Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and welcome to the meeting for the Mobile City Planning Commission for June 12th, 2025. I'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions. Public hearing and then deliberation. In the public hearing, an agenda item is called, the applicant makes their presentation, commission members ask questions, and then members of the public can make their comments to the commission on that application. Only four people speak for an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. At one minute, a speaker will hear a beep prompting them to summarize their comments. If there is opposition to an agenda item, the speakers uh the the applicant will have a chance for a two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, come to the bottom of the stairs at the podium, speak into the microphone clearly, provide your name and address for the record, and direct all your comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, to the staff, or to the audience. After hearing all applications, we will go into deliberation where we discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. We will then vote on each application, and the results of that can be learned from the planning department. If some issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed, then the uh we have the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues to resolve them or we can call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting. Occasionally, a commissioner may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application. That does not mean the member is directly involved with the application or the applicant. However, depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require a recusal. If a regular member recuses, we may or may not have a super nearary in their uh to vote in theirstead. The planning commission makes final decisions on subdivisions with appeals of those decisions to the circuit court. The

planning commission is strictly a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments. The city council makes the final decision on these applications with all appeals of the city council to the circuit court. At this time, please do me a favor. Turn off your cell phones and watching the US Open to silent or vibrate. Any electronic devices the same commissioners and staff please turn on your microphones when speaking. I'll call the role. Myself J. Stubs present. Mr. Kirk Mate. Miss Jennifer Densen here. Mr. Harry Brlin. Mr. Larry Dorsy. Mr. Chad Anderson here. Mr. Matt Anderson here. Mr. Nick Amber. Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols, Miss Ellie Edwards. We do have a quorum for the seven listed agenda items. There are no recusals to my knowledge on those seven items. Correct. All right. We will entertain a motion for the agenda. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. We will now move into agenda item number one, which is a hold over of a dual application subdivision and modification at 5808 US Highway 90 West, the resubdivision of lot 2 in the Theodore Oaks Shopping Center. Is the applicant present? All right. My my notes here said that we did not provide uh the applicant did not provide the subdivision uh owner authorization with the application on both the subdivision and the modification. Have you had a chance to discuss any of that with staff prior to today's meeting? And if you would like to come down to the podium and answer these questions, you can. Again, restating for both parts of the application, owner authorization not provided for the subdivision application. Your name and address, sir. Jake Mosley, 5588 Jackson Road. All right. A little bit closer to the

microphone. Jake Mosley, 5588 Jackson Road. All right. Yes, sir. As far as I know, I don't know if they contacted anybody. Um, they just had me come here, told me it's going to be a hold over. I know the county owns it, I guess, and they're struggling to get the signature for whatever reason. I'm not sure why. Okay. Well, Mr. Busby, it is it is a holdover, meaning it was on the agenda from a previous meeting. Um, we as commissioners will bring it into the the deliberation section. Uh but without any further input from staff, it'll probably be a denial on this application unless something in between now and and that time frame transpires with trying to work things out. Okay, we good? Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Busby. Is there anyone else here for agenda item number one at 5808 US Highway 90 West to speak for it or against it or have questions towards it? All right, seeing none, we will move on to the new agenda items. This is number two on the agenda. 5451 Halls Mill Road, the Cloverleaf Plaza unit one subdivision. This is two lots at over 26 acres. Uh is the Yes, applicant's making his way down. Just as a reminder for the applicant, there are 14 conditions. Yes, sir. Z Hudson Row Engineering and Surveying 352 Laughlin Drive. We do not have any adverse I guess we don't have any objections to the comments other than I think each one of you has been passed uh a list of notes. There are some additional language that we would like to add to the standard notes. Um, in preparing the subdivision plat, we did just through experience put what we thought would be the standard notes on there. So the all

these notes may or may not comply. However, the client would like to add the additional language that you see at the end of those notes. And this is in reference here. That is correct. So just a comment to the commissioners, you've got a double page staple document in front of you. and the highlighted portions. That's correct. That is the additional language. The uh the black and white is the standard note. All right. And this is as a a request from the applicant. That is correct. All right. So, I'm going to let Yeah. comment here, Mr. Anderson. I've had previous conversations with both uh the developer and yesterday the conference call with the developer and the owners reps lawyers uh of the shopping center Aeronov realy out of Montgomery and the owner one of their entities uh will remain the owner of lot one and they're just concerned that if this is not on there and if if it's on the plant the way it's written uh and somebody wants to buy it or they want to refi that it might cause a title issue with the title company or the lender. I have no problem with it. It's the way we've always operated. There's if this subdivision creates a setback violation. It doesn't they don't have to come into compliance immediately until future permits are are obtained or applied for. So um I have no problem with with this extra language because it's it's what we do. It describes way we handle these things. The maj the major issue is after dedication once we apply the the setbacks there will be some non-complying buildings involved at least one. Okay. So regarding the 14 conditions were

good. You would like to request these notes be in intended for uh the plat. Yes. As additional language to the standard and and council from staff has no issue with those notes. I'll ask if any commissioners have any questions. Yeah, I do. Go ahead. So it says any g any of these given notes will not apply to lot one until such time as lot one is redeveloped at which time the current city of mobile minimum standards that in place will apply to new improvements. So to me that sounds like I can build what I want to build and then after that the standards are applicable to redevelop or bulldoze and completely uh build a new center. They would have to apply for permits and then with those permits they would have to come into compliance if there's any violations that are um created by this subdivision. So, it kind of grandfathers in the current buildings until permits are applied for in the future. I got you. I believe additionally, you'd have to have site plan approval anyway. Um, it just seems it just seems superfluous to me. So, it's suspect, but I get it. Mr. Chair, go ahead. And I I guess I think I follow you on on the financing and the covenants because obviously that's a you know violation of covenant that puts a puts a hindrance upon coming from a banking side. I understand and I guess basically we're just and and um to council we're we're just kind of in words putting the process of what's going to occur in the event that that changes need to be made. I guess that's we're just basically putting putting the words down um of what and how we handle the situation if I follow you correctly.

Any further comments or questions from commissioners? All right, I'll ask at this time if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for or have questions towards uh or against this agenda item at 5451 Halls Mill Road. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to number three. This is a subdivision at 460 Moffett Road in the Pine Grove Place subdivision. Seven lots just under three acres. Is the applicant present? Mr. Bird, are you in agreement with the eight listing conditions? Mr. Bird in representing the applicant is in agreement. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience. to speak for or have questions towards or against this application at 4060 Moffett Road. Is that you ma'am? Are you coming down for this agenda item? Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience for this agenda item? Speaking for have questions or against. All right. Seeing none, we will move on. Number four. This is a subdivision at 11:07 Arlington Streets. The CJ Small Heights subdivision. Subdivision of 23 lots at over 5.6 acres for consideration. There are 17 conditions. Mr. Bird. Yes, sir. We're okay with it, but I would like Oh, name and address just for the record. Oh, excuse me. Uh, Gerald Bird Bird Serve and 2609 Halls Mill Road Mobile. We're in agreement with it except that I would like to ask y'all have one of these up there.

came up this week that the common areas that was left on here was for detention ponds where however they needed them. The detention does not have to be on a pond. They're going to handle it underground in pipes. We would like to do away with the common areas and extend the lot lines back like the red lines. There's no increase in the lot num number of lots or decrease either one. Street stays in the same place. It's just extending the lines through that land and it will go with each of the lots. Question for staff. Does that require an amendment to the application prior to us voting on that? No, we'll just revise the the site plan when they submit it. All right. This and and the engineer for the project has talked to Nick Hamburger about it. Nick is aware. Uh I guess he thought he was going to be here. I talked to him right before the meeting, but um he he's aware of this and supports the idea. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bird. I will ask now if there's anyone else in the audience that is here for this agenda item number four at 11:07 Arlington Street. Yes, ma'am. Anyone else beside this lady? Besides this lady. All right. As a reminder, as you make your way to the podium, we'll need your name and address for the record. And then any questions or comments? Pull the microphone down a little bit. Hi, my name is Sharon King. I live at 1129 Preston Avenue. Been there for 50 plus years. Um I'm in agreement with um the subdivision. I know Mobile needs extra housing because of displacement of residents throughout the city. Glad to see new buildings

coming up, but I do have some concerns. One of my first concerns was that in the neighborhood that I've been there over 50 years that we found out the same time that the media found out with the groundbreaking the people in the neighborhood, I'm here representing six other my closest neighbors on the on the very street I live on. they can't be here because of jobs and things like that. We found at the same time of the groundbreaking, we didn't have flyers in our boxes, mailboxes or anything like that saying come to the groundbreaking or welcome to the groundbreaking, anything like that. I'll find out watering my plants that everybody was there looking on. It's 23 homes. Are they going to be apartment homes or single family homes? And who will be living in those homes? um by living there many over 50 years on the same place. Um we uh had a lot of crime before. So who would be living in the homes? Um and um that was my main concern that being a marginalized neighborhood from the start, we were being marginalized by the city by not being informed. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Miss King. I'll ask staff if we have a record of the notifications and then a reminder for Miss King and those of us here in the room of what our our rule is with respect to notification. Yes. So, subdivisions don't require a neighborhood meeting and then into the microphone. I can't hear you. Subdivisions do not require a neighborhood meeting. minutes of the J property owners is is offered. Yes. Is sent out. Okay. So, that's that's Did you hear that, Miss King? It's the the the the

type of application that was sent in to the planning department does not require the notification to the residents. No, it so it doesn't require a neighborhood meeting. It does it does require notice to those that are adjacent. And so pulling up the uh the mailing list, she was not one of those that is no ma'am. What they're stating is that the type of application I misrepresented that statement that the it did not require a neighborhood meeting but notification was posted and notification was mailed to the certain within a certain amount of radius of the development okay um we can address the notification, but I would like to have the applicant uh since the representative is here for the application to answer the other question which was the type of homes for the development if that's even known. I don't know and Mr. Bird does not know. Um so that being said, I'll see if there's anyone else in the audience that has questions regarding 1107 Arlington Street. Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? All right, seeing none, thank you Mr. Bird and Miss King. We will move on to number five on the agenda. This is a reszone at 4154 and 4164 Mafett Road. A reszone of neighborhood

business suburban district B2 to light industry district I1. Note for commissioners potentially seven findings of fact and one condition. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Uh understanding of the findings of fact if those are passed through on the voting and any questions towards the application. applicant is understanding of the potential findings of fact and has no questions. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience here for this application for a reason to from B2 to I1 at 4154 and 4164 Moffett Road. All right, seeing none, we will move on to number six. This is a dual application of a subdivision and a modification at 685 Schillinger Road South. The reubdivision of lot 4, Schillinger Town Center, and reubdivision of lot A. This is two lots at 20 acres. And then the modification of a previously approved uh development between multiple building sites to allow construction of a drive-thru coffee shop with shared access and parking between multiple building sites. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present for the subdivision. Are you in agreement with the 13 listed conditions? The applicant is present and in agreement with the 13 listed conditions on the proposal of the modification. Have you read the potential of the eight findings of fact and 22 listed conditions for that modification? The applicant is aware of those potential findings, facts, and conditions. Any questions? You good? All right. I'll ask if anyone else in the audience is here to speak for, have questions towards, or speak against this agenda item number six.

All right, seeing none, we will move right along. Number seven, this two is a dual application of a subdivision and a reszone application at 813 Lakeside Drive, the Bushwood subdivision. This is a subdivision of one lot. It's over 7 and a half acres and then a reszone from community business suburban district B3 and light industry district I1 to a com that was a two separate ones to combine it into a light industry district I1. Uh applicant is present and just making you aware of potential of the eight listed conditions making sure you're in agreement with those and then the seven potential findings of fact. Yes, sir. We reviewed them and we're we're fine with them. We don't have any. All right. Your name and address for the record. Jay Broton, Broton Associates, 314 Magnolia Avenue, Fair Hope. Um, and as always, like to start with extending our appreciation to this commission and the city staff for their time uh reviewing this application. Um, no objections to staff comments, but I do want to take a few minutes to discuss the purpose of the resoning just so we can kind of talk through all that. Um an engineered site plan hadn't been finalized, but the purpose of this application is to facilitate the appropriate land use for a covered self-s storage facility. Um and the storage facility of this nature is in keeping with current development trends with many of the surrounding businesses operating uh such you know businesses that that complement a development of this nature. uh future land use map identifies this area as a mixeduse commercial corridor which further um encourages the development of this type. So why are we requesting this from B3 to I1 instead of the other way around? Um the answer to that is is we'd like to be able to uh take advantage of the option to utilize aggregate

surfacing in the drives. Okay. It's also immediately contiguous to another parcel that was zoned I1 back in 2007. Um, minimal frontage on Lakeside Drive and then there is access off of Governor Boulevard there to the south, but that's not going to be used as a primary point of access to the development. Um, so it's going to be very limited impact. Uh, it's going to create no adverse impacts to existing infrastructure or to the surrounding businesses. Um, so if y'all have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Chair, go ahead. I mean, I guess this is kind of a question for staff. Um, I I too industrial uh zoning. Um, I mean, that's that's pretty stout. Means a lot. Um and you know even just looking at the comments um of you know in this situation more commonly um especially given that joining properties and some of the comments kind of stated from from staff that um you know could also be appropriate to to call everything B3. Um given the poorest surfaces that that they need and required and then their structure that they intend on building. Um, is there a way that that instead of taking this to to to a high zoning um when nobody else around it is uh is is anywhere near industrial um of accommodating him and and possibly a more conservative B3? Um is there conditions we can place to allow the the the permeable surface or So um this actually came up back in December of 2015 for the parcel that's kind of southwest of here. it uh had tried to go to the I1 zoning as well for the same purpose. Um not the same use but the same purpose the aggregate surfacing. Um and it was decided then by the commission that B3 was more compatible

because the use at that time was allowed just as this use is allowed in a B3. Um and that they could get a variance for the the surfacing. However, with the adoption of the new ordinance, there's a lot more flexibility there that we could work with engineering. Um, I do believe it has to meet the geotechnical standards for any sort of like emergency vehicle or whatever. Um, specifically if it's for access, we would obviously defer to engineering on that. But I think there is a way to work with that if we if the planning commission decides to reszone to B3. Um, the worst case scenario being that they have to go to the board of adjustments to get a variance for that surfacing. And then um is that potentially something that the applicant will consider if we can find a way to work because again once it's high once it's industrial it's industrial forever it and I completely understand that you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. Now it is immediately contiguous to another piece of property that is already zoned I1. Um so but another thing too it's not just the aggregate surfacing that is advantageous to a project like this. So obviously just by the nature of this development, it takes a lot of land, right? So being able to utilize I1 for things like, you know, your setbacks, your open space requirements, your building coverage, that would all make this a much more, you know, feasible project. So that that's another one of the reasons why we'd really like to stick with I1. Just trying to find a workound here at the planet. I'm just trying to find a work here at the planning level. So thank you. So you were saying the site is immediately contiguous to another I1. Yes, that's right. The one doesn't it include I1 already? It is. So So that's Yeah, I mean the down zoning piece of this would be heard legal counsel on that. But this is actually two separate lots. Yeah. Um if the subdivision is approved, it would

create a situation of split zoning. Um, the applicant is referring to the northern lot which has access to Lakeside Drive as being contiguous to the southern lot that has access to government boulevard is the I1 zoning district. Correct. Any further questions or comments? I've got one for the staff. I've got a hypothetical. I don't think I've ever seen this come up. Can we maintain a split zoning situation? Nope. Okay. I'm can't remember what the staff report said. What is the classification required for self storage? Uh B3. B3 that is with covered self storage. Um it makes a note in the staff report that if there were to not be covered self storage and just like an outdoor storage yard um that the minimum zoning designation would be is CW which stands for commercial warehouse. All right commissioners, any further questions or comments for the applicant? Mr. Broton. All right. Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Broton. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here for this agenda item at 813 Lakeside Drive to speak for it, have questions towards it, or to speak in opposition to it. All right, seeing none, we will close out the public hearing session. Confirming with staff we will have other business towards the end of this. Okay,

thank you. Uh we'll now go into deliberation back. We all good. All right. Thank you. We will go uh back to number one on the agenda. Uh Mr. Busby, I see you still in the audience. Did you have a chance to speak with anyone? You want to come on down? We'll see what we can find out. This is a hold over from previous meeting. Dual application subdivision and modification at 5808 US Highway 90 West. Jake Mosley, 5588 Jackson Road. Um, so we would like to request another hold over and we realize it's kind of a waste of time to keep holding it over. So, and we're going to push the client to get the signature. We won't request another hold over after this one. So, so you stated earlier that you had trouble or the applicant and and and staff had trouble getting in touch with the owners, which you believe to be the c was it the county? It is. And so, I mean, I'm I'm fine as long as the staff is fine. So, the subdivision regulations are very clear about this that the applicant may request one holdover. Um any additional requests for holdover are considered a new application requiring a new submission including all applicable fees and that's in article 10 of our subdivision regulations. Okay. So, Mr. Busby, we'll have to take that information back to the applicant. uh that does follow the guidelines protocols for a planning commission. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Busby. Number two on the agenda, 5451 Halls Mill Road. Hold on. Do Do we need to do

anything to dispose of that or we just let it be? Oh, I completely forgot we need to vote on it. Thanks, Matt. I would move that we deny the application. Second. We'll move for denial of the application with the proper second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Number two, 5451 Halls Mill Road, subdivision of two lots, just over 26 acres. The applicant was present and in agreement with the 14 listed conditions, but did request the addition of notes for the plat. Yeah, I have some I have some Sorry, Doug. Uh um so the note the notes that they're adding are about clarifying that we're not creating a covenant that runs with the land, right? and that they and that they will come into compliance at the at a time of redevelopment, right? They they would have to do right. Are we creating a situation where everybody's going to want to start adding these comments? Okay. I just don't want to create some one more thing because I mean I I don't like saying, "Hey, we're not creating a covenant and you're going to come and we're going to come into compliance." Well, you you weren't we weren't creating a covenant anyway and you were already going to come into compliance. So, I know that makes me sound like an ass, but you know, I'm just that's just what it looks like to me. So,

Mr. Chair, I do have a question. Go ahead. Um, just to clarify for uh not just the city but also the applicant, um, are we adding the language to each of these conditions for engineering comments, traffic engineering comments, and fire department comments? He's nodding his head. Yes. Thank you. All right, we have an application 14 conditions in agreement and the prospect of of these additional notes for the plat entertain a motion. I would move to approve sub staff recommendations including uh a note that reads this note is not intended to create a covenant running with the land. It will not apply to lot one until such time as lot one is redeveloped at which time the current city mobile fire ordinance then in place will apply to new improvements as set forth in such ordinance. Likewise for storm water management standards and minimum standards uh for lot and so on as presented by the applicant. Is that thorough? Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Just to declare, are we doing it for the sidewalk? Is that we mention the sidewalk? Yes. Okay. Second. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion, additional questions? All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion has uh has passed. Number three on the subdivision 4060 Moffett Road. The applicant is present in

agreement with the eight listed conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve service staff recommendations. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number four, subdivision, 23 lots, 5.68 acres at 1107 Arlington Street. The applicant is present in agreement with the 17 listed conditions. The applicant also made request for lot lines between 9 and 10, 10 and 11, 11 and 12, 12 and 13, and 13 and 14 to be extended to the perimeter lot lines to eliminate the retention areas that will now be taken care of with underground drainage. And he mentioned that there was a discussion with our city engineer who is not present to confirm or deny that move to approve service staff recommendations. We have a properly moved and seconded motion. Any questions or comments before we go into Yeah, let's identify what you're looking at. The staff recommendations don't address that change we do need to do this. Yeah. According approved because that's not part of the city's file. Yes, it will be. Okay. So, you need to earlier he said I I I think just refer to as shown on the drawing provided to us. Right. Okay. Yes. So, move to approve subject staff recommendations including uh the drawing as presented by the applicant. Second. Second. Properly moved and

seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion passes. Number five on the agenda. So, reszone at 4154 and 4164 Moffett Road potentially from B2 to I1. The applicant is present. understanding of the potential findings of fact and condition of compliance. Entertain a motion. Move to approve sub staff recommendation of the findings of fact A through G. Second. properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A, B, C, D, and E. Any discussion? All in favor? I said A through G. Restate findings of fact A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? The motion for reszon passes. Number six, dual application, 685 Schillinger Road South, subdivision and modification. The subdivision is two lots at 20 acres and then the modification is to allow construction of drive-th through uh with shared access of parking between multiple building sites. We'll take them separately, subdivision first. The applicant was present and an agreement, by the way. Take them uh subdivision first.

Motion to Motion to approve. Subject to staff recommendations. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Any any opposed? All right. The motion for the subdivision passes for the modification. There are potentially eight findings of fact and 22 listed conditions. The applicant was in agreement and understanding of the potential findings of fact. entertain a motion. Okay. Um move to approve subject staff recommendation with findings of fact A through H. Second modification properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A B C D E F G H. Any questions and discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? The motion for modification passes. Number seven, this is at 8:13 Lakeside Drive. Subdivision and reszone application. We will take them separately. The subdivision is one lot at over 7 and 12 acres. Taking two two to one, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Um and just just a reaffirming question for staff. um with the subdivision, the zoning has to be taken up and that we have to identify what what we're going to call this thing. um you know my my opinion I think a B3 and going through the process of trying to accommodate whatever the future use of this is because you know really at the moment this is a

subdivision um request then we're about to look at a zoning request and um you know so I really believe this this should be reszoned as a B3 and then go through the process of seeking um any variances of that need to be to to address what could be here or um you know the consideration of that the CW designation. Um I guess my question to staff is that CW designation um where that's that's not as common. Um you know uh but I guess you even kind of said in the staff comments that that that would be a appropriate designation for for I guess what the intended use of the property would be. Um well and the intended use of the property is for covered self storage. So the B3 would be more appropriate. Okay. All right. Again, we'll take in these separately. Subdivision first and then potential for the reszone. On the subdivision, the applicant was present and in agreement with the eight listed conditions. Move to approve sub staff recommendation. Second. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion on the subdivision? All in favor? Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes on the reszone E3 and I1 to total I1 potentially findings of fact listed. There are seven. Entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we reszone uh the parcel B3 in order to eliminate split zoning with findings of effect A through G. Second. Properly moved and seconded.

That is to maintain B3. Yes, sir. Properly moved and seconded to maintain B3. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion? I'm opposed to it. I I think My view on this is this is already zoned. The southern portion is already zoned. Uh they mentioned the comment of the aggregate issue which to me makes a lot of sense. They're going to have drainage issues right on the creek. You also have aggregate being used to the south. Uh, I feel like the resolution to this, if the commission is inclined to you keep it B3, they might be better off seeking a variance in that scenario and that's what this would would do. I just Yeah. And just for clarification, that site to the southwest that's utilizing aggregate has a variance for that. They do. Yes. Any further questions or comments from commissioners? We have a motion that's properly moved and seconded to maintain B3. Didn't we already vote? Say it again. Didn't we already vote? We did. I just want to confirm that nobody's minds changed after Mr. Mate's comments, but I think he may I'll vote with it. Vote often. All right, we all have I think there was all in favor. Um, so the motion passes for reszone to B3. All right, that is concluding the agenda

items. We do have other business. Um, I'll ask staff if this business at North Warren Street will require a quorum because we do have uh recusal on the other business on Warren North Warren Street. We would have a recusal from a commissioner and we we wouldn't have a quorum to to pass a vote. So what is actually needed for this uh piece of business? So the request from the applicant um who is present, Mr. Bird, um was to modify a note or a condition rather that and I'm trying to pull it up. Give me one second um to modify a note. Um I think it's item number six or seven on the um original conditions of approval that stated um the plat needed to retain a note uh for lot 4 that its primary street frontage was street when they meant to put North Dearborn Street. Um so that's the only amendment that's being made. As far as whether or not that would require a quorum, I'll defer to legal, excuse me, legal Okay, I'll stayain from it. There we go. Okay. Entertain a motion to make the changes uh as submitted by the applicant to staff. I move to approve the amendment as elucidated by staff. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any nos or abstains? Oh, sorry. I guess say

it again now. I'll abstain. The motion passes. Just wanted to be proper. Uh, all right. Next on the other business is adoption of the 2025 and 2026 planning commission filing deadline and meeting schedule. Each of you commissioners should have had an opportunity to review that schedule. It is uh beginning with the month of September and runs through August of 2026. In the past couple of schedules, we have voted in six-month increments to maintain to make sure that the monthly meetings were adequate. Now, we're looking at uh a 12-month time frame. Motion to approve the schedule. Second properly moved and seconded to approve the schedules schedule as submitted by staff. All in favor? I. The motion for schedule for upcoming meetings passes. And then last but not least, we have review of minutes from the planning commission meetings of May 4th and May 18th, 2023, June 1st and June 15th, 2023 and July 20th of 2023. We will batch those. Go ahead. Move to approve, sir. Staff recommend. Oh, wait. Just move to approve. Properly moved. Yeah. Move to approve. All in favor? I. The minutes have passed from 2023. Any further business items? Meeting journ.

What other