices and I count two that are present today and one that is not based on those submissions. All right. Yes, sir. Make sure the microphone is up so and either lean down or bring it up. There you go.

Lewis Cassidy, Eco Solutions for Mr. Shreves. The um Eco Solutions was not part of the permitting process when Mr. Shrieves originally placed those bulk those bulkhead pilings. The bulkhead pilings that are currently there will be removed. The bulkhead plan has been revised to maintain a minimum of a 30 foot distance between the proposed new bulkhead and the existing bulkhead on the Worth Road lots which is the similar to the width of the canal at other locations throughout that canal. We've also decreased

Will you Will you repeat that real quick? Thank you. The revised bulkhead plan will remove the pilings that are currently in the canal and the bulkhead will be moved back so that is 30 ft from the new proposed bulkhead to the existing bulkhead on the Worth Road side. The wetland fill has been decreased down to one/10enth of an acre which is the standard fill amount for single family home construction on a mostly wetland lot. It is a very common permit that is frequently issued by the US Army Corps of England Department of Environmental Management to clients on shoreline lots of this type. Do you have any questions for me?

I'm just making some notes. I do. Um, so do you have an ADM permit yet? No, we are in the process of obtaining that permit. Is a sub is this subdivision required for the ADM approval? Yes.

Repeat that, Doug. You know sometimes with government agencies you have to in your application you got to you know submit information and this my question was is this subdivision does he have to show a subdivided lot or legal lot of record uh in his application to ADM? He said yes. Mr. Chair, go ahead. Just question for clarification. The application that was submitted reflects the modifications you just mentioned or the proposed modifications were submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management as part of a request for additional information from those contained in this application. Right?

This is just a standard application a single lot subdivision. So, we're just going meets and bounds to modern subdivision. This so none of that information as interesting as it is is actually that material to what we're considering. Well, it it's a on a subdivision, we have to approve it if it meets the minimum standards in the ordinance or it affects the health for safety of the surrounding community. And so y'all got to decide if if it does or doesn't or y'all want to leave it up to ADM to make that decision.

Correct. So you it's either our decision or ADM. It's one of the two. It would appear to me looking at looking at one of these. Yeah, it would appear to me looking at one of these drawings. I mean, it's the aerial photo that shows the u the bulkhead line being reestablished. It looks like they're trying to reestablish what was probably the original width of the canal to start with. I mean, is that the intent? That's the intent. And all of the construction will be within the bounds of the parcel.

Yeah. And so most of that obviously being in the water is going to be underneath the core of engineer core of engineers regulatory uh perview. I mean they're going to be putting a bulkhead in the water putting uh you know fill in the water. Those of course have all core of engineers. And then Adam has a component uh possibly even uh department of conservation uh for the state lands bottom. Have y'all have y'all applied or worked with them at all? We send them the same applications we sent the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Okay. State lands usually does not rule until the US Army Corp of Engineers and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management have issued their approvals. And so have you gotten the core of engineers permit yet?

No. The core of engineers permit and the ADM permit are a joint application. I understand that. But has but so that hasn't been issued yet? No, neither one has been issued because ADM has to issue their water quality certification before the US Army Corps of Engineers can issue their permit approval.

Gotcha. So, so it is it is kind of a couple of different things from from my perview in that, you know, there could be a a subdivision out there that's just out in the water, you know? I mean, there there's lots, you know, in places that are just completely underwater, but there's still there's still lots. But he's the the part about filling and reestablishing the width of the canal that seemed to all be a regulatory issue with the with the core. Uh we have some oversight with it as well. But but it's certainly without their without their approval that that work can't be done in discussion. Yeah. Any additional questions for me?

Want to see if any commissioners have anything else? This looks like there's a wetland spur that kind of comes off to the northwest. Saw it in some of those other maps. Is that that area will be filled in? Does that wetland spur cross the rightway?

So that wetland spur is actually part of a degraded drainage ditch. And in the revised plan, the drainage will be repaired, but there will be no fill for the house in the area of the drainage ditch or the drainage easement. Only repairs to the drainage ditch that which which will be done um by my client at his expense as part of um preparing this land for home construction. Any other commissioners? Any other questions? Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Moving on to number five. Subdivision application 7380 Ziggler Circle South and 620 Ziggler Circle West. Resubdivision of lots 44 and 46 revised Ziggler Airport Commercial Park subdivision. Um there are eight listed conditions, one of which might be uh a waiver of section 6C9 for lot design. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present. Waving of a hand in agreement with the eight listed conditions and in agreement verbally. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards 7380 Ziggler Circle, 720 620 Ziggler Circle West. Seeing none, we'll move on. We will have a recusal from Commissioner M Kirk Mate. And even with the recusal, we maintain a quorum. This is a subdivision application at 3000 Bryant Road, resubdivision of the reubdivision of revised Buchcci subdivision. Uh it's two lots, 2.48 acres. This has been suggested uh for hold over until the June 18th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Is the applicant present?

Mr. Chair, go ahead. Uh prior to the meeting, we did receive an email from the applicant that they are in agreement with the holdover, but would not be present at uh the meeting this afternoon. Duly noted, we will potentially hold over if voted on properly, but it is on the agenda. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards like to speak for or speak against the application for subdivision at 3000 Bryant Road. What was that? What was the date on that one?

June 18. All right, we will move on to number seven on the agenda. This is a subdivision application. I will welcome back Mr. Mate. You go out to the lobby. Subdivision at 258 North Hamilton Street, resubdivision of Hampton Park at downtown North subdivision, three lots, 26 acres. Is the applicant present? Mr. Bird raised his hand. The applicant is present. 10 listed conditions. Are you in agreement?

Uh, they are in agreement with the 10 listed conditions. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards subdivision application at 258 North Hamilton Street. Seeing none, we'll move on to number eight. Another subdivision application at 111 one Government Street Oakley Row subdivision of four lots 1.05 05 acres. 10 conditions listed potential of waiver section 6C2B4 for substandard lot width notion noted for the commissioners. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of a hand. Are you in agreement with the 10 listed conditions? We get a nod of the head from the applicant. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards to speak for or to speak against this subdivision application at Oakley Road subdivision. on Government Street. Seeing none, we'll move on to number nine on the agenda. This is a subdivision application at 1617 Brill Road Negizel Christopher Landing subdivision, five lots, 1.45 acres, eight listed conditions, potential waiver of section 69 for lot design. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present. Mr. bird raising of the hand in agreement. In agreement I'll now see if there's anyone else in the audience for this application to speak for speak against or have questions towards it at 1617 Brill Road. Seeing none, we'll move on to number 10 subdivision application at 4038 Leighton Place Drive. 15 lots, 4.23 acres, 10 listed conditions. Is the applicant present?

not present. Was this one of the ones you told me that they weren't going to be here? I can't remember. No. And I have not received um communication. Um but just some background, this uh is tied to a PUD modification that was approved uh about a year and a half ago. The app, which is good for two years. The subdivision, however, being good for only one year expired uh during the permitting process. So that is the intent here is to um get another approval so that both of those can be finalized together on this particular application or any applications tied to it. Have there been any um opposition?

We've received no comments. Okay. I have a question for staff on this one. Do based on the wide widths, do we need to wave that?

No, sir. That was done under the putt modification which is still active. Gotcha. Okay. Any further questions or comments from commissioners? Now we'll go to the audience. Is there anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application for subdivision at 4038 Leighton Place Drive? All right, seeing none. So, I've got a notation here that no no presentation from number one agenda and number n also on number 10. Number 11. This is a reszone application east side of Tackon Street, 267 ft north of Cameron Street. This is a reszone request from R1 to community business urban district B3 noted for the commissioner's potential seven findings of fact in addition to full compliance condition. Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present. Mr. Bird, raise hands. Should those findings of fact move through? Are you okay with all of those?

Any questions or comments from commissioners towards this reszone going from R1 to B3 on east side of Tackon? Is there anyone in the audience that has questions about this reszone to speak for it, speak against it? For the record, I think we need to have the applicing just waving your hands not enough. A subdivision, it's fine, but resoning, you know, the standards a little higher. So, Mr. Bird, if you'll come down and tell us what the plan is here and what the surrounding area is, so they have enough information to make the decision.

The principal called you to the front of the office. Sorry. I agree with you.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah. The owner wishes to build a building for his own personal use that like you could build in a backyard of your house. He wants to put a boat in. He wants to put a utility ATV. Uh grandma's old cedar chest. He's not ready to throw away u that kind of use. He just doesn't have room where he lives and would like to put it inside a storage building. city ordinance says you can't build a building without it um without a business, I guess, uh or a residence on the lot. And that's the reason we're asking for reszoning so that he can just build this building and use it personal use.

And everything in red on the zoning map here is B3. Is that correct? Good job. Thank you, Mr. Bird. All right.

Any further questions or comments for commissioners from commissioners towards Mr. Bird on this application for reszone? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to number 12. It is a dual application subdivision and modification. 4630, 4700, and 4960 Dolphin Island Parkway, Perch Creek Doside Marina Subdivision. two lots, 19.8 acres. It's been uh suggested for hold over on the subdivision application to the May 21st planning commission meeting and a potential discussion on the PUD. Mr. Bird, name and address for the record on this particular agenda item.

Right. I think um actually Roser Van has handled the subdivision. I believe he sent an email. He was in agreement to the hold over on it. I'm doing the what was going to be termination of a put. We would like to withdraw that. We have submitted a reszoning application today. That will address that put condition at the next meeting. Thank you, Mr. Bird. So, based on my understanding, we don't need to take any action on agenda item number 12 at all other than voting on the subdivision holdover. That's correct.

All right. Since it's on the agenda, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that's here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this dual application of subdivision and modification on Dolphin Island Parkway in the Perch Creek Dockside Marina subdivision. All right, we will now close public hearing and move into deliberation. That takes us back to agenda item number one. Subdivision application located at 4103 Moffett Road. One lot, 1.1 acres, eight listed conditions. The applicant is not present.

Entertain a motion. Move to approve service staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Motion for subdivision passes. Number two, subdivision application 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway, 14 listed conditions, potential waiver of section 67. The applicant was present and in agreement with the 14 listed conditions. Move to approve so staff recommendations waving section 67. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion passes for subdivision number three. Application for subdivision 2590 Dolphin Island Parkway. One lot, 1.85 acres, eight listed conditions. The applicant is present and in agreement. Entertain a motion. Move to approve subject staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number four. Subdivision application 4047 Dawson Drive Shreves Estates one lot 34 acres nine listed conditions potential for waiver of 6B9 of way the applicant is present and with representation from um outside council was in agreement with those nine listed conditions plenty of discussion here. Move to approve their staff recommendations waving section 6B9. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I I Is there any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. And I'd like to the audience, the people that were in opposition, you got to realize we're not giving them a building permit.

We're just going we're just creating a legal lot of record of what's there. Uh they don't get to go out and build a house this week. They still got to go through many different approvals. So, this is just dealing with the land and not constructing a house. Yeah. I I'm glad you said that because somebody was talking about variances earlier and this has nothing to do with any of that other stuff. This is about the lines on the map. So that's you know that's we we have to be very limited in how we take those other facts into consideration when people are asking about what we're doing with the the map that the city uses in my opinion.

Thank you Mr. Anderson's both of you for your commentary. Moving on. Number five, subdivision application 7380 Ziggler Circle South, 620 Ziggler Circle West, resubdivision of lots 44 and 46. Two lots, 2.09 acres. The applicant is present and agreement with the eight listed conditions. We have potential waiver of section 69. If we get a motion on it, entertain that. Move to approve sub staff recommendations waving section 6C9. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number six, application for subdivision at 3000 Bryant Road and suggested for hold over until June 18th. Planning Commission forgot to wave, excuse me, recuse. Mr. Kirk Mate, we still maintain a quorum for the vote. I'll move to hold over the application until June. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I I motion for holdover passes. Number seven, application subdivision 258 North Hamilton Street, 10 listed conditions, three lots, 26 acres. Applicant is present and in agreement with those conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve. Subject to staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number eight, subdivision of four lots at 1111 Government Street, the Oakley Road subdivision. 10 listed conditions. Potential waiver of substandard width 6C2B4. Applicant is present and in agreement with those listed conditions. Entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Subject to staff um recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number nine, 1617 Brill Road. Application for subdivision of five lots, 1.45 acres, potential waiver of section 69A for lot design, eight listed conditions. The applicant is present and in agreement subject to staff recommendations waving section 6C9A. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number 10, application for subdivision at 403 Leighton Place, Leighton Village subdivision, 15 lots, 4.23 acres, no potential waiverss, 10 listed conditions. Applicant is present and an agreement. Entertain a motion. Excuse me. Applicant was not present. Move to approve subject staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. I'd like to add a note that staff did comment that the the applicant was in communication with them. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion passes. Number 11 is a reszone application R1 to B3 on Tackon Street for the construction of a residential storage unit. Seven, findings of fact, potential, and full compliance with municipal codes and ordinances. Applicant is present and agreement and understanding. Entertain a motion. Move to approve search staff recommendations with findings of fact A through G. Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A, B, C, D, E, F, G. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for reszone passes. Finally, on number 12, dual application, we will I will move to hold over the subdivision application until May 21st. Need a second. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Motion for holdover is requested and the uh the I guess the PUD PUD is withdrawn. No action needed. Moving on to other business. That concludes our agendas. Uh and

we didn't we got two more. What? No, no, no. I was uh requesting uh to make a comment on that one. No. Oh, I'm going down to the other business. Right. Okay. So, one thing that I failed to mention on number one.

Okay. uh because the applicant was not present and this should have been for discussion is that uh condition number one requires revision of the plat to illustrate dedication sufficient to provide 50 ft from the center line of Moffett Road. However, if you look at the plat where it shows the existing building, doing so would uh create a situation where the front of that building would encroach within the ride ofway. So under article or excuse me condition number one there was the option to wave section 6.B.99 of the subdivision regulations. Okay. In order to allow them to maintain the existing ride ofway width which currently as they have it illustrated or depicted is approximately 45 ft to the center.

So do I need to amend my motion or do we need to just do something new? I think you're allowed to amend your motion and then we need to revote on your amendment. Okay. Uh Mr. Chairman, I would like to uh take up number one, I guess, out of order, and amend my motion to approve the subdivision subject to staff recommendation to include a waiver of section 6B9 of the subdivision regulations. I will second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we'll now move into other business. public hearing to consider additional amendments to appendix A of the downtown development district of the Unified Development Code, chapter 64 of the Mobile City Code from 2022. Where's our audience going?

Uh Mr. chairman. Uh the commission, I believe it was in October of last year, uh undertook a public hearing for major amendments to the downtown development district regulations, which primarily was a reorganization and reformatting of the document. It was a a heavy lift that was based upon months of effort by staff and our consultant uh meeting with stakeholders in the downtown development district area. uh on your iPad under the folder that says0ero other business there is a copy of a PowerPoint show. So the amendments that are before you today are to u make tweaks to what the city council adopted on January 20th of this year. Uh these are primarily to are further clarifications of what they had adopted. uh some items that we missed as well when we went through the process. Uh we are still looking at the downtown development district regulations to look at future amendments down the road uh that will make it easier for uh the public and developers and that continue to move forward the intent of making downtown more walkable. And since January, what you have before you, we've looked at um reintroducing the uh administrative procedures of making minor deviations. Uh this is uh something that was done by the consolidated review committee. It will now be uh under the director's uh provision to do that rather than having a CRC group. We have clarified uh that a special district area has to go through a process of resoning. This is similar to what happened to the civic center site uh when it got reszoned through section five. We clarified curb cut and vehicular access requirements as

well as screening requirements. Uh we had missed some regulations regarding rooftop uh equipment screening and visibility. So we have added those back in. For frontage standards, we wanted to clarify where stoops were allowed, especially on secondary frontages and that a gallery frontage, for example, can include shop front. Uh this was not clear in the big amended version that was before you back in October. And then we also needed to clarify some definitions relating to street screens uh where when they are or are not considered fences. So what we asked for you today uh we had no comments online uh regarding the amendments. We also received nothing to my knowledge in writing uh via email. We would ask that you consider approval of these amendments so that we can then forward them to the city council for their consideration in public hearing. First I'll see if there's any questions or comments from commissioners. Seeing none, next we'll entertain a motion for approving or adopting the amendments.

So moved, second, properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? Those amendments have been passed or adopted, so to speak. Final item on here. By the way, there was no one in the public to make comments. Just wanted to know we didn't have any submitted and we didn't have anybody in the audience. Uh move I will move to approve minutes from September 18th, 2025 and October 16th, 2025. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Those minutes are approved. Anything else?

Yeah, I would like to make a Nick one one comment. Um Bert and I just finished a two-day trial uh in circuit court across the atrium. Uh and the reason I wanted Jerry Bird to come down here and these trials when they get to circuit court, uh you see where holes can be poked in things we do or make decisions we make. and we've got to have a basis for the decision factually and the reason for approval or disapproval needs to be stated. So that's going forward I might say come on that we need more information. So that's was my purpose today to cover y'all's rear end because there's a several of cases uh over there in circuit court.

I think we all took mental note of that Mr. Anderson. We appreciate your leadership in that regard and we'll follow suit moving forward. Thank you. Is that all? That is all.

Here's a board of voting adjustment.