Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for May 15th. 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, we will call an agenda item. The applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions and then members of the public make their comments to the commission. Only four people speak for an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commissioners. And at one minute, a speaker will have a warning beep asking you to summarize your comments. If there is an opposition to an application, the applicant has a twominute rebuttal time period. If you do intend to speak, come to the bottom of the stairs. Speak into the podium. Provide your name and address for the record. Please direct all your comments to the commissioners only and not to the applicant, the staff or the audience. After we hear all applications, we then go into deliberation. We will we will discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but without input from the audience. We will then vote on each application and the results of that voting can be learned from the planning department. If issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed in public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments in order to resolve those or we will call for an application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting. Occasionally, we will have commissioners recuse themselves from an application and voting. That does not mean that they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules do require a recusal. If we have a recusal, a super numerary will vote in theirstead. Reminder to everyone that the planning commission makes final decisions on subdivisions with appeals

of these to the circuit court. Planning commission is a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments. The city council makes the final decision on these applications, and all appeals of city council decisions are also to the circuit court. Please do me a favor. Turn all your cell phones to vibrate or silent. Any other electronic devices the same? Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. I'll go ahead and call the role. Myself, J. Stubs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Densen, Mr. Harry Brlin, Mr. Larry Dorsy here. Mr. Chad Anderson here, Mr. Matt Anderson, Mr. Nick Amber here, Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols here. Miss Ellie Edwards. We do have a quorum for the application items today. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. This agenda will pass and we will move forward. Number one on the agenda is a hold over from a previous meeting. We do have a recusal. Mr. Kirk Mate, we still maintain a quorum for this agenda item. This is at 61 South McGregor Avenue subdivision of three lots right at 1 acre. Is the applicant present? All right, the applicant is not present. This agenda, this application is still on the agenda for today. Is there anyone else here in the audience to speak for this agenda item? Mr. chairman. Uh let me advise the council that um or the commission, excuse me, that uh Mr. Gray emailed the staff and myself Monday or Tuesday of

this week saying that he would need more time to get this worked out. He sent a follow-up email stating or or proposing that if he could make the driveway lock four and be it for everybody, then there wouldn't need to be a road maintenance agreement. And uh I replied to him this morning saying that I'm not sure it can be a legal law of record, but even if it is, we would need a road maintenance agreement. He said, ' Okay, well, I need an a hold over because my surveyor has been out of town and haven't been able to change the plan. And uh I said, "That shouldn't be a problem." He said, "Great. Thanks." I didn't tell him he didn't need to show up. I know there's u a couple of people here that were here last time that want to speak today. Um so I'll let the commission handle it as you see fit. All right. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I will ask commissioners to review your comments folder on your devices. This is um uh from the previous meeting. I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to this agenda item. We do have one hand raised. Okay. Please come on down. Um make sure you say your name and address for the record. I'm Meg Mate. My address is 3805 Warren Court. I just would like to address some misconceptions that were recorded at the last planning commission meeting. First, we do have and always have had deed access to Warren Court. It was conveyed to my property in August of

1955 from Glattisfield to Ellen Betty and I have a copy of it if you want it. Second, we acknowledge that Mr. Gray is the owner of Warren Court. We've been living there almost 30 years. We had a close relationship with Dr. gray, the previous owner. But we have never known any of the grays to maintain Warren Court when it needed resurfacing 25 or so years ago. Those of us who were living there paid for it. We would welcome Mr. Gray participating in a joint maintenance agreement with us, but we have not had any communication with him whatsoever. And as far as trash and garbage pickup, it's on McGregor for all four houses. Again, it's a 10 foot wide paved drive that city trucks, including the fire engines, cannot get down. We appreciate the staff's recommendation to deny the request for a third lot. However, just to be clear, uh we want to to let you know that we are most concerned about the additional traffic accessing Warren Court. Our position is simple and reasonable. We ask that the matter be denied with the stipulation that Warren Court not be used as a primary access for any future development on that lot. considering there are already four homes with nine cars and 10 children who live or visit on a daily basis. Thank you, Miss Mate. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, go ahead. U Miss Mate, um so just as far as the operation of of the the the neighbors that live around you and

you guys, you you pull your trash every trash day out to the out to McGregor. password and then you pull your cart back and yes and um as far as and again just to your knowledge um medical emergency hasn't you know again I'm not holding you to it if you recall has an ambulance ever been down through there before ambulance can get down but a fire engine cannot but they have to they have to back out I would assume probably um ambulance yes ma'am could probably turn around at the end definitely not a fire engine correct we had a fire event smoke event about 20 years ago and the fire engine had to stay on McGregor. They had to run the hose from McGregor all the way. Right. It was not a fire so they didn't need the hose but they came down McGregor. They walked down ran down McGregor. Got brought fans and Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners regarding this application? All right. Thanks again, Miss Mate. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak uh in opposition to this agenda item. All right. Seeing none, we will move on to number Mr. Chair. Before we do move on, um uh Mr. Anderson, they um so as far as ask for a hold over, no time was specified. It just hold over. We've already held it over 30 days to kind of work this thing out, I guess. Correct. And I don't think there's been any communication between Mr. Gray and the neighbors. Um, you know, he Charlie might have taken my email this morning saying it shouldn't be a problem. Like, oh, I don't need to show up. I didn't try to indicate that to him. Um, certainly if this is denied, he'll be back with another plan in the future. Uh, whatever y'all want to. And if

denied, um, he can't come back for a year, six months on a subdivision. Okay. All right. Thank you. Doug, I have one more question. Sorry. Um, go ahead. Looking at the staff report, one of the conditions uh for recommending now was there being no shared maintenance agreement between the property owners. Now, mated, you know, note that Mr. Gray owns the road, but with that being a condition of this, um, is there any is there anything that would legally compel the other property owners or long warn court to participate in that agreement? No. I mean, it's all voluntary, but you would think that everyone would want to participate so they don't get stuck with having to pay everything themselves, right? Um, these are all reasonable people that live on that street. So, but no, we nobody can legally make them, but I think they would welcome that. But for the benefit of my commissioners in a perfect scenario, there would be not a 14oot right away, but a 50-ft rideway. It would be a common area, a common parcel of land that all of those affected owners have a have an interest in, and it would be it would be clean. I mean, I think the challenge of it is being 14 ft wide. I mean, it's really not much more than a driveway. And I best I can tell it looks like it's serving four houses already. So, it's already just, in my opinion, stretched at its at its maximum maximum limit. And and the only thing that's making this an issue is lot three touching war court. If it if it didn't have that access, this would not be an issue. Correct. Um I don't know what the best solution is.

[Music] Well, did someone else have anything else to say? Mr. Stanberg, are we good? Okay, we'll move on to agenda item number two. This is a subdivision at 1600 University Boulevard South Logan Cottages subdivision. We can welcome back uh Mr. Mate. Um this subdivision application uh currently is recommended or was recommended for denial. However, we have um updated application materials from staff. I would ask if the agent or applicant representing 195 LLC is in the audience. Yes. Um, okay. So, what we have here is an original, as you make your way down, we have an original uh staff recommendation for denial due to three different items from the application. It was subsequently reviewed uh basically fire came back and said that they were good. We now have a agenda item that is recommended for approval pending 18 or with 18 different considerations. Um and I have that document here. Uh staff did did you provide that? Okay. Um, so what I would ask sir is if you will state your name and address for the record and then if you have had adequate time to review those considerations also pending any comments or commissioners from staff then we can we can take this from a denial uh to um on the docket. Sure. Thank you. Corey Bronin Camp 549 Congress Street Mobile Alabama 36603 and I am good with the conditions.

uh pending approval. Um so I am open to any questions y'all may have. I'll ask any commissioners if they have any questions. This is a subdivision of seven lots at 1.67 acres and you can review your uh your application materials. Wait. So what so what changed between the staff report that we have and now? I'll turn it over to staff. Um so with the exception of the lot widths and the width to depth ratio which if that's a common design standard in the area is routinely waved by the commission. The issue was fire access um from Ezekiel. if you direct your attention to the map um from Ezekiel Street um onto that private roadway. Uh they have since revised the design of that uh after having spoken with the fire department and the fire department is now okay with that particular design and we do have comments from them stating as much. So in looking back over that, if the commission is amanable to the approval with those waiverss for lot width and width to depth, then we can approve it subject to the conditions that are provided to the applicant. Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? Then I'll ask there's anyone else in the audience in support of this agenda item. This question is for staff um and with the applicant. the common area. Is that the proposed retention area? Yes, sir. Okay. It hadn't been designed yet, but the the low point of the site is that uh that north corner. Okay. So, it makes sense to put a pond there. Thank you. Um Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um going back to the I guess what the fire department now is deemed acceptable. Um, I guess what

was originally proposed and remind me um was that a a hammer I guess at the end that we were looking at instead of this I guess maybe half hammer. I can answer that if Oh yeah. Yeah. So it was it was simply just a a private drive that terminated uh that was 20 ft wide that couldn't handle fire apparatus. So, I got with Captain Moses and went to exhibit D of the IFC and it provides several examples that you can use and I just pulled this example, popped it on the site plan and she was fine with it. Gotcha. Thanks. Sure. And just to clarify, um, Mr. Woods, excuse me, Mr. Woods, um, what you see behind you and what's provided is the revised design that was approved by fire. Is there anyone else in the audience here to speak for this agenda item at 1600 University Boulevard South? Speaking for it. Oh, yep. Would you like to make comments? All right. Please come on down to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and please speak clearly into the microphone. Okay. Uh, my name is Nathan Poe. My address is 870 West Brier Court, Mobile, Alabama. Um, yeah, thank you for for taking the time to listen to me today. Uh, the proposal supports Mobile's growth for smart infield development, minimum infrastructure demand, and increase tax revenue. Uh, right now, the land is vacant, um, holding storm water uh, drainage and and so on that could potentially cause damage to city property and other citizens property. this uh development would allow for proper drainage and uh prevention from that damage. Um infrastructure uh with there's a study

that shows how much traffic is done on on university right now. This would add about 70 trips per day. That's a 0.02% increase of infra uh for traffic there minimizing any anything for infrastructure. Um the estimated benefits uh for the city of Mobile uh one-year total revenue, of course, I'm working off of estimates, but it's about $94,395. Um that's uh 10,000 about $10,400 for annual property tax, 70,000 one-time construction sales tax, uh approximately 14,000 additional dollars for onetime permit and inspection fees. Uh there's a reoccurring annual revenue after one year of about $45,400. Um that comes in again 10,400 in property tax, 35,000 in indirect uh economy activity such as local businesses and schools. Uh and then after a 10-year property tax estimation, that's a revenue of almost exactly $104,000 coming into the city. Um let's see here. Each each household is going to contribute to obviously utility revenue, increase local spending, groceries, gas, dining, entertainment, school, and service funding. Um, and just to sum it all up, uh, it makes sense again due to the 94,000 in year 1 revenue, uh, there's no new need for infrastructure. There's a minimum traffic increase of only 70 trips per day. Improves storm water retention. It revitalizes long vacant land. This land's been vacant for years. Uh, and supports the R1 zoning and infill growth. Thank you very much. I'll ask if there's anyone else in

the audience that is here to speak forward this agenda item. Anyone here to speak against it or have questions towards it? Seeing none, we will move on. Number three on the agenda, this is under new application [Music] items. This is a subdivision at 2900 Old Shell Road, the Haze Place subdivision, subdivision of one lot at 35 acres. It's recommended or up for consideration for approval with nine listed conditions. Applicants present, do you have any questions regarding the conditions? Are you good with sign of thumbs up on those conditions? The applicant is present and gave a thumbs up. I'll ask there's anyone else in the audience is here to speak for this agenda item in 2900 Old Shell Road. Anyone here to speak against it? Seeing none, we'll move on to number four. This is a subdivision at 2022 and 21102 Shelton Beach Road extension. The Sento Miller subdivision. This is two lots at just under 2 and 1/2 acres. Is the applicant present? Applicants present wave of a hand. Are you in agreement or have any questions regarding the seven listed conditions for approval? Thumbs up on the seven listed conditions. Is there anyone else in the audience here to speak for this agenda item on Shelton Beach Road extension? Anyone here to speak against it or have questions towards it? We will move on to number five on the agenda. This is a subdivision at the south side of Raven Drive at the south terminus of Cardinal Drive East extending south to the east terminus of

E East Gulf Field Drive. This is the subdivision of two lots just under 60 acres. Hey, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Go ahead. Jay Watkins, Mayor Nexon, 11 North Water Street, uh, sweet 24290 360602. Uh, Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement with staff recommendations. We have one question with respect to engineering comments. That would be comment F regarding coordination of the required drainage easements. Uh we just want to ask if that could be a post recording item. Uh the development of this lot one is still pending and I'm not sure that we will be in a position to agree on the exact location of drainage easements prior to recording the plat. So, we would ask that that requirement be made uh prior to permitting so that the applicant and the uh developer can work with engineering on the location of potential drainage easements once the retention pond and other facilities are um determined and located. Engineering has no problem with that. Thank you. Uh, other than that, we're very good and happy to answer any questions. Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this application? All right. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience who was here to speak for this agenda item. Anyone have questions towards this application? Is anyone here to speak in opposition to it? Uh question for staff with respect to the comment from the applicant on the

conditions. Would that fall under condition two or three? It would actually fall under condition five and we can just state that um compliance with engineering comments as amended and then make the change in the decision letter. All right. Thank you very much. Number six on the agenda. This is a subdivision at 4297 Rivier Duchine Road, the Duchine subdivision. This is a subdivision of three lots at just under 11.3 acres. It is uh up for consideration of approval based on 10 listed conditions. We'll go ahead and have our applicant speak. Go ahead. Uh Z Hudson with Row Engineering and Surveying 3502 Loft and Drive Mobile. My only question is um there's a request for a 25 ft radius at the intersection of River Duchine and Interstate 10. Condition number four. Yes. Um right now that obviously that's an overpass. There is no uh surface road there. Was hoping we could do away with that radius. I'll have to defer to engineering or Mr. Amber. Oh, it wasn't an engineering comment. I will add the commissioners. No, he's exactly right. Uh, River Dasheen is an overpass there, so it's not like it's an accurate intersection with interstate. So, there's there's not a need for that that radius. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that is here for agenda item number six, 4297 Riviera Road to speak for it, have questions towards it, or in opposition to it? All right, moving on. Number seven on the agenda is a dual application. This is a subdivision and a modification at 4350 Moffett Road, the Fred Marshall Court subdivision. On the subdivision, there are potentially eight listed conditions. And on the modification, commissioners should note that there's potentially eight findings of fact and then 18 listed conditions. Go ahead, Mr. Bird. Jerry Bird, Burge Survey. We have no problem with the con uh considerations for the subdivision or the modified put. I talked with two ladies right here that's that has concerns about the um the development. I just wanted to put on record basically what I told him. the uh development uh 10 buildings, five units each. The units are comprised of one, two and threebedroom. The requirement to live there, resident requirement is a minimum age of 55 years. Uh which with no no one under that. I mean maybe a a visit but not beyond uh complete residency. The one of the ladies lives next to a detention pond. Uh had concerns about that. We have four detention ponds on

the site and I had told them that yes, the detention calculations would be reviewed by the city and approved prior to construction. Uh there would be a maintenance plan should be maintained uh report turned in once a year maintained if necessary. Um this development is financed through the Alabama Housing Finance Authority. One of their requirements is the current owner developer cannot sell this development for 20 years. So they will be honoring the requirements of the U minimum age of 55. But that's I think everything I told them. And if you have any other questions, maybe I can answer them. for commissioners. Any questions or comments for Mr. Bird and this application? Mr. Chair, go ahead. Mr. Bird, uh, the concept for this, I guess, expansion of the existing, um, can can you shed a little light on what kind of what that would look like, what the field looks like there for it? Um, I guess what's the, um, what's the the I guess um, that we're looking to allow more multif family developments. um what what's what's it kind of look like? Is it going to match what's there now or kind of just kind of explain that a little bit? They're going to um demolish the existing structures and these are all singlestory 26 ft tall. Uh so it will look like large houses as you ride through there. Gotcha. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? All right. Thank you, Mr. Bird. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience who is here to speak for this agenda item or have questions regarding this agenda item. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this? Reminder to please state your name and address for the record. Hi, thank you. I think I have more questions than opposition. Um, your name and address. My name is Brenda Bolton. I live at 310 West Street in Flair Midtown, but today I'm representing Miss Matthews who owns the 4320 property uh that is adjacent to this development. Um, one of my main concerns is uh that the Tyler CSS site does not show the letter that Miss Matthews submitted. And so my question is whether or not her concerns were shared with commissioners prior to this meeting. Um, I don't um, now she handd delivered that letter and has a receipt for it. Um, but only the Smith letter and the Brown letter show on the CSS site. So, I would like for all the commissioners to have seen her input before you consider this case. And that in addition to um a couple of little um errors that are in the staff report, it seems to us uh cause us to think that a carryover is in order. Uh and we would like for the commission to ask the developer to meet with neighbors and hear our questions

and respond to them. Um I'll tell you, you should hire Mr. bird to stay out in the lobby as people come in because he did a great job of sort of allaying our fears and answering our questions. And so we don't have as many questions at this point as we did before speaking with him. And I think those that remain in the kind of commitments that we would like to have from the developer and manager of the site uh could be addressed in another meeting. So a carryover I guess is our main uh request here today. In addition to that, our concerns fall in two categories. One is traffic. Uh I don't know if you're very familiar with that stretch of Moffett Road from Wolf Ridge Road to Forest Hill Drive, but for years it's been known as Bloody 98 because of the number of fatal and serious crashes. And uh in fact online describes that stretch of Moffett Road as um a significant route. I'm quoting here. Known locally as Bloody 98 due to its history of fatal crashes. It's a major thorough affair connecting Mobile with Mississippi often carrying heavy traffic including semitrs. And I can tell you about the 18-wheelers. Drivers should remain vigilant. So this is already a traffic problem. Right at this intersection where the drive will come into Moffett Road. In addition, immediately across the street from the drive is the main entrance exit into Gulf subdivision which is an added, you know, potential traffic and snarlment there. Uh so we would like to to see the commission um anything the

commission can do to um influence traffic and engineering to consider some traffic calming devices. And I can tell you that a warning sign over the road which is already there at Territton Drive has no impact on drivers at all. Uh when I'm turning into my sister's driveway, I take my life in my hands because the the flow of traffic is so continuous and fast and the drivers do not want to slow down to give me time to turn into her private drive. So traffic is a major concern that needs to be looked at. And in addition to that, um we did have concerns about the detention pond. They they serve a useful purpose. We understand that. But the largest of the ponds is directly adjacent to my sister's back lot line. Uh if it fills with debris and trash, if it's not wellmaintained, that's going to all, you know, blow across her property. I hear my warning, Dean. And uh in addition to that, if it fills so that it's not functioning properly and overflows, her lot is much lower and so it will overflow onto her lot right to her back door. So, um, we we'd like for that to be looked at. We strongly object to reducing landscaping requirements because we would like to see across that property um a vegetative screen since um, you know, an actual um, buffer zone is not part of the ordinance for that type property. uh a vegetative screen across there would resolve a lot of the pro a lot of the homeowner problems at 4320 and 30 and beyond 4350. So thank you and I hope you'll consider those questions. Thank you Miss Bolt. Do you have a copy of the letter? Yeah, that's my my comment from from up here

is do we have a copy of the letter that was handd delivered? We've written notes on it. Mr. Chairman, we do have a copy of that letter and it was uploaded to the uh public comments part of the website, just not the actual case. So, it's available for public review. It's just not on the case, but we can add that to the case um after this meeting. So, it's not on the Tyler site, but we'll be I just didn't I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this Mafet Road subdivision and modification application. Yes, sir. With respect to traffic, um I' I've looked at a lot of properties on 98 up more towards Wilmer. What has 158 done to reduce the amount of 18-wheelers? Because it I drive that road a lot and it it feels like a lot of the traffic that comes in from Mississippi now takes 158 to 65 bypassing that stretch of 98, but do we know what those numbers look like? I I realize when you live there it's might look different in the stats. I I don't know that residents there have noticed any change in the traffic pattern in this section of Moffett Road. I think what you're talking about is further out. Um that that new state road was supposed to alleviate some of the traffic, right? It would, but that traffic used to come down from Hattisburg to Ledale all the way to 65 198. Well, now a lot of that goes 158 to 65, which at least my common sense would tell me has made some form of difference. But I I was wondering if we might could get that information to see if there has been a a real tangible difference because it hasn't been there that long. I think if you ask residents, their answer would

pretty universally be that there's been no alleviation of traffic in that area. Okay. Thank you. Where where this entryway will enter and exit Moffett Road. Thank you. I believe commissioner would also probably like some data from our traffic team. Y'all have any comments? In respect to the commissioner's question about the traffic counts, they are available at the OT state website. You can look them up and see if uh that has been changed. Uh regarding the traffic um concerns right now it's a right next to a school area where school people go to school every single day and the school crossings. There's a lot of traffic there due to that. Uh but people can safely enter and exit the school. I don't know how they would not be able to safely enter and exit an apartment complex. All right. Thank you. Traffic. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the a Thank you, Miss Bolton. I'll ask if there's I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak in opposition to this agenda [Music] item. Sir, you're that this is your application. Did you did I even did I skip over that? Mr. Bird made comments. This is on number seven. Okay. So, I asked if there's anyone here to speak for it and Mr. Bird came down. So, you guys want to make additional comments, but you can now come down if there's no more opposition and uh have a two-minute rebuttal to answer the questions. Yes, sir. Sorry about that. I was getting there. For Sean Figus, raise that microphone up

a little bit. State your name and address for the record. For Figures, 7,000 Champions Run, Mobile, Alabama. I wanted to talk to some of her concerns. Uh we're not planning on reducing any landscaping uh that the even the neighborhood would want. This is a market rate uh development. It just has affordability. The affordability is for seniors that are 55 and over. Um the traffic problem that she she's talked so eloquently about is a ald problem but as she said there are traffic calming devices all along maybe a mile or less than a mile from this site where there's a school there's a there's a crossing guard there every morning and they've just installed sidewalks for them to cross. Um, so this is a safer zone than some of the other zones and further up or further down. Um, the detention pond, the detention ponds are to city specs. As Mr. Bird said, we have a 20-year period that we have to maintain and that the city and the federal government and the state maintains it uh makes us maintain it for its affordability. at any time that we do not maintain this property, the state and the federal government will come back and take it from us. So that is not that's not possible with the funding sources that this project has. And I would like to answer any questions that the commission has. This is also a part of the city's plan to put back a lot of affordable units. Um the city has already blessed this. Um this came out of community development with Jamie Roberts. they've already okayed this development. Not not a not not a question but just just a comment for the as you go through the design of this with your retention

pond. Sometimes we found in the in the built environment that if we can try to mimic the the previous sheet flow if the property was not tied to drainage systems. Uh that ends up being a better result for the adjacent neighbors if you're not tying able to tie to a city city drainage system. So just as your engineering team you continues on with those retention ponds, try to have them look at at scenarios where uh it's not just point discharges, you know, leave leave one, you know, one the pond collecting water and one pipe leaving it maybe spread out over a longer thing to to, you know, to again to try to mimic that original sheet flow. Uh it just ends up being a better result for everybody that's adjacent to it. We had a lot of luck in other other internal developments when they're when they're having to having to deal with situations like this. We're fine with with with that. Any any comments that the city has with the detention part, we will implement. Me as the owner, I'll tell you that now. Yeah, it looks like you got them spread out real good across the property, which that's helpful, but it's always better to again try to spread out those points where, you know, where it's leading. So, really just comment for your designers. Yes, sir. Any other questions or comments for the applicant from commissioners? I would like to add one more thing. This this is time sensitive. The Alabama Housing Finance Authority has a meeting in June to where they issue tax credits. If this misses that, it would not only be detrimental for the project but detrimental for the city as a whole. What is the date of that meeting? 26, I think. All right. Any other questions, comments from the for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Figures. Thank you. Uh from my seat, just a reminder to commissioners, there's two uh other notes in the public comments for this

agenda item in addition to Miss Matthews uh printed comments and representation by Miss Bolton. Moving on to number eight. This is a dual application of subdivision and modification at 5808 US Highway 90 West. It's a reubdivision of lot 2, Theodore Oaks Shopping Center. This is a subdivision of three lots, 5.7 acres, and on the mod meas the modification of a previously planned unit development allowing shared access and parking between multiple building sites to modify the lot lines in coordination with the proposed subdivision. This has been recommended for holdover by the planning staff until the June 12th planning commission meeting. Is the applicant present? Are you in agreement with the hold over till June 12th? The applicant is present and with a nod of the head and thumbs up since it's on the agenda. Is there anyone else in the audience that is here to speak or have questions or in opposition to this agenda item at 5808 Highway US Highway 90 West? All right, seeing none, we will move on to number nine on the agenda. Mr. Kenny Nichols is recused. We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item which is a dual application of a subdivision and a reszone at 720 Museum Drive. The Fort Hardman subdivision, this is the resubds one and two. Those two lots comprise just over 6 acres. And the reszone application is from single family residential R1 to neighborhood business suburban district B2. And note that this does fall in the

neighborhood general subdist of the village of Spring Hill overlay. Is the applicant present? Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Uh there need to be a few modifications suggested for the subdivision consideration. All right. So, we're in subdivision section. We have eight conditions listed. Um, so this location is located within the Spring Hill overlay and that is part of article 13 of the UDC, the Unified Development Code. So, under the considerations, uh, items three, four, and six will need to be modified. Uh for number three, we would recommend it be changed to depiction of the front yard setback along both street frontages in compliance with section 6 C8 of the subregs and article 13 of the UDC. Uh for number four, we would suggest the change of placement of a note on the final plat stating that future development or redevelopment of the site shall comply with the development provisions of article 13 and where applicable article three of the UDC. And then for number six, a placement of a note on the final plat stating all traffic engineering comments modified to refer to article 13 and where applicable article 3. So that represents no material change to the develop the applicant or his application. Uh that's correct. And I did discuss this with Miss Sherman earlier. Great. All right. Go ahead. Hey, I'm Kathy Sherman with Burton Property Group, 41 West I65 Service Road North. Um, and I just had one more additional comment to add to what Mr. Hoffman just indicated. Under the resoning portion of our application, there is an engineering comment. Um, number four pertaining to maintaining

existing uh detention facilities as constructed and approved and and part of our purchase of this property, there is a uh provision where we're going to adjust the existing detention and we're going to be relocating some of that. And so I just don't want that to be a condition that we can't modify the existing because that is part of the structure of this transaction. We we we just need to make sure that that existing detention pond uh that was built with the fire station is either relocated or maintained by somebody. So I we need to leave that comment in there. It's a standard note uh comment. We just make it subject to agreement. I'm sorry. Can we just make it subject to our agreement on that relocation and how that Well, it it'll all be taken care of during the um the land disturbance process. When when the lot lines get moved and you develop your new site, we'll make sure that that doesn't get approved until the detention is is relocated or taken care of. Okay. Okay. Are you okay with that, Miss Sherman? Yes, I am. Would you like verbiage in there? Um, yeah. No, I could. Yes. It would be nice to say that we're not going to because currently it reads that any existing detention facility shall be maintained as it was constructed and that's not the intent. The intent is we're going to modify that existing detention facility and we will do it in accordance with plans that are submitted and approved. But there the intent is that it will be modified. Okay. that but but it says existing. Existing is also in there. So it could be either one. So there's not really a need to change it, right? Either that or you can add existing or as it's as it was constructed or modified. Okay, that would be fine too.

We'll just have to review it before the plaque gets signed because it says existing or proposed. So that is the entire universe of all drainage potentialities. Yeah, it it goes without saying that it's going to be adjusted accord accordingly to follow be in line with the agreement. So, sure. Just Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. Moving that around, is that going to impact the sub I know we're in the reszoning, but is that going to impact the subdivision? No, sir. The point of the reubdivision takes that into account. So, you'll see that we're just adjusting one of those boundary lines slightly by 0.24 acres and that's the part that's of the pond that's being impacted. And so we're going to take that water and adjust that pond and then create another pond. It's going to be in that far left corner of your draw site plan drawing up there. Okay. That will take that water into account. Yeah. For the sake of my commissioners, when it's all over and done with, there's going to be basically a common detention pond that the developer is going to maintain and basically the city will no longer have to maintain the pond. That's going to be the the premise of the agreement where they're going to take over that that maintenance uh in in agreement with us providing that that little piece of real estate. But it's a very very good situation for the city. That applies to all detention bonds. That note that the owner has to maintain it. Don't do that for all of them. It's not the maintenance part that I had a problem with. It was just not that we couldn't modify the existing one on the fire station lot. That was the only my only clarification I was trying to make because we that is the plan is for us to modify the fire station's detention to move it to a common detention area to put it. Yeah. Put it Yeah. Any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? All right. Thank you, Miss Sherman. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for this agenda item at 720 Museum

Drive. Yes, sir. [Music] Philip Burton, Burton Property Group. Uh we are the uh developer behind the project. Obviously, I'm speaking in on behalf of the project development team, but we are obviously in support of it and just want to make the the one comment that the zoning designation that we are going for uh B2 uh it is within the surrounding area. that touches on the north property line and the corner of Old Shell and McGregor is all B2. So, uh we felt it was appropriate to go with the B2 zoning uh getting the use variance to have a lesser impact than a B3. So, uh just want to kind of make that broad statement. So, any further questions or comments from commissioners for the developer? I'll ask if there's anyone else here. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Linda St. John, 320 Avalon Street, Mobile 36608. The Village of Spring Hill has been working with Philip Burton and his team on developing the Armory property. According to the village of Spring Hill master plan for about two years now, Philip has demonstrated that he not only has a professional interest in the property but a personal interest in the village as well. As part of our collaboration on the best development for this property, he has agreed to add an additional $350,000 to his bid to be used to implement the village of Spring Hill Streetscapes according to our master plan in front of this development on North McGregor Avenue. Our planners, Dover Cole and Partner, suggested 20 years ago during our planning process that this was the perfect location for a

boutique hotel in the village because of the property's close proximity to I65, Langan Park, Spring Hill College, the University of South Alabama. Langan Park draws thousands of out of town visitors each year, participating in tennis tournaments, disc golf tournaments, visitors to the art gallery, the botanical gardens, Pixie Playhouse, and soon the city's Three-Mile Creek Trail, currently under construction. Spring Hill College needs accommodations for parents weekend, graduation, and weddings at the Chapel College, I mean the college chapel. The University of South Alabama needs accommodations for parents, weekend graduations, and football games. In the comments by city staff on this application, they state that a zoning change should be in the community's best interest and needs. These points validate this statement by the city. The city's comments also state that according to the UDC, zoning changes should be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The village of Spring Hill master plan, the blueprint for Spring Hill, supports a boutique hotel on this property in chapter 4. The city's comments also state that the planning commission should base their decisions for a zoning change on several factors, including the surrounding developments. The pro all properties surrounding this proposed development are commercial or civic. There is no contiguous residential properties and therefore there would be no adverse residential impact. The appropriate they also state that it should be appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed zoning classifications. As Philip just stated a B2 zoning is consistent with the zoning designations of the properties surrounding the development. They also stated the timing of the request. Uh the village of Spring Hill plan was initiated 20 years ago and reflects the vision of over 600 Spring

Hill residents who participated in the planning process. We have waited 20 years for this type development in Spring Hill and we applaud the Burton Property Group for their willingness to make such a significant investment in our master plan for the village. We think the timing request is long overdue. It has been proven over and over again that projects such as this one provide confidence for other developers to pursue additional improvements in our village and we wholeheartedly support this project and hope that you will too. Thank you. Any questions for me as a representative of the village of Spring Hill? Any questions from commissioners for Miss St. John? Thank you. Anyone else here to speak for this agenda item? All right, this will be the last speaker in support of and just to get ahead of this. Is there anyone else that here has questions towards this agenda item or will have uh opposition to it? Okay. Hi, I'm Lee Y. um live at 4812 Muns Court Mobile in Ravine Woods and I'm coming before y'all as a resident of Spring Hill. My neighborhood backs up to this area. I'm also a commercial broker in Alabama. Um a Mobile Tennis Center player, so I have a lot of um reasons to support this project. And Linda took a lot of my points, but she did a much more eloquent job. But um I just wanted to say that I think this would be a great asset to our area of Spring Hill, but also for the city. We don't have many boutique hotels. Um if you look at developments across the state the state whether it's Lane Park and Mountain Brook Village and what an asset that's been that boutique hotel the Grand

Bohemian um if you look the Grand Hotel's been there a long time is a resort property but obviously that is an enhancement to the area and so even myself with children in my neighborhood backs up to this. I think it's an area that has been run down and it's recently received improvement and I think this could be just a catalyst for the area and to keep it going. And um again, I just wanted to say that I think if if you look at retail and where it's going today and the more progressive developments, it's mixed use. And again, I think this would be a a great asset to our city. We could even be ahead of Fair Hope on something. And um I just think and then again as she said the exit right off 65 and it services the college, the tennis center um parents, those visiting. So I'm strongly in support of the reszoning. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that'll wrap up the four and I saw two hands for a question or opposition. If uh both of you'd like to one at a time make your way down and reminder to please state your name and address for the record. Hi there. Roosevelt Edwards 3769 Schlites Lane Mobile Alabama 3668. And I think I've reviewed the staff notes. I think we got some staff note changes. Is that what you're saying? Uh the suggestion was for the subdivision regulations to make sure that they properly reference the uh Spring Hill overlay requirements versus the standard requirements uh for a B2

site. Those those will be promoted when? Well, they have been discussed and presented to the planning commission and if they are approved today, they would be in the letter of decision that would be prepared by tomorrow. Thank you. So, infrastructure is one of the issues that we're concerned about within the community. the new development which they're proceeding with right now. I I guess it's it's just not a mature plan which the some of the residents in the community have not fully ingested. So I'm still waiting for that to occur for this streetscape idea. I I my main opposition is I have in my purview outside looking at my yard I have growing power poles not growing trees I have 14 power poles and and so I have an industrial complex that's happening in front of me that I don't really like. So this right here is part of this opposition that I don't like something that's going to be more industrialized rather than a community development type event. So that's what I'd like to see. So that's what I'd like to see out of the plan which the plan is not in maturity yet. So I'd like to see that before we go forward with something. So that's those are the highlevel notes that we have. Also associated with that is how we're going to or if we're going to endorse a new traffic plan to accommodate buses to is there going to be an noise abatement for when there will be low, you know, uh noise within the community or will that be dampened at certain hours of the evening or start up early in the morning or do I need to come down and write something to say, "Hey, I'm

not happy with noise at 4 in the morning that's happening over at the uh boutique hotel." And so those are uh issues, I guess, that are more um convenience to the community rather than in the development stages. But I'm looking forward to seeing what the plan presents itself for the community because we only only I've seen the the pseudo 2D drawings. I haven't seen the 3D and what the final process is going to be. And of course, there's going to be these uh deviations that are going to put into the overlay. So those are the things that I have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Good afternoon. My name is Chester Baker. I live at 70 Hathaway Road North, which is straight across through the Botanic Gardens. My backyard faces that way. I can see the street lights at the traffic circle at night from my backyard there. Um, first I want to say I'm not against the boutique hotel. I I think it's going to be a neat thing there. I do I would like some restrictions in the B2 zoning that for the hours of the operation of the rooftop bar. I don't want to be out there at 10:00 at night listening to music or people having a great time up on that bar when I'm trying to go to bed or something like that. The neighborhood's quiet, children and elderly people which I'm fast becoming. Um so that's one of the considerations. The other thing I had in the question is if

it's reszone B2, he still doesn't have to build the hotel. Is that correct? Okay. I just just curious. There are uses in B2 that I don't think fit this area. Um I went through the long list of of of them and everything and some of them are just like um fast food restaurants with drive-thrus. um automobile repair shops, um let's see, auto service, car wash, cuz when they when you go out and they got those blowers, those things make a lot of noise type of thing. [Music] Um lodges, uh clubs, things like that. One concern I do have or one of my biggest concerns about this is the event building that they are planning on putting there. uh in my these event buildings, you know, for weddings and stuff, you could have 400, 600, depending on the size there, 800 people going there for a wedding reception. I would request that it be considered that that event building be restricted to certain number of people and hours of operation. Don't know what that number is, but 200 400 I wouldn't think more than that 400 but I'm not sure. Um and then the hours of operation I think are critical just like I think even at the um um um shopping center up the street there's hours of operation that the dumpsters are not allowed. They don't come and pick up in the middle of the night type of thing. You don't do things. So restrictions on on on that

for the property there I think would be very important to do um with that. Um uh I drink coffee but I wouldn't want a Starbucks or black rifle coffee or anything there taking orders over the microphone early in the morning and that type of thing. um lighting, which I know with the city want to make sure that the lighting doesn't shine back onto the neighborhoods. I know I won't be able to see the stars quite as good, but that's, you know, um that's all part of it. I'll be able to maybe see the fourth floor of the of the hotel. Um let's see. I would like um I would assume and hopefully if there's an event type of building or or something like that done that a policeman would be required to be there that there would be no parking allowed on the on on Museum Drive at all and that you know people are there then then they would have to be proactive to have those towed off so as to not impede that thing. And um on hours of operation, I know 9:00's not work not going to work, but 10:00. So that when people leave there, if you have 300 people leaving that venue, that's a lot of traffic, a lot of noise going on at at that time of night. So just some restrictions on those types of uses and that type of thing I think would be fit with the intent of the Spring Hill master plan there and the community there. A walking community, quiet place for everybody to live and enjoy. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Baker. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Yes,

sir. And while he's making his way down, uh, I will point out that the city does have noise ordinances, so compliance within those would be would need to be met. Yes, sir. Good. Good afternoon. My name is Alonzo Yelling. I reside at 3828 Morai Lane uh 36608 of course and I'm kind of speaking on behalf of myself and a couple of neighbors and uh I just wanted to kind of share some concerns that came to me. [Music] Um, while we we all support the the the commerce and business development, there are some of us that feel like this may have an adverse uh effect on on our neighborhood. Uh, when we think about the access and everything, you're having to come in from Spring Hill, Oshell, or Dolphin and accessing either through McGregor or Museum Broad. This is already a very congested area. uh and thinking about that little short span from the roundabout to Spring Hill when we're talking about ingress and egress and also getting into the actual neighborhood side streets that can create a lot of uh additional traffic and because it's uh St. Paul's St. Ignatius, Mary B. Austin, Spring Hill College. The check-in checkout times can have an also an overbearing effect on the traffic there. Uh it's been mentioned already, but then you also have the deliveries, the the trash pickup and everything else that can create noise in the early morning hours and then the of course the late night traffic. Uh one of the other things that uh has been discussed is safetywise. Uh that area uh most people know is a very walkable area and which

is a good thing. It's also uh a very child-friendly area I I would say. And one of the things that keeps coming to to me is from a a safety standpoint, we have children either, you know, walking dogs, riding bikes, going back and forth to school, and now we're putting a hotel right there that we're bringing outsiders into the neighborhood. And I I hate to use that term outsiders, but when you think about uh some of the things that we hear about at some of the other hotels, we think about uh the the potential for uh abduction, trafficking, and that kind of thing. And even though, you know, we like to to say that there are things that that safeguard against the the sex offenders, when we're talking about short-term stays, they don't have to register when they they move around just for a short-term stay. So, it's just some safety issues that keep coming back uh that make us a little bit concerned that we just want to make sure uh as this goes forward, the necessary precautions are put in into effect to mitigate as many of those possible things as as we can. Any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Yelling. I'll now allow the applicant or the developer um time to address those comments that were made. And while he uh or they are making their way down, I'll point out the comments to commissioners that were made uh available to you in your folders in addition to the webbased comments um folder which are representative of of this event in this application. Go ahead, Mr. Burton. Okay. Uh so we're here for specifically a reszoning um with the intent of the ability to

eventually come before the planning commission to get a gain approval for a project. Uh we are mindful of the community that we're developing in. So we thought it would be prudent to show at least a concept of what we were envisioning. So with respect to the details that are being asked for I mean we're not there yet. Right now, there is no path for us to develop this site because of the zoning. This is a site that's owned by the city. The default zoning is an R1. It was the city's goal to take this site, which was surplus real estate, and put it into a uh a different state. So, they ran a process, which we were selected. Uh so regardless of who was going to develop the site, it was going to have to go through a resoning. If it was going to be anything different than a single family residence, uh single family residential was not feasible on this site given the topography. There was about 45 degrees or excuse me 45 ft of fall from the east side to the west side of the property. So it was going to have commercial application due to the topography challenges. So again, so when we were starting the resoning process, we knew that everyone's going was going to want to know what our vision was with the site. So we went ahead and spent some additional dollars to at least develop a cons concept on what our vision was with it. Uh knowing full well that we weren't at that level, but if we are granted the zoning, that comes next. But to your point earlier, I mean it that use will have to confine to all the ordinances that exist today. B2 is in the area. Uh I mean it's directly north. It's across the street on Moffett. Uh excuse me, across the street on Spring Avenue. The whole intersection Old Shell and McGregor. All of that is B2. B2 zoning is appropriate for this site. So uh with that, I kind of can see my time. Yes.

Any questions or further comments from commissioners for the developer? All right. Thank you, Mr. Burton. We'll move on to what I believe is the last agenda item number 10. We can welcome back Mr. Kenny Nichols from his recusal seat. This is a dual application double modification at the northwest corner of Lyola Lanes and Provident Lane St. Paul's Episcopal School. The major modification of a previously approved planning approval allowing the expansion of existing church school and an R1 single family residential district to allow construction of the soccer field. And then the major modification of a PUD amending a previously approved master plan for an existing church school R1 to allow construction of another soccer field. Uh for consideration here we have eight findings of fact potentially six listed conditions for both modifications. Go ahead sir. Sean Estis with McCord Williams 3207 International Drive. I'm here uh representing St. Paul's and they're good with all the considerations. I just had one question about the uh that D number two includes adequate public facilities. I presume that's restrooms. Is that restrooms? Is that what that is? That is not a condition of approval. It's just a finding effect that if the um actual development as proposed would meet any of these criteria, the planning commission can approve it based on those criteria. It's not a condition. Okay. And then that number one condition about the uh uh the existing building to remain on

the site plan. I mean on the on the site that has since been removed. uh the school doesn't see it's feasible to to retain that building. So that one could be done away with. Mr. Assis, repeat that what you're making reference to. Is that's under that's number one. Revision of the site plan to state the proposed use of existing building to remain on the site with the new soccer fields. There's a there's an existing building that we had noted to remain on the on the pud, but it no longer is to remain. All right. So, I'm going to ask staff if that should apply to both modification applications or just one specifically to both of them. Got it. So, has it been demoed or is it being demoed? It has not been demoed, correct? No, but it's it's planned to be demoed. It will. Yeah. I mean, there's other structures on the site that are to be to demo. There was one that they were thinking about keeping and utilizing, but it wasn't cost effective to to keep it and and and and renovate it. Uh so, they've elected to just remove it as well. Yeah. Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this potential project? All right, seeing none, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the Thank you, Mr. Assis. Is anyone else in the audience here to speak for this agenda item or have questions about it? Is there anyone here to to speak in opposition to it? All right. Seeing none, I will also make commissioners aware you have uh comments in your comment folder on agenda item

10. And we will close the public hearing session of this meeting. We'll move on to our uh deliberation. Number one, 61 South McGregor Avenue. We have a recusal from Mr. Kirk Mate. We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item. The applicant is not present and no material changes since the previous meeting. Entertain a motion. I move to deny the application subdivision. Second. Properly moved and seconded for denial of the application. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for denial passes. Number two, we can welcome back Mr. Kurt Mate. Number two, 1600 University Boulevard South originally uh set for potential denial of the application since changed to uh recommended for approval based on material changes to the application specific to fire. The applicant is present and was in agreement with those listed items of which there were 18 listed conditions. Move to approve search staff recommendations. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. Go ahead, Mr. Nichols. Uh, if we can I was actually talking with Mr. Hamburger about this with respect to one of the engineering comments. Sorry the Nick, where was I? U there was a comment. Hold on, give me two seconds. I wrote it down and then I

didn't follow through writing. Um where' it go? I think what we wanted to be clear about is the u the future private driveway is shown on parcels of property. It's not a common parcel. So we wanted to verify that the that the future drive is in fact not going to be asked for the city to maintain which I think we with it being presented as a private drive. It would not be coming to the city for maintain and we do believe it probably should be in a common area itself in a parcel of land. It looks like as it's proposed, it is part of the lots uh and it's just the ingress egress easement uh that only applies to three of the lots instead of the entire subdivision. Yeah, I think I found it. It's engineering comment. I uh if we can just add a note that that private drive uh shall also be the responsibility of the property owner, not the responsibility of City Mobile. It's in the common area or at least that's what the intent is. I'm sorry. It's in the intent of it is for it to be in the common area. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I think I think we understand it that way. Cory, I think just if we can on the engineering comment, I just amend it to include that as well. So, I would like to amend my motion to include the amendment that Mr. Nichols mentioned and just to reassure the commission um when it does come across my desk for review, I will make sure that the city is not going to be maintaining that private drive. We have a properly amended motion and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? The motion passes for approval. New applications. Number three on the agenda, 2900 Old Shell

Road, the Haze Place subdivision. The applicant is present in agreement with the nine listed 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 four, 2022 and 21102 Shelton Beach Road ex extension. The applicant is present and in agreement with the seven listed conditions. Move to approve staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number five, subdivision at the south side of Raven Drive at the south terminus of Cardinal Drive East, extending south to the east terminus of East Gulf Field Drive. The applicant is present uh may comment towards number five in the conditions and was in agreement with all conditions. Move to approve subject staff recommendations with a note with regards to note number five that granted a gezments can will be uh identified and and and memorialized post subdivision plat recording. Properly moved and seconded. Any questions? All in favor? Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Number six, subdivision at 4297 Rivier Duchaine Road. Move to approve subject staff recommendations eliminating condition number four. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number

[Music] seven, school application, subdivision and modification. We will take them separately. Move to approve subdivision application subject to staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded for the subdivision. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for the subdivision passes the modification for commissioners. There are potentially eight findings of fact and 18 listed conditions here. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion for modification passes. Number eight, 5808 US Highway 90 West. The applicant is present and in agreement with holdover request to June 12th. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I hold over till June 12th is granted for 5808 US Highway 90 West. Number nine, dual application subdivision and reszone. Subdivision and reszone will be taken separately at 720 Museum Drive. Subdivision applicant is present. Multiple comments from staff regarding article 13 of the Spring Hill Village overlay to conditions three, four, and six if considered. Move to approve subject to staff

recommendations modifying notes 3, four, and six. Second. Properly moved and seconded on the subdivision. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Nichols, for recusing yourself. We still maintain a quorum on that. Failed to mention it. On the reszone, this is a reszone of R1 to B2 potentially seven findings of fact and two listed conditions. The applicant is present. Did this one also have amendments that we needed to do or was that just the sub? It was just the subdivision. Okay. Uh, I would move to approve subject findings of fact. Move to approve service staff recommendation with findings of fact. Um, these are these are numbered weirdly. H, nope, that's not right. Where's my findings of fact list? There we go. Uh, A, C, D, E, F, and G. Second. Properly moved and seconded. on with findings of fact AC C D E F and G. Any discussion? All in favor for the reszone. I. Any opposed? The motion for reszone passes. We can welcome back Mr. Nichols. And we have the final agenda item which is number 10, dual application modifications. I'll ask staff or Mr. Anderson if we can do we need to separate these because they're similar or keep them as they're if they're similar or separate them.

Okay. Any efficiencies we can get? We will take both modifications, entertain a motion. Uh there potentially eight findings of fact and six listed conditions of which the applicant was present and in agreement. Move to approve sub staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H and striking comment number one for the for the existing building to remain on site. recommend. Yeah. From each modification application in and that uh motion has been made and we have a second properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Motion for modifications passes. It closes the deliberation session. Uh we have other business [Music] subdivisions. I'll turn it over to This is the first time that I've seen other business subdivisions. Yeah. Yeah. Um I can do that if you'd like. Yeah, please do. This is at 812 Edwards Avenue and 429 Lincoln Boulevard. So, the uh planning commission uh reviewed this application, I can't remember if it was April or March, and approved it with conditions subject to staff recommendations, etc. One of which was to provide uh 60 foot riderway dedication along Edwards Avenue. the applicant was not present at that time or was not aware of that condition after it was approved until later in the I don't know if it was the meeting or the

next day but we received correspondence that that was not something that was feasible. Um and so their request was for the planning commission to review it administratively in this setting uh to amend that condition only. Um I believe the applicant is here to discuss that further. All right, go right ahead. state your name and address and then we'll we'll hear what's going on. Jake Mosley, 5588 Jackson Road. Um, so we believe it was just maybe carried over from Edward Street to Edwards Avenue. Edwards Street has a 60oot rideway. Edwards Avenue has a 30-foot rideway. So we're pretty much just asking for that to be changed from 30 to 15. And we reflect the 15 from the center line in our drawing. Where is the Yeah, the address of the center. This is on 812 Edwards Avenue. Do we have any No, it's not a public hearing. So, we were not uh we do not prepare any map images for you. You can look at Josh's. So, I guess just confirmation. This is in the uh Plateau community kind of north of Bay Bridge Road. Is that correct? I'm sorry. the actual location of the property. It's in the Plateau community north of Bay Ridge Road near Mobile County Training School. Not sure. I don't remember. That's That's correct. It is. Okay. That's our survey showing property and showing our dedicated 15 foot. Restate, Mr. measure your um your your distances. Um so we believe that it was just it says 30 feet from the center line. Um we believe that would apply to Edwards Street, not Edwards Avenue. Edwards Avenue is 30 foot right away. So we would have the 15t from the center line instead of 30.

I would move to approve subject staff recommendations. Was that a second from Nick? Josh, I'll ask it. Nick, have you had a chance to look at that? Yeah, I think that just for clarity, we're we're we were initially required dedication and we're coming back and they're saying that the dedication is just not practical and it can't be done. Is that correct? So, we're removing that condition. Yes, we may make it 15. Yeah. Yeah. I can see from here how tiny it is. The house is the house is in that dedication. Okay. We have a properly moved and seconded and this is for both or just Edwards? Just Edwards Avenue. All right. We have a properly moved and seconded Edward Avenue 15 ft dedication from center line. I'm going to uh just conservatively recuse. I know we've done stuff over in Africa town and I can't remember if I recuse from this one before. We still maintain a quorum with Mr. McCay's recusal. All in favor? Any opposed? All right, that passes. And then do we need to do same applicant? Different applicant. This is a different applicant. All right, go ahead. Um, so the request here was pretty similar. Um, there was a dedication that was greater than the existing ride of way at this location on uh 12th Street. Um the applicant is here and can uh discuss that further with you. This was actually done at the April 17th meeting. Z Cousin Row Engineering 3502 Loftton Drive Mobile if you'll remember this particular the uh 12th Street in Lincoln. Uh it's a very old subdivision. The original lot sizes were 25 ft. Um, and there's a right now we're being

asked to dedicate uh 25 ft from the center line of 12th Street, which is currently a 30-foot rideway. If you look at that old subdivision, the houses that are constructed now are extremely close to the road. Some of them, I think, are only like 8 foot behind the curve. U, we would like to not have to dedicate, if we do, it's going to basically kill lot one if we have to give up roughly. Right now, we're showing 15 ft to the existing center line. If we give up another 10 to to get to your 25, it's not really going to leave any buildable area. So, we'd like to remove that condition. And just a reminder to the commission, this site did go before the planning commission previously was held over to the um April meeting so that they could go to the board of zoning adjustment to receive a setback variance for this lot to be reduced as a result of the required dedication which they did receive. Yes. And it's the 12 the 12th Street dedication that that's in question. Not that's the problem. Yes, sir. Mr. President, we have a properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? That item passes. Final item on here is batch review of minutes from the following planning commission meetings. February 2nd, 2023, 15th of February, 2nd and 16th of March, 6th and 20th of April. Entertain a motion to approve those minutes in a batch. Move to approve this batch of minutes. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Approval of minutes passes. Any further business? Meeting adjourned.