Good afternoon and welcome to the holiday edition of the City of Mobile Planning Commission.

This is our December 18th, 2025 meeting.

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

This meeting is divided into two sessions, 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, and then the members of the public are allowed to comment.

Only four people can speak for an agenda item or four people against an agenda item.

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

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

After an opposition speaker has gone to the podium, an applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal period.

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

Direct all your comments to the commissioners, please, and not to the applicant, the staff, or the audience.

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

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

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

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

This does not mean that they are directly involved with the application or the applicant, but depending on the circumstances, ethical rules require a recusal, and we will replace them with a supernumerary vote.

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, do me a favor, please turn your mobile devices or cell phones to the silent or the vibrate position.

If you end up taking a call, please exit the room.

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

Mr.

Kirk Mate, Miss Jennifer Denson, Mr.

Harry Brislin.

Here, Mr.

Larry Dorsey.

Mr.

Chad Anderson, Mr.

Matt Anderson, Mr.

Nick Amberger, Mr.

Josh Woods.

Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Here.

Miss Ellie Edwards.

We do have a quorum, and I will move that we approve the agenda for December 18th.

It currently has 13 agenda items on it with no other business following.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

The agenda passes.

We will go straight into the holdovers from previous meetings.

Number one on the agenda is a subdivision at 5906 U.S.

Highway 90 West has been requested for withdrawal just to get a nod of confirmation from staff on number one to be withdrawn.

Not of confirmation there.

If there's anyone here in the audience that was here for uh agenda item number one, that application has been withdrawn.

Number two on the holdovers is a subdivision request or application at 5070 Old Shell Road, the cottages at Spring Hill subdivision.

It's a subdivision of seven lots at.57 acres.

This has been before us, uh commissioners.

And uh is the applicant present.

Okay, the applicant is present.

And are you in agreement with the 15 listed conditions that are on the please come to the podium if you have questions pertaining to those?

Okay, the applicant is present, and are you in agreement with the 15 listed conditions that are on the please come to the podium if you have questions pertaining to those and a reminder to please state your name and address for the record?

Uh Jonathan Petty with Access Engineering Group, I address 200 West Laurel Avenue, uh Foley, Alabama.

Uh so this is pertaining to task item two uh cottages at Spring Hill.

Uh we have some stipulations, including some of the setbacks there.

Uh the front yard setback, I believe was a 25-foot.

We're hoping to get five feet all the way around the property.

Um another was the discussion of dedications from the right-of-way.

Uh it was Parkway Street and East Border Drive.

Uh, I think there were 30 feet from the center line of those.

We're hoping to have those uh withdrawn uh to waive those dedications of right-of-way.

And um, I believe that is that's the only two items that we wanted to discuss.

So what I'm hearing you say is that you would like to request numbers two, which reads dedication for 30 feet, center line of parkway street east, and then number five, which is the 25-foot maximum setback along the street frontages on the final plat, excluding the alleys as measured from any required right-of-way dedication.

Those are the two.

All right, I'll have to defer to staff on those to see if we need to work through those.

And Mr.

Amberger is here.

Did you hear those comments coming down the stairs?

Okay.

This is number two on your application.

The cottages at Spring Hill Subdivision, the 5070 Old Shell Road.

The applicant is present and had questions or or requests specific to number two on the conditions and number five on the conditions for those to be potentially waived.

Staff.

So number two uh would be up to to the planning commission, but then uh number five to bring that setback data from 25 to 5 feet, that would have to go to the board of adjustments for variance.

Can you repeat that number two is under our purview, and number five would have to go to board of adjustment.

Got it.

Number five was a 25 football.

And while commissioners are are coming up with their own questions, if any, I'll go ahead and sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I just I just uh distracted the staff out of my own confusion.

So they are now distracted.

My bad.

Understood.

So then we'll put do we need to address anything, Mr.

Anderson?

Nope.

My the question I had was it set the our notes say 25 foot maximum setback, which if it was a maximum setback is not a problem for him because the five foot setback would be irrelevant in that context.

But if it's a 25-foot minimum setback, that would be what would be very restrictive.

So it should read minimum or is it properly?

It's probably stated.

Okay.

Yeah, so he can yeah, he's correct.

All right.

Um, I'll ask the applicant, give me your uh reasoning on the request for number two.

Uh the number two, which was the dedication of the right-of-way.

Provide 30 feet from center line of Parkway Street East.

Yes.

Yeah, the the request is is because it just doesn't seem as if though that right-of-way would be necessary as dedication, and the it really compresses the lot as it is now from a buildable area standpoint, Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, so I definitely agree.

Um I think that this is already compressed as is with seven lots.

Mr.

Woods, you're to be clear, make sure everybody's clear.

Uh the applicant revised that's the plan.

Their preliminary plat between looking at the wrong things the last meeting in this meeting.

So there's now six lots proposed with the 20-foot alley, and the intent would be that all lots would be accessed via the rear alley, correct?

No drives on either street frontage.

Well, the idea is that they could possibly be accessed from their respective uh right-aways with the alley being in the rear as well.

But yeah, they would be accessed from the alley as well.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I got a question for the uh staff.

I know I know the applicant submitted some eliminary uh stuff regarding drainage.

Uh and we had some subsequent comments about have they done any geotechnical work because rather than them tying to a city's drainage system, they were trying to utilize uh infiltration.

Uh were they able to provide the staff any any any geotechnical work that would support their presumptions?

Not not it they say that they have done some borings in there and the perk rates are there that would um support their proposed drainage for that area, but we won't see that until the land disturbance permit comes in.

So my question to the applicant have y'all done any geotechnical work there?

Has anybody done any borings on that?

The borings have been complete, yeah.

But um, I guess that's being complete or they are complete.

They have yeah, they're complete.

Okay, okay.

Because for for my fellow commissioners, what's different here is what they are proposing is to utilize basically infiltration, let's any stormwater absorb into the ground.

Meaning they've got to find a a layer of uh of soil beneath the ground that can absorb the runoff as opposed to tying to a city drainage system, which would which would address which would address the drainage.

And that that was a concern at the last meeting is how you were planning to address it.

So you you got a creative way of doing it, but you it has to be prove proven that that will work.

And normally when you're tying to a city drainage system, you know, that's something that's can you can you can see it.

That's not an unknown.

In your case, the unknown is you don't know how thick that clay layer is or if it's a clay layer or a sand strata.

Uh so it's a little bit put in the cart before the horse.

I would say the infiltration swells would uh be excavated and with amended soils and rock uh to allow that absorption of the 100-year storm rate.

Um so there whenever it comes to the land disturbance permit, there will be a cross section reflecting that it'll take on.

Yeah, I understand that, but you've got to make sure that that cross section can accept the volume of water that the impervious area is creating.

And unfortunately, because these lots are just extremely small, and even though I recognize the houses are small as well, uh, you know, taken in totality, it's a lot of runoff.

It's a lot of runoff, so it means you've got to absorb a lot of water.

Right.

Uh, and it's one thing if it's going into a closed drainage system, you're absorbing it into the ground.

Uh and so it could be that you know when you do the geotechnical work, it just won't work, and we will have already then technically approved the subdivision.

So uh that's the reason for my uh my questioning to see how far that geotechnical work has actually gone to see if what you're proposing is realistically viable.

I mean, if you were down at the beach, we know it would suck up all the water because it would be in a sand layer.

My experience in this part of town is that the soil is extremely heavy red clay.

Uh maybe there's a layer in there that that's got a sand strata that you can dig down to that's not too far.

Uh, but just from personal experience, uh, I know there's a lot of clay material that's about as hard as this desk, and there's not a drop of water going to absorb into it.

So we don't want a scenario where you've dug a hole and you've got a bathtub in the ground full of rock that's just gonna spill over uh you know, whenever you do it because with the retention ponds, they just function differently and that they have abilities to release water into the system.

Your system is self-contained with the way y'all proposed it.

So the the upset condition is potentially a little bit worse than what it is with a closed drainage system.

We're confident we can we can handle the storm drainage and um are you the engineers?

I am you have the engineer record?

I am okay, all right.

Very good.

Yep.

That's that's all I had uh, Mr.

Chairman.

You said the boring work has been completed, yes, sir.

Okay, when was that?

I don't have the date for that, but just talking to the client and the developer, he had it complete.

Okay.

Any further comments or questions from commissioners?

I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience who is here to speak for, has questions about or to speak against application or agenda item number two at 5070 Old Shell Road, the cottages at Spring Hill.

All right, seeing none, thank you, sir.

We'll move on.

Mr.

Chairman, go ahead.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

So bringing back up the setbacks.

Um in the Spring Hill overlay, there's a minimum setback of six feet and a maximum of 25 feet, just to clarify that for the applicant.

Repeat the numbers again, please.

There's a minimum setback of six feet from the front property line.

And the max is 25 feet.

Got it.

Thank you.

I couldn't see you.

I think somebody was saying my name or my spot.

All right.

Any further items on number two?

Now we'll move on.

Holdover app agenda item number three.

This is a rezone at 53.

Excuse me, it's a conditional use permit approval at 5330 Moffat Road.

This is conditional use permit to allow a community residence for more than five persons in an R1 single family residential suburban district.

Is the applicant present?

Oh, there we go.

Um it's noted here for potential denial of this request.

Uh we need a the uh revised site plan depicting compliance with the site development standards of Article 3 from our unified or excuse me, the unified development code, and then uh to demonstrate how the request will comply with the applicable criteria for the conditional use permit approval as outlined in Article 5, Section 64 of the Unified Development Code.

A reminder to please state your name and address for the record so that we can get these matters underway.

Yes, sir.

Thank you for your time.

Absolutely.

Rodney Clinics 5330 Moffi Row.

All right, so just a reminder.

Number one uh from our notes from the planning commission.

We did we would need a revised site plan to pick compliance with the site development standards of the UDC.

Would you like to ask any questions or do you have any comments towards that?

Yes, sir.

Uh we've made an attempt to submit a revised site plan.

We had the pleasure of speaking with Mr.

Wishler, and he provided us uh some valuable feedback on how we should go about doing it by bringing the register architect with us for technical review and to get some of the jargon that we didn't understand and correct some of the deficiencies.

So we we're working towards deal making sure those deficiencies are answered through the technical review process of uh the pre-development site plan.

Okay.

Um for staff, when was this held over?

Was it from the last meeting or yes from November 20th?

Okay.

And uh was that request at out was out as I uh planning commission and and staff requests, or was that request from the applicant on the holdover?

Um the holdover was from the planning commission's request.

So the applicant can make that additional request.

Okay.

So more than likely, this would potentially be held over again so that those requirements can be satisfied.

And that's what we wanted to ask for a conditional approval so we could work with the administration to do that pre-development meeting and have those holdovers answered by our registered architect and uh andor surveyor.

Um I I don't see how a conditional approval could go through without the revised site plan.

That's that's kind of a given.

Um we did the attorney in a revised site plan.

We just got the annotation from Mr.

Whistler that there was still some deficiencies that we got notated to us on the December of the 5th, and so we didn't have enough time prior to these corrections that would identify to us at the turn it in on the 5th to make the additional corrections.

Okay, so it's a timing issue.

Um and again, it's gonna be a timing issue again.

What is the date of deadline for January's meeting?

That deadline is already passed.

Um, we would have to determine the um public hearing mail out for well.

If you request a holdover in this meeting, we don't have to send any notices.

So we could communicate with the applicant to see what when would be best for them, but most likely a week to two weeks before the January 15th meeting would be ideal.

Did you hear that?

I did, sir.

Okay.

Uh he said two weeks prior to the January 15th meeting.

Correct.

That would be ideal, yes, sir.

And that would be for the pre-development.

Closer.

So the planning commission cannot recommend approval of an incomplete application for a conditional use permit, which is what this technically is.

Um the ordinance is very clear that before they can make a recommendation, it has to meet all of the criteria, and the site plan has to comply with all of the regulations at this meeting, not uh not at any other point in time.

So it looks like we're we're still in a holdover, potentially a holdover situation.

Sure.

And is there any guidance that could be provided for what he referenced as far as a pre-development meeting and with who?

Because I to my understanding it can be with the administration for the purpose of correcting the deficiencies with the registered uh engineer surveyor as as I understand it.

I mean it you're open to visit with and meet with all parties that that would assist you in getting this moved forward if it meets all the criteria that are part of the application process.

Sure.

Thank you.

Am I speaking out of turn there?

Staff okay.

Any further questions or comments?

No further questions.

All right, thank you very much.

Because it is on the agenda and it is uh a holdover item.

I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience is here here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards 5330 Moffat Road conditional use permit.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, seeing none, thank you, sir.

We'll move move on.

Number four on the agenda is also a holdover.

This is a major modification of a previously approved planned unit development at 6151 Marina Drive South.

Um, allowing multiple buildings on a single building site with shared access and parking between two building sites to allow construction of a multifamily development with 178 dwelling units in multiple buildings on a single building site with shared access and parking between those two building sites.

Is the applicant for this agenda item present?

Uh reminder for commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact here, and for the applicant, there are 20 listed conditions.

Have you had a chance to review those conditions?

And are you on agreement with those potential listed conditions?

The applicant is present and verbally agreed for those conditions.

I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience who is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item at 6151 marina drive south.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant?

I've got a question for staff.

Um, just noting here the applicant stating proposed new structures exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 50 feet, but will not exceed 50 feet in height, and then there's some additional commentary.

So I just want to be sure I'm clear.

Staff's position on that is that the increased building height is a function of the land and not the use.

So the height restriction will be the authority to increase the height, will be for plan commission and not require BZA approval, correct?

Correct.

So under the dimensional standard, or excuse me, under the PUD, which is what you're modifying, um, the planning commission has the ability to waive or modify the dimensional standards.

That's a dimensional standard that's not tied to the use, so it wouldn't need variance approval by the board.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Thank you.

Anything further from commissioners.

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

We're now in the new items section of the agenda.

Number five is a subdivision request application at 58 battery lane.

Prior to the meeting starting, we've been notified that the applicant has requested a withdrawal, get a confirmation from staff on that.

That's correct.

So if anyone is in the audience uh on agenda item number five, subdivision of a lot at 58 battery lane, that application has been withdrawn.

Number six, it's a subdivision application at 3603 Kent Road, resubdivision of lot 10 block C first addition to Pinewood River Subdivision.

This is two lots at point six nine acres.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

Mr.

Byrd waving his hand.

There are seven listed conditions.

You're in agreement here.

In agreement with all seven listed conditions.

All right, seeing none, we will any questions or comments from commissioners on this subdivision request.

Seeing none, we'll move on.

Number seven.

Two lots, 3.22 acres.

Eight listed conditions.

Mr.

Bird.

Yes.

Um Gerald Bird.

Don't have a problem except we'd like to ask not to dedicate the widening on Dolls Road since it's residential.

We have in the past set back the required dedication, and then applied the 25-foot building set back from that line.

In this case, instead of 25 foot building setback, it'd be a 45-foot building set back from the existing line.

In this particular case, this is the site we're talking about.

This is a subdivision basically across the road.

And it was waived, the dedication was waived and reserved for purchase for the widening strip.

Sir?

I'm asking on the conditions.

Is that number four?

Yeah.

Good question.

Retention of the required 25-foot front yard setback along street furnishes.

One and number one is okay.

Yeah.

So so Jerry, you're you're offering a voluntary 45-foot setback.

Yeah.

That would be waiver of number one.

Revision of plat sufficient dedicated provide 50 feet from center line Dollars Road.

Correct.

But so but you're you're offering a voluntary 45-foot setback on lot one.

Yes.

That would be yeah, lot one.

That would apply a 20-foot reserve for purchase, 25 foot from that line would be the building setback, 45 feet total from current right-of-way from the current right-of-way.

So my question for you is in guessing looking at our aerial photo.

I mean, is that depicted correctly where the house is current setbacks more than 25 feet?

Because when I look at it on the aerial photo, yeah, that's I mean that's yeah, the current house, current house 25 foot setbacks gonna go through the house.

I mean the new one I'm asking for.

Yeah, but I'm saying the where the house is located today is already it looks like it's it looks like it.

Oh, never mind.

I see your survey now.

Okay.

Never mind, I'm good.

I didn't see that wrong.

Okay.

So your new setback will actually be through the structure.

If the structure, if the structure were ever torn down, it would be built further back so that then if right away had to be acquired for Dawes Road, there would be a strip there for it.

I would I would want to put a note on the plat that uh all the existing structures to remain any new construction to adhere to the building setback is shown.

Or sure.

Yeah, any further questions or comments from commissioners?

Thank you, Mr.

Bird.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience who is here for agenda item number seven at 1645 and 1655 Dawes Road to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards the application.

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

Number eight.

Southwest corner of Cypress Park Drive and Shipyard Road, and the northeast corner of Shipyard Road and Crown Drive.

Creek line Cypress subdivision, two lots at 40 and a third acre.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a wave of the hand.

Are you in agreement with the eight listed conditions?

We have a thumbs up.

Note here for request of waiver sections six dot c dot three for the width to depth ratio and six dot c dot seven for excess free street frontage.

Again, the applicant is present and in agreement.

Any comments or questions from commissioners?

Is there one in the audience here that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards agenda item number eight at the southwest corner of Cypress Park Drive and Shipyard Road?

All right, seeing none, we will continue on.

Number nine on the agenda is a subdivision application at 6950 and 6960 Moffat Road, the Chavers Oaks subdivision, 45 lots at 18.41 acres.

45 lots at 18.41 acres.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a show of hand.

Sir, there are 10 listed conditions.

We got a thumbs up that he is in agreement with the 10 listed conditions for this application.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

Is there anyone in the audience here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards 6950 and 6960 Moffat Road?

Yes, sir.

Come on down to the podium, reminder to speak clearly, state your name and address for the record, and then address us.

Good morning.

My name is Mike.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Smith.

I own the property adjacent to the right side of that plot up there.

Uh the they've cleared back up to right at the property line, and was told to us that they had to build the retention pond right next to our property line, and it's going to be built up at that level from the edge of our property line.

What I saw on the plaque that they had was the protection pond is pushed as far back to our size of the property line and way further from the houses and the subdivision.

So I'm just concerned that we're taking the burden of the retention pond and the issues of mosquitoes and snakes and everything that goes along with it.

Second, I'm concerned of is it going to be maintained?

Is it going to be aerated?

Uh is there going to be a fence around it to protect it from children that are in the neighborhood?

Those are my concerns.

There is a letter that I filed.

All right.

So Mr.

Smith, thank you, sir.

What I'm hearing you question is towards specific placement of the retention pond and then maintenance of the same pond.

Yes.

All right.

I will uh let the applicant um address those concerns.

And before he does that, I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience.

See if there's any other questions, comments on this agenda item at 6950, 6960 Moffitt Road.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Smith.

I'll now let the applicant speak towards those questions.

You again make your way down to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone, state your name and address for our records.

Um my name is Mike Thomas, and I'm representing uh GTA Ventures.

Um the plans have been submitted and approved by the engineering department.

Uh this was approved 18 months ago, and the owner of the property let the preliminary plot expire.

So to answer your questions, uh can you get a little bit closer to the microphone?

Thank you.

Sorry, too close.

Um the plans have been approved, and the the plat has expired.

So you know, with regards to the the pond, um, I believe as part of the requirements there was a maintenance plan submitted and approved to the city staff.

Um, I believe the plans call for it to be fenced.

Um, the pond and the stormwater management plan uh meet the requirements outlined by the city.

So I think everything is in compliance with city requirements.

All right, so Mr.

Tomlinson, do you know can staff pull up the aerial?

Do you know exactly where the the retention pond will be placed?

There's two ponds.

There's one on the right side and one on the left side.

Actually, I think there's three.

There's one on the right in that kicked out area, and then there's two on the left.

And like you said, uh the drainage stormwater management report was submitted to the engineering staff and approved.

This is simply an oversight of the plat expired.

Mr.

Chairman, go ahead.

Um, yeah, the uh this this site that is under a current land disturbance permit and and uh and and they're under construction.

The um the detention ponds that that are being constructed out there, those will be maintained and kept up by the homeowners association.

They're required to uh record documents of their maintenance for those ponds, um, and and they do an annual inspection, they get uh and the results get submitted to the city.

So I don't think the maintenance will be an issue.

Now, as far as where it's constructed, um the the developer, their engineer designed it uh to be safe and to operate the way it's supposed to operate.

the um the detention ponds that that are being constructed out there those will be maintained and kept up by the homeowners association they're required to uh record documents of their maintenance for those ponds um and and they do an annual inspection they get uh and the results get submitted to the city so I I don't think the maintenance will be an issue now as far as where it's constructed um the the the developer their engineer designed it uh to be safe and to operate the way it's supposed to operate so I that's that's just something I I know it is a concern um on sites that have have a lot of relief to topographic relief the only thing I can say is it needs to be watched so the engineer record watches it um hopefully the neighbors watch it too and if they see any problems they can call 311 notify us we'll go out there take a look if we need to and notify the owner that there may be a problem thank you sir thank you Mr.

Tomlinson you said Thomas Mike Thomas yes sir all right that's why I had you come a little bit closer with the microphone thank you Mr.

Thomas for now yes sir all right thank you for now don't go anywhere meaning don't leave the yes area any questions or comments from commissioners on agenda item number nine just wanted to make a comment the traffic engineering uh note should be updated to include the part about uh the driveway needs to be approved by all not as well for Moffit Road it just uh doesn't appear to be copy copy it over correctly yeah yeah for the record the connection to Moffitt is actually an outout permit not a not a city permit yes and and uh George you said that is this actually active construction right now is a road under construction right now I don't know I mean it it it is an active land is permit for I don't know what this the um the the status of construction is right now okay all right thank you the engineer record may have okay thank you anything further on agenda item number nine all right we'll move on to number 10 it's a sidewalk waiver application 775 Schillinger Road south applicant is cookout request a wave construction of sidewalk along Schillinger Road South is the applicant present would you like to make comments towards your sidewalk waiver request thank you I appreciate it name and address for the records yes uh Michael Hicks uh 8312 Creedmoor Road Raleigh North Carolina uh representing cookout uh the owner of the of the land here and um been working with staff we've submitted our site plan for first round review and addressing the comments and uh plan on resubmitting back by the end of the year hopefully uh we're gonna be adhering to relocating um the front dumpster or demoing the front dumpsters in the front yard to the rear which is one of the big uh site plan changes that we're working on changing um I had a pre-submittal meeting before we submitted and and was made aware that a sidewalk waiver um you know was was uh was an anticipated process that I'd be going through so I applied for it in unison with our site plan review and the reason why I'm requesting the the waiver is that you know with the redevelopment of the property unlike you know a perfectly nice flat green piece of land there's a lot of existing features out here that are hindrances to constructing a sidewalk so I want to go over a few of those um there's several uh storm drainage uh facilities out in the right of way um storm drain pipes plus a very uh large junction box inlet that is in the public right away and there's a bowl that comes into terms of topographic bowl that comes into that area that would be a big um you know challenge to get through that area and also add additional impervious in the right of way which you know is kind of against storm storm drainage to begin with secondly there's a lot of existing utilities beyond storm there's traffic signal poles that are at the intersection at the red light as you enter into the Home Depot shopping center that where that sidewalk connection and ramps would start would be uh potential uh encumbrance there as well as existing storm drape drainage grates right there at the intersection um there's no contiguous sidewalks that are that are at the property so that is also I I understand the 2011 you know uh policy does encourage sidewalks but in this instance you know from a practical standpoint is partially why I'm here because there's no contiguous sidewalks but also relaying the existing features that that are that are really a challenge out here on the uh existing right-of-way are entrances into the building are on the opposite side they're on the Home Depot side so as you know you'd be coming into the cookout we would have to make a public right-of-way connection to that new sidewalk so you'd have traffic crossing through the drive-thru lanes and everything else so I could foresee you know potential safety issues with that so I wanted to address that here as well to the staff and also to the to the board and then um

Our entrances into the building are on the opposite side.

They're on the Home Depot side.

So is you know, you'd be coming into the cookout.

We would have to make a public right-of-way connection to that new sidewalk.

So you'd have traffic crossing through the drive-through lanes and everything else.

So I could foresee you know potential safety issues with that.

So I wanted to address that here as well to the staff and also to the to the board.

And then um, and I think I've about covered everything I wanted to here, so I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hicks.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for Mr.

Hicks?

All right, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience who is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application at 775 Schillinger Road South.

All right, seeing none, we will move on.

Number 11.

This is a zoning application, conditional use permit approval at 1356 government street and 120 espejo.

So the approval to allow expansion of a religious facility in an R1 single family residential urban district to permit use of an off-site single family dwelling as offices and meeting space.

For commissioners, there's potentially 10 findings.

And potentially six listed conditions should this go through for consideration.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

Have wave of hands.

Are you understanding of the potential of the findings of fact and also the six listed conditions?

The applicant is in agreement by nod of the head.

Is there any questions or comments from commissioners?

Is there anyone in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this conditional use permit application at 1356 government street and 120 Espiger?

All right.

Seeing none, we will move on.

We have a recusal from Mr.

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

Number 12, at modification, major modification of a previously approved PUD plan unit development at 580 Providence Park Drive East.

For commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact.

And for our applicant, there are potentially 13 listed conditions.

Yes, sir.

Name and address for the records, and then go right ahead.

One Houston Street.

We already have a sidewalk uh to this uh development on Providence Park Drive.

Uh so um I kind of feel like we really shouldn't be required to have a uh sidewalk on a private uh drive.

Thank you, sir.

Question for staff number six reads either revision of the site plan to depict a sidewalk along the private street to the north of both lots, which is what the applicant just referenced, or obtain a sidewalk waiver from the planning commission.

Is is can you my understanding is the depiction of the sidewalk meaning that they would actually have to be constructed, but his argument here is that those are private streets.

So just comments from staff, please.

Sure.

So under section 7.4 of the subdivision regulations, it simply states that a sidewalk has to be constructed along all street frontages within a subdivision associated with the development of that property.

It does not discriminate um or discern between private or public streets.

Um I think Mr.

Cummings' concern is that the private street itself is a separate parcel, which is not uncommon for private streets.

Typically they're taken over by homeowners' associations for maintenance.

Um so the question really is the sidewalk required on that piece of property because that is the actual street itself or the the land set aside for development of the street, or if the sidewalk is required on private property.

I think in most cases it's uh a top it's a mix between the two.

I I can't think off the top of my head um any developments where this has been an issue without just completely getting a sidewalk waiver approved by the planning commission.

Um so from our standpoint, the sidewalk is required, unless again the sidewalk waiver is approved by the planning commission.

And it's simply because there's not the the differentiation between a public street or a private street.

So do have a copy of the site plan that um of ball healthcare's development.

Because I you know I'm calling that a private drive.

I mean it it is a uh I guess a drive to their parking lot.

And the ball healthcare um they were not required to build sidewalks on both sides of their drive uh inside their development.

And I've got a copy of that if y'all would like to uh see it a printed bunch of copies.

I don't think that's necessary.

I'm just trying to work through the purpose of the application.

We're constructing parking spaces with shared access.

We're under the UDC sidewalk codes.

Uh to me, this seems like there would have to be a formal sidewalk waiver application.

And I might be wrong in that, and I'm glad for anybody else, Nick, or anyone else to correct me, unless you guys see it differently.

Yeah, I think what's what's a little confusing when we look there or photo, that private drive is not there.

So really what they're doing is they are just adding to the adding parking to their existing facility.

Their existing facility does have a sidewalk along along the front edge, and I think what he's what the uh Mr.

Cummings is saying is he doesn't have control over that private that private road.

Uh that's correct.

And you're you're saying that that private road did not it did not require uh sidewalks.

The drawings that I got uh and they were construction drawings, uh they don't show uh sidewalks on either side of the road, except for uh can I show you a copy of it?

It might help.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

Probably probably just crossing the crossing the drive is what I would presume.

Yeah, we can look back.

Thank you.

So the Paul Healthcare property has got a sidewalk that goes from uh Providence Park Drive to their parking lot, um, but that's the only sidewalk that they have.

Um so the rest of the drive which they constructed, they did not according to this drawing, and it looks like it's an approved um uh drawing that you know was permitted that they don't have sidewalks on either side of that drive, except for a small portion Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um and then what you just distributed the word the I guess uh Mr.

Cummins, the the area in question is the highlighted here.

That that's where you meet the two B formed drive one day, I guess.

Yes, the the yellow highlighted area, that is our north property line of my client's north property line.

And you're you're not necessarily asking or at this time.

I guess we're not we're not necessarily discussing the the a waiver of a sidewalk along Providence Park.

What we are talking about is the from the top of the drive all the way to the shot there.

Yeah, you're you're talking about this piece, I guess.

Not necessarily waving this, um, because again, they'll they'll probably it'll continue to sidewalk, but you're you're seeking to waive that again.

So what's on that side that's on Providence Park Drive, there's already a sidewalk there.

Uh so it's just that yep, that's correct.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Um, I did want to point out that um specific the specific language in the order or in the excuse me in the subdivision regulations states that sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of streets of a subdivision simultaneously with construction of buildings there in.

I believe this particular application concerns the development of just uh additional parking area.

Is that correct?

At this time.

This project is just additional parking.

Yes.

So the modification does not concern a subdivision or the construction of buildings at this time.

So I think it might be reasonable to apply that to this um request and waive uh not so so much as waiving the requirement, but um removing the condition.

The requirement will still be there in the future should they decide to build on the property structures, not parking lots.

Thank you for that clarification.

One more question for the applicant.

Behind your uh applicant site, it looks like at least from the aerial photo that's perhaps wetlands back there.

Is there any chance of anything being built behind them or I guess to the west of them, such that that sidewalk would ever get walked on?

Mr.

John I think that there's a big pond that's back there, and I think that that pond is uh part of the overall um drainage of the the entire development, you know, the the Providence Park uh development.

But to answer your question, I really don't know what is on the west property line of my client's property.

Is there any but ever convenience that answer your question, Mr.

Amberger?

Uh yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

Thank you, Mr.

Cummings.

I'll ask now if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this modification application of a PUD at 5080, 580 Providence Park Drive East for construction of additional parking lots servicing the health care facility.

All right.

Seeing none, we will continue to move on.

We can welcome back Mr.

Brislin.

And number 13 is a dual application subdivision and modification at 1800 Dolphin Island Parkway, Fulton Road Baptist Church Subdivision, the resubdivision of lot one into three lots at 2.87 acres and a request to terminate a previously approved PUD along multiple buildings on a building site for commissioners.

Um excuse me.

No findings of fact potentially, and then 10 listed conditions.

Mr.

Bird.

Yes.

Gerald Bird, Bird Servant, 2609 Hall's Mill Road Mobile.

Uh just to clarify what you see outlined is a single lot in a recorded subdivision.

A little over a year ago, this started out.

All they wanted to do was cut those two lots off lots B and C, sell them for residential lots.

Discovered it was a PUD, and took a while for them to decide what they wanted to do.

But um looking at the report now, I would one of the conditions is widening Dolphin Island Parkway.

It's a 90-foot right-of-way now, supposed to be a hundred.

Uh require five foot dedication.

It wasn't required in 2004.

Planning commission at that time didn't require widening, left it with the 90-foot right-of-way, which also reflects in the engineering comments about a corner radius at uh Magnolia and Dolphin Island Parkway.

I don't know.

I wasn't involved with it then.

I don't know why they didn't require it.

I do know there's about a 42 to 45-inch oak tree right there, live oak tree.

And maybe the church wanted to retain ownership of it.

I don't know.

We would like to ask for the waiver of that corner radius and the widening of Dolphin Island Parkway.

Um that site plan is not reflecting just exactly right.

The there at in 2004, the church did have to dedicate a 25-foot radius at Nicholas and Dolphin Island Parkway.

Um it doesn't show on there.

Now other than that, I I'm asking now staff.

On page five of the re staff report, the fourth paragraph from the bottom talks about discourages lots with multiple street frontage.

And then it gets down to saying that um site has historically maintained access from all three street frontages with no apparent adverse effects.

A waiver of section six point C point seven may be appropriate.

Is it do we need to do that officially?

Yes.

Okay, it wasn't in the recommendations.

Uh I don't think it is.

Um I'm seeing it.

It's not yeah.

South.

On the okay.

Which one?

If the planning commission considers approving the request, etc.

Well yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Sorry about that.

We're okay with it.

Yes.

Okay.

So only two things we're asking for is no widening on DIP and the corner radius because the planning commission did in fact approve it, approve the property without these two items in 2004.

I mean, it needs to be, it needs to be in the right-of-way.

That's right.

Mr.

Chairman Father, go ahead.

I'd like to comment with Mr.

Bird about the the tree on the right-of-way uh or wherever the tree may exist uh on there on Magnolia Lane.

Has your survey actually adequately picked up where that tree is?

Is that tree on the right-of-way or is it on private property or is it on both?

Probably.

That much of the tree in Dauphin Island Parkway, the rest of it's on private property.

Okay.

So this is one of those good examples where there probably should be, because you got a you've got a protected tree, a big protected tree that probably nobody wants to go around.

You have sidewalks or walking paths that are around it where there should be, you know, an adequate amount of real estate to encompass that tree to where the public facility, the sidewalk can be can be constructed, and the tree can remain.

Uh yeah, it looks like the tree probably becomes very close to being in that right-of-way in that in that 25-foot thing.

So it's for my perspective, it probably needs to be more.

It probably needs to be whatever is adequate to capture the tree and enough adequate room to get that sidewalk around the back side of it.

Uh yeah, this is just one of the challenges that we have with big live oak trees, you know, adorning our our right-aways throughout the city.

Mr.

Chairman, another way of looking at it is that the tree is uh pretty massive, right?

You said it's pretty big.

Yeah, sir.

You said the tree's pretty big, right?

Oh, yeah.

It's uh 42, 45 inch.

So it's a it's a protected tree anyway.

Yeah.

Nothing nothing can even be done with the tree, even if it was on their property, they wouldn't be able to, they wouldn't even be able to trim the roots to put in a sidewalk.

They they don't really control the cutting.

Um, but like I say, I don't know why the radius wasn't required in 2004.

As it is now in that I'm looking at your survey now, it actually looks like the the common point of the of the uh right-away lines are literally probably touching the back of the curb.

So there is no there is no right-of-way from the back side of the curb to those property lines.

Uh that's that's probably the reason for the for the for the radius ask.

I mean it's just there's just no real estate there.

Period.

Okay.

I don't see, and I don't see how it's how it's gonna hurt them because of the proximity of that tree, yeah.

There's really nothing they could ever do with it anyhow.

Uh wave the right-of-way of DIP and put a 25-foot radius on the corner.

Yeah, I I don't see anything ever happening with DIP, but the radius could be improved at some point, you know, along there, you know, in an out op project.

That that part about that part of DIP, uh, state route 163 actually for the for the record, and it's actually operated and maintained by out eye.

So you know, if we did wave it, I mean we could accommodate it with a 30-foot building set back, like I asked for on the other one, five foot widening in the future, 25 foot building set back.

We just show it that way on the flat.

Well, when I look at the sum total of it all the what what's the heart burn with the radius?

Because that seemed to be the one that's more practical.

There's a more practical functional need as opposed to the extra width for Dolphin Island Parkway.

Dolphin Island Parkway is not gonna ever realistically be widened.

The radius, the radius could be improved.

Okay.

All right.

Well, like I say, um let's just require the radius and wave the five-foot widening on DIP.

That's what seemed that's what seems appropriate to be here in this.

That's fine.

Okay.

Any other we got that worked out?

Thank you, Mr.

Bird.

I don't think any further comments or questions for commissioners on agenda item number 13.

I I guess through that discussion question for staff, there is not a condition on the staff report, at least on this paper copy to uh provide a 25-foot radius dedication, unless I'm missing something it is located within the engineering comments of the staff report item HD.

Yeah, there it is.

I'm just gonna say while Mr.

Nichols look at that.

Any further questions or comments?

Yeah, yeah, I was gonna say, so does that leave us with essentially leaving number eight as it is, Nick, and then altering number two to reduce to revise that final plat to pick the dedication sufficient to provide 45 feet.

Where are we saying there's a five-foot difference somewhere?

What what are we what are we going for here?

I I think we're striking number two and our modifying number eight.

Oh, okay.

So I'm backwards.

Strike two, modify eight to reflect a 25-foot radius.

Oh, it does.

I'm sorry.

So yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's really just striking number two.

Correct.

That's correct.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may, go ahead.

Um with the waiver of that uh radius requirement if it so determined to be waived.

Um there, and I'll find it in here.

I can't remember it off the top of my head.

There's a specific section of the subregs that would need to be waived, and then we would revise the engineering comments um in the decision letter.

I think we're saying we don't want to waive the radius.

Okay, we want we want to waive the requirement for the additional uh parallel right-of-way with Dolphin Island Parkway.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that has questions for would like to speak for or speak against agenda item number 13, 1800 Dolphin Island Parkway.

All right.

That concludes the public hearing session.

We will now switch gears and go into deliberation.

Number one on the agenda was a holdover withdrawn.

Number two subdivision seven lots, point five seven acres.

Cottages at Spring Hill Subdivision 5070, old shell road.

The applicant is present.

There were specific comments made for number conditions number two and number five.

Also questions and I believe resolutions for now referencing the um stormwater runoff.

Entertain a motion.

So how much of the right-of-way dedication was the applicant requesting to amend?

Was it to remove that dedication entirely?

Yes.

Yes.

Nick, um or engineering staff.

We didn't discuss number three.

We discussed number two, specific to parkway street east.

My notes here read potential striking two, and then I think a modification of six feet minimum max 25 feet on the number five.

So is it two and three or is it just two?

Okay.

So what is the what's the current width over there at Parkway Street East and East Border Drive?

Is the is the 30-foot dedication needed for any I mean any obvious municipal purpose in the near future?

I I think those roads are as wide as they're ever gonna be.

Uh you know, they're um neighborhood streets, a lot of traffic coming going on them every day.

So I mean I think they are kind of what they are.

Yeah, that's kind of what my gut says, too.

Um okay, so I would move to approve subject staff recommendation waiving items number two and three, and leaving number five as is maximum.

Okay, we have a motion.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a properly seconded.

Any discussion or points of clarification?

All right.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Opposed.

That's one opposition or two.

Two, sorry, three.

Three opposed.

So we have one, two, three, four, and then three in opposition.

The motion does not pass.

Any further discussion on agenda item number two.

Did I do my counting correctly?

Yep.

Well, we have a does it Mr.

Chairman?

Yes.

The um bylaws specifically require um uh six affirmative votes to be able to pass uh a motion, which is what I had in my head.

So we're at four.

Any further discussion?

Yes, I mean please come on down.

Uh Jonathan Petty with Axis Engineering Group, 200 West Laurel Avenue, Foley, Alabama.

Uh, can we push this to the next meeting to further discuss with staff on what we can do to have some sort of discussion on granting this way of the dedication?

Unfortunately, um, besides just the vote, if I may, Mr.

Chairman, um, this was held over by the planning commission one time, which allowed the applicant to hold it over one additional time.

This was the second holdover, so a new application would have to be made for any discussion moving forward with this request.

Okay, can the application is there a time uh at which we have to wait in order to submit no application?

Not for a subdivision application.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Number three on the agenda 5330 Moffitt Road.

The applicant was present, and we need to get some clarification on site plan, and he was in agreement with that, and it's been requested for holdover, and I do believe we discussed January's meeting.

And I do believe we discussed January's meeting.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um and it looks like the ideal date for submission or at least to get in touch with us would be January 2nd.

Unfortunately, he's not here.

Guys, there are a way for us to communicate, make sure we communicate that back to him.

Yes, sir.

All right.

I'll move for a holdover.

Need a second.

Second.

In favor?

Aye.

Holdover for number three is approved.

Number four on the agenda item.

6151 Marina Drive South.

Potentially eight findings of fact, 20 listed conditions.

The applicant was present and in agreement.

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

Second.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for modification passes.

New items on the agenda.

Number five.

At 58 Battery Lane was requested for withdrawal.

We will move on to number six.

Subdivision application at 3603 Kent Road, resubdivision of lot 10 block C, Pinewood River subdivision.

The applicant is present.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number seven, 1645, 1655 Dawes Road, subdivision of two lots, 3.22 acres.

The applicant was present and requested.

Uh attention to number one condition relative to Dollars Road.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Striking number one and revising number four to 45 foot setback.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The motion passes.

Number eight subdivision application, southwest corner of Cypress Park Drive and Shipyard Road.

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

In addition to the uh waiver of section six C three and six C seven.

Move to approve service staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number nine, subdivision application.

6950, 6960 Moffat Road, the Chavers Oaks subdivision.

The applicant is present.

Had an agreement with the 10 listed conditions.

We did have specific discussion from a meeting attendee regarding the retention ponds and the maintenance of those ponds, which were then addressed by staff.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

Number 10 application for a sidewalk waiver at 775 Schillinger Road South.

Mr.

Hicks presented his reasoning for that sidewalk sidewalk waiver application.

Any discussion.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

But um in this instance, I do feel very firmly that um uh kind of the history of this area obviously was annexed in, it was built out annexed in as part of an annexation.

And then recently, I mean, if you just come another, I mean, heck, about another 300 yards from uh from this this area, that's a newly annexed area as well.

They came into the city.

Um, it's every intention.

Uh Schillinger obviously is a corridor.

Um, there's uh there's uh mix you uh mixed residential in there, uh, multi-families, there's um link linkage to uh residential family um around this area, and um you know it is the intention while this is not in district six, um it's just to the north of it.

Um it is the intention um in future years, obviously to make this uh as as the UDC says, make this a more walkable um city, and and Chillinger's is a prime example of of using CIP dollars to to try to bridge the gap and and interact and and interface and interconnect all the different um you know developments when it comes to Chillinger.

I can't tell you, you know, uh living out that way, living in district six, utilizing that corridor, it's a heavily utilized um with foot traffic, uh especially around this commercial corridor.

So I am in an opposition to waiving this.

Um I I think that um it's very important that as we you know over the next since this is recently annexed areas and uh we are trying to make it a walkable city.

We'll see you.

It's very important that we work with our commercial partners to try to establish that walkability out that way for the residents and uh and the the businesses itself.

So I'm I will definitely be in opposition to this.

Thank you.

Move to deny the waiver.

Second.

We have a motion on the floor to and properly seconded to deny the sidewalk waiver application.

Call to a vote.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Sidewalk waiver is not approved.

Number 11, 1356 government street and 120 Espigos Street.

Say rezone conditional use permit application, religious facility, and then R1 to permit use of an off-site single family dwelling as offices and meeting space for commissioners.

There's potentially 10 findings of fact and six listed conditions on the conditional use permit.

The applicants are present and we're in agreement and understanding of the findings of fact and in agreement with those conditions.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve services staff recommendation with findings of fact one through eight.

Second, properly moved and seconded with findings of fact one through eight.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for conditional use permit passes.

Number 12.

Say modification application for construction of parking lot at 580 Providence Park Drive East.

Cummings is still present.

We had discussion specific to number six on the conditions.

Uh staff recommendation there for um buildings, so that we could strike the condition number six.

Did I understand that correctly?

Not a recommendation, but a consideration.

Consideration.

Duly noted.

Entertain a motion uh for commissioners.

There's potentially eight findings of fact.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations adopting findings of facts eight through H and striking comment number six.

Properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed the motion for the modification passes.

Thank you for continuing your recusal, Mr.

Brisland.

We still had a quorum, and we are good to go.

Uh last on the agenda, the dual application, subdivision and modification.

The modification is to terminate a previously approved PUD.

Uh we will take them separately.

We'll do the subdivision first.

And there was discussion.

I just want to point out there was discussion specific to notes from Mr.

Byrd.

Go ahead.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations, striking condition number two.

Second.

Rightfully moved and seconded, removing condition number two.

All in favor of the subdivision application.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

And I'll go ahead and move to terminate the PUD.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for that termination passes.

That concludes the agenda item for items for December 18th.

I'd like to wish everyone a happy and joyous holidays, Merry Christmas, happy new year, Hanukkah, and all that comes with it.

We will see you in 2026.