Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the meeting of the Mobile Planning Commission for July 17th, 2025. I would like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. Our meeting is divided into two sessions. The public hearing session and the deliberation session. In the public hearing agenda item is called, the applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions. Members of the public make their comments to the commission. Only four people may speak in favor of an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. At one minute remaining, you will have you will hear a warning bell or beep prompting you to summarize your comments. After opposition speakers have finished, the applicant is allowed a two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, come to the podium, speak into the microphone, and provide your name and address for the record. Direct all comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, staff, or audience. After hearing all applications, the commission will go into the deliberation session. In the deliberation session, the commissioners discuss each application with input from staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. The commissioners then vote on each application. Results of the meeting can be learned from the planning department. If some issue arises during the deliberation session that were not addressed in the public hearing, the chairman has 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, a commissioner may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application. A recusal does not mean that the member is directly involved with the application or the applicant. However, depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require a recusal, even if there is only the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest. If a regular member recuses, a super numerary will vote in theirstead. The planning commission makes final

decisions on subdivisions with appeals of these decisions to circuit court. The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and plan developments. The city council makes the final decision on these applications. All appeals of city council decisions are directly to circuit court. Please turn off all cell phones and electronic devices at this time. Commissioners and staff, please remember to turn your microphones on when speaking. We'll have the roll call. Uh chairman, Mr. Stubs is not here. I'm filling in. Uh so y'all bear with me today. Miss Jennifer Densen not here. Mr. Harry Brlin here. Mr. Larry Dorsey here. Mr. Mr. Chad Anderson

here. Mr. Matt Anderson. Mr. Nick Amber. Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols here. Mr. Ellie Edwards here.

That establishes a quorum. All right, we'll move on to the agenda. Agenda item number one. This is an extension of the approval of a one lot subdivision at 4125, 4137, 4151, and 4203 Moffett Road. Oh, and we have a recusal from Mr. Nichols. Is the applicant present? Any comments, concerns with the staff report? Uh Andrew Hodgees with Row Engineering. Um there's no additional comments. Just wanted to state that the due diligence period was extended. Um they the applicant does plan to move forward with the one lot sub and eventual development of the sub.

Anyone here to speak for agenda item number one? Anyone want to speak against it? All right, moving on. Agenda item number two. This is a subdivision of one lot 72104th Street. Is the applicant present? And we have recusal from Mr. Dorsy. Bird.

Yeah. Trying to find a place to lay this down. Jerry Bird bird surveying for the owner who is in attendance. Simple one lot subdivision combining nine lots of record. That is this small area down here. The property fronts on 14th Street. It's a 30-foot rideway and it is paved. We are proposing dedication of a 10-ft widen strip which is a required width. Lincoln Boulevard has never been opened. It's still unimproved. It's just dirt. It only extends at present 100 ft from the right away of 14th uh street. We've asked that the 10-ft widening strip, the required 10-ft widening strip on Lincoln Boulevard to be waved since the city or the county or whoever paved 14th Street did not pave that. Didn't see fit to and probably because it it flows down in don't think it would ever go any further than this property line. All of this green area is 11 acres on this church property drains into a hole right at the north end of Lincoln Boulevard. To extend that street would be expensive for anyone, the city, an individual or church if they wanted to try to bring it in. Don't think it would ever be extended. As such too, we've asked for the waiver of the 25 ft uh radius at the northwest corner of

14th Street and Link uh and Lincoln Boulevard because that would be not necessary either. Other than that, we're okay with So, the only comment would be I guess that's number seven. Sure. Number seven is what you're seeking a waiver on just the corner radius. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, the uh engineering had a comment to require a a a less uh large radius, a 15t radius is what we required in our comment. So, are you okay with a 15

foot? Would that be okay? Are you trying to eliminate that also? I'd like to eliminate the radius on the corner is not going to be necessary. Engineering has no problem with eliminating that 15 foot radius requirement. Okay. The the widening I cannot speak to that Mr. Chairman. Um question for so you said that Lincoln Boulevard is unimproved. No unimproved. It's just dirt. 14th Street is paved.

Can Can engineer check that? Because I'm looking at Google Maps and it looks pretty paved to me. I think he's he's talking about the north side of that intersection. Oh. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. I see. Oh, okay. Understood. I was like, what what are you what are we trying to do here? third driveway and do a retention time. Okay.

All right. Uh, anyone else here to speak in favor of agenda item number two? Anyone here to speak against it? All right, moving on to number three. This is a subdivision of two lots at 6704 Autumn Ridge Drive. How y'all doing today? Um, the subject property name and address for the

I'm sorry. Rashan Figures Figures Construction and Development 2476 Commercial Park Drive.

Go ahead, Mr. Figures. The subject property um we're talking about today was originally a private owned pool and pool house maintained by the homeowners association. Over time, the facility fell into disrepair and became a blight on the community. In response, the city of Mobile through its public nuisance abatement authority acquired the property and substantially uh demolished the existing structures after a formal vote by the city council declared the site a public nuisance. Following that action, our firm acquired the parcel from the city and completed the first hope house to be built in West Mobile. This project was intentionally designed as a market rate home despite being a part of an affordable housing program to ensure it blended seamlessly with the character and the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The home was wellreceived and had no adverse impact on the existing community. Building upon the success of this initial project, we are now proposing the construction of two additional homes on the remaining portion of the properties. These homes are intended to provide highquality housing for essential workers. Specifically, a teacher, firefighter, or police officer will be living in these homes. We have taken care uh to maintain all existing neighborhood setbacks and architectural standards in our design. The only variance we see today relates to a minimum lot uh square footage requirement by the city as both proposed lots fall slightly below the city standard threshold. Uh however, we believe this minor deviation is justified by the substantial public benefit these homes will provide to our community and our essential workers. Completing the development of this corner will third. Thoughtfully designed homes that support those who serve our community represents a meaningful and impactful investment in the neighborhood's future. Any question?

We were going to ask We we would ask that it's 15 but you know um we we could work with it if it didn't but we would ask for the adjustment cuz it's 25 uh foot setbacks and then you have the 25T set back off the corner which makes that first one a challenge. So Rashan, to be clear, you'd be seeking a because it's a corner lot, you'd be seeking a 15 foot setback on front and quote unquote side or just if we could just get it on the front, I would be happy with that.

Meaning and in the front to clarify, the Autumn Ridge Road frontage or the gas light. Okay, the gas light would be would be fine because it would marry the other house on the other side. Okay. So just a so 15 ft on auto from that will make that corn a lot more functional

then and just for clarification the intent here would be to build uh two houses kind of similar nature same purpose as the house that you constructed just to the north correct the house that we constructed for the north was the hope problem So you you uh you take a section 8 voucher and create it to a mortgage, right? These two homes on Autumn Ridge will be teachers, firefighters, and policemen. So it won't be on the exact same program. Okay? Only teachers, firefighters, and policemen will be sold these houses. Okay,

Mr. Chair. Yeah. Go ahead. Uh just to point out that the setbacks are actually part of the dimensional standards of the UDC. Uh they're not part of the subdivision regulations. So in order to wave or reduce those requirements, they would have to get a variance and those go before the board of zoning adjustment. We'll take it like it is.

One more step in the process. Mr. Big, uh any other questions or comments by the commission? Is anyone else here to speak in favor of this agenda item? Is anyone here to speak against this agenda item? See anything? We'll move on. Agenda item number four. This is a request to wave the construction of sidewalks along Monk Avenue at 7735 Monk Avenue. Is the applicant Oh, there you are.

Yes. Uh I'm Vince Lose Bethl Engineering uh 3233 Executive Park Circle um representing my client Jeff Frame who has purchased this property on Monk Avenue to uh put in a um a boat and RV storage facility. Most of it outside storage. He does have a proposed building with five bays with rollup doors. No office space, no on-site staff. uh basically an electric gate controlled, you know, by an app that allows people in and out uh for their storage and requesting a sidewalk waiver. This area um you know has has been undeveloped for a long time, several lots in a row here. It's a 40ft rideway and it's really been grown up and been an area that's been a homeless encampment for a while. So, he's trying to get in there and improve this area. And um you know, really I I understand per the engineering comments a sidewalk can fit. It is a narrow rideway, so it'll probably be off the rideway. It can fit, but the slope of the property just beyond the sidewalk gets pretty steep. And really the big issue we have is with the new UDC if the sidewalk is required then what comes that comes with that as a requirement that that sidewalk be connected to the building and so that connection of the sidewalk to the building becomes pretty problematic. It would require a lot of ramps and landings and handrails and switchbacks to get down that steep slope to a building that has no office. It has it's five rollup doors and so you're basically requiring a sidewalk that like goes to nowhere and then an extra gate with an extra controller and so it creates a hardship by placing a sidewalk

out front. It means we have to build a sidewalk to the building. Um and so that's probably the biggest issue that we have here and um would request that the waiver be considered uh to allow this project to move forward. Any questions or comments by the commission or staff? Anything else? All right. Is anyone else here to speak in favor of agenda item number four? Anyone here to speak against it? Moving on to agenda item number five. This is a conditional use permit for short-term rental in R1 single family residential suburban district at 2316 Hillwood Drive West. Name address

Ryan Klowski R&P Investing at 2316 West Hillwood Drive. Requesting a conditional use permit to rent the single family residence at that location on a short-term basis. It's been operating as such for a while and there's been no issues. And then I did have a comment in the staff report. I noticed it stated that the location did not meet the parking requirements and the garbage screening. And I just wanted to address that there's plenty of parking and space for that to be screened.

Any questions or comments by the commission? So, so did we get photos that illustrate that the garbage cans are screened? What is that, sir? Sorry, he was addressing. those addresses. Um, no, we have not gotten those and that's why those were in there just to kind of make a point that um, if this is approved on the um, considerations agenda, um, there are conditions of approval prepared which would include the revision of the site plan to show the parking, the provision of the um, screening for the trash cans as well as photographs of that screening. Got it.

Yeah, Mr. Klesky, the staff report makes reference to u a few items. I think they weren't turned in. I believe there are some photos. Would you have a chance to look at that or turn any additional information in?

No, sir. Uh, one question I had looking at the staff report that there's references to refuse garbage and it states that the site does not meet the criteria for being screened from view or no closer than 20 feet from any property line, no closer than 100 feet from any dwelling. Can you speak to that at all?

Yes, it meets those requirements. I guess I just didn't have a photo specifically documenting it. The lot itself is over an acre and then it actually has the adjoining lot next to it that's undeveloped and unbuilt in. So there's plenty of room to meet the requirements. I guess I just don't have a specific photo representing that. I've got a question for staff. Um probably more global in nature. I believe this is the second conditional use permit application that's come before us. Um I see that the staff recommendation is to hold over until the uh August meeting. I guess do we have uh the authority to approve subject to the applicant meeting the conditions uh outlined that are not met if staff signs off on those at a later date? Like if he submits the information after the meeting and satisfies the criteria, then can the

uh Yes, sir. And that's the way that the considerations were written. Um if you adopt those findings of fact based off of um his description of the request at this meeting as well as the conditions of approval that were proposed which includes the um you know the revision revision of the site plan, the photos, screening etc. then yeah it can be approved. All right. Any other questions or comments by the commission? Anything else? Is anyone else here to speak in favor of agenda item number five? Anyone here to speak against it? Seeing no hands, we will close the public hearing session and move to the deliberation session. On agenda item number one, we have a recusal from M. Nichols. This is an extension of approval of a oneline subdivision. Is there a motion?

Move to approve service staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. Meeting passes. Moving to agenda item number two. We have a recusal from Mr. Dorsy. This is a subdivision of one lot at 72104th Street. There a motion. Move to approve staff recommendations uh waving condition number seven. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. All opposed. Item passes. Number three, this is a subdivision of two lots at 6704 Autumn Ridge Drive. I have a tech maybe a technical question. Do we need to wave 68 for to to make the variance process easier or does that is that going to take care of itself with the variance? Because 68 references the UDC. If they're waving a requirement from from the UDC, does that mean 68 doesn't matter? Do we need to wave it?

Oh, no. If if they um so 68 just states that the building setback has to be illustrated. It does not give the dimension of that. So, if they did go for the variance and uh or wanted to go for the variance, they could request the planning commission to do so that you guys amend that. um it wouldn't be necessarily a waiver, but there would be an additional condition that we wouldn't sign off on the plat until the variance was approved. Yeah. Okay. Now move to approve sever recommendations. So then number four could be amended to say just to add on as um you said or variance or attainment or varian.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. I would move to approve sub staff recommendations amending number four as we just discussed with staff. Second. properly properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. All opposed. The item passes. Moving on to number four. This is request for sidewalk waiver at 7735 Monk Avenue. Is there a motion? Move to approve sever staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

All opposed. The item passes. Agenda item number five. This is the conditional use permit for short-term rental at 2316 Hillwood Drive West. Is there a motion? Uh, I would move that we hold this over until August the August 21st meeting. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

All opposed. The hold over is approved to the next planning commission meet. All right, that concludes the deliberation session. We got a few items of other business. Uh, looks like we have a vote for to call for a public hearing on August 21st for the proposed amendment to the subdivision regulations for the historic avenue overlay. Any staff update on what we're

Yes. So, the historic avenue overlay was approved. This is just to add it into the subdivision regulations, the portions that affect those regulations, so that anytime someone comes through, they don't have to also come back to you guys to get approval because they're adding to regulations. Okay. So, it's just cleaning it up. Yeah. So, what we approve, there's no changes to what we Yeah, there's no changes. We're just putting it in subdivision regulations. All right. Uh, we vote on this, don't we? We vote to add it. No.

Yeah. Okay, we're just going to have a public hearing. All right. Um, we've also got to we have some minutes to approve. This is the August 3rd, August 17th, September 7th, and September 21st meetings all in 2023. Move to approve the minutes from August to September 2023. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. All opposed? [Music] I was there. I was here. So, so Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Yeah. So, so Doug, before the meeting, we were talking about um these conditional use STR situations, and I I tend to think we need to have some some kind of you know, some a little bit more policy around it rather than just receiving, you know, a shotgun of STR conditional use permits. There's not we don't really have any there's no real guidance around it at all. I mean, I guess that would come from the city council, but um I don't I don't have a tremendous amount of comfort receiving an arbitrary number of conditional use permits about an unknown potential land use. You know, the volume is completely unknown. I'm not against STRs. I've got a one across the street from my house I don't have any issues with. But if you aggregate the impact over the scale of the entire city and we don't have a set there's not really a set standard. Everything's case by case. It can feel arbitrary even if even if the process is not. And maybe that sounds a little paranoid but that's just how I feel about it. I would leave that task to Jim Rossler and Bert Hoffman because they're Jim helped write the ordinance and Bert understands it a heck of a lot better than I do.

Or Shayla, I didn't I didn't know you were here. Thank you. I

I would say that uh the the council um drafted an ordinance and we did our level best to try to make it whatever adjustments we needed to make it go through a a process. But some of those policy decisions um I think we would have to revisit uh with them. My my hope would be that at at some point in time um we evaluate where we are with this ordinance and staff could make some recommendations up to the council, but um we're doing our best to um put into to practice what was adopted at the time of the adoption of the unified development code. So what I'm I mean the way I'm approaching it is this is kind of a quasi judicial entity. We this isn't a policymaking entity. So if we if we go down a course and we start treating through our own norms and mores how these conditional use permits get treated that is a de facto policy that I think shouldn't rest here personally. But anyway I'm off my soap box now. I I'll just admit to one thing that in those in the actual staff report, we made those tables with the red and the green to kind of just make it visually I guess easier to understand whether or not they're going to meet those criteria. Um, I don't know if they're helpful, but right, in which case, you know, the ordinance states they have to be denied, but um, I'd definitely be willing to work with our team to work with you guys to make those recommendations. I I I think the table was helpful. I mean, I I'll echo what Mr. Henderson said. I mean we we really don't have any discretion on this. Um then is the staff are we inspecting

these sites? I mean like this scenario, you know, is it 20 ft? We have no idea where, you know, garbage is held. And I'm not to say we can't trust you. We just have no discretion in this is the way this is written. Well, well, so far we the volume of it, I mean this is literally the second one. So, um to say that we've we've inspected I mean I think we've looked at the two that have come in front of us. Um and then of course if we receive a complaint then we go out to address the of the complaint which typically says that you need to go through this process um if it's your intent to continue to operate.

Um but so far we've only been tested with the ones that we've been presenting to you. So the business license process they they are coming in. No, not saying that.

A as we have had uh short-term rentals who want to come into compliance with all city requirements to include business licensing as a part of that procedure, then they've got to essentially get approval from this body before a business license is issued. So the the burden has been put on them to come forward. Now, if we if we receive a complaint or are aware that one is in violation of our requirements, then we will go out and notice them or the Correct. That's that's how that complaint is

correct.

Exactly. Correct. That that's how it essentially is working right now. that is has been our concern since the ordinance was adopted all along.

And then from uh a different aspect, you know, we've had these conditional use permits with um afterare centers and uh or daycare centers being used in houses. And I've always made the comment that these ride in perpetuity with the property. Is this the same way with short-term rental that that property will be in perpetuity along with that deed allowed to be operated in that manner or are there one-year provisions or after that owner decides um you know R&P investments because it doesn't look like it's a local homeowner or anything. It was literally an investment LLC. Are are we going to have people coming in and buying up investment properties and using them as you know um rental properties uh along Dog River

in perpetuity? Well, to answer your initial question of once a conditional use permit is issued, it runs in perpetuity with Yeah. conditional use permit.

The conditional use permit what when we adopted the UDC, what we previously would have had was a a planning approval process. So to conform with our state enabling legislation and those requirements, we moved away from planning approvals and went to conditional use permits and special exceptions. So what we're Does the planning commission have the right to limit that and say that it's only, you know, issued to the current business owner or for a year or anything like that.

Correct. My understanding of reading this thing with this refuse requirements, I mean, we're going to ban these things in practice in the vast majority of the city. If it's 100 ft from a house, 200 feet from the property line, you know, if it was one or the other, I think it would be one thing. But the way I read this, the policy of the, you know, I I'll ask one of my favorite council people. I mean, it feels like we're we've essentially banned these things and a extremely large percentage of the city.

Yeah, sure. I property two years ago. I reached out to purchasing about it. So, I still have those emails. And this is all new for us, too. I mean, you're second application we've had on this.

I reached out prior to closing. I want to make sure not about it. That was the answer I received. Yeah. None of this is for not required business. Luckily, my and I guess I'm of the assumption that it was a neighbor that brought it to the attention of the city then. I think they reached out to me because I initially wired recently. So I've been I've had to they told me all I had to do is set up an excise tax account. So I've been paying the tax entire time. It's never business that okay.

So I was already operating. Okay. As I stated at the once a applicant is trying to initiate a business license then that is where we are notified and triggered. Okay. But I think I mean in a matter of time it's going to be you know title companies, insurance I mean somebody's going to start bringing this to the owner's attention and I mean there were plenty of these things operating before we adopted this too. So I mean but we don't have any discretion on this sort of simple.

Thank you Mr. Woods. Yeah, refues. All right. Any other discussion? I think that closes all our other business. Uh, all right. Pull a journ. I think that's how I do this.