Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols here. Miss Ellie Edwards. We do have a quorum for today's agenda items, and I will move to pass today's agenda. You second. All in favor. We will move right into the agenda. Number one. is a holdover agenda item subdivision at 5536 Sermon Road West, 5660 and 5680 Sermon Road North, the Willis Sermon Connector Subdivision. We did, I have notes here from staff that the, several notes that not all requirements were submitted in time for this particular date. Is the applicant present? A lot of people. Any, is the applicant present? All right. So, sir, I'm looking at this. Do you have any comments on the requirements not being submitted? And a reminder to please state your name and address for the record.

Pete Green, 3904 Camellia Drive, 36693. We're missing one letter. The guy's out of the country. We had talked and met with him a couple weeks ago on one of the properties. But he's in Aruba and I've been unable to get that letter from him. But we have the other one from all in credit union.

So that would be the considering number 2 note written consent from owners of all properties required to be included in the subdivision. Is that what we're looking at? You got how many you have? Okay.

The one they're missing is from Tony Cooper, who was here last time when this came up to talk about another issue, not just subdivision. He was not in opposition to this. He just wanted to come in and talk about something else. Right. Maybe we can talk in deliberations whether we can approve it subject to, well, has he submitted everything else? Is anything else missing?

This was required or held over because they needed to replant it as a three-lot subdivision. We have not received the revised plat.

Okay. Did you hear that, Mr. Rehm? We haven't received a revised plat for the properties on the subdivision.

Why does it have to be a three-lot subdivision? That's what I don't understand. And I guess the other thing, one of the reasons we're here, does everybody realize that this was already done 15 years ago? This all exists. This should have been, all of this should have been done 15 years ago. That road exists and people are using that as a public road for 15 years. And really this is a cleanup of what exists. The road is there, the cleanup is there. There's two, there's a lot that was split And those remnants are on either side and all we're trying to do is clean this up and put it with the other. The drainage from the common area that was modified 15 years ago with the culverts of the drainage for the whole subdivision has been working for 15 years because there's a cover. So I guess that's part of what I'm missing is. All of this existed was done 15 years ago. We're just trying to get it right on the records.

We've got to get it right for the subdivision application to have the owner on there. The one that's in Aruba.

Okay.

We'll discuss it in deliberation. Thank you, Mr. Rehm. Is there anyone else that's here to speak for, have questions towards, or speak against this subdivision application on Sermon Road West and Sermon Road North? All right, seeing none, we'll move on. These are all remaining new agenda items. Number two, 1930 Bay Bridge Road Cut-Off and 124 Industrial Canal Road East. Rogers Group subdivision. For those in the audience that are here for this particular agenda item, prior to this meeting, the applicant has requested a holdover until the June 18th Planning Commission meeting. However, since it's on the agenda, I will ask if there's anyone here that has questions towards, wants to speak for, or speak against this agenda item. Reminders, state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. Jared White, 104 St. Francis Street. I'm the attorney for the Rogers Group, and even though we've requested a holdover because there are people here, and I think people who address that will provide a little background information. So Rogers is the largest privately owned construction aggregate company in the United States. This site we're talking about here was owned by Parker Towing. Rogers bought it about a year ago. Prior to Rogers purchasing it, Vulcan Materials had leased it from Rogers and used this as an aggregate yard. They would bring in aggregate, which is your limestone rock, by barge, unload it, move it by dump truck to the middle of the property, then take it out as needed by dump truck. Rogers has continued that same use. All the property except for the northeasternmost piece facing Chinn Street is zoned I-2. And we actually did not realize that our good surveyor did, but Rogers missed that that piece was included in the application. It's not our intent to... intrude upon Chin Street or do any kind of upzoning within the Africatown Safe District or facing Chin Street. So we're holding it over so that one parcel that faces Chin Street can either be removed entirely from the subdivision application or set as a separate lot that would remain a residential lot. So that's the reason for the holdover. But just to provide a little more additional information, as I said, Rogers is continuing the same use that was useful previously. This subdivision would simply combine these six other I-2 parcels into one to ensure uniformity. to ensure that if there's a construction, you can get one permit for the entire parcel. By doing this voluntarily, Rogers will make itself subject to the 30-foot buffer that exists within the Africa Tone overlay. It would not currently be applicable. It also provides an assurance to the community that Rogers does not intend to separate out this parcel and sell part of it off to another industry or another user. Rogers will continue to be the sole occupant of this property. In the year that Rogers has been operating it, we've had meetings with community members, including yesterday with some of the people who are going to speak today. It's certainly our goal to have an open dialogue, be transparent with the community, and continue those discussions. Rogers has implemented, obtained permits and implemented improvements to the site consisting of a rebuilt bulkhead along Three Mile Creek to protect the shoreline, installing a material conveyor so that the product, after it's unloaded, is moved by conveyor. to the lay-down yard in the middle of the property. That conveyor has a built-in dust suppression system so that it minimizes the dust, which has been one of the complaints by the community members when the property was operated by Vulcan. The other thing that conveyor does is it eliminates the dump trucks. So, again, under Vulcan's operation of the site, it was moved by a dump truck within the 30-acre parcel. A lot of dump trucks back and forth, back and forth all day. And then every time a dump truck's unloaded, you got the tailgate doing that big plane. It disturbs people in the neighborhood. So this conveyor will address that and eliminate that noise source. Rogers is also on the loader it purchased. put a white noise backup alarm. Motion requires that you have that for the workers, but by using white noise, the workers who are within the immediate vicinity can hear it, but you don't get the beep, beep, beep that might travel to the community. This property does have a natural vegetated buffer along the north side, along Chin Street. Rogers is maintaining that, but obviously subdivisions approved, that would be a mandatory requirement as part of the new subdivision application. So we appreciate your consideration. Our plan will be back next month. with that Chin Street property, clearly denoted that it will not, there's no request to upzone that tattoo. Again, no interest to that. Rogers is evaluating that property, may end up divesting itself of it, but we're certainly not going to utilize it for an industrial use in that neighborhood. So appreciate your consideration, and we'll be back next month. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. White. A lot of information. Be prepared for that next month as well. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have any questions towards this agenda item? 1930 Bay Bridge Road Cut-Off, and 124 Industrial Canal Road East. Reminders, please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Kermit McAlpine. I live at 308 Chan Street, Mobile, Alabama. I am here today to speak about several concerns affecting the neighborhood. First, we have major drainage problem in our area. Whenever it rains, the water builds up heavily, causing flood throughout the community. Additional water flows from the nearby bridge directly into our neighborhood, making the flooding even worse because of the drainage system. The flooding also brings alligators and other dangerous animals into the yard or neighborhood, creating safety concerns of children, families and children. Another major concern is the train effective in our area. The train begins operating early in the morning and continue running all through the night. The constant noise has been seriously disturbing for many residents. and it's preventing people from getting proper rest and sleep. They need. We also have concern regarding the rock company in our neighborhood. They have begun working early in the mornings with excessive noise and spreading large amount of dust through our area. which affect the quality of life for residents. Additional several properties in the area have not been properly cleaned or maintained since Katrina. These properties are filled with trees, debris, and other grounds, conditioners, negative impact of the community. We need to be clean and maintained to help make the neighborhood safe and better for everyone who lives there. Thank you for listening to my concern. I sincerely hope you issues are heard and addressed so positive changes can be made. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr McAlpine.

And I do have pictures. of the drainage. I have pictures of two alligators that I caught at my yard. I do have pictures if you'd like to take a look at the pictures.

If you would like to turn those pictures into the staff and they will add them to the file.

Yes, sir.

Are they your pictures and do you need them back?

They're my pictures and I need them back.

All right.

Okay.

We'll make sure that those get properly copied. Thank you, Mr. McAlpine. Thank you.

Just so he'll understand, this is not a change in the use. What you see in yellow on the screen is seven different tax parcels. This is just an application to combine it into one legal lot of record. It's not a rezoning. It's not a change in the use, not changing the boundaries. It's just making it one legal lot of record.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. Name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Ramsey Sprague. I'm at 5404 Dogwood Court. I'm the president of the Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition, which was founded by Africatown residents in September 2013 to address environmental justice issues in the community. I've been working with the folks you just heard from for about 10 years now on these issues. You're correct that it is a subdivision application and there are implications because this community and especially these residents here trusted a process during the zoning code rewrite the UDC process that there would be code enforcement that the rules around this industrial development that is so recklessly close to their properties would be addressed systematically. We did meet with the applicant yesterday and had a productive conversation about a lot of concerns and potential opportunities to resolve some of the issues, but there are many things that were brought up during that UDC rewrite process by our CBO. I don't know that any of y'all were involved in that period, but I know Mr. Anderson and Bert and Ms. Biko were all involved, and my organization was one of the most engaged Uh, in the city, if not the most engaged in terms of written public comment provided to the city in black and white, including issues around this particular parcel and the desire for greater buffer protections for the community. So it's been a concern that there have been, uh. construction permits issued for the site. We have questions around if all of the requirements of the Africa Town Overlay were properly investigated by the planning department in terms of what applies and what doesn't. Is the crime prevention through environmental design requirements, were those enforced in the permitting process? Were the landscaping requirements that are, the buffer zone exists, but there are specific landscaping REQUIREMENTS AROUND THE TYPE AND QUALITY OF THE LANDSCAPING THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY NAMED IN THE AFRICATOWN OVERLAY, CROSS-REFERENCING THE TREE LIST. SO THERE'S A LOT OF VERY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE BELIEVED AT THE TIME WE COULD TRUST WHAT HAPPENED AS THESE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES PLAY OUT. WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE THIS ONGOING DIALOGUE WITH THE COMPANY. WE'RE HAPPY THAT WE'LL HAVE A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME TO REVIEW MORE OF THE Uh, written correspondence, but there are also some substantive issues that were lacking in the plat itself. Uh, Mr Macalpine spoke about. Stormwater issues in the area and, uh, in conversation, you know, it became clear that there doesn't seem to be. A stormwater easement that the city has responsibility for on the property, even though there is a large ditch that used to be a title ditch. Residents these residents here used to be able to fish and crab in their backyard. At some point of natural gas pipeline was installed and the drainage assumed from the Africa town cemetery. That flows underneath chin street into that ditch. is assumed to go all the way out to Three Mile Creek. But the archaic design and the lack of improvement of any of that stormwater infrastructure after the expansion of Bay Bridge Road into the Africatown Boulevard that we have today in the 90s, there was no subsequent updating of any of the stormwater infrastructure. So we have this localized flooding that has, Mr. McAlpine didn't mention it, but he just had to demolish a home this year that was damaged from flood waters. So these are serious, serious deficiencies. We hope that there's ways to resolve these things by working with the applicant and with the city to address these things in a comprehensive way that the residents can really rely on and trust. We just began our conversation, so we wanted to get on the record about these things and trust that the planning commission and staff will take us seriously and be deliberative in our questions because we're not coming out of nowhere with them. Is that my one minute or is that my? That's your one minute. Okay. So I just want to make sure that I'm covering everything, right? uh the questions about the plat uh really go to the heart of like and i've spoken with jared about this a little bit there's this chin street itself doesn't appear illustrated so the frontage even if that one parcel that's that forms that flagpole lot up there even if that is subdivided properly if it's subdivided separately there should be uh all the frontage easements and all the residential zone requirements for that property should also be Applied and because it's residential to code enforcement does apply. The lack of code enforcement in this area has been a severe. Hindrance to the quality of life of these residents and so we want to see comprehensive code enforcement. We want to see comprehensive accountability of all the requirements on this applicant because we believe they're operating in good faith and we want to celebrate the good work of the city and these developers. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Sprague. Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application? Yes, sir. Reminder to state your name and address for the record.

It's good afternoon. I'm Robert Clompton, 2612 Charlotte Oaks Drive, Mobile, Alabama, 36695. Thank you for this opportunity. I will be brief. We're very, very concerned about the situation that has been presented to us from the citizens on Chan Street. Who are we? President of the NAACP. And our only mission is to ensure the political, social, educational and economic equality of rights of all people. of all people at all time and to fight any race-based hatred or discrimination that we might find, not saying that that's there at this particular time. However, they do have some concerns that we are concerned with when it comes to quality of life. Three phases were introduced earlier, one from the flooding, lack of water easements, and then again, the dust. all right, that's created from the rocks, the train noise. Those are simple things that most citizens take for granted, but in this case, it's a quality of life and it is a matter of urgency. So from our perspective, we will be working hand in hand with this particular subdivision, neighborhood, street, Chin Street, to assist them in any way that we possibly can to ensure that their quality of life is maintained. We will be intentional. We will be strategic because basically they need equitable aspects of quality standards. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Clompton. We have one more slide if anybody would like to take it. All right, seeing none, just on this agenda item, a reminder, it will be voted on for potential holdover until June 18th. Number three on the agenda is a subdivision application at 354 and 358 Gulfwood Drive, Lila's Place Subdivision. This is a subdivision of three lots at .64 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of her hand. Are you in agreement with the 10 listed conditions? The applicant is in agreement with a nod of her head for the 10 listed conditions. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application at 354-358 Gulfwood Drive.

Mr. Chairman?

Go ahead.

I'd like to know from staff, are the existing houses on the property, have they been demolished?

They have not yet been demolished, but as a condition of approval, they are required to be demolished and the demolition process completed before we'll sign the final plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Anberger. Any further questions from commissioners? No comments from the audience on this subdivision. We'll move on to number four. Subdivision application at 63 Parkway Drive, Parkway Commons subdivision, five lots, 1.76 acres. Please state your name, Mr. Estes, and address for the record.

Sean Estes, 7 Dogwood Circle.

There are 10 listed conditions, and unless you have questions towards any of those, give us an agreement on that or move on with whatever you got.

Well, no, I don't, really, other than I know there was a 30-foot from center line for future development, that right-of-way, future dedication, dedication for future right-of-way. I just wanted to see if there was any leniency or a potential waiver for that, just it being a low-density residential dead-end street. didn't know if I mean that seems a 60 feet of right-of-way seems excessive used to be 50 feet I know my streets 50 and so is there any any way around that or I guess a waiver to that do you have a suggestion or recommendation a request request specific feet Well, if we could get it to the 25 from center line, that'd be a future of 50, which would be more comparable to what's around the city now. Is the 60 a new requirement, new standard?

Minor streets within the subdivision regulations that have not been improved with curb or gutter improvements do require a 60-foot right-of-way, so 30 feet from the center, to accommodate the construction of that infrastructure. If it's a minor street that has been equipped with curbing and gutter improvements, then it's a 50-foot right-of-way, since those improvements have already been made.

So there's the answer on the 30 and 30.

Okay.

Okay. However, the city engineers here, I hate to throw them under the bus, but.

Technically, I'm not the city engineer, but I will answer the question from that department. The city did recently in a, in a recent recent effort, improve the road. It was a gravel road. Uh. Okay.

Excuse the interruption. Go ahead, Mr. Hamburger.

I don't foresee the road having any more improvements on it. It was a gravel road. Mr. Estes provided a little easement to us in which we could do some drainage there to improve it. I think he's got a common area that's probably going to address his site's runoff. I just don't see there being any more improvements done to the road in the foreseeable future.

Okay. All right. And then... I think according to the comments, it spoke to the turnaround at the end. The comments led me to believe that the city wasn't really internally aware that they had already built the turnaround. Is that clear now?

Yeah, there was a hammerhead for my fellow commissioners. There was a hammerhead turnaround constructed with that effort. That's what the little jog that you see in between lots four and lot five.

Right. So all that's built. So I just wanted to clarify because it didn't really speak to that in the comments.

Yeah, I don't think it shows up on any aerial photos or any GIS, so you probably wouldn't have known. Okay. All right.

Other than number one, Mr. Estes, any other ones? That's it. All right. Thank you, sir. A note for commissioners, potential waivers of Section 6C2A for reduced lot area and 6C3 for width and depth once we get to deliberation. Is there anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application of five lots of 1.76 acres located on Parkway Drive? Seeing none, we will move on. Number five, subdivision application at 1370 and 1408 Cody Road North, the villas at Cody Crossing subdivision. This is a subdivision of 229 lots encompassing 16.44 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. I will welcome you to the podium. Reminder for commissioners, we've got a potential waiver of Section 6C2A and 6C2B2 and 6C7 double frontage lots. Yes, sir. Name and address for the record.

Yeah, good afternoon. Jay Broughton, Broughton & Associates, 314 Magnolia Avenue, Fairhope. This probably looks familiar to you all because it was presented and approved in March of last year. It's the exact same application, haven't changed anything from the variances or anything about the plan. We were submitting construction plans in April of this year, and that's when we found out the extension deadline had passed. So we're respectfully requesting approval for the preliminary plat, contingent on staff comments, we've got no objections to those, and approval of the variances by the BZA.

So just to confirm, you're in agreement with all 19 conditions of the current application? Yes, sir, that's correct. And the only thing that's changed is time?

Yes, that's right.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Broughton. Is there anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application on Cody Road North?

Yeah, I got a question for the applicant. On the traffic engineering comments, it talks about the traffic impact study not completed. Review hadn't been completed. The report's incomplete. Doesn't include a warrant analysis for left and right turn lanes, and I don't see anybody from, oh, there you are.

Has that impact study been approved? It's still under review. They have not resubmitted anything yet, so it's still in review at this time.

So I will say that the warrant, we have completed the warrant analysis, and we're just trying to update the recommendations of the warrant analysis. So it's It'll be approved by the time we resubmit for construction plans.

Nothing's been submitted to us yet. They may have done it on their side.

If it calls for left or right turn lanes, y'all are willing to do that? I mean, we're talking about 294 lots in 1 entrance on under onto a busy road and I just want to make sure we don't. Approve this without making sure that the traffic is going to be taken care of. And if if we're going to require if traffic engineering is going to require a left turn or D, Excel line or whatever, I just want to make sure.

We're fully committed to complying with whatever recommendations the traffic impact study comes back with. Appreciate it.

Yes. Typically, we enforce whatever is required by the traffic impact study, unless otherwise waived by the traffic engineering director.

Mr. Anderson, do you want specific verbiage in any of the conditions stating that? We want to talk about it at deliberation.

Mr. Chairman, is there a preview of the traffic impact study? I mean, obviously something's been done.

I mean, is it looking like a term? The considerations that were – or the warrants that we're really talking about has to do with the level of service on Cody Road, which is at a C, and the traffic that would be exiting the development, specifically the westbound to – northbound movement heading right up Cody Road. So we're, like I said, trying to finalize the results of that. If there are any you know, turn lane warrants or decel lanes, we'll be glad to make it. But that's specifically what we're talking about.

I think the concern is just kind of the uncertainty of approving the subdivision, very large subdivision, with the uncertainty of are turn lanes going to be required. I mean, is there any preliminary recommendations? Is it leaning towards needing turn lanes?

Not on Cody Road, no, sir. The only thing that's warranted is a right turn lane out of

the development on the credit road okay all right thank you yes mr chair um and while we're on the track that was that was my concern um so just for clarification i guess there'll be a point of entry exit on victor and then also a point of entry exit as you come around the curve on the Cody, I guess. That's correct. And on both of those entry points, exit points, no gates or anything, and no gates on Victor, no Knox boxes or anything like that. That's correct. Okay. And then I guess the question for traffic would be Victor Road, you know, 300 ounces. Victor Road was taken into consideration, I guess, in the traffic study, I guess. Yes, sir, it was.

Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions for Mr. Walton from commissioners? All right. Thank you, sir. I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application 1370 and 1408. Asking that again. All right. Seeing none, we'll move on. Number six on the agenda is a subdivision for a sidewalk waiver at 175 West I-65 Service Road North. Quintessa Properties. This is West I-65 Service Road and Zimlick. Specific request to waive construction of sidewalks. We'll welcome the applicant to the podium for reasoning behind this application.

Good afternoon. My name is Chris Lee with Leib Engineering Company at 7671 Parker Road in Faroe of Alabama. The reason for this request is that there is along, specifically along the I-65 service road, there is a fairly deep paved ditch in the Aldot right-of-way and specifically up in the northeast corner that right away pinches in and there's really not room to have the ditch and the sidewalk there for pedestrian safety. The sidewalk either has to be too close to the road or you're right up on the concrete ditch so you'd have to build a wall or something there to be able to get a sidewalk that's wide enough to conform with the city requirements. And that's one of the main reasons why we're trying to get the sidewalk waiver.

Any questions from commissioners?

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

So I'm in opposition, and the council representative for this district's in opposition. There's a sidewalk project that's tying in the village of Spring Hill and their sidewalks that's going to take from the corner of Old Show all the way down to Dolphin Street, say. WAVING WAVING THIS I MEAN THERE THERE'S ROOM FOR A SIDEWALK THERE'S YOU KNOW I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T FORESEE IN THE OPINION OF THE COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES DON'T FORESEE IS NOT SEEING THE WAIVER OF A SIDEWALK IN THIS AREA IT'S A IT'S INTERCONNECTED THERE'S A SIDEWALK TO THE SOUTH ABOUT TO TIE IN THE SIDEWALKS TO THE NORTH you know, it'll be part of the complete streets plan. So I, you know, the council representative for this district and I'm also don't, we don't really see the need or, you know, sidewalks are going in anyways and it is part of the UDC plan to install those sidewalks.

Thank you, Mr. Woods. Any further questions or comments for the applicant from commissioners?

I'll just add for my fellow commissioners, it does look like the way the preliminary development is, the parking pads are set back from the property lines. It does look like you've got some real estate there to accommodate it. It is a very large ditch there. It would be very expensive to pipe the ditch, but it does appear to be, as you've got the site laid out, that it could reasonably accommodate it.

So while I'm standing here, let me ask, if the sidewalk waiver is not approved, can we put the sidewalk on private property in an easement? Yes. I can answer that, yes.

Any further questions from commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Lieb. Anyone else in the audience on the sidewalk waiver application? Seeing none, we will move on to number seven on the agenda. It is also a subdivision application of a sidewalk waiver at 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway, specifically a request to waive the construction of sidewalk along Dolphin Island Parkway. Please state your name and address for the record and reasoning for the application.

Good afternoon. My name is Brock Jones, Kimley Horn, 11 North Water Street. REASON FOR THE SIDEWALK WAIVER, SO WE ARE REPLACING EXISTING MAUS LIVESTATION PRETTY MUCH AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. THE EXISTING SITE IS KIND OF RIGHT AT THE FOOT OF THE BRIDGE AS YOU CROSS DOG RIVER. The right of way within that right of way is pretty much an open ditch, not enough room to put a sidewalk. Additionally, the north part of the site, we're trying to leave as natural vegetation as part of this to kind of limit impact to any residents or any future development that may happen in that area. So we would like to respectfully request a waiver of the sidewalk in this area. It's also tidally influenced, so there's constantly flooding going on in that area. So those are the reasons.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just add that that section of Dauphin Island Parkway has a dedicated bike lane on it and, I believe, shoulder as well. Part of this area has got tidal marsh in there. I don't think there's real estate to adequately construct a sidewalk the full length of the way.

And it really wouldn't lead anywhere. Right there is the start of the bridge across the Strong River as well.

That's correct.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience on this sidewalk waiver application? Seeing none, we'll move on to number eight. We will recuse Mr. Larry Dorsey. We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item for public hearing. The rezone application at 6455 Howells Ferry Road, Grace Redemption Community Church. Request for a conditional use permit approval to establish and operate a religious facility on property zoned R1 single family residential suburban. The applicant present, the applicant is present with a show of her hand. Are you in agreement and understanding of the requirements for this reason? Not of the head. Does state submit a revised site plat demonstrating compliance with the development standards of Article 3 of the Universal Development Code? Got a nod on that as well. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this rezone application at 6455 Howells Ferry Road. Seeing none, given it's a rezone application, I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant. And seeing none, we will welcome back Mr. Dorsey, and we will move on to the rezone application of agenda item number nine. This is an application or a rezone from single-family residential suburban R1 to buffer business suburban district B1 at 7241, 7251, 7261, and 7271 Greelot Road. Is the applicant present? applicant is present with the raise of his hand there would be potentially seven findings of fact for this reason application and condition of full compliance with all municipal codes and ordinances are you have you read through those findings of fact and would be in agreement with those should it move through on deliberation mr chairman i think on this one the applicant needs to make a presentation there's some opposition and we just can't

rely on the staff report for information. We need to hear from the applicant on what the plans are.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I would welcome you, sir, down to the podium and give us a reasoning on the rezone application.

Sure.

Hello, my name is Jimmy Lyon.

If you would, Mr. Lyon, make sure you got the microphone.

Oh, this one here?

Yes, sir. Yeah, okay. The one with the red on it.

Okay, my name is Jimmy Lyon. I live at 2205 Fremont Drive West, Mobile 36609. And what we have here is... Mr. Cooner has owned this property for probably 15 years. And there was actually four different businesses here when it was in the county because there was no zoning. So they were a real estate office, I think an insurance office. I know when I was a builder, I had a cabinet building. on that one lot that built cabinets for me, and then Cooner had his roofing business, Liberty Roofing. And what he did when he decided to get out of the roofing business, he cleaned up the property, tore the buildings down, and cut the grass and put it up for sale. Well, he didn't realize he had moved across the bay, and they had gone from county to being acquired by the city and zoned at R1. Well, RE-MAX is to the right of that plat up there and they have like six, you can see that one big building, there's like six businesses in there. Embrace Loan, Home Loans, RE-MAX, some other ones in there. And that is zoned LB2, the purple one. And so we had a meeting, a neighborhood meeting, and we had about 12 neighbors come And they were opposed with the LB2 zoning, so they were OK with the B1 zoning. And so we agreed to just do it B1. What we basically are wanting to do is you can't list a piece of property that's zoned R1 and try to sell it as commercial. So we figured we'd go ahead and zone the property B1. and then put signs out there and try to sell the lots and be one. Each person that buys a lot or two or three or four lots, they could buy all of them, they could do like RE-MAX did and they'd come in here and they'd do a site plan at that time and have retention requirements and parking and setbacks and all the things they do. That would become before the Planning Commission then, based on the use. But at this time, we're just trying to go from a R1 zoning, which is there's no single family houses on Greenlot Road facing Greenlot Road, so it doesn't make sense. We felt like that if we just could go back to the use it was before, then we could list the property as commercial, and then they could go from there, whoever buys the property or properties. And the neighbors that came, and some of them came from the neighborhood of the north, some of them came from around, because we actually ended up having two meetings because Ms. Cooner's mama died, and they had to go to have a funeral in Birmingham, and we missed the deadline of getting in for last month's by a couple of days, so we had a second meeting for the homeowners. Y'all have any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I'll now ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners.

Mr. Chair. Go ahead. I follow what you're trying to accomplish and definitely understand. I have received some feedback and I know that we have comments here, but I think one of the things that was missed in this process is the notification of the city council representative. So, you know, with the changes with the UDC code that came up, the council representative for that area was not notified of the community meetings, even though you had two. So, you know, I just wanted to make note that, you know, council wasn't notified on that. and we can talk about it in deliberation, see?

Yeah, well, Steve, being the owner, he got Marie York, and she gave us an outline, and he was the one that sent the letters out, and we didn't know that we were supposed to contact anybody else.

Question for Mr. Woods. This is Mr. Fleming?

This is me.

This is you? Yes, sir. Okay. Forgive me for not mowing my landlines.

I get confused myself sometimes.

Okay.

All right. Thank you for that information. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience. Well, also before we get to that, I'd like to point out in the application materials for the commissioners to review any of the comments that are there between now and deliberation. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience. On agenda item number nine at seventy two forty one fifty one sixty one and seventy one green lot road that has questions for. Is against or is for. This agenda item. All right, seeing none out now. We were in the next agenda. We'll discuss that when a deliberation. Number 10 on the agenda, 5101 Moffett Road, application for a rezone. This is from B2 to B3. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. B2 to B3, Mr. Anderson, would you like to hear application reasoning there?

Yes, sir.

Please come on down and give us your criteria for the rezone. And reminder to state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is George. My address is 11 070 Irvington highway. And this is for rezoning Moffett road. It was established 15 years ago as a convenience store, and it was. For quite some time, and the building was left alone for quite a while. and there's a leasy for the property and he wants to turn it into a car lot and light work mechanical light work for the uh for clients and basically the property needs to be remodeled interior we're not making any changes to the structure of the building basically cleaning up fixing the parking lot and It cannot be opened as a car lot under the current zoning of B2, so that needs to be changed to B3, and that's our request for that.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, the reason I wanted you to make a presentation, we had a really bad issue with a similar situation on Highway 90. A piece of property got a variance or conditional use permit or whatever to operate a used car lot limited to what, 15, 20 cars not parking the right-of-way, and they ended up having about 150 cars and parked all over every inch of the lot, and we had to take them to court and get an injunction. So I'm not saying you're going to do that. I just want to make sure we have a discussion about how many cars you're going to have and You know, just how are you going to operate the facility and I guess basically how many cars do you think you're going to max out at as far as having them on the lot at one time?

Uh, yes, sir, um, I think the architects and the engineers and city permitting and I don't know if that's also part of zoning. Um. But they're applying for how many cars should be on the lot and I don't presume it's going to go over like, 15 or 20 at most. I don't think. It can hold that so definitely. you know, whatever is applied through the architect and engineers and approved by the City of Mobile, that's the amount of cars that will be parked there.

I'm assuming, let me pull it up on my laptop here. So looking at that, what's on the screen, the middle part that's shaded will be paved, but everything else will be grass.

Is that correct? No, sir.

Okay, explain it to me.

So on the upper part of the building there and the lower part, those are green areas there. But where you see the parking and on the right-hand side, that's all paved. But there is an entrance. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah, you can see that there's an entrance from Moffett Road and then an exit on Overlook Road. um so of course the entrance and exit areas will not be blocked but as you can see there are enough area on the left hand side as i'm looking at it there to also have possibly a row of parking so that would like maybe maximize the area of 20 vehicles now there is also on this side where the green grass area there's going to be a a dumpster pad there um And so on, so there, there won't be anything on the backside or the. Top and bottom areas left and right of the building. They're just in the front. Areas of the parking and not to obstruct the entrance and the exits for the for the property. Yes, sir, Mr. Terry.

Would some sort of voluntary restriction or agreement be allowing the number of cars for sale?

It could be voluntary. We could place it on them as long as it's not arbitrary. I just don't know, with the size of this lot, what's a good number, reasonable number to allow him to have. I mean, if you would agree... voluntarily to limit it to 20 cars or whatever you know we can make that a condition of approval or we can say cars only parked on paved areas I'm not sure what even looking at that site plan I'm not sure what all is going to be paved but would you be willing to agree to a maximum number of cars at one single

Yes, sir. If that's what's required, yes, sir.

And what would you suggest a reasonable number to be?

I'm not sure what you said earlier, 20? Yes, sir. I said 20. If we can be approved between 25 and 30, that would be fantastic. Okay. Thank you. And yes, sir, we'd be able to write a commitment regarding that as you requested. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Harb. Well, any further questions or comments from commissioners on this rezone application of B2 to B3 for the applicant? All right. Thank you, Mr. Harb.

Thank you.

Also note that the applicant did conduct a community meeting, and I did not see any other comments in the application materials. I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against or have questions towards this. B2 to B3 application at 5101 up Moffett Rd. All right, seeing no, we will move on to agenda item number 11. This is a reason application at 97 center drive. Silverstone enterprises, so rezoning request. From single-family residential suburban R1 to multi-family residential suburban R3. Notes for commissioners, potential seven findings of fact here. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. Casey Pipes, Helmsing Leach, 150 Government Street. This is the application to rezone 97 Center Drive, R1 to R3. We're agreeable with all the staff comments and recommendations, but there were comments in opposition, so I can present a little bit of the justification for the rezoning. The first justification is, you know, or the first question is, is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? And this one is. This is the comprehensive plan calls for this area, this particular property, to be mixed density residential under the future land use map and under the matrix that corresponds to designations to The current zoning districts are three is appropriate. So it's consistent with comprehensive plan. 2nd, kind of criteria is, is it compatible with the current development trends in the area? And this 1 is, as you can see, this site is surrounded on the. north, east, and west by R3. The north and east, or sorry, the north and west properties have been developed as apartment complexes. The one that's to the east is actually the other half of the subdivision for this property. There used to be a four-lot subdivision Two lots fronting on East Drive, two lots fronting on Center Drive. Our property is the two lots fronting on Center Drive. The ones fronting on East Drive were previously rezoned to R3 and merged into one lot, either in a subdivision or a PUD. It was kind of hard to tell. But you can see the development trend has been to convert either dilapidated single-family residential or vacant R1 property into R3 along this area. The only abutting property to this that's R1 is to the south, and if you look at the aerial that was just on the screen, the property to the south is a church that actually fronts on East Drive, and so the property adjacent to the subject is the rear parking lot, and it looks like they store some trailers back there for the... I think it's the Jehovah's Witness Church, but it fronts on East Drive. So that's our only neighbor that's zoned R1, but it's not a single family residential property. And third issue is changes in the area call for rezoning. The first change is you can see from the aerial, there is a very dense student housing development across Center Drive. It's called the social zone. The driveway into 97 Center Drive, our property, is directly across the street from the driveway into the northern driveway into the social. And there were plenty of negative comments about the social in the comments that were posted online about this application request. I would submit our property is as impacted by the social as anybody's. We share the street with them, where the Farron Woods subdivision uses west drive the other change is that the university of south alabama has kind of been converting from more of a commuter school to a on-campus resident school they've been growing their enrollment what i'm getting from The University of South Alabama is the source, is that their student enrollment, particularly freshman enrollment, has been going up three years in a row. They're up 30% freshman year. And since 2021, all freshmen full-time are required to live on campus. We have Denise Brown, who was at the neighborhood meeting. She's a representative of the owner. If anybody has any questions about the neighborhood meeting, but those are the only comments I have time for, but love to entertain any questions.

Question from me, Mr. Pipes. What is the site plan? I'm counting eight units. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr. Cameron. And Casey, further questions. So the site plan and the narrative show, let me find it, show eight units, yet two story. And so there's, It's confusing.

I counted 32 total bedrooms.

There's eight units shown on this plan, but the narrative says two stories. So that would be then 16. So trying to get some clarification on is it eight total units or 16 units?

I think it is eight total units. with four bedrooms in a unit.

The staff report just depicts two two-story apartment buildings, each containing four dwelling units with four bedrooms per unit. So I counted 32 bedrooms, right? And I guess my question is, yeah, you got four buildings shown there.

That's I mean, they were ground level if you're looking at it from the top. So that's eight total. And if it's two story, then it's 16, not eight. There's eight shown there.

But if you if he can confirm just that there's gonna be four buildings with two units for a building that would be on the same page.

That's the question of those, you know, is it they stacked like this or like each of the four is two stories? I just want to make sure I was clear on that.

I'm looking around and I'm not, you're not 100% sure that we have the guy that drew that on there. I know when we counted the, when we did the calculation for the parking, it came up to 32 bedrooms. Okay. and that's why because we're in the university district you have to have 10 more parking you know 1.1 for each bedroom right so we have we meet the parking requirement the only drawings i've seen are what we submitted and so i'm sorry uh no i just i want to make sure i was clear yeah because the i was not 100 clear on the the wording so

So it's either eight units that are two-story units, or it's eight buildings with a first-story residential and a second-story residential.

And I think it's like one unit, and then maybe there's a kitchen and maybe one bedroom, laundry room, living room on the first floor, and then four bedrooms upstairs.

It could be. I know we've capped the number of people that are going to be there. I'm just not sure what the layout of that building is. Kenny, I'm sorry.

So I guess from the standpoint of just a question for me, which I don't know if you can answer this, from that standpoint of it being eight units total, is that an acceptable voluntary density restriction?

Oh, yes. We're fine. The number of bedrooms, we're very happy to make that a voluntary use restriction. What I don't know is, what I'm not sure about is

your original question of how is it stacked and whatever right we're fine to limit the number of beds right i'm irrelevant i mean yeah i couldn't care less however it's laid out i just want to make sure that you know it wasn't eight or four four four four above so that's that was all i was trying to clarify yeah but uh i think the uh

density or the total number on there was i think it was right mr anderson 32. yeah that'd be a perfectly acceptable voluntary use restriction for us mr chair go ahead um this was another one that the council representative uh councilman fleming didn't receive notification on um started kind of getting questions about um

So I think there is, based on the comments, based on the calls that I think they've received and I know I've received, I think there is some unclarity associated with this. I don't know if there's the... THE WILL FOR A VOLUNTARY LAYOVER POSSIBLY TO AT LEAST TALK TO THE COMMUNITY A LITTLE MORE AND PROVIDE SOME CLARITY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE THE CONFUSION HERE IS WHAT'S THE DENSITY GOING TO LOOK LIKE HERE? SO THAT'S JUST A COMMENT I WANTED TO OFFER OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME LEEWAY IN PROVIDING MAYBE MORE CONVERSATION OVER THE NEXT 30 DAYS TO LEAD UP TO PLANNING COMMISSION OR WHAT.

It would be fine, and we can hold over. I was not at the neighborhood meeting, and if you read the comments, neither were a lot of people who are now opposed to it. And so we've not had that conversation. One person said they tried to get in touch with the applicant, which is me, but they can't get my contact information off the city's website. publicly available information for the application.

And I'm sure the sign was at the end of Center Drive and not everybody comes down Center Drive all the time.

It's dead end. We had that discussion. Why would you drive down there and live? It makes no sense.

The pavement ends not too far south of this property and the Farron Woods subdivision accesses know off west drive and so you wouldn't have a whole lot of reason to go down there from there but but to your point uh councilman woods be happy to do a holdover and it is kind of in a cluster i think it's in your district but according to the map we had it was and so we mailed you a letter for the neighborhood meeting but The district, we're right on 5, 6, and 7 within a quarter mile of this site. And I think the boundaries moved after the meeting went out. We were trying to comply with the notice. It's just the city's website was out of date.

Mr. Chairman, the drawings that are contained with the application on the second page of the drawing, it shows that each of the rectangles that are the eight rectangles are two-story apartments with four bedrooms. So it is going to be a total of eight units, each being two stories with four bedrooms.

Thank you, Burke.

Thank you.

Thank you, Burke.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Pipes. Note for commissioners referencing the commentary towards this application in your materials on your device. Located in application materials under number 11. and also emailed to each person. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that, given the lay of the land here, that the applicant has spoken, we've got confirmation on the units, this will go to deliberation, and if so voted, more than likely a holdover until the next Planning Commission meeting. However, if you're here and you would like to speak, have questions towards this agenda item to speak for it or to speak against it you're welcome to come down yes sir after this gentleman will there be anyone else that's two three anyone else after that those two ladies in the row and we may have a question all right that'll be four yes sir your name and address for the record

Good afternoon. My name is Roger Woods, 6094 Ferrin Woods Court. I'm about half a block south of this proposed rezoning. I must make clear I'm not related in any way to Commissioner Josh Woods, as far as I know. I oppose this rezoning request. I've sent two detailed written comments to the commission through the city planning website. I'm going to summarize those comments now for context and for information. Firstly, I was not aware of the community meeting apparently held March 26th as I live just over 300 feet from the lot in question, so I wasn't on the mailing list. Photographs of the signage used to advertise this meeting are required in the application package, yet none are included. This meeting was clearly inadequately publicized. Ferrin Woods is actually accessed by Centre Drive, contrary to the applicant's statement just now. There are some lots that back onto Centre, and I myself walk past this lot four times a day. I became aware of this rezoning request through a chance meeting with another resident living within 300 feet of the lot. The submission documents on the commission website have redacted the address of the company concerned, so I've not been able to contact the applicant. The proposed rezoning will drastically change the character of this area. It's opposite a large R3 complex, called The Social, where multiple cars routinely park obstructing the center drive fire lane. That's the serious matter. And that complex has produced greatly increased vandalism, litter, and noise compared to the neighborhood prior to that complex being built. An additional R3 lot will inevitably encourage further antisocial behavior in this neighborhood, reducing property values. The applicant's justification for this rezoning is quite simply incorrect for several reasons. The applicant commented on the university's enrollment. I looked up the actual figures, and they're copied on this leaflet that I left at the front desk. I hope all the members of the commission were able to pick up a copy. because the actual data show that, in fact, university enrollment peaked in 2016. Freshman enrollment has not increased by 30% over the last three years, as claimed. And nor is the 2025 freshman class enrollment record setting, as the applicant states. The 2025 freshman class was record setting academically, but that doesn't concern us here. Freshman enrollment was lower in 2025 than three years ago, and also prior to 2018. Freshman enrollment 10 years ago was 28% more than in 2025, and total enrollment 10 years ago was 15% more than in 2025. University faculty and staff do not contribute to pressure on rental apartments. They prefer their own properties despite the applicant's claims. Rezoning decisions should not be based upon cherry-picked and inaccurate data, but rather on trends over a long period, at least 10 years. The applicant has not explained why housing levels adequate in 2016 and that have since increased both on and off campus elsewhere are not adequate for over 2,000 fewer students now. The commissioner will remember from February last year a reasoning application for a very close by lot, 186 and 162 East Drive, to be rezoned R3. That application was denied for several reasons, most of which apply to the present case as the two lots are so close together. In summary, the reasons were, The proposed amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's not compatible with current development trends of the subject property and surrounding land uses. It would adversely impact neighboring properties and reduce property values. It does not promote the community's public health, safety, and general welfare. Infrastructure is not in place to accommodate the proposed amendment. There are no changing conditions in this particular area that make an amendment necessary and desirable. It is not in the city's and larger community's best interests. Full text is given my written comments to the commission. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully and strongly urge the Commission to deny this request for consistency with the Commission's previous decisions, making clear that this application falls short of the required standard for support of the local community. I'd also like to say that I'm against postponing this for a month. It's a big deal for us to come down here. I had to take time off work in order to come here. uh and that is something that i can't do lightly so i would uh prefer if possible that the commission make a decision today thank you for your attention thank you mr woods

Reminder to speak your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Mary Ann Travato, 6122 Farrin Woods Court. I also live in the Farrin Woods subdivision, which is to the immediate west. Pardon me, I have a paralyzed vocal cord. To the immediate west of the subject property. Mr. Woods did an excellent job in explaining pretty much everything I wanted to say, but I wanted to address a couple of issues on the application. One line specifically said there would be no adverse effects. My backyard beyond that is the social. My husband and I are continuously exposed to loud noise, foul music, foul language from the students at the social. While we may utilize West Drive to leave our neighborhood, there are several student apartment complexes in our area. There are numerous student apartment complexes on Old Shell Road. There is litter when we go down West Drive. So as Mr. Woods stated, this would definitely deter from the neighborhoods around us. We are single family homes in our community. There are numerous single family subdivisions down West Drive. I understand. Students need a place to live, but there's plenty of land on the campus of South Alabama where apartments could be built for them. We would like to retain our single family residence and avoid more noise disturbance. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Jurado. Next in line from that row.

My name is Renee Smith. I live at 6040 Sussex Drive and my neighborhood is an R2 that is close to this development and The comments that I believe the applicant talked about regarding the social that is a student housing complex on Center Drive across the street from, about across the street from where they're proposing their zone change, those comments, I believe he said his property would be more impacted, if I'm misspeaking what I heard, thought I heard, please let me know. But I believe he said his property that they're planning to rezone would be more impacted by the social than Farron Woods. If that's what he said, truthfully, his rezoning and building this apartment complex is really just going to add to the problem that Farron Woods is dealing with. I'm not a resident of Farrington Woods, but I understand where they're coming from because I'm dealing with the same situation and a lot right behind me. So these, if it's rezoned to R3, and again, I guess we're talking about two story apartments. it'll just combine with the social and create an even bigger problem of noise, garbage, foul language, partying, and all of that that Farrin Woods is already dealing with and that we are now going to deal with on Sussex because we are very close to that that lot so i'm opposed as well as others on sussex drive who i believe will be talking um we're opposed to the rezoning we want to try to keep it uh if it's r2 now that would mean i believe duplexes uh something less than what could be built under an r3 which we just see is problematic to our area that we're getting sucked up by these apartments and r3 rezoning to r3s thank you thank you miss smith

Hello commissioners. I'm Mary Deverell and I live at 6004 Sussex, which is south of this proposed development. So I mostly have a few questions for clarification about the project, especially whether it's 32 or 64 bedrooms. because I looked at the calculations and the parking spaces are appropriate for 32, but way short if it's 64 bedrooms. Secondly, I question if someone who has handicapped or mobility issues move in. The lot is so tightly drawn. where can you put any handicap parking. We've also noticed that there are no green space or amenities for any of the students, no landscaping, no dumpsters, and a really big concern for us down the hill on Sussex is that Center Street, part of it's unpaved and the top part is paved, it often has erosion problems after bad rainstorms. The cities come in and put down Stone, I don't know what to call them, stone blocks, gravel, and everything to kind of control the erosion. This application makes no mention of water management, retention, pond, anything like that. And since they're elevated above us, then it would be coming down towards us. Sorry about that. Oh, I did want to point out that South just bought what was announced yesterday and today on WALA and WKRG that South has 1,000 new beds at the central house of Stadium Drive, and that should be ready, some of it by fall. So I agree with my neighbors. We want to preserve our neighborhood character. living next to students is is not bad it's just that we don't want to be surrounded by you know high-rise apartment buildings so it's very important to us whether this is one floor or twos and how large the development is and that things like erosion control and trash disposal are addressed And I can say, just as an aside, that the social is very social. Even though I'm closer to East Drive, we often hear the partying weekends. I walk my dogs back on Center Street and through their surrounding neighborhoods and often take a trash bag and walk through the social and pick up cans and bottles for recycling, not uncommon. So I think the last concern is just we've often heard that if it's granted R3, that that means any R3 use can be put in place. So on behalf of my neighbors, I'd like to ask what constrains this property if it's made R3 to this particular drawing or adds in those different items for clarification.

Thank you, Ms. Devereaux. I'll take, I think, number one and number two from your questions at the beginning.

Yeah, it kind of got lost in translation.

We discovered through staff reports in the application, and it was going to be eight units at four bedrooms per unit, so a total of 32.

It will be 32? Yep.

Okay.

Just wanted to be sure.

That was also, the applicant was also agreeable to... possibly voluntary use restriction. On your second question on the green space and the handicap parking, they would have to comply with the handicap standards of the development. On the site plan, that's really all that's been submitted is a site plan, not a development plan. So I'm sure we would see that in time. I'll turn it back over to anybody with the city specific to the stormwater drainage, if it would be required in that area or not. Looking at the back of Nick's head.

Yeah, actually, stormwater detention would be required, and we would look at that when they bring that plan in for their development permits.

So once the development plan is established, they would... Yeah, because Center Street really does flood.

Sometimes it's impassable. It comes down those channels on the side in particular, and it will even move branches and logs and things.

and specific to the comments on the on the the the type of family or resident of these we don't know that's that's not been divulged to us so we don't know if it'll be students or retirees okay thank you thank you all right that concludes the four allotted speakers for against I'll remind the commissioners that you do have comments there for this application. I'll now allow a two-minute rebuttal from the applicant for addressing any of those concerns that were just addressed. Mr. Pipes.

Just very briefly, you know, we're willing to do the holdover. We didn't come in asking for it. I mean, I get the point of people don't like coming back, and we didn't try to come down here and then ask for that holdover, but we're willing to do it if that's the will of the commission. I think everybody here would probably agree with me, including the people that spoke in opposition to this, that this property is not going to get developed as a single-family residential house.

It's not.

It's a dilapidated house out there now in a vacant lot. It's never going to get reinvested as a single-family residential lot because of everything that's already going on around it. We've got a little bit of a buffer using the back, you know, of the church parking lot. We're not butting up to another house. But if this, you know, if a rezoning doesn't happen, the house is, or that lot's just going to sit vacant forever. And that may be fine with them, but it's not fair to the property owner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pipes.

Casey, if you would, if you look at that, and when we come back for the holdover, the the yellow outline for your property if you move that across the street it looks like there's going to be more buildings the density is going to be more on the opposite side of the street could you get that information so we can compare this development to that one yeah we can do that thank you anything else commissioners on 11.

One question for you. I think I heard Mr. Woods say something that contradicted something you said. I don't think I fully understood it, but I think you said residents in Farron Woods don't access their neighborhoods from Center. And he said that was not true. Did I hear that correctly? Looking from what I'm looking at, I don't see where Farron Woods does access their neighborhood from Center Drive. So can you help me with that?

I CAN ONLY SAY I LOOKED AT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THIS CITY MAP AND I SEE THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO FERRIN WOODS COURT OFF OF WEST DRIVE. BUT MR. ANDERSON, I DIDN'T DRIVE DOWN THERE TO PASS THE SITE TO SEE HOW THEY GET IN AND OUT. AND IF I MISSPOKE, and Mr. Wood says that they have access off Center Drive, then he's right and I'm wrong.

Well, let's clarify street access, not pedestrian access.

Yeah, I just went by aerial maps and things like this off the GIS and Revenue Commissioner website. So I don't know if any of those Farron Woods houses front or have dual frontage in and out on Center Drive and on the interior street or not.

I'm seeing what you see, so that's why I'm asking.

I'm just saying I might not be the right person to answer that. That's what I see, too.

Thank you. Any further questions from commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Pipes. Thank you. Go on to agenda item number 12, rezone application R1.B35361 Moffett Road. Nikita Pleasure as the applicant. Is the applicant present? If you would please come on down and explain your reasoning to go from all one to be three. And for your commissioners, our commissioners, we have potential seven findings of fact on this application.

Hello, I'm Nikita Pleasure and this is my assistant here, Bridget Lewis. So she's pretty much been the one that's handling the rezoning process. So maybe we can answer those questions together. You have her last name again, Bridget Lewis.

Thank you, Miss Lou. All right. State your name and address for the record as well.

Bridget Lewis, 2469 Elong Drive, Mobile 36605. The reason why we submitted the application for rezoning is Ms. Pleasure would like to open her own real estate office at 5361 Moffett Road. Right now it's a residential property built in 1929 and we would like to leave the facade as is, update the inside per our ADA and commercial guidelines set by the city. We would like to add a proposed addition that also It still gives to the original facade of the outside, although it would be a business to be able to add a few more offices. The request was presented for B3 because there is a moving truck that Ms. Pleasure uses. that she provides her clients when they buy a home or use her as their agent. And that truck, she would like to add another one. So that's the reason why we were told it needs to be B3, just because of... that she already and they parked on my road. I don't know if many people have seen it, but it's got this space on it. But, um, that's the reason why we requested it to be B three zoning. But mainly it will just be used, um, as a real estate office with regular business hours. Um, and, um, some office spaces, uh, attached.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Lewis. Mr. Pleasured, one moving truck or two? It'll be another one. Two? Do you know the size? And that staff was the reasoning for the B3 as opposed to B2 because of the parking of those two, potential parking of those two vehicles? And then the multiple office?

Well, that was not made part of the application. That would be accurate in that the overnight parking of vehicles of that size are limited to a B3 zoning district. Excuse me, not limited, but permitted in a B3 zoning district.

All right.

So a question for staff. The primary function of Ms. Pleasure's business is helping clients buy and sell houses. And a value-add aspect of that is, hey, here's a moving truck. It's not primarily a moving business.

Correct.

So there's no...

So, the ordinance is very clear in article 3 that, and I believe also article 4 of the unified development code that trucks of that size used for business have to be zoned appropriately. In this case, it would be a B3 because any sort of overnight storage of large commercial vehicles is not permitted in residential districts. It's not committed permitted in the B1 district. And I think there are some limitations to the B-2, but the B-3 is the most compatible for allowing that as an accessory use to the main business.

What I failed to add to that, the reason why we also had to do it, was for storage, because we We staged properties, forgive me. We staged properties, and we are currently renting two storage spaces. And we just figured that we could add, because the property is so big, a storage unit on the back to be able to house the furnitures that we buy that we use for the staging. So we just wanted to make sure that we requested the right zoning early on to facilitate having the storage and parking her truck.

Alright, I see that on the proposed site plan. Any further questions or comments from Commissioners for Ms. Pleasure or Ms. Lewis?

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, since she does have these vehicles and really asking for the B3, the top of the zoning classification, if her business could operate in a B2, could a variance of some sort from the Board of Adjustment be sought for the vehicles that are parked on her property?

If the ordinance is specific enough to delimit that zoning designation, then yes, we would need to confirm prior to making that any sort of condition or, you know, making that a decision or making that as part of the decision.

Gotcha. And then I guess a question for the applicant on the storage building. Obviously, like you said, you have stuff that you store and you stage houses. Would you be looking to put an exterior building on that, get a shop to put kind of on that property, or would you be looking to construct something and attach it to the building, I guess?

It's going to be detached. It's going to sit further back on the property as you see. Actually, it's actually sitting there. It actually has the verbiage there, but it's going to be on that site plan there.

Gotcha. And then question back, I mean, that would have to be, that site plan would have to be approved with that proposed exterior building or non-attached building and whatever, if the Board of Adjustment needs to issue a variance for that. I mean, I guess right now what we're looking at is the B3, and I'm unclear. Does the B3 allow for two buildings to be put?

Oh, yes. So there's not a limitation on the number of buildings, but there is a limitation on site coverage, which in the B3 district is 50%, and that's anything under a roof.

Making it down to if this was presented as a B2, could the same structure be constructed? Yes, it could. Okay.

question for any of those two commissioners are we getting that maybe b2 and if so we should we ask the applicant if they would to avoid future B3 issues. So I'm just trying to get what y'all are thinking.

Yeah, I think, Mr. Chair, I guess as far as where I'm at and talking with the council representative for this area, I think there's still some clarification. I think there's some comments that she's received. I think there's just some vagueness associated with especially the B3 designation of what you're asking for. So I mean, I would potentially Consider asking if if we might could, we might get to hold this over to next month and have more community meetings or. Would would y'all consider open this up to a B2 and then go in and maybe seeking any bearings you need for parking those trucks.

Before she answers, let me say on behalf of the, you know, getting a variance. She's going to have a hard time proving a hardship. I mean, if you're going to rezone this B2 and lead her to believe that, okay, you can do your real estate office and go get a variance so you can do your moving trucks and your storage facility, I'm not sure that's going to happen. So be careful going down that road. I just want to make sure she's aware of that. One puzzle piece doesn't fit the next one, so...

Under the advice of the city is the reason why we went ahead initially just to make sure that we were covered is the reason why we plan to do it as a B3. In our meeting, we didn't meet any resistance at all. I'm not sure. I looked and read comments to see if I saw anything of that nature. I'm not sure if I missed exactly where you found that, but most of the adversity, actually all of the adversity we met had nothing to do at all with what we're trying to do. It was... highly confused with the house on the lot next door. None of the residents, they stated that they would not have shown up if they had known that we had no relation to that lot because buying the property, Ms. Pledge was actually oblivious that it wasn't the full span, you know, just not knowing what three acres, you know, just looks like until we looked at the survey and realized that that portion does not belong to her. So we did meet a lot of residents that were fired up and they were ready to eat lunch. And I did not pack my lunch that day. But when they realized that none of that, that they had all the adversity about had anything to do with this real estate office, they were all fine and quite glad to see us, you know, coming to the community because Ms. Pleasure does hold ties in the community, her family. currently resides in that zip code and probably the majority of Ms. Pleasure's sales are focused in that particular zip code being one reason why we would love to be in that area but as far as the moving truck like I said the city advised advised us that that definitely was the route that we needed to take um doing that and being able to have the storage on site um which obviously you know to bring that revenue um back versus keep paying somebody 160 dollars per unit a month you know to house some sofas and tables but um like he stated it's just mispleasure and i uh doing this um all right i'm glad he mentioned that but that may be a little bit you know over my head being able to do that but the city was gracious enough when we started this to uh recommend that that was absolutely the route um that we needed to go to do this thank you all right thank you miss lewis any further questions or comments from commissioners i'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for speak against or have questions towards this agenda item at 5361 moffett road

Seeing none, we will move on. Agenda item number 13, it's a dual application, subdivision and rezone. Subdivision component of it is a holdover. This is at 4630, 4700, and 4960 Dauphin Island Parkway, Peach Creek Dockside Marina Subdivision. Two lots, 19.8 acres, and then a rezone, suburban district B3 to community suburban district B3. Remove, excuse me, remove a previous condition of rezoning approval limiting development of the site to a planned unit development. Mr. Byrd, name and address for the record.

For the subdivision, properties consisted of two parcels of land, one a lot in the subdivision, one meets and bounds. The two owners, separate owners on those, the two owners are doing a little land swapping. That's the reason for the subdivision. When one parcel, at least one parcel was rezoned, there was a condition in the rezoning that it be part of a planned unit development. And we're trying to remove that condition since they're not required anymore. That is the only reason for the rezoning.

So all the conditions of the subdivision you're in agreement with?

Yes.

For commissioners, there's potentially seven findings of fact. Mr. Byrd, on the rezone, potentially three conditions. You would be good with those. Any questions or comments from commissioners? I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application, which is dual, subdivision, and rezone, which technically a rezone is to remove a previous condition. All right, seeing none, we'll move on. The last agenda item for public hearing is number 14, a dual application subdivision and rezone, 2609 and 2651 Spring Hill Avenue. And then 152, 157, 158, 159 Mobile Street and 144 Highland Avenue, the Covenant Presbyterian Church. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of a hand. For the subdivision, there's potentially nine listed conditions. Are you in agreement with those? The applicant is present with a nod of the head. For commissioners, there's potentially on the rezone seven findings of fact. And for the applicant, two conditions, completion of the subdivision process and full compliance with municipal codes and ordinances, nod of the head on that. Any questions or comments from commissioners? The rezone It's potentially R1 and B3 to combination B1. Is that correct? Mr. Anderson, do we want to get a no from Mr. Anderson? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for?

Is it just because we're eliminating split zoning?

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application for Covenant Presbyterian Church? All right. Seeing none, we will close public hearing, and I will do our best to get through this agenda on the deliberation side. A reminder for Mr. Dorsey on number eight, we'll have a recusal. Mr. Anderson's kids are still here, so I'm assuming he just went to the restroom. So I hope that we have a quorum by the time we get to number eight.

He left me a note that said he was parked in a two-hour spot and he does not want to get towed, so he was going to move his truck. So as long as we do not get through the first seven.

I'll ask for leniency for Mr. Anderson should we get to number eight before he gets back so that we can have a quorum for the vote. Number one on the agenda. 5536 Sermon Road West, 5660, 5680 Sermon Road North. We heard from Mr. Ream with respect to the application not containing a letter of acceptance or from a gentleman or for the property owner that is out of the country.

Let me ask the staff a question. I don't recall last month why it was recommended from a two lot to a three lot subdivision. Is that to create a legal lot of record for the right of way?

So the subdivision affects a common area that's associated with Collins subdivision. FIRST EDITION, AND BECAUSE THE COMMON AREA IS TIED TO THE SUBDIVISION OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO AUTHORIZE IT, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY WERE SPLITTING OFF THAT ADDITIONAL LOT SO THAT WHILE IT WAS TIED WITH THIS SUBDIVISION, IT WAS BASICALLY TAKEN AWAY FROM THE COLLINS SUBDIVISION FIRST EDITION. BASICALLY SWAPPING THAT AREA OUT.

IS THAT CURRENTLY A PRIVATE STREET?

Yes, it is not publicly maintained at this time.

Okay.

Right, that was part of the Collins edition.

So we're lacking a letter and the plat. We're lacking both documents?

The plat, yes, but also... Letters from all property owners within the Collins subdivision first edition, which if it's three people, then it's three people that we're waiting on letters for.

Any member of that HOA that owns that, has an ownership interest in that common lot.

Needs to sign off on it.

Because it's essentially resubdividing their property as well. What's the most expedient thing for us to do?

Is it to not deny or hold over? This has already had one holdover and the subdivision regulations only allow a holdover with one holdover with any subsequent applications being new applications with new fees and everything.

Question regarding the holdovers. I know there have been Correct me if I'm wrong. The applicant is allowed one holdover, but the commission can elect to hold over?

I believe the way that we did this previously is the commission waived Section 10.C.3A of the subdivision regulations, which limited it to one holdover, and then held it over.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we hold this over until next month, waiving Section 10.C.3A. Second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We'll hold over until June 18th. Mr. Rehm, I hope we can get the gentleman to sign off, or the owner, excuse me. I don't know if it's a gentleman or a gentlelady. Number two on the agenda. It's been recommended for holdover until June 18th by the applicant. I'll move.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Motion for holdover on that agenda item passes for June 18th meeting. Number three, subdivision at 354 and 358 Gulfwood Drive.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second.

With, can y'all insert the waiver of section 6B9?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, including the waiver. Seconded.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Number four, subdivision application 63, Parkway Drive, Parkway Commons, five lots, 1.76 acres. Potential section waivers here as well. Entertain a motion.

approve subject staff recommendations waiving 62 and 63 and amending condition number one to provide 25 feet from the center line of Parkway Drive rather than 30 feet second mr. chairman go ahead with respect to the turnaround the fire apparatus access road number two of the proposed conditions would also need to be either eliminated with a waiver or were amended to agree with engineering's comments.

I say option two.

So moved.

Do we have a second? Sorry. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Number five, subdivision application 1370-1400 Cody Road North. Applicant is present and in agreement with all 19 listed conditions, and we had a little bit of traffic discussion.

Entertain a motion to approve several staff recommendations. 2nd.

Properly moved and seconded all in favor.

What about the traffic impact study? Are we doing number 5?

We are at five.

Can we make a condition upon any recommendations determined in the future by the traffic engineer once they complete the traffic impact study?

Thought that was a given.

I guess that would be comment number 16. Okay, I didn't know it was already in there. Okay, thank you.

Placement of a note on the final plate stating all traffic engineering comments noted in the staff report. You good? We voted. Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Sidewalk waiver application number six, 165 West Side 65 Service Road.

Motion to deny. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

The sidewalk waiver does not pass. Number seven, sidewalk waiver at 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway. In the chain of motion.

To approve several staff recommendations.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for sidewalk waiver does pass. We will recuse Mr. Larry Dorsey. We still maintain a quorum for this rezone application number 8 at 6455 Howells Ferry Road, Grace Redemption Community Church, religious facility on property zoned R1. The applicant is present and in agreement with

Conditional use permit approval and revised site plan demonstrating compliance entertain a motion vote to approve so which staff recommendations Properly moved and seconded all in favor aye any opposed mr.. Chairman go ahead based off of the considerations agenda This was recommended for holdover to allow them to show compliance with article 3 as required by the applicable conditional use permit requirements and

That is my oversight. So I'm gonna apologize to the applicant. We have to vote down the approval that just occurred, reinstate the application for a holdover for June 18th, and then have the compliance move forward from there. Are you in agreement with that? I apologize. So I will move to strike the Vote for approval.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Now entertain a motion for holdover till June 18th with compliance pending.

So moved. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. Number nine on the agenda. Seventh, we'll welcome back Mr. Dorsey. 7241, 7251, 61 and 71, Greelot Road. This is a rezone application from all one to be one. The applicant is present with representation explaining their reasoning. for commissioners, potentially seven findings of fact, and of course, conditions of compliance with codes and ordinances.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations with findings of fact A through F. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I oppose.

The motion still passes. Number 10. This is a rezoning application at 5101 Moffett Road. Rezoning from B2 to B3. The applicant and representative were present. Extensive discussion. Entertain a motion.

Move to deny. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

The motion still passes for denial of the B3 application. Move on to number 11. After extensive discussion, we have the opportunity, well, I'll entertain a motion for what the commission would like to consider here.

Move to hold over until next month's meeting.

Second. Properly moved and seconded for hold over until June 18th. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. Number 12, 5361 Moffett Road. Resigning from single R1 to B3.

Just to remind y'all, this use might be acceptable to the adjoining property owners or the neighbors, but if you rezone it to B3, it could be any B3 use in the future. I'm not telling you how to vote, but just keep that in mind.

Is it possible to do an expanded landscape buffer for the neighbors to the south that might be impacted? It sounds like a PUD kind of question, but...

No, we've had rezonings that have been conditioned on the provision of certain site requirements, site development requirements. So that could be one of them, I assume. Because there's ample landscape buffer on the southwest. As of right now, under Article 3, if it were to be rezoned, the proposed additions to the property trigger full compliance with our requirements, which does include a residential protection buffer. where it joins residential property, which in this case is on all sides of the property with the exception of Moffett Road.

Yeah, to me that sounds like a pretty reasonable...

question is you know how much of a buffer for that some southwestern direction would you want there's a lot of room back there so the minimum standard is 10 feet in which nothing can be built and that includes parking which is you know DIFFERENT THAN IF IT WERE JUST A SETBACK. SO IT WOULD BE 10 FEET IN WIDTH AROUND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE PROVISION OF A SIX-FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCE OR WALL AND A SIX-FOOT TALL VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLANTED ON FIVE-FOOT CENTERS.

SO THE APPLICANT SITE, FIRST OFF, I MEAN, I got no problems with this. I think this is a great idea, and I think it's really smart to be able to have a storage area for staging and have a set of moving vans. It's kind of a value-add service to your client. So I guess looking at the applicant site plan here, you know, there's a 125-foot, you know, I'm talking about improvements, not parking and other things, but, you know, large landscape buffers, you know, at the rear for that storage building, 128 feet more or less to the, what would be the north, 160 feet, you know, one side and, you know, 140 feet the other side. I mean, I guess if we could have some, you know, enhanced buffers, but I don't want to, you know, overburden the applicant, but I guess maybe understand what they could live with because, like I said, I'm totally fine with this use. And if B3 is what is required for her to be able to store her trucks there, then so be it.

And that buffer would have to be on two sides because you got residential on the southeast and southwest. The privacy fence and additional buffer.

And just to clarify, the ordinance would require in this instance that a buffer is required on all sides of the property that adjoins residentially zoned properties or utilized properties.

And I guess... Question two, so looking at the site plan, the proposed asphalt driveway, and it's hard to see from the aerial because it's so densely vegetated. I guess, is there any ability to bring that driveway in more towards the center of the property to expand those landscape buffers? I don't know if you're able to write.

She would have to – I'm sorry, go ahead.

I think we're looking at something that's a little bit more of an enhanced.

Yeah, this is like a detailed plan right here. It's got detailed measurements between buildings and property lines, and it looks like it's got a tree survey and some other things. And I guess what I'm asking is just this is shown on here is proposed driveways, and in order to be able to give those buffers, could the driveways be tightened up a little bit? so that we could approve this for B3 subject to enhanced landscape buffering.

They would have to because if you're going to require a privacy fence and a landscape buffer on those two sides, the parking that she has on the southeast property line would have to be moved back some. So this site plan would have to be redone with the buffers y'all are talking about.

Y'all know that. Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Logan, I might be pulling every bit of brain capacity you have, but where McIntyre Drive goes into that vacant lot or that lot that we show R1 there between Moffitt and McIntyre, so to the, I guess just to the top of this subject property, we recently reviewed that for a subdivision, I believe, of R1 residential. Is that, was that, am I thinking correctly, I guess?

That was part of, I believe, the Hive subdivision, which was adjudicated recently to be approved. Or I say recently, I think it was a year ago now. Gotcha. But just... I was just looking at the flame and everything. Sure. Non-related. They have not moved forward with that subdivision.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Anything 20 foot? Yeah.

So should I take just a wag at this and see if... Everybody pay attention. Before you do, I want to make sure we're working with the applicant and trying to figure out something that works for them. So like a 20-foot landscape buffer all the way around, is that something that would be acceptable?

We could make it work on the right side, but on the left where it looks like the driveway comes in, that side right there has a commercial driveway already has been done on the property from the original cricket. The only entrance we have for Michael Rowe, other than that commercial that's off to the side, is that drawing right there.

You're talking about the one that's kind of towards the top on the left, because it shows, that's what I'm saying, is like this drawing, Charles' proposed driveway, which leads me to believe it did not exist, and so...

OK. I believe the curb cuts. Yeah.

The one on the right, because otherwise the problem would be if we would be having to make our clients come in off the service road. And we didn't want to do that to disturb, because it's only one house on the service road.

Right.

But we didn't want mandatory traffic to have to go across the front of that person's house. We wasn't going to close it off, but we would put a gate where nobody could, like, come up with that racing and then turn it on the service road and fly through our parking lot and go out. So that was one of the only concerns that we made clear with the residents that we weren't going to open that service road entrance to make it a regular fairfax, which is the only one house right there. Right. So for staff.

For staff, if the buffer, so he said 20 feet, if you put in that 20-foot buffer and there's an existing curb cut there, are we also going to require them to move curb cuts and everything else?

I believe so. That would be something that they'd have to coordinate with traffic engineering, and I believe this is an Aldot-maintained roadway, so they'd be dealing with the state as well. Do all vegetative buffers or whatever have to be... It cannot be anything located within that buffer, whether it's a roadway, whether it's a parking space. Right, yeah.

But does the buffer have to be continuous for each side and equivalent in depth on each side? Yes.

And just to clarify, that's the minimum buffer. That's the 10 foot wide buffer.

Right. So essentially what you're saying is that if this was If we took action based on this sketch, which looks like it's fairly close from a survey, we've only got a seven-foot buffer.

So just to also clarify, this is just a concept plan. The additional construction that's being proposed triggers full compliance with our requirements. So they're going to have to come in, and if that curb cut has to be moved, we would coordinate with China. They would be required to provide compliant access, maneuvering spaces, parking spaces, tree planting, landscape areas, buffering, et cetera.

Better that they comply with our conditions than us make conditions based on this sketch.

Right, no. And like I said, now the fact that the driveway is – actually in place and not proposed, obviously changes things.

Correct, and while that might be considered non-conforming as a condition worthy rezoning to be approved, under Article 6 of the UDC, non-conforming sites have to be brought into compliance when a change in footprint is, and this is either by deletion or addition of building footprint, occurs that's 50% or greater. So with the addition of the Structural extension as well as the proposed storage building that that's well over 50% of the existing footprint. So they do have to comply with everything. So that, I mean, this site plan will change significantly to conform to our requirements, the city's requirements.

And also just the plane rezoning from residential to commercial mandates, full compliance.

So just that rezoning would force the compliance anyway, except the non-conforming use of the existing curb cut.

I would say not necessarily, because they have to put in a compliant width driveway.

So they're going to end up having to do it anyway. So if we do the buffer and they comply with that condition, then it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. And we can alleviate some of the potential future conflict with neighbors. I mean, does that sound rational? A buffer will be required regardless. Yeah. Okay, so what's the number we want to go with? Yeah, so let me see here. So move to approve subject to staff recommendations with findings of fact A through G, including a requirement for a 20-foot vegetative buffer. Is that fair enough?

And the fence is already required, right? Right. So I'd maybe clarify, you know, a residential, a 20-foot wide residential protection buffer because the language of the ordinance would allow us to enforce the fencing as well.

Perfect.

So moved.

I'm glad you said that. That's a good point. And to deny access to Sawada Drive. End of motion. I got it.

Does the applicant hear that? We'll explain. I think you'll be okay. We'll have discussions afterwards. So we have a proper, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Properly moved and seconded for the rezone. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

Motion for rezone still passes. Number 13 dual application, rezoning and subdivision. The applicant was president gave explanation as an agreement on all conditions for the subdivision for commissioners. Potential findings of fact are present. We'll do them separately. Holdover subdivision entertain a motion.

Move to approve separate step recommendations. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes. The rezone to remove the previous condition. Rezoning approval?

Move to approve. Subjects to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through G. Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through G. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for that zone application passes. Number 14, dual application, rezone and subdivision. Subdivision is three lots right at four acres. applicant is present and in agreement with those nine conditions potential findings of fact on the rezone which is going from r1 and b3 to a combination buffer business b1 we'll take them separately the subdivision entertain a motion move to approve several staff recommendations second properly moved and seconded all in favor aye any opposed the motion for subdivision passes for the rezone application findings of fact potential

Move to approve subject staff recommendations with findings of fact A, C, D, E, and G. Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A, C, D, E, and G. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for rezone passes quickly. Other business will batch minutes approval November 20th and December 18th. I will move to approve. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Motion for the minutes of November 20th and December 18th, 2025 passes. Thank you for your patience, everyone.