Good afternoon and welcome to the September 18th, 2025 Mobile Planning Commission meeting.

I would like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures.

This meeting is divided into two sessions, public hearing and deliberation.

In public hearing, the agenda item is called.

The applicant makes their presentation.

Commission members ask questions and then the members of the public can make their comments to the commission.

Only four people speak for an agenda item, four people against.

Each speaker is limited to five minutes with questions subject to questions by the commissioners.

At one minute remaining, you will have a warning bell or a beep prompting you to summarize your comments.

After opposition speakers speak on an agenda item, the applicant is allowed a two-minute rebuttal.

If you do intend to speak, please come down to the bottom of the stairs at the podium.

Speak clearly into the microphone and give your name and address for the record.

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

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

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

If some issues arise during deliberation that were not addressed in the public hearing, we have the discretion to allow additional comments to resolve the issues or call for the application to be held over for discussion at a future meeting.

Occasionally we will have commissioners recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application.

That doesn't mean that they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal.

If they do recuse, we will have a supernumerary vote in their stead.

Reminded that 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 rezonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments.

The city council makes the final decision on these applications and all appeals of the city council decisions are to the circuit court.

This time, please do me a favor and turn your cell phones or uh other devices to vibrate or silence.

Commissioners and staff, a reminder to please move towards the microphone and speak clearly when you do speak.

I'll call the role of myself, Jay Stubbs President, Mr.

Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Denson, Mr.

Harry Brislin, Mr.

Larry Dorsey, Mr.

Chad Anderson, Mr.

Matt Anderson, Mr.

Nick Amberger, Mr.

Josh Woods, Mr.

Kenny Nichols, Miss Ellie Edwards.

We do have a quorum for the agenda items today.

I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

The agenda passes for today.

Holdover is number one on the agenda.

This is a holdover from 600, 700, and 800.

We do have a West I-65 service road south.

We do have a recusal in Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item.

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

The applicant, go ahead, Mr.

Watkins.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good afternoon.

Jay Watkins with Maynard Nexon, 11 Northwater Street, suite 24290, 36602.

Um this application was held over from the last meeting.

The site plan and the staff comments were pretty extensive.

And so we went back and you'll note that there's a fairly wholesale change to the site plan.

They've reduced the number of units from 240 down to 217.

What this is, uh, it's three separate lots of record.

The uh properties located in northwest quadrant of Airport Boulevard and I-65.

Uh currently has a best western plus hotel on the northernmost lot, and then the uh middle lot and the southern lot have a um uh days in super eight.

The uh hotel on the back portion of the lot has been boarded up and vacant for a number of years.

Um, the hotel that's operating on the central center lot uh is an older style hotel.

It's got uh doors that open up onto the parking lot, two stories.

Um, it is certainly aged out, and it's at a in a position where you know renovating it is is becoming an economically unfeasible.

So uh the applicant is proposing to demo the hotels on lot uh the the two the center lot and the southern lot and go back in with the 24 217 room apartment complex.

Um I'd point out that this uh site is in a priority investment area under the map for mobile.

Um it isn't a B3 zone.

Um and uh we have reviewed the staff recommendations and reports and are comfortable with everything there, subject to a couple of uh items.

Uh first uh the landscape plan that was submitted is a little short in terms of frontage landscape.

Uh because this is a major modification of a PUD, you do have the authority to uh allow the landscape plan as submitted.

We would point out that this is kind of an awkwardly shaped lot.

Uh there's only so much frontage uh with respect to the central lot and the and the back lot is not have any frontage.

And so we would argue or ask uh the commission to consider allowing the site plan the uh landscape plan that was submitted to stand as the landscape plan for this PUD modification.

Um we would ask that um the applicant have the latitude um to uh swap out what is referenced on the site plan as a pet park.

Uh when we went to the uh board of adjustment for our density variants, the chairman pointed out that with a site this size with this number of units, it would be nice to have a playground for children as maybe as opposed to the pet park.

And so we would like that uh flexibility to be able to uh use that as either a pet park or a uh playground for uh residents.

Um I believe that's all we have.

We're comfortable with all the other staff recommendations and are happy to answer any questions for point of consideration for the commissioners.

There are potentially eight findings of fact for this major modification, 16 conditions.

Uh Mr.

Watkins, I'm reviewing the conditions specific to your comments on uh landscape design as also and also pet park.

I don't see either any of those other than regular notations, and I'll make a clarification from staff on that.

Is there any specific findings of fact to the pet park or there is not anything specific?

We um because this is site plan specific.

I don't know if that's a required um finding or a required comment in the approval.

We just wanted to be safe and make sure that we had brought that to everyone's attention.

The landscaping comments are in the body of the staff report uh and just point out that it is uh a an opportunity for the commission to adapt adopt the site plan.

I'm sorry, the landscape plan that was submitted.

Um so we would we'd certainly like to be able to go with what's been submitted by our landscape engineer at this point.

So finding a fact D.1 is where I'm finding that on the landscape.

Am I correct on that, staff?

Number nine on the conditions.

Yeah, I was in findings of fact, and then number nine on the conditions.

All right, any questions or comments from commissioners for Mr.

Watkins regarding this application for major modification and the comments that he brought up today.

Speak clearly under your microphone.

What is the uh the fire comment?

It's kind of low.

Mr.

McKay, can you kind of give me a little heads up on what paragraph you're in?

Yeah, the question was about the comment from fire revised for September 18th meeting for design does not meet adoption fire access, the possible emergency access only drive will be required.

Is that um fire is not here to discuss that this afternoon, and that would be a requirement under their ordinance, not the unified development code.

And I believe in a prior the prior site plan there was um reference made to a um gate on the rear of the southernmost lot.

Um kind of pursuant to staff recommendations, we would have to be in compliance with that, and we would certainly comply with whatever the fire department's uh requirements would be.

And if they require an additional emergency access point, uh we would work with staff to modify site plan to that extent.

Chair go ahead.

Um I think that's uh I think from what I know or understand.

I think uh of this size, I think it requires two access points to meet fire codes.

I think just it's making note that there's only one point of access.

And then on then to your point too.

I think I guess in the original plan possibly was there a secondary access or just gated with like a knox box by okay, and that's been removed from the plan that's in front of us, I guess.

It looks like it has, it probably needs to be reinserted.

Yeah, and then on I'm assuming um not gonna assume anything.

All right, thanks.

I I would ask staff, and this may be a fire question, but given the the PUD nature of this application and the shared access with the northernmost lot.

Um does that I guess the two access points we've got this is probably a fire question, but the two access points that are there, does that not satisfy the requirement of additional access?

That would definitely be a fire code question.

Okay.

Any further questions, comments from commissioners?

All right, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience who is here to ask questions, speak for or speak against agenda item number one, which is a modification at 600, 700, and 800 west I-65 service road south.

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

Our recused member you're not recused anymore.

Number two, again, a holdover.

This is uh was a dual application at 7211 and 7221 Cottage Hill Road Starlight at Cottage Hill Subdivision.

Um for the subdivision application, there were seven findings of fact, and um then the rezone.

Uh I'll ask staff we need to make any adjustments to this agenda item, or if the applicants present wanted to make make any comments towards this agenda item.

I think uh hold on, pull your microphone down a little bit and then speak your name and address for the record, please, sir.

Shabir Hussain 1442 West I 65 Service Red Sound Mobile Alabama 36693.

Uh the subdivision application, the comments from the last meeting.

We're still working on getting those addressed.

I spoke to Mr.

Logan, so I think we would like to withdraw the subdivision application and resubmit that.

But the zoning, I think there was no comments on the zoning application.

All right, so as I understand it, still working on the details of the subdivision app.

Staff is okay with withdrawal of that and and resubmission at some point in the future.

Got a nod of the head from staff, and we'd like to uh continue on with the potential of the rezone, which would be um going from R1 residential suburban R1 to multifamily residential suburban R3.

Again, this is at Cottage Hill Road.

And a reminder for commissioners, there are potentially seven findings of facts and a condition listed.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant?

I have a question for the applicant.

Uh Mr.

Harsan, looking at your site plan here, I think you're proposing a total of 16 units.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Obviously, I understand the need for uh the rezoning to R3 to get duplex units, or I guess these are due place units, correct?

Correct.

Um staff, I guess by right the duplex units could also be constructed in R2.

That's correct.

R2 is uh two family residential district.

Correct.

I guess in looking at this, I'm only concerned just being a small site and um the neighborhood meeting document showing the site plan with 16 units.

If there's just a blanket rezoning to R3 by right, then if this is I guess three acres more or less, then I believe you know, upwards of 75 units total could be constructed on the site.

So I guess my question is are you open to any voluntary density restriction as part of the rezoning?

Sure.

Okay.

So it'd be okay with with the an approval with say 16 units total.

So you're saying get rid of more.

Yeah, two or I think you have 16 total, correct?

Right.

I'm just I'm asking the question.

Just as part of the rezoning, would you be willing to accept the rezoning contingent on a voluntary density restriction?

Are you specifically saying not to go over a certain amount?

Correct.

And that amount is I guess based on the site plan.

16.

So did you understand the question, Mr.

Hesse?

Yes.

Do we have to?

Well, it's up to the commissioner.

So what you've got, you're applying from R1 to R3.

R3 gives you much more latitude and any future owners, much more latitude, whereas what you're building falls under R2.

To get R3 for consideration, you would be willing to say we're not going to go anything over 16 units today on this project or any future projects or any future owners unless they come back before the commission.

Doug, did I explain that correctly?

Yeah.

Don't know what the staff report said.

I think Kenny just mentioned that under R3, he could have 25 units uh per acre now, obviously it's subject to you know the commission is trying to ensure that you don't get disapproved for R3 and then come in with a different site plan and have 150 apartments.

I see.

So why don't we just do R3?

I think that keeping the neighborhood in our back of our mind.

Sure, I think we can, if anything changes, we will have to just come back and do a new application.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

Right.

That would be fine.

Wait, Mr.

Chairman, why so why wouldn't we just do R2?

Why because I mean, doesn't that make a future land use question for adjacent parcels?

They say, well, look, I'm next to an R3.

So then next thing you know, you're proliferating R3s across that side of the street.

If you just do R2, if that allows the same use anyway, why would you go for a more permissive?

You beat me to it, Mr.

Anderson.

My next question was what is your justification for applying for R3.

We would in the future, maybe to uh one of the units I mean I I wanted to do my office.

So for that, if we do, then we'll have to change the zoning.

I think I spoke to the zoning department and they said I couldn't have one of the units I couldn't use it as an office.

So for that, if I do decide to use it as an office, I think I'll have to do a new application, which would have to be B2 or B3.

And when you say office, you're referencing properly licensed business license, it's an office-owned property, one of the units of the 16th office.

So that falls under mixed density as opposed to low density, I guess, staff.

So there's a little confusion with what is being presented versus what is being described.

Um the applicant, Mr.

Hossein had provided us an application for R3 to allow multifamily residential use of the property.

That's three or more units, because if you were to rezone to R2, that one lot would be limited to one duplex.

So to have 16 dwelling units on this property, each duplex would have to be subdivided out as its own lot.

In conversations with Mr.

Hussein, um the intent over the long term is potentially to redevelop this as a mixed use property to include office uses as well as multifamily residential uses.

Because the application is for an R3, the only thing we can consider at this time is the R3 request.

We have advised Mr.

Hussein that he can move forward with this request, and if at a future date he would like to try to rezone to allow the mixed use, he definitely could do that.

Um but that would be a completely different conversation at that time.

Right now he's limited to the R3, which would limit use of the property to multifamily residential.

And if that's not as clear as mud, um the accessory use of an office on this property would be limited to its um context within the multifamily development, so like a leasing office or anything related to the actual development.

That's where the office use would be limited.

And if part of it was used as an office, would that uh create a different ratio for parking spaces?

It would.

Um that office space is based off of a different uh parking requirement ratio than a multifamily development.

Uh it's one per 400 gross uh square feet of gross floor area, so that entire unit would be counted for its own parking requirements, and then it would be one and a half parking spaces per dwelling unit, uh would be counted for all of those multifamily residential development.

Um excuse me, multi-family residential units.

Um as far as density is concerned, the density in an R3 pertains only to dwelling units, um, not any other type of use.

Uh however, it is limited by site coverage.

So if the site meets its site or a density requirement, um, but those buildings when we calculate all of them together square footage-wise, um, exceed the site coverage uh limitations, then they would have to redesign it to to meet those um dimensional requirements.

And I guess my follow-up comment to your question, uh, Mr.

Anderson was uh, you know, the R3 or kind of the reason I asked the question is you know, the R3 would allow the applicant flexibility rather than to do duplexes to do you know six or you know eight units per building, which you know could it could allow him some latitude in developing the site, but still protecting the overall density that gets developed.

So Mr.

Anderson questions.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking to Doug.

Mr.

Matt Anderson.

Mr.

Matt Anderson.

Uh I mean yeah.

Uh I mean, my thinking is it's it's just rather than uh attributing B3 to this, and then putting a restriction that lasts for how long, Doug?

How how long would that restriction last?

I mean it would last if if we created if we created a restriction, a density recruit uh restriction, what would that would be just run with it for future owners and everything, right?

So instead of creating a permanent fixture that's going to hobble the use of the of the land, it makes more sense to me to just do R2.

We're already delaying the subdivision anyway, so they can just subdivide the property to be useful for the you know these duplex purposes.

Or am I totally am I totally in left field?

Stephen's like, yeah, you're in left field.

I I think you you're you're constraining the developer by making them subdivide every single lot when he wants to do a main use development.

When he wants to put densities, but again, that's the planning commission's well, it's is that or we constrain the land to being 18 units, correct?

Forever, or you can just go through as an R3 and call it.

Or we could just do an R3 and let it go.

So if you if it was to go to an R2, though, it would be at least nine lots.

Even if what you're saying is each one of those little duplexes has to be a lot of its own.

That's correct.

And then probably a common area not the specific units, but the the structure with two dwelling units right, right?

So there's one, two, three, four.

And then I'm saying a lot dimensions.

Eight different structures, eight different structures outside, so there'd be at least eight parcels plus any parcel that reference the road.

He ends up getting a stack of tax bills that high for it.

I think that's probably why you were saying could he do a use restriction with an R3.

Right.

Well, and the other thing is if if he wants to, you know, instead of doing duplexes, uh, you know, for cost reasons or other things that may be beneficial, do six units in a building, which you know is allowed, you know, by right under R3, um, but not exceed the overall number of units as he's currently proposed.

So still given some flexibility yet trying to you know cap the the allowable density.

Yeah, it seems that the R3 ultimately gives you way too much flexibility from where the commission's perspectives are, but you just don't I don't think I sense there's not a problem with how you have it laid out with those number of units, but to get those number of units without a whole bunch of lots, you've got to go to an R3, which opens up something carte blanche for you to do way more than probably the commission would be would be comfortable with.

So I think it comes back to use restrictions in R3 is probably the uh path forward if you chose to want to go that path.

I think R3 with restrictions would make more sense than you'll have the extra cost of subdividing each units in the R2.

So I think R3 would be what we would request as it stands on the application.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, I'll ask at this time if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards wants to speak for or wants to speak against this application.

Number two, it's 7211, 7221 Cottage Hill Road.

Again, the sub-division has been withdrawn, and this would be specific to the rezone only if there's questions concerning it.

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

The next two items on the agenda are both extension requests.

Number three is a subdivision extension request at 2301 McFarland Road, the Angel Brook subdivision.

This is an extension of the previously approved 108 lot subdivision, just under 40 acres.

Is the applicant present?

Are you present?

Do you have any questions or comments that you'd like to bring up?

Okay.

Are you just an understanding from you while you're up there, sir, that this extension request should it be recognized and approved would be for one year only?

Uh yes, that that's fine.

We we are 100% complete construction in the process of getting uh the final flat signed and recorded now.

So everything should be wrapped up in a matter of weeks.

All right, while I have you here, there are eight listed conditions.

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

It's on the agenda.

If anybody has any questions, speak for or speak against this extension application request.

That's 2301 McFarland Road.

Show me a hand.

All right, seeing none.

Number four, same thing.

2301 McFarlane.

This is the extension of approval of a 48 lot subdivision just at under three and a third acre.

It has 16 conditions listed, and again, reminder that it would only be good for one year.

Any questions or comments towards those 16 conditions on that application on the phase two?

No, a shake of no of the head.

Any uh one in the audience for or against or has questions towards this application on phase two at McFarland Road.

All right, seeing none, we'll move on.

Number five on the agenda.

This is a new application, subdivision application at 3520 Spanish Alley, the Sunset Creek subdivision.

It's a resubdivision of lots one through three at seven and a half acres.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant applicant is present?

Are you in agreement with the 10 listed conditions?

We've got a thumbs up on the 10 listed conditions.

Any questions or comments from commissioners on this subdivision Spanish Alley?

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards, would like to speak for, or would like to speak against this application at 3520 Spanish Alley.

Seeing none, we will move on.

Number six.

We have a recusal on number six.

This is a subdivision at the south side of Wood Alley, uh, 80 feet plus or minus west of Green Street, the resubdivision of lots one through three, block nine, property of woods at all at plateau, Alabama.

It's a two lots at a quarter acre.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, ma'am.

There are eight listed conditions.

Uh just make sure you're in agreement with those, and we'll take any questions or comments from you as applicant.

Um hi, Carrie Comanis for here.

Um, 150 government street.

Um, we would like a waiver of the first condition, which acts asks for pretty substantial set aside to create a 60-foot wide street at this location.

The street is currently 16 feet.

Um I think we would agree to something to making it the 30-foot if it at some point in the future there is a desire to widen the street.

Otherwise, we'd like just a complete waiver.

So my condition reads revision of the plat to illustrate dedication sufficient to provide 30.

Well, that's 30 feet from the center line.

Center line of wood alley unless waived.

I'll have to defer to staff.

I'm not familiar with this neighborhood at all.

And see if you have any questions or comments, and then I'll ask Mr.

Amberger uh for his comments.

Looks like we're surrounded by recently there was a subdivision with a similar request off of Edwards Avenue that the planning commission did waive.

The planning commission did waive.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Same neighborhood.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Many of the streets are or narrow in this location.

Yeah, I'm just looking at the map, and everything looks tight and compact.

And we said GIS shows that as a 30 foot right away right now.

No, right now it's six sixteen feet.

16 feet right away.

Goodness gracious.

That's one six or six zero.

One six.

Okay.

So it's an it's an alley, not a street.

So yeah.

So so Nick and Mr.

Chairman, I'm I'm pretty familiar with the area.

I've spent a good bit of time up there.

It is literally an alley.

It may be called an alley originally it was called a lane.

I mean it it it was a street, it is a street for all intents and purposes.

Yeah, compared to the streets around it, it is an alley.

It's very narrow.

All right.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

Yeah, so Nick, would it be appropriate to say um to I mean in order to provide you know emergency access and things like that?

What is the width we really would need there?

Would it be would you want 20 feet or would you do 15 from the center line or what?

I mean, generally you'd have 20 feet for for two-way traffic, but I don't think that the road looking at I don't think the road's 20 feet wide to start with.

So it's probably I don't know, is it is it struck is it uh marked one way by chance?

It's not okay.

So I mean it's just I mean, I think it's just what it is, it's just an alley that's a remnant of where I don't I don't know that there's anything else that would it's not like we're gonna go down there and widen the street or they're gonna widen the street.

There's really nothing more is gonna come of it, I don't think.

And it's not that far from either the other adjacent streets, so I I would be inclined to um I think we'd be happy with a waiver.

Hey, I think we'd be inclined to me.

I'd be inclined to support you know waiving that note one and really just nothing else because I don't know what else could be done.

I mean, even the houses on either side of it, uh you know, they would probably be within the 30 feet, they'd probably be within 20 feet.

So um, and you've got a reduced front setback uh condition that's added.

So we're I mean the setback, I realize the setback is really five feet back, but to be honest, what we are gonna do is line up with the adjacent houses, which is gonna put us about 20 feet off the street already.

That that would seem appropriate with the houses in that in that block, so I can't see any further questions or comments from commissioners.

All right, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards would like to speak for or against the application for subdivision at the south side of Wood Alley west of Green Street.

All right, seeing none, we will move on to seventh and final agenda item.

We will maintain recusal of Mr.

Mate, and we still maintain a quorum for this agenda item.

It's a subdivision at 655 Congress Street and 260 North Washington Avenue, the Tamberland Park at downtown North Subdivision.

This is a subdivision of five lots uh right at 0.39 acres.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present with the show of hand.

Are you in agreement with the 11 listed conditions?

Yes.

Got a yes from yes, sir.

And uh we got that confirmed.

I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners on this subdivision.

And seeing none, I will now ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to have questions towards speak for or speak against this application at Congress Street and North Washington Avenue.

No one.

All right.

That concludes the agenda and the public hearing session.

We will welcome back Mr.

Mate.

We will send away Mr.

Nichols.

Send him away.

We still maintain a quorum.

This is number one for deliberation modification 600, 700 at 800 west I65 service road south.

Mr.

Watkins was present, did address the reasoning for the modification and brought up the specific notations for access uh landscaping and pet parkslash children's park.

Entertain a motion.

Does it really require anything from us with regard to the pet park?

I mean, that's that's something that staff can approve.

Right.

This is not pertaining to the use of the property, this is pertaining to the layout of the and then with regard to landscaping.

Um a lot of that's submitted at the time of permitting, isn't it?

So is that does that really require anything?

Um with the reduction in the frontage landscape area from the required 25,000 plus to 5,000.

Um the planning commission can approve that under the PUD modification, and it would require your approval for them to move forward and during the permitting process for us to approve that landscape plan.

Okay.

So we're looking at number nine on the conditions list.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I think it would be we'd either have to eliminate number nine or add something to it saying the amount.

I mean what's preferable for double check real quick.

Yeah, so eight and nine would be um affected by that decision if it were to be approved.

Um if approved, uh number eight would most likely need to be revised to reflect the reduction in the front landscape area, um, and number nine would need to be removed.

And you said 25 to 5 approximately 25,000 to 5 approximately, all right.

Entertain a motion.

Anybody got that?

Yeah, I'll try.

Okay, so uh move to approve separate staff recommendations with uh findings of fact A through H.

Uh removing um condition number nine and amending condition number eight to reflect a change from 25,000 square feet to five thousand square feet in regard to landscape square footage.

Is that close enough?

We can make the specific adjustments second, properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion among commissioners?

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed the application for the modification passes.

We can welcome back Mr.

Nichols.

We're on agenda item number two again.

The subdivision application is being withdrawn.

We'll see that at a future date, and then consideration for the rezone from R1 to R3 as applied with multiple discussions on that.

A reminder that there are potentially seven findings of fact for the rezone.

Uh subject staff recommendations of findings effect A through G with no restrictions on units.

We have a motion what was it?

Mr.

Anderson, what was your as applied?

You have a restriction as applied.

I'll second that.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion among commissioners?

All right, call to vote.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

We have two nays.

Any of these so two two not four or four against, I should say, and then uh the remainder four.

So then need the point of order.

We have a full slate, so the supernumerary's votes don't count.

We don't need them on this one.

All right, so we need them when when Kirk and CUNY recuse themselves, but for this Kenny and Ellie do not vote.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

So the motion passes number three on the agenda item.

Extension request 2301 McFarland Road.

The applicant is present.

The applicant is in agreement with the eight listing conditions and understanding of a one-year extension time frame.

I'll uh I'll move to approve for the extension.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Number four.

2301 McFarland Road, phase two, Angel Brook Subdivision.

16 listed conditions.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Approved for extension.

Both those items.

Number five, 3520, Spanish Alley, Sunset Creek subdivision, resubdivision of lots one through three at seven and a half acres.

At seven and a half acres, the applicant is present with a show of hand.

Also gave a uh indication of agreement to the 10 listed conditions.

Entertain a motion for subdivision approval.

So moved.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number six will recuse Mr.

Mate.

Subdivision South Side of Wood Alley and Green Street.

The applicant is present.

Agreed to the eight listed conditions and requested removal of condition number one.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendation waiving condition number one.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number seven on the agenda item will maintain recusal for Mr.

Mate.

65, 655 Congress Street, 260 North Washington.

Tamberland Park at Downtown North Subdivision.

The applicant is present.

Mr.

Bird agreed to the 11 listed conditions.

Entertain a motion.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes.

At this time that concludes the agenda items for today.

We do have two items of other business.

I'll take them in reverse order on your agenda or your printed notes.

This is the review of the minutes from the following planning commission meetings.

We'll batch them for spring of 2024, January 18th, February 22nd, March 21st, and April 18th.

Move to approve.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The planning review minutes pass for those dates.

We will execute those documents shortly.

The second item under other business is a call for a public hearing on October 16th, next month, 2025 to amend chapter 64 of the unified development code UDC, appendix A, Downtown Development District.

The purpose of the amendments to appendix A is to reorganize the format, layout, and sequence of the development district regulations for clarity, process, and ease of use.

I'll turn it over to staff for further commentary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll only take a few minutes of your time this afternoon to give you a high level overview of the draft changes, and at the end, I'll direct the commission as well as the public as to where they can go to find the actual amendments.

Based on input from our stakeholders, staff was asked to evaluate the DDD code.

So over the past year, we've taken a closer look at the downtown development district to assess how effectively it supports our goals and how easy it is for users to understand and conform to its requirements.

Next slide.

Nope, we're good.

So in the fall of 2024, uh the actual assessment began through consultation with consultants that the city has uh worked with uh over the years, planning next and clearing on an associates.

We initiated a comprehensive assessment of the code.

Uh in October of 2024, we began uh extensive stakeholder engagement.

Um we met with stakeholders, uh toured the downtown to give ourselves a better understanding of the real-world implementation challenges that the code may present.

In March of uh this year, the assessment was completed.

Um, and uh with that came recommendations um from our consultant um suggesting that we um work to reorganize and simplify uh the document.

Um so next slide.

The the overall goal uh was to refine the language and structure of the code to be more user-friendly um without changing the meaning or intent of the regulations.

Um in this draft, you'll see that um we've introduced new graphics to illustrate how the subdistricts and frontier standards are applied, and we've uh worked hopefully to clean up um inconsistencies, resolve provisions that may have any visit um provisions that may have been unclear.

So our our first goal uh was to uh better better organize the document for ease of use.

So nine articles uh have been grouped together where there are similar provisions with the hope of providing for a logical flow and better navigation from the end user as they are working to apply the codes to their project.

So some of the uh key consolidations, uh this the zoning subdistrict regulations are now in a single comprehensive section.

Our furniture standards are unified into one section with consistent formatting and visuals, and our development standards, parking landscaping, signage fences, and walls are now easier to find and interpret.

Next slide.

So this just gives you uh a quick glance at the various sections, then um the nine articles and how they've been grouped together.

Um and the the goal again would have been to establish a clear and more logical and user-friendly structure.

Next slide.

Um this is just an example of what you'll find in the new draft from feedback that we received from our consultation team that has a great deal of experience with um developing uh form-based codes across the country.

They quickly highlighted that the current document was very uh text heavy, and so the recommendation was to replace that text, that dense text with tables.

So now the regulations are organized in clear tables that highlight those dimensional standards, um, transparency and frontage requirements.

So key improvements, the the subdistricts now follow the same organizational format used in the broader UDC.

Um, when you have the opportunity to review the draft, you'll see that the template is very similar to the way that the Unified Development Code is laid out.

The new tables of graphics consolidate and illustrate the the standards that I described previously, and the requirements for modifications to existing buildings are placed uh in tables.

Just here are a few examples to illustrate how that graphic representation has been reformatted.

Go to the next slide.

All right.

And so finally, um what we hope we've done is we've um worked to additionally to streamline the administrative review process with a goal of improving administrative efficiency by offering clearly defined development review steps in a sequence.

Um we've removed the CRC or consolidated review committee.

Um their responsibilities have not been eliminated, um, but essentially staff will take on the responsibility as they have been to ensure compliance with the code as a project is presented for review.

Um secondly, we've we hope that we've resolved common problem areas, um, addressing key ambiguities, ambiguities that have caused confusion and past reviews, um updated the transparency requirements to comply with our building codes, and clarified the parking lot and lot screening standards.

And just to wrap up, it's our goal that the DDD upmate update makes the document clearer, more visual, and easier to navigate.

These updates maintain the intent of the original regulations while improving functionality for users, um, specifically those within the development world, but um as well as staff in in terms of how we are applying those standards.

And as far as we will, as always, comply with our required steps for advertising, um, but we will be sending out uh links to the full code so US Commission members as well as the public will have an opportunity to review it.

It will be updated on both the Map for Mobile website as well as the Billmobile.org website, and uh it will take you to the document for review, but there will also be a public input portal where you can present any comments that you may have with regard to what you're um what you've been previewing.

Um we're happy to answer any questions.

This was intended to give you a very high level uh overview of what you can expect to see within the document, um, but um on the October uh 16th public hearing date we will likely go into some more details and obviously take um feedback and comment from the public at that time.

And as is the case with all of our codes, um you will be providing us with a recommendation, but the final adoption process rests with the city council.

So that's all I have.

Any questions?

Thank you, Ms.

Pico.

Any questions, comments from commissioners?

Mr.

Renfrew, you got any feedback on this on behalf of the downtown group.

My feedback is that staff has been uh cooperative and collaborative and sharing their desired intent, and the intentions seem um manageable and uh uh up to snuff and best practices.

So thank you.

This isn't gonna change any.

This is just changing the format.

Because I think it's very confusing to read.

I I would I would say that um we've made some tweaks where we found some equal inconsistencies within the code, uh, but we have not made any what I would call significant changes.

Um to some the the how we're dealing with the consolidated review uh committee is probably more of a uh substantive change.

The review process doesn't go away, um, but we we're we're basically taking how we are um implementing the CRC process now and codifying that within the ordinance.

Um it's my hope that now that we have a reformatted um hopefully better structured document moving forward when there's the opportunity to get into those more significant um changes that we'll have a better document in which to be able to identify where those changes should be made.

Um the the I guess the only um uh concern that we've heard uh from the public and from users of the code as well as internally from the staff is that it is very text heavy, and um that's why we were very intentional in working with our consultant team to provide tables, charts, graphs, and consolidate and organize things into the right section so that it could be much more user-friendly.

So, like we always say, this is our our first start, um, but I'm hopeful we have a better template um to work with, but we shied away from um making any um significant changes to take away from the meaning or intent of the of the document itself.

So yeah, it makes it easier for yeah.

And I will say um we have had um as indicated in the uh slides um numerous um stakeholder meetings, developers, contractors, architects.

Um we even had some neighborhood group uh representation, and the feedback that we received from them that they really appreciated those graphics to help articulate the ultimate goal of the document.

Um lots of words can distract, unfortunately.

All right, again, thank you, Ms.

Biko.

Uh the chair moves for call the public hearing.

Probably seconded.

All in favor.

Public hearing will be held on October 16th at the conclusion of the regular agenda items of our planning commission meeting.

Any further business?

All right, reminder it's National Cheeseburger Day.

Get your cheeseburger.