Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah, it's me and my lonesome. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for October 16th, 2025. I'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions which will be public hearing and then deliberation. In the public hearing session, the 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 or four people against. Excuse me. And four people against. Each speaker is then limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. At one minute remaining, a speaker will hear a warning beep or a bell asking you to please summarize your comments. If there is opposition to an agenda item, the applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, please come down to the bottom of the stairs at the podium. Speak clearly into the microphone and provide your name and address for the record. Direct all your comments to the commission only and not to the applicant, staff, or the audience. After hearing all the applications, we will then go into deliberation where we will discuss each application with input from the audience. Excuse me, with inputs from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience unless we ask you. Commissioners then vote on each application and the results of that voting can be learned from the planning department. If some issues arise during deliberation that we were not a able to address in the public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments to resolve those issues 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. That does not mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules do require a recusal. The planning

commission makes final decisions on subdivisions with appeals of these decisions to the circuit court. The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for reasonzonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments. The city council makes the final decision on these applications, and all appeals of the city council decisions are to the circuit court. At this time, do me a favor and turn your cell phones to silent or vibrate. Any other devices the same. Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. We'll go ahead and call the role for today. Myself, Jay Stubs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Densen, Miss Mr. Harry Brlin here. 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. We do have a quorum for today's agenda of which there are 11 items on here with two non-aggenda business items at the end. Move to approve. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Agenda for today passes. Number one on the agenda is an extension application at 261 Rickerby Street Woodcock Place subdivision. Is the applicant present? I do not see a hand raised for the applicant present. Is there anyone here to speak for or against or have questions towards this extension application? Mr. Chairman, just a comment that I saw the applicant earlier today. He said he was not going to be able to make it to the to the meeting.

I'll take your word for it, Mr. Amber. A repeat that he saw the applicant today and everything was good. Let's just remind the applicant and make note that this is a should it be approved uh it would be for one year which is what I would ask to to remind that applicant if he or she were here. Moving on to number two. This is a new application subdivision at 501 Belair Boulevard. The Bair subdivision, it's a subdivision of one lot at 2.34 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present by wave or show of hand. There are 10 conditions that would be uh part of this application. Are you in agree and also waiver of u potential waiver of section 6C7 for multiple street frontages? Are you aware of those conditions and in agreement with that potential? Okay, he is aware with a thumbs up. I will ask if there is anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application of subdivision at 501 Bair Boulevard. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this application? Seeing none, we will move on. Number three, subdivision application at 240 Barnes Avenue, the Mark Henry subdivision. Three lots right at half of an acre. Mr. Orel. Yes. Uh Brett Orel with Poly Surveying. I just wanted to uh I know that spoke to planning before this. It is customary that dedication be required on a uh non-curbing gutter street. This this property is located uh at the northwest intersection of Old Shell Road and Cody Road. Um they are taking two lots that were originally facing north and south, creating three lots that would be facing

west. Uh two barns. Uh if we do that dedication, while it is only 5 ft, you can see that there's a pretty extensive uh 25 ft setback on that northern side. Um and it's going to just impact the the building area for there for that that property. Uh, it's really a a dead-end corridor. I can only imagine the city ever doing a resurfacing project in here. No widening. So, I am asking that items one and two be stricken. I'm okay with the corner dedication radius. That is pretty that's standard um to to have done, but I just ask that the 50 foot rightway remain. So, just to remove the notes one and two and everything else would be standard. Just to reiterate, you're asking for one and two to be removed from the conditions. Is that correct?

That is correct. Yes. I'll ask for comments from staff and if none from them, any comments from commissioners?

What about the 25T minimum set back line? Does that need to be changed? I think it says under item number five, it says retention of and it says if dedication required. So I think we're okay. Yeah.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners regarding the applicant's request?

Mr. Amber, do you have any issues with that with those requests? I I do not. And applicants correct me. We won't do anything other than other than resurfacing in there. Uh, you know, we're we're the extra having 60 foot right away instead of 50. If you ever wanted to try to go through there and put sidewalks through a neighborhood, you know, the the real estate is a real estate, so it's uh probably not practical. So, uh, resurfacing is probably all we'll ever realistically do in there.

Thank you, sir. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application of subdivision at 240 Barnes Avenue. Seeing none, we'll move on. Number four, this is a subdivision application at 4828 Todd Acres Drive, Evergreen Garden subdivision, resubdivision of lot 190, subdivision of five lots at 1.27 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant's present with a show of hand. Uh there would potentially be a request a waiver of section 6C2B2 with with respect to the lot width and then there would be potentially eight conditions. Are you in agreement? The applicant is in agreement with a yes. I'll ask if there's any comments or questions for commissioners on this. I'll ask if there was anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application at 4828 Toddacres Drive. Seeing none, we will move on. Number five, subdivision application at 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive, the Toddacres Industrial Park subdivision, the reubdition of lot A and the reubdivision of lots 5 and six. Go ahead, sir. Uh yes, Charles Tisher, Clark Gear, Leam Associates, uh spoke with the owner about this this week. They would like to request to hold this over for till next month. They want to be able to wrap their hands around some of the comments in there, get a full understanding.

The applicant is requesting a hold over. Is this land has come before us several times and resubdivided and resubdivided? Yes. No additional land. Just that same just that same one. Yes, Mr. Chair, go ahead.

Um just one thing that um kind of just looking through the comments um it appears that uh just you know in preparation for next month um should this get laid over um or held over um the US90 and and Kuiman Road that that is addressed um when it comes to traffic engineering comments. But I I would make note that there's no there's no comments associated with Rangeline Road and Kuan Road. So I don't um I do know that that to me is kind of just a concern because again um both of those intersections um are heavily traveled and you know have direct access to I65 I'm sorry on I 10 and um that you know I think that might need to be addressed in the comment side. That's some questions that I I would have next month that you know just in preparation for this being held

and that's what the traffic stuff's mostly what they have questions about. I know that was something they were going to get with the traffic department and make sure they have an understanding of what all needs to be done and when for that. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Tisher. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that note, could we hear from traffic engineering just where they are with the overall effort there?

Yes. So there the traffic in impact study is complete was complete a few years ago. They were actually requiring a signal off of Rangeline Road to be uh put in. I think uh they've already come back and told us their comments for for that. They have a schedule where they're going when they do their first uh phase one up there. They're going to go and put in the signal and a lot of the other improvements. and uh trying to think some of the some of the improvements have already been done by Aldado on along on Kuymen Road and but they have already submitted some a general outline of what they plan to do from the traffic impact study. Uh if you wish to see it, we can always send it to you guys or something that we can read over it.

All right. Even though it's been uh application has been suggested or requested for holdover, I will ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here today to have questions towards this application speak for it or speak against it. Again, this is 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to number six. Subdivision application at 5070 Old Shell Road, the cottages at Spring Hill subdivision, subdivision of seven lots occupying 0.57 acres. There are 14 conditions listed here. Yes, sir. Please go ahead.

Hey, Corey Bronin Camp, 549 Congress Street. Uh same as item number two. There was I know it's not in the conditions for the plat but there was a comment believe it was under planning for um rightway dedication and just wanted to see if there was the opportunity to to wave that on this one. Just can't imagine that uh with rooftops behind it, existing rooftops that there would be any sort of widening through here on both sides. Just for clarification, you're asking for the removal of number two condition dedication to provide 30 ft from the center line of Parkway Street East. Correct. And then also on uh border as well, they were asking for additional rightway. All right. Thank you for those. I will ask the staff, didn't you have an update on number six's agenda?

Uh, Mr. Chairman, yes. So, this property is located within the village of Spring Hill regulated area, the neighborhood general area, and it also requires that there be a minimum front setback of 6 feet as well as the maximum front setback of 25 ft. So, the plat would need to show the minimum front setback of six feet as well as the maximum 25 ft setback. And then the subdivision regulations for this specific overlay area of the village of Spring Hill requires a 6 foot wide minimum width sidewalk along the street frontages with a 6' wide green strip planting area with trees planted 30 ft on center.

Did you get that? Yes. Okay, I'm good with those. Thank you. How are these lots going to be accessed? Um the staff report says it has frontage in Oshell but there's a paved parking lot on city rightway between this and Oell road and it shows that that alley is going to be that yes so access these will be alley loaded houses um and the alleyway will be improved and uh it will likely be a one-way alley 14 ft wide or whatever the the spec is uh and remain uh public alleyway. It' be accessed from the rear.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to how uh how do you plan to address the storm water drainage? This particular area in the in the downstream park already has a drainage issue uh because there just there is no drainage there to speak of. So, what did what have you comp contemplated on that? I mean the lot sizes really are we have we see houses bigger than these lots are from size standpoint. So how how how have you contemplated dealing with that?

Yeah, thank thanks for that question. U the houses are likely going to be around 16 feet wide and uh these lots are around 35 or or 40t wide. And so the idea was to to do some swells or low impact development, excuse me. Yeah. LIS in between the lots uh and collect it and send it. Uh it we did something very similar on uh Logan Cottages off of University Boulevard that was just approved. They're a little bit bigger houses, but we we took some room in between the lots and then uh it collected the water and then discharged it. Um so that that would be the plan here. Um if we had to, we would eat up a lot and do some sort of um detention or retention pond for the water.

This is an area that would likely require, you know, a 100year uh two-year design standard because of known downstream um issues. So again, your pond would be bigger, your release would be smaller. You have to work with the engineering department to work through what that what that might look like. Sure. Uh and we can do that. Uh it it'll definitely require some creativity to uh thread the needle with what we're proposing, but hopefully um we can accommodate what's needed and if not, we can go back to the drawing board.

Cory, I've got a question. So I want to make sure I'm clear. So the intent would be that the vehicular access for these lots would be from the back alleyway only. That That's right. So it's alley loaded product. So your front door uh would face south. Uh and then in the rear, it's very similar to the Oakley residences. So the ones that are often marine, right?

Those are alley loaded and your front door just has um basically a front yard. Uh and so the idea would be to have a house that's 16 ft wide by maybe 100 ft deep or so. It would include a garage and a driveway uh that would be accessed by that alleyway right there. And then your intent would be for the alleyway to be one way or two-way. Likely one way, just given that it's uh 20 people. We hadn't we hadn't quite gotten to that detail yet. Um I think what would be ideal would be to have it go from east to west so that people were exiting at the traffic signal. Um but we hadn't gotten that far yet.

I guess this is a a question for staff and a comment. Um, is the 20 foot alleyway sufficient width to access a development like this? And I the reason I'm asking is I specifically recall there being an application before us several months back that came three times. It was in a newly annexed area where the applicant wanted to subdivide and create a a rear access flag lot, you know, only, you know, through, you know, private easement or essentially alleyway. And there was a lot of discussion about the the width of that. And ultimately, I think they had to provide 22 or 24. So, you know, in staff's opinion, is what's out there sufficient? I think the major issue is going to be how the fire department views their required access to the structures. I think typically they require a minimum 20 foot width for their truck and if the truck has to deploy the outriggers they require a minimum of 24 ft of pavement. So this will be a question really that has to be answered by fire. proply

I know uh if I could chime in here from our perspective the alley loaded product that we have done in the past that's been successful has been served by a one-way alley and that travel lane is generally 12 ft wide uh and that leaves some room for uh utilities in the rear uh and it's generally one way um so that's usually what what's accepted on alley loaded product is one way and it's usually 12t Maybe 14T travel lane uh is perfectly sufficient for the rear back there. Are there any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant?

And just make sure the applicant did receive the amended conditions. Springhole overlay. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm I'm good with those. Thank you.

All right. I'll ask now if there's anyone Let me remind commissioners, please check your iPads for comments. There were two posted in the uh public comment section, two different documents. And while you review those, I will ask if there's anyone in the audience here today to speak for, speak against, or have questions regarding agenda item number six at 570 Old Shell Road, the cottages of Spring Hill subdivision. All right, seeing none, we will move on to the next three agenda items 7, 8, and 9. All of which are sidewalk waivers. The first one is a sidewalk waiver application at 2453 as Lava Creek Parkway. The sheet metal workers local union 441 request to wave the construction of a sidewalk along Islava Creek Parkway. Is the applicant present? Would you like to make any comments toward your application on waiver? Okay. I'll ask if any of the commissioners have any comments towards this sidewalk waiver.

Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um I I think in this situation uh it does make sense given the commercial nature of the of the um development. Just wanted to add that.

Thank you, Mr. Woods. Any further questions or comments on this sidewall wer application from commissioners? I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application at 2453 Islava Creek Parkway. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to the next one. Sidewalk waiver application at 691 Deal Drive, Boswell Holdings Incorporated. Request to wave the construction of a sidewalk along Deal Drive. Is the applicant present? Applicant is present by show of hand. Same applicant as number seven. Again, no further comments. No further comments. I'll ask if there's any comments or questions from commissioners regarding this sidewalk waiver application. Seeing none, we will now ask if anyone in the audience has comments, questions for or against the sidewalk waiver application on Deal Drive. Seeing none, we'll move on to the next sidewalk application. This one is number nine on the agenda at 1080 Mont Lamar Drive. Sidewalk waiver application to con waiver to construct sidewalks along Mont Lamar Drive and Carile Close East.

Yes, sir.

My name is Ed Piece with New Real Estate Advisors. We developed the building for uh Dr. White and his wife. Uh we agree a sidewalk needs to go in on M Lamar. We are asking for it to be waved on Carile Close. Um the road terminates at the back of their property. There's one very small warehouse there with generally has two to five cars. The apartment complex and I have pictures. The apartment complex that's back there as well. Their gate is permanently padlocked off. So there's no pedestrian access through there. So, we agree that the sidewalk should be installed on Mont Lamar. We're asking for it to be waved on Carlile close because it doesn't always. All right. I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners and again to specify not asking to wave construction along Mont Lamar but only Carlile Close. Any questions, comments? Question for staff. Do we need to amend the does it need to be amended in any way, shape, or form the application based on the applicant's stated request today?

Uh, not the application, but you can approve one and deny the other.

All right. All right. I'll ask now. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application at 1080 Mont Lamar Drive. Again, not to wave the sidewalk on Mont Lamar, but only the Carile Close Street. Seeing none, we'll move on. The next two agenda items are dual applications. Uh number 10 is a subdivision in a reszone at 2574 and 2664 SI road. The Luke 418 Fellowship subdivision planning commission or planning uh staff has made notes for potential holdover of this request until the November 20th meeting to be concurrent with the conditional use permit request. The applicant, are you in agreement with that? Uh I'm Michael Daniels, 5617 Kotty Chill Road and uh I'm here uh the engineer is not able to be here today. I think he has we're actually not in agreement with the holdover. We're actually actually asked as a religious organization to move forward with the permit. uh we'd happy to comply with uh the requirements as far as the the the permit that we've already made for the building and for the land disturbance. Uh we just want to know if it's necessary to move forward in the state. Uh I think that Caldwell I think he's already received uh some of the requests that we saw that came up uh at the last you know as y'all don't approve till I think what last week or so. uh we sent them a site plan showing the existing dumpster and then also the revised uh drawing requirements for parking and then the only other thing they asked for was a sidewalk which

we're happy to comply with but we're concerned about the rightway and uh other than that we'd like to move go forward. I think we've had our uh permit in since uh sometime in May and been working on this since last year this time and u I think that there's no reason all the things that are going to be addressed will be addressed in that building permit and in that land disturbance permit. So I see no reason for it to hold over myself. Any questions? Just a reminder, this is a subdivision of a lot at almost 12 and a half acres and a conditional use permit approval to allow the expansion of your facility in an R1 single family residential suburban district. So, you're just adding on to the facility. Yeah. Right. And it was in the county. It actually got annexed during the course of while we were drawing the plans up. And so, in I think the city just wants to kind of have a clean slate and wants to have a single lot. uh in the county, all we'd have to do is provide an easement. We wouldn't even have to come here for that. So, um just wanted to point that out, but we'd appreciate some help to move forward today and not have to hold it over another month.

All right. Appreciate your comment, sir. I'll turn it over to staff for their comments. Yes, we uh actually drafted some conditions of approval last week and then we were reached out to earlier this week by the applicant. So, we have drafted conditions of approval and they are inside your uh your folders on your iPad. If you do wish to approve it today, um Caldwell has drafted those conditions to meet the the issues that were presented earlier for the holdover. If you so wish to move forward with that today,

no, for the subdivision and for the conditional use permit. All right, I'll take a moment to uh I'll let the commissioners review those considerations for the subdivision and I will quickly review these for the applicant should this be considered. Number one, revision of the plat to label 50 foot right ofway width from the center line of Sally Road South to the front property line of the site. Revision of the plat to provide concurrent total right ofway width Sally Road South. Correction of the street name label to read Sally Road South. Retention of the 25 foot minimum building setback line along Sally Road South. Revision of the plat to remove the 5-ft side yard setback lines and 8 foot year setback line. Revision of the setbacks table to remove the side and rear setbacks. Revision of the plat to label the lot with its size in both square feet and acres or the furnishing of a table on the final plat providing the same information. Compliance with engineering. Placement of note on flight final plat for all traffic engineering comments noted in the report compliance with urban forestry and then fire department. Based on the nod of the applicant's head, he would be in agreement with the subdivision conditions. Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this application on the subdivision? Seeing none, I will then move on to the potential of the reszone. I guess this conditional use permit um simply to allow the expansion in an existing R1 single family residential suburban district. Would we maintain regular findings of fact in that reason? Question for staff.

Um under the conditional use permit there are considerations one through 10. Um those are the criteria for approval which are similar to the findings of fact. And then just underneath that are the conditions um should the planning commission choose to approve it, the conditions on which it can be approved.

All right. On the reszone application for the applicant's benefit, I will quickly run through these considerations on the reszone is consistent with all applicable requirements is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Will not impede the orderly development improvement of surrounding property. will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working in the surrounding neighborhood or be more interested property or improvements in the neighborhood. Is designed to provide ingress and egress that minimizes traffic hazards and traffic congestion on the public roads. Designed to minimize the impact on storm water facilities will be adequately served by water and sanitary is not noxious or offensive by reason of emissions, vibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke or gas and should not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety or general welfare. And then finally, proposed use will meet the cities and the larger community's best interest and the need benefit or public purchase of the proposed request assuming you would be in agreement with those conditions should that reszone be approved on the reszone. Any questions or the conditional use permit? Any questions or comments from commissioners? All right. Thank you for your patience while I made sure that if we could move forward the applicants well notified. Is there anyone else in the audience on agenda item number 10, subdivision and reszone at 2574 and 2664 Sally Road here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application?

Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um, while you did go through the approval criteria, just underneath that are the actual conditions that um, the application could be approved with. Um, I don't know if you got to those yet. There are five proposed.

If the application is considered for approval, our commissioners should consider the revision of the site plan to provide a public sidewalk and pedestrian connection or obtaining a sidewalk waiver. Revision of the site plan to provide a residential buffer along the south property line in compliance with section 643-3-8 of the unified development code. Revision of the site plan to provide pedestrian safe safety aisles within the parking lot. provision of a phototric lighting plan when submitting for land disturbance permits and submittal to and approval by the planning and zoning of a revised site plan prior to the application being submitted to the city council for consideration. I think the biggest item on there would be the sidewalk pedestrian connection. Is that correct? Did the applicant hear that? Would you be in agreement? Got a thumbs up from staff. Any further things? I apologize that I missed that. It was on the next page of the PDF. Okay. Questions or comments from commissioners? Anyone in the audience on number 10? since I'm trying to remember what the engineer said. So, I just want to make sure that everyone's aware that there is a heavy slope on the current road out there. And so, we're going to have to work through maybe getting a right away uh addressed or whatever where where we can put the sidewalk maybe in a different location. We'll just work with the planning staff on that on the uh the city.

Are y'all aware of that? M M Mr. Chairman, if I may. Uh, go ahead, Mr. Amber. For the purpose of applicant, you know, sidewalks, while they're typically on the city's right away, they can be built on private property. Yes, that's what I want to make sure that that was okay with y'all. We can work with the staff on that. Absolutely. Okay. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. I

think we're okay to move on to number 11. We are number 11. Also a dual application subdivision and reszone at 2243 2245 2345 and 259 Halls Mill Road. The farmers market of Mobile County subdivision will be a subdivision of one lot at 12 acres and reszoning from community bis business suburban district which is B3 to off uh office distribution district which is B5. On the subdivision, there are potentially seven listed conditions for commissioners. On the reszone, there are potentially six findings of fact in agreement with full compliance on municipal codes and ordinances.

Yes, sir.

And we're agree Casey Pipes, 150 Government Street. We're in agreement with all of those conditions. Um just here to answer questions if you have any about the reasonzoning. Uh the subdivision is pretty easy. It's a one lot subdivision, 12 acres. The reasonzoning is from B3 to B5 uh based on error in the original zoning. Uh in part because it was B3, but in part because the B3 uses were changed when the UDC was changed. I mean, the zoning's been B3 for a long time, but B3 used to allow more of the warehouse distribution that uh this client proposes. Also, they're changing conditions in the area. adjoining property zone B5 also owned by my client which is trying to consolidate into one one thing. We believe it's consistent with map for mobile compatible with neighborhood uh existing capacity to serve it. Uh we've had uh two neighborhood meetings had no negative comments and no negative comments posted online.

Were the neighborhood meetings well attended? No. Well, just curious

it did not generate any interest. Thank you, Mr. Pipes. I'll ask if there's any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the subdivision or the reszone from B3 to B5 at these addresses listed on this application at Halls Mill Road. Thank you, Mr. Pipes. Anyone in the audience here for this agenda item on Halls Mill Road? Would you like to speak for, speak against, or just have questions towards it? All right, seeing none, we will move we will close the public hearing session and move back to the deliberation. We go back to agenda item number one. Extension of a subdivision application at 261 Rickerby Street, Woodcock Place subdivision. The applicant was not present. There are 11 listed conditions for our esteemed commissioner. The applicant and that commissioner, Mr. Hamburger spoke and they were good with this. Just like to reiterate in place in the notes that this extension would be good for one year and I'll go ahead and move to approve.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The extension passes. Number two, subdivision application at 501 Belair Boulevard. Subdivision one lot 2.34 acres. the application, excuse me, the applicant was present and in agreement with the 10 listed conditions and the multiple street frontages approval of waiver. Move to approve subject staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Number three, 240 Barnes Avenue, subdivision of three lots at 0.55 acres. The applicant is present in agreement with the listed conditions and asked to strike condition one and condition two per my notes. Was there anything else? So moved. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

The motion for subdivision passes. Number four, 4828 Toddacres Drive, Evergreen Garden subdivision, subdivision of five lots, 1.27 27 acres. The applicant is present in agreement with the eight listed conditions and the lot with subdivision regulations. Entertain a motion. So move. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Subdivision application passes. Number five has been 4995 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive been requested by the applicant for hold over. I'll ask for staff to check on their dates. Would that be held over till November 20? November 20th. That's correct. So moved. Second. Properly moved and second for a November 20th holdover. All in favor?

I motion for holdover passes on that application. Number six, subdivision application at the cottages of Spring Hill, 5070 Old Shell Road, 7 lots,.57 acres. The applicant is present in agreement with the conditions request and we amended the conditions for the Spring Hill overlay. The applicant was still in agreement with those conditions. And the applicant also requested, was it striking or reducing dedication on parks Parkway Street East? Elim requested an elimination. I couldn't read my own handwriting. Elimination of the condition number two and three, excuse me. So moved. We have a move on the floor or a motion on the floor. Anyone willing to second? Any discussion amongst commissioners? All right, we have a standing motion. So, we do not have anything to vote on. I will ask

Does anybody want to make another motion? And the ones that don't want to second it, are y'all against it? Move to deny. Second. We have a motion that was not second, we now have a motion to deny the application and a proper second. All in favor for the denial of the application

for for legal purposes um on a possible appeal of a denial of a subdivision. Need to give some reasons. We just can't say it's denied arbitrarily. I mean, we've got to give a reason. You deny subdivisions for health and safety uh concerns. uh if it meets the minimum standards, then our hands are pretty much tied. We've got to approve it. So, I just want to try and protect y'all if they file a lawsuit. Um we need an explanation or reasons for deni denial.

Yeah. Yeah. So, the reason for denial is is really the questions that I brought up about the drainage. Uh there's known downstream drainage of this of this area. Uh, you know, when I look at these lot sizes and and and thinking about houses and driveways and the impervious area that it's going to create, um, you know, this is one that really would warrant a lot of due diligence with the engineering up front. Uh, rather than us, you know, approving it and letting them letting them figure out the drainage. uh you know from my perspective what I'm hope what I do know about drainage it's going to be very hard to have a house a driveway a lot and and create the appropriate amount of impervious area to make the house functional and not have effectively a parking lot out there. Uh so I just don't believe there's enough information here uh to adequately address the drainage at this point in time.

Mr. Chairman, can I chime in here? Mr. Chairman, um I just defer to the commissioner first. Yeah, I was just going to point out that in the past when we've been in this same kind of denial pickle, we've used some of the language from the the you know findings of fact reszoning. Uh so that sounds like health, safety, general welfare capacity because our capacity item mentions whether infrastructures in place to accommodate uh in that in the zoning case is a proposed amendment but in this case would be a development and uh and whether changing conditions require resoning. So if if any of that's useful, we could we could tailor that to say Okay,

I'll go ahead and turn it over to the applicant for comments or questions.

Sure. And I I'm just I I think uh these items can be addressed given more time. Uh and I'm happy to engage with my civil um just going over the engineering comments. I know there's some generic notes about storm water management, but um I didn't really seem to uh notice any anything on there that would indicate um anything in in the way of denial. So, if there's the opportunity to uh hold this application over to the next meeting and allow us to work with y'all's staff and my civil, I would certainly welcome that opportunity to address the main concern about storm water. Was that the only concern or are there any other items that we need to uh be aware of from the engineering perspective? that that's that's the only concern just knowing that you know um that down there's downstream issues and any amount of imperous area uh is just not is just adding to the problem. Uh with with that in mind I will change my motion to to recommend a hold over uh give you time to talk and have your engineer work with the city engineering department and see it's just it's one as small as the lots are and the amount of impervious area that you have to have to have something that's functional from a house standpoint you just don't have much real estate left. Sure. Understood.

And so uh so I'll change my change that motion to uh to hold over to the next meeting. Before we get to that, let me ask staff there's room on the agenda for the November 20th should that and also reminder to applicant of the deadline of November 6. Is that right? Uh the deadline for the November 20th meeting is October 20th. That's um in order to um I would say have the appropriate amount of time to review any revisions. Uh we were looking at two weeks prior. Um so what is the deadline for December's meeting?

Let's see. For the November 20th meeting, we would want revisions, right? It's thinking yeah November at least by November 7th that would be you go with that the applicant's given us a good with that we have a properly moved looking for a second on hold over to December's meeting properly moved and seconded any discussion all in favor I motion for hold over passes thank you sir thank you

number seven sidewalk waiver Application 2453 is Lava Creek Parkway. Request to wave along said parkway. Comments from uh Commissioner Woods. We're positive towards the motion approve the waiver. Second. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The motion for sidewalk waiver passes at Islava Creek Parkway number eight 691 Deal Drive. Sidewalk waiver application. Applicant is present. made no comments and we didn't have any comments or questions from commissioners. Move to approve. Second. Properly moved and seconded for a sidewalk waiver. All in favor?

I motion for that waiver passes. Number nine, sidewalk waiver 1080 Mont Lamar Drive. The applicant is present with the developer request to wave the construction of the side sidewalk only along Carile Close East with their determination of the reasoning and in agreed to sidewalks along Mont Lamar Drive. Move to approve sidewalk waiver on Carile Close East denying the waiver on Mont Lamar Drive in conjunction with the applicant's request. Second. properly moved and seconded. For clarification, that just means Mont Lamar would get sidewalks. All in favor?

I. The motion for that amended sidewalk waiver passes. We good with that, Doug? Everything good on that?

Okay. I confuse myself sometimes. Number 10, uh, dual application originally considered or or suggested for holdover. We went through the exercise of conditions for the subdivision. Conditions for the reszone. The applicant is present as requested for a vote today. It's a subdivision at uh 2574 and 2664 SI road. Uh one lot at 12.43 acres on the subdivision and then a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the facility in an R1 single family residential suburban district. We will take these separately on the subdivision and the uh just for notes the applicant was in agreements with the subdivision subdivision conditions.

Move to approve. Second. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor for the subdivision? I. Any opposed? The motion for the subdivision passes on the conditional use permit. There would a number of conditions that were also reiterated and read. Move to approve SE staff recommendations with Do we need to do findings of fact on this? Because we had 10 listed findings of fact on the considerations page. It wouldn't hurt. Right.

Right. So yeah, you're adopting it um or you're approving it based off of it meeting one or all 10 of those criteria. Right. So I'll move to approve SE staff recommendation with findings of effect 1 through 10 and conditions 1 through 5 as read by the chairman. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

The motion for the conditional use permit passes. Reminder to staff to make sure that we get the documentation to the applicant so they understand all of those things that just passed. Number 11, dual application subdivision and reszone. This is a 2243, 2245, 2345, and 259 Holes Mill Road. The farmers market of Mobile County subdivision. Um, one lot at 12 acres and then the reszone from B3 to B5. The applicant, Mr. Pites, representing uh in agreement with all conditions and said findings of fact and gave an explanation as to the nature of the development. Entertain a motion on the subdivision. Move to

approve recommendations. Second properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Motion for subdivision passes. And on the reszone from B3 to B5. Entertain a motion. Move to approve. Adopting findings of facts A C D E F and G. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact AC D F and G. All in favor? I I.

The motion for the reszone passes. That concludes the agenda items. Like to thank our audience for their patience today, especially on when we had to read some stuff. Uh our commissioners move on to other business. We will uh have a review of minutes from planning commission meetings held May 16th, 2024, June 20th, 2024, July 18th, 2024, August 15, 2024. Move to approve the in in batch. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Those minutes have been approved. The second item on the other business is our public hearing from the unified development code, chapter 65, appendix A, the downtown development district amendments to appendix A to reorganize the format, layout, and sequence of the downtown development district regulations for clarity, process, and ease of use. Each of the commissioners should have received a proposed additional amendment edit to change the word civil at the bottom of that page 76 to civic. and then also received existing uh section identifications and then the proposed

looks like some a little bit of consolidation there. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's an example of the table of contents from the existing downtown development regulations. Is that what they call that? Table of contents. Thank you.

And proposed. So um as you stated there will be some consolidation but primarily also reorganization of the document. The document was originally adopted by the uh city council in May of 2014 after probably several years of public input that included Andre Dwani, famous architect for formbbased codes and city staff as well as the community have been using this document now for about 11 years. And during this time frame, we've both staff and the users of the document and the community have found that there's a need for some re revisions to the document. Uh so what we're presenting to you today is essentially a reorganization to help simplify uh the document the process and how you can find the information that you need in order to move forward with your development. Uh next page please. This presentation is also available under other business in your iPad if you wish to look at it there. So, um, second page, uh, back in the fall of 2024, we, uh, began the assessment of the downtown development district for effectiveness. Uh, we brought in a consultant who met with stakeholders, took a tour of the area and reviewed the documents that we have and compared it to other formbbased codes that they've worked with throughout the United States. Um by March of this year they had prepared an assessment of our existing document and come up with some recommendations for it and then by August uh they came or we met again with the stakeholders to present proposed changes to the document and those uh proposed changes were wellreceived by the stakeholder group. So again the purpose is to make the regulations friendlier without changing the meeting clarify subdist and fun standards provide graphics which were lacking in the previous versions of this document

and then to correct some errors and other uh ambiguities that we had found over the years. So it is better organized which is what the table of contents tries to show you of how things are grouped together. zoning district regulations, front standards, and development standards. It's also hopefully more user friendly, so when you want to build something downtown, you can more easily find your set setback requirements and window transparency requirements, for example. Um, a lot of text was reorganized into tables, making it easier to find. And then some of the regulations were clarified so that everything is organized in a manner that's similar to the unified development code. Um again uh dimensional standards, transparency and frontage requirements are included with new graphics so they help depict what we're talking about and we're they're placed into single page tables. Uh so the next slide shows that example of what you're looking at showing you how to define your lot sizes and setbacks and building heights. And then frontage standards are consolidated. So again, there's an illustration of the frontage type and shows you which district it's allowed and the criteria that would apply when you're building a new building. And for this last slide, so to streamline the process, uh we clarify the steps and the order of your application review process. uh the consolidated review committee, the CRC has been is proposed for elimination with all the review going to an administrative level review. And this was something that was concerning to the development community and then again cleaning up the ambiguities about signage, uh cleaning up transparency issues that conflicted with building code and clarifying parking lot

screening requirements. We did not receive any comments online uh for this application. Any questions? Questions, comments, commissioners? I'd like to comment a word of thanks to Miss Bo and her efforts. Uh, public hearing has been open now and we've had no comments. Mr. Pipes, no, he's shaking by by shake of head. No. Um,

we can now put this to a vote. I'll um move to approve the amendments to appendix A sections 1 through nine to reorganize the format layout sequence of the downtown development district regulations for clarity, process, and ease of use. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. The amendments for the development code pass. Thank you. Any other business, gentlemen, ladies? Thank you very much. Meeting term.