Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Shay recognize a guest. Do you want to recognize the guest? This guest want to recognize before or after Hey, I'm Super. Now I lost my pencil.

Did you take it? No. It's a maybe a maybe depends on the conversations that get sparked.

We do have suggestions for hold over till December. Good afternoon. Welcome to the November 20th, 2025 planning commission meeting for the city of Mobile. I'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures. This meeting is divided into two sessions, public hearing and deliberation. In our public hearing sessions, an agenda item is called. The applicant makes their presentation. Commission members ask questions if any. Members of the public make their comments to the commission. Only four people may speak for an agenda item and four people against. Each speaker is limited to five minutes subject to questions by the commission. At one minute, a speaker will hear a warning beep prompting you to summarize your comments. After opposition speakers have finished and applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal. If you do intend to speak, we invite you to come to the bottom of the stairs, speak into the microphone in the podium, and provide your name and your address for the record. Direct all your comments to this commission only and not to the applicant, the staff, or the audience. After hearing all applications, the commission will then go into deliberation where we will discuss each

application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience. The commissioners will then vote on each application and the results of that voting can be learned from the planning department. If some issues arise during deliberation session that were not addressed in public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them or call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting. Occasionally, a commissioner may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application. That doesn't mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal, even if there's only the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest. If a regular member recuses, a super numerary will be voting in theirstead. A reminder, 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 resonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments. The city council makes the final decision on these application, and all appeals of city council decisions are to the circuit court. At this time, if you would do me a favor and turn your cell phones and electronic devices to the silent or the vibrate position. Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking. I'll go ahead and call the role. Myself, Jay Stubs, present. Mr. Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Densson,

Mr. Harry Brlin here, Mr. Larry Dorsey, Mr. Chad Anderson here, Mr. Matt Anderson, Mr. Nick Amber here, Mr. Josh Woods here, Mr. Kenny Nichols here, Miss Ellie Edwards here. We do have a quorum for today's agenda, November 20th. And I will move to approve the agenda. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

The motion passes. Before we jump into the agenda, I'd like to welcome our intern from the planning department here today with Miss Shayla Boco. We have Mr. Alan Lee who is a first year student at Bishop State. Uh, welcome Mr. Lee. Hope you learn a lot. Number one is a holdover on the agenda. 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Toddacres Drive, Toddacres Industrial Park Subdivision, five lots, 241 and some odd acres. We have seven conditions on this holdover application. Is the applicant present? The applicant's present with a raise of hand. Are you in agreement with the seven listed conditions? Thumbs up, a shake. Okay, we got a thumbs up and a shaking nodding of the head. I will ask on this particular application if there's any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant.

Mr. Chair, go ahead. Um, last month we uh I brought up the I guess there was kind of limited information when it came to to traffic. Um, I know there allegedly was a traffic study working in conjunction with ALD DOT. Um, you know, at the end of my conversation last month, I guess the question was, uh, what what's going to happen at Toddacres Drive and Rangeline Road intersection, um, I was just going to wanted to ask the applicant if that's something they dealt with over the past month. Thank you, Mr. Woods. We'll invite the applicant to answer that name and address for the record.

Charles Tisher, 3901 Spring Hill Avenue. Um so in the past month we did have a meeting with traffic department and engineering department discussing the current uh traffic study that's there. Um and I know that speaking from the engineers that they have doing the design on everything. They're going to work moving forward on the range intersection on the Kuan Road intersection and whatever else is included in that traffic report is my understanding of it. Um, and that'll all really be done during the land disturbance permit when they go file for a permit to start doing work. One of the reviews is going to be from the traffic department. Uh, so that's when any recommendations from that detailed traffic report, they'll have to at a point where they hit where it needs the upgrades, they'll move forward with it. And that'll be at the discretion, I believe, of the traffic department and AL DOT. Um and I know there was talk they've started talking to ALDOT as well about all this.

Yeah. Okay. So to your knowledge so no traffic improvements or discussions of traffic improvements on long range line and Todd acres has occurred. I guess they're going to happen for sure.

Yeah. Let me help help to address that. So yeah, there are ongoing conversations between the city uh Alo and the developer. You know uh with traffic signals like this. Fortunately, some of that a little bit of that's going to be out of the developer control. I mean, obviously for for materials coming in, but a traffic signal is part of the development that will be required to to be built there. Improvements of the intersection and then also some other stuff along the service road. Um, we're likely going to be in a scenario where where the developer is going to want us to sign the plat prior to that being done. We've had some internal discussions around that and we believe that that's ac acceptable uh just due to the nature of that signal's got an out permitting component to it. It's got a got a couple of different funding components to it. So we'll be working very closely with the developer uh and making sure their financial commitment is there to orchestrate that along with some hopeful out financial participation and some likely city financial participation. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Tisher. Any further questions or comments from commissioners? All right. Seeing none, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to uh have questions towards, speak for, or speak against agenda item number one at 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Toddacres Drive. All right, seeing none, we will move on to number two on the agenda item. It too is a hold over from last month's October 16th meeting. Uh my notes show that this is potentially another request for a holdover. Is the applicant present? All right. See not I will speak from the notes from this. Uh the applicant has since reached out to advise staff and due to the UN their design professional being out of town. They will not have revised information available for today's meeting, November 20th, and the application would like to be requested to be held over to December 18th meeting. Should be noted to commissioners that section 10 C3 of our regulations allow a request of only one holdover. Uh therefore, when we get to deliberation, we will discuss that. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for or against or have questions towards agenda item number two, the cottages at Spring Hill subdivision, 5070 Old Shell Road. All right, seeing none, let's move on. The rest of the agenda items are new applications. The first one is number three on the agenda. This is a subdivision at 5906 US Highway 90 West extending to the north terminus of Kirk Road. This is a subdivision of one lot at just under five acres. Has been requested for a holdover until December 18th uh with revisions submitted no later than December 5th. Is the applicant present? Are you in agreement with that? The applicant is present and in agreement. I will ask if there's anyone else in the audience that hears

since it's on the agenda, but it's potentially held over till next month. Is there anyone that would like to speak for this, against it, or have questions toward this agenda item on um Highway 90 West? All right, seeing none, we will move on. Number four. This is a subdivision at 1608 Crestwood Drive, Crestwood B subdivision. This is two lots, just over an acre. There are nine conditions listed. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present. Raise of hand in the back. Are you in agreement with the nine listed conditions? I have a nod of a head and a raise of a hand. I'll ask if there's any comments or questions from commissioners on this application. Seeing none, I will now ask if there's anyone in the audience that has comments about or for against or just questions about this application at 1608 Crestwood Drive. Seeing none, number five on the agenda. This is a subdivision at 1615 and 1622 Mackey Avenue. The Kaufman Turner subdivision subdivision of two lots at 1.81 acres. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present with a raise of a hand. There are nine listed conditions. Are you in agreement with those inclus inclusive of the wther of 6C3 for width to depth ratio? Shake of a head yes for those agreements. Is there anyone else in else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item at Mackie Avenue? Yes, sir. You are you have questions for it? Please come on down and address the commission so we can hear it in the microphone. Thank you for that.

And a reminder that we'll take your name, address for the record, sir. It was already on. It's already red light means on. I'm James Kaufman Jr. I'm the owner of the property. Um the culde-sac in question there upon purchasing that the gentleman that uh I'm doing the merge with the the the property the trade off there. Upon purchasing that he he was wanting enough property there to put in a culde-sac. And whenever I purchased it I agreed to give him that. And now what I'm doing, my plan is to uh break off a section of the foot of that property. The depiction on the screen is not accurate, but uh the the way it's sectioned off there, I've given him enough for a culde-sac. And uh I just I see this on the paperwork here. The culdeac won't won't have anything to do with me any further after It's kind of a wild drawing there because it it depicts that road going through 100y old oak trees.

Whose drawing is it? This is based off of the subdivision plan that was provided to us with the application. Go ahead. We're going to invite someone who can answer these questions. Mr. Coffman, before you before he starts, do you have any further questions or is this specific to the the drawings culac? No, sir, I don't have any further questions. I just wanted to reiterate that that culde-sac would be taken out of his property, not the property that will be left dedicated.

Zeke Hudson Row Engineering and Surveying. Uh, currently that is a private culde-sac. uh it's a turnaround and I know that the city for the resubdivision process to happen that we'll have to give some sort of a turnaround. Um and apparently I misunderstood when we spoke earlier with my client that u the culde-sac is there. I think the intent is for it to stay there. Yes. So we just have to give them right of way so that I don't think there's a a caveat to develop at this time. Is that correct? we just need to give the right away for it.

Yeah, this has been a long-standing issue uh you know with the previous property owner where the culde-sac is there. I don't know how it physically came to be there uh but it's not in right away. So you're effectively what you're doing is you're cleaning up the rightway or cleaning up the circumstance and putting it all in to rightway to where the city could actually maintain it. Uh right now it's just a road that dead dead ends into a private culde-sac that in in practice really has private ownership and private maintenance of it. So um yeah I think your surveyor cleaning it up there. It should be you know I mean this drawing is correct. I mean the road the road should be within Yeah. should be within the center of it. I mean it's it's a survey that that that reflects uh you know the built environment. Well, maybe not, but they have to have a record that we're going to dedicate that.

So, it's essentially not going to change it. Well, we just have to dedicate that on our flag. It might be a scenario where where y'all need to consider putting some pin flags out in the ground where he can see where these lines actually are and or and or would be just for clarity purposes.

Okay. Any other questions for me? Any other comments or questions from commissioners on this particular situation? Then if not, I will now ask if there's anyone else. And thank you, Mr. Kaufman. I will now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application on Mackie Avenue. All right, seeing none, we will move on to number six on the agenda. It's a subdivision at 250 Tutill Lane and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and nine of Garden Trace. The Garden Trace subdivision. This is nine lots at 13 and a3 acre. Yes, I'm Casey Pipes, 150 Government Street here for the applicant who had to be out of town. We we do request a a change to some of the conditions. Um the point here the the subdivision lots aren't changing. Every every lot line's the same place it was before. Roads in the same place it is now. We had a note on the original plat note number eight that said that sidewalks uh shall be built when individual lots are built out. and we're trying to remove that note from the plat because we can't apply for a sidewalk waiver while that note's on the plat. And so we were just trying to scratch that off the uh the note. And since the recording of this plat in 2012, one of the easements shown on there uh has been vacated by MAS. So we wanted to add a note that that that easements got uh you know to see the other instrument that dealt with it. The conditions we want to remove. One of them was engineering comments that requires us to record a whole new plat just to do this. What we'd like to do is

record the old plat again, re-record it with those two changes made what we've submitted to staff. the uh surveyor who I don't think is here has lost the CAD file from from this from 2012 and uh and there's been some work done since then but apparently they don't have it and to recreate the plat uh is an expense that you know is a lot for for what we were trying to do which seemed minor at the time and so we'd like to be able just to re-record the garden trace plat from 2012 I that has these few edits made to it and uh the traffic engineering comments uh are already on the original plat. You know, the no access, you know, because retention of the following notes from the original plat, they're already there. And so, we really just wanted to avoid the expense and the time of getting somebody to go draw a new file for this. Thank you, Mr. Pipes. I'll divert his question to staff to see if they are okay with Mr. Pipes's request. Um, on on the surface, I would say no. Uh, only because I I don't think you can re-record a plat. Who's going to sign it? Who's approving it? What, you know, you have things on it that were done a number of years ago. So, I'm I'm not sure about the legality of re-recording a previous recorded plat that's been altered without any certifications and owner signatures, things like that. That and that's a question for me because I'm I'm an engineer, not a lawyer or a surveyor.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, that I don't I know there's at least one surveyor in the room. Uh perhaps we have a conversation with him after that because I'm of kind of the opinion of Mr. Davis once a s once that plaque gets has a change to it is a new plat once it gets recorded it is a new plat if there's a change to it all albeit I think there is very very minor things to it I wouldn't see why your your surveyor couldn't refer to the drawing that was recorded the legal descriptions and basically the meat of what is on that plat as the basis of him redrawing it I mean he'd probably have a standard of practice where he needed to come out maybe verify a few things in the field but not full-blown reserveying it. I mean, the points that he put in the ground shouldn't have changed. Uh, but he it would be a new drawing. It would be a new CAD drawing. I don't think there's any way any way around that. Uh, to

Well, and another thing, if if I may, you know, we're we're changing a note and it's sort of like changing recorded covenants. You know, with y'all's permission, we can change the note to to say the garden trace plat recorded in 2012 is amended to to have these notes instead of the original notes. And then the drawings, we're not doing a new drawing. We're not re-recording the old drawing. It's just referring back to it and we're getting rid of note number eight, which is the point.

I think we're saying the same thing, but it is still it's a new plat. It's just whether or not your surveyor feels whether or not he needs to go out in the field and reservey those points as opposed to referencing his document that albeit it's got some age to it uh is arguably the notes that you know it's the it's the it's the paper version of the notes that he took in the field to establish those points of of uh you know of the individual lives. So, I would kind of be of the opinion he doesn't have to go out there and reservey it, but he needs to recreate that drawing that he previously did because it's going to require a new signature. I think what you're saying is that y'all would like it to eliminate or change a few things that have gone away. Some easements. Uh, so

I just wanted to note I didn't want to record the plaque with this easement that's since been vacated without noting. It's still shown on there, but without noting that there's a new instrument you might need to see to understand what's going on there.

Again, it's a new plat. I'm happy to have a conversation after this, you know, with the one surveyor here can stick around and and then perhaps y'all can go talk chat back there and see if he can give you a little bit of guidance from a you from a surveyor's perspective what is legally required. But I believe it's a new plaque with new signatures and it's going to look 99.9% the same as what it did before. It's just going to have a couple of other notes added to it. You know, as you suggested, uh there we have a pro we don't we don't have a problem with that. We don't have a problem with signing that. Uh but you know, I think it is a new we might be playing with some semantics. I believe it is a new plat. Uh and it's just whether or not you're the surveyor that would that would certify the plat is comfortable in certifying that without going out there and reproducing that fieldwork. Uh If we can Can we maybe push you to the end of the agenda? Maybe give you a chance to go consult with the surveyor.

Yeah, I've got I've got two more. So, I'll be I'll be here all day. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pipes. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Do we even re-record all Have we done that before? Is that something we do? any amendment to a plat is as it's requested now uh ressigned, replatted, and then re-recorded in probate court as a new plat. So there's not so much of a re-recording of a document that's already been recorded. It's a new recording. So no, we don't. Correct.

Any further questions, comments from commissioners? I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions for or would like to speak against or just comments on this application at 250 Tutill Lane and Garden Trace. Mr. Chair, go ahead.

I mean, I Mr. Pipes left the left the room obviously. Um, I guess my understanding is we're just trying to work towards um clarifying the the former easement through the middle of these these properties, I guess. Um, but the original intent was just to seek a sidewalk waiver, I guess. Um, is that is that kind of um I guess is that my understanding or staff's understanding of the situation here?

Yes. So, initially, this came up a few months ago with a sidewalk waiver that was denied because the PLA states that a sidewalk's required on all properties. And so, their intent was to then just come in and simply remove that note. But that leads us to the plat issue of we can't just strike a note on a plat that's already been filed in probate, has to be refiled. Got And then there's not the authority. And again, uh there's not the authority even though the plat says there needs to be sidewalks. Um UDC says there needs to be sidewalks. Um uh but this is also a private street I guess too. Correct.

And and the subdivision was uh previously approved before those requirements came into play. Gotcha. So we're still dealing with the the I guess the effects of what was pre was prior to the UDC. I guess and there's no way to administratively or or this body to to overcome that obstacle of what was laid out prior to the now UDC. I guess well that the what's before you today is to it requires that you amend that note. Gotcha. That note nine. Um and and and that needed to be brought back to this body to remedy them from that.

Gotcha. Thank you. Memorial number six. All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to agenda item number seven. This is a modification application at 6710 Old Shell Road, the American Tower Corporation. Major modification of a previously approved planning approval allowing construction of a 150 foot tall steel monopole telecommunications telecommunications tower to increase the height of the telecommunications tower from 150 ft to 172.1 for commissioner's consideration. There would be potentially eight findings of facts here. See the applicant and then for you sir eight conditions listed. Yes sir. Go ahead. Yes, thank you. Michael Bentley on behalf of American Tower Corporation. My address is 188 East Capitol Street, Jackson, Mississippi. Uh, as you said, this is an application to extend the height of an existing wireless tower on the southwestern edge of the University of South Alabama campus. The extension will permit the addition of T-Mobile wireless communications antenna and uh equipment so that the coverage in the invehicle coverage on Old Shell Cody airport and the campus the USA campus will be improved. Um the extension itself is 23 feet and that brings us because it's slightly over the 10% required for the major major modification requests. That brings us here today and happy to answer any questions that you have.

And thank you Mr. Bentley. Yes. Any comments or questions from commissioners?

Right. Thank you, Mr. Bentley. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to have questions towards this modification application like to speak for it or would speak against it. Seeing none, we will move on. I question for staff. Um sorry the residential buffer uh that is stipulated here it's 200 ft or 150% of the tower height is that a lesser of greater than uh whichever is greater

between whichever greater okay that's not spelled out here so I wasn't sure. So thank you. Anything else from commissioners on agenda item seven? All right, seeing none, we will move on to agenda item number eight. We will have a recusal on this agenda for Mr. Harry Brrilin and we still maintain a quorum for public hearing and deliberation. This is a modification application at 560 Providence Park Drive East, Clarence Ball, Ball Healthcare. It's a major modification of a previously approved plan unit development, amending a previously approved master plan to allow the construction of a multif family residential building with 56 dwelling units with shared access between multiple building sites. Applicant is present, Mr. Pipes. Uh for commissioners, hold Mr. Pipes for commissioners. So there would be potentially eight findings of fact should this modification go into deliberation for consideration. Uh and then Mr. Pipes, there are 19 listed conditions. Given that you're seated, I'm assuming you're under the Yep. Mr. Pipes, give a thumb up in agreement with the 19 listed conditions at 560 Pro Park Drive East. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this modification application? I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application of modification on a previously existing unit development. All right, seeing none, let's keep on trucking. Number nine is a modification application at 6151 Marina Drive South, Chris Lee, Leave Engineering, and it has been requested to us to have a hold over of the this application until the December 18th meeting with

revised information due no later than December 4th to allow the applicant to provide additional information so that the commission can ensure development will comply with UDC standards. Is the applicant present? Given the applicant isn't present, we will just make a note for that on agenda item number nine. And I'll ask since it is on the agenda, is there anyone here in the audience that has questions about it, would like to speak for it or would like to speak against it? Okay, we will continue on. We are at agenda item number 10. This is a reszone application at 5330 Moffett Road. A reszone for unconditional use permit to allow community residents for more than five persons at an R1 single family R suburban district. It's also been suggested or requested for holdover until December 18th with additional information submitted no later than December 5th to allow applicant to provide site plan provided provide excuse me prepared by a registered professional illustrating compliance with the development standards of article 3 of the UDC. Is the applicant present? Are you in agreement with the suggestion for holdover should it go into deliberation to get approved for that? The applicant is present and gave a nod of a head. Is anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this reszone application that will go into deliberation for a potential holdover? Okay. I just make sure they weren't coming down for that. I'll now uh since there are none, we'll move on.

This is number 11 on the agenda. We're now into the multi-application phase of our agenda. This is a subdivision application along with a modification at 3456 and 3500 Halls Mill Road and 2390 West I65 Service Road South, the Radcliffe Ice Plant Subdivision. It's a subdivision of two lots at 15 and a3 acres and a major modification of a previously approved uh unit development allowing multiple buildings on a single building site to modify lot lines in coordination with the proposed subdivision to remove an undeveloped portion of the site from the previously approved PUD. On the subdivision, there are potentially 11 listed conditions. I see our applicant is present. And then for commissioners on the modification, there would be potentially eight findings of fact and then again 16 conditions for the modification. Yes, sir.

Hey, good afternoon. Jay Watkins, Mayor Nexon, 11 North Water Street, Sweet 24290, Mobile 360602. Uh, Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement with the conditions. We would ask um on the engineering comments on page four of the staff report items one and two um that those be removed. Uh I spoke with the city engineer and walked him through what we are doing here with respect to removing the flagshaped portion of lot three uh and combining it with the adjacent lot or lot two doors over. uh and I believe he's in agreement with those two comments being uh removed from the report and would ask that the conditions be amended to reflect that amendment to the engineering comments.

Mr. Watkins, is that in relation to the subdivision application as well as the modification conditions? I'm reading or is that just one or the other? I think it's just the plan unit development modification. Got it. So, revision of the final PUD site plan to label the size of each lot in both square feet and acres. No, no. This is in the in the comments. Comments. Okay. On page four under planning development modification.

Ah, one and two. I'll ask if staff would like to review that real quick. See if they have any concerns with his potential request. Uh, we spoke with the applicant prior to this meeting and we are in agreement.

There we go. regarding subdivision or modification specific to the request just brought up by Mr. Watkins and agreed to by st or okayed by staff. Is there any other comments or questions from commissioners on this this dual application? Seeing none, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the Radcliffe Ice Plant Subdivision dual application subdivision modification. All right, seeing none, we will move on. Number 12 on the agenda, also a dual application, subdivision and reszone. This is a 9 at 909 Government Street, the Donnie Manning subdivision, subdivision of two lots at point4 acres and a reszone request from single family residential urban which is R1 and residential business district RB to residential business district RB. On the subdivision, there are potentially eight conditions on the resoning. There for court commissioners there's potentially eight findings of fact and then of course full compliance condition. Is the applicant present?

Yes sir. On the subdivision are you in agreement with the eight listed conditions for this application? We would welcome you down to the podium to make sure that as I relay these if there's anything that grabs your attention that you could have a conversation quickly with either us or staff. Number one, retention of the rightway widths of Government Street 100 ft and Church Street 50 ft on the final plat. Yes.

Retention of the Number two, retention of the lot size labels in square feet and acres or provision of a table on the final plat be in compliance with such retention. Number three, retention of at least 5 foot minimum front yard setback line along both street frontages. Number four, completion of the resoning process to eliminate the potential for split zoning prior to signing the vinyl plat. Numbers five, six, seven, and eight. Compliance with all engineering, traffic engineering, urban forestry, and fire. Yes. Okay. That's on your subdivision. On your reszone for condition, that would just be full compliance with all municipal codes and ordinances. Yeah. And your name and record. Name address for the record.

Donnie Manning. Uh 202 State Street, Mobile 36603. Thank you, Mr. Manning. Mr. Manning is here in agreement with the eight listing conditions as read out on the subdivision and the reszone. I will now Thank you, Commissioner Manning. I will now ask if there's anyone here uh excuse me, anyone questions, comments from commissioners towards this project or this application given the fact that we're going from R1 to RB. My question for the applicant is which of the conditions were you in opposed to? I wasn't. I just I hadn't read them, but I Yeah, when I asked if he wasn't if he was familiar with them, he said no, I hadn't looked at them yet, so that's why I read them off.

All right, perfect. Just making sure.

Thank you, Kenny. Mr. Nichols. I mean, any further questions or comments from commissioners. All right. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience for either the subdivision application or the reason that has questions about, to speak for, or to speak against either component of the dual application at 909 Government Street. Seeing none, we will move on. Number 13, we do have a recusal. Mr. Kenny Nichols will recuse himself. We still maintain a quorum for both uh public hearing and deliberation. This is a rare triple application subdivision modification times 2 at 4568 Halls Mill Road, Covenant Academy of Mobile subdivision. Please bear with me. This is a subdivision of two lots at 18.8 acres. major modification of a previously approved planning approval to allow a church school or daycare in an R1 single family or residential suburban district to allow expansion of that church school and daycare in an R1 and a major modification of a previously approved PUD plan unit development allowing multiple buildings on a single building site with shared access and parking between two building sites to allow construction of an additional building on a multi-building site with shared access and parking between said multi-building sites. On the modification for commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact for both. And on the conditions of both modifications, there would be, excuse me, on the subdivision conditions, there would be eight listed there. And on the modification conditions, there would be eight per. Is the applicant present? The applicant is present by raise of hand. Do you need to come down and make any comments towards anything or have questions regarding conditions on all three?

Good afternoon. I'm Melissa Hadley with Goodwin Mills and Kaywood. Um, I think one of the things that we wanted to talk specifically about is that it does state that one of the conditions in particular for the subdivision would be a curb cut onto Knobill and we are not requesting any curb cuts or access onto Knobill. So, we'd like to strike that portion, please. Staff uh yes. So, if you if you check in your your packets, you'll notice that staff has already struck that uh consideration to allow a curb cut to Knobville. So, that was on my pages. It's number three. And on let me go in here. Should be number four is what it is currently. Currently, it reads, "Placement of a note on the final plat stating, proposed lot 1A should be limited to one curb cut to Hallsill Road and proposed lot 1B should be limited to one curb cut to Halls Mill Road and it previously read and one curb cut to Knob Hill and that has been struck."

Understood. Did you hear that, Miss Hadley?

Um, I didn't know that it had been struck. It wasn't in my packet that way. Um but then also on lot 2A um we do have an existing curb cut per permit already. So for a second entrance onto H Halls Mill so we we don't want the language to state that there would only be one curb cut onto Halls Mill. We already have a permit. We just aren't showing it because we're not proposing any development at this time on lot 2A. It's a little bit confusing because the the numbers for the lots don't match the comments and the considerations in the packet. Um the way we have it on the plat, it's lot 1 A and lot 2 A. So lot 1A is the smaller lot that contains the proposed building. Lot 2 A is the remainder. Um, and for lot 1A, the access is going to be off of the existing driveway that's already on Halls Mill Road. Lot 2A, which is the large remainder piece that contains the rest of the existing campus. We have a permit already for an additional curb cut onto H Halls Mill. We're just not proposing to do that improvement at this time, but we don't want a restriction that we can't do it in the future.

I understand. I'll ask staff if they're okay with that request. Um, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that that was a requirement of the original subdivision. Um, you can see in the it's in the description for the history on the site. It does reference that existing permit and additional curb cut onto mill.

Okay. So in that case, we would probably defer to traffic engineering given the uh amount of street frontage that the proposed which and I do apologize on our plat it says 1 A and 1B but 1B um which I believe is what you're referencing is 2A um has approximately 4 10 ft of linear street furniture along Halls Mill Road. So I would defer to traffic engineering give you a chance to digest that. Yep. Traffic engineering would not have an issue with a second driveway on the Holes Mill Road. We are anticipating improvements would be needed. That's why we require the traffic impact study in the first place. Yes, sir.

So, that would probably be included in the traffic impact study to have the second one out of it. Thank you. Y So, there we have it.

And just one other point for discussion with staff. um when we do the full plans that will include the proposed parking lot and full improvements on the site. Right now we're just at the PUD stage will include landscape plans and things like that. We would like to consider the site as a whole when we do landscape plans and not isolate this layer. The lot has to be cut out in this way for funding purposes for the construction of the new building. Um, but we still want to consider the campus as a whole when we consider landscape and master planning of driveways and things like that.

Um, that is a situation that is not uncommon with previous plan unit development approvals simply because that is exactly what it is. A unit unified development um of a single like building site so to speak. Should be okay. Yes. Thank you. All right, Miss Hadley. Uh, I'll now ask if there's any further questions, comments from commissioners for the applicant.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make make clear with staff note four as it reads right now, which matches with our our documents of lot a lot 1 A and a lot 1B does say that there's should be limited to one curb cut per each. So that I think addresses even though we got a little nomenclature name different, but it is saying what you what you're asking for a lot curb cut for the lot 1A and a curb cut for the lot 1B, which I think you're saying it's lot two and how you submit it. So two curb cuts in the in the future. Okay.

There should be two curb cuts on Halls Mill Road. It's a little hard for me to follow because the numbers don't match the plat. So I don't know which lot is which that they're trying to refer to. So what about one B? Our note our note four says you'll end up with two two two curb cuts. So I think you're good as soon as I get that language on so that we're clear that lot 2A is allowed two curb cuts onto Halls Mill Road. So in our notes 2 A is 1B and you want two curb cuts on 1B which is your 2A. Yes, that's correct. No curb cuts on 1 A which does not touch Halls Road. Right. it. Well, lot because it's a flag lot,

right? Lot 1A does include access. So, are we talking about three curb cuts? Okay. No. No, sir. It's two curb cuts on Halls Mill Road only and no. Correct. And no curb cut on. Okay. B between both there will be two curb cuts on Halls Mill Road. So, the the plot that we received, lot 1A, was the small lot. Yes. And so that has a curve cut. Lot 1A is the flag lot, right? Yes. And then the plot that we received has lot 1B as a large lot, which right and that reads that lot B will be limited to one curb cut. So lot 1B will also receive a curb cut on Halls Motor, right? For total update.

So that makes sense. Yes. Yes. We just want to make sure that we haven't. We'll make it clear.

Awesome. Thank you. I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this project or these these three applications. And if you do, please come down to the podium, state your name and address for the record and ask questions or pertain comments to the commissioners. Paul Pritchard, 1601 Regency Drive, Mobile 36693. Um, I'm right at the corner of Knob Hill and Regency Drive. Just want to clarify there will be no curb cut on Knob Hill. That's where Okay. All right. Just want to I got a fivem minute speech, but we can avoid all that. All right. Thank you.

Thank goodness for clarification. Thank you, Mr. Pritchard. Is Yes, sir. Please come down to the podium, state your name and address for the record and clearly speak what your question or comment might be. My name is Jack Sawberger. I live at 1591 Regency. That's at the corner of Knobill and uh Regency. I don't understand. Covenant Academy is one school and they're going to build another building with classrooms. Why do they need two lots? Why do they need to subdivide it into two lots? That's what I don't understand.

Well, I can try. I mean, it's it's because of the way the project is being funded per the applicant, which is that wasn't in the paper. We never saw that. Well, let Thank you, sir. Mr. Sberger. I'll now let Is there anyone else after Mr. Sberger raise a hand? I'll now let the applicant address the question. Thank you, Miss Hadley.

Thank you. So, currently the the school actually is on two lots. There are two lots of record um two separate PIN numbers, um property identification numbers. So, what we're doing is taking away the middle line that sort of makes two big lots, but we do have to make one smaller lot that contains the new building um as a requirement by the funer, the financing where the pro the school is getting the financing to buy the to excuse me to construct the additional building.

So, it's still part of the same pud. It's still the same number of lots because there actually are two existing lots are just being reconfigured so that the new lot only encompasses as much as is needed for the new building which protects the existing campus and the other buildings from um any um financial obligation for this new law new loan. Thank you sense makes sense to this group. Any comments or questions from commissioners? Mr. Chair,

go ahead. Um so basically I guess the understanding that I've got is um in order not to for the purpose of financing of building this building you're going to encumber just this parcel um versus encumbering the entire assets of the of the church or the of the school. So yes sir. Anything else from the audience?

Thank you Miss Hadley. We will now move on to the final agenda item. We can welcome back Mr. Kenny Nichols. The final agenda item is also triple application. It's a subdivision, a sidewalk waiver, and a reszone at 7125 Bellingrath Roads. the addition of First Baptist Church of Theodore, subdivision of two lots at oh just over 10 acres, then the request to wave the construction of the sidewalk along Bell &Rath Road, and then the reszone from single family R1 to general business district B4. For Mr. uh pipes, it would be eight listed conditions for the subdivision sidewall waiver for consideration. And then on the reason for commissioners, potentially seven findings in fact with four listed conditions. Yes, sir.

Yeah. and and we're we're in agreement with all the conditions, but uh upon arriving here, I learned that that staff would greatly prefer the the reszoning to not be to B4, but be to uh B5 or CW for dimensional reasons, landscaping and setback things like that. Uh my client is both the seller and the uh potential buyer of lot 2. Truck repair is his intended use. And so we're okay pivoting to CW. We did have a list of voluntary use restrictions that went off of the B4 menu of potential uses. Uh we would like to uh review the CW chart of uses to see if we want to add some things to that. Uh you know the point being my client is the uh the church First Baptist Church of Theodore which would retain its sanctuary on lot one and obviously they were concerned about what was going to get built on lot two that they were creating but they're they're selling off excess land and and they're okay with the truck repair use. We just needed to uh uh adequately protect the neighbors, including my co-client uh who's going to have uh one. So, uh we're in agreement with the findings of fact and the conditions of the reszoning and the subdivision and the sidewalk waiver, but in deference to the staff, we would be agreeable to to changing the requested zoning from B4 to CW. But before it gets advertised at city council, we might have some amendments to that chart of uh voluntary use restrictions because that

changes the advertising just so it just so it gets advertised the right way at city council for the reasonzoning.

All right. So, as I understand it, we're okay with subdivision. Uh do you want to make many make any comments towards the sidewalk waiver application? Uh there's no sidewalk north or south and you kind of lead to a point at Bell &Rapth where it it would end anyway. There's also a large ditch on the south end of lot two where this you know where the only development would go is on lot two. So the sidewalk waivers is really on Bell &R along lot two. Uh it's it would it would truly be a sidewalk to nowhere and stay that way. So we requested a waiver.

All right. Right. And then on the Zone, I will have question for staff regarding the applicants agreement and client to go from D4 to CW and have some time there. Does that mean that we need to potentially hold over the reszone and move forward with the subdivision and uh deliberation in the sidewalk waiver and delay del excuse me deliberation? Well, um we did discuss this with legal counsel as well and it is believed that the planning commission could approve the resoning to uh CW which is commercial warehouse which would allow the proposed use by right uh subject to the revision of the voluntary use restrictions for to reflect the CW list of uses. So meaning we could we could move forward if so desired.

Yes. Okay. Mr. Chair, go ahead.

Um, Mr. Pipes, thanks for the explanation. Um, I guess obviously the finding out or the recommendation for a CW or V2. Um, I mean, do you do you see the impact if if if that was held over um the other things and uh the other things associated with the the request of the subdivision and um all would that could that potentially cause an issue by not aligning correctly together, I guess. Well, the subdivision would be the same regardless of what the zoning is for lot two. And as you can see, it's a it's a huge lot and they're both going to be huge lots. So, I mean, we're there's not going to be any impact on minimum lot size or other things. Uh, the biggest issue I see is if if this were to get held up, it's just timing, you know, I think the buyer wants to move forward, the seller wants to move forward, and as long as the buyer's use for, you know, for truck repairs allowed by right on lot two, he's okay. Uh I think the voluntary use restrictions is it's really a joint thing between the church owner of lot one and the potential buyer owner of lot two and we could review that you know well before this letter of decision comes out and you know before we pay the advertising fee we can supplement that in a day. Okay.

So I feel like we can go forward. I was okay with the staff's request to change to CW rather than proceed with B4. I just didn't want it to hold this up. That that's my concern just then. So appreciate. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Pipes. I'll now see if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards this uh those these three applications for a subdivision sidewalk waiver and reszone request which again will go from potentially before excuse me R1 to CW. Any questions, comments, speak for, speak against from anyone here in the audience at 7125 Bingrath Road. A reminder, ma'am, if you would please pull the microphone down a little bit and speak clearly and then give us your name and address for the record.

I'm Mayor Walker. I live 7099 Old Military Road, Theodore, Alabama. I just like to know the difference in the zoning of B before uh CW. Would you explain that, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Yeah, cuz you're going to get to it quicker than me. Go right ahead.

Okay. The B4 zoning that was originally requested is the zoning that used to exist for downtown Mobile. So, it's primarily B4 is primarily for big city construction. So, tall buildings covering the entire property. And in what we're suggesting uh to the applicant is that he consider a commercial warehouse which instead of allowing a building to cover the entire property restricts the maximum building size to only 60% of the property, requires the building to actually be set back from the street further um at least 15 feet as opposed to zero feet. And then requires more landscaping on the property, 12% minimum. um versus 5% minimum. So CW has more requirements to make it fit into the area than B4 would have.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Walker. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon. My name is Tangela Craig. I reside at 7463 Bell &RA Road. Um my question would be in regards to water retention. Um the ditch in which was previously stated was actually um a side reservoir. I think that ties in with all of our water flow. So with the up building and um having a larger constructive type of building there um that ward is going to run off to the least resistant which would hit that ditch that runs along the side. I'm further down on Bell &Rap which ties into the county but I'm really right by what is called Mud Creek and so I'm concerned of the overflow of flooding that we as residents would take on. Um, and I would like to know who will maintain or kind of go in or will the new owner of this construction be required to bring up to any additional codes that's necessary because we as residents within the community have concerns as we speak that is not always, you know, properly maintained to keep debris, fallen trees and so on and so forth throughout the community. So I have a strong concern um yeah of where that goes because you know water's going to slope down and that is on the upper side of um Bellingrath Road where we're going. So that's one question and then the other one would be I have grave concerns regarding um additional heavy type of trucks or vehicles that are now coming in and out and turning. Um we don't have a turning curve. I know you guys are up to date. We just had a fatality just last week like literally in the place in which this building is coming um head-on collision. So, um once we have a traffic flow of traffic stopping with the train coming,

everything comes to a halt both directions. And so I'm just a little nervous with now an additional place coming. Um, are we looking at a turning or widening of a a designated turn to kind of help in this pocket or I know we're not looking at a traffic light, but just for safety reasons. Um, this is the only way in and out from Bellingraph to 90 or going back the other direction. So, I didn't know if anybody could help answer those questions or if this is the legit time to inquire these questions before going forward. So I will see thank you for your questions ma'am and we'll see if we can get those addressed by the applicant combination of the applicant andor um staff regarding number one drainage they do have to go through drainage

u surveys and and uh report those. So, I I do know and we can make further comments towards that and then I'll have to defer to the applicant on the uh I guess what would be the potential of the widening of some sort of turnin or curb cut. So, we'll see if we can get that figured out. Thank you, ma'am.

Yeah. As as far as drainage on on site, when they come in to develop lot too, um when they come in for their permits, we'll require them to u provide storm water detention on site. And so they'll be holding additional water on site uh when it rains and it won't be going downstream. So theoretically the the u the downstream conditions shouldn't change after development because of that and they'll be required to maintain that detention pond and things.

So for that particular area or are you saying as it goes? Because the back end, if I'm not mistaken, for that property will be our fire station, which basically will kind of Yeah. The property that's about to be obtained and built will basically donate right into the back end of our local fire station, right? And and I'm I'm not sure exactly how all of it drains now, so I can't say for sure. But when they come in, it depends how big their building's going to be, where their parking's going to be, and and they'll they'll be required to provide detention on site, whether it drains up to Bell &RA Road into the ditch there, or it drains to the to the to the south, which is naturally where where it's going now.

But what they'll do is they'll hold that additional runoff on site in a detention pond. Okay. And and and maintain that so that it won't all just run off downstream. Okay. I guess I'll follow up when that time comes, right? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. We want to talk for the applicant. Do we want to have any discussion on the turn in

as you're southbound on Bell &Rapth? There's sort of a center turn lane uh that turns into um the driveway you can see on the aerial and then the road narrows down to just a you know two-lane road you know without the center turn lane. Uh we we don't have a proposal for widening Bell & Road or for for adding anything. Uh, I would say that, you know, putting one business in on this big of a piece of land, it it's got to be a ton less traffic than what the R1 development, you know, of this same land would have been if you were to put a subdivision in there. And certainly a lot less intensive from a storm water, you know, impact perspective. Uh but we we've not run a traffic study, you know, for a one business, you know, commercial facility for this big of a piece of land. But I would think that its impact would have to pale in comparison to the current zoning development. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pipes. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this uh application. subdivision sidewalk waiver and reszone. All right, seeing none, we will now close the public hearing and move back to number one on the agenda for deliberation. First one is 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Toddacres Drive, subdivision of five five lots. The applicant is present, Mr. petitioner and in agreement with the seven listed conditions.

Motion to approve subject to staff recommendations. Second.

Did I hear a second? Second. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. Number two, again a hold over 5070 Old Shell Road, Cottages of Spring Hill. It was held over from October. If I memory serves correctly, we we had some questions from commissioners regarding specific items on this application. Uh so at that time it was deemed to go down the path of potential uh declination of the application or potential holdover. And now the applicant given the nature of this is requesting a holdover until December 18th meeting. Any comments or questions from commissioners?

Entertain a motion. Second. properly moved and seconded for holdover. All in favor? I. Any any opposed? Nay. We have one opposition. The eyes have it. So, we will maintain we will allow for a hold over on this application. New agenda items number three on the agenda also requested for a holdover to December 18th at 5906 US Highway 90 West extending to the north terminus. Move to approve. It's properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

Any opposed? Motion for s the hold over to December 18th passes. Number four, 1608 Crestwood Drive subdivision, two lots, 1.05 acres. The applicant is present in agreement with the nine listed conditions. Entertain a motion. Move to approve sub staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I

motion for subdivision passes number five subdivision at 1615 and 1622 Mackey Avenue subdivision of two lots of 1.81 acres applicant is present and had nine listed conditions that were I believe in agreement but we did have some discussion regarding number two specific to the culdesac from Mr. Kaufman. I do think that that was since resolved. And we get a a shake of the head and I don't see Mr. Kaufman to get his Oh, there he is. You We got a nod of yes, sir. Got it figured out. Okay, great. Move to approve. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. The motion for subdivision passes. Number six, it's a subdivision at 250 Tutill Lane and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Garden Trace. Mr. Pipes, applicant had questions regarding the plat and the conditions. I'll see where we land from a combination of staff and commissioner input on this.

Mr. chairman after after consulting with a u a surveyor we believe there's an extinguishment document that can be prepared that will address the concern so they won't have to record a new plat but their document will reference the existing plat and they can make the changes on the on a subsequent document so we believe we got a path forward so I'll make the motion to approve second properly moved and seconded all in favor

any opposed the motion for subdivision passes is number seven. This is a modification. 6710 Old Shell Road increase in the height of the Monopole Telecommunications Tower from 150 to 172.1. The applicant is present. Address the findings of fact and the an agreement with the eight listing conditions. Any questions or comments or discussion among commissioners? I know Kenny, Mr. Mr. Nichols, you had a question regarding residential buffer. Did you get that addressed? Yes, staff answered that question. Thank you. Entertain a motion. Move to approve se staff recommendations of findings of fact A through H.

Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Oppose. We have one in opposition. The eyes have it. Number eight, we will have a recusal from Mr. Harry Brlin. We still maintain a quorum for the deliberation. This is a modification at 560 Providence Park Drive East, Clarence Ball, Ball Healthcare. The applicant is present and agreement with the 19 listed conditions. Mr. Chair,

go ahead. Um, one thing that staff discussed with the engineer on the project, Mr. Fulmer, was number 12, and I'm not sure if that's something that has been discussed with um, the applicant. Uh, as of right now, it reads provision of a note on the final PUB site plan stating any dumpster placed on the property will comply with the placement and enclosure standards, etc. of the applicable regulations. Um, in reviewing the land disturbance permit uh for this project, it was uh noticed that the actual dumpster enclosure itself did not meet those placement standards. Um, rather than have them revise the plan at this time, we would ask that we can amend that note to include a statement uh that they could also get a variance or be that the caveat. Um so simply adding at the end of that approval basically of the um or provision of the note which requires the uh compliance with the dumpster provisions or approval of a variance and that would keep them uh or that would allow them to move forward with this particular application and this particular layout.

Again that's number 12 on the conditions for agenda item number eight modification. Is the applicant still present? Are you good? Got a thumbs up for Mr. Pipes. Thank you. Applicant was present and in agreement with modified condition 12 per staff. Entertain a motion. Moved. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion for modification passes. Number We'll re back. Welcome back, Mr. Harry Grizzlin. Number nine, 6151 Marina Drive South. Major modification application requested for hold over December 18th. Uh I'll move to approve. Second.

Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Motion for holdover December 18th passes. Number 10. Reszone 5330 Moffett Road. Request for a holdover until December 18th. Move to approve. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. Motion for hold over on zone reszone passes. Number 11, dual application subdivision and modification at 3456 and 3500 Halls Mill Road and 2390 West I65 Service Road South Ice Plant Subdivision. The applicant was present and in agreement, Mr. Watkins only 11 listing conditions for the subdivision and the modification for commissioners potentially eight findings of fact and again 16 listed conditions for the modification to approve subject staff recommendation with the eight findings of fact removing items number one and two from the PUD modification list. This is on the subdivision correct.

Whoops. I did both at once. So, subdivision move to approve SE to staff recommendations. Mr. Chairman, I believe it was also removing number notes number one and two from the staff report. No, that's just from the modification. Okay, that is correct. Okay, we have a motion. Need a second. Second. Moved and seconded on the subdivision. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. Now, Mr. Anderson move to approve subject to staff recommendation with the eight findings of fact removing items number one and two from the PUD modification list. Second

properly moved and seconded with the removal of one and two and a fending fact A through H. Entertain a motion. Nope. That was this first. Need a second. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? The motion for the modification on that agenda item passes. Number 12, dual application subdivision and reszone at 909 Government Street. Donnie Manning subdivision. Mr. Manning himself is here in agreement with the eight listed conditions on the subdivision and on the on the reszone understood the compliance and the findings of fact

for the subdivision. Move to approve subst recommendations. Second properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion for subdivision passes. On the reszone, this is a reszone from R1 to RB residential business district.

Move to approve staff recommendations. Second. Belove. We need the diningings of backs. A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Yes. Thanks. Seven of them. All seven. Yes. Amended motion for findings uh move to approve with findings fact A through G. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion for the reszone passes. Number 13, triple application subdivision and two modifications at 4568 Halls Mill Road. We will have a recusal, Mr. Kenny Nichols. We still maintain a quorum for this deliberation and vote on the subdivision. The applicant is present and is in agreement with the eight listed conditions. Move to approve sever staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? The motion for subdivision passes. We'll take Oh, question for staff. One or two votes for the modification applications. Would you prefer? Two separate votes.

Thank you. First modification, potential findings of fact and eight listing conditions. on that modification. The should be notes on number four specific to curb cuts on Halls Mill limited to two total curb cuts per the conditions and that was understood by the applicant Miss Hadley. Entertain a motion. Move to approve uh subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? The motion for that modification for the planning approval passes. Modification of the planned unit development. Move to approve sub staff recommendations. Adopting adopting finding of facts A through H. properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion for that modification passes. Number 14, final agenda item for today. It's a trip triple application of subdivision, sidewalk waiver, and reszone request. The reason, excuse me, the subdivision is in agreement on the eight listed conditions from the applicant. On the sidewalk waiver, we heard the commentary from the applicant. And on the reszone for our notes, it's actually going to be as agreed upon between staff and the applicant to go from R1 to CW. And there was some commentary regarding special use restrictions on that reszone prior to city council meeting. So we'll take the subdivision first, entertain a motion.

Move to approve se staff recommendations. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Motion passes for subdivision sidewalk waiver. In rendering a decision, we should evaluate our factors and comments from staff. Move to approve. Move to approve the waiver. Second. Properly moved and seconded to approve the sidewalk waiver. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Opposed.

We have an opposition vote, but the eyes still have it. And finally, the reason R1 to CW potentially seven findings of fact four listed conditions.

So I have a question. What's what's the nearest similar designation where whether it's warehouse or or B4 because the the zoning map that we have it looks like I'm sorry I'm looking at the flume map. The the zoning map looks like it's all residential as far as the I could see there. That is correct. But next to the site is an I2 zoning district. That's heavy industry. So um in the staff report there is some I1 that is uh off of Kerry Hamilton and Buroughs Lane. And then once you get beyond that probably the nearest B4 zoning district is going to be on Broad Street downtown. uh CW uh commercial warehouse is a relatively new zoning district. So there aren't that many examples nearby, but that's probably the few that exist might be uh around I65 and Kottachill area, but it would be more compatible in terms of the site design requirements in this area, which is more suburban than would be before. I guess just for commentary, I would point out that the uses immediately across Bell &Rath Road from this uh while currently zoned R1 um certainly not an R1 use.

Yes, this area will contain or does contain many non-conforming uses based upon annexation. Mr. Chair, go ahead. And just for clarification, um, this came in as part of the 2009 annexation, I believe. Is that That's correct.

So, we have that con those items uh figured out, I guess we should say should say for the reason. Any further questions or comments? All right. Entertain a motion. Move to approve subject of staff recommendations for changing from B4 to CW and adopting findings of facts A through G. Second. Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through G. Is that what I heard correctly? All in favor? Any opposed?

Uh I was going to ask a question. What? So based on the motion, do we need to do anything with regard to the to the you know the voluntary use restrictions that are going to do we need to make any provision for that or is that just something we're going to to to pass off to the city council? I'm which I'm comfortable with by the way. Well, what we would do is the the associated voluntary uh conditions and use restrictions revised for the CW district.

Okay. So, do we need So, just saying CW as we just did in that motion is sufficient for that. Do we do we feel like that's enough? Because we didn't say anything about the voluntary use restrictions. Would we consider the fact that they're reszoning to CW instead of B4 as a recommendation? Then, uh would we need to amend condition number two to specifically say revise for commercial warehouse? So condition number two for the resoning says compliance with the associated voluntary conditions and use restrictions. Do we need to say as revised for CW? Okay. So that is the answer. Got it. Thanks.

We did already vote on it and the motion has passed for the reason. I'm glad we got the concerns addressed. That concludes the agenda items for today, November 20th. We have one other business item. Those in the audience don't need to stick around. It is the review of the minutes from the following planning commission meetings September 19th, October 17th, November 21st, and December 19th of 2024. Move to approve in a batch. Probably moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Those business meeting minutes pass. Before we wrap up, just take a moment to express my appreciation for all of you. Happy Thanksgiving week with your friends and family next week.