Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

How are you? Good afternoon. Welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for August 21st, 2025. Like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting will be divided into two sessions. The public hearing session and the deliberation session. In the public hearing, an agenda item is called. The applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions if any. Members of the public are allowed to make their comments to the commission. A reminder that only four people can 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 bell or a beep asking you to please summarize your comments. And if there is opposition, we will have an applicant uh allow a two-minute rebuttal period to answer any questions. If you do intend to speak,

come to the podium at the bottom of the stairs, speak in the microphone, and provide your name and address for our records. And please direct all your comments to the commission only and not the applicant, the staff, or the audience. After hearing all applications, the commission will go into deliberation where we will discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. Commissioners then vote on each application and the results of that voting can be learned from the planning department. If issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed in the public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them or we can call for the application to be held over for a later meeting. Occasionally, we may have a recusal from one of our commissioners from discussing or voting on a given application. That does not mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules require the refusal, even if there is only the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest. The planning commission makes final decision on subdivisions with appeals of those decisions to the circuit court. The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and plan developments. The city council makes the final decision on those applications, and appeals of the city council decisions are to the circuit court. This time, do me a favor and turn your cell phones to um please don't take any calls in here. We'll ask you to do that outside. Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. We'll go ahead and call the role for today. I'll uh do that. Myself, J. Stubs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate,

here. Miss Jennifer Densson here. Mr. Harry Brlin. Mr. Larry Dorsey here. Mr. Chad Anderson. Mr. Matt Anderson. Mr. Nick Amber here. Mr. Josh Woods here. Mr. Kenny Nichols here. Miss Ellie Edwards here. We do have a quorum even with the noted recusals on these those specific agenda items. I'll entertain a motion to approve this agenda. So move properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I I

Great. We will move into number one on the agenda. This is a hold over from a previous meeting. This is at 2316 Hillwood Drive West. Conditional use permit approval to allow a short-term rental in an R1 single family residential suburban district. Is the applicant present? My name is Thomas Brewster. I'm here as a representative of R&P Investing.

All right, Mr. Brewster. Um, I was not I'll ask staff. I was not privileged to know what would the the reason for the holdover was from the previous meeting. If you wouldn't mind filling me in. So, the holdover was um required for them to revise the site plan and depict the location of all garbage cans um or any other uh bins that they were going to use for waste removal. They also to provide proof that the garbage or waste containers were screened from view via photographs and revise the site plan to illustrate the required off- streetet parking spaces. We did receive all of uh those requests and if you look under your holdover considerations um there is the uh considerations for approval.

All right, Mr. Brucer, are you familiar with those considerations and in agreement with them if this this goes to approval? Yes.

Okay. The answer is yes from the applicant. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to agenda item number one at 2316 Hillwood Drive West? All right, seeing none, we will move on. Thank you, Mr. Brewster. It is Brewster, correct? All right. Thank you, sir. All right. These are new items on the agenda. Starting with number two. This is a subdivision at 7435 and 7495 Bowers Lane inclusive of 7410 Old Military Road. This is a subdivision of two lots at just under 2 and 1/2 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present by raising the hand. Are you sir in agreement with the nine listed conditions from this application from the city staff? The applicant is in agreement with those nine listed conditions. Is there anyone else here in the audience that is here to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to this application at Bowowers Lane and Old Military Road? Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this application? All right, seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you, sir. Number three, this is a subdivision application at 710 Downtowner Boulevard, a subdivision of two lots at 3/4 of an acre. Uh should be noted here uh for Mr. Bird that it is a a potential denial based on the following or the two items listed. I'm sure you will have questions or address those. Go ahead, sir.

Right. Um yes, staff report. Staff report. Um name and address for the record.

Oh, excuse me. Jerry Bird serve van 2609 All Mill Road Mobile. The um staff report leaned toward denial for two reasons I think. One of which I have corrected with a plat looking like that which has expanded the building area in the rear that's back here to be 7200 square ft. And then the the flag pole is in excess of that making a total of 11,064 square feet. That's one. Another mention is that flag lots are not common in the area. You have a copy of this. This is our proposed site at this end of the block and there is a flag lot at the other end. Airport Boulevard being here and coming out on downtown loop north at the at the rear of that lot. Uh but I would based on that I would like you to consider approval of the subdivision. I had staff had an opportunity to review the material presented by Mr. Bird.

Yes, sir. And if you look in your folder under item number three, uh staff did prepare conditions of approval should the planning commission choose to approve the request. Is that this considerations folder? That that's what you're talking. Yes, sir. I just had never seen anything. [Music] All right. Mr. Bird, have you had a chance to review the 10 listed considerations? U was it in a staff report? No. I can I can quickly go to You want to listen? I'll give a quick run over of them. Retention. Number one, retention of the rightway along downtown or Boulevard.

Number two, revision of the plat to correctly label downtown or boulevard. Number three, retention of the 50ft minimum building setback along downtown or boulevard for lot A. Number four, retention of the 25 minimum building setback line on lot B as blocked at the west terminus of the pole. Number five, retention of the lot size labels and both square feet and acres on the final plat or the furnishing of a table on the final plat. Six, placement of a note on the plat stating no instructors are allowed to encroach into an easement without permission on of the easement holder. Seven, compliance engineering. Eight, uh note on the plat for traffic. Nine, compliance of the urban. 10, compliance with fire. We're in agreement.

Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments from commissioners on agenda item number three that has from according to staff and satisfied for consideration? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Bird, looking at your drawing, it looks like this proposed lot is primarily the parking lot for the existing facility. Have y'all looked at it? I mean, is there going to be if this goes if this passes, is there adequate parking, you know, once once that lot's carved off, you know, for the existing building? Yeah, the the buildable the buildable area.

I don't think there's any intention to build on this lot. Okay. um created mainly to temporarily convey to an adjoiner property that has an environmental concern and then when that's cleaned up be conveyed back. Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners? All right. All right. Is there anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, against, or have questions pertaining to 710 Downtown or Boulevard? All right. Seeing none, we will move on. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Talk to you later. Number four on the agenda. Subdivision 6098 River Trace Drive South and east and west sides of Rabbit Creek Drive extended 3/4 of a mile south to Hamilton Boulevard. This is the River Ends Estate Subdivision. 46 lots, 276 and a half acres. The subdivision has 12 consideration or 12 conditions uh for approval. The applicant present. Applicant is present. Uh are you in agreement with the 12 listed conditions? Applicant is present and in agreement with the listed conditions. Any questions or comments on this agenda item from commissioners? Is there anyone in the audience that would have questions for or against or just in pertaining to this agenda item at River Trace Drive South? All right, seeing none, we will move on. Uh we do have a recusal on this item. This is a sidewalk waiver subdivision request at the northwest corner of Lyola Lane and Provident Lane, St. Paul's Episcopal request to wave the construction of sidewalks along the west side of Provident Lane and a 315 ft portion of the north side of Lyola.

Yes, sir.

Yep. Sean Estis with McCory Williams, 3207 International Drive. Uh yeah, the St. St. Paul's is is uh asked for this waiver for a number of reasons. Uh but the number one reason is safety for the kids. And we were going to have the Alex Lot who is the um director of safety and security for St. Paul's here today but he's unable to attend because of his sick child. So he's he prepared he sent us an email. So I'm just going to read this email for one of my points here. Okay. My name is Alex Lad. I am a mobile county sheriff's deputy and the director of safety and security for St. Paul's Episcopal School. This is my 13th year of law enforcement and third year at St. Paul's. I would like to address my concern with a potential sidewalk being placed along Provident Lane and Loyola Lane. Provident Lane is primary thoroughfare for student foot and bike traffic. During the times of morning and afternoon carpull, the traffic safety crossing guard at O'Hell instructs students to use the sidewalk that is on the east side of Provident Lane. This sidewalk guides students to the next crossing guard on campus that can hold them in one centralized location until navigating them them on campus. Uh that crossing guard is located at Provident and Lyola. This sidewalk also allows enough separation from the carpool lanes as they enter and exit campus. Visibility in this area is difficult as vehicles are forced to make a turn, a right turn off of old shell on the Provident Lane due to power poles and on the east and west side of the street and also a cresting uh curve, a small hill. If

another sidewalk is placed on the west side of Provident Lane, this would cause students, parents, and other bystanders to come in close proximity to those vehicles turning with poor visibility. And he's included a little p uh basically a streetcape, I mean a uh street view. Um this will also cause the crossing guard to manage two lanes of walking and biking traffic instead of one. Children as young as eight years old use this area daily as well as over a 100 bikes. Another sidewalk will cause a greater concern for student safety as they begin and end their school day. So he he and along with the school is concerned with now they have kids on one side the east side of Provident Lane and then if we add another sidewalk on the west side of Provident Lane then they're trying to manage two sidewalks and two two flows of traffic. So that's that's the number one reason for this is safety. Uh another reason uh would be in their master plan they have a possibilityility of widening that strength. They would like to get maybe a uh the city to vacate that rideway along Provident and and and potentially widen uh Provident in that area. I don't know if I'm sure everyone's familiar with how traffic backs out onto Old Shell in the mornings and afternoons. So, if they could widen uh Provident and allow uh maybe a third lane of traffic there, then they could get people off of Old Shell. And and in doing that, if the sidewalk was in on this new new track, then that would all have to be tore out. So, those are two points. And then maybe the third would be on Lyola on that south side. there is no there's no traffic that that road is barricaded off with a permanent

barricade and and and so there's really no need for a sidewalk there. The kids use the the the travel the the the pavement that's there as their walkway. So those are those are the three things that they'd like to have as a waiver used as a waiver. Thank you, Mr. Essis. Any any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this what sidewalk waiver application? Is anyone in the audience? I was gonna say, go ahead.

I'm going off memory. I didn't see it in the history, but I feel like a few years ago y'all came you came and opposed the sidewalk waiver on the east side of Providence. And the argument was that y'all didn't want kids going down Provident because y'all are sending kids down Dogwood. Um, and I think we made y'all build the sidewalk waiver or you did build the sidewalk. Okay, that's correct. So, I uh really just wanted to give you a hard time because it's rivalry week, but this seems completely reasonable.

I mean, it makes sense like it was the same kind of arguments we would the other way. But I think given I mean, that all makes total sense.

Any other questions or comments from commissioners? That's a good one. Anyone in the audience to hear speak speak for against or have questions pertaining to this potential sidewalk waiver? All right, seeing none, we will move on and welcome back Miss Ellie Edwards. We'll move on to number six and we will send away Mr. Kenny Nichols on recusal. This is application, excuse me, agenda item number six. This is a modification at 600, 700, and 800 West I65 Service Road South. This is a major modification in previously previously approved PUD public or planned unit development allowing shared access and parking between three building sites to allow construction of a multif family development with 240 dwelling units in multiple buildings across three building sites. Is the applicant present Watkins? Uh we have just for your knowledge and for uh commissioners potentially eight findings of fact and um for the applicant potentially 19 conditions listed. Yes sir.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Jay Watkins Mayor Nexon on behalf of the applicant ANR development group. Um given the number of conditions and other things on the staff report, we're respectfully asking a 30-day holdover uh to address a number of those uh conditions and concerns. And uh would like to ask staff if we could have until noon Wednesday to submit our modified site plan to reflect the changes that we'll make to meet those conditions and questions.

So the applicants requesting a hold over. The next meeting date is September 18th with a filing deadline of the 18 of August 18th and we're asking staff if they can accommodate the request from the applicant. I'll first ask if September 18th agenda is clear enough.

Yeah, we can accommodate that. And you're confirming you can accommodate the request by the applicant for noon of tomorrow. Noon Wednesday. Newon Wednesday of next week. Yes, they're okay with that. Thank you.

All right. Um, seeing it is on the agenda, if anyone is in the audience that was here to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to this agenda item on West I65 I65 Service Road, you have an opportunity to speak now and ask questions now. Anyone? All right. Seeing none, we will welcome back Mr. Kenny Nichols. Move on to agenda item number seven. This is a modification at 550 Providence Park Drive East, the Providence Park Rehabilitation and Healthc Care. It's a major modification of a previously approved PUD amending approved master plan to allow construction of a healthcare facility with multiple buildings on a single building site. Uh for commissioner's reference, there are potentially eight findings of fact and for the applicant, there are seven conditions listed. Yes, sir.

Hey, good afternoon. Um, David Deser with Cadre Engineering. Uh, on behalf of the applicant, we're here as their agent. Um, we're aware of the conditions and acknowledge those. The applicant is present and aware of the conditions and an agreement on the modification. Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this this modification application? Uh, Mr. Chair,

go ahead. Um, just for clarification, as far as the design and the layout of this, um, it appears that I guess there's going to be complete connectibility between Cody and um, and Providence Park Drive. Um, is that is that kind of just what I'm seeing with the with the subdivision and uh, pulling everything together? I guess we're uh, we're going to be therefore connecting Cody and Providence Park. That's correct. Okay. There will not be any type of between the the future development and the proposed development now. Um we're not with I guess where the lot line is. Um we're not there's not going to be any type of thing to any device or any barrier between the two to

There will be. Yes. So um there is a gate that will be closed that will have a NOX box for emergency access. It's not intended to be a cross connection that is permanently open for you know the public to use. It's just there for really convenient service use, emergency vehicle use. And uh who will service that box? I guess the proposed uh or who the gate there who will be responsible for I guess this proposed development or the development. Yeah. And actually the owner is one of the same for both lots. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Go ahead.

I would just make the engineer aware that that this part of town is very susceptible to groundwater. So just design cautiously. Uh just be be aware that area's got got quite a bit of it. Thank you. Yes, sir. Further comments or questions from commissioners? All right, I'll ask the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, against, or have questions pertaining to 550 Providence Park Drive East modification. Okay, we will move on to agenda item number eight. We will again recuse Mr. Kenny Nichols. This is a resoning application at 250 St. Francis Street. Amendment to downtown development district regulation plan to reszone the property from T-51 to T-52. That's 5.1 to 5.2. Uh for consideration here we would have five potential one no seven potential findings of fact commissioners. Yes sir.

Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the commission. Jay Watkins Maynard Nexon 11 Northwater Street 360 uh602 uh representing ANR Development Group Mr. Ken Patel on this resoning. Uh, as you can see from the overhead, this is the east half of the block downtown which is is bounded by Jackson Street, St. Francis, St. Michael, and Joe. Uh, it's currently a paved parking lot. Um, Mr. Patel would like to redevelop this site into a 140 plus or minus room branded hotel. Um the current zoning at T51 allows smaller hotels. Uh we would like to go up to T52 in order to allow the taller uh hotel with more accommodations. Um this is intended to be branded and to be more of an extended stay type product which is a little different than what we have in the downtown area. Um, as justifications under the resoning, uh, we would point out that this is consistent in keeping with the comprehensive plan. Uh, it is compatible with current development trends in the downtown area. Um, the surrounding land uses are similar. We've got other hotels, Candlewood Suites, uh, the Hilton Garden in are all in close proximity to this site. Uh also in terms of size and scale, this is compatible with some of the surrounding properties. Um it is bounded by T uh 51 and T52 properties. So the reasonzoning would not be out of character in keeping with the surrounding properties. Uh but most importantly, I think what we're looking at here is just the change that we're seeing in the downtown market. Um we've got the train service now. We've got expanded crews. We've got um the new airport moving uh to Brookley. We've got the improvements at the civic center. We've got the potential for development for the Africa Town heritage house, the

battleship. All of this are driving uh traffic into Mobile. And we believe that uh the changing conditions in the downtown area would justify and support reszoning this site uh from T51 to T52. Um I'm happy to answer questions. We have Mr. David Clark with Mobile Visitors Convention Corporation here to speak as well to talk a little bit more about the conditions in downtown Mobile and what a new hotel would would do for the city. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. I'll ask first if any questions from commissioners regarding this opportunity and this reszone.

Could the staff explain the main differences between 5.1 and 5.2 for everybody? I know the biggest one is probably the height difference. Uh is there anything else significant about the this change? Um I believe it was in a pre-development meeting that we discussed this. Uh and the main difference with respect to this request was the height difference and allowing the additional floor. Um in the context of this request, that's pretty much the only difference that um they've made the request to accommodate. And I would point out to the commission, we have submitted renderings that are in your packet. Those were provided uh at the neighborhood meeting to provide neighbors with a sense of the scope and scale of this project. They're by no means intended to be uh illustrative of what's going to be built there. We know we've got to comply with the DDD. We've got to comply with ARB with respect to the lower Dolphin Street Historic District. So, as you're looking at those renderings, please don't think that's what's being built. That's simply to show kind of the scale of the property, the site coverage, just to give you an idea of what St. Francis Street corridor may look like with this facility built. The applicant certainly intends if the reasonzoning is successful to go to the next step in the design and uh of the facade and of the actual building and would be going through the CD CRC process as well as the ARB uh review and approval.

Mr. Watkins, did you conduct the the community meeting or were you present? I did. And was it well attended?

Uh I would say we probably had uh 15 or 20 people there mostly uh from Datanti or from the downtown area. Um I think most of their concerns as I just mentioned were when they saw those renderings they thought like this is a nasty ugly whitebox building that doesn't fit in downtown Mobile. So we had to really kind of reiterate the fact that they were just for scope and scale. That's not what the the applicant intends to build. Um, and I think there was some questions regarding the parking uh losing that parking lot as part of the downtown uh area. And I think uh if you look at the aerials and or some of the uh other scope maps, you'll see that there is uh plentiful park surface lot parking around this area. I think this is about 80 spots maybe uh that would be coming out of uh inventory. Uh but given the parking deck at uh adjacent to the uh uh Admiral Sims as well as the parking deck down on Royal Street and uh what RSA's got uh there there's a substantial amount of parking in the downtown area.

Thank you, Mr. Watson. Is there any parking restrictions? I know some of the zoning down here D there's no there's no required parking for this development although the applicant is providing on-site park certain on-site parking and will make accommodations for additional parking offsite. Is there anyone in the audience is here to speak for against or have questions pertaining to this reszone from T-5.1 to T-5.2. Again, reminders, please state your name and address for the record.

Hey, Jeremy Milling, Milling Commercial Realy, 220 St. Michael Street, 36602. Um, I have the office building that is um at the norththeast corner of uh St. Michael and Joe Akam and um did attend the community meeting as well and definitely support the resoning. The one thing that became really clear to me uh in that community meeting is that the drawings they submitted, which I completely understand are not in your p per purview as far as the aesthetics and those are other boards and committees to approve, but just how out of place the one that they submitted was. And as somebody who worked very hard on the the new DDD code years ago under the alliance um placing a formbbased code that really is supposed to have predictability and reliability as far as you know the aesthetic and that it fits into the fabric of downtown. And so I just would like on public record to make that comment so that the developer will take that to heart because I do think that you know there is a need for this product. I'm absolutely not against it, you know, especially as a neighbor, but I do think it's extremely important to put the effort into making it fit within the fabric and the aesthetic of downtown. And so, we'll be watching that very clearly.

Thank you, Mr. Millie. Thank you.

And again, sir, a reminder for name and address for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Commission David Clark. I'm um actually a resident at 412 Dolphin Street and I'm president CEO of Visit Mobile on one South Water Street. I'm speaking for on both accounts um from a tourism standpoint and from a residence um which is really about two blocks away from the site. Uh I'm in favor of the development. Uh the home two suites brand uh has performed well since even precoid9. Most scales in the United States of America and throughout the state of Alabama are down in occupancy. Most are up in rate. However, the home two suites brand is in the upper midscale and it's shown positive occupancy. Uh and I think that's very interesting fact. It's under the Hilton brand. uh it is a very very good product. I think downtown Mobile is very unique and has a very high barrier to lodging entry and a high growth potential as well especially when you look at the generational developments uh that are coming on board. Uh more home hotel room night supply is definitely going to be in need with these developments. uh and the anticipated conventions, the meetings, the leisure and all the manufacturing that's going to also start uh taking place and increasing. you know, with the recent $700 million in tourism investing consistent of the new downtown International Airport uh to open late 26, you know, three miles from this property, a new arena to open in 27 with the largest venue operator in the world managing that now with Oakview Group and the largest entertainment booker in the world with Live Nation. Uh these investments are going to give us better airlift. They're going to have more concerts, more programmable events every

day, more leisure and business travel than ever before. Um, notwithstanding these investments, we'll make a an announcement very soon on a specific cruise ship with Carnival Cruise Lines that will start in 27 fulltime. Right now, we have the Carnival Spirit that's halftime. you know, that's going to be um increasing demand as uh the new ship will have over 5,000 passengers and crew on board, four cruises a month. We think that's going to be a really big deal for our hotel years. The Visit Mobile team has booked more conventions and meetings than ever before in the last seven consecutive years when you look at the previous 25 years by almost double. Um, one thing we w run into very often now in talking to meeting planners, we peak at about 7 to 800 peak room nights is kind of a sweet spot because it gets harder to find the walkable room nights downtown beyond that. This hotel and more supply is needed to capture that demand and future demand that will be coming. Uh and so you know um the hope the home two suites will give us the ability to even attract larger conventions. We really need another 350 rooms to capture the future supply or demand that's coming in. Lastly, Mobile's tourism improvement district. You think about marketing and how you do that. We just passed uh thanks to the mayor and the city council, Josh and team, uh a new 5-year renewal that will double the resources and marketing, lodging, attractions, and restaurants. Double. I'm talking 40 million over the next 5 years as opposed to 20 million. We'll be able to really help with the demand. The port is expanding. Airbus is expanding. Hostel is expanding. They're adding jobs and distribution is increasing. So all these things mean more room nights, more business,

transient, leisure, bleisure, conventions and meetings. So this is a really great project. Uh I do want to point out too in the last eight years I've had a lot of dealings with ANR. They were help very helpful in the collaborations of forming the tourism improvement district. I admire their company and their leadership very much. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Clark. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for against? Well, there would only be one more for speaker. Anyone here that has questions or uh in opposition to this agenda item? All right, seeing none, we will move on to number nine. This is the dual application phase of our agenda items. We can welcome back Mr. Kenny Nichols. Number nine is a subdivision application and a modification at 4350 Moffett Road, Fred Marshall Courtdision. The subdivision is one lot at 8.94 acres and then the major modification of a previously approved PUD to allow multiple buildings on a single building site to allow construction of a multif family development with 50 dwelling units and multiple buildings on a single building site. There are nine conditions listed for the potential subdivision and eight findings of fact on the for commissioners potentially for the uh modification. And on the modification there are 21 listed conditions. Mr. Bird.

Yes. Jerry Bird Bird Serve in 2609 Halls Mill Road Mobile. Um we were here approximately two meetings ago and the subdivision was approved. It was incorrectly presented shown on the city website and in the deed to the property. The entrance drive from Mafet Road to the basic property was shown as owned by the major part of the lot. That was incorrect. In 1962, there was a deed from the owner at that time to Mobile County deeding that section to uh the county and then through annexation. becomes city street. Um we're that's the only change on this application is to eliminate that entrance drive showing it that we're actually on a city street at the north end of that city street

any and that eliminates the need for resoning. Thank you for that clarification and resubmission. Is there any questions from commissioners regarding the dual application? Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um, just out of curiosity, Mr. Bird, just cuz I'm fascinated with uh out of curiosity, there's houses down that street, right? Um, there's one. Yes. Um, on the west side of the street adjoining our property. Huh. And actually the one on the east side has a driveway that that turns in off of that street. But that address on the east side would be would be motted as well. But

Right. Interesting. Okay. There's no street sign out there.

Well, I guess if you've done if you've done the research to prove that it's actually city right away, I'll just ask the staff to coordinate with our GS department and make sure that that gets gets memorialized correctly. Any further questions or comments from commissioners regarding this dual application? Um be noted that you did have a comment submitted on this application uh commissioners. So that should be in your folders on public comments. And now I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience. Thank you Mr. Bird. If there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for or against or have questions towards this application, dual application at 4350 Mafet Road. All right, seeing none, we will move on. Number 10, also a dual application subdivision and modification at 348 and 360 North McGregor Avenue, the Morai Lanes subdivision. The sub division application is two lots at 11.45 acres and the major modification is of a previously approved planning approval allowing construction of the water tower in an R1 single family residential suburban district to modify lot lines in coordination with the proposed subdivision. Uh there are potentially nine conditions or there are nine conditions for the subdivision application and then there are potentially eight findings of fact with 10 listed conditions on the modification. Is the applicant present? Uh Brett Orel with Poly Surveying. I was speaking with staff earlier. I just want to get some clarification on setbacks. if Logan.

So, this property is located within the village of Spring Hill overlay um within the neighborhood general subdist. Instead of a 25- ft setback requirement, the uh article 13 of the UDC has a minimum setback requirement of 6 feet and a maximum setback requirement of 18 ft. So we would suggest amending um the proposed condition number four to state compliance with the standards of article 13 table excuse me the compliance with the setback standards of article 13 table 64-13.4.3 4.3. Would that be condition number three? You mentioned number four.

Am I looking at the right one? That's correct. Yeah, I was looking at the wrong uh So, it's condition number three, Mr. So, it' be three on the number three on the subdivision and number four on the modification request. Yeah, we're in agreement with that. The applicant is in agreement with that comment and adjustment from staff given the Spring Hill overlay. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Jay, if you if you give me a minute. I know there's some people here probably inquiring about this. Just so let's do that. Mel, give you an opportunity um because we do have some citizens here from from that neighborhood. Go ahead and take your time.

Yeah. So, so, uh, this this property is, uh, some old property that's that's owned by both the city and malls. Uh, Malls operates on the western side, retained as lot one. The city intends to retain lot two. That's the main purpose of this is to sever that tie and that relationship. We've been working on this, believe it or not, uh, since like 21. Uh, so we're finally getting to this point. Uh, and that's why we're here. There's the planning approval is is a requirement due to you hear it's a modification of an old document. So all it is is a submitt of what is existing there today. There's no current plan to do anything um any kind of changes and it even notes within there that any changes I believe it states from the planning approval would have to go to the board of adjustment or city council for that. So just want to clarify what's going on here. It's simply a lot line modification. if you call it to separate two entities with the city retaining two malls retaining one. Thank you for that. And I will now uh see if there's anyone in the audience that would like to have uh have questions towards this application and a reminder sir for your name and address for the record. All right. Well, first, uh, good afternoon, Chairman Stubs, and the members of the person of the planning commission and city personnel who are here. My name is Dan Reamer. I'm a retired physician, uh, practiced in Mobile for almost 40 years, and I live at 3763 Morai Lane, which is where our family built our home 35 years ago. We're about

100 yards from the eastern edge of the mall property. I have the privilege of being today's representative of the Spring Hill Cemetery Neighborhood Association and I'm here to speak to you about the possible future development of the 7 and a half acres or more of land that you're being asked to subdivide today on behalf of the MOA uh request. Let me first say that our neighborhood association was organized [Music] to encompass from Springh Hill Avenue to Old Shell Road and from McGregor Avenue to Tudill Lane. That's about 170 private homes. Now we have at least 100 members out of that neighborhood area as part of our association watching closely what happens to this property once it's subdivided. We have had multiple requests over the last week especially from people who have heard about this from who live across Springhole Avenue behind St. Ignatius um school from people in Spring Hill Manor who live across McGregor and those who live to the east of Tutill down Stein Cedars and around Mary B Austin. Everyone is focused on this particular large piece of property and have very strict um thoughts about what they would like to see it become. That is not before you today. We understand that. So, let me say we are not here today to oppose the subdivision by laws of the

property they own, but we are here to let you know and the city of Mobile and the other employees of the city that we will be monitoring the future proposals for this piece of property closely and we are prepared to prevent any attempt to move it from any to any other zone other than R1, which is what it currently is. Of course, we would vehemently appro oppose apartments, condominiums, small lot, single homes, putting 50 homes or so on this property, other concepts like that people are concerned about. So let me just call to your attention one fact and that is that right now we live our neighborhood within walking distance of three of the best schools in Mobile. St. Ignatius Catholic School has 674 children. Mary B. Austin has 505 children. St. Paul's Episcopal has 1,213 children. Add those together, that's 2,342 children every morning move through our neighborhood near or around our neighborhood to get to those schools and in the afternoon they go home. Many walk, but the vast majority in my opinion are taken by car. And the traffic is unbelievable morning and afternoon because of that. You add that together, morning and afternoon, that's 4,600 trips occurring by some method in our area.

We do not want more traffic in our neighborhood. I'll mention we already are concerned of the potential of increased cutthrough traffic because of the new hotel that's been approved and is moving forward I suspect at the old Armory location on uh Museum Drive and that's fine. A lot of that traffic is supposed to go out on McGregor down to Spring Hill or go west on Spring Hill or whatever. But what it's going to do is back up on McGregor and people going to cut through our neighborhoods on Stein, Cedars, and Morai. We have people speeding through already. We don't want more. So, we're going to watch this potential development extremely closely. If you have any other questions, I'm here to answer them. But that's our comment.

Thank you, Dr. Reamer. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment towards this application? either for or against or have questions towards it. And again, a reminder for your name and address for the record.

Okay. Thank you. Um my name is Dominic Brois. I uh own property at 3824 Morai Lane and 420 McGregor. So 3824 is directly across from the abandoned uh reservoir and um I've been there since uh my father built that place in 1970. As a matter of fact, um I'm not here to oppose it, but I went to and this property is this division is located in Sy Town, which is a the oldest African-American neighborhood in in in Mobile. Um, as a matter of fact, Morai and Shypes and Nose Lane when I was growing up were dirt roads and my father was the postman in this area for Spring Hill. uh Batist brought us and uh he did a lot to make sure we got our roads paved, lights put on those those lots because back in the early 70s or mid70s, they still consider Sand Town, you know, for the black neighborhoods and those streets weren't paved, but you'd go halfway up Morai and it was paved or halfway up Stripes Lane, it was paved. They also con we also got the city of Mobile to build us a park in the 70s right right after that uh reservoir and between the reservoir and where the tower is. Uh we're not I'm I'm not opposed to the to the um development like Dr. Raymond says, "I like for it to be residential, but I also want to make the city aware that, you know, that's part of Sand Town, and it'll be nice to have something that commemorates Sand Town when they're doing that development. Uh, be it a street, a plaque, or something. I just want to make it known that, you

know, that's in our neighborhood. It's right across from where I was raised. The city had gave it us a park one time. They took it away for the Mars. Uh we're not asking for the park back. We know you're going to develop it, but we would like some consideration or I would like some consideration to show that that was a part of Sand Town. So, uh that's my comment. Thank you, Mr. Broaders, for for your comment. And uh I'm I'm sure some people will take note of of those comments regarding your um potential for that. All right. Thank you. Commemoration. We'll be watching too. Like Dr. Rmmer said, I will.

Any other questions or comments from commit commission I mean from the audience. All right, Dr. Reamer, we're we're good. I'm sorry. Very very quickly, we failed to ask or I failed to ask if we could have an understanding of what was marked as Morai Park. That's what Mr. Broad just

on the city revenue if someone could explain uh ownership of that and who has title and is it city property and where does it stand now from the malls? Okay.

All right. Thank you, Dr. Reamer. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to number 11 on the agenda. This is also a dual application of a subdivision and a reszone 2602, 2610, 12,14 and 16 Old Shell Road and then 105 and 107 item avenue, the 107 subdivision. On that subdivision application, it's one lot at 3 and a3 acre. On the reszone, the application is to go from residential urban district R1 and neighborhood business urban B2 to neighborhood business urban B2. So this would be a combination or taking two zones and combining them as to one. As I understand that there are potentially uh there are nine conditions on the subdivision potentially eight findings of fact for uh commissioners on the zone application. Yes, Mr. Bird.

Jerry Bird survey 2609 Halls Mill Road Mobile. Purpose of the resoning is to go to one complete zone the way the property has been developed over the years. In 19 according to staff report 1967 when the zoning ordinance was brought in, they split zoned the property. At that time, the southern portion of the property is zone B2 with this long portion in the back still continuing to be R1. After that, other buildings has built been built back there and B2 businesses have been located there for a number of years. I think exceeding 30 years and the property sold approximately two years ago. The new owners would like to clean up that zoning into the proper um zoning classification and as in conjunction with that doing a one lot subdivision of all the property that they have. Um, that's what we have.

Are you in agreement with the nine conditions regarding the subdivision should the the zoning go through? Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this dual application? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to this application? And again, a reminder for your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Torres Wagner and I'm a resident in 109 item Avenue. Can you pull the microphone a little bit closer, ma'am? Thank you so much.

I'm a resident in 109 Item Avenue and I have an specific question regarding 105 and 107 Item Avenue. I have two questions. The first question is how this potential reszoning will affect the neighbors in terms of the value of the property and the change of daily routines with intense traffic and noise. And the second question is if these two if these two properties in Adam Avenue are reszone will there be a restrictions in terms of what kind of businesses could it be? All the properties um all the businesses in Oak Shell are industrial commercial, but the one in 107 it's a it's a residential. I live next to that property. It will not be the same if that property is turned into another southern glass or fabique. So those are my two specific questions.

All right, Mr. Bird, did you hear those? Okay. Well, I think the first question was uh will it the the value potential impact on the value of the residences along Item Avenue and Highland Avenue which are considered to be the backyard of those homes. And then the second question was um the potential for the development I believe of what would be going on this B2. Is there any plan thus far?

There's no plans to revise anything that's there. They have been cleaning up uh painting some repairs. Businesses are still staying there. The same one was there that probably when when the people in Adam Avenue purchased their property. Um but like I say, there's no plans for any changes additions to the building at present. So that does that ma'am answer your question with respect to that? Do you have another one? If I understood correctly, there are no plans of changing why it needs to be resone from neighborhood to

I'll address that. It's it's a cleanup. There's currently there's currently businesses that are technically on residential property and that resident that R1 designation in the in the zone needs to be changed to the congruent zoning of the pro property that faces Old Shell Road, which is B2. Mhm. So, this is a this is an application to clean that up with respect to the the zoning and the plat and how it's filed with the city. tonight.

Okay. So, if there are no, if I understood correctly, if there are no changes, there's going to only going to be a clean up and a resoning for that, but that would not affect at all the neighbors on Adding Avenue. That's correct. And if there's any additional development that's going to occur, it's got to come back. If if it's B2, it can be it can remain B2, but any further changes would have to come back through the planning commission. Okay. Thank

any further questions or comments from members of the audience regarding this application. All right, we will move on to the the final uh application agenda item. There is other business after this uh and after we get through um deliberation. Number 12 is a dual application of a subdivision and a reszone at 7211 and 7221 Cottage Hill Road. It's been recommended for holdover until the September 18th meeting next month. Is the applicant present? Are you in agreement with that holdover? The applicant is present and in agreement with the holdover. Is there anyone in the audience because it is on the agenda that has questions or comments for this agenda item at Cottage Hill Road 7211 and 7221? All right. Thank you, sir. We will now uh close the public hearing and move back to number one on the agenda. This is the hold over of the reszone on the short-term rental at 2316 Hillwood Drive. The applicant was present, Mr. Brewster. He was in agreement with the conditions that were listed and uh staff was um in agreement with the relication if you will entertain a motion.

Move to approve sub staff recommendations adopting findings of facts one 3 4 7 8 9 and 10. Second. Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact 134 78910. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for reszone short-term reszone passes. New application agenda item 74 number two 7435 7495 Bowowers Lane and 7410 Old Military Road. The applicant was present. and an agreement by raise of hand with the nine conditions. Entertain a motion. Motion to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision of those two lots passes. Number three, subdivision at 710 Downtown or Boulevard. Mr. Mr. Bird presented and staff was in agreement on the resubmission of the information and Mr. Bird was in agreement with the listed conditions for this subdivision. Entertain a motion. Move to approve sub to staff recommendations and including the additional proposed considerations. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for that subdivision passes. Number four, subdivision at 6098 Riverchase Drive South, east and west sides of Rabbit Creek Drive, extending to south south to Hamilton Boulevard. Uh the applicant was is present and in agreement with the 12 listed conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve sub staff recommendations. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. We will ask Miss Edwards to recuse on number five sidewalk waiver at St. Paul's along Lyola and Provident Lane, excuse me, northwest corner of Lyola Lane and Provident Lane. request to wave the construction of the sidewalks along the west side of Provident Lane and the 315 foot portion of North Side. Uh Mr. Estus was in here for the applicant and present presented their reasoning for sidewalk waiver. Entertain a motion. Move to approve the sidewalk waiver. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The sidewalk waiver passes. We can welcome back Mr. Ellie Edwards. We have to send away Mr. Kenny Nichols. This is a number six on the agenda. Modification agenda 600, 700, and 800 West I65 Service Road. Um the applicant is present and request hold over and the specific notes are to have the material in to the city staff by Wednesday noon of Wednesday of next week and it would be on the September 18th meeting. Entertain a motion.

So moved. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. This application will be held over until September 18th. We can welcome back Mr. Nichols. Number seven, modification application at 550 Providence Park Drive East. Potentially eight findings of fact and seven listed conditions. The applicant is present and was in agreement and had no questions regarding the findings of fact or the conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H.

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

Any opposed? The motion for modification passes. We will recuse Mr. Kenny Nichols for number eight on the agenda, which is a reszone of 250 St. Frances Street. This is a resone from T-5.1 to T-5.2. The applicant is present and uh positioned the current parking lot for the development with other speakers in support or just watching after this development. Entertain a motion for the reszone. Move to approve sub staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A, C, D, E, and G.

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

Any opposed? The motion for reszone passes. We can welcome back Mr. Nichols. Number nine on the agenda, this is a dual application at 4350 Moffett Road, Fred Marshall Court Subdivision. Mr. Bird explained that the application needed to be adjusted due to the uh the street being owned by the county. Mr. Bird is in agreement with the nine listed conditions for commissioners. There's potentially eight findings in fact on the modification and 21 listed conditions of which Mr. Bird was in agreement with. entertain a motion. Oh, and there was comments for commissioners to review. There was one comment submitted online.

Mr. Chairman, do we have the two items, the subdivision and the PUD mod or just the PUD mod? I'm sorry, I'm These are two separate applications. I'm gonna Yep. So, let me separate them now. We'll take the subdivision first. Entertain a motion for the subdivision. Move to approve subdivision staff recommendations. Second. Entertain. I mean the the motion is seconded. All in favor for the subdivision. I. Any opposed? The motion for the subdivision passes. And for the modification

move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H. Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor? I I.

Any opposed? The motion or the agenda for modification passes. Number 10, dual application subdivision at 30 348 and 360 North McGregor Avenue and then the modification of the same property. Mr. Orel was here to explain the reasoning behind it was in agreement with the non-listed conditions of the subdivision and for our consideration eight findings of fact and 10 listed conditions. Question for staff. Is that entire parcel in the uh overlay

uh what you see behind you and in your packet? Yes, it is within the neighborhood general uh Bosch. So there was an adjustment that Mr. Rel was in agreement with with respect to condition number three on the subdivision. Mr. Chairman, you going to take those separately? We are taking them separately. So entertain a motion on the subdivision. Move to approve sub staff recommendations modifying condition number three. Properly moved and seconded with the condition to reference the table from the U overlay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Subdivision does pass. Modification.

Move to approve sub to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H and modifying setback condition number four. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H and then set set back on the condition. All in favor? I.

The motion for modification passes. Number 11, dual application of subdivision and reszone will be taken separately. This is at the 2600 block of Old Shell Road and then 105 and 107 Item Avenue. Applicant is present and an agreement with the nine listed conditions on the subdivision. So, entertain a motion on the subdivision. Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes for the reszone to go from R1 and B2 separate to congruent B2. There are potentially eight findings of fact and then compliance condition. Entertain a motion. Move to approve sub to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A, C, D, E, F, and G. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A C D E FG. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for reszone passes. Number 12, subdivision and reszone dual application at 7211 and 7221 Cottage Hill Road been recommended for holdover to SE September 18th. Move to move to approve. Second. All in favor? I.

Motion for holdover passes. Other business regarding subdivision applications at previously submitted. We have some adjustments. I'll turn it over to to staff just for clarification. Sorry, give me just one second. Um so the request uh and the applicant is here to um explain it a little bit better than I can but essentially there's a note under um uh the approval conditions uh condition number two in the letter of decision that originally stated uh that one of the requirements was placement of a note on the final plat stating that at such time as 4A road is developed it will be required to be developed to city standard ards per section 9D of the subdivision regulations. Um, and again, the applicant will explain his reasoning behind this request, but the request is to revise that note to state that placement of a note on the final plat stating that at such a time as for a road is developed as a road, it will be required to be developed to city standards per section 90 of the subdivision regulations. So the distinction there is that um if it is developed as a road, it would then be developed to those standards. If it is not developed as a road, perhaps as a driveway or a private easement, that it does not at this time have to be developed to city standards.

Pretty straightforward to me. Any further application uh information from the applicant? Approve it. Madam Metaf, Metaf and Company, five Dolphin Street. Do you have any specific questions about because it's kind of a long story to take take your time, but which one is this? I This is located under other business on your pad. It's located under other business. This this came before us three or four months ago. Is that right, Adam?

Yeah. It's it's when we got the plaque back and we saw and I started looking. I'll give you a quick rundown if you can switch back to the other slide. Um, all the property there is owned by Air Gas. They occupy their business is on lot two. Um, accessed by Hamilton Boulevard. Um, they're not they have no use for the area of lot one. So, they want to sell it. So, in order to do that, we had to subdivide. Um during during our title research, we found this four road and um it showed up on a plat somewhere through title. Um, the intention from what I learned of the intent of it was not necessarily to be a road, but just sort of a secondary access drive to the property directly to the to the um um to the east um for the concrete company that was there, the construction company that was there um up until such time as East Right Road. You can pull the other see the East rightight road that was constructed to city standards and it and it provides access to the area that's uh zoned industrial right there. Um so there's really no use for the road. Um it goes right through air gas property, but the owners of the the new owners of the construction company just say we just don't want to give it up. So I tried. Um the wording of it, what concerned me was and when we sell lot two, um the practical access for that development oop will be where the four road is because there is a curb cut to highway 90 right there. Um so so that what'll happen practically is someone will build a building there, put their business there and the driveway for it entrance will be

on the four roads. So my concern was the way it was written the word developed. So if we if we pave 100 ft of it, does that mean we have to pave 1,000 ft of road to city standards? That's why the just the change in wording.

Oh no, no. And it's not a right. It's not there. There's no description of it. It just showed up on a plat somewhere and we tried to get rid of it, but we couldn't. It dead end. Yes. And there's Yeah. And that that's it's not a road. You know, you could drive over it, but it's not And the propertyy's all fenced and everything. The property to the east has a has an access. It has two other business

and and they did use it occasionally up until um until East Right Road was built. Now, if you could require that other property owner to give it up, that'd be great. I don't think you could do that. Yeah. Any questions? None from me. Any com questions or comments from commissioners regarding this restated note on the final plat that is written with the addition of three, excuse me, seven letters as a road. Right.

By the way, staff was very helpful in coming up trying to fix this thing. Any questions or concerns from commissioners? All right. I'll move to approve. Second. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for the change on the wording on the final plat passes. Other business at 7210 14th Street. The applicant is requesting to remove condition two in the letter of decision dedication to provide 25 ft from the center line of Lincoln Boulevard. Can you provide some clarity or background on that, please? So from this actually came up uh last meeting where it was discussed that Lincoln Boulevard terminates uh to the north into a property that is developed I believe for use as a religious facility. And at at this time there's no intent to improve that road because as of right now it's not paved if I'm not mistaken. Um, and because of that, they didn't see the need to dedicate the additional 25 ft to the center line simply because of those two factors. They're not going to develop the edge of a road into a private property. Um, and they're not improving the public access at this point in time. And so, they're simply, the applicant is simply requesting to wave that requirement.

Is staff okay with waving that requirement? Staff does not have a recommendation. That is for the planning commission to discuss and decide. Nick, any questions here? Well, I just I'd like to see what the what the road looks like. I mean, 30 ft's not even almost even a driveway. Where is this not? We have a question from Commissioner Kirk Matteo, where is this? Are we getting notice of these things?

When we email you the links to the um staff reports and the agendas and everything, those are embedded into the actual information that was provided. The agenda itself actually has the links to the case from the previous uh meeting date that contains all of the application materials. This particular location is in the Mobile Terrace community just off of Cody Road north uh north of Old Shell Road. Can can you go back to the other drawing second? So it's it's it's not where it's saying the 10 foot widening dedicated. It's really what would effectively be 5T on Lincoln Boulevard. I mean if it's 40t now we're basically asking for 5T conditions. We're adding

we say 25 ft from the center line, right? to provide 25 ft to the center line, which would uh basically facilitate a 50 foot wide ride of way uh along Lincoln Boulevard, which would be standard for any road that's developed to current standards with curbing and gutter. Mr. Hamburger, um I'm looking at the aerial photograph and it looks like that Lincoln Boulevard currently the asphalt terminates at the north side of 14th Street Rideway. Yeah. And there is no asphalt at all because it goes into essentially what becomes someone's backyard.

Yeah. I mean that just that the the challenge is and this really for my fellow commissioner ears is you know when the the elected officials the the uh well when the citizens want sidewalks and the and then the uh city councilors want to provide that to them. If there's no real estate we can't do anything with it. I don't know that there's a desire to to build sidewalks through here or if there's a an effort with it, but it's just that's that's just a consideration. And quite frankly, 50 feet is typically not wide enough, like when you get when you just start dealing with the built environment. You know, you're twisting and turning around power poles and and light u you know, light light poles and just everything that's out there. Uh I would say I'm not aware of any current plan to pursue anything like that in that in that area, but it's just that's that's the reason why I I have no objection to to uh removing the dedication requirement.

I did the last one. You can do this one.

Um Mr. Chair, I do want to point out that what was not provided in the agenda is the specific subdivision uh excuse me section of the subdivision regulations that needs to be waved to accommodate that request. If they give me just a second, I'll verify that. I'm we have a recusal.

We still maintain a quorum. Just just as just one more comment for the staff. Uh if I don't know if if the tech technology in this room is available for us to be able to look at Google Street View when these situations come up like that because it's just I mean just the plan drawings like that really just don't show us enough. So if you can look at that in the next meeting that would be that would be very helpful. Yeah. Unfortunately the county does not give us internet access. So Josh Josh has it pulled up on his iPad. Um can you hold it up? Six dot the parts of an elected official wave.

So, Mr. Chairman, the specific section that would need to be waved is section 6B.9. B is in boy. B or D? B is in boy. B is in boy.

Entertain a motion. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move that we uh we we remove condition number two via the waiver of 6B9 6B.9. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The removal request from the letter of decision on 7210 14th Street condition two is approved to be removed. Don't ask for a sidewalk.

Next is a public hearing for the proposed amendment to the subdivision regulation with the addition of the adopted provision of the historic avenue overlay. This is a call for public hearing. You do you want me to explain it again? You don't have to. I think we're all in agreement, but you're asking for calling for a public hearing to have the addition adopted or is it to adopt the addition? This is the public hearing for This is the public hearing.

I see a couple of people. Is there any questions or comments regarding the historic avenue overlay addition to our subdivision regulations? Was there anything submitted online? I did not see anything. All right. Public hearing is now closed for the historic avenue overlay addition. Last but not least, we will batch these. This is review of and approval of minutes from the following planning commission meetings October 5, 19, and December 7 and 21 of 2023. Mr. here.

Go ahead. Can we take a vote on the We need to take a vote on the historic avenue overlay. Let's do that. I'll reverse backwards. We will now call for a motion to add the adopted provisions of the historic avenue overlay. I'll move to approve and add. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? The adoption for the provisions passes. Now review of the minutes from the date that I mentioned. Move to approve.

Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Those minutes are good to go. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned. Man, start speaking up a little bit, man. Y'all making me work today.