Recognize again if you want to recognize again.

Is it again?

Want to recognize before or after the people.

Hey.

I'm super.

Did you take it?

No.

Eh.

It's a maybe.

A maybe.

Depends on the conversations that get sparked.

We do have some suggestions for holdover till December.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to the November twentieth, twenty twenty five planning commission meeting for the City of Mobile.

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

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

In our public hearing sessions, an agenda item is called.

Only four people may speak for an agenda item and four people against.

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

At one minute, a speaker will hear a warning beep prompting you to summarize your comments.

After opposition speakers have finished, an applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal.

If you do intend to speak, we invite you to come to the bottom of the stairs, speak into the microphone in the podium, and provide your name and your address for the record.

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

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

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

That doesn't mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal, even if there is only the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest.

If a regular member recuses, a supernumerary will be voting in their stead.

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

The planning commission is strictly a recommending body for rezonings, conditional use permits, and planned developments.

At this time, if you would do me a favor and turn your cell phones and electronic devices to the silent or the vibrate position, commissioners and staff, please turn on your microphones when speaking.

Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Denson.

Mr.

Harry Brislin.

Here.

Mr.

Larry Dorsey.

Mr.

Chad Anderson.

Here.

Mr.

Matt Anderson.

Mr.

Nick Amberger.

Here.

Mr.

Josh Woods.

Here.

Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Here.

Miss Ellie Edwards.

Here.

We do have a quorum for today's agenda, November 20th, and I will move to approve the agenda.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

The motion passes.

Before we jump into the agenda, I'd like to welcome our intern from the planning department here today with Miss Shayla Biko.

We have Mr.

Alan Lee, who is a first-year student at Bishop State.

Welcome, Mr.

Lee.

Hope you learn a lot.

Number one is a holdover on the agenda 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive, Todd Acres Industrial Park Subdivision.

Five lots, 241 and some odd acres.

We have seven conditions on this holdover application.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant's present with a raise of hand.

Are you in agreement with the seven listed conditions?

Thumbs up, yes, shake.

Okay, we've got a thumbs up and a shaking nodding of the head.

I will ask on this particular application if there's any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um last month we uh I brought up the, I guess there was kind of limited information when it came to traffic.

Um, I know there allegedly was a traffic study working in conjunction with Al Dot.

Um, you know, at the end of my conversation last month, I guess the question was uh what's gonna happen at Todd Acres Drive and uh Rangeline Road intersection.

Um I was just gonna wanted to ask the applicant if that's something that they dealt with over the past month.

Thank you, Mr.

Woods.

We'll invite the applicant to answer that.

Name and address for the record.

Charles Tisher, 3901 Springhill Avenue.

Um so in the past month, we did have a meeting with traffic department and engineering department discussing the current uh traffic study that's there.

Um, and I know that speaking from the engineers that they have doing the design on everything, they're gonna work moving forward on the range line intersection on the Kuiman Road intersection and whatever else is included in that traffic report is my understanding of it.

Um, and that'll all really be done during the land disturbance permit when they go file for a permit to start doing work.

One of the reviews is gonna be from the traffic department.

Uh so that's when any recommendations from that detailed traffic report, they'll have to at a point where they hit where it needs the upgrades, they'll move forward with it, and that'll be at the discretion, I believe, of the traffic department and Al dot.

Um, and I know there was talk, they've started talking to L dot as well about all this.

Yeah, okay.

So, to your knowledge, so no no traffic improvements or discussions of traffic improvements on the long range line and Todd Acres has occurred, I guess.

They're going to happen for sure.

Let me help help to address that.

So, yeah, there are ongoing conversations between the city, uh dot and the developer.

You know, uh with traffic signals like this.

Fortunately, though some of the a little bit of that's gonna be out of the developer's control.

I mean, obviously for for uh materials coming in, but a traffic signal is part of the development that will be required to be built there, improvements of the intersection and then office of some other stuff along the service road.

Um, we're likely gonna be in a scenario where we're where the developer is gonna want us to sign the plat prior to that being done.

We've had some internal discussions around that, and we believe that that's acceptable uh just due to the nature of that signal's got an outout permitting component to it.

It's got a got a couple of different funding components to it, so we'll be working very closely with the developer uh and making sure their financial commitment is there to orchestrate that along with some hopeful out financial participation and some likely city financial participation.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Tisher.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, seeing none, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to uh have questions towards, speak for, or speak against agenda item number one at 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive.

All right, seeing none, we will move on to number two on the agenda item.

It too is a holdover from last month's October 16th meeting.

Uh, my notes show uh that this is potentially another request for a holdover.

Is the applicant present?

All right, seeing that I will speak from the notes from this.

Uh the applicant has since reached out to advise staff and due to the design professional being out of town.

They will not have revised information available for today's meeting, November 20th, and that the application would like to be requested to be held over to December 18th meeting.

Should be noted to his commissioners that section 10 C three of our regulations allow a request of only one holdover.

Uh therefore when we get to deliberation, we'll discuss that.

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for or against or have questions towards agenda item number two, the cottages at Spring Hill Subdivision 5070 Old Shell Road.

All right.

Seeing none, let's move on.

Well, the rest of the agenda items are new replications.

The first one is number three on the agenda.

This is a subdivision at 5906 U.S.

Highway 90 West extending to the north terminus of Kirk Road.

This is a subdivision of one lot at just under five acres has been requested for a holdover until December 18th with revision submitted no lathered in December 5th.

Is the applicant present?

Are you in agreement with that?

The applicant is present and in agreement.

I will ask if there's anyone else in the audience that adheres since it's on the agenda, but it's potentially held over till next month.

Is there anyone that would like to speak for this, against it, or have kept questions toward this agenda item on Highway 90 West?

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

Number four, this is a subdivision at 1608 Crestwood Drive.

Crestwood B subdivision.

This is two lots at just over an acre.

There are nine conditions listed.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

Raise of hand in the back.

Are you in agreement with the nine listed conditions?

I have a nod of a head and a raise of a hand.

Seeing none, I will now ask if there's anyone in the audience that has comments about or for, against, or just questions about this application at 1608 Crestwood Drive.

Seeing none number five on the agenda.

This is a subdivision at 1615 and 1622 Mackie Avenue, the Kaufman Turner Subdivision.

Subdivision of two lots at 1.81 acres.

The applicant present.

The applicant is present with a raise of a hand.

There are nine listed conditions.

Are you in agreement with those and inclusive of the waiver of 6C3 for width to depth ratio?

Take of a head yes for those agreements.

In the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item at Mackey Avenue.

Yes, sir.

You have questions for it.

Please come on down and address the commission so we can hear it in the microphone.

And thank you for that.

And a reminder that we'll take your name, address for the record, sir.

It was already on.

It's already red light means on.

I'm James Kaufman Jr.

I'm the owner of the property.

Um the call-de-sac in question there.

Upon purchasing that, the gentleman that uh I'm doing the merge with the the property, the trade off there.

Upon purchasing that, he was wanting enough property there to put in a call-de-sac.

And whenever I purchased it, I agreed to give him that.

And now what I'm doing, my plan is to uh break off a section of the foot of that property.

The depiction on the screen is not accurate, but uh the way it's sectioned off there.

I have given him enough for a call to sack, and uh I just I see this on the paperwork here.

The call to site won't won't have anything to do with me any farther after it's kind of a wild drawing there because it depicts that road going through hundred year old trees.

So it's this based off of the subdivision plant that was provided to us with the application go ahead.

We're gonna invite someone who can answer these questions.

Mr.

Kaufman, before you before he starts, do you have any further questions or is this specific to the the drawings of cul-de-sac?

No, sir.

I don't have any further questions.

I just wanted to reiterate that that cul-de-sac would be taken out of his property, not the property that would be left out.

Zeke Hudson Row Engineering and Surveying.

Uh currently that is a private cul-de-sac.

Uh it's a turnaround, and I know that the city for the resubdivision process to happen that we'll have to give some sort of a turnaround.

Um, and apparently I misunderstood when we spoke earlier with my client that uh the cul-de-sac is there.

I think the intent is for it to stay there.

Yes, so we we just have to give them right of away so that I don't think there's a caveat to develop at this time.

Is that correct?

We just need to give the right-of-yeah, I this has been a long-standing issue.

Um, you know, with the previous property owner to where the cul-de-sact is there.

I don't know how it physically came to be there, uh, but it's not in right away.

So you're effectively what you're doing is you're cleaning up the right-of-way or cleaning up the circumstance and putting it all in to write away to where the city could actually maintain it.

Uh right now, it's just a road that dead ends into a private cul-de-sac that in in practice really has private ownership and private maintenance of it.

So um, yeah, I think with your surveyor cleaning it up there, it should be, you know.

I mean, this drawing is correct.

I mean, the road, the road should be within, yeah, it should be within the center of it.

I mean, it's it's a survey that that that reflects uh you know the built environment.

Well, maybe not, but they have to have a record that we're gonna dedicate that.

So it's essentially not gonna change.

It will we just have to dedicate that on our platform it might be a scenario where where y'all need to consider putting some pin flags out in the ground where he can see where these lines actually are and or and or would be just for clarity purposes.

Okay.

Any other questions for me?

Any other comments or questions from commissioners on this particular situation?

And then that if not, I will now ask if there's anyone else.

And thank you, Mr.

Kaufman.

I will now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application on Mackey Avenue.

All right, seeing none, we will move on to number six on the agenda.

It's a subdivision at 250 Tuth Hill Lane and 1234567 and nine of Garden Trace, the garden trace subdivision.

This is nine lots at 13 and a third acre.

Yes, I'm Casey Pipes, 150 government street here for the applicant who had to be out of town.

We we do request a change to some of the conditions.

Um the point here, the the subdivision lots aren't changing.

Every every lot line's the same place it was before, roads in the same place it is now.

We had a note on the original plat, note number eight that said that sidewalks uh shall be built when individual lots are built out, and we're trying to remove that note from the plat because we can't apply for a sidewalk waiver while that note's on the plat.

And so we were just trying to scratch that off the uh the note, and since the recording of this plat in 2012, one of the easements shown on there uh has been vacated by Maw.

So we wanted to add a note that that easements got uh you know to see the other instrument that dealt with it.

The conditions we want to remove, one of them was engineering comments that requires us to record a whole new plat, just to do this.

What we'd like to do is record the old plat again, re-record it with those two changes made, what we've submitted to staff.

The uh surveyor who I don't think is here has lost the CAD file from from this from 2012, and uh and there's been some work done since then, but apparently they don't have it, and to recreate the plat, uh is an expense that you know is a lot for for what we were trying to do, which seemed minor at the time, and so we'd like to be able just to re-record the garden trace plat from 2012.

I think that has these few edits made to it, and uh the traffic engineering comments uh are already on the original plat.

You know, the no access, you know, because it retention of the following notes from the original plat, they're already there, and so we really just wanted to avoid the expense and the time of getting somebody to go draw a new file for this.

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

I'll divert his question to staff to see if they are okay with Mr.

Pipes' request.

Um on the surface, I would say no, uh, only because I I don't think you can re-record a plat.

Who's gonna sign it, who's approving it, what you know, you have things on it that were done a number of years ago.

So I'm I'm not sure about the legality of re-recording a previous recorded plat that's been altered without any certifications and owner signatures, things like that.

That and that's a question for me because I'm I'm an engineer, not a lawyer or a surveyor.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Chairman, that I don't know.

I I know there's at least one surveyor in the room.

Uh perhaps we have a conversation with him after that because I'm I was kind of of the opinion uh Mr.

Davis.

Once a sat once that plat gets has a change to it, it is a new plat.

Once it gets recorded, it is a new plat if there's a change to it.

Allbeit I think there is very, very minor things to it.

I wouldn't see why your your surveyor couldn't refer to the drawing that was recorded, the legal descriptions and basically the meat of what is on that plat as the basis of him redrawing it.

I mean, he'd probably have a standard of practice where you need to out, maybe verify a few things in the field, but not full-blown resurveying it.

I mean, the points that he put in the ground shouldn't have changed.

Uh, but it it would be a new drawing, it would be a new CAD drawing.

I don't think there's any way any way around that.

Uh to well, another thing if I may, you know, we're we're changing a note, and it's sort of like changing recorded covenants.

You know, with y'all's permission, we can change the note to to say the garden trace plat recorded in 2012 is amended to to have these notes instead of the original notes.

And then the drawings, we're not doing a new drawing, we're not re-recording the old drawing, it's just referring back to it.

And we're getting rid of note number eight, which is the point where I think we're saying the same thing, but it is still it's a new plat.

It's just whether or not your surveyor feels whether or not he needs to go out in the field and resurvey those points as opposed to referencing his document that albeit's got some age to it, uh, is arguably the notes that you know it's the it's the it's the paper version of the notes that he took in the field to establish those points of of uh you know of the individual line.

So I would kind of be of the opinion he doesn't have to go out there and resurvey it, but he needs to recreate that drawing that he previously did because it's gonna require a new signature.

I think what you're saying is that y'all would like it to eliminate it or change a few things that have gone away, some easements.

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

Again, it's a new plat.

I'm I'm happy to have a conversation after this, you know, with the one surveyor here can stick around and and perhaps y'all can go talk chat back there as if you can give you a little bit of guidance from a certain from a surveyor's perspective, what is legally required?

But I believe it's a new plat with new signatures, and it's gonna look 99.9% the same as what it did before.

It's just gonna have a couple of other notes added to it, you know, as you suggested uh there.

And so we have a prop, we don't we don't have a problem with that.

We don't have a problem with signing that.

Uh, but again, I think it is a new we might be playing with some semantics.

I believe it is a new plat.

Um, and it's just whether or not your the surveyor that would that would certify the plat is comfortable in certifying that without going out there and reproducing that field work.

Um can we maybe push you to the end of the agenda, maybe give you a chance to go uh consult with the surveyor.

Yeah, okay.

I've got two more, so I'll be I'll be here all day.

Okay, okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

Mr.

Chairman, go ahead.

Do we even re-record all have we done that before?

Is that something we did?

Any amendment to a plat is as it's requested now, uh, re-signed, re-platted, and then re-recorded in probate court as a new plat.

So there's not so much of a re-recording of a document that's already been recorded, it's a new recording.

So no, we don't.

Correct.

Any further questions, comments from commissioners?

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions for or like to speak against or just comments on this application at 250 Tuth Hill Lane and Garden Trace.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

I mean, I Mr.

Pipes left the left the room.

Obviously, um, I guess my understanding is we're just trying to work towards um clarifying the the former easement through the middle of these these properties, I guess.

Um but the original intent was just to seek a sidewalk waiver, I guess.

Um, is that is that kind of um, I guess is that my understanding or staff's understanding of the situation here.

Yes, so initially this came up a few months ago with a sidewalk waiver that was denied because the plat states that a sidewalk's required on all properties, and so their intent was to then just come in and simply remove that note, but that leads us to the plat issue of we can't just strike a note on a plat that's already been filed and probate, it has to be refined.

Gotcha.

And then there's not the authority, and again, uh there's not the authority, even though the plat says there needs to be sidewalks.

Um, UDC says there needs to be sidewalks.

Um, but this is also a private street, I guess, too, correct.

And the subdivision was uh previously approved before those requirements came into play.

Gotcha.

So we're still dealing with the the I guess the effects of what was previous was prior to the UDC, I guess.

And there's no way to administratively or or this body to to overcome that obstacle of what was laid out prior to the now UDC, I guess.

Well, that the what's before you today is to it requires that you amend that note, yeah.

That note nine.

Um and that needed to be brought back to this body to remedy them from that.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Anymore number six.

All right, seeing none, we'll move on to agenda item number seven.

Is a modification application at 6710 Old Shell Road, the American Tower Corporation, major modification of a previously approved planning approval, allowing construction of a 150-foot tall steel monopole telecommunications telecommunications tower to increase the height of the telecommunications tower from 150 feet to 172.

For commissioners' consideration, there would be potentially eight findings of facts here.

See the applicant, and then for you, sir, eight conditions listed.

Yes, sir.

Go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Michael Bentley, on behalf of American Tower Corporation, my address is 188 East Capitol Street, Jackson, Mississippi.

Uh, as you said, this is an application to extend the height of an existing wireless tower on the southwestern edge of the University of South Alabama campus.

The extension will permit the addition of T-Mobile wireless communications antenna and uh equipment, so that the coverage and the in-vehicle coverage on old shell, Cody, airport, and the campus, the USA campus will be improved.

Um the extension itself is 23 feet, and that brings us because it's slightly over the 10% required for the major major modification requests.

That brings us here today, and happy to answer any questions that you have.

And thank you, Mr.

Bentley.

Yes.

Any comments or questions from commissioners?

Right, thank you Mr.

Bentley.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to have questions towards this modification application, like to speak for it or would speak against it.

Seeing none, we will move on.

I yeah, I could speak question for staff.

Um sorry.

The residential buffer uh that is stipulated here, it's 200 feet or 150 percent of the tower height.

Is that a lesser of greater than uh whichever is greater, between whichever's greater?

Okay, that's not spelled out here, so I wasn't sure.

So thank you.

Anything else from commissioners on agenda item seven, all right.

Seeing none, we will move on to agenda item number eight.

We will have a recusal on this agenda for Mr.

Harry Brislin, and we still maintain a quorum for public hearing and deliberation.

This is a modification application at 560 Providence Park Drive East, the Clarence Ball Ball Healthcare.

It's a major modification of a previously approved planned unit development, amending a previously approved master plan to allow the construction of a multifamily residential building with 56 dwelling units with shared access between multiple building sites.

Applicant is present.

Mr.

Pipes for Commissioners, hold on, Mr.

Pipes for commissioners.

There would be potentially eight findings of fact.

Should this modification go into deliberation for consideration?

Uh and then Mr.

Pipes, there are 19 listed conditions.

Given that you're seated, I'm assuming you're under the Mr.

Pipes gave a thumb up in agreement with the 19 listed conditions at 560 Providence Park Drive East.

Any questions or comments from commissioners on this modification application?

I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application of modification on a previously existing unit development.

All right, seeing none, let's keep on trucking.

Number nine is a modification application at 6151 marina drive south.

Chris Lee believe engineering.

And it has been requested to us to have a holdover of the this application until the December 18th meeting with revised information due no later than December 4th to allow the applicant to provide additional information so that the commission can ensure development will comply with UDC standards.

Is the applicant present?

Given the applicant isn't present, we will just make a note for that on agenda item number nine, and I'll ask since it is on the agenda.

Is there anyone here in the audience that has questions about it?

How would like to speak for it or would like to speak against it?

Okay.

We are at agenda item number 10.

This is a rezone application at 5330 Moffitt Road, a rezone for a conditional use permit to allow community residents for more than five persons at an R1 single family R suburban district.

It's also been suggested or requested for holdover until December 18th with additional information submitted no language later than December 5th to allow applicant to provide site plan prepared provide excuse me prepared by a registered professional illustrating compliance with the development standards of Article 3 of the UDC.

Is the applicant present?

Are you in agreement with the suggestion for holdover?

Should it go into deliberation and get approved for that?

The applicant is present and gave a nod of ahead.

Is anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this rezone application that will go into deliberation for a potential holdover?

Okay, I'll just make sure they weren't coming down for that.

Oh, now uh since there are none, we'll move on.

This is number 11 on the agenda.

We're now into the multi-application phase of our agenda.

This is a subdivision application along with a modification at 3456 and 3500 Halls Mill Road and 2390 West I65 Service Road South, the Radcliffe Ice Plant Subdivision.

So subdivision of two lots at 15 and a third acres and a major modification of a previously approved uh unit development, allowing multiple buildings on a single building site to modify lot lines in coordination with the proposed subdivision to remove an undeveloped portion of the site from the previously approved PUD.

On the subdivision, there are potentially 11 listed conditions.

I see our applicant is present, and then for commissioners on the modification, there would be potentially eight findings of fact, and then again 16 conditions for the modification.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Jay Watkins, Maynard Nexon, 11 Northwater Street, suite 2429 Mobile 36602.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, we uh are in agreement with the conditions.

We would ask um on the engineering comments on page four of the staff report items one and two that those be removed.

Uh I spoke with the city engineer and walked him through what we are doing here with respect to removing the flag shape portion of lot three uh and combining it with the adjacent lot or uh lot two doors over.

Uh and I believe he's in agreement with those two comments being uh removed from the report and would ask that the conditions be amended to reflect that amendment to the engineering comments.

Mr.

Watkins, is that in relation to the subdivision application as well as the modification conditions?

I'm reading, or is that just one or the other?

It's just the plan unit development modification.

Got it.

So revision of the final PUD site plan to label the size of each lot in both square feet and acres.

No, no, this is in the in the comments.

Comments on page four under planning or development modification.

Ah and two.

I'll ask if staff would like to review that real quick, see if they have any concerns with his potential request.

Uh we spoke with the applicant prior to this meeting, and we are in agreement.

There we go.

Regarding subdivision or modification specific to the request just brought up by Mr.

Watkins and agreed to by staff or okay by staff.

Is there any other comments or questions from commissioners on this this dual application?

Seeing none, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the Radcliffe Ice Plant subdivision, dual application, subdivision modification.

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

Number 12 on the agenda.

Also a dual application, subdivision, and rezone.

This is a nine at 909 government street, the Donnie Manning subdivision, subdivision of two lots at 0.4 acres, and a rezone request from single family residential urban, which is R1, and residential business district RB to residential business district RB.

On the subdivision, there are potentially eight conditions.

On the rezoning, there are for court commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact, and then of course, full compliance condition.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, sir.

On the subdivision, are you in agreement with the eight listed conditions for this application?

I'm sorry, I'm not we would welcome you down to the podium to make sure that as I relay these.

If there's anything that grabs your attention that you could have a conversation quickly with either us or staff, number one, retention of the right-of-way widths of government street 100 feet and church street 50 feet on the final plat.

Yes.

Retention of the number two, retention of the lot size labels and square feet and acres, or provision of a table on the final plat to be in compliance with such retention number three, retention of at least five foot minimum front yard setback line along both street frontages.

Number four, completion of the rezoning process to eliminate the potential for split zoning prior to signing the final plat.

Numbers five, six, seven, and eight compliance with all engineering, traffic, engineering, urban forestry, and fire.

Yes.

Okay, that's on your subdivision.

On your rezone for conditions, that would just be full compliance with all municipal codes and ordinances.

And your name and record, name and address for the record.

Donnie Manning, uh 202 State Street, Mobile 36603.

Thank you, Mr.

Manning.

Mr.

Manning is here in agreement with the eight listing conditions as read out on the subdivision and the rezone.

I will now thank you, Mr.

Manning.

I will now ask if there's anyone here.

Uh excuse me.

Anyone questions, comments from commissioners towards this project of this application?

Given the fact that we're going from R1 to RB.

My question for the applicant is which of the conditions were you in opposed to?

I wasn't.

I just I had read them, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, when I asked if he wasn't if he was familiar with them, he said no, I hadn't looked at them yet.

So that's why I read them all.

All right, perfect.

Just making sure.

Thank you, Kenny.

Mr.

Nichols, I mean.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience for either the subdivision application or the rezone that has questions about to speak for or to speak against either component of the dual application at 909 government street.

Seeing none, we will move on.

Number 13, we do have a recusal.

Mr.

Kenny Nichols will recuse himself.

We still maintain a quorum for both uh public hearing and deliberation.

This is a rare triple application, subdivision modification times two at 4568 Hall's Mill Road Covenant Academy of Mobile Subdivision.

Please bear with me.

This is a subdivision of two lots at 18.8 acres.

And a major modification of a previously approved PUD plan unit development allowing multiple buildings on a single building site with shared access and parking between two building sites to allow construction of an additional building on a multi-building site with shared access and parking between said multi-building sites.

On the modification for commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact for both, and on the conditions of both modifications, there would be excuse me, on the subdivision conditions, there would be eight listed there.

And on the modification conditions, there would be eight per.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present by raise of hand.

Do you need to come down to make any comments towards anything or have questions regarding conditions on all three?

Good afternoon.

I'm Melissa Hadley with Goodwin Mills and Kwood.

Um I think one of the things that we wanted to talk specifically about is that it does state that one of the conditions in particular for the subdivision would be a curb cut onto knob hill, and we are not requesting any curb cuts or access onto knob hill.

So we'd like to strike that portion, please.

Staff uh yes, so if you if you check in your your packets, you'll notice that staff has already struck that uh consideration to allow a curb cut to knob hill.

So that was on my pages, it's number three.

And then on when we go in here.

Should be number four, is what it is currently.

Currently it reads placement of a note on the final platform.

Standing proposed lot one A should be limited to one curb cut to Hallsmill Road, and proposed lot one B should be limited to one curb cut to Halls Mill Road.

And it previously read and one curb cut to Knob Hill, and that has been struck.

Understood.

Did you hear that, Ms.

Hadley?

Um, I didn't know that it had been struck, it wasn't in my packet that way.

Um, but then also on lot two A.

Um, we do have an existing curb cut permit already, so for a second entrance onto Halls Mill.

So we we don't want the language to state that there would only be one curb cut onto Halls Mill.

We already have a permit.

We just aren't showing it because we're not proposing any development at this time on lot two A.

It's a little bit confusing because the numbers for the lots don't match the comments and the considerations in the packet.

Um, the way we have it on the plat, it's lot 1A and lot 2A.

So lot 1A is the smaller lot that contains the proposed building.

Lot 2A is the remainder.

Um for lot 1A, the access is going to be off of the existing driveway that's already on Halls Mill Road.

Lot 2A, which is the large remainder piece that contains the rest of the existing campus.

We have a permit already for an additional curb cut onto Halls Mill.

We're just not proposing to do that improvement at this time, but we don't want a restriction that we can't do it in the future.

I understand.

I'll ask staff if they're okay with that request.

Um, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that was a requirement of the original subdivision.

Um you can see in that it's in the description for the history on the site, it does reference that existing permit and additional curb cut onto Hall's mill.

Okay.

So in that case, we would probably defer to traffic engineering given the uh amount of street furnish that the proposed, which and I do apologize on our plat, it says 1A and 1B, but 1B, um, which I believe is what you're referencing is 2A, um, has approximately 400 and 10 feet of linear street furniture along Hallsmill Road.

So I would defer to traffic engineering.

Give you a chance to digest that.

Yep.

Traffic engineering would not have an issue with a second driveway on the Halls Mill Road.

We are anticipating improvements would be needed.

That's why we require the traffic impact study in the first place.

Yes, sir.

So that would probably be included in the traffic impact study to have the second one out of it.

Thank you.

Yep.

So there we have it.

And just one other point for discussion with staff.

Um, when we do the full plans that will include the proposed parking lot and full improvements on the site.

Right now we're just at the PUD stage.

We'll include landscape plans and things like that.

We would like to consider the site as a whole when we do landscape plans and not isolate this layer.

The lot has to be cut out in this way for funding purposes, except for the construction of the new building.

Um, but we still want to consider the campus as a whole when we consider landscape and master planning of driveways and things like that.

Um that is a situation that is not uncommon with previous planned unit development approvals, simply because that is exactly what it is, a unit unified development of a single like building site, so to speak.

Should be okay.

Yes, thank you.

All right, Ms.

Hadley.

Uh I'll now ask if there's any further questions, comments from commissioners for the applicant.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I just want to make quite clear with staff note four as it reads right now, which matches with our our documents of lot a lot one A and a lot one B does say that there's should be limited to one curb cut per each.

So that I think addresses, even though we got a little nomenclature name different, but if it is saying what you what you're asking for, a lot of you know curb cut for the lot one A and a curb cut for the lot one B, which I think you're saying it's lot two in how you spend it.

So two curb cuts in the in the future.

Okay.

There should be two curb cuts on Halls Mill Road.

That's it's a little hard for me to follow because the numbers don't match the plat.

So I don't know which lot is which that they're trying to refer to.

So lot one B.

Our note, our note for says you'll end up with two, two curb cuts.

So I think you're good.

But our language on so that we're clear that lot two A is allowed two curb cuts onto Halls Mill Road.

So in our notes, two A is one B, and you want two curb cuts on one B, which is your two A.

Yes, that's correct.

No curb cuts on one A, which does not touch Halls Mill Road.

Right.

It well, because it's a flag lot.

Right.

Lot 1A does include access.

So are we talking about three curb cuts?

Okay.

No, no, sir.

It's two curb cuts on Halls Mill Road only.

And no correct.

And no curbs of Knob Bill.

Okay, between both, there will be two curb cuts on Hallsmill Road.

So the the plot that we received, lot 1A was the small lot.

Yes.

And so that has a curb cut.

Lot 1A is the flag lot, right?

Yes.

And then the plot that we received has lot one B as a large lot.

Which right.

And that reads that lot B will be limited to one curb cut.

So lot one B will also receive a curve cut on Hall's motor road.

Right.

For total empty.

So that makes sense.

Yes.

Yes.

We just want to make sure that we're clear.

Permanent rock.

We'll make it clear.

Awesome.

Thank you.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this project or these three applications.

And if you do, please come down to the podium, state your name and address for the record and ask questions or pertain comments to the commissioners.

Paul Pritchard, 1601 Regency Drive Mobile 36693.

Um I'm right at the corner of Knob Hill and Regency Drive.

Just want to clarify there will be no curb cut on Knob Hill.

That's where okay.

All right.

Just wanted I I got a five-minute speech, but we can avoid all.

Thank you.

Thank goodness for clarification.

Thank you, Mr.

Pritchard.

Yes, sir.

Please come down to the podium.

State your name and address for the record and clearly speak what your question or comment might be.

My name is Jack Salberger.

I live at 1591 Regency.

That's at the corner of Knob Hill and Regency.

I don't understand Covenant Academy is one school, and they're gonna build another building with classrooms.

Why do they need two lots?

Why do they need to subdivide it into two lots?

That's what I don't understand.

Well, I can try.

I mean, it's it's because of the way the project is being funded per the applicant.

Which that wasn't in the paper.

We never saw that.

Well thank you, sir.

Mr.

Solberg, I'll now let is there anyone else after Mr.

Salberger?

Raise of hand.

I'll now let the applicant address the question.

Thank you, Ms.

Hadley.

Thank you.

So currently the the school actually is on two lots.

There are two lots of record, um, two separate PIN numbers, um, property identification numbers.

So what we're doing is taking away the middle line that sort of makes two big lots, but we do have to make one smaller lot that contains the new building as a requirement by the funder, the financing where the pro the school is getting the financing to buy the to excuse me to construct the additional building.

So it's still part of the same PUD, it's still the same number of lots because there actually are two existing lots are just being reconfigured so that the new lot only encompasses as much as is needed for the new building, which protects the existing campus and the other buildings from any um financial obligation for this new law new loan.

Thank you, Ms.

Haddon.

Mr.

J makes sense to this group.

Any comments or questions from commissioners?

Uh Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um, so basically, I guess the understanding that I've got is um, in order not to for the purpose of financing of building this building, you're gonna encumber just this parcel versus encumbering the entire assets of the of the church or the of the school.

So yes, sir.

Anything else from the audience?

Thank you, Ms.

Hadley.

We will now move on to the final agenda item.

We can welcome back Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

The final agenda item is also a triple application.

It's a subdivision, a sidewalk waiver and a rezone at 7125 Bellingrath Roads, the addition of First Baptist Church of Theodore, subdivision of two lots at oh just over 10 acres.

Then the request to waive the construction of the sidewalk along Bellingrath Road, and then the rezone from single family R1 to General Business District B four.

For Mr Pipes, it would be eight listed conditions for the subdivision, sidewalk waiver for consideration, and then on the rezone for commissioners potentially seven findings of fact with four listed conditions.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, and and we're we're in agreement with all the conditions, but uh upon arriving here I learned that that staff would greatly prefer the the rezoning to not be to B4, but be to uh B5 or CW for dimensional reasons, landscaping and setback things like that.

Uh my client is both the seller and the uh potential buyer of lot two truck repair is his intended use, and so we're okay pivoting to CW.

We did have a list of voluntary use restrictions that went off of the B4 menu of potential uses.

Uh we would like to uh review the CW chart of uses to see if we want to add some things to that.

Uh you know, the point being my client is the uh the church, first Baptist Church of Theodore, which would retain its sanctuary on lot one.

And obviously they were concerned about what was going to get built on lot two that they were creating, but they're they're selling off excess land and and they're okay with the truck repair use.

We just needed to uh adequately protect the neighbors, including my co-client, uh, who's gonna have uh one.

So uh we're in agreement with the findings of fact and the conditions of the rezoning in the subdivision and the sidewalk waiver, but in deference to the staff, we would be agreeable to to changing the requested zoning from B4 to CW, but before it gets advertised at City Council, we might have some amendments to that chart of uh voluntary use restrictions because that changes the advertising just so it just so it gets advertised the right way at City Council for the rezoning.

All right, so as I understand that we're okay with subdivision, uh do you want me to make any comments towards the sidewalk waiver application?

Uh there's no sidewalk north or south, and you kind of lead to a point at Bellingrath where it it would end anyway.

There's also a large ditch on the south end of lot two, where this you know where the only development would go is on lot two.

So the sidewalk waiver is really on Bellingrath along lot two.

Uh it's it would it would truly be a sidewalk to nowhere and stay that way.

So we requested a waiver.

All right, and then on the Z rezone, I will have a question for staff regarding the applicant's agreement and client to go from B4 to CW and have some time there.

Does that mean that we need to potentially hold over the rezone and move forward with the subdivision and uh deliberation and the sidewalk waiver and delay deliver excuse me, deliberation?

Well um we did discuss this with uh legal counsel as well, and it is believed that the planning commission could approve the rezoning to uh CW, which is uh commercial warehouse, which would allow the proposed use by right subject to the revision of the voluntary use restrictions for to reflect the CW list of uses.

So meaning we could use we could move forward if if so desired.

Yes.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um Mr.

Pybes, thanks for the explanation.

Um I guess uh obviously uh the finding out or the recommendation for a CW or VT.

Um, I mean, do you do you see the impact of if if that was held over on the other things and uh the other things associated with the the request of the subdivision and um all would that could that potentially cause an issue by not aligning correctly together, I guess.

Well the subdivision would be the same regardless of what the zoning is for lot two, and as you can see, it's a it's a huge lot, and they're both gonna be huge lots.

So I mean we're there's not gonna be any impact on minimum lot size or other things.

Uh the biggest issue I see is if if this were to get held up, it's just timing.

You know, I think the buyer wants to move forward, the seller wants to move forward.

And as long as the buyer's use for you know for truck repair is allowed by right on lot two, he's okay.

Uh yeah, I think the voluntary use restrictions is it's really a joint thing between the church owner of lot one and the potential buyer or owner of lot two.

And we could review that yeah, well before this letter of decision comes out, and you know, and before we pay the advertising fee, we can supplement that in a day.

Okay.

So I feel like we can go forward.

I was okay with the staff's request to change to CW rather than proceed with B4.

I just didn't want it to hold this up.

That that's my concern just then.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

I'll now see if there's anyone in the audience that has questions towards this uh those these three applications for a subdivision, sidewalk waiver, and rezone request, which again will go from potentially B4, excuse me, R1 to CW.

Any questions, comments, speak for, speak against from anyone here in the audience at 7125 Bellingrath Road.

And a reminder, ma'am, if you would please pull the microphone down a little bit and speak clearly and then give us your name and address for the record.

I'm mayor walk.

I live 7099 O Military Road Theodore, Alabama.

I just like to know the difference and the zoning of B B4 uh CW.

Let you explain that.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may.

Yeah, because that you're gonna get to it quicker than me.

Go right ahead.

Okay.

The B4 zoning that was originally requested is the zoning that used to exist for downtown mobile.

So it's primarily B4 is primarily for big city construction, so tall buildings covering the entire property.

And in what we're suggesting uh to the applicant is that he consider a commercial warehouse, which instead of allowing a building to cover the entire property, restricts the maximum building size to only 60% of the property, requires the building to actually be set back from the street further, um at least 15 feet as opposed to zero feet, and then requires more landscaping on the property, 12% minimum versus 5% minimum.

So CW has more requirements to make it fit into the area than B4 would have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Walker.

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon.

My name's Tangela Craig.

I reside at 7463 Bellingraph Road.

Um my question would be in regards to water retention.

Um the ditch in which was previously stated was actually um the side reservoir.

I think that ties in with all of our water flow.

So with the upbuilding and having a larger constructive type of building there, that water is gonna run off to the least resistant, which would hit that ditch that runs along the side.

I'm further down on Bellingraft, which ties into the county, but I'm really right by what is called Mud Creek.

And so I'm concerned of the overflow of flooding that we as residents would take on.

And I would like to know who will maintain or kind of go in, or will the new owner of this construction be required to bring up to any additional codes that's necessary because we as residents within the community have concerns as we speak that is not always you know properly maintained to keep debris, fallen trees and so on and so forth throughout the community.

So I have a strong concern, yeah, of where that goes because you know water's gonna slope down, and that is on the upper side of um Bellingraph Road where we're going.

So that's one question.

And then the other one would be I have grave concerns regarding um additional heavy type of trucks or a vehicles that are now coming in and out and turning.

Um we don't have a turning curve.

I know you guys are up to date.

We just had a fatality just last week, like literally in the place in which this building is coming, um, head on collision.

So once we have a traffic flow of traffic stopping with the train coming, everything comes to a halt both directions.

And so I'm just a little nervous with now an additional place coming.

Um are we looking at a turning or widening of a designated turn to kind of help in this pocket, or I know we're not looking at a traffic light, but just for safety reasons.

Um, this is the only way in and out from Bellingraft to 90 or going back the other direction.

So I didn't know if anybody could help answer those questions, or if this is the legit time to inquire these questions before going forward.

So I will see thank you for your questions, ma'am, and we'll see if we can get those addressed by the applicant combination of the applicant and or um staff regarding number one drainage.

They do have to go through drainage surveys and and uh report those.

So I do know and we can make further comments towards that.

And then I'll have to defer to the applicant on the uh I guess what would be the potential of the widening of some sort of turn-in or curb cut.

So we'll see if we can get that figured out.

Thank you, ma'am.

Yeah, as far as drainage on site, when they come in to develop lot two, um, when they come in for their permits, we'll require them to uh provide stormwater detention on site, and so they'll be holding additional water on site uh when it rains, and it won't be going downstream.

So theoretically, the the um the downstream conditions shouldn't change after development because of that.

And they'll be required to maintain that detention pond and things.

So for that particular area, or are you saying as it goes because the back end, if I'm not mistaken, for that property would be our fire station, which basically will kind of yeah, the property that's about to be obtained and built will basically donut right into the back end of our local fire station.

Right.

And and I'm I'm not sure exactly how all of it drains now, so I can't say for sure, but yeah when they come in, it depends how big their building's gonna be, where their parking is gonna be, and and they'll they'll be required to provide detention on site, whether it drains up to Bellingraff Road and to the ditch there, or it drains to the to the to the south, which is naturally where it's going now.

But what they'll do is they'll hold that additional runoff on site in a detention pond.

Okay.

And and and maintain that so that it won't all just run off downstream.

Okay.

I guess I'll follow up when that time comes, right?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

We want to talk for the applicant.

Do we want to have any discussion on the turn in?

As your southbound on Bellingrath, there's sort of a center turn lane uh that turns into um the driveway you can see on the aerial, and then the road narrows down to just a you know two-lane road, you know, without the center turn lane.

Uh we we don't have a proposal for widening Bellingrath Road or for adding anything.

Uh I would say that you know, putting one business in on this big of a piece of land, it's got to be a ton less traffic than what the R1 development you know of this same land would have been if you were to put a subdivision in there and certainly a lot less intensive from a stormwater you know impact perspective.

Uh but we we've not run a traffic study, you know, for a one business, you know, commercial facility for this big of a piece of land.

But I would think that its impact would have to pale in comparison to the current zoning development.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this uh application subdivision, sidewalk waiver, and rezone.

All right, seeing none, we will now close the public hearing and move back to number one on the agenda for the deliberation.

First one is 4595 Commerce Boulevard South and 6137 Todd Acres Drive, subdivision of five five lots.

The applicant is present, Mr.

Tisher, and in agreement with the seven listed conditions.

Motion to approve subject to staff recommendations, second.

Did I hear a second?

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number two, again, a holdover.

5070 Old Shell Road, Cottages at Spring Hill.

It was held over from October.

If I memory serves correctly, we we had some questions from commissioners regarding specific items on this application.

Uh so at that time it was deemed to go down the path of potential uh declination of the application or potential holdover, and now the applicant, given the nature of this, is requesting a holdover until December 18th meeting.

Any comments or questions from commissioners?

Entertain a motion.

Second second.

Properly moved and seconded for holdover.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any up any opposed?

Aye.

We have one opposition.

The ayes have it, so we will maintain we will allow for a holdover on this application.

New agenda items number three on the agenda.

Also requested for a holdover to December 18th at 5906 U.S.

Highway 90 West extending to the north terminus.

Move to approve.

It's properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for so the holdover to December 18th passes.

Number four, 1608 Crestwood Drive subdivision.

Two lots, 1.05 acres.

The applicant is present in agreement with the nine listed conditions.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number five subdivision at 1615 and 1622 Mackey Avenue, subdivision of two lots at 1.81 acres.

Applicant is present and had nine listing conditions that were, I believe, in agreement, but we did have some discussion regarding number two specific to the Cold De SAC from Mr.

Kaufman.

I do think that that was since resolved.

And we get a shake of the head, and I don't see Mr.

Kaufman to get his up there he is.

Got to figure it out.

Okay, great.

Move to approve.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

I think the motion for subdivision passes.

Number six.

It's a subdivision at 250 Tuth Hill Lane and 12345679 Garden Trace.

Mr.

Pipes applicant had questions regarding the plat and the conditions.

I'll see where we land from a combination of staff and commissioner input on this.

Mr.

Chairman, after after consulting with a uh surveyor, we believe there's an extinguishment document that can be prepared that will address the concerns.

So they won't have to record a new plat, but their document will reference the existing plat, and they can make the changes on the on the subsequent document.

So we believe we've got a path forward.

So I'll make the motion to approve.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number seven, this is a modification.

6710 Old Shell Road.

Increase in the height of the monopole telecommunications tower from 150 to 172.1.

The applicant is present.

Address the findings of fact and the in agreement with the eight listing conditions.

Any questions or comments or discussion among commissioners?

I know Kenny, Mr.

Nichols, you had a question regarding residential buffer.

Did you get that addressed?

Yes, staff answered that question.

Thank you.

Entertain a motion.

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

Second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

We have one in opposition.

The ayes have it.

Number eight.

We will have a recusal for Mr.

Harry Brislin.

We still maintain a quorum for the deliberation.

This is a modification at 560 Providence Park Drive East.

Clarence Ball Healthcare.

The applicant is present and in agreement with the 19 listed conditions.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um thing that staff discussed with the engineer on the project, Mr.

Fulmer, was number 12.

And I'm not sure if that's something that has been discussed with the applicant.

As of right now, it reads provision of a note on the final PUD site plan stating any dumpster placed on the property.

Will comply with the placement and enclosure standards, etc.

of the applicable regulations.

Um in reviewing the land disturbance permit uh for this project.

It was uh noticed that the actual dumpster enclosure itself did not meet those placement standards.

Um rather than have them revise the plan at this time, we would ask that we can amend that note to include a statement uh that they could also get a variance or be that the caveat.

Um so simply adding at the end of that approval basically of the um or provision of the note, which requires the uh compliance with the dumpster provisions or approval of a variance, and that would keep them uh or that would allow them to move forward with this particular application in this particular layout again.

That's number 12 on the conditions for agenda item number eight modification.

Is the applicant still present?

Are you good got a thumbs up for Mr.

Pipes?

Thank you.

The applicant was present and in agreement with the modified condition 12 per staff.

Entertain a motion.

Moved second properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed motion for modification passes.

Number we'll recommend back.

Welcome back, Mr.

Harry Grizzly.

Number nine, 6151 Marina Drive South, major modification application requested for holdover December 18th.

And uh I'll move to approve.

Second, properly moved and seconded, all in favor.

Aye.

Motion for holdover December 18th passes.

Number 10, rezone 5330 Moffitt Road.

Requested for a holdover until December 18th.

We'll move to approve.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion for holdover on zone rezone passes.

Number 11, dual application, subdivision and modification at 3456 and 3500 Halls Mill Road and 2390 West I-65 Service Road South, the ice plant subdivision.

The applicant was present and in agreement.

Mr.

Watkins on the 11 listing conditions for the subdivision and the modification for commissioners, potentially eight findings of facts, and again 16 listed conditions for the modification.

To approve subject staff recommendation with the eight findings of fact, removing items number one and two from the PUD modification list.

This is on the subdivision, correct?

Whoops.

I did both at once.

We're so subdivision move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Mr.

Chairman, I believe it was also removing number notes number one and two from the staff report.

No, that's just from the modifications.

Okay.

That is correct.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Need a second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded on the subdivision.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes.

Now, Mr.

Anderson.

Move to approve subject staff recommendation with the eight findings effect.

Removing items number one and two from the PUD modification list.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with the removal of one and two and eight fendings fact A through H.

Entertain a motion.

Nope, that was this first.

Need a second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for the modification on that agenda item passes.

Number 12, dual application subdivision and rezone at 909 government streets.

Donnie Manning subdivision, Mr.

Manning himself is here in agreement with the eight listed conditions on the subdivision and on the on the rezone.

Understood the compliance and the findings of fact.

For the subdivision moved to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes on the rezone.

This is a rezone from R1 to RB residential business district.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

A B C D E F and G.

Yes, thanks.

Seven of them.

All seven.

Yes.

Amended motion for findings uh move to approve with findings of fact A through G.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for the rezone passes.

Number 13.

Triple application subdivision and two modifications at 4568 Halls Mill Road.

We will have a recusal.

Mr.

Kenny Nichols, we still maintain a quorum for this deliberation and vote.

On the subdivision, the applicant is present and is in agreement with the eight listed conditions.

Move to approve separate staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes.

We'll take a question for staff.

One or two votes for the modification applications.

Would you prefer two separate votes?

Thank you.

First modification.

Potential findings of fact and eight lists and conditions on that modification.

The should be notes on number four.

Specific to curb cuts on Hall's Mill limited to total curb cuts per the conditions.

And that was understood by the applicant, Ms.

Hadley.

Entertain a motion.

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

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for that modification for the planning approval passes.

Modification of the planned unit development.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting adopting finding the facts A through H.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for that modification passes.

Number 14, final agenda item for today.

It's a trial triple application of subdivision sidewalk waiver and rezone request.

The rezone excuse me, the subdivision is in agreement on the eight listed conditions from the applicant.

On the sidewalk waiver, we heard the commentary from the applicant.

And on the rezone for our notes, it's actually going to be as agreed upon between staff and the applicant to go from R1 to CW.

And there was some commentary regarding special use restrictions on that rezone prior to city council meeting.

So we'll take the subdivision first.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes for subdivision.

Sidewalk waiver.

And rendering a decision, we should evaluate our factors.

And comments from staff.

Move to approve.

Move to approve the waiver.

Second.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded to approve the sidewalk waiver.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Opposed.

We have an opposition vote, but the ayes still have it.

And finally, the rezone R1 to CW.

Potentially seven findings of fact.

Four listed conditions.

So I have a question.

What's what's the nearest uh similar designation?

Where whether it's warehouse or B4?

Because the zoning map that we have, it looks like I'm sorry, I'm looking at the fly map.

The zoning map looks like it's all residential as far as the eye could see there.

That is correct.

But next to the site is an I2 zoning district.

That's heavy industry.

So in the staff report, there is some I-1 that is uh off of Carrie Hamilton and Burroughs Lane.

And then once you get beyond that, probably the nearest B4 zoning district is going to be on Broad Street downtown.

Uh CW uh commercial warehouses are relatively new zoning district, so there aren't that many examples nearby, but that's probably the few that exists might be uh around I-65 and Cottachill area.

But it it would be more compatible in terms of the site design requirements in this area, which is more suburban than would be B4.

I guess just for commentary, I would point out that the uses immediately across Bellingrath Road from this uh while currently zoned R1.

Um certainly not an R1 use.

Yes, this area will contain or does contain many non-conforming uses based upon annexation, uh Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

And just for clarification, on this came in as part of the 2009 annexation, I believe.

Is that correct?

So we have that can those items can uh figured out, I guess we should say should say for the rezone.

Any further questions or comments?

All right, entertain a motion move to approve subjects of staff recommendations but changing from B4 to CW and adopting findings of facts A through G.

Second properly moved and seconded with findings of facts A through G.

Is that what I heard correctly?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Uh I was gonna ask a question.

So based on the motion, do we need to do anything with regard to the to the you know the voluntary use restrictions that are gonna come?

Do we need to make any provision for that or is that just something we're going to pass off to the city council?

Um which I'm comfortable with, by the way.

Well, what we would do is the associated voluntary uh conditions and use restrictions revised for the CW district okay.

So do we need so just saying CW as we just did in that motion is sufficient for that?

Do we do we feel like that's enough?

Because we didn't say anything about the voluntary use restrictions, would we consider the fact that the rezoning to CW instead of B4 as a recommendation?

Then uh would we need to amend condition number two to specifically say revised for commercial warehouses so condition number two for the rezoning says compliance with the associated voluntary conditions and use restrictions.

Do we need to say as revised for CW?

Yes, okay, yes.

So that is the answer.

Got it.

Thanks.

Sorry to vote on second.

We did already vote on it.

And the motion has passed for the rezone.

But I'm glad we got the concerns addressed.

That concludes the agenda items for today, November 20th.

We have one other business item.

Those in the audience don't need to stick around.

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

September 19th, October 17th, November 21st, and December 19th of 2024.

Move to approve in a batch.

Second.

Probably moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Those business meeting minutes passed.

Before we wrap up, just take a moment to express my appreciation for all of you.

Happy Thanksgiving week with your friends and family next week, and we'll see.