Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're good on a quorum for the rest. Good afternoon and welcome to the Mobile Planning Commission for July 16th. Special called time meeting at 1 p.m. as opposed to 2 p.m. I'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. Please take note that these procedures have the potential to change at the beginning of this meeting due to an amendment. Our meeting is typically divided into two sessions, public hearing and deliberation. This rule would stay the same. The public hearing session agenda item would be called. An applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions, if any. Members of the public make their comments to the commission. Only four people may speak for an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes, subject to questions by the commission. At one minute, a speaker will hear a warning beep asking you to summarize your comments in that final minute. After opposition speakers have spoken on an agenda item, the original applicant does have a two-minute rebuttal period. If you do intend to speak, we ask that you come to the podium at the bottom of the stairs, speak into the microphone, do provide your name and address for the record, direct all your comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, the staff, or the audience. after we hear an application the commission would then go into deliberation in which we discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary but with no input from the audience we would then vote on each application the results of that voting can be learned from the planning department if you're not here in attendance if issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed during public hearing we have the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them or call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting Occasionally, there will be a commissioner who may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application. That does not mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant. However, depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal even if there is only the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest. If a regular member recuses, we will have a supernumerary vote in their stead if needed. 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 rezonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments. The City Council makes the final decision on these applications and all appeals of the City Council decisions are to the Circuit Court. At this time, do me a favor and turn off your cell phones or turn them to vibrate or silent mode. any devices, please. If you do end up having to take a call, we understand this meeting could run long. We ask that you exit the door so you will be let back in. Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. At this time, I'll call the roll. Myself, Jay Stubbs, present. Mr. Kirk Mattei, Mr. Jennifer Denson, Mr. Harry Brislin, Mr. Larry Dorsey, here. Mr. Chad Anderson, Mr. Matt Anderson, Mr. Nick Amberger, Mr. Josh Woods, Mr. Kenny Nichols, and Miss Ellie Edwards. We do have a quorum. And before we get to the agenda, I will read the commission operating rules and procedures for the consideration of an amendment to section 3G for our order of business. We would like to consider as a planning commission to allow deliberation and determination of voting members immediately following the presentation and public hearing for each agenda item consecutively. I've read that. I'd ask if there's any discussion among commissioners or input from staff. entertain a motion so moved second properly moved and seconded all in favor aye any opposed okay the motion for operating rules and procedures passes for section 3g what that means audience is that we will take each agenda item in public hearing and then immediately go to that agenda item for deliberation this is a permanent change to our operating rules and procedures for the Planning Commission. Please hold your applause to the end of the meeting. I'll now ask for our all move to approve the agenda for the agenda items today, of which we have numbered 32. Is that correct? 33. Need a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. The agenda passes. Okay. Bear with me. This is a new operating procedure. We'll figure it out as we go, but it should be straightforward. Number one, this is a holdover subdivision at 1930 Bay Bridge Road Cut-Off and 124 Industrial Canal Road East. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead.

I'd like to. Sorry, Josh. Please go ahead. I'd like to offer an amendment to the agenda if we could possibly. I make a motion to move number 18 to the top of the stack to accommodate

accommodate somebody. That is medical circumstances. Moving 18 to the top of the agenda. I'll need a second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Number 18. This is a modification at the east side of Hillcrest Road. and south of Greelot Road, District 6, major modification of a previously approved PUD allowing multiple buildings on a single building site and shared access between multiple building sites to allow construction of a restaurant on a single building site with shared access between multiple building sites. If we do go through with consideration, there were potentially eight findings of fact and 12 listed condition. The applicant is present. Please state your name and address for the record and any presentation or comments you'd like to make.

Yes, sir. Brian Pugh representing Piazza Kitchen and Patio. And Lucas Benedetto is the developer. He is with a family member in the hospital today and has asked me to be here to represent him. I've been working with him on this proposed transaction for several months. And I think it's a great opportunity. My address, Brian Pugh, the Pugh Firm, 1325 Dolphin Street, Mobile 36604 in Midtown. It is approximately a 3,000 square foot restaurant that will have an outdoor area. It's a family friendly restaurant. It is near Christ United Church and the proposal is to purchase lot two of the Christ United subdivision. Christ United Church has submitted in favor of this as have most of the other PUD owners including DBAT, which is a batting cage facility, CVS Corporation, which leases the property next door, Ronnie's Car Wash, Grand Slam Storage. There was one opposition filed from the gentleman who now owns the CVS lot that leases to CVS. We've tried to negotiate with him, but he has not been cooperative in returning calls and discussing it with us. His name is William Taylor.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for this modification on Hillcrest and Greenlot?

Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Mr. Pugh, the site plan or the included in the packet obviously includes connecting access to the one individual that did not grant it, I guess, or does not want to grant it as far as the PUD is concerned. There is an alternate. I guess, design or alternate site plan that would not link into or would not expand the access, I guess, over to CVS. Instead, it would have access to that access easement, I guess, in the back of the property.

That's correct, Mr. Woods. McCrory Williams has designed the site plan and been working with my client on that. I don't know if there's anyone from McCrory Williams here today, but that is correct. Due to the statements to Mr. Taylor that the plan is now to have access through the access road. For anybody familiar, there's a there's a road leading from Hillcrest towards Christ United Church. It branches off one side towards D batting cage facility and then the other side is access road that Mr. Woods is referred to.

Gotcha, and I guess as far as from a comment from staff, obviously in our packet there's a site plan showing access to the CVS property. Right now, in order to, I guess, accomplish what's trying to be accomplished, is it okay that, you know, this site plan that's presented in front of us here, that they go with the other site plan, I guess?

You can just make a condition of approval that the curb cut on the north to the CBS site is denied. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

And that's something I feel that the, okay. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Ernst. Just a question for staff. As a condition of the CVS approval years ago, were they required, I mean, obviously there's a stub there for a reason, and I'm sure it was contemplated that as this developed, there'd be cross-access to the south. As part of their approval years ago, were they required to provide cross-access?

I don't know what the CVS development plan was that was approved If there was a curb cut shown on that plan, then that would possibly be consent years ago. I don't know that.

I don't know if the staff has. I guess the question is, was the CVS part of the original PUD?

Yes. So the CVS was part of the original PUD. However, it has changed owners since that time. It's also changed owners, I think, since the most recent PUD amendment, which was an issue with respect to them providing authorization approving the PUD for some changes that happened along the north side, I think with the car wash and the storage facility. So what we have here is kind of the same situation.

No, but this is the exact reason why we don't have PUDs anymore.

Any further questions or comments for Mr. Pugh?

I have a question. Go ahead. I'm trying to understand. I know the back access, but doesn't that go into the CDS lot?

Yes, it does connect through near where the drive-through is for picking up prescriptions. But it's an access road and it's across Christ United property who has agreed to allowing access to that. And then there's a reciprocal access agreement that's been agreed to between the parties and filed a record in the probate court.

Okay, thank you.

Any others? All right, thank you, Mr. Pugh. Stand by if needed. Is there anyone else in the audience that are here to speak for, speak against, or have questions about this modification application? All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing on this agenda item and move into deliberation.

Mr. Chairman, I would move to accept the modification when findings affect A through H, making note of the denial of the property owner on the north side of the property in question.

I heard it. Is that a second? Okay. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, the motion for that modification passes. Thank you, Mr. Pugh. Best wishes to the applicant. We'll now go back to number one on the agenda, holdover subdivision at 1930 Bay Bridge Road, cut off in 124 Industrial Canal Road East, subdivision of one lot at 31.62 acres. Planning Commission would consider waiver of section 6C4 to allow the lot to not abut a public street. For consideration here, there are 12 conditions. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Would you like to make any comments towards this application?

Yes. Jared White, 1200 Dolphin Street. I represent the Rogers Group. We spoke when this was before the Planning Commission two months ago, and it was held over. And I'm going to provide a little background on the company just because we do anticipate some comments from the community and want everybody to have the full context. The Rogers Group is one of the largest aggregate companies in the United States. It's privately owned. They've had a presence in Alabama. They bought this property from Parker Towing about two years ago. This property has been historically used for an aggregate or rock storage area supporting road building and construction projects in Mobile. That's what Vulcan Material was leasing it from Parker to use. Rogers is continuing that use. And of course, we're not here today to talk about the use. But Rogers has certainly committed to being a good neighbor since they've been in the Africatown and Mobile community. They've had community meetings, will continue meeting and having discussions with neighbors at all times. They've supported local groups. They've made improvements to the property to be a better neighbor. Vulcan historic, the aggregate is brought in by barge. It was offloaded. Vulcan used dump trucks to load there at Three Mile Creek and move it to the yard storage area, then would dump it there. Every time the dump truck would dump the load, you'd have that tailgate bang against the metal and make a lot of noise. Rogers has put in a new bulkhead along Three Isle Creek to preserve and protect that shoreline. They've put a conveyor system that will automatically move the material from the creek to the yard, eliminate that dump truck movement on the property. That conveyor system has a dewatering system to suppress dust. So it will both benefit the community and the neighbors by having less noise, less dust. And Rogers has cleaned up that site and generally just tried to make it a better site for the neighbors. So we're here about a subdivision. This was six parcels all zoned I-2. The idea is just to do what is done in modern land use, which is have it as a single plot, a single one lot subdivision so that that's consolidated. The benefit to doing that to the community is that, number one, this protects there being any risk that some of this property gets spun off to a different user. It's all going to be one site used by Rogers, no properties. As it stands now, you can sell some lots and some else can come in. That's not going to happen if you have a single lot. The other thing is, by doing a subdivision, Rogers brings itself under the new standards that apply within the aftertown overlay, including the 30-foot buffer that will run along the north side of the property with the neighbors who live on Chinn Street. When we were here in May, our surveyor kind of inadvertently picked up a parcel we weren't even aware we owned, which faced Chinn Street and was zoned residential. Certainly very much respect the neighborhood, have no intention of encroaching into the neighborhood or changing the residential character of Chinn Street. So we immediately, when we learned of that, said, no, let's take that out. So that's not part of this subdivision application. That does create kind of this situation where there's not frontage on the street, there is a deeded right-of-way, and that's how the property's been accessed for decades and how we propose it would continue to be accessed. So we appreciate your consideration. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from commissioners?

Chair, if I may add one more thing, I guess. In our discussions with the community, one of the concerns that has been raised is drainage. A lot of that's to the north end of that, you know, water that comes down the slope along Chen Street and gathers at the end. There's some stormwater inlets. I'm not even sure entirely where they gather, some on the east of our property. But we've committed to working with the community and the neighborhood to resolve that. I've reached out to Mr. Hamburger's office, and we're in the process of setting up a meeting with the city engineers and certainly to the extent you know we can help that will be part of that process and will continue after today going forward to be part of that process regardless thank you sir any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicants representative Commissioner go ahead engineering is

Like he mentioned with the drainage, the city engineer did request that we get a public drainage easement for that drainage ditch along the north side of the property and then down the railroad right away to Three Mile Creek so that can be maintained. And I don't know who he's discussed that with up till now, but we'll look at getting that.

And there was miscommunications. We didn't find out about that until someone told me this morning or this afternoon. We certainly, I don't think, have any objection to an easement on the north side of the property. On the east side, I think it would probably be... more logical to follow the property boundary, or at least we'd want to give some consideration to, because as you can see, that right-of-way easement is inset a little bit. If there's an engineering need to inset the drainage easement into that versus just on the property boundary, we'd be open to discussing it, but our preference, I think, would be just along the property line so that you don't have an easement that strands some property to the east side of it.

Would that be satisfactory?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, the city engineer spoke with me about it, and there's just a totally influenced body of water along the property line. They just want to encompass that, so if there is a need to get in there and do some maintenance with it, we're operating in an easement. So it's nothing that would impact any of the usable parts of the property. Probably something when you meet with him out on site, you ought to look at and take into consideration.

I'll also make a note that we've maintained that ditch already, thinking there was an easement before, because it receives city water as it is. So it would probably be best to have that delineated in a real easement.

Well, we appreciate it. We certainly would like you all to continue to maintain it. So again, certainly an objection on the north side. It would be the east side we want to discuss. But if that's the condition, then that's the condition. Thank you.

Just so I'm clear, so the The thing that triggered the resigning is y'all trying to get rid of the lot off one chin.

We're not resigning. We're just doing a, basically legal fiction, just take these six lots and make them one lot so that they're unified together. So if you do need a building permit, you can pull one permit versus a different permit for each lot or anything like that. I'll just say that's the way, in my experience, things are done nowadays. We just want to try to be more modern versus the historic legacy of six different properties. But we, so that we wouldn't have to rezone, we excluded Chin Street. Yeah, I meant subdivision.

Yeah, sorry. That's why we're rezoning. I meant what's triggering the rezoning, the subdivision is separating that lot on Chin Street off of this.

You know, right now we have seven parcels. So it was kind of one of these things, that was just how it was conveyed to the Rogers Group. I had been held historically, and frankly, we looked at it and said, that's, you know, it'd be a lot, make a lot more sense to have one unified parcel, so it's If you're pulling, for instance, a land disturbance permit for a conveyor, instead of having to pull one for each lot it touches, you can pull one for the entire property. And it lets the city review it as a cohesive site versus six sites that really are not six separate sites.

Got you. Any other comments, questions from commissioners? now ask if there's anyone else in the audience who is here to speak for speak against or have questions about this subdivision application at 1930 bay bridge road cut off and 124 industrial canal road east in addition to this lady will there be any others please no show of hands if there are one two three total i'm seeing three total okay

Good afternoon. My name is Daphne Fryson, and I live at 359 Chin Street, 36610. My concern about this subdivision is the drainage and the dust. We met back in May at a community meeting, and the Rogers group assured us that it was not going to be like the former company that was there. It would be no dust. There is dust constantly on our vehicles. And I had mentioned to them and at me that I was going to get in contact with you all if that dust continued. And the dust is there all the time. And I just want to know about this drainage. When it rains real bad, the water's back there. I'm wondering if it's going to come up on our property. I'm so many feet away from where they're going to be doing their business. I'm worried about snakes, alligators, and all that sort of stuff. coming on to our property, even if our dogs and probably myself. I just want to make sure we are secure. That's it.

Thank you for your comments. Yes, ma'am. There is definite eyes on this property with respect to the drainage. We've discussed it in this session today. City's on top of it and it's part of this application to be cognizant and aware from the developer and the group that owns the property.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Next. Anything besides drainage? Yes, sir. If you'd like to come down, speak your mind, but let's We are definitely aware of drainage and are taking that into account for this application. State your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Kermit McAlpine. I live at 308 Chin Street.

Yes, sir.

I have lost my entire house because of this drainage. It shouldn't have to come to this from the get-go. It was poorly designed from the get-go. I don't know. The young man said that they've been maintaining the ditch. I don't know what ditch you're talking about. You come to my house, you can't even tell it's a ditch. Since I've been here the last time, having nothing been done, nothing been cut or anything, like as I said, that's my main concern is about who has the easement. for the drainage for us down there. That's where we don't need to sit here and play, you know, games who it belongs to because I done suffered. I done lost my whole entire house behind it. Cars, I done lost cars on top of cars behind that drainage system that going on down there. The main thing is we need something stated today in black and white. Who's responsible for the drainage system? We could talk about it all day long, but getting something done about it is something different. Because, see, that ditch that he's talking about, all of a sudden they just cleaned this ditch. I've been there 40 years, 42 years. Never seen this ditch that clean. The guy got his track hose stuck trying to clean it. I had to help him take my equipment and help him get out with it. Never seen it. And then by me doing that, that whole easement back there then collapsed. That's where my problem come in. If you come down there, The Rogers, I took them down there the day that we had a meeting. And I told them, they said, well, let's set up a time. No, the time is today. We can go see what's going on. And that's where you can see if during that time, if I don't take my track hole and clean it out just a little bit, I'm constantly, just constantly, constantly getting flooded out. And it's just like, ain't nobody paying me no attention. I've been calling about the ditch. If you look and see how shattered the ditch is that run down the side of my property where my house was at, real shattered. You wouldn't even know you're in a ditch for really real. But then if you look at it from the bridge all the way back, you see where everything is designed to run down right down to me. I brought y'all pictures last time. I believe I shared pictures with y'all. Y'all seen exactly what I was talking about. So let's try to get this thing on the right foot. We're not here to block anybody from doing anything. We're here to get some easement for ourselves.

Thank you. Yes, sir. For my notes, when did you lose your home? What was the year?

I lost my house. It's been at least 10, 12 years at most.

So that would put it in 2014?

And went around grinding. Well, we've been having problems. Even before Katrina hit down in there, it was always a problem. But I never seen it that bad before. I had dump trucks. You couldn't even see that much of a bed of a dump truck. That's bad.

All right. Thank you, Mr. McAlpine. Let's let the next presenter or speaker come on down. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Ramsey Sprague. I live at 5404 Dogwood Court. I'm happy to hear that we're going to be considering the drainage. We really want to see a condition put on the on the subdivision application, requiring that an easement be established that will carry the water from chin street all the way to 3 mile creek. It is shocking that there's not 1 that the city was unaware that they didn't have 1. we are. When I say we, I use the royal we, the community. Many community groups are working with multiple entities to try to secure funding to augment the sorts of infrastructural investment required. This is something that's a huge cost. We need the city to have an easement so the city can say yes to the opportunity. I tried to reach out to Jared after June's meeting because I looked at the initial plat back in May. You all received my comments back then. I noticed there wasn't an easement at that point and was assured that the plat would be corrected when the plat was submitted in the portal. I saw that it lacked an easement still. So I called engineering and engineering assured me that they would be making comments about wanting an easement or seeing the necessity for an easement. That was reassuring. But then we had our meeting canceled. Here we are today. I never got a call back from Jared, unfortunately, some communication. Complications, but we do look forward to working with the applicant to make sure that this is in the subdivision application moving forward and that we can come to some agreement on an expeditious timeframe. We will appeal to the council if we need to, because the community is not. Going to be satisfied without some clear assurance that the city is going to take responsibility for its own interests.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sprague.

Mr. Chairman. Go right ahead. Just for the record, I want to clear up some things. In a lot of places like this, there are not drainage easements, just simply because it's a borderline creek, not a ditch in terms of what most people perceive as a ditch. It's also got a lot of wetlands in there. I think what was said earlier, we are trying to capture that within a drainage easement on the plat so that the city could go in there and make mitigation efforts to try to help it along. But make no mistake, I mean, there is probably wetlands, it looks like, in the northwest quadrant of it. I'm sorry, northeast quadrant of it that are regulatory wetlands that are there. So I just want to be clear that don't expect the city to go out there with a track code and just start digging these wetlands out. uh i think mr anderson had mentioned they've done cleaning in the ditch but to get a drop of water from shin street three mile creek it's a pretty lengthy effort there and that i'm not going to refer to as a ditch i'm referred to it as a tidally influenced creek uh it's probably been there for an awfully awfully long time i can't put a date on it but it's following the know what looks like a railroad track bed and was probably remnants from whenever there was an old track bed there so we are going to do everything we can to help mitigate it but i just want i want there also to be reasonable expectations and understanding for what it actually is

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

To, I guess, address the first speaker as far as the dust and everything. You have a representative here today, so maybe y'all can touch base with that. I definitely understand your concerns on that. As far as the water and everything, how it flows, this budget cycle is really the first time the city has a dedicated department to handling that kind of thing. And, you know, Mr. Anderson kind of alluded to it a little bit in the fact that, you know, it looks like going out cleaning out these ditches that haven't been touched in probably forever and identifying the problem, whether it's silt at the bottom or maybe some infrastructure failures. So I definitely feel and understand what you're saying completely. But what's proposed today seems like that's going to be a very clean way of trying to address that situation, if that makes any sense. So I definitely hear you, and I definitely, from my seat at least, would tell you probably to reach out to your council member, just make them aware of the issues, and maybe there's some things that they can at least be your voice a little bit for. Thank you.

Thank you. Would the applicant make any further comments? None. At this time, was there any other questions, comments from the audience? All right, this time we'll close public hearing on agenda item number one, holdover. Now go into deliberation.

Doug, I have a question. If we were to, well, can we include dedication of a, I mean, it's relatively narrow ditch or creek, whatever you want to call it. I think it would really only need to be a 20-foot I'm sorry, it'd probably only need to be a 20-foot easement. Would we just make that a condition, add that as a condition to the subdivision?

I will let Nick answer that. Yeah, I think it's going to be best that their surveyor work with the engineering department. He probably already has the topographic information where he can clearly define it. It may be a variable width that needs to be set. You can add that as a condition.

So give me some words or us some words.

I don't have to. I got you, Matt. I wrote it here. The addition of a drainage easement satisfactory to the applicant and the city engineer.

Perfect. That sounds great.

And for everybody's information, a condition is completion of the rezoning process, and that process will take care of a lot of these issues as well.

There's no rezoning as part of this application. Pardon? Remember, Doug, there's no rezoning as part of this application. Not here, but the condition is rezoning in the future before the plant's signed because of the split zoning.

Am I looking at the wrong application? Yeah. Oh, okay. Never mind.

We'll strike Mr. Anderson's comment.

I got you. Gotcha. Yeah, you can add that as a condition. Yeah.

Entertain a motion, Mr. Anderson.

Kenny had the words. I don't have them.

All right. Yeah. No comments. I'll move to approve subject to staff recommendations with the addition of a note that there shall be a drainage easement satisfactory to the applicant and the city engineer to be determined. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. We'll move on to number two. We'll have to recuse Mr. Kirk Mate. We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item. This is a subdivision holdover at 5536 Sermon Road West and 5660 and 5680 Sermon Road North. Subdivision of two lots, just over one acre. We still are missing and we have the opportunity for the applicant to confirm what has been missing. Still, the plat does not include all properties required to be part of the subdivision. The written consent from the owners of all properties required to be included in the subdivision has not been provided and no revised notification labels or re-advertising fees were submitted for the revised three lot subdivision request. Yes, sir.

I am Pete Ream. I live at 3904 Community Drive. I am here representing the applicant. And as you said, this is a holdover. And if you all remember, this subdivision was actually done 15 years ago, and that road was built 15 years ago. But for whatever reason, the subdivision was never properly completed. And The street made a public street, so it's been an error in 15 years. This has been an attempt to correct that we have to the city's requirement. We have contacted all property owners in addition to the applicant. There are five other property owners which have been contacted. They are all aware and we have responses from all of them. Two of them have signed letters in support. Two of them have responded with emails saying they don't see how this affects them, they have no interest in it, and they are not going to sign anything either way. And then we have one owner that opposes this action because he doesn't want it to be rezoned. Even though rezoning is not part of this application, he doesn't want any subsequent rezoning, so he opposes it. So we are left at an impasse where we have contacted all owners. The owners, except one, do not oppose what we've been living with for 15 years, so since we have one that opposes us, we can't meet the unanimous, so it forces us, and I think the only option is to withdraw this application, but then I ask the city, that presents a conundrum to the applicant. So we can't move forward and correct this subdivision. So does the city have a solution for us? Do we ignore this illegal subdivision for another 15 years? Should we block the road off, or is the city going to force the applicant to remove a road that's been regularly used by the public for the last 15 years? I don't know where we go from here.

We've been discussing this for a couple of months now. It is a crazy situation, and we can have more discussions in the future to try and see how we can resolve this. But they're withdrawing it, so let's move on.

Sound good, Mr. Rehm?

No, but I guess you're going to leave us with a conundrum and no solution, but okay.

Well, it's not the city's fault, Pete, but there's no answer that anybody can give right now, no solution, but the city staff is more than willing to work with y'all to see what we can get done.

I would be in support of withdrawal. It gives you the opportunities to work with the city and take it off this planning commission's agenda. Is there anyone, because it's on the agenda, is there anyone else here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards it? Please come on down to the podium. State your name and address for the record.

Yes, sir.

But it is an application that the applicant has agreed or the representative has agreed to withdraw.

Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, it's withdrawn. We've got 33 things on the agenda. I know he's come down here. He's spoken in the past. Yeah. I'm not sure what the purpose of hearing any more comment is. It's withdrawn. It's not on our agenda anymore. Mr. Cooper. I've got a solution.

Well, if he's going to withdraw, the solution would be with the city.

I was trying to offer a solution. They said they want to get a signature so they can move forward. All I'm asking they do is withdraw their plans to turn that into a big parking lot to park semi trucks, to park tractor trailers. to accommodate somebody that's in the back. I told them, and they asked me, would I sign a plat? I said I would. The person that's buying that, I'm here with my grandson, by the way. He's trying to see how this works out. This can be solved so easily as long as the person buying the property abides by the same standards and rules that I have to abide by. We could move forward with this and everybody would be happy, but they want to buy that property They own about 100,000 square feet in the back, and it's really junky back there. They want to have spillover parking. That's the reason that they need to get this road approved so they can then come in for rezoning or reuse or whatever. I'm against that because I've got a big investment there. I bought four lots in that subdivision, and there's other people in that subdivision. I bought that because it was one of the nicest subdivisions for industrial business in Theodore. And we're trying to upgrade the lookout there. If they want to park trucks, there's parking lots all around. There's truck parking lots within a thousand feet of that property. They can park their trucks there. I will help them work this out so they don't have to withdraw it. if they will just contact me and work with me. And that's a simple solution. Now if they want to go a different route, then it puts the Planning Commission and everybody here, they've got to try to work with somebody that's trying to make a change out there and disrupt everything in the Theodore area. So that's all I have to say. If you want to ask me any questions, I'm just here to try to solve the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So many times I have the same issue kind of when it comes to things in front of us. In front of us isn't a rezoning at the moment.

I understand that.

That could be another, you know, should you choose to make that a battle, that could be another battle for another day. Right now, I've From my understanding and talking with folks, asking, inquiring about this, I think they're just trying to kind of clean it up a little bit.

I'm going to help them clean it up. All I'm saying is drop their plans and keep it like it is. I'll sign off and work with them. It's that simple.

But at the moment, though, we're looking at a subdivision, not the potential for an up-zoning, I guess.

I was told by Pete Ream they're probably not going to zone it anyway, so why would they waste their time?

And in B3, and again, kind of question for staff, I mean, B3 can't be a parking lot, I guess, right?

It cannot be a freight depot, which is what I believe is being described.

What did they say? I didn't hear it. It can't be a freight depot. B3 zoning cannot be a freight depot. Kind of like what we're, I guess, what the assumption is.

I want to keep it like it is. Why would they waste their time? We can get this road approved right now. Mason can go on and do his thing. And the people buying this property can develop it just like I had to develop the property. I bought four lots out there. And I want to take any more of y'all's time, but I want to help them any way I can.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for your offer of help. I'm sure that if the applicant is willing to seek out that help, they will address that with you directly. This application has been withdrawn. There's no further public hearing needed. Excuse me. Public hearing is closed and no deliberation needed because the application is withdrawn. Number three on the agenda. This is a subdivision. We have to still maintain recusal of Kurt Mate. We still maintain a quorum for number three, even with a slight recess from one of our commissioners. 3000 Bryant Road, resubdivision of the resubdivision of revised Bucci, subdivision of two lots, 2.48 acres. If the Planning Commission considers approving this request, it would be a waiver of 6C4 of a lot to a butt on a street. There are potentially nine listed conditions. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon, Johanna Bucci. I'm the owner and resident of 3000 Bryant Road. Out of respect for your time and your very long agenda, I know we are a holdover and you've asked us to bring a few things which we should have now. I hope we're not missing anything, but I just wanted to let you know that I am present here with my husband, Jordan Gerheim, and we would be happy to answer any questions that you'll have about our application.

Just questions for staff, where all things have been received and in good order?

Yes, the plot was revised as recommended, and that's what we're voting on today.

All right. Questions from commissioners for the applicant? Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision at 3000 Bryant Road. We'll now close public hearing, bring into deliberation, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. We will welcome back Mr. Kirk Mate from Yercusal. We will now recuse Mr. Larry Dorsey from number four. This is a rezone application at 6455 Howells Ferry Road, Grace Redemption Community Church. Request for conditional use permit approval to establish and operate a religious facility on property zoned all one single family. Notes for commissioners, there's potentially 10 findings of facts and six listed conditions. Is the applicant present for this rezone request for single use family? Applicant is present by show of hands and verbal. Are you in agreement with the listed conditions and an understanding of the potential findings of fact in the application? The applicant is in agreement. I'll ask now if there's anyone else here to speak for, speak against this application or have questions towards it. I'll ask if any commissioners have questions towards this application for rezone, for grace redemption, community church. Seeing none, we will close public hearing, open up deliberation, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

We need any findings of fact. There are 10 potential.

That's my bad. Move to approve with findings of fact subject to staff recommendations with findings of fact 1 through 10. Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact 1 through 10. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for rezone single family use of the church is permitted. We will welcome back Mr. Dorsey. This is a rezone application. We will send away again Mr. Kirk Matej for recusal. We still maintain a quorum. Rezone at 97 Center Drive, Silverstone Enterprise, LLC. This is a rezone from a single-family residential district R1 to multi-family residential suburban district R3. Commissioners, there are potentially seven findings of fact and rezoning request conditions that would follow under voluntary use and full compliance. YES, SIR.

YES, CASEY PIPES, 150 GOVERNMENT STREET. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. WE PRESENTED TWO MONTHS AGO AND IT WAS HELD OVER. JUST BRIEFLY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T HERE, THIS IS A REZONING FROM R1 TO R3. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHICH CALLS FOR THIS AREA TO BE A MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS APPROPRIATE WITH R3. The grounds for the rezoning, it's compatible with the current development trends. The site's bordered by R3 on the northeast and west side. The south side is R1, but it's the rear of a parking lot for a church that fronts over onto East Drive. So there's not a single family residence abutting the property. THE CHANGES IN THE AREA ARE ALL OF THE GREEN YOU SEE ON THE MAP AROUND YOU. THIS AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS R3. IT'S COMING DOWN FROM OLD SHELL ROAD TO THIS AREA OF CENTER DRIVE, PARTICULARLY WITH A DEVELOPMENT CALLED THE SOCIAL, WHICH IS ACROSS CENTER DRIVE FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS OF THE NEIGHBORS the activity that happens at the social i would submit that this property owner which is directly across the street from the social and shares the road that the social does is impacted more than they are on west drive in the farron woods subdivision since the last meeting i met with several of the residents that spoke in opposition in the atrium after the meeting uh traded an email with dr woods about uh YOU KNOW, WHERE I GOT SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION, OFFERED TO MEET, NOBODY SEEMED TO WANT TO MEET, REACHED OUT WITH COUNCILMAN FLEMING, SENT HIM SOME INFORMATION, SPOKE WITH HIM. HE DIDN'T WANT TO MEET FURTHER ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE JUST BACK HERE TO ASK FOR THE rezoning to be approved uh one other thing that we did since the last meeting there was some question or confusion about how many bedrooms there would be and so we gave a signed a voluntary use restriction that caps the number of bedrooms at 32. i don't know that we'll be able to even put them all in there but they're yeah but with the voluntary use restriction that's a record uh with this application there's a maximum of 32 bedrooms

Thank you, Mr. Pipes. I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners. We have heard about this application for some time. I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application for subdivision. Excuse me, rezone. Commissioners, I will remind you that you have, there is. Oh, well, please come on down. You do need to get some data from enrollment of the University of South Alabama since 2013 through 2026. I'm sure that our speaker is going to reference that. However, I am in full support of our president and the University of South Alabama and its growth trajectory. I feel like the university is growing, so I appreciate these, but I don't know how much weight it holds. Go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon. Roger Woods, 6094 Fernwoods Court, about half a block south of this proposed rezoning. I think you all know by now I'm not related to Commissioner Josh Woods. I oppose this rezoning request. I sent written comments to the commission, which I'll summarize now for context and for information. This application is justified by a claim of change in conditions. That is a sudden large increase in university enrollment. So the intent is to market and lease these proposed new units to students. And the commission will remember last meeting I showed data for university freshman enrollment much less than stated in the application. Now the explanation is that the planning application used figures from a university press release focusing on the number of new freshmen. But the planning application omitted the word new. and didn't cite the data source used. The figures for freshman enrollment that I presented last time showing a far slower rise in enrollment were taken from the university's publicly available database and are as accurate as the database. Now, planning decisions should be based on hard, accurate, scientific data, not upon press release headlines highlighting isolated figures designed for maximum publicity. While the new freshman figures may make a good headline, what's important for planning purposes is the excess number of students over university-owned housing places. So I looked up the actual figures. They're copied on this handout that I left at the front desk. I hope you're all able to pick up a copy because I can't include a graph in online comments. I'd ask you to look at the green bars on this handout. The green bars are the total student enrollment, less campus housing places. This was 24% higher 10 years ago than it was last year because the university has been steadily developing its own housing stock. Just since December 2024, the university increased its student housing by over 1,500 beds by developing its traditions and Southport Village complexes. Now exact university enrollment data for fall this year are obviously not yet available, but it's estimated to increase by around a couple of hundred over the last year. But the university-owned housing stock has increased much more. Remember those 1,500 beds? The number of students not having university housing will certainly decrease significantly this year. So it's just not true that there is a change in conditions favoring a new R3 development. The major argument for this application is not borne out by the data available. There's no need for this rezoning given current and projected university enrollment and housing data and the lack of community consultation and support. Neither is R3 accommodation suitable for faculty and staff, despite the application's claims. Also at the last meeting, access through Center Drive was raised. Lot 8 in Ferrywoods has road access to Center Drive, and so could the other Eastside Ferrywoods properties, although none has so far chosen to do so. Now, at the previous hearing, I believe Mr. Pipes stated that the rezoning application should not be denied because that would treat his client unfairly as he'd be expecting to rezone the lot when he bought it. Well, if this applicant accurately represents the applicant, that should have been a condition of the purchase. It's unreasonable to attend this hearing and say, in effect, I bought this lot and so now you must rezone it because that's what I want. I hope the Planning Commission will not be swayed by that, and perhaps Mr. Pipes might be able to confirm if that's what he meant. Comments I made at the last meeting regarding rampant antisocial behavior from the adjacent R3 development and associated reduced property values remain valid, but I won't repeat all that today. I hope you still have those comments. Mr. Pipes also stated at the first hearing that any poor behavior in the social R3 development across the street would be felt by his client as owner as well, but neither Mr. Pipes nor the owner will be living there. They won't have to put up with poor behavior from occupants of the social, but they're quite happy to increase the antisocial behavior that current residents must endure. As a small development, this rezoning will hardly impact student housing at all, particularly when compared to the major new housing developments being undertaken by the university itself. There's little positive outcome from this proposed rezoning at the cost of a very drastic deterioration in the neighborhood as voiced by clear community opposition. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully and strongly urge the Commission to deny this request for consistency with the Commission's previous decisions, making clear this application falls short of the required standard for support of the local community. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Dr. Woods. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application. If so, please come down to the bottom of the stairs, state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. I'm Mary Devereaux. I live at 6004 Sussex Drive, which is southeast of this proposal. If you could put back the site plan view. Thank you. So when I spoke last time, regardless of what happens with this property, we talked a little bit about water management, and I don't see anything that's advanced on that. This property not only sits north, of Magnolia Place, Sussex, Farron Woods, and the future item that's coming up later today that will go from East Drive back to Center Street. It sits elevated. There's been a problem with drainage. The city's had to come in on Center Street and put down remediation. And I see the parking lot is on the south end of the site. And I was hoping that at very least you would insist on some kind of water management and a permeable parking lot and anything else to kind of slow the water coming down the hill during bad storms.

Understood. Ms. Devereaux, I will let the applicant address your concerns on a rebuttal.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience?

Good afternoon.

Renee Smith, 6040 Sussex Drive. Would you all be able to go back to that plan that was up there with the green showing the apartment? Yeah. I just want to address that as we're worried about a precedent setting going on if an R3 is approved. from an R1 and as you can see if that green is all the apartment complexes are those all the R3s it looks like I don't have my glasses on so I can't tell but they're swallowing us up I mean We were there 1st, um, we're single family residences and in on Sussex. Um, we are our 2s, but most of us are single family homes. And these are 3s, um, when they're approved or are just following us up and then if you'll see on the agenda number 15, I'm worried about and we all are concerned about a precedent being set because, um.

We'll take each agenda item separately. Don't worry about 15 combined with this one. We can address it at that time.

Okay.

Let's focus on this one.

Okay. Thank you. So really it's just the precedent. If R3 is approved for this, we're concerned that R3 will come down and swallow us completely up. Also, I was given a comment by one of our other members about the unsafe infrastructure. Most of the multifamily properties targeting students for the university are on Old Shell Road, a four-lane road. Center Drive is wide enough to be a two-lane road. However, in front of the social student apartment complex, it's a fire lane with no parking signs on both sides. Students and or their guests from the social apartment complex regularly park on both sides of Center Drive. IN THE FIRE LANE, MAKING THE RIGHT OF WAY PASSAGE IMPOSSIBLE FOR FIRE OR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET THROUGH. IF ADDITIONAL STUDENT HOUSING R3 IS BUILT ON CENTER DRIVE IN THIS LOCATION WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPOSED REZONING WILL BE, MORE OVERFLOW CARS WILL PARK ON CENTER DRIVE IN THE FIRE LANE CREATING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND FIRE EMERGENCY PASSAGE HAZARDS. THIS WILL DELAY FIRE EMERGENCY VEHICLES FROM ACCESSING THE STUDENT HOUSING AS WELL AS BACK OF THE HOMES IN OUR SUBDIVISION. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Just as far as the fire lane is concerned, not necessarily a comment. Council Member Fleming has contacted PD about it, and I can assure you they'll be looking into that, making sure to start policing that a little closer. So I just wanted to add that comment since you brought it up.

Any others from the audience? Questions for, questions against, or have questions towards this? I'll now offer up the opportunity for Mr. Pipes to come back and address the concerns that have been brought up specific to the changing conditions of the enrollment of the University of South Alabama, which is, go ahead.

Thank you. Yeah, South Alabama is growing. know what the data is about where it was 24 years ago or whatever. It just seems like it's been growing lately. It's also been transitioning from a commuter school for local people to more of a destination school. It's only since 2021 that all freshmen were required to live on campus. So I think the demand has gone up, even if the total number of students has stayed flat or declined. And you've seen the school take an initiative to buy up other apartment complexes and other housing to try to meet that demand. What you've also heard, you know, I heard Dr. Wood say there's no need for this rezoning. But I think the simple fact is there will never be a single-family residential house built on that lot. The dilapidated house that's there now is unlivable, and no one will build a single-family residential house right there on the center, facing the social, facing all the issues that you've heard about or read about, that the people in Farrin Woods and Sussex Court have brought up. That's why the rezoning is here. That's the justification for the rezoning. I couldn't really hear about the comment about drainage, but obviously, there's a regulation that we don't increase discharge of water post-development from pre-development. So this is a conceptual site plan. The formal drainage plan would would come up at permitting stage or later or at some other stage than this. We don't have that done, but we certainly don't plan to discharge our water in a way to cause damage to downstream areas. And for parking, this is in the campus overlay district, so there's an extra 10% parking requirement, and the site plan meets those requirements. Thank you.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? regarding his comments during rebuttal. Seeing none, we'll now close public hearing, open up deliberation. Potential findings of fact here, if a motion is brought forward. Entertain a motion. No motion is being brought. I hear a motion to do anything else.

Mr. Chairman, I move to deny the application. And I can give you findings of fact if you'd like, Doug.

Can you give us a reason if you would?

Yeah, based on incompatibility with the surrounding land, infrastructure, we cannot prove that there's a significant change in conditions that makes some amendment necessary and general capacity of the area to handle an increase of that volume.

Was that a second from Mr. Josh? We have properly moved and seconded for denial of the application of rezone. All in favor? Any opposed?

Opposed.

One opposed. Opposition? The nays for, or the agreements for denial override the one opposition. So the motion does not pass for R3 on the rezone. We will now move into new extension agenda item. This is a, well, welcome back, Mr. Kirk Mate. We'll be here for a while. Number six is a subdivision at 5451 Halls Mill Road, Cloverleaf Plaza Unit 1 subdivision. Is the request any extension of an approval of a two-lot subdivision at 26.67 acres? Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Just to confirm with staff, this is their first extension request?

That's correct.

First extension request. Anyone in the audience have questions towards this extension? I will move to approve the extension. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any oppose extension passes new agenda item number seven subdivision at thirty eight twelve a bayfront road sunrise prayer house subdivision one lot point one five acres. There are seven listed conditions and uh commissioners there's a potential level waiver of sections six c two a one a substandard lot areas the applicant present. Applicant is present. Are you in agreement with the seven listed conditions? Applicant is in agreement with those seven listed conditions. Would you like to speak for, speak against, or have a questions towards it? Sir? Okay, he's behind you raising his hand saying he's in agreement. Maybe y'all should have sat together. We're all good on the conditions. There's no further comments needed unless you need them. I will now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards 3812A Bayfront Road. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this subdivision? Seeing none, we will close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subdivision staff recommendations with the waiving 6C2A1A.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number 8, subdivision application at 2620 Rose Court, Annie's Place subdivision, subdivision 1 lot, .89 acres. There are nine listed conditions. Potential waiver of section 6C9 for irregularly shaped lot. Is the applicant present? Two hands. Applicants? Mr. Burke, he's the applicant. You're just the engineer. Survey. Okay. In agreement with those nine listed conditions. Anyone else here in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item? Seeing none, we will close public hearing. Deliberation? Questions or comments from commissioners on Rose Court? entertain a motion if none move to approve subject to staff recommendations uh waving section 69 second properly moved and seconded all in favor aye the motion for subdivision passes number nine subdivision application northwest corner of elmira street and chatham street subdivision of one light one lot point one four acres nine listed conditions applicant present I'll ask again, is the applicant present? Question for staff. Do you have any indication from the applicant on whether or not they have any issues with the nine listed conditions if this subdivision were to go through?

Other than the initial application, we have not received any communication from the applicant.

Any of our commissioners have any comments or questions on this?

Mr. Chairman, I'll just make note of comment number two about the waiver of 6C6. It sounds like that's going to be one that comes up all the time about the corner radius, but it sounds like it's been written such that the city or traffic engineer can make that decision once they actually look at it, whether or not a radius is required.

Duly noted. Is there anyone else in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards agenda item number nine at Elmira and Chatham Street? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion, make a note that the applicant is not present, but we are not aware of any issues.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes for subdivision number 10, subdivision application at 130 Myrtlewood Lane, subdivision of two lots at .67 acres, nine listed conditions. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Are you in agreement with the nine listed conditions? Nod of the head, yes. Is there anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application? Myrtlewood Lane. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. Number eleven subdivision application forty two ninety seven revered to chain road. Subdivision of three lots ten point six three acres potential of a waiver sixty nine for a flag shaped lot design there are ten listed conditions is the applicant present come on down.

Zeke Hudson, Rowe Engineering and Surveying, 3502 Laughlin Drive. The condition of the radius at River Duchene, which is an overpass and Interstate 10.

Is that number three?

I believe that is correct.

Okay.

I'd like to waive that. Also.

Can you give us some reasoning on it?

This has been before you before, and it expired before. In previous conversations, I think that Mr. Amber had looked at that and decided that it would not be necessary as there's, since it is an overpass, there is the likelihood of needing a turnout radius from an elevated crossover. Doesn't seem like it would be necessary.

in this term i'll just add i mean this is you know we've gotten to this before where i guess maybe a major street plan required the 350 or suggested the 350. you know existing is 300 you know for them to do an act of widening the interstate and acquiring the acquiring real estate's a whole whole another whole other matter so i mean

I think that was number four.

Yeah, not number three.

I would like to also address the 350 when we get to that point. I'm sorry. But currently it's the turnout radius at River Duchenne and I-10. Yeah. Let me get back to that.

Sorry. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's basically the same thing, though, where Yeah, but I think the note on four, again, allows the city engineer and traffic engineer to work with you on what that final plat says. I think the note's okay. I think the bigger issue is note number three, which talks about...

But you can't turn from River to Sheen Road onto I-10.

I wouldn't encourage it, at least.

Right. So you're only going to do it once.

Yeah. I think we're going to end up where that's actually four is likely going to be struck from the plaque once they can look at it, withdrawing and look at it with you. Understood. Thank you.

Does that satisfy your concern?

It does. I do have one other in regards to the 350-foot requirement for Interstate 10. Right now, there is a building that's been constructed along with a detention pond that's in the southwest corner of that property. And right now we're showing that we have 150 feet to the center line of I-10 on that particular corner. If we had to give up another 25 feet, and I'm also showing it's about 15 feet from the right-of-way fencing that's there from Aldot to the top bank of that detention pond. If we were to give up an additional 25 foot on that end, that would put the detention pond within the right-of-way, at least a portion of it. So we would like to waive that and bring it back to the 300 foot.

I guess my comment would be to the best of my knowledge, there is no plan whatsoever on the sharp sea long range plan to widen out 10. So I'd totally be in favor of striking number three. Thank you.

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item at 4297 Riviera Deshane Road. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Entertain a motion for the subdivision.

Mr. Chair. Go ahead. If the Planning Commission chooses to waive consideration number three, it would be a waiver of section 6.B, as in BOI, .9 of the subdivision regulations.

So there's a potential for 6C9 and 6B9. We'll take those in alphabetical order. So it would be 6B9 first, then 6C9.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations waiving section 6B9 and 6C9. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes for subdivision. Doug, we're one-third of the way through. Number 12, subdivision at 1645-1655, Dawes Road, subdivision of four lots, 1.61 acres, seven listed conditions. Commissioners, potential waivers of 6B9, 6C9. Is the applicant present? Applicant's present with a raise of hand. Are you in agreement and understanding of the seven listed conditions? Absolutely. If you have questions, come on down. Reminder to state your name and address for the record.

My name is Jared Oates. We're looking into 1645 dolls to be divided into four different units. We're basically asking what are the conditions y'all are imposing on this?

So I will be brief and the restatement of the conditions that are listed and should have a copy. If you don't have a copy, we can get one for you right there. Retention of the forty five foot front yard setback on the final plat in lieu of additional right of way. Number two retention of the lot sizes in both square feet and acres as a label on the final plat. Or provision of a table on that plat providing the same information number three retention of a twenty five foot front yard set bag along dolls where lots two and three are at least sixty feet wide and compliance with unified development code sections. Compliance number four, five, six and seven are simply compliance with engineering traffic, urban forestry and fire. Do you have any questions on any of those?

We do not.

Do you understand all of them?

Yes, sir.

Understood. Mr. Oates, anyone else in the audience? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application on Dolls Road? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion. Applicant is present and in agreement.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendation, waiving section 6B9 and 6C9.

Properly moved and seconded all in favor. All right any opposed. Motion passes for subdivision number thirteen subdivision application one oh one marine street residences at Oakley phase two four lots point five seven acres. Thirteen listed conditions potential for waivers of six to be three for substandard lot with. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present. Raise of the hand. Are you in agreement with the 13 listed conditions? And she is in agreement. I'll ask if there's anyone else here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application on Marine Street. Seeing none, we will close public hearing. Deliberation, entertain a motion. Applicant's present in agreement.

I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Do we need to waive 6C6 as well? That's for staff.

That is if corner dedication for that radius, similar to the one Mr. Amberger brought up previously, would be granted by the engineer or city engineer.

Okay, so we don't need to do anything with that one.

If the applicant's in agreement to provide that dedication, then no, there's no requirement for the waiver.

Got it, yeah.

Entertaining motion.

So I would move to approve separate staff recommendation waiving 6C2B3 of the subdivision regulations.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. The motion for subdivision on Marine Street passes. Number 14, subdivision application at 1308 Old Shell Road and 109 North Ann Street. Old Shell Landings, 10 lots, 1.3 acres, 11 listed conditions. Potential waivers of sections 6C2A, 6C2B3, 6C3. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Are you in agreement with the 11 listed conditions? Got any questions towards anything on the conditions? Applicant's present. Good to go. Anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application? Go ahead. State your name and address for the record, please, sir.

Good afternoon. John Perry 115 North and street. Um. I am not born or raised in mobile, so it gives me a different perspective, especially with regards to your historic districts and the aesthetics and how special it is. Um, this is a very prominent site. It's right on the corner of North and street and old shell. It's very visible. Generally speaking, the properties in that neighborhood have much larger footprints than what's being proposed on the plat. I mean, I come from a city in the Northeast where they're not quite as diligent as you are here and not quite concerned about aesthetics or anything else. To put 10 buildings on that lot, on that corner, when the lots are so small, it's just going to bring the whole neighborhood, it won't bring it down. I mean, I'm sure they'll get good money for whatever they build, but it's just not going to look nice. And I really chose Mobile because I think it does look nice. So I would just ask you to consider the size of the lots. It's really, really very small for that neighborhood and the general, the single resident houses there. I mean, my property has almost 150 feet in front. So it's the largest lot in the neighborhood. And I'm not against development, but I think to shoehorn 10 buildings on a lot that size on a prominent corner, is really not going to do any credit to the district. Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. I'll ask if there's anyone else to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application, Old Shell Road and North Am Street. Seeing none, I'll give the applicant an opportunity to speak to address the concerns brought up. I GUESS, SPECIFIC POTENTIALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS CURB APPEAL.

MY NAME IS ELLIS FOSTER, 55th AND MARINE STREET. JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT, WE'RE NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL HERE. THIS IS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS PARTICULARLY BEEN DONE IN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND BEEN APPROVED. AND IT TURNED OUT QUITE BEAUTIFUL AND WAS WERE RECEIVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. And those were actual 28 foot wide lots. I mean, I was a tad bit wider than that. So by due respect and I appreciate, you know, his care for the neighborhood, but I can assure you that they'll fit in great with the character of the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Foster.

chairman i said a question um ellis uh quick question on your preliminary plot shows a 20 foot ingress and egress easement on the north side of lots one through seven and then that same easement on the west side of lots eight nine and ten i guess is the intent to have a singular access off ann street and then just basically allow all those lots to share access on kind of an alleyway

Yes, sir. All of the driveways abut into that easement. Okay. And they have rear garages. Okay.

So no lots will be, none of the lots will have access, direct access to Ann Street or Old Shell, correct?

Oh, sir.

Okay.

That's all I had.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? Anyone else in the audience, questions for, questions against, or comments towards this application? We'll close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion for the subdivision.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations waiving section 6C2A, 6C2B3, and 6C3. Second.

Properly moved and seconded with waivers noted. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Number 15, subdivision application at 162-186 East Drive. Spring Hill Villas Subdivision, 13 lots, 3.96 acres. There are 12 listed conditions with commissioners potential waivers of 6C2B2 and 6C7. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of the hand. Are you in agreement with the 12 listed conditions? Thumbs up from the applicant. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision at 162 and 186 East Drive. We have one show of hands for anyone else. Two, three, four. That'll be our maximum. Again, a reminder to state your name and address for the record.

good afternoon my name is riley bailey i currently live at 151 east drive coincidentally i'm the president of our jaguar real estate club the university of south alabama and part-time work with the czarza companies my only main concern for this and please correct me if i'm wrong is that it looks like that the you know the entrance exit of the cul-de-sac is though are those If a car is coming out, are those headlights going to be directly pointing through my front windows continuously? It might be a little bit south. I couldn't really tell with the documents there. And my second concern is that for the lot looks about to be lot one will be directly across from me. Are there going to be any plans to put fencing along there? the east side of that lot just for you know the privacy of obviously whoever owns that lot and so you know that way i'm not staring into the person's backyard constantly um as well as just a couple questions on if there was a proposed date to start construction what is the duration of that construction, and as well as what is the city's timeframe of when construction is allowed to be done from the a.m. time to p.m. time for noise restrictions.

All right. I've got your questions noted here. headlights, fencing, dates of construction, duration of construction, and city management of construction duration times during the week. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

So considering this is a subdivision application and not an application for all those other things.

We're going to let, Mr. Anderson, let's let the other two and then we'll go into our commentaries, commissioners.

Good afternoon again, Roger Woods, 6094 Faringwoods Court, one of the closest lots to this proposed subdivision not related to Commissioner Josh Woods. I just have a few questions about this subdivision application. Firstly, is it true that if approved this subdivision is for 13 lots only and could not revert to 23 lots as previously proposed and timed out without a further hearing here? Secondly, if approved, then can you confirm the only buildings permitted are detached single-family residences, each constructed of brick and each having an enclosed attached garage, as stated in the staff report page 5? And finally, are there any plans for a wall around the west side of this proposed, of the lots of the subdivision? Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you, Dr. Woods. The lot count will be stuck at 13 as the application is there. The home type and the fencing, we'll let the applicant address when they come back for rebuttal.

good afternoon again Renee Smith 6040 Sussex Drive and I also have a question as to what Mr. Dr. Woods was talking about is what is actually going to be built there I don't know if you have to deal with that today but I believe there's a standing court order that confines the builder to build only what Dr. Wood said, the detached single family homes, brick on the outside, that is how I believe they got their R1, same company, they got the R1 changed to R2. I believe they went through the court because the planning commission denied them an R2. They went to the court and I don't have a copy of the order but I believe it makes them bound to build only what is written in the staff report. So I just wanted to confirm that and make sure that's what it is going forward.

The Commission has no say so, no jurisdiction over what is built. This is just a subdivision of the property, and the enforcement of a judicial order would be between the parties.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Deborah, correct? Yes, ma'am.

Mary Devereaux, 6004 Sussex Drive. So we, too, have questions, a lot of us, about what exactly is going to be built there. To us, some of the application seems a little vague. For example, number of bedrooms, how high the buildings will be, things like that, the amount of green space. anything else that's going to be placed on the property. The fencing is a really good idea and we've thought about that also. South of Sussex Drive was Magnolia Place, which was going to be a 400 unit apartment complex. The zoning commission denied it and these construction came back with single family homes and they were required to put a fence around the property between it and adjacent properties. I think that's a good precedent here, particularly since we're on a We're cul-de-sacs trying to maintain safety and security and keep people from cutting through. Not all of the north side of Sussex has a fence. It only goes about halfway up, maybe 60% of the way west. So I think for privacy and safety, preserve the cul-de-sac and put the fencing all around, including East Drive. The other thing was to see if there are any green space calculations by the planning staff and see if that can be enforced. We do have some existing trees, particularly along the southern border of that that we're hoping to maintain. But they seem to only have the common area, and if those trees are kept, which I'm assuming because the common area is at a slant, which is where some of those trees would be, there doesn't seem to be any other attention to green space or water management. And just one last note, we really welcome having development in keeping with our neighborhood. We just, like I said, we're affordable homes. We want to maintain the quality of our neighborhoods between Center, East, and West Drives and Ridgefield. So, thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Devereaux. That was our third and final, I do believe. I'll now give the applicant an opportunity to come down and address the questions, and I'll rehash those for... For you, as you make your way down, there was a question specific to the headlights coming out of the drive potentially. Also, let me back step. This is simply a subdivision for the lots to go to 13. So I'll let you comment towards that as well. Fencing, potential dates of construction, duration of construction, home type, lot count max, and that fencing was on east. OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS WEST. GO AHEAD, SIR, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

NEW SPEAKER I'M JONATHAN PETTY WITH ACCESS ENGINEERING GROUP. LET'S START WITH HEADLIGHTS. SO I DON'T KNOW REALLY HOW TO MITIGATE THE HEADLIGHTS, BUT I DO KNOW WHEN THEY DO COME DOWN SPRING VILLA LANE, THEY WOULD BE DIRECTED IN BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS ADJACENT AND ACROSS THE PROPERTY. direct shine to any homes, I would suspect. For the fencing, I'm not POSITIVE THAT THE CLIENT ANTICIPATES ANY DIRECT FENCING AS OF RIGHT NOW, BUT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH STAFF THROUGH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW PROCESS AND PLANNING COMMISSION OR PLANNING AND ZONING, AND IF IT'S A RECOMMENDATION AND A REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCING, THEN OF COURSE WE WILL INCLUDE IT IN THE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE, AGAIN, DEPENDS ON THE REVIEW PROCESS WITH ENGINEERING. ONCE THOSE PLANS ARE APPROVED, THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THAT CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE OF I WOULD SUGGEST I WOULD SAY SIX MONTHS. SIX MONTHS A YEAR. I KNOW THE TIMELINE FOR AN APPROVED SET OF ENGINEERING PLANS, WHAT IS THAT, TWO YEARS, I WANT TO SAY?

NEW SPEAKER Oh, I'M SORRY, ONE YEAR IS THE TIME YOU HAVE TO RECORD THE PLAT. PLANNING AND ZONING DOES NOT APPROVE PERMITS UNTIL THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN FINALIZED.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. AND OTHER QUESTIONS, HOME TYPE, I THINK THERE WERE SOME uh recorded information in the previous uh i guess zoning requirements for this particular property for a cottage style community 1800 square foot to 2300 square foot homes so those are part of the requirements which is what we expect to see coming from this development and i think that sums it up did you have uh any idea on the exterior of the home The exterior of the homes?

I guess the question was, are they going to be brick homes? Or do you know that yet? I don't have that answer.

Okay.

All right. Any questions? Mr. Petty, any questions for follow-up from commissioners for Mr. Petty?

Yes, sir. Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

Mr. Petty, as far as height of the building, the residents, are we potentially looking at single-story, multi-story? Yeah, single-story, single-family residents. Thank you.

Any others? All right. Thank you, Mr. Petty. Question for staff. One of the audience members brought up the court order R1, R2. Doug, you mentioned it was between two parties.

Well, it's a judicial order. I was not involved in that case. I don't know who represented the city on that, so I don't know what it says. But if it's an order, if the order was granting the rezoning with conditions, then those conditions would have to be honored. I just don't know what they are.

Okay. I'm just trying to find some sort of answer for the audience member that asked that question, but I don't think it applies at this time for this subdivision application only. Correct. Anyone else? Well, I think we're done with that. We'll move from public hearing to deliberation. Subdivision, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations, recommendations waiving section 6C2B2 and 6C7. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Number sixteen, subdivision application north side of Greelot Road, 1110 east of Leroy Stevens, extending north 2730 feet to south terminus of Navion Drive, Cavallo Ridge subdivision, 141 lots, 51.7 acres. Is the applicant present? Present with a show of hand. Seventeen listed conditions, thumbs up in agreement. Anyone else in the audience here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item subdivision on Greelot, Leroy Stevens, and Navion? I don't see any hands. I see a lot of movement, but I don't see any hands. Somebody's waving to somebody by. That's not to come speak on this. All right. Seeing none, any questions or comments from commissioners? I will just simply ask that due to the volume of this. All right. We will close public hearing. Deliberation. Entertain a motion. Applicant is present with an agreement 17 listed conditions. Potential of waiver section C2B2.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, waiving section C6C2B2.

properly moved and seconded all in favor aye any opposed opposed one opposition still maintains favor quorum subdivision passes application passes number 17 this is a subdivision sidewalk waiver At 380 Schillinger Road North, specifically to request the waive of the construction of a sidewalk along 7th Avenue. This looks to be just a portion of the property. Mr. Byrd.

Jerry Byrd. Byrd's Air Van, 2609 Halls Mill Road, Mobile. Yes, I asked for the waiver at the corner of Schillinger's Road and 7th Avenue. Yeah, there's one oak tree. There's a water line with a fire hydrant, AT&T pedestal, fiber optic cable, all mingling right in that turn radius. And it was sidewalk would run a short distance in the open. Then You hit the paved driveway. Don't really need one to go across the driveway. And then where a sidewalk would end at the other end, on Avenue E, at about 15, 20 feet, there's an open ditch because they don't have curb and gutter on Avenue E. So it seemed like difficulty up here, a little good. paved driveway, ending at a ditch. It doesn't seem necessary to build a sidewalk.

This is just on 7th. There is sidewalk going, your agreement on the Schillinger, isn't there some sidewalk going in on Schillinger though?

At the corner of Schillinger. Build the one on Schillinger's Road. It's the corner radius and then along 7th Avenue. Got it.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

Mr. Berger, just to reiterate, the chair did as well. I mean, 7th Avenue, it's a smaller street. Obviously, like you're saying, it dead ends to Avenue E for the most part. I mean, there's not a lot going on on 7th, but you are willing to do, or the applicant's willing to do Schillinger Road. So we have the We'll have the sidewalk along Schillinger, but you're asking at the point to wait for that 7th Avenue little stretch there, I guess.

Yeah, right. Thank you. And the property on the south side is already developed into a commercial based on the old right-of-way, and there's not room over there for the sidewalk.

And then, I mean, I'm in agreeance with, should the colleagues here be in agreeance as well, I'm in agreeance with waiving it. I mean, If you go further up north on Schillinger, I think there's the Waffle House. And as development's taking place, we're slowly building that sidewalk. Your applicant's going to add that sidewalk as well. So it definitely helps build out that whole Schillinger Road area.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? Anyone else in the audience here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Entertain a motion. Mr. Woods?

Move to approve the sidewalk waiver. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Sidewalk waiver passes. Number 18. We're into the modifications section of our agenda. This is at east side of Hillcrest Road, 290 feet south of Greenlot.

Mr. Chairman, we've already gotten this one.

Oh.

We already did 18.

This was one. See, y'all always support me. Number 19, Kirk is recused.

Just trying to save you some time.

Appreciate you. Modification location of 1, 3, and 5 Mobile Infirmary Circle, which is a private road. I will not read out all of the infirmary drive addresses and then Mobile Infirmary Boulevard. This is obviously at Mobile Infirmary, major modification of a previously approved PUD, allowing multiple buildings on a single building site, shared access parking between those sites, facilitating the expansion of an existing hospital emergency room and incorporation of an additional lot into development. For commissioners, there's potential eight findings of fact and eight listed conditions. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present. understanding of the findings of fact and are you in agreement with the eight eight listed conditions we got a thumbs up from the applicant is there one else in the audience here to speak for speak against or have questions towards this application at the mobile infirmary on a modification of a previously approved development seeing none we will move from public hearing any questions or comments from commissioners From public hearing to deliberation, entertain a motion for this modification.

Move to approve service staff recommendations.

We need findings of fact.

A through H. Move to approve service staff recommendations with findings of fact A through H. Second.

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

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion for modification passes. Welcome back. Mr. Mattei, number 20 on the agenda is a rezone application, 4600A Hamilton Boulevard, K&R Diesel Repair. This is a rezone from residential agricultural district, RA, to heavy industry, I2. Commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact, and then, of course, the condition of full compliance. Mr. Byrd.

Yes. Jerry Byrd. A refresher. Hamilton Boulevard. which you'll probably have this in your report. Our site is here. When this came in, it was annexed into the city. This property that we're dealing with was a hydraulic crane repair and rental, I believe, on that site. Should have been zoned I-2 at that point in time. There's a 60-foot strip of land to the west of it that joins. There's actually a lot in this recorded subdivision I-2 up to it, 60-foot strip, we're asking here to be zoned. There's a note on the plat that all construction is denied in here except utilities, drainage utilities, and ingress-egress. So there's no residence could be built in there. That's are one of our justifications for doing this. Like I say, mostly it should have been zoned at that point in time when it came into the annex into the city. Mr. Chair.

That's it.

Questions or comments from commissioners?

Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, Mr. Byrd, I guess the use of the property, kind of trying to match that up with the zoning requested, I guess it's a diesel mechanic shop, I guess. That's right.

That's what he wants to put there, working on the 18-wheeler trucks.

Gotcha. And at this request is to ask for I-2. I mean, it's allowable, automotive repair, all the classifications of automotive repair, truck stop, truck repair, heavy truck, gasoline sales, auto service, all that's allowable in I-1. Would the applicant potentially be willing to, instead of upzoning to an I-2, consider an I-1 in this case? Probably. I think an I-1 would accomplish, you know, by right would allow that. I think there is some concern just about the speculative zoning and potentially to an I-2, I guess. But I don't know if the applicant, in your opinion, would accept an I-1, I guess.

Yeah, he purchased the property. Probably shouldn't have bought it before it was rezoned. But he wants to move his business there. He doesn't want to go beyond that. diesel repair. So if it's allowed, I guess I want to be fine.

Just to confirm with staff, I guess diesel repair does fit in the allowable for an I-1, I guess.

That's correct.

You must have been talking to Ben Reynolds. That's what I'm here for. I'm the council chair.

Question for staff, though. In I-1, the aggregate surfacing, is that allowed by right, or is that a...

It is allowed by right in an I-1.

Okay. That's generally the hang-up. I wanted to make sure that wasn't hang-up.

I would like to point out to commissioners there is opposition in writing from property owner in your file. It does go through some specifics. One of those specifics is use of the zone. Perhaps we can make some clarity for that. Also some other commentary specific to drainage elevations. I'll now ask the audience. They may be in here. Is there anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, against, or have questions towards this agenda item? So I've got to raise, are y'all together or one? Separate? So we have two. Is there anyone else? Make your hands shown if you're here. Three. Is there another one? I have a gentleman in a light blue shirt, dark blue shirt with blue hat, and jacket with racing stripes on the top. Anyone else? All right. We'll go in order. One, two, three.

Good afternoon. My name is Alex Kraft. I live at 1219 Texas Street. I am an adjacent property owner, and I was one of the people that contributed to the comment letter that you were referring to.

This is your letter in our file? Yes, sir. Okay. So, uh, so we have your comments here and we were able to read them if you'd like to summarize that.

Yeah, that's it. I wanted to make sure that you had seen them and, uh, just obviously, uh, we'd like to. There were some additional points to the staff report. I think that we hadn't seen when I submitted the letter, but, uh, specifically. There was a community meeting correspondence, uh, letter that was sent to us. And at the time, we were unable to attend the community meeting that was given at the date. I corresponded with Mr. Byrd via email and sent him a list of our concerns that were very close to what was in the protest letter. He assured me that I had valid concerns and that – he repeated the – the previous use statement that he made and that's fine but when i went to read the staff report it indicated that you know there was nobody at the attendance of the community meeting which was true but there was no mention of any correspondence or any other neighborhood discussions that were had and i find that's a little bit a lack of candor if anything to say that there was no, you know, no concern. So that's the first thing. The second thing is that the previous use has been stated that it was a crane repair facility, and that is not correct. I actually, hydraulic crane services was the previous, I'm sorry, hydraulic crane specialist was the previous owner, and I actually have used them for about 25 years as a supplier off and on. FACILITY WAS A CRANE STORAGE FACILITY. IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT B IN THE LETTER THAT I SENT, IT'S A GOOGLE SHOT OF THE CRANES UNDERNEATH THE POLE BARN, BASICALLY. THE REPAIR FACILITY, IF THERE IS ONE, IS OVER IN SARA LAND, THEIR MAIN BUSINESS. THE PURPOSE OF THAT BUSINESS for their specific use at the time, prior to the annexation and everything, was to stage their equipment for use along the industrial canal for their larger pieces of equipment that were too big or too costly to mobilize from . So that's something that was in the application that we find is incorrect, or at least up for contention. THE NEXT THING IS THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE. IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT D AND E IN THE LETTER THAT I SENT YOU ALL, THE DRAINAGE ON THAT LOT OR THE APPLICANT'S LOT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY LINE, MY PROPERTY LINE, AND ALSO TO MR. JOHNSON'S PROPERTY LINE TO THE NORTH. that drainage, that natural drainage goes straight into two ponds that are not on the site facility plan that are shown. So I basically made an attempt to delineate where the ponds were so that everyone can see that this is a major estuary for, I guess, Rabbit Creek and then Dog River. And besides the fact that these are both stock ponds that we've spent a lot of time developing the aquaculture on, We have some concerns about the potential use for a diesel repair shop in terms of drainage. Lastly, I think if you look at – and this is something that I – it's a – It's not a given, but it's not a good advertisement either. If you go and look at the K&R Diesel's current facility that's over on LaRue Steiner Road, and you look at the Hula Earth map, there's truck parts everywhere, there's tires everywhere, there's oil spots all over the gravel. And I just don't feel like that's a conducive use for a piece of property that was zoned RA, purchased as RA, and we're going to have to look at, see, smell, and deal with in that condition, if the current condition was to be applied. And that's all I have. I think I can turn it over to Mr. Johnson. He's got some more questions.

Thanks, Mr. Kraft. Thank you. Yes, sir.

My name is Joe Johnson. I live at 4562 Hamilton Boulevard. I got property directly north of him of this proposed site. I knew that that site was residential when I bought the property. I bought the property because it was residential around me, thinking we were pretty good right there and wouldn't have to worry about it. Also, all the natural woods back there, the ponds that all connect that run all the way off into Rabbit Creek back there behind my property. It's just a beautiful place. And I am very concerned about these chemicals and what have you might be used, as he stated in those pictures. There's another clean, what I call a clean pond that attaches to my pond. This all runs off. These ponds are a natural waterway straight into a creek that runs to Rabbit Creek. I've stocked that pond. I've cleaned that property. I've built that property. I spent $350,000 of my hard-earned money that I've worked for all my life to build this place. And I don't want to see it run by changing this to a place that if he decides not to do it with these zonings or ask for what potentially may come if he decides not to build and sell it to somebody else even. So I propose and I ask that it remains residential as it is now. My pond and all that, it's a major ecosystem that normally I don't even understand why anybody would want to change it or mess with it. We're big on... conservation and stuff because i spend a lot of money to the conservation alabama conservation uh around here i hunt i fish and i love nature and i don't think this is going to be healthy for it or for my property value for that matter that's all i got thank you mr johnson

Okay, your thumbs up. You're good to go. Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this rezone application? Again, it was applied for as R-A to go to I-2. Is that correct? And then there was commentary between commissioners and the applicant on the potential for lesser. I'll now close public hearing and go into deliberation. Open it up. Mr. Byrd, you do get a chance to come on down. My apologies. It's been a long day. Mr. Byrd, please go right ahead and address the concerns that were brought up by Mr. Kraft and Mr. Johnson.

I did talk to them on the phone, the concerns about water running here, Hamilton Boulevard's down on this end. And this is the owner over, this gentleman over here, and he's already talking to an engineering company putting a detention pond up here. Water will drain into it and be released at a slow rate like it is. He has a current business now. He's aware of ADEM regulations governing fuels and oils and this kind of thing. Further, I didn't mention before, five to six hundred feet to the west of us is uphill. There's a tank trucking company up there with looks like 12 to 15 trucks, that water runs down into this wetland area that they're referring to also. But we're going to take care of ours, and it'll meet city regulations, be submitted before we go into construction.

Any questions or comments from Mr. Byrd and the applicant?

Mr. Chair, I do want to clarify a comment that staff made just in response to the question about the I-1 and aggregate surfacing. Vehicle inventory and storage areas in an I-1 can be aggregately surfaced. Parking, other than what is provided beyond the required amount, is required to be paved. Just to clarify.

So the aggregate surface would be regular daily vehicle versus paved on any stored vehicle?

So aggregate would be allowed for any sort of vehicle inventory, any storage areas, and any parking provided in excess of the minimum amount required.

OK. Commentary questions from commissioners?

It's just a question for staff. I want to make sure I'm looking at this correctly the future land use map designation does have this uh property as well as the property to the east and immediate north as heavy industry correct that's correct and do we know so one one speaker said the previous use was for heavy equipment repair

The other said it was not. The photo we got looks like it was a shed. Do we know?

The most recent at least registered history we have with the site was for the crane repair. What they were doing without any sort of approvals, we would not have access to that information without any sort of testimony testimony from the previous property owner or any business activities that, you know, that can be proven. And that would be done through business licenses and the sort.

I believe one of the gentlemen who spoke and had concerns has pictures in his comments about the former owner and the storage compared to an actual repair facility. So that would be under public comments.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? All right, we are now at the end of public hearing. We will move into deliberation for this. And we'll entertain a motion for an amended option, as we'll discuss in public hearing. Is there a motion to be had, whether for or against?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I will move to deny the application based on no manifest change in the conditions in the area, making an amendment necessary or desirable for general health, safety, and welfare purposes and lack of compatibility with some of the adjacent properties.

We have a properly moved and seconded for denial of the application that is as stated RA to I2 with specific findings of fact listed. All in favor for the denial of the application?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

We have one in opposition. The remainder are in approval. The application for I2 is denied. Number 21, this is a rezone application at 2604 St. Stephens Road from single family residential urban R1 to limited neighborhood business urban LB2. Commissioners, there are potentially eight findings of fact and, of course, condition of compliance. The applicant appears to be present. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. State your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. I'm Nadra Williams. The address for the application is 2604 St. Stephen's Road. I CURRENTLY OWN THE LOT LOCATED AT 2600 WHICH IS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL MIXED USE AND MY APPLICATION IS TO REZONE MY PROPERTY AT 2604 ST. STEPHENS FOR MIXED USE. MY INTENTION IS TO BUILD A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS ON TOP WITH GROUND LEVEL BUSINESSES ON THE BOTTOM BRINGING TO THE COMMUNITY MUCH NEEDED Development in that area. I have a few ideas of a laundromat, healthier food choices such as a cafe. I will operate under the hours of the residential area, keeping in mind that it is residential. However, St. Stephen's Highway 45 is also commercial as well.

How long has that property on the corner of Reynolds and Stevens, how long has that been LB2? Is that a recent rezoning or is that legacy?

No, that's legacy. I was born in 75. It used to be an auto shop when I was a little girl there.

Okay, cool. To answer your question, Mr. Anderson, it was formally rezoned in 2007 to the LB2 designation. 2007.

Yeah, OE2 didn't exist for a long time.

Any questions for the applicant, Ms. Williams? All right, thank you, Ms. Williams. I'll now ask, and did you understand the potential findings of fact that were listed there?

I'm not familiar with them.

Is there a copy of that that I can... Well, we'll let you review those while I ask. They're... Traditional findings of fact that would go along with the potential approval of the rezone things that you would understand that need to be taken care of consistence compatibility health safety their reasons for us as commissioners to potentially award the approval grant the rezone or not

Absolutely.

I plan to work very closely with I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience to here to speak for speak against or have questions towards this application. I have one show of a hand. Was there anyone else? Just you young lady. Come on down to the podium. Miss Williams. Please make room for this individual that has questions and reminder ma'am to please state your name and your address for the record.

My name is Gwendolyn Smith. My name is Gwendolyn Smith, and I live at 2613 St. Stephen's Road, which is directly in front of this property. I have questions. I see that the information has been presented that this is the corner property is included and the property directly in front of me. At the time of the community meeting, the owner did not on the corner property so that property at this point has been acquired and so if that property has been acquired then this plan is shared includes 20 uh include uh 2304 and and also the corner property as shown rather than where we're looking at it here, it did not show both addresses. That's my question, basically. And then also, how do we determine if the procedures are carried out correctly as these properties are developed?

Thank you, Ms. Smith. And we will let the applicant come address those questions in her rebuttal, but I'll ask real quick if there's anyone else behind Ms. Smith. All right, seeing none, Ms. Smith, you can make your way back to the seat and we'll allow Ms. Williams to answer those questions. Ms. Smith's first question was specific to the acquisition of the corner lot. Staff, can you provide clarity on that?

Um, the application at hand is not for the corner lot. It is already zoned. It'll be to this application concerns the lot in question, which is just to the northwest of there, which is currently zoned are 1. they're proposing to rezone it. To the same zoning district is the corner a lot. So that's the lot that we're focusing on today.

All right. So, I think we've addressed that when miss Smith. Miss Williams.

Yes, and as as to her concerns as to, um, will I be following rules and guidelines this will go through the zoning department that, um, for permits and so on and will be professionally constructed, um, after the job has been bidded. So, any guidelines laws with all intend to be followed throughout the building of this. This, um, mixed use.

That is the condition, full compliance with all municipal codes and ordinances. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this agenda item? Seeing none, we will close public hearing, entertain a motion with potential findings of fact, if listed.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A, C, E, and G.

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

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion for rezone passes. Number 22 on the agenda. This is a rezone application at 4460 Dolphin Island Parkway. Rezone from single family residential suburban R1 to Maritime Light District ML. Potential eight findings of fact, seven listed conditions. Is the applicant present? The applicant's present with a raise of his hand. Are you in understanding of the potential findings of fact, and then also more importantly, the seven listed conditions in agreement with those? All right, we got a thumbs up and a yes. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that has questions towards this in favor of or in opposition to this rezone from R1 to Maritime Light District at 4460 Dolphin Island Parkway. We have one. We have two. Is there anyone else? All I saw was a gentleman in the green shirt and orange shirt. And was there another one? If there is, we'll go after the gentleman in the orange shirt. Reminder, sir, to please state your name and address for the record.

I'm Don Banks. I live at 1263 Skywood Drive here in Mobile. I'm a board member of the Alba Hunting and Fishing Club, which has property on Dog River, very near the applicant's property. And we're very familiar with what he is doing and proposes to do. If you look at the area aesthetically, it fits right in with what's there. There are two or three marinas there. There's a LaVorne's Piledriving. facility there all of those have vessels there they store store vessels there and the shrimp boat that mr noel has fits in very well with that area and he also the proposed use would enhance that area by by allowing seafood to be brought in local seafood that would make it very convenient for the neighbors and the residents in that facility to have access to that. So I think it would greatly enhance the value of properties and the use of the property and potentially tax revenue for the city, if that matters.

Thank you, Mr. Banks. Yes, sir. Orange shirt. Was there anyone else besides this gentleman coming down the steps? If so, please raise your hand high. All right, I don't see anyone else. I will also, while this gentleman gets ready for his comments, prepare. You've got, commissioners, you've got comments in the public folder. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight for your review. Yes, sir.

Yeah, my name is Harry Day, 2814 Kingsmill Drive, West Mobile. And I have been associated with Dolphin Isle Parkway, Fulton Road, Cedar Point Road, whatever you want to call it when I grew up there, for 76 years. This type of business going into where we're proposing it would do nothing but enhance it. It gives us the opportunity for fresh seafood off the boat from the loop all the way to Dolphin Island. It not only would enhance the Dolphin Island Parkway people, it would literally enhance all of Mobile. And I think it would be a very good decision for him to go ahead. I actually sold seafood to this place when I was 16 years old on Dolphin Parkway. It was a business. I don't know where it got changed, but it was a business. And back then, mullet was five cents a pound. So that gives you the idea how long it's been. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Questions or comments from commissioners on the potential of the rezone R1 to Maritime Light District? I will ask staff just to confirm so we get it out. This Maritime Light District is the first time I've seen it in a long time. Can you give us a brief, is it in my notes here on what it will allow? I see Maritime Light District

As far as the general description of the zoning district, so maritime light districts, um, are intended more or less, uh, to be located on or near in proximity to navigable, uh, water bodies and consist of maritime supporting commercial or light industrial uses such as marine supplies or ship Chandler East.

And in looking at the map, I mean, it's just low-density residential, but we've gotten approval verbally and written clearly. Questions, comments from commissioners? Entertain a motion.

Move to approve sort of staff recommendations with findings of fact A through G. Second.

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

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion for rezone to ML passes. Number 20. We'll pass the plate. Motion number 23 on the agenda. This is a rezone agenda item or application at 1509 Navco Road, Bayview Auto. Go from B2 to B3. Potential Eight, one, two, three, four, five, seven findings of fact and full compliance with codes and ordinances. Is the applicant present? Applicant's present with a raise of hand in the back of the auditorium. Are you aware of those potential findings of fact and in agreement with the potential conditions on ordinances and codes? The answer is yes. I'll ask if there's anyone else here. Speak towards it or have questions towards it. You have a question towards it or want to speak for it or against it. If there's anyone else. All right, please come on down. Reminder to please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Patricia Westbrook, and the address is 1501 Navico Road. I just had a question for him. Our business is right next door to him, R&W Used Tire Service.

Ms. Westbrook, will you get a little bit closer to the microphone with the red on it?

My business is located right next door to him. location he's uh obtaining and i just had a question for him about the uh will there be any fencing or any type thing that he would put up to separate the business since this will be a car dealership and the business is so close together will he uh have anything to divide the two so because once where our property line is uh it seemed like to me his parking lot is going to be small for a dealership so i was just wondering would we have to be concerned about the cause on our property line or do we need to uh do something about dividing it or will he be doing anything about it?

All right. Thank you for your questions. I will let him address those. I will now ask him while he gets into preparation to come answer those. Is there anyone else here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application? And just to refresh, there was questions on potential of fencing, and then size, and I guess use. But give us your reasoning on B2 to B3, and state your name and address for the record.

My name is Mohamed Haifa, 6595 Red Mabel Drive, Mobile. We're rezoning this property from B2 to B3 to be a used car lot sale. This building has been vacant for 20 years. We took it over two years ago. We totally remodeled the building, spent a lot of money on it. It's going to make the community look good. It's going to create jobs in the community. Speaking on her concern about the fencing, there is a car wash on the right-hand side of the building. If you're facing the building, there's a car wash on the right-hand side, which is there's a brick wall in between us. And behind the building, behind my property, there is a chain link fence. And the tire shop next to me has his own chain link fence. I'm not sure which business he owns next to me. And the mechanic shop behind us, which is, there's a fence, separates us. But if anything, I could do to keep her confident or happy, out of mind.

that's make her comfortable you're willing to work with the community yes yes sir all right any questions or comments from the commissioners on b2 to b3 for the applicant all right thank you sir seeing none we'll close public hearing go into deliberation entertain a motion for the potential to rezone b2 to b3 with potential findings of fact i have a comment in general um

First of all, I appreciate the applicant stating he's renovated the building and things like that. Certainly anybody who's willing to invest money in the city should be applauded. But, you know, as I thought about this and, you know, going from B2 to B3, it reminded me that, you know, I guess it was a couple months ago with a similar application on Moffett Road. And, you know, the concern there from the neighboring residents was that There's no way to control how many cars are going to be on the lot. And while the presentation was going on, I was actually looking at this site, and I noticed that the site we did not on Moffett Road was 0.6 acres, and this site is 0.3 acres. It is half the size of the rezoning request for the same thing on Moffett Road. And so, you know, I struggle with

That's where my struggle is, and I'll just say that for the record. Yeah, and also for the record, I can reiterate, I guess the problem, the challenge with that one probably could be a challenge with this one, hopefully not. But a lot of times these used car dealerships end up parking their vehicles on the right-of-way. They encroach into the roadway. They create a visual nuisance for the neighbors and the traveling public. This appears to be a fully paved surface. In some instances, when they're grassed, they tear up the grass, tear up the right-of-way. So if this does go forward, it might just be a good steward with your neighbors and don't encroach over into the right-of-way. You're going to need to know exactly where your property line is because that has become an unfortunate but reoccurring problem with some of the car dealerships. Okay.

MR. CHAIR. GO AHEAD. have that exact same request in mind. The Planning Commission denied it or did not recommend it for approval. It's in front of Council right now actually on our agenda, automatic holdover. We'll take it up next week. And again, I kind of do share those concerns. I definitely greatly appreciate the fact that anybody that wants to reinvest in the City of Mobile should be applauded. So thank you for that. And thank you for taking a building, like you said, that's been sitting there for 20 years, 20 plus years, But touching on that, though, and again, you know, addressing the fact that, you know, a lot of times these vehicles might end up on the right-of-way for display. And I guess my question to the applicant would be, would you be willing to potentially consider or be willing to maybe allow a conditional, I guess, a voluntary use restriction of how many vehicles at one time you would have there, I guess, just to prevent overcrowding? i kind of look at the map i think next door like you're saying there's a there's a car wash then behind that is more of an automotive uh repair business and it seems like they have some cars in the back and then um and then uh to your the the comment we had before we you know she does have his tire shop so i guess that being said um you know would you be willing to limit the amount of cars at any given time that's for sale because you are going to have to accommodate because i'm sure whatever business you're on you're going to have customers you are going to have to accommodate the parking with the customers and everything. Is there a number in mind that you potentially would consider? No more than 15.

Do you know how many parking spaces are on the property now? Come on down, please.

I just want to say one thing before he answers this. Obviously everybody was thinking of the same example when looking at this one. The amount of impervious surface on that previous application might be lower, even though the site's smaller, it might be lower than this. But I don't want us to get into a position where we're making an arbitrary decision just because we're eyeballing it, you know what I mean? I would rather know how much space is here that you could actually park a car.

Well, that's why I asked him how many spaces there are if they're in existence now.

I'm just saying that for the purposes of the staff. If something like this comes up, it does become impossible for us to avoid making an arbitrary decision, which is the kind of thing that we have to go to court over. That's what's on my mind.

Good point, and y'all can hold it over and ask him to submit a... DETAILED SITE PLAN TO SHOW WHAT THE AREA IS FOR THE PARKING FOR THE CARS AND THE CUSTOMERS.

LET ME SAY THIS. WHEN WE STARTED REMODELING THIS SITE TWO YEARS AGO, OUR ENGINEER APPROVED US FOR 12 PARKING SPOTS FOR CUSTOMERS FOR A RETAIL STORE. they're just for customers to park as retail store but the parking lot is enough to fit at least 50 to 60 cars if you do like these car dealerships where they park them bumper to bumper but we're not going to do that we're going to try to keep the site more space for customers and more space for us and the vehicles that we're going to care we're going to kill the quality vehicles so we're not going to keep too many crowded vehicles in there i could fit 60 vehicles if i want to Bark and bump with the bumper together, but I think between 15 and 20 max I'll have on the parking lot, which is plenty space on there. Right now we are approved. If you look at the city maps, we have a CEO from the city and we are approved for 12 parking spots. And then the rest of the parking lot, we're just going to add three more to it and the whole entire rest of the space in the parking lot.

Staff confirmation on the current B2 has got 12. Could you check that?

The site plan we were provided does not have any parking, so I cannot confirm.

All right. For my fellow commissioners, I think we add up nine existing parking spaces in front of the building. That's how many bumpers there are.

And I do want to point out, Mr. Chair, that the previous use of this site required so many parking spaces, and the site did not accommodate those. and therefore is given non-conforming status with respect to parking, that non-conforming status does not extend to the proposed use because they're completely different. I just want to make that a point for the commissioner.

All right. Any further questions or comments for the applicant? Do you want to get some confirmation? Up there it was 15. Down here it was 15 to 20. Let's land at a potential number. Should it be brought up for a motion that would include? Okay. Thank you, sir. Entertain a motion, or do you all need more time? Again, this is B2 to B3.

Would the 20 include parking for customers and staff?

Good questions. think the number we're saying that we're discussing is 15 for sale but you got to have some sort of inclusion of the number for those working in the building that's correct

And I do want to point out with respect to the restriction on the use as it pertains to the number of inventory, it would seem most appropriate for the applicant to file with our department a voluntary use restrictions form because it's notarized and it will have to be recorded in probate court with any potential rezoning ordinance.

Make sure that that's aware of should this move on through.

That and I think traditionally we would also have a condition that it's recorded concurrently with an approved zoning ordinance.

Now, I guess similarly with, and I hear what everybody's saying, and again, like, look, I'm all for people doing what they want to with their property. What's that? Sorry. You know, turn them up, Doug. You know, look, I'm all for people doing what they want to do with their property, but also I think we need to, you know, apply our considerations fairly. And if I remember, one of the questions or concerns with the Moffett Road issue was who's going to police a voluntary use restriction on the number of vehicles? And quite frankly, respectfully, it shouldn't be this lady's job to police her neighbor and have to call 311 or whomever every time. And so all I'm saying is that in my mind, I look at this very, almost exactly similar as the Moffitt Road case. Because if I recall correctly, that discussion about, you know, restrictions on a number of cars on the lot at any time, you know, was discussed. And I think the applicant at the time was willing to agree to something. And ultimately, you know, this commission elected to deny that application.

All right. Comment noted. Was that a movement? Was it seconded?

It was not a motion, but I will make the motion to deny the application.

We have a second for denying the application to go from B2 to B3. All right, we have a second. All in favor for denying B2 to B3? Aye. All right, I need to get a show of hands. We have one, two, three. Aye. Four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. Is there anyone here? Well, are the other four saying no to the denial? Let's ask that question. One, two, three, four.

No, I'm for denial.

For denial. I'm asking those who are saying no. So we have one, two, three, four. All right, that brings it down to the chair. I, too, will also deny the application. And the commentary there is I agree with Commissioner on the previous applications. Moving on.

So I just want to say this is exactly what happened previously. You got a voluntary, you know, some movement voluntarily from the applicant and then they get denied anyway, which is just kicking people in the teeth. I think when these come up, we got to do something differently because it feels like a huge waste of time and energy.

With that, I would suggest what would be helpful probably in both of them is a site plan that shows the actual number of the maximum number of vehicles and where they want to place them. Remember the one on Moffett Road, there was a significant amount of green space out in front of it, and that was the concern. So sites are a little bit different, but I think that would help us if we had layouts.

All right, moving on. This is number 24. On the agenda, a rezone application, 255 Church Street, a limit to downtown development district regulating plan, rezone property from T-5.2 to T-6, potential seven findings of fact, and full compliance with codes and ordinances. Yes, sir.

Hey, good afternoon. Jay Watkins, Mayor of Nexen 11, North Water Street, Suite 24290. I don't think there's any opposition, but I did want to just, for the record, provide standards of review. This is 255 Church Street, which is basically right behind y'all. It's the Quality Inn facility there. You know it as an older style hotel. All the rooms open up onto the parking lot. It's dated. That style of hotel these days are not in favor. The landowner would like to come in, remove that site, redevelop that site as a mixed use of new hotel, retail, and potentially residential. uh in order to do that they would like to go higher than the five-story uh limit that's in the t52 so they're asking to go to t56 under the charter permitted uses under the ddd it's almost identical in terms of uses that's allowed i think the only real difference would be that you could have venues there that have more than 100 people without a, by right, as opposed to having to come in for permissive use. So certainly here to answer any questions, but would ask that you consider favorably rezoning this to T6.

How many stories would be allowed?

At this point, they have not got design drawings yet. They have not spent the money to hire an architect or an engineer to actually design the site. They wanted to get the zoning in place first. Depending on how much on-site parking and what would have to be done in terms of a parking deck will determine kind of what they need to do going up.

In the neighborhood, 15, 20 stories probably.

Okay, thank you.

We're looking now to see if there's a limit in T6. Is there?

There's no height restriction in a T6.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant on the downtown development rezone? Thank you, Mr. Watkins. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item in the Downtown Development District. Seeing none, we will close public hearing and come back to deliberation, potential seven findings and facts for entertaining a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations and findings of effect A through G. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, the motion passes. Number 25, rezone 1451 Cedar Crescent Drive. This is a rezone request. from a multifamily residential suburban R3 to multifamily residential suburban R3 to remove the previously approved rezoning condition, limiting the number of mobile dwellings on the site to 133. So we would need commentary from the applicant on the reasoning and the number there. For commissioners, there's potential seven findings of fact. And then for the applicant, there would be potentially five conditions.

Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is John Ray. It's spelled R-A-Y. My address is 1100 Comstock Drive. It's in Las Vegas, Nevada, 89106. I apologize. I don't have quite enough. I do have six small packets with some photographs I would like to be able to distribute to some of the I'll wait till those photos arrive. Yes, sir. In the meantime, I will state a little history on the property. I bought this property approximately 12 years ago. I'm the sole member of the property owner, LLC, Tenacious Four. And I bought this property through a bank. I have a loan on the property. The bank lent me money to purchase a property based on 447 lots. And since the property has been built in 1970. It's been 447 lots. The water company every year since 1970 has been billing me not myself, but. the property owners based on 447 lots. They don't care if one lot's occupied or if 447 are occupied. They're gonna charge me the same amount of money. That is a hardship. The property had been previously managed by a firm, Sherman and Hemp Street, a property firm in Augusta, Georgia. They really did me a disservice and did not follow the requirements that were required for the privacy fence. Move away? Yeah. I don't do this every day. I apologize. Okay, thank you. So basically, back in 2022, a property manager went in front of the city council, as I am today, with regards to the question of the privacy fence. The privacy fence has now been well started at an eight-foot height under my direction, because I fired that property manager two years ago. This is the old fence you see in your packet that's been taken down. These are examples of the homes that people live in. I don't rent the homes, I rent the land. So what you have here is a community of property owners. They care about their properties, they maintain them, and there's rules and regulations for them to maintain that condition. So I'm here today to ask a request to go back to what it was originally built for a 447 lots at this time, or rather in 2022 without my permission, the property manager agreed to go back to 133 lots. So, um. Basically, just one more point here. I'm here with Mr. Jerry Bird, by the way. He's assisting me on this application. The water issue I've hit on, property manager, it is a source of affordable housing for the residents. They own their own home, and it's a source of commercial activity because you've got more people wanting to buy merchandise. That's the bullet points I'd like to relate and include in your packet.

Thank you, Mr. Ray. Questions or comments from commissioners specific to his request to keep R3 but to remove the dwellings limit of 133 to his requested number 413?

437? It's 447, and I would like to add that this is not going to happen overnight. I'm not a magician to add in magically 300 units, but over time, I would like to have that ability and would also solve the dilemma I have with the lender who lent me money based upon 447 spaces.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners before I ask if there's anyone else you have questions for?

I have a question. Go ahead. In the staff's comments, and I don't know if you've seen all the comments.

I have.

Yeah. That would require considerable changes with regard to landscaping and even perhaps the layout would have to change based on having to provide a certain amount of open space per unit and things like that. Are you prepared to meet those requirements?

Yes.

Mr. Ray, I've got a question for you. You said that the condition of the zoning in 2022 to limit the number of mobile homes was done without your knowledge or consent?

Correct.

I guess my question for staff is, Any type of rezoning requires an owner authorization letter signed by the owner of the property. In 2022, it was within the last 12 years, so I guess help me understand how that one might have slipped through the cracks.

The authorization letter signed by the owner gave authorization for his agent to act on his behalf. So what his agent did to limit the number of mobile homes, if there was a discrepancy there, that would have been between, from my understanding, him and the property owner.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the property owner at least signed an owner authorization form. That's correct.

Do we know the reasoning behind the 133 limit four years ago?

I don't remember it being like a point of contention. We can certainly look back at the minutes. I think that it was brought up just over the history of the site's noncompliance with certain conditions that allowed the use as a mobile home park never being complied with. I think that was more an intent to try to assuage fears that the surrounding community might have about, you know, further development of the property, but that's speculation. I don't remember there being any outright conflict with respect to the increase in number. I think that was just a request made by the applicant at that time.

And this has been a multifamily mobile home property for over...

Since the 1970s, yes.

Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So as of right now, one of the things that, one of the conditions was the fence. I think they did away with the buffers on back in either 2002 or another time that this got touched. But as of right now, the fencing, the fencing is done, completed.

There's an eight-foot fence. It is not completed. It's an eight-foot fence. We've got a very good start. I thought 50% is finished.

Okay. What's your anticipated time of getting that done?

Max 90 days. We're there at 60.

Okay. And then as far as the makeup of this, the 133, I guess, since we don't really have a real explanation of where 133 came from, You're saying right now there's hookups for 400?

It was built for the 447. All those hookups are there today.

Water, sewer power?

Water, sewer power, every one of them.

Okay. And mobile home dwellings here is what's being referenced. We're talking about manufactured homes, or are we talking about RVs, I guess?

No, no RVs.

Okay.

Thank you.

All the pictures that we're seeing show, you know, they're showing things that are appear to be in pretty good condition, pretty well maintained. What we don't show is any pictures of the actual roadway infrastructure that any residents might actually be using. I'm looking at some aerial photos and I can't really tell. Can someone speak to the basic condition of the roads? If you're at 133 and you're trying to go to 400 plus, it's almost like you're You're bringing on 300-plus potentially new residents into a subdivision, and if that roadway infrastructure is in a marginal condition, I think there's probably some concerns.

Let me just say that it's not going to happen overnight. 300 people are not going to come in next month. So if there are any conditions on the roadway that they will be dealt with, they will be dealt with.

Well, that's much the same as any subdivision that this body approves. When we approve the subdivision and the houses are starting to be built or starting to come online, the roadway condition is in like new condition before you start putting all that extra additional traffic on there. I'm just curious what the condition of it is. Aerial photos look like there's possibly water issues in there in curb and gutters. I just don't know.

It was built with drainage. It was built with drainage. Maintaining it like that.

This is just a perspective that if that condition is changed and brought back up, I think it needs to have a condition where that infrastructure is brought back into modern, functional, safe for residents to live in condition. And really prior to any, normally this would be prior to signing a plat, but this is really prior to removing a condition, I think in this case.

Mr. Ray, how many units are in there now? I believe it's 135.

So it's two over? That's what they're stating, yes.

How many acres is the site?

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it's about 56. There is enough open space.

Mr. Byrd, just by nodding your head, you did the layout of this, potentially?

Actually, that layout was based off of maps I got from Mals that they showed the original layout from 1970. put it together. It was a PDF copy, but we was able to scan it and get it positioned in. And then on that map, there's some that are existing mobile homes that are there now. And then the rest of them were filled in from that map. I've seen in the past, I've seen the development plans for that park, but They're not in my office now, I guess. I searched hard, but yes. All right. And I think to answer Nick, there's a large ditch along the south property line. I don't know which way it flows. I guess it flows toward the bay, but the park seems to drain that way.

Just a very cursory view of an aerial photo. It looks like the roads and the drainage systems, whatever they may be through there, are in very poor condition. That's all I can tell from an aerial photo, but you can see standing water on the road in a lot of places. It looks to me that Perhaps the site needs a lot of maintenance to get it back up into a condition, especially if you've got potentially 300 more residents coming online. Even if they're coming online one at a time, the site looks to be poorly maintained from what we can see here.

Jerry, he said he's selling... land or leasing the land, or leased lots? Leasing lots. What size are these lots that he's leasing?

Oh, gosh.

I don't know. That's because they're not planted lots, from what I understand. What you're saying is that the original plan back in 1970-something was one big lot, and they said, okay, you can have 400 and some odd trailers or mobile homes.

They're probably 35, 40 feet wide. because it was set with a, and there are a lot of extra concrete pads out there, but they had the trailer, the pad, and the utilities all shown. And I won't say that all of the pads are out there. I know the utilities are there.

I guess, because that got me to a question for staff, since Since I've been on the Planning Commission, I think this is the first mobile home park that's come up for any sort of consideration, I guess, from the R3 zoning perspective, which UDC allows 25 units per acre, but typically that's, you know, apartments instead of, you know, individual mobile homes. Is that still a, does that density still govern in the case of something like this?

potentially it would depend on the original conditions from the special exception from the 1970s I would imagine however if it were to be applied today then and this is just the numbers I don't want to you know upset anybody but they would be allowed to have 1652 mobile homes on the property so that's not withstanding open space requirements which is 700 square feet per dwelling unit so that would reduce that number significantly but I So to answer your question, if it applies, this is still the lesser of the two. Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. Just keep in mind, we still have to request if anybody in the audience wants to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this. Go ahead, Josh.

I'll be real quick. There's numerous times in the, you know, in the, I guess the history here, it says the municipal enforcement has been kind of busy at work at this place. Out of curiosity, outside of the fence, is there anything else that we can report back that municipal enforcement has been kind of working on here?

Uh, from zoning, uh, not so much other than the, uh, the conditions from 2022, which was the, if I go back to it real quick. The provision of the 8 foot, all privacy fence along the East side, um, and compliance with the remaining conditions of the 1970 rezoning. Um, which included buffering along all remaining property lines, except the South property line. and the buffer is gone 2002 kick the buck right and that is okay again my memory is a little fuzzy from 2022 but since that time um those conditions in full have not been complied with yeah I would kind of point out one other thing on um I think for the um figuring the amount of area

700 square feet per mobile home is what the city is looking for. I took 66 acres, whatever 447 times 700 is, deducted that, deducted the streets, deducted the clubhouse, and wound up with about 200,000 square feet extra green area that's out there. And there's a large playground right there in the middle also.

Thank you, Mr. Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Ray. If y'all will have a seat, I need to ask the audience for this agenda item. If there's anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards it, please raise your hand if you do. We have one. We have two. Is that all? All right, we'll let the ladies go first. Reminders, please state your name and address for the record and any questions, comments for or against.

Tina Bailey, resident of 3206 Bayfront Road. I am along the east side of this property. My family has had property there since probably the 40s. Ever since this property has gone into effect, we have fought here and there to try to keep everything in compliance or make sure that they keep everything in compliance. Going back to 2022, when the trailers were reduced to 133, that number was reduced. It was said that the fences were supposed to be repaired along our side, nothing has been touched. there have been more um trailer pads i guess you'd call them placed along where the wetlands used to be in the very beginning years years ago when the williams family owned that property um i believe when they first started They knew that there were wetlands through there. It was kind of like good old boys club from what I understand. They could use that portion as long as they planted a tree somewhere else. Well, now there are trailer pads right up against the east side property line. The crime, and not necessarily crime, but a lot of instances that have happened through there, people jumping over the fence, shootings back there, that type thing, that has decreased since this number of trailers. you know, has decreased, but bringing in 300 more trailers, we don't want to go back to everything that we had to deal with before with, you know, the loud music and the people, just everything going on back there. Um, I can't even put my dogs out in the backyard by themselves because fences have not been repaired. Um, My understanding, is it an eight-foot fence that's supposed to be between? Is that right? I mean, the fence that is there, it was ground level. They raised it up like two feet. So I don't know if that's their eight-foot fence or not. But we are... opposed to more trailers in this area.

Thank you. Is that all, Ms. Bailey?

Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Edward Franklin. Your last name, sir? Edward Franklin. I grew up in 1400 Tampa. Still own the residence there. I live at 908 Stan Road right now. As a kid, I remember when they first built it. Crime was like slowly rising here and there. I remember the issue with the fence. because the people who came was a lot more. They were complaining on the fact that people were crossing their property, making their own trailways to the other side of the streets. There were instances with the police chasing down people and stuff. But just from a factual standpoint, I'm just looking at traditionally studies show that transient people, and especially when you got the I-10 corridor real close by, they tend to want to stay in these areas where they can have fast access as well as do what they normally do. And I'm just against having more people brought into an area where they got it limited right now. I don't know if anything can be done for his situation with the water and power and all this other stuff where they can renegotiate and just look at it on a unit by unit basis. But we don't need to have those numbers escalate and then have crime go up even further. That's my quote.

Alright, thank you Mr. Franklin. Was there anyone else to speak for, speak against, or have questions toward this? Alright, I'll now let the applicant, Mr. Ray, address those concerns brought up by those citizens.

Thank you for the opportunity. The comments that were made by the last two, I didn't quite catch it, but the residents or neighbors, but they, I would not disagree that five years ago, four years ago, maybe even three years ago. They may have been issues, but since I terminated Sherman and Hemp Street from the management company, I can guarantee you that it's not the same park. I've got a husband and wife, on-site residents that live in the park, and three employees beyond them their sole purpose is to maintain and secure that part from any problems so and that's what we've been doing for the last two years so whatever they're talking about in the past is in the past it's not today any further questions or comments for the rebuttal for mr ray from commissioners follow-up question for you mr wright you're you've got 133 135 whatever the number is it's that's irrelevant and you're asking for 447 was originally built.

Is there any compromise between where you are now?

Well, listen, we're all grownups here, okay? And I understand your hesitation, your reservation. when you get comments from the neighbors of certain things that happened in the past, if you want to say, okay, well, maybe a certain amount this year and take a reading on it. What does it look like in a year's time? What does it look like in two years' time? But for me to go to the bank and say, I no longer have 447, that's a perilous situation to be in. And I really don't think that limiting it is going to help the neighborhood. It's going to probably hurt the property owner and maintain the loan conditions.

I'm not going to, well, no, I'm just,

Mr. Chairman, my comment is I think it would behoove this commission to hear from the staff, give the staff a chance to go back and review the minutes and find out there's got to be something to an arbitrary number of 133 and why I think it would help us to help us to make that decision. We applaud you trying to improve it and wanted to make it better. But I mean, I think there are some concerns at least from my perspective on the condition of the infrastructure and bringing more people back in. But I think it would be helpful for this body to hear what that conversation was via the minutes back when those restrictions were put on. I'm sure there's a reason why. We heard from the two neighbors that are against it. It's probably that plus some more. So I just think it would help that. My recommendation would be to lay this over to the next meeting and have a chance to get more information.

Yeah, I agree. I've got a lot of concerns from the fact that we render service here. We pick up trash and garbage. Adding that many units is an additional trash route, and we have a really tight schedule on those services, so we would need to do some analysis to determine what we can even do with that kind of volume.

Mr. Ray, would you be amenable to a holdover for your application so that not only our staff and this commission can wrap our hands around what may be an appropriate number to either meet your request or find some middle ground. It will also give you an opportunity to finish your fencing that has been part of the previous agreement.

That's fine. I just want to comment on the gentleman's concern about the trash. We do pay tax bills for trash based on 447 lots and a water bill based on 447 lots. That runs about $15,000 a month, and they will not reduce that water bill if I have 133 or 120 or 250. I'm still paying that same water bill and the same trash bill based upon those units since 1970.

You do not pay additionally for trash for any of those units.

Well, I apologize if I'm not correct on that. I do know the water is based on 447 lots. I apologize if I'm wrong there.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

For reference, the zoning application from 2021, it's 0019152021. It was actually based on the site plan that was submitted for a 66.09 acre site developed with 129 mobile homes and one office clubhouse structure. A note on the plan states that four additional mobile homes are planned to be placed on the site. So it was, and I'm still saying let's look at it, but based on this, it's the site plan that was submitted back in 2021.

I'd have to refer to my surveyor what happened there, but I wasn't aware. All I know is that it was built for 447. Sure. Enough that the bank lent me money on it.

My hope is that you can maybe work with Moz on that a little bit. to reduce that, that you're not operating 447 lots.

They're pretty adamant they're not going to change the water bill.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Ray.

Thank you.

Any further comments, commissioners? We'll close public hearing, go into deliberation.

I'm sorry. I move to hold over until the August meeting. Second.

Before I bring that to a vote, I'll ask staff if the August meeting agenda items are at account.

Um, the August twentieth meeting is fine. Uh, the deadline for that's not till next week. However, I would ask that if there's this additional information that's being requested that we're specific about what the commission is asking for so that we can provide the applicant with the deadline to provide us with that information in preparation of next month's meeting.

Yeah, I would request that the staff basically just provide us the basis of what that 33, information that they had, review the minutes and the discussion, and just give us a better understanding of how we arrived at the 133.

Understood.

I would add, it would be helpful for us, but I think especially the applicant, that last paragraph of the planning comments was a point that I kind of got hung up on, that mentions that, you know, the removal of the condition would not necessarily restore the development intensity compatible by the 1970s. And it kind of goes on that, you know, there may be additional approvals that will be required under the current UDC and references special exemptions and conditional uses. I just think, you know, my read of that was even if this was approved, there's other steps to the process.

The comment was made under speculation just in case there was additional approvals that were necessary. The question came up that by limiting them to 133 and that was codified as part of an ordinance, removing that and allowing additional units did that mean that it basically started over from the beginning of the process what would that look like in terms of approval for this type of use currently a conditional use permit is necessary for a mobile home park in an r3 district however at the time it was developed a special exception was what was required for approval in an r3 district for the use so that's more of a question for legal to kind of untangle but it was put in there for discussion

Do we have a motion and a second?

Yeah. Yes, sir.

For a holdover until August Planning Commission meeting. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Mr. Ray, get with staff after this meeting, because if there's anything required before the deadline of next week, we want to make sure we get that material to you and Mr. Byrd. or you guys get access to that. All right, moving on. Number 26 on the agenda, rezone application, west side of Weinecker Avenue, 151 feet north of Virginia Street. It's a rezone request from single suburban residential urban R1 to two family residential R2, potentially seven findings of fact and conditions pending. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of the hand. Have you read the potential findings of fact there? And it would be understanding of the of the conditions. The applicant is in agreement. This is going from R1 to R2. I'll ask if any of the commissioners have any questions based on your readings of the file. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that would have any questions for, towards this application, is for it or against it. If so, raise your hand. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Go into deliberation. Any questions or comments, again, from commissioners?

I would move to approve subject to staff recommendation with findings of fact A through G. Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The rezone to R2 is granted. We have a combo application number twenty seven. This is a subdivision. And a sidewalk waiver at forty, eighty six Riviera to Shane road hack, hack, barth, garden subdivision. The subdivision application is one lot at nineteen point two acres and then a request to waive the construction of sidewalk sidewalks. Along Riviera Shane and Lloyd station road. For the subdivision application, there's potentially 11 conditions and on the sidewalk waiver, we will leave that to the applicant. Yes, sir.

Patrick Garstecke, CMG Engineers, 457 St. Michael Street. We are good with the subdivision comments. There's 11, I think there's 11 comments that are right for considerations. On the sidewalk waiver, I just want to reiterate that to my knowledge there's no sidewalks on Riviera Duchesne that is no curb and gutter as well so there's ditches on both sides and a ditch on this side especially and then you have that intersection of at Lloyd station as well that would be a little complicated for a sidewalk and also the overpass on I-10 is not wide enough for a sidewalk so I don't see much of a need for a sidewalk here as well

questions or comments from commissioners for mr garstecchi regarding either the subdivision or the sidewalk waiver so regarding the sidewalk this isn't going to be this isn't going to be a public amenity or anything like that yeah so this is it is it like a driveway when we're looking at the site plan it's just like a driveway going in and then going around it is that effectively what that yep to a garden area for family that lives actually further down the street on rivera duchene

Any further questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Karsteki. I'll ask the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item, which is a combo application of a subdivision and a sidewalk waiver along Riviera DeShane and Lloyds Station. All right, seeing none, we'll go close public hearing, get into deliberation, take them separately, entertain a motion for the subdivision. move to approve subject staff recommendations second properly moved and seconded all in favor aye any opposed the motion for subdivision passes sidewalk waiver application move to approve the sidewalk waiver second properly moved and seconded all in favor aye any opposed motion for sidewalk waiver passes number 28 It's a dual application of a subdivision and a modification at 753 and 755 Bowling Brothers Boulevard. 9065 Commercial Park Subdivision. On the subdivision, it's three lots, 34.3 acres. And then on the modification, it's a previously approved planning approval allowing a baseball park, stadium, ice rink, and museum and a B3 community business suburban district to modify the lot lines in coordination with the proposed subdivision and remove two lots from the existing planning approval. On the subdivision, there are potentially 10 listed conditions. And on the major modification, there are potentially eight findings of fact there. And then again, 17 listed conditions. Is the applicant present? The applicant's present with raise of hand. On the subdivision, are you in agreement with those conditions? Thumbs up. On the major modification, understanding of the potential findings of fact. And then on the major modification, the 17 listed conditions, thumbs up again. Thank you, sir. Give commissioners a chance to review that. I'll ask them in the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application. Yes, ma'am. Reminder to state your name and address for the record.

Susan Jamerson, 2751 South Farray Drive in Mobile. What are you going to turn that into?

So address the questions to us and then they'll pick it up.

What is he going to turn it into is the question. Why is it going to get turned into two different lots? That's the only question.

Understood.

I'm sorry. And how much traffic will it bring? Because with all the businesses that's been there, it's really hard to get out onto Halls Mill Road from visiting that Costco or wherever.

Gotcha. All right. Do you like to comment for your plans?

Brian Metcalf, Metcalf & Company, 5 Dolphin Street. I represent the ownership. So we have a 34-acre site that we've been trying to market as one site. So we have two interested parties in commercial use, both national companies. So we're simply subdividing the property into three lots. All B3 type uses.

So to answer the citizen's question, it would be going from one lot to three on the subdivision, but there's no development plan.

No development plan past what's there now.

Correct. I think that was it. Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant? Mr. Metcalfe, while he's here. All right. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf. Any further questions, comments from the audience? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing, go into deliberation. We'll take them separately. Subdivision 1 to 3 at 34.3. Move to approve Secretary Steff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Subdivision passes. Modification? Spot lines? Maintain the motion.

Move to approve the modification subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion for modification passes. Number 29 on the agenda, dual application of subdivision and rezone, 2694 Government Boulevard and 2750, 2754, 2756 Brookley, Sagging Oaks subdivision. On that subdivision, it's one lot, 2.53 acres. On the rezone, request from R1, B1 and B2 to a combined B3. On the subdivision, potential 10 listed conditions, we would have finding of facts on the rezone and conditional of compliance and rezoning process. Mr. Byrd.

Yes, Jerry Byrd. On the rezoning, there's no changes planned for the building, the property. As it shows there, R1 is between this property and McDonald's, B1 at the West End. The balance of the property is on B2, but it's been used as a B3 use through, I guess, Board of Adjustment. And the property is being sold. New buyers want to bring it into compliance so they don't have to keep coming back to the Board of Adjustment or whatever. The property is, as far as subdivision goes, property is comprised of legal lots of record, meets and bounds parcels, and just putting it all into one single lot. We would like to ask for the waive condition number one and two, I think. That's the widening of the street, dedication of right-of-way. wherever there it is on government boulevard uh city says that's a 250 foot wide necessary right away it is existing 236 and two streets down From our site, this subdivision was put in in 2019, and it's 236 foot right of way, so apparently the Planning Commission then waived that 250 foot requirement. On Berkeley Avenue, That served, they're asking for a 60-foot right-of-way. It's existing 50-foot, but it has served many years of good use down through there, I guess with no problems and no additional right-of-way ever being required. I know it's been in existence. I've driven on that street ever since I was 16 years old, and that's a long time. But we're asking for the waiver of both of those widening. Other than that, the conditions on the subdivisions, we're agreeable to. And the zoning will meet all the codes.

All right, thank you, Mr. Byrd. Questions from commissioners? Specific in his order, we'll do the rezone first. Any reasons, questions, concerns on the rezone to combine into B3? And then for the subdivision, any questions? Sir, go ahead.

Um, I just wanted to point out that, um, prior to this meeting, staff was able to locate the, uh, out dot right away map for this location, uh, which established a 236 foot right of way, which is illustrated on the plat for government Boulevard. Um, so staff would be amenable to, um. The, uh, removal of condition number 1.

Mr. Bird was asking for one and two, or just one? And you were asking for a waiver of condition one?

And two. One and two.

Any commentary on the waiver of potential for Brookley?