Good afternoon.

Welcome to the Mobile City Planning Commission meeting for October 16th, 2025.

We'd like to take a moment to review our general operating procedures.

This meeting is divided into two sessions, which will be public hearing and then deliberation.

In the public hearing session, the agenda item is called.

The applicant makes their presentation.

Commission members ask questions if any members of the public are allowed to make their comments to the commission.

A reminder that only four people can speak for an agenda item or four people against, excuse me, and four people against.

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

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

If there is opposition to an agenda item, the applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal.

If you do intend to speak, please come down to the bottom of the stairs at the podium, speak clearly into the microphone and provide your name and address for the record.

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

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

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

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

Occasionally, a commissioner may recuse themselves from discussing and voting on a given application.

That does not mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules do require a recusal.

The planning commission makes final decisions on subdivisions with appeals of these decisions to the circuit court.

The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for 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.

At this time, do me a favor and turn your cell phones to silent or vibrate.

Any other devices the same.

Commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking.

We'll go ahead and call the roll for today.

Myself, Jay Stubbs present, Mr.

Kirk Matte, Miss Jennifer Denson, Ms.

Hary Brislin.

Here, Mr.

Larry Dorsey.

Here, Mr.

Chad Anderson, Mr.

Matt Anderson, Mr.

Nick Amberger.

Here.

Mr.

Josh Woods.

Here.

Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Here.

Miss Ellie Edwards.

We do have a quorum for today's agenda of which there are 11 items on here with two non-agenda business items at the end.

Move to approve.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Agenda for today passes.

Number one on the agenda is an extension application at 261 Rickerby Street, Woodcock Place Subdivision.

Is the applicant present?

I do not see a hand raised for the applicant present.

Is there anyone here to speak for or against or have questions towards this extension application?

Mr.

Chairman, just a comment.

He said he was not gonna be able to make it to the meeting.

I'll take your word for it, Mr.

Amberger.

I'll repeat that he saw the applicant today and everything was good.

Let's just remind the applicant and make note that this is a it should it be approved.

Uh it would be for one year, which is what I would ask to remind that applicant if he or she were here.

Moving on to number two.

This is a new application subdivision at 501 Bel Air Boulevard, the Bel Air subdivision.

It's a subdivision of one lot at 2.34 acres.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present by wave or show of hand.

There are 10 conditions that would be uh part of this application.

Are you in agreement and also waiver of uh potential waiver of section six C 7 for multiple street frontages?

Are you aware of those conditions and in agreement with that potential?

Okay, he is aware with a thumbs up.

I will ask if there is anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application of subdivision at 501 Bel Air Boulevard.

Any questions or comments from commissioners on this application?

Seeing none, we will move on.

Number three subdivision application at 240 Barnes Avenue, the Mark Henry subdivision.

Three lots right at half of an acre.

Mr.

Orrell.

Yes, uh Brett Orell with Polly Surveying.

I just wanted to uh know that I spoke to planning before this.

It is customary that dedication be required on a uh non-curbing gutter street.

This this property is located uh at the northwest intersection of Old Shell Road and Cody Road.

Um they are taking two lots that were originally facing north and south, creating three lots that would be facing west, uh two barns.

Uh if we do that dedication, while it is only five feet, you can see that there's a pretty extensive uh 25 foot setback on that northern side.

Um, and it's gonna just impact the the building area for there for that that property.

Uh it's really a dead end corridor.

I can only imagine the city ever doing a resurfacing project in here, no widening.

So I am asking that items one and two be stricken.

I'm okay with the corner dedication radius.

That is pretty that's standard um to have done, but I just asked that the 50 foot right-of-way remain, so just to remove the notes one and two and everything else would be standard.

Just to reiterate, you're asking for one and two but to be removed from the conditions.

Is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

I'll ask for comments from staff, and if none from them, any comments from commissioners.

What about the 25 foot minimum setback line?

Does that need to be changed?

I think it says uh under item number five, it says retention of and it says if dedication required.

So I think we're okay.

Yeah.

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

Mr.

Amberger, do you have any issues with that with those requests?

I do not, and the applicant's correct.

I mean, we won't do anything other than other than resurfacing in there.

Uh you know, we're we're the extra having 60 foot right-of-way instead of 50.

If you ever wanted to try to go through there and put sidewalks through a neighborhood, you know, the the real estate is a real estate, so it's uh probably not practical.

So uh resurfacing is probably all we'll ever realistically do in there.

Thank you, sir.

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application of subdivision at 240 Barnes Avenue.

Seeing none, we'll move on.

Number four.

This is a subdivision application at 4828 Todd Acres Drive, Evergreen Gardens subdivision, resubdivision of lot 190.

Subdivision of five lots at 1.27 acres.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant's present with a show of hand.

Uh there would potentially be a request of waiver of section six C2B2 with respect to the lot width, and then there would be potentially eight conditions.

Are you in agreement?

The applicant is in agreement with a yes.

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

Seeing none, we will move on.

Number five, subdivision application at 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive, the Todd Acres Industrial Park Subdivision, the resubdivision of lot A and the resubdivision of lots five and six.

Go ahead, sir.

Uh yes, Charles Tisher, Clark Yarlatham Associates.

Uh spoke with the owner about this this week.

They would like to request to hold this over for till next month.

They want to be able to wrap their hands around some of the comments in there.

Get a full understanding.

The applicant is requesting a holdover.

Is this lean that's come before us several times and re-subdivided and resubdivided?

Yes.

No additional land, just that same, just that same one, yes.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, just one thing that I'm kind of just uh looking through the comments.

It appears that just you know in preparation for next month, should this get laid over um or held over on the the US 90 and and Coeyman Road that that is addressed when it comes to traffic engineering comments.

But I I would make note that there's no there's no comments associated with rangeline road and Kueman Road.

So I don't um I do know that that to me is kind of just a concern because again um both of those intersections um are heavily traveled traveled and you know have direct access to I 65 I'm sorry on I 10 and um that you know that I think that might need to be addressed in the comment side that's some questions that I I would have next month if you know just in preparation for this being held over.

And that's what the the traffic stuff's mostly what they have questions about.

I know that was something they were going to get with the traffic department and make sure they have an understanding of what all needs to be done and when for that thanks.

Thank you Mr.

Tisher on I said thank you.

Mr.

Chairman on that note could we hear from traffic engineering just what where they are with the overall effort there.

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

Thank you.

All right even though it's been uh application has been suggested or requested for holdover I will ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here today does have questions towards this application speak for it or speak against it.

Again this is 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive.

All right seeing none we'll move on to number six subdivision application at 5070 Old Shell Road the cottages at Spring Hill subdivision subdivision of seven lots occupying five seven acres there are 14 conditions listed here.

Yes sir please go ahead hey Corey Pronin Camp 549 Congress Street uh same as item number two there was I know it's not in the conditions for the platment believe it was under planning for um right-of-dedication and just wanted to see if there was the opportunity to the waive that on this one just can't imagine that uh with rooftops behind it existing rooftops that there would be any sort of widening through here on both sides just for clarification you're asking for the removal of number two condition dedication to provide 30 feet from the central line of parkway street east correct and then also on uh border as well they were asking for additional right of way all right thank you for those I will ask the staff didn't you have an update on number six's agenda uh Ms.

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

Did you get that?

Yes I'm good with those thank you how are these lots going to be accessed um the staff report says it has frontage and on shield but there's a paved parking lot on the city right away between this and OSHO road you know shows that that alley is going to be unopened that yes so access these will be alley loaded houses um and the alleyway will be improved and uh it will likely be a one-way alley 14 feet wide or whatever the the spec is uh and remain uh public alleyway and be accessed from the rear Mr.

Chairman, I'd I'd like to uh how uh how do you plan to address the stormwater drainage?

This particular area and the and the downstream park already has a drainage issue uh because there's just there is no drainage there to speak of.

So uh what have you comp contemplated on that?

I mean, the lot sizes really are we have we see houses bigger than these lots are size standpoint.

So how how have you contemplated dealing with that?

Yeah, thank thanks for that question.

Uh the houses are likely gonna be around 16 feet wide, and uh these lots are around 35 or 40 feet wide, and so the idea was to do some swells or low impact development uh or excuse me, yeah, uh LIDs in between the lots uh and collect it and send it.

Uh it we did something very similar on uh Logan Cottages off of University Boulevard that was just approved.

They're a little bit bigger houses, but we we took some room in between the lots and then uh it collected the water and then discharged it.

Um so that that would be the plan here.

Um if we had to, we would eat up a lot and do some sort of um detention or retention pond for the water.

Well, this is an area that would likely require you know a 100-year, uh two-year design standard because of known downstream um issues.

So again, your pond would be bigger, your real release would be smaller, and you have to work with the engineering department to work through what that what that might look like.

Sure.

Uh, and we can do that.

Uh it'll definitely require some creativity to uh thread the needle with what we're proposing, but hopefully um we can accommodate what's needed, and if not, we can go back to the drawing board.

Corey, I've got a question, so I want to make sure I'm clear.

So the intent would be that the vehicular access for these lots would be from the back alleyway only.

That's right.

So it's alley loaded product, so your front door uh would face south, uh, and then in the rear, there it's very similar to the Oakley residences, so the ones that are off in marine, right?

Those are alley loaded, and your front door just has um basically a front yard.

Uh and so the idea would be to have a house that's 16 feet wide by maybe 100 feet deep or so.

It would include a garage and a driveway uh that would be accessed by that alleyway right there.

And then your intent would be for the alleyway to be one way or two way, likely one way, just given that it's uh 20 people.

We hadn't we hadn't quite gotten to that detail yet.

Um, I think what would be ideal would be to have it go from east to west so that people are accessing at the traffic signal, um but we we hadn't gotten that far yet.

I guess this is a a question for staff and a comment.

Um is the 20-foot alleyway sufficient width to access a development like this.

And I the reason I'm asking is I specifically recall there being an application before us several months back that came three times, it was in a newly annexed area where the applicant wanted to subdivide and create a rear access flag lot, you know, only you know, through you know, private easement or essentially alleyway, and there was a lot of discussion about the the width of that, and ultimately I think they had to provide 22 or 24 or so you know in staff's opinion is what's out there sufficient.

I think the major issue is going to be how the fire department views their required access to the structures.

I think typically they require a minimum 20-foot width for their truck, and if the truck has to deploy the outriggers, they require a minimum of 24 feet of pavement.

So this will be a question really that has to be answered by fire, I believe.

I know uh if I could chime in here from our perspective, the alley loaded product that we have done in the past that's been successful, has been served by a one-way alley, and that travel lane is generally 12 feet wide, uh, and that leaves some room for uh utilities in the rear.

Uh, and it's generally one way.

Um, so that's usually what what's accepted on alley loaded product is one way, and it's usually 12 foot, maybe 14 foot travel lane uh is perfectly sufficient for the rear back there.

Are there any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant?

And just to make sure the applicant did receive the amended conditions.

Yeah, I'm I'm good with those.

Thank you.

All right, I'll ask ask now if there's anyone.

Let me remind commissioners, please check your iPads for comments.

There were two posted in the uh public comment section.

Through different documents.

And while you review those, I will ask if there's anyone in the audience here today to speak for, speak against, or have questions regarding agenda item number six at 5070 Old Shell Road, the cottages of Spring Hill subdivision.

All right.

Seeing none, we will move on to the next three agenda items seven, eight, and nine, all of which are sidewalk waivers.

The first one is a sidewalk waiver application at 2453 as Lava Creek Parkway.

The sheet metal workers local union 441.

Request to waive the construction of a sidewalk along Islava Creek Parkway.

Is the applicant present?

Would you like to make any comments towards your application on waiver?

Okay.

Of the commissioners have any comments towards this sidewalk waiver.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, I I think in this situation uh it does make sense given the commercial nature of the of the development.

So just wanted to add that.

Thank you, Mr.

Woods.

Any further questions or comments on this sidewalk waiver application from commissioners?

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application at 2453 is Lava Creek Parkway.

All right, seeing none, we'll move on to the next one.

Sidewalk waiver application at 691 Deacle Drive, Boswell Holdings Incorporated.

Request to waive the construction of a sidewalk along Deacle Drive.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present by show of hand, same applicant as number seven.

Again, no further comments, no further comments.

I'll ask if there's any comments or questions from commissioners regarding this sidewalk waiver application.

Seeing none, we will now ask if anyone in the audience has comments, questions for or against the sidewalk waiver application on Deacle Drive.

Seeing none, we'll move on to the next sidewalk waiver application.

This one is number nine on the agenda at 1080 Mont Lamar Drive.

Yeah, sidewalk waiver application to con waiver to construct sidewalks along Mont Lamar Drive and Carlisle Close East.

Yes, sir.

My name's Ed Peace with New Real Estate Advisors.

We developed the building for uh Dr.

White and his wife.

Uh we agree a sidewalk needs to go in on Mont Lamar.

We are asking for it to be waived on Carlisle Close.

Um the road terminates at the back of their property.

There's one very small warehouse there with it generally has two to five cars.

The apartment complex, and I have pictures of the apartment complex that's back there as well.

Their gate is permanently padlocked off.

So there's no pedestrian access through there.

So we agree that the sidewalk should be installed on Mont Lamar.

We're asking for it to be waived on Carlisle Close.

Because it does not be there.

Any questions or comments?

Question for staff.

Do we need to amend the does it need to be amended in any way, shape, or form the application based on the applicant's stated request today?

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

All right.

All right, I'll ask now, thank you, sir.

Thank you, ma'am.

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application at 1080 Mont Lamar Drive.

Again, not to waive the sidewalk on Mont Lamar, but only the Carlisle Close Street.

Seeing none, we'll move on.

The next two agenda items are dual applications.

Number 10 is a subdivision and a rezone at 2574 and 2664 Sally Road.

The Luke 418 Fellowship Subdivision.

Planning Commission or Planning staff has made notes for potential holdover of this request until the November 20th meeting to be concurrent with the conditional use permit request.

The applicant are you in agreement with that?

Uh I'm Michael Daniels, 5617 Cottage Hill Road, and uh I'm here.

Uh the engineer is not able to be here today.

I think he has we're actually not in agreement with the holdover.

We're actually actually actually asking as a religious organization to move forward with the permit.

Uh we'd be happy to comply with uh the requirements as far as the the permit that we've already made for the building and for the land disturbance.

Uh we just want to know if it's necessary to move forward in the state.

Uh I think that Caldwell think he's already received uh some of the requests that we saw that came up uh at the last, you know, as y'all don't approve till I think what last week or so.

Uh we sent them a site plan showing the existing dumpster and then also the revised uh drawing our requirements for parking, and then the only other thing they asked for was a sidewalk, which we're happy to comply with, but we're concerned about the right-of-way.

And uh other than that, we'd like to move go forward.

I think we've had our uh permit in since uh sometime in May and been working on this since last year this time, and uh I think that there's no reason all the things that are gonna be addressed will be addressed in that building permit and in that land disturbance permit.

So I see no reason for it to hold over myself.

Any questions?

Just a reminder this is a subdivision of a lot at twelve almost twelve and a half acres and a conditional use permanent approval to allow the expansion of your facility in an R1 single family residential suburban district.

So you're just adding on to the facility.

Yeah, uh right, and it was in the county, it actually got annexed during the course of while we were drawing the plans up, and so in I think the city just wants to kind of have a clean slate and wants to have a single lot.

Uh in the county, all we'd have to do is provide an easement.

We wouldn't even have to come here for that.

So um just wanted to point that out.

But we'd appreciate some help to move forward today and not have to hold it over another month.

All right, appreciate your comment, sir.

I'll turn it over to staff for their comments.

Yes, we uh actually drafted some conditions of approval last week, and then we were reached out to earlier this week by the applicant.

So we have drafted conditions of approval and they are inside your uh your folders on your iPad if you do wish to approve it today.

Um Caldwell has drafted those conditions to meet the issues that were presented earlier for the holdover.

Maybe you still wish to move forward with that today.

No, for the subdivision and for the conditional use permit.

All right, I'll take a moment to uh I'll let the commissioners review those considerations for the subdivision, and I will quickly review these for the applicant should this be considered.

Number one, revision of the plat to label 50-foot right-of-way width from the center line of Sally Road South to the front property line of the site.

Revision of the plat to provide concurrent total right-of-way width Sally Road South, correction of the street name label to read Sally Road South, retention of the 25-foot minimum building setback line along Sally Road South, revision of the plat to remove the five-foot side yard setback lines and eight-foot year yard set buck line.

Revision of the setbacks table to remove the side and rear setbacks, revision of the plat to label the lot with its size and both square feet and acres, or the furnishing of a table on the final plat, providing the same information, compliance with engineering, placement of note on flight final plat for all traffic engineering comments noted in the report, compliance with urban forestry, and then fire department.

Based on the nod of the applicant's head, he would be in agreement with the subdivision conditions.

Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding this application on the subdivision?

Seeing none, I will then move on to the potential of the rezone.

I guess this conditional use permit simply to allow the expansion in an existing R1 single family residential suburban district.

Would we maintain regular findings of fact in that rezone?

Question for staff.

Under the conditional use permit, there are considerations one through ten.

Those are the criteria for approval.

Which are similar to the findings of fact.

And then just underneath that are the conditions.

Should the planning commission choose to approve it, the conditions on which it can be approved.

All right.

On the rezone application for the applicant's benefit, I will quickly run through these.

The considerations on the rezone is consistent with all applicable requirements.

Is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood?

Will not impede the orderly development improvement of surrounding property, will not adversely affect the health safety or welfare of persons living or working in the surrounding neighborhood, or be more interest to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

Is designed to provide ingress and egress that minimizes traffic hazards and traffic congestion on the public roads, designed to minimize the impact on stormwater facilities, will be adequately served by water and sanitary, is not noxious or offensive by reason of emissions, vibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke or gas, and should not be detrimental to or endangered public health safety or general welfare.

And then finally, proposed use will meet the cities and the larger community's best interest and the need benefit or public person of the proposed request.

Assuming you would be in agreement with those conditions, should that rezone be approved.

On the rezone, any questions or the conditional use permit?

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, thank you for your patience.

While I made sure that if we could move forward, the applicants well notified.

Is there anyone else in the audience on agenda item number 10?

Subdivision and rezone at 2574 and 2664 Sally Road.

Here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um while you did go through the uh approval criteria, just underneath that are the actual conditions that the application could be approved with.

Um I don't know if you got to those yet.

There are five proposed.

If the application is considered for approval, our commissioners should consider the revision of the site plan to provide a public sidewalk and pedestrian connection or obtaining a sidewalk waiver.

Revision of the site plan to provide a residential buffer along the south property line in compliance with section 643-3-8 of the unified development code.

Revision of the site plan to provide pedestrian safe safety aisles within the parking lot.

Provision of a photometric lighting plan when submitting for land disturbance permits and submitted to an approval by the planning and zoning of a revised site plan prior to the application being submitted to the city council for consideration.

I think the biggest item on there would be the sidewalk pedestrian connection.

Is that correct?

Did the applicant hear that?

Would you be in agreement?

Yes, I think got a thumbs up from staff.

Any further things?

I apologize that I missed that.

It was on the next page of the PDF.

Okay.

Questions or comments from commissioners?

Anyone in the audience on number 10?

Since I'm trying to remember what the engineer said, so I just want to make sure that everyone's aware that there is a heavy slope on the current road out there.

And so we're gonna have to work through maybe getting a right-of-way uh addressed or whatever where where we can put the sidewalk maybe in a different location.

We'll just work with uh planning staff on that on the uh the city.

Are y'all aware of that?

Mr.

Chairman, if I may uh go ahead, Mr.

Ember.

For the purpose of applicant, yeah.

Sidewalks, while they're typically on the city's right away, they can be built on private property.

Yes, that's what I want to make sure that that was okay with y'all.

Yeah, you can work.

We can work with the staff on that.

Absolutely.

Okay, yes, thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

I think we're okay to move on to number 11.

We are number 11.

Also a dual application, subdivision and rezone at 2243, 2245, 2345, and 2509 Halls Mill Road, the farmers market of Mobile County subdivision.

Rezoning from community business suburban district, which is B3, to off uh office distribution district, which is B five.

On the subdivision, there are potentially seven listed conditions for commissioners on the rezone.

There are potentially six findings of fact in agreement with full compliance on municipal codes and ordinances.

Yes, sir.

And we're agree.

Casey Pikes 150 government street.

We're in agreement with all of those conditions.

Um just here to answer questions if you have any about the rezoning.

Uh the subdivision is pretty easy.

It's a one lot subdivision of 12 acres.

The rezoning is from B3 to B5 based on error in the original zoning.

Uh in part because it was B3, but in part because the B3 uses were changed when the UDC was changed.

I mean the zoning's been B3 for a long time, but E3 used to allow more of the warehouse distribution that uh this client proposes.

Also, they're changing conditions in the area, adjoining properties zone B5, also owned by my client, which is trying to consolidate into one thing.

We believe it's consistent with map from Mobile, compatible with neighborhood, uh existing capacity to serve it.

Uh we've had uh two neighborhood meetings, had no negative comments and no negative comments posted online.

Were the neighborhood meetings well attended?

No.

It did not generate any interest.

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

I'll ask if there's any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the subdivision or the rezone from B3 to B5 at these addresses listed on this application at Hall's Mill Road.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

Anyone in the audience here for this agenda item on Halls Mill Road.

Would you like to speak for, speak against, or just have questions towards it?

All right.

Seeing none, we will move.

We will close the public hearing session and move back to the deliberation.

We go back to agenda item number one.

Extension of a subdivision application at 261 Rickerby Street, Woodcock Place subdivision.

The applicant was not present.

There are 11 listed conditions for our esteemed commissioner.

The applicant and that commissioner, Mr.

Amberger spoke, and they were good with this.

And I'll go ahead and move to approve.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Extension passes.

Number two, subdivision application at 501 Bel Air Boulevard.

Subdivision one lot, 2.34 acres.

The application, or excuse me, the applicant was present and in agreement with the 10 listed conditions and the multiple street frontages.

Approval of waiver.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number three, 240 Barnes Avenue, subdivision of three lots at 0.55 acres.

The applicant is present in agreement with the listed conditions and asked to strike condition one and condition two per my notes.

Was there anything else?

So moved.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number four, 4828, Todd Acres Drive, Evergreen Gardens subdivision.

Subdivision of five lots, 1.27 acres.

The applicant is present in agreement with the eight listed conditions and the lot with subdivision regulations.

Entertain a motion.

So moved.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Subdivision application passes.

Number five.

I'll ask for staff to check on their dates.

Would that be held over till November 20?

November 20th.

That's correct.

So moved.

Second.

Properly moved and second for an over to November 20th holdover.

All in favor?

Aye.

The motion for holdover passes on that application.

Number six.

Subdivision application at the cottages of Spring Hill 5070 Old Shell Road 7 lots.57 acres.

The applicant is present in agreement with the conditions.

Request and we amended the conditions for the Spring Hill overlay.

The applicant was still in agreement with those conditions, and the applicant also requested was it striking or reducing dedication on Parks Parkway Street East?

A limit requested and an elimination.

I couldn't read my own handwriting.

Elimination of the condition number two and three, excuse me.

We have a move on the floor.

Or motion on the floor.

Anyone willing to second.

Any discussion amongst commissioners.

All right, we have a standing motion.

So we do not have anything to vote on.

I will ask.

Second.

We have a motion that was not seconded.

We now have a motion to deny the application.

And a proper second.

All in favor for the denial of the application.

For for legal purposes, um a possible appeal of a denial of a subdivision, need to give some reasons.

We just can't say it's denied arbitrarily, and we've got to give a reason.

You deny subdivisions for health and safety concerns.

If it meets the minimum standards, then our hands are pretty much tied.

We've got to approve it.

So I just want to try and protect y'all if they file a lawsuit.

Um we need an explanation or reasons for deny denial.

Yeah, yeah.

So the reasons for now is really the questions that I brought up about the drainage.

Uh there's known downstream drainage of this of this area.

Uh you know, when I look at these lot sizes and and thinking about houses and driveways in the impervious area that it's gonna create.

Um, this is one that really would warrant a lot of due diligence with the engineering up front uh rather than us, you know, approving it and then letting them letting them figure out the drainage.

Uh you know, from my perspective, what I hope what I do know about drainage is gonna be very hard to have a house, a driveway, a lot, and and create the appropriate amount of impervious area to make the house functional and not have effectively a parking lot out there.

Uh so I just don't believe there's enough information here uh to adequately address the drainage at this point in time.

Mr.

Chairman, can I chime in here?

Mr.

Chairman, um I just I was deferred to the commissioner first.

Yeah, I was just gonna point out that in the past when we've been in this same kind of denial pickle.

We've used some of the language from the the you know findings of fact rezoning.

Uh so that sounds like health safety general welfare capacity because our capacity item mentions whether infrastructures in place to accommodate uh in that in the zoning case is a proposed amendment, but in this case would be a development and uh and whether changing conditions require rezoning.

So if any of that's useful, we could we could tailor that to say and turn it over to the applicant for comments or questions.

Sure.

And I'm just I I think uh these items can be addressed given more time uh and I'm happy to engage with my civil um just going over the engineering comments.

I know there's some generic notes about stormwater management, but um I didn't really seem to uh notice any anything on there that would indicate um anything in in the way of denial.

So if there's the opportunity to uh hold this application over to the next meeting and allow us to work with y'all staff and my civil, I would certainly welcome that opportunity to address the main concern about stormwater.

Was that the only concern?

Or are there any other items that we need to uh be aware of?

For from the engineering perspective, that that's that's the only concern, just knowing that you know um that down there's downstream issues and any amount of impervious area uh is just not it's just adding to the problem.

Uh with with that in mind, I will change my motion to recommend a holdover, uh, give you time to talk and have your engineer work with the city engineering department and C, it's just it's one as small as the lots are and the amount of impervious area that you have to have to have something that's functional from a house standpoint.

You just don't have much real estate left.

Sure, I understood.

And so uh so I'll change my change that motion to uh to hold over to the next meeting.

Before we get to that, let me ask staff there's room on the agenda for the November 20th.

Should that and also reminder to applicant of the deadline of November 6?

Is that right?

Uh deadline for the November 20th meeting is October 20th.

That's um in order to um I would say have the appropriate amount of time to review any revisions.

Uh we were looking at two weeks prior.

Um so what is the deadline for December's meeting?

Let's see for the November 20th meeting.

We would want revisions right.

Yeah, November, at least by November 7th.

That we're for you.

Go with that.

The applicant's giving us a good with that.

We have a properly moved, looking for a second on holdover to December's meeting.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Motion for holdover passes.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Number seven, sidewalk waiver application 2453 is Lava Creek Parkway.

Request to wave along said parkway.

Comments from uh Commissioner Woods.

We're positive towards the motion approve the waiver.

Second, okay.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The motion for sidewalk waiver passes at Islava Creek Parkway.

Number eight, six ninety-one Deacle Drive, sidewalk waiver application.

Applicant is present, made no comments, and we didn't have any comments or questions from commissioners.

Move to approve.

Second.

Okay.

Properly moved and seconded for a sidewalk waiver.

All in favor.

Aye.

The motion for that waiver passes.

Number nine, sidewalk waiver, 1080, Mont Lamar Drive.

The applicant is present with the developer.

Request to waive the construction of the side log sidewalk only along Carlisle Close East with their determination of the reasoning and agreed to sidewalks along Mont Lamar Drive.

Move to approve sidewalk waiver on Carlisle Close East.

Denying the waiver on Mont Lamar Drive in conjunction with the applicant's request.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded for clarification.

That just means Mont Lamar would get sidewalks.

All in favor?

Aye.

The motion for that amended sidewalk waiver passes.

We good with that, Doug.

Everything good on that?

Okay.

I confuse myself sometimes.

Number 10.

Uh dual application.

Originally considered or suggested for holdover.

We went through the exercise of conditions for the subdivision, conditions for the rezone.

The applicant is present, has requested for a vote today.

It's a subdivision at uh 2574 and 2664 Sale Road.

One lot at 12.43 acres on the subdivision, and then a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the facility in an R1 single family residential suburban district.

We will take these separately on the subdivision.

And the uh just for notes, the applicant was in agreements with the subdistrict subdivision conditions.

Move to approve.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

All in favor for the subdivision.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for the subdivision passes on the conditional use permit.

There would a number of conditions that were also reiterated and read.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations with uh do we need to do findings of fact on this?

Because we had 10 listed findings effect on the considerations page.

It wouldn't hurt, right?

Right.

So yeah, you're adopting it.

Um you're approving it based off of it meeting one or all ten of those criteria.

Right.

So I'll move to approve subject to staff recommendation with findings of effect one through 10 and conditions one through five as read by the chairman.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The motion for the conditional use permit passes reminder to staff to make sure that we get the documentation to the applicant so they understand all of those things that just passed.

Number 11, dual application, subdivision and rezone.

This is a 2243, 2245, 2345, and 2509 Holes Mill Road, the farmers market of Mobile County subdivision.

Um lot at 12 acres, and then the rezone from B3 to B5.

The applicant, Mr.

Pitts representing uh in agreement with all conditions and said findings of fact and gave an explanation as to the nature of the development.

Entertain a motion on the subdivision.

Move to approve staff recommendations.

Second, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion for subdivision passes.

And on the rezone from B3 to B5, entertain a motion.

Move to approve adopting findings of facts.

A C D E F and G.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

The motion for the rezone passes.

That concludes the agenda items.

I'd like to thank our audience for their patience today, especially on when we had to read some stuff.

Our commissioners move on to other business.

We will uh have a review of minutes from planning commission meetings held May 16th, 2024, June 20th, 2024, July 18th, 2024, August 15th, 2024.

Move to approve the in batch.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Those minutes have been approved.

The second item on the other business is our public hearing from the Unified Development Code, Chapter 65, Appendix A, the downtown development district amendments to appendix A to reorganize the format, layout, and sequence of the downtown development district regulations for clarity, process, and ease of use.

Each of the commissioners should have received uh proposed additional amendment edit to change the word civil at the bottom of that page 76 to civic.

And then also received existing section identifications, and then the proposed.

Looks like some little bit of consolidation there.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

That's an example of the table of contents from the existing downtown development regulations.

Is that what they call that table of contents?

Thank you.

And proposed.

So as you stated, there will be some consolidation, but primarily also reorganization of the document.

The document was originally adopted by the uh city council in May of 2014 after probably several years of public input that included uh Andres Dwani, famous uh architect for form-based codes, and city staff as well as the community have been using this document now for about 11 years.

And during this time frame, we've both staff and the users of the document of the community have found that there's a need for some reviews revisions to the document.

Uh so what we're presenting to you today is essentially a reorganization to help simplify uh the document, the process, and how you can find the information that you need in order to move forward with your development.

Uh next page, please.

This presentation is also available under other business in your iPad if you wish to look at it there.

So the second page uh back in the fall of 2024, we uh began the assessment of the downtown development district for effectiveness.

Uh we brought in a consultant who met with stakeholders, took a tour of the area, and reviewed the documents that we have and compared it to other form-based codes that they've worked with throughout the United States.

Um by March of this year, they had prepared an assessment of our existing document and come up with some recommendations for it.

And then by August, uh they came or we met again with the stakeholders to present proposed changes to the document, and those uh proposed changes were well received by the stakeholder group.

So again, the purpose is to make the regulations friendlier without changing the meeting, clarify uh subdistrict and fund standards, provide graphics which were lacking in the previous versions of this document, and then to correct some errors and other uh ambiguities that we had found over the years.

So it is better organized, which is what the table of contents tries to show you of how things are grouped together, zoning district regulations, front of standards, and development standards.

It's also hopefully more user-friendly.

So when you want to build something downtown, you can more easily find your setback requirements and window transparency requirements, for example.

Um a lot of text was reorganized into tables, making it easier to find.

And then some of the regulations were clarified so that everything is organized in a manner that's similar to the unified development code.

Again, uh dimensional standards, transparency, and frontage requirements are included with new graphics, so they help depict what we're talking about.

And we're they're placed into single page tables.

So the next slide shows that example of what you're looking at, showing you how to define your lot sizes and setbacks and building heights.

And then front standards are consolidated.

So again, there's an illustration of the frontage type and shows you which districts it's allowed and the criteria that would apply when you're building a new building.

And for this last slide, so the streamline the process, uh, we clarify the steps and the order of your application review process.

Uh the consolidated review committee, the CRC has been is proposed for elimination with all the review going to an administrative level review.

And this was something that was concerning to the development community.

And then again, cleaning up the ambiguities about signage, uh, cleaning up transparency issues that conflicted with building code, and clarifying parking lot screening requirements.

We did not receive any comments online for this application.

Any questions?

Questions, comments, commissioners.

I'd like to come in a word of thanks to Miss Biko and her efforts.

Uh public hearing has been open now, and we've had no comments.

Mr.

Pipes, nope, he's shaking by by shake of head no.

Um guy is in this giving off.

We can now put this to a vote.

I'll uh move to approve the amendments to appendix A, sections one through nine to reorganize the format layout sequence of the downtown development district regulations for clarity, process, and ease of use.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The amendments for the development code pass.

Thank you.

Any other business gentlemen and ladies?

Thank you very much.

Meeting adjournment.