Good afternoon.

Welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for August 21st, 2025.

Like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures.

This meeting will be divided into two sessions, the public hearing session and the deliberation session.

In the public hearing, an agenda item is called.

A reminder that only four people can speak for an agenda item and four people against.

Each speaker is limited to five minutes, subject to questions by the commission.

At one minute, a speaker will hear a warning bell or a beep asking you to please summarize your comments.

And if there is opposition, we will have an applicant uh allowed a two-minute rebuttal period to answer any questions.

If you do intend to speak, come to the podium at the bottom of the stairs, speaking of the microphone and provide your name and address for our records.

And please direct all your comments to the commission only and not the applicant, the staff, or the audience.

After hearing all applications, the commission will go into deliberation where we will discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience.

Commissioners then vote on each application, and the results of that voting can be learned from the planning department.

If issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed in the public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments pertaining to those issues in order to resolve them, or we can call for the application to be held over for a later meeting.

Occasionally we may have a recusal from one of our commissioners from discussing 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 require the refusal, even if there is only the slightest appearance of conflict of interest.

The planning commission makes final decision on subdivisions with the PLs of those decisions to the circuit court.

Myself, Jay Stubbs present, Mr.

Kirk Matte.

Mr.

Harry Brislin, Mr.

Larry Dorsey here, Mr.

Chad Anderson, Mr.

Matt Anderson, Mr.

Nick Amberger.

Here, Mr.

Josh Woods.

Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

I great.

We will move into number one on the agenda.

This is a holdover from a previous meeting.

This is at 2316 Hillwood Drive West.

Conditional use permit approval to allow the short-term rental in an R1 single-family residential suburban district.

Brewster um I was not I'll ask staff I was not privileged to know what would the the reason for the holdover was from the previous meeting if you wouldn't mind filling me in so the holdover was um required for them to revise the site plan to depict the location of all garbage cans um or any other uh bins that they were going to use for waste removal they also provide proof that the garbage or waste containers were screened from view via photographs and revise the site plan to illustrate the required off street parking spaces we did receive all of uh those requests and if you look under your holdover considerations um there is the uh considerations for approval all right mr brewster are you familiar with those considerations and in agreement with them if this this goes to approval yes okay the answer is yes from the applicant any questions or comments from commissioners is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to agenda item number one at 2316 Hillwood drive west all right seeing none we will move on thank you Mr.

Brewster it is Brewster correct all right thank you sir all right these are new items on the agenda starting with number two this is a subdivision at 7435 and 7495 Bowers Lane inclusive of 7410 old military road this is a subdivision of two lots at just under two and a half acres is the applicant present the applicant is present by raising the hand are you sir in agreement with the nine listed conditions from this application from the city staff the applicant is in agreement with those nine listed conditions is there anyone else here in the audience that is here to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to this application at Bowers Lane and old military road any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this application all right seeing none we'll move on thank you sir number three this is a subdivision application at 710 downtown or boulevard a subdivision of two lots at three quarters of an acre uh should be noted here uh for mr bird that it is a uh a potential denial based on the following are the two items listed I'm sure you will have questions or address those go ahead sir right um yes staff report staff report um name and address for the record oh excuse me jury bird bird surviving 2609 alls mill road mobile the um staff report lean toward denial for two reasons I think one of which I have corrected with a plating like that which has expanded the building area in the rear that's back here to be 7200 square feet and then the the flag pole is in excess of that making a total of 11,064 square feet that's one another mention is that flag lots are not common in the area you have a copy of this is our proposed site at this end of the block and there is a flag lot at the other end airport boulevard being here and coming out on downtown loop north at the at the rear of that lot uh but I would based on that I would like you to consider approval of the subdivision I had staff had an opportunity to review the material presented by Mr.

Byrd yes sir and if you would look in your folder under item number three uh staff did prepare conditions of approval should the planning commission choose to approve the request this considerations folder that that's what you're doing yes sir I just had another scene yeah I don't do anything all right Mr.

Byrd have you had a chance to review the 10 listed considerations was it in a staff report no I can quit I can quickly go to you want to listen all of a I'll give a quick run over of them retention number one retention of the right of way along downtown or boulevard number two revision of the plat to correctly label downtown or boulevard number three retention of the 50 foot minimum building setback along downtown or boulevard for lot A number four retention of the 25 minimum building setback line on lot B as blocked at the west terminus of the poll number five retention of the lot size labels and both square feet and acres on the final plat or the furnishing of a table on the final plat.

Number four, retention of the 25 minimum building setback line on lot B as blocked at the west terminus of the pole.

Number five, retention of the lot size labels and both square feet and acres on the final plat or the furnishing of a table on the final plat.

Six placement of a note on the plating no instructors are allowed to encroach into an easement without permission of the easement holder.

Seven, compliance engineering, eight uh note on the plat for traffic nine, compliance of urban ten, compliance of fire.

We're in agreement.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions or comments from commissioners on agenda item number three that has from according to staff been satisfied for consideration?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Bird, looking at your drawing, it looks like this proposed lot is primarily the parking lot for the existing facility.

Have y'all looked at it?

I mean, is there gonna be this go if this passes?

Is there adequate parking?

You know, once once that lot's carved off, you know, for the existing building.

Yeah, the buildable area.

The buildable area.

I don't think there's any intention to build on this lot.

Okay.

Um created mainly to temporarily convey to an adjoiner property that has an environmental concern, and then when that's cleaned up, be conveyed back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, is there anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, against, or have questions pertaining to 710 downtown or boulevard?

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

Thank you, Mr.

Byrd.

Talk to you later.

Number four on the agenda subdivision 6098 River Trace Drive South and East and West Sides of Rabbit Creek Drive, extended three quarters of a mile south to Hamilton Boulevard.

This is the River Ends Estate subdivision, 46 lots, 276 and a half acres.

The subdivision has 12 considerations or 12 conditions for approval.

The applicant present.

Applicant is present.

Uh are you in agreement with the 12 listed conditions?

Applicant is present and in agreement with the listed conditions.

Any questions or comments on this agenda item from commissioners?

Is there anyone in the audience that would have questions for or against or just in pertaining to this agenda item at River Trace Drive South?

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

We do have a recusal on this item.

This is a sidewalk waiver subdivision request at the northwest corner of Loyola Lane and Provident Lane, St.

Paul's Episcopal request to waive the construction of sidewalks along the west side of Provident Lane and a 315-foot portion of the north side of Loyola.

Yes, sir.

Yep.

Sean Estis with McCrory and Williams, 3207 International Drive.

Yeah, the St.

St.

Paul's is uh asked for this waiver for a number of reasons.

Uh but the number one reason is safety for the kids.

And we were going to have the uh Alex Lott, who is the um director of safety and security for St.

Paul's here today, but he's uh unable to attend because of his sick child.

So he's he prepared, he sent us an email, so I'm just gonna read this email for one of my points here.

Okay.

My name is Alex Lott.

I am a mobile county sheriff's deputy and the director of safety and security for St.

Paul's Episcopal School.

This is my 13th year of law enforcement and third year at St.

Paul's.

I would like to address my concern with a potential sidewalk being placed along Provident Lane and Loyola Lane.

Provident Lane is primary thoroughfare for student foot and bike traffic during the times of morning and afternoon car pull, the traffic safety crossing guard at all shell instructs students to use the sidewalk that is on the east side of Provident Lane.

This sidewalk guides students to the next crossing guard on campus that can hold them in one centralized location until navigating them on campus.

Uh that crossing guard is located at Provident and Loyola.

This sidewalk also allows enough separation from the carpool lanes as they enter and exit campus.

Visibility in this area is difficult as vehicles are forced to make a turn, a right turn off of all shell on the Provident Lane due to power poles and on the east and west side of the street.

And also a cresting uh curve, a small hill.

If another sidewalk is placed on the west side of Provident Lane, this would cause students, parents, and other bystanders to come in close proximity to those vehicles turning with poor visibility.

And he's included a little pick uh basically a streetscape, I mean a uh street view.

Um this will also cause the crossing guard to manage two lanes of walking and biking traffic instead of one.

Children as young as eight years old use this area daily as well as over a hundred bikes.

Another sidewalk will cause a greater concern for student safety as they begin and end their school day.

So he he and along with the school is concerned with now they have kids on one side, the east side of Provident Lane, and then if we add another sidewalk on the west side of Provident Lane, then they're trying to manage two sidewalks and two to two flows of traffic.

So that's that's the number one reason for this is safety.

Uh another reason uh would be in their master plan, they have a possibility of widening that straight.

They would like to get maybe a uh the city to vacate that right-of-way along Provident and potentially widen uh Provident in that area.

I don't know if I'm sure everyone's familiar with how traffic backs out onto Old Shell in the mornings and afternoons.

So if they could widen uh Provident and allow uh uh maybe a third lane of traffic there, then they could get people off of all shell and then and in doing that.

If the sidewalk was in on this new new track, then that would all have to be torn out.

So those are two points, and then maybe the third would be on Loyola on that south side.

There is no there's no traffic.

That that road is uh barricaded off with a permanent barricade, and and and so there's really no need for a sidewalk there.

The kids use the the travel, the the pavement that's there uh as their walkway.

So those are those are the three things that they'd like to have as a waiver, uses a waiver.

Thank you, Mr.

Essence.

Any any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this what sidewalk waiver application?

Is anyone in the audience?

I was just saying go ahead.

I'm going off memory, I didn't see it in the history, but I I feel like a few years ago y'all came you came in a oppose the sidewalk waiver on the east side of Provident, and the argument was that y'all didn't want kids going down Provident because y'all are sending kids down Dogwood.

Um I think we made y'all build the sidewalk waiver.

Or he did build the sidewalk and go.

That's correct.

So I uh really just wanted to give you a hard time because it's rivalry week, but this seems completely reasonable.

I mean, it may it was the same kind of arguments we went the other way, but I think given I mean that all makes total sense.

Any other questions or comments from commissioners?

That's a good one.

Anyone in the audience to hear speak speak for, against or have questions pertaining to this potential sidewalk waiver.

All right, seeing none, we will move on and welcome back.

Ms.

Ellie Edwards, we'll move on to number six, and we will send away Mr.

Kenny Nichols on recusal.

This is application or excuse me, agenda item number six.

This is a modification at 600, 700, and 800 West I 65 service road south.

This is a major modification of previously previously approved PUD public or planned unit development allowing shared access and parking between three building sites to allow construction of a multifamily development with 240 dwelling units in multiple buildings across three building sites.

Is the applicant present?

Watkins, uh we have just for your knowledge and for uh commissioners potentially eight findings of fact and um for the applicant potentially 19 conditions listed.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Jay Watkins Maynard Nexon on behalf of the uh applicant AR development group.

Um, given the number of conditions and other things on the staff report, we're respectfully asking a 30-day holdover uh to address a number of those uh conditions and concerns and uh would like to ask staff if we could have until noon Wednesday to submit our modified site plan to reflect the changes that we'll make to meet those conditions and questions.

The applicants requesting a holdover the next meeting date is September 18th with the filing deadline of the 18 of August 18th, and we're asking staff if they can accommodate the request from the applicant.

I'll first ask if September 18th agenda is clear enough.

Yeah, we can accommodate that.

And you're confirming you can accommodate the request by the applicant for noon of tomorrow.

Noon Wednesday.

Noon Wednesday of next week.

Yes, they're okay with that.

Thank you.

All right.

Um seeing it is on the agenda.

If anyone is in the audience that was here to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to this agenda item on West I65, the I-65 service road, you have an opportunity to speak now and ask questions now.

Anyone?

All right.

Seeing none, we will welcome back Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Move on to agenda item number seven.

This is a modification at 550 Providence Park Drive East, the Providence Park Rehabilitation and Health Care.

It's a major modification of a previously approved PUD at amending approved master plan to allow construction of a health care facility with multiple buildings on a single building site.

Uh for commissioner's reference, there are potentially eight findings of fact, and for the applicant, there are seven conditions listed.

Yes, sir.

Hey, good afternoon.

Um, David DeCher with Godre Engineering uh on behalf of the applicant.

We're here there's their agent.

Um we're aware of the conditions and acknowledge those.

The applicant is present and aware of the conditions and an agreement on the modification.

Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this out this modification application?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, just for clarification as far as the design and the layout of this, um, it appears that I guess there's going to be complete connectability between Cody and Providence Park Drive.

Um, is that is that kind of just what I'm seeing with the with the subdivision and uh pulling everything together?

I guess we're uh we're gonna be there for connecting Cody and Providence Park.

That's correct.

Okay.

There will not be any type of between the the future development and the proposed development now.

Um we're not with I guess where the lot line is.

Um we're not there's not gonna be any type of thing to any device or any barrier between the two to produce there will be, yes.

So um there is a gate that will be closed that have will have a Knox box for emergency access, but it's not intended to be a cross connection, but that is permanently open for you know the public to use.

It's just there for really convenient service use, emergency vehicle use.

And uh who will service that box?

I guess the proposed uh or hope the gate there who will be responsible for what I guess this proposed development or that's correct.

Yeah, and actually the owner is one of the same for both lots.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, uh go ahead.

I would just make the engineer aware that that this part of town is very susceptible to groundwater, so just design cautiously uh just be aware that that area's got got quite a bit of it.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Further comments or questions from commissioners.

All right, I'll ask the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, against, or have questions pertaining to 550 Providence Park Drive East modification.

Okay, we will move on to agenda item number eight.

We will again recuse Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

This is the rezoning application at 250 St.

Francis Street amendment to downtown development district regulation plan to rezone the property from T-5-1 to T-52.

That's 5.1 to 5.2.

Uh for consideration here, we would have five potential one no seven potential findings of fact, commissioners.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Jay Watkins, Maynard Nexon, 11 Northwater Street 3602.

Uh representing AR development group, Mr.

Ken Patell on this rezoning.

Uh, as you can see from the overhead, this is the east half of the block downtown, which is uh bounded by Jackson Street, St.

Francis, St.

Michael, and Joe Ackham.

Uh it's currently a paved parking lot.

Um Mr.

Patel would like to redevelop this site into a 140 plus or minus room branded hotel.

Um the current zoning at T51 allows smaller hotels.

Uh, we would like to go up to T52 in order to allow the taller uh hotel with more accommodations.

Um this is intended to be branded and to be more of an extended stay type product, which is a little different than what we have in the downtown area.

Um as justifications under the rezoning, uh, we would point out that this is consistent in keeping with the comprehensive plan.

Uh it is compatible with current development trends in the downtown area.

Um the surrounding land uses are similar.

We've got other hotels, candlewood suites, uh, the Hilton Garden Inn are all in close proximity to this site.

Uh also in terms of size and scale, this is compatible with some of the surrounding properties.

Um, it is bounded by T uh 51 and T52 properties, so the rezoning would not be out of character in keeping with the surrounding properties.

Uh but most importantly, I think what we're looking at here is just the change that we're seeing in the downtown market.

Um we've got the train service now, we've got expanded crews, we've got um the new airport moving uh to Brooklyn.

We've got the improvements at the Civic Center, we've got the potential for development for the Africa Town Heritage House, the battleship, all of this are driving uh traffic into Mobile, and we believe that uh the changing conditions in the downtown area would justify and support rezoning this site uh from T51 to T52.

Um happy to answer questions.

We have Mr.

David Clark with Mobile Visitors Convention Corporation here to speak as well to talk a little bit more about the conditions in downtown mobile and what a new hotel would would do for the city.

Thank you, Mr.

Watkins.

I'll ask first if anyone any questions from commissioners regarding this opportunity and this rezon.

Could the staff explain the main differences between 5.1 and 5.2 for everybody?

I know the biggest one is probably the height difference.

Uh is there anything else significant about this change?

Um I believe it was in a pre-development meeting that we discussed this.

Uh and the main difference with respect to this request was the height difference and allowing the additional floor.

Um in the context of this request, that's pretty much the only difference that they've made the request to accommodate.

And I would point out to the commission we have submitted renderings that are in your packet.

Those were provided uh at the neighborhood meeting to provide neighbors with a sense of the scope and scale of this project.

They're by no means intended to be uh illustrative of what's going to be built there.

We know we've got to comply with the DDD.

We've got to comply with ARB with respect to the lower Dolphin Street Historic District.

So as you're looking at those renderings, please don't think that's what's being built.

That's simply to show kind of the scale of the property, the site coverage, just to give you an idea of what St.

Francis Street Corridor may look like with this facility built.

The applicant certainly intends, if the rezoning is successful, to go to the next step in the design and uh of the facade and of the actual building and would be going through the CD CRC process as well as the ARB review and approval.

Mr.

Watkins, did you conduct the community meeting or were you present?

I did.

Was it well attended?

Uh I would say we probably had uh 15 or 20 people there, mostly uh from Detonti or from the downtown area.

Um I think most of their concerns, as I just mentioned, were when they saw those renderings, they thought, wait, this is a nasty ugly white box building that doesn't fit in downtown mobile.

So we had to really kind of reiterate the fact that they were just for scope and scale.

That's not what the the applicant intends to build.

Um, and I think there was some questions regarding the parking uh losing that parking lot as part of the downtown uh area, and I think uh if you look at the aerials and or some of the uh other scope maps, you'll see that there is uh plentiful park surface lot parking around this area.

I think this is about 80 spots maybe uh that would be coming out of uh inventory.

Uh but given the parking deck at uh adjacent to the uh uh Admiral Sims as well as the parking deck down on Royal Street and uh what RSA's got uh there's a substantial amount of parking in the downtown area.

Thank you, Mr.

Watkins.

Is there any parking restrictions?

I know some of the zoning down here.

Um there's no there's no required parking for this development, although the the applicant is providing on-site park certain on-site parking, and we'll make accommodations for additional parking off-site.

Is there anyone in the audience that is here to speak for against or have questions pertaining to this rezone from T-5.1 to T-5.2 again.

Reminders please state your name and address for the record.

Hey, Jeremy Milling, Milling Commercial Realty 220 St.

Michael Street, 36602.

I have the office building that is at the north east corner of uh St.

Michael and Joacam.

And we did attend the community meeting as well.

And definitely support the rezoning.

The one thing that became really clear to me in that community meeting is that the drawings they submitted, which I completely understand are not in your purview as far as the aesthetics and those are other boards and committees to approve, but just how out of place the one that they submitted was.

And as somebody who worked very hard on the new DDD code years ago under the Alliance, um, placing a form-based code that really is supposed to have predictability and reliability as far as you know the aesthetic and that it fits into the fabric of downtown.

And so I just would like on public record to make that comment so that the developer will take that to heart because I do think that you know there is a need for this product.

I'm absolutely not against it, you know, especially as a neighbor, but I do think it's extremely important to put the effort into making it fit within the fabric and the aesthetic of downtown.

And so we'll be watching that very clearly.

Thank you, Mr.

Millie.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good afternoon.

Commission David Clark.

I'm um actually a resident of 412 Dauphin Street, and I'm president CEO of Isit Mobile on one South Water Street.

I'm speaking for on both accounts from a tourism standpoint and from a residence, um, which is really about two blocks away from the site.

Uh I'm in favor of the development.

Uh the home two suites brand uh has performed well since even pre-COVID 19.

Most scales in the United States of America and throughout the state of Alabama are down in occupancy.

Most are up in rate.

However, the home two suites brand is in the upper mid scale, and it's showing positive occupancy.

Uh and I think that's very interesting.

Fact, it's under the Hilton brand.

Uh, it is a very, very good product.

I think downtown Mobile is very unique and has a very high barrier to lodging entry and a high growth potential as well, especially when you look at the generational developments uh that are coming on board.

Uh more home hotel room night supply is definitely going to be in need with these developments uh and the anticipated conventions, the meetings, the leisure, and all the manufacturing that's going to also start uh taking place and increasing.

You know, with the recent 700 million dollars in tourism investing consistent of the new downtown international airport.

Uh to open late 26, you know, three miles from this property, a new arena to open in 27 with the largest venue operator in the world managing that now with Oakview Group and the largest entertainment booker in the world with Live Nation.

Uh these investments are going to give us better airlift.

They're going to have more concerts, more programmable events every day, more leisure and business travel than ever before.

Um, notwithstanding these investments, we'll make a an announcement very soon on a specific cruise ship with Carnival Cruise lines that will start in 27 full time.

Right now we have the Carnival Spirit that's halftime.

You know, that's going to be um increasing demand as uh the new ship will have over 5,000 passengers and crew on board, four cruises a month.

We think that's going to be a really big deal for our hoteliers.

The visit mobile team has booked more conventions and meetings than ever before in the last seven consecutive years when you look at the previous 25 years by almost double.

Um thing we walk run into very often now in talking to meeting planners.

We peak at about seven to eight hundred peak room nights is kind of a sweet spot because it's gets harder to find the walkable room nights downtown beyond that.

This hotel and more supply is needed to capture that demand and future demand that will be coming.

Um the hope the home two suites will give us the ability to even attract larger conventions.

We really need another 350 rooms to capture the future supply or demand that's coming in.

Lastly, Mobile's tourism improvement district.

You think about marketing and how you do that.

We just passed thanks to the mayor and the city council, Josh, and team, a new five-year renewal that will double the resources and marketing, lodging attractions, and restaurants, double.

I'm talking 40 million over the next five years as opposed to 20 million.

We'll be able to really help with the demand.

The port is expanding, Airbus is expanding, hostels expanding, they're adding jobs and distribution is increasing.

So all these things mean more room nights, more business, transient, leisure pleasure conventions and meetings.

So this is a really great project.

I admire their company and their leadership very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against?

Well, there will only be one more for speaker.

Anyone here that's questions or uh in opposition to this agenda item?

All right, seeing none, we will move on to number nine.

This is the dual application phase of our agenda items.

We can welcome back Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Number nine is a subdivision application and a modification at 4350 Moffitt Road.

Fred Marshall Court subdivision.

The subdivision is one lot at 8.94 acres, and then the major modification of a previously approved PUD to allow multiple buildings on a single building site to allow construction of a multifamily development with 50 dwelling units and multiple buildings on a single building site.

There are nine conditions listed for the potential subdivision and eight findings of fact on the for commissioners potentially for the uh modification and on the modification.

There are 21 listed conditions.

Mr.

Byrd.

Yes, Jerry Bird, Bird Servant, 2609 Hall's Mill Road Mobile.

Um we were here approximately two meetings ago, and the subdivision was approved.

It was incorrectly presented, shown on the city website and in the deed to the property.

The entrance drive from Moffat Road to the basic property was shown as owned by the major part of the lot that was incorrect in 1962.

There was a deed from the owner at that time to Mobile County Ding that section to the county, and then through annexation, it's become city street.

Um that's the only change on this application is to eliminate that entrance drive, showing it if we're actually on a city street at the north end of that city street.

And that eliminates the need for rezoning.

Thank you for that clarification and resubmission.

Is there any questions from commissioners regarding the dual application?

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um, just out of curiosity, Mr.

Berg, just because I'm fascinated with it.

Uh out of curiosity, there's houses down that street, right?

Um there's one.

Yes.

Um on the west side of the street adjoining our property.

Uh and actually the one on the east side has a driveway that that turns in off of that street, but that address on the east side would be would be Moffitt as well.

Right.

Interesting.

Okay.

There's no street sign out there.

Well, I guess if you've done if you've done the research to prove that it's actually sitting right away, I'll just ask the staff to coordinate with our GS department and make sure that that gets gets memorialized correctly.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners regarding this dual application?

Um be noted that you did have a uh comment submitted on this application, uh, commissioners.

So that should be in your folders on public comments.

And now I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience.

Thank you, Mr.

Bird.

If there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for or against or have questions towards this application, dual application at 4350 Moffat Road.

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

Number 10.

Also a dual application, subdivision and modification at 348 and 360 North McGregor Avenue, the Mordecai Lane's subdivision.

The subdivision division application is two lots at 11.45 acres, and the major modification is of a previously approved planning approval allowing construction of the water tower in an R1 single family residential suburban district to modify lot lines in coordination with the proposed subdivision.

There are potentially nine conditions, or there are nine conditions for the subdivision application, and then there are potentially eight findings of fact with 10 listed conditions on the modification.

Is the applicant present?

Brett Orell with Poly Surveying.

I was speaking with staff earlier.

I just want to get some clarification on setbacks.

If Logan, if you can so this property is located within the village of Spring Hill Overlay, within the neighborhood general subdistrict.

Instead of a 25-foot setback requirement, the uh Article 13 of the UDC has a minimum setback requirement of six feet and a maximum setback requirement of 18 feet.

So we would suggest amending the proposed condition number four to state compliance with the standards of Article 13 table, excuse me, the compliance with the setback standards of Article 13, Table 64-13.4.3.

Would that be condition number three?

You mentioned number four.

That's correct.

Yeah, I was looking at the wrong uh so it's condition number three, Mr.

Arrell.

So it would be three on uh number three on the subdivision and number four on the modification request.

Yeah, we're in agreement with that.

The applicant is in agreement with that comment and adjustment from staff given the Spring Hill overlay.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

Jay, if you if you give me a minute, I know there's some people here probably inquiring about this.

Yeah, so let's do that, Miss Orell.

Give you an opportunity to um because we do have some citizens here from that neighborhood.

Go ahead and take a look at it.

Yeah, so so uh this this property is uh some old property that's that's owned by both the city and malls.

Uh malls operates on the western side, retained as lot one.

The city intends to retain lot two.

That's the main purpose of this is to sever that tie and that relationship.

We've been working on this, believe it or not, uh, since like 21.

Uh, so we're finally getting to this point.

Uh, and that's why we're here.

There's the planning approval is is a requirement due to you here, it's a modification of an old document.

So all it is is a submittal of what is existing there today.

There's no current plan to do anything, any kind of changes, and it even notes within there that any changes, I believe it states from the planning approval have to go to the Board of Adjustment or City Council for that.

So just want to clarify what's going on here.

It's simply a lot line modification if you call it to separate two entities with the city retaining two, malls retaining one.

Thank you for that.

And I will now uh see if there's anyone in the audience that would like to have uh have questions towards this application, and a reminder, sir, for your name and address for the record.

All right.

Well, first, uh good afternoon, Chairman Stubbs, and the members of the person of the planning commission and city personnel who are here.

My name is Dan Remer.

I'm a retired physician, uh practiced in Mobile for almost 40 years, and I live at 3763 Mordecai Lane, which is where our family built our home 35 years ago.

We're about 100 yards from the eastern edge of the mall's property.

I have the privilege of being today's representative of the Spring Hill Cemetery Neighborhood Association, and I'm here to speak to you about the possible future development of the seven and a half acres or more of land that you're being asked to subdivide today on behalf of the Maws request.

Let me first say that our neighborhood association was organized to encompass from Springhill Avenue to Old Shell Road and from McGregor Avenue to Tud Hill Lane.

That's about 170 private homes.

Now we have at least 100 members out of that neighborhood area as part of our association watching closely what happens to this property once it's subdivided.

We have had multiple requests over the last week, especially from people who have heard about this from who live across Springhill Avenue behind St.

Ignatius School from people in Spring Hill Manor who live across McGregor and those who live to the east of Tud Hill, down Stein Cedars, and around Mary B.

Austin.

Everyone is focused on this particular large piece of property and have very strict thoughts about what they would like to see it become.

That is not before you today.

We understand that.

So let me say we are not here today to oppose the subdivision by maws of the property they own, but we are here to let you know, and the city of Mobile and the other employees of the city that we will be monitoring the future proposals for this piece of property closely, and we are prepared to prevent any attempt to move it from any to any other zone other than R1, which is what it currently is.

Of course, we would vehemently appro oppose apartments, condominiums, small lot, single homes, putting 50 homes or so on this property, other concepts like that people are concerned about.

So let me just call to your attention one fact, and that is that right now we live our neighborhood within walking distance of three of the best schools in Mobile.

St.

Ignatius Catholic School has 674 children.

Mary B.

Austin has 505 children.

St.

Paul's Episcopal has 1,213 children.

Add those together, that's 2,342 children every morning move through our neighborhood near or around our neighborhood to get to those schools.

And in the afternoon, they go home.

Many walk, but the vast majority, in my opinion, are taken by car, and the traffic is unbelievable.

Morning and afternoon because of that.

You add that together, morning and afternoon, that's 4,600 trips occurring by some method in our area.

We do not want more traffic in our neighborhood.

I'll mention we already are concerned of the potential of increased cut-through traffic because of the new hotel that's been approved and is moving forward, I suspect, at the old armory location on uh Museum Drive.

And that's fine.

A lot of that traffic is supposed to go out on McGregor down to Spring Hill or go west on Spring Hill or whatever.

But what it's going to do is back up on McGregor and people are going to cut through our neighborhoods on Stein, Cedars, and Mordecai.

We have people speeding through already.

We don't want more.

So we're going to watch this potential development extremely closely.

Thank you, Dr.

Remer.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to comment towards this application?

Either for or against or have questions towards it.

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

Okay, thank you.

Mordecai Lane and 420 McGregor.

So 3824 is directly across from the abandoned uh reservoir.

And I've been there since uh my father built that place in 1970.

As a matter of fact, um, I'm not here to oppose it, but I went to, and this property is this division is located in Standtown, which is a the oldest African American neighborhood in in Mobile.

And he did a lot to make sure we got our roads paved, lights put on those those lots because back in the early 70s or mid-70s, they still consider Sand Town, you know, for the black neighborhoods, and those streets weren't paved, but you go halfway up Mordecai and it was paved, or halfway up Stripes Lane, it was paved.

They also we also got the city of Mobile to build us a park in the 70s, right?

Right after that uh reservoir and between the reservoir and where the tower is.

Uh we're not I'm I'm not opposed to the to the um development, like Dr.

Remer says I'd like for it to be residential, but I also want to make the city aware that you know that's part of Sand Town, and it'll be nice to have something that commemorates Sand Town when they're doing that development, uh be it a street, a plaque, or something.

I just want to make it known that you know that's in our neighborhood, it's right across from where I was raised.

The city had given us a park one time, they took it away for the Mars.

Uh we're not asking for the park back.

We know you're gonna develop it, but we would like some consideration, or I would like some consideration that show that that was a part of Sand Town.

So that's my comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Roders, for your for your comment.

And uh, I'm I'm sure some people will take note of those comments regarding your um potential for that.

All right, thank you.

Commemoration.

We'll be watching too, like Dr.

Remer said.

I will any other questions or comments from commit commissioner, I mean from the audience.

All right, Dr.

Remer, we're we're good.

I'm sorry, that very very quickly.

We failed to ask, or I failed to ask if we could have an understanding of what was marked as uh Mordecai Park.

That's what Mr.

Broad is just on the city revenue.

If someone could explain uh ownership of that and who has title and is it city property and where does it stand now?

It uh from the malls people need to be okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Dr.

Remer.

Anyone else?

All right, seeing none, we'll move on to number 11 on the agenda.

This is also a dual application of a subdivision and a rezone 2602, 2610, 12, 14, and 16, Old Shell Road, and then 105 and 107 Item Avenue, the 107 subdivision.

On that subdivision application, it's one lot at three and a third acre on the rezone.

The application is to go from residential urban district R1 and neighborhood business urban B2 to neighborhood business urban B2.

So this would be a combination or taking two zones and combining them as to one, as I understand that.

There are potentially uh there are nine conditions on the subdivision, potentially eight findings of fact for condition uh commissioners on the zone application.

Yes, Mr.

Byrd.

Jerry Bird.

Purpose of the rezoning is to go to uh one complete zone, the way the property has been developed over the years in 19 according to staff report in 1967 when the zoning ordinance was brought in.

They split zone the property at that time.

The southern portion of the property is zone B2 with this long portion in the back, still continuing to be R1.

After that, other buildings has built been built back there, and B2 businesses have been located there for a number of years, I think exceeding 30 years.

And the property sold approximately two years ago.

The new owners would like to clean up that zoning into the proper um zoning classification.

And as of in conjunction with that, doing a one lot subdivision of all the property that they have.

Um that's what we have.

Are you in agreement with the nine conditions regarding the subdivision should the zoning go through?

Yes.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Bird.

Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this dual application?

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against or have questions pertaining to this application?

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Cindy Atoris Wagner, and I'm a president in 109 IV.

You pull the microphone a little bit closer, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

I'm a resident in 109 Item Avenue, and I have a specific question regarding 105 and 107 item avenue.

I have two questions.

The first question is how this potential rezoning will affect the neighbors in terms of the value of the property and the change of daily routines with intense traffic on noise.

And the second question is if these two if these two properties in item avenue are rezoned, will there be a restrictions in terms of what kind of businesses could it be?

All the properties, um, the businesses and all shell are industrial or commercial, but the one in 107, it's uh it's a residential.

I live next to that property.

It will not be the same if that property is turned into another southern glass or fabric.

So those are my toy specific questions.

All right, Mr.

Bird, did you hear those?

Okay.

Well, I think the first question was uh will it the the value potential impact on the value of the residences along it and Highland Avenue, which are considered to be the backyard of those homes?

And then the second question was um the potential for the development, I believe, of what would be going on this B2.

Is there any plan thus far?

There's no plans to revise anything that's there.

They have been cleaning up painting some repairs.

Um businesses are still staying there.

The same one was there that probably when the people in Itam Avenue purchase their property.

Um like I say there's no plans for any changes or additions to the building at present.

So that does that, ma'am, answer your question with respect to that.

Do you have another one?

If I understood correctly, there are no plans of changing why it needs to be rezoned from neighborhood to respecial.

I'll address that.

It's it's a cleanup.

There's currently there's currently businesses that are technically on residential property, and that resident that R1 designation in the in the zone needs to be changed to the congruent zoning of the property that faces Old Shell Road, which is B2.

So this is a this is an application to clean that up with respect to the the zoning and the plat and how it's filed with the city.

Am I looking for the lot of one lot of the okay?

So there is no change.

If I understood correctly, if there are no changes, there's only gonna be a cleanup and a rezoning for that, but that will not affect at all the neighbors and Iden Avenue.

That's correct.

And if there's any additional development that is going to occur, it's got to come back.

If it's B2, it can be it can remain B2, but any further changes would have to come back through the planning commission.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions or comments from members of the audience regarding this application?

All right, we will move on to the the final uh application agenda item.

There is other business after this uh and after we get through um deliberation.

Number 12 is a dual application of a subdivision and a rezone at 7211 and 7221 Cottage Hill Road.

It's been recommended for holdover until the September 18th meeting next month.

Is the applicant present?

Are you in agreement with that holdover?

The applicant is present and in agreement with the holdover.

Is there anyone in the audience?

Because it is on the agenda that has questions or comments for this agenda item at Cottage Hill Road 7211 and 7221.

All right, thank you, sir.

We will now uh close the public hearing and move back to number one on the agenda.

This is the holdover of the rezone on the short-term rental at 2316 Hillwood Drive.

The applicant was present, Mr.

Brewster.

He was in agreement with the conditions that were listed, and uh staff was um in agreement with the reapplication, if you will, entertain a motion.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts one three four seven eight nine and ten.

Second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact one three four seven eight nine ten.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

The motion for rezone short-term rezone passes.

New application agenda item 74 number two 7435 7495 Bowers Lane and 7410 Old Military Road.

The applicant was present and in agreement by raise of hand with the nine conditions.

Entertain a motion.

Motion to approve, subject to staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision of those two lots passes.

Number three, subdivision at 710, downtown or boulevard.

Mr.

Bird presented and staff was in agreement on the resubmission of the information.

And Mr.

Bird was in agreement with the listed conditions for this subdivision.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subjects to staff recommendations and including the additional proposed considerations.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for that subdivision passes.

Number four.

Subdivision at 6098 River Chase Drive South, East and West Sides of Rabbit Creek Drive, extending to south south to Hamilton Boulevard.

The applicant was is present and in agreement with the 12 listed conditions.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes.

We will ask Ms.

Edwards to recuse on number five.

Sidewalk waiver at St.

Paul's along Loyola and Provident Lane.

Excuse me, Northwest Corner of Loyola Lane and Provident Lane.

Request to waive the construction of the sidewalks along the west side of Provident Lane and the 315 foot portion of North Side.

Mr.

Essis was in here for the applicant and present presented their reasoning for sidewalk waiver.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve the sidewalk waiver.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The sidewalk waiver passes.

We can welcome back Ms.

Ellie Edwards.

We have to send away Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

This is a number six on the agenda.

Modification agenda 600 700 and 800 West I-65 service road.

Um the applicant is present and request holdover.

And the specific notes are to have the material in to the city staff by Wednesday noon of Wednesday of next week.

And it would be on the September 18th meeting.

Entertain a motion.

So moved.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

This application will be held over until September 18th.

We can welcome back Mr.

Nichols.

Number seven.

Modification application at 550 Providence Park Drive East.

Potentially eight findings of fact and seven listed conditions.

The applicant is present and was in agreement and had no questions regarding the findings of fact or the conditions.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A through H.

Properly moved and seconded.

With findings of fact A through H.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for modification passes.

We will recuse Mr.

Kenny Nichols for number eight on the agenda, which is a rezone of 250 St.

Francis Street.

This is a rezone from T-5.1 to T-5.2.

The applicant it's present and positioned to the current parking lot for the development.

With other speakers in support or just watching after this development.

Entertain a motion for the rezone.

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

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A C D E and G.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for rezone passes.

We can welcome back Mr.

Nichols.

Number nine on the agenda.

This is the dual application at 4350 Moffat Road.

Fred Marshall Court Subdivision.

Mr.

Byrd explained that the application needed to be adjusted due to the uh the street being owned by the county.

Mr.

Burton is in agreement with the nine listed conditions for commissioners.

There's potentially eight findings of fact on the modification and 21 listed conditions, of which Mr.

Byrd was in agreement with.

Entertain a motion.

Up and there was comments for commissioners to review.

There was one comment submitted online.

Mr.

Chairman, do we have the two items, the subdivision and the PUD mod or just the PUD mod?

I'm sorry.

What was these are two separate applications?

I'm gonna yep.

So let me separate them now.

We'll take the subdivision first.

Entertain a motion for the subdivision.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Second.

Entertained that mean the motion is seconded.

All in favor for the subdivision?

Aye.

The motion for the subdivision passes.

And for the modification.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, adopting findings of facts A through H.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion or the agenda for modification passes.

Number 10, dual application.

Subdivision at 30 348 and 360 North McGregor Avenue, and then the modification of the same property.

Mr.

Orell was here to explain reasoning behind it.

Was in agreement with the nine listed conditions of the subdivision and for our consideration, eight findings of fact and ten listed conditions.

Yes, it is within the neighborhood general.

Uh Bosch.

So there was an adjustment that Mr.

Orell was in agreement with respect to condition number three on the subdivision.

Mr.

Chairman, are you going to take those separately?

We are taking them separately.

So entertain a motion on the subdivision.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, modifying condition number three.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with the condition to reference the table from the uh overlay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Subdivision does pass.

Modification.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, adopting findings of facts A through H and modifying setback condition number four.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through H and then the set setbone on the condition.

All in favor?

Aye.

The motion for modification passes.

Number 11.

Dual application of subdivision and rezone will be taken separately.

This is at the 2600 block of Old Shell Road and then 105 and 107 Item Avenue.

Applicant is present and in agreement with the nine listed conditions on the subdivision.

So entertain a motion on the subdivision.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes for the rezone to go from R1 and B2 separate to congruent B2.

There are potentially eight findings of facts and then compliance condition.

Entertain a motion.

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

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A C D E F G.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for rezone passes.

Number 12, subdivision and rezone dual application at 7211 and 7221 Cottage Hill Road has been recommended for holdover to sever September 18th.

Move to move to approve.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion for holdover passes.

Other business regarding subdivision applications at previously submitted.

We have some adjustments.

I'll turn it over to staff just for clarification.

Sorry, give me just one second.

So the request uh and the applicant is here to um explain it a little bit better than I can.

But essentially, there's a note under um uh the approval conditions, uh condition number two in the letter of decision that originally stated uh that one of the requirements was placement of a note on the final plating that at such time as foray road is developed, it will be required to be developed to city standards per section 9D of the subdivision regulations.

Um and again the applicant will explain his reasoning behind this request, but the request is to revise that note to state that placement of a note on the final plat, stating that at such a time as for a road is developed as a road, it will be required to be developed to city standards per section 90 of the subdivision regulations.

So the distinction there is that if it is developed as a road, it would then be developed to those standards.

If it is not developed as a road, perhaps as a driveway or a private easement, that it does not at this time have to be developed to city standards.

Pretty straightforward to me.

Any further application uh uh information from the applicant approve it.

Um Adam Metcalf, Metcalf and Company, Five Dolphin Street.

Do you have any specific questions about because it's kind of a long story to take take your time?

But which one is this?

I it This is located under other business on your pad, it's located under other business.

This this came before us three or four months ago.

Is that right, Adam?

Yeah, it's it's when we got the plat back and we saw and I started looking.

I'll give you a quick rundown.

If you can switch back to the other slide, um all the property there is owned by Air Gas, they occupy their businesses on lot two, um, accessed by Hamilton Boulevard.

Um they're not they have no use for the area of lot one, so they want to sell it.

So in order to do that, we had to subdivide.

Um during our title research, we found this four road, and um it showed up on a plat somewhere through title.

Um the intention from what I learned of the intent of it was not necessarily to be a road, but just sort of a secondary access drive to the property directly to the to the um to the east for the concrete company that was there, the construction company that was there.

Um, up until such time as east right road, you can pull the other, see the east right road that was constructed to city standards and it and it provides access to the area that's uh zoned industrial right there.

Um so there's really no use for the road.

Um it goes right through air gas property, but the owners of the the new owners of the construction company just say we just don't want to give it up.

So I tried.

Um the wording of it, what concerned me was and when we sell lot two, um the practical access for that development will be where the four road is because there is a curb cut to highway 90 right there.

Um so that what'll happen practically is someone will build a building there, put their business there, and the driveway for it, the entrance will be on the full road.

So my concern was the way it was written the word developed.

So if we if we pave a hundred feet of it, does that mean we have to pave a thousand feet of road to city standards?

That's why the just the change in wording.

Oh no, no, we both can't.

Oh the owner of the drug on the other side.

And it's not a right-of-way, it's not there's no description of it, it just showed up on a plat somewhere, and we tried to get rid of it, but we couldn't.

It dead end.

Yes, and there's yeah, and that that's it's not a road.

You know, you could drive over it, but it's not it's access.

And the property's off fenced and everything.

Just the property to the east has uh has an access to the process.

Yes, it has two of the business.

And and they did use it occasionally up until um until East Wright Road was built.

Yeah, if you could require that other property owner to give it up, that'd be great.

I don't think you could do that.

Yeah, I figured on that one.

Any questions?

None from me.

Any comp questions or comments from commissioners regarding this restated note on the final plates written with the addition of three excuse me, seven letters as a road.

Right.

By the way, staff was very helpful in coming up trying to fix this thing.

Any questions or concerns from commissioners?

All right, I'll move to approve.

Second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed the motion for the change on the wording on the final plates.

Other business at 7210 14th Street.

The applicant is requesting to remove condition two in the letter of decision dedication to provide 25 feet from the center line of Lincoln Boulevard.

Can you provide some clarity or background on that, please?

So from this actually came up uh last meeting where it was discussed that Lincoln Boulevard terminates uh to the north into a property that is developed, I believe, for use as a religious facility.

And at this time, there's no intent to improve that road because as of right now it's not paved, if I'm not mistaken.

Um because of that, they didn't see the need to dedicate the additional 25 feet to the center line simply because of those two factors.

They're not going to develop the edge of a road into a private property, um, and they're not improving the public access at this point in time.

And so they're simply the applicant is simply requesting to waive that requirement.

Is staff okay with waiving that requirement?

Staff does not have a recommendation.

That is for the planning commission to discuss and decide.

Any questions here?

Well, I just can't like to see what the what the road looks like.

I mean, 30 feet, not even almost even a driveway.

Yeah, we got a lot of things.

Where is the question?

The request does not have to provide okay, it's Lincoln.

Okay, so it's we have a question from Commissioner Kirk Mateo.

Where is this?

Are we getting notice of these things?

When we email you the links to the um staff reports and the agendas and everything, those are embedded into the actual information that was provided.

The agenda itself actually has the links to the case from the previous uh meeting date that contains all of the application materials.

This particular location is in the mobile terrace community, just off of Cody Road north uh north of Old Shell Road.

So can you go back to the other drawing second?

So it's it's it's not where it's saying the 10-foot widening dedicated, it's really what would effectively be five feet on Lincoln Boulevard.

I mean if it's 40 feet now, we're basically asking for five feet.

We say 25 feet from the center line.

Right to provide 25 feet to the center line, which would uh basically facilitate a 50-foot wide right-of-way uh along Lincoln Boulevard, which would be standard for any road that's developed to current standards with curving and gutter.

Mr.

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

Chair I do want to point out that it was not provided in the agenda is the specific subdivision uh excuse me section of the subdivision regulations that needs to be waived to accommodate that request if you give me just a second I'll verify that six three I'm sure yeah we have a recusal we still maintain a quorum just as just one more comment for the staff uh if I don't know if if the tech technology in the in this room is available for us to be able to look at Google Street view when these situations come up like that because it's just I mean just the plan drawings like that really just don't show us enough.

So if you if you can look at that for the next meeting that would be that would be very helpful.

Unfortunately the county does not give us internet access so Josh has it pulled up on his iPad um you hold it up so six dot the the the perks of an elected official so Mr Chairman the specific section that would need to be waived is section six dot b dot nine b is in boy b or d b is in boy so this was the one with the turf more coverage okay entertain a motion mr chairman I move that we uh we we remove condition number two um via the waiver of six b nine six dot b dot nine second properly moved and seconded all in favor aye aye any opposed the removal request from the letter of decision on 7210 14th street condition two is approved to be removed don't ask for a sidewalk next is a public hearing for the proposed amendment to the subdivision regulation with the addition of the adopted provision of historic avenue overlay this is a call for public hearing you do you want me to explain it again you don't have to I think we're all in agreement but you're asking for a calling for a public hearing to have the addition adopted or is it to adopt the addition this is the public hearing for this is the public hearing yes I see a couple of people is there any questions or comments regarding the historic avenue overlay addition to our subdivision regulations was there anything submitted online I did not see anything all right public hearing is now closed for the historic avenue overlay addition last but not least we will batch these is review of an approval of minutes from the following planning commission meetings October 5 19 and December 7 and 21 of 2023.

Public hearing is now closed for the historic avenue overlay edition.

Last but not least, we will batch these.

October 5, 19, and December 7 and 21 of 2023.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Can we take a vote on the when you take a vote on the historic avenue overlay?

Let's do that.

I'll reverse backwards.

We will now call for a motion to add the adopted provisions of the historic avenue overlay.

I'll move to approve and add.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The adoption for the provisions passes.

Now review of the minutes from the dates that I mentioned.

Move to approve.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Those minutes are good to go.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

I've got to start.

Y'all have speaking up a little bit, man.

Y'all making me work today.