Mr.

Josh Woods here, Mr.

Kenny Nichols.

Here, Miss Ellie Edwards.

We do have a quorum for today's agenda items, and I will move to pass today's agenda.

All in favor.

A lot of people any is the applicant present.

All right.

So, sir, I am looking at this.

Do you have any comments on the requirements not being submitted?

And a reminder to please state your name and address for the record.

Pete Reim, 3904 Camellia Drive, 36693.

We're missing one letter.

The guy is out of the country.

We had talked to him, met with him a couple weeks ago on one of the properties, but he's in Aruba, and I've been unable to get that letter from him.

But we have the other one from all in credit union.

So that would be the considering number two no written consent from owners of all properties required to be included in the subdivision.

Is that what we're looking at?

You got how many were you have okay?

The one they're missing is um from Tony Cooper, who was here last time when this came up to talk about another issue, not just subdivision.

He was not in opposition to this.

He just wanted to come down and talk about something else.

Right.

Um maybe we can talk in uh deliberations whether we can approve it subject to has he submitted everything else.

Is there anything else missing?

Um this was required or held over because they needed to reply it as a three-lot subdivision.

We have not received the uh revised plat.

Okay.

Did you hear that, Ms.

Ream?

We haven't received a revised plat for the properties on the subdivision.

Why does it have to be a three-lot subdivision?

That's I don't understand.

And I guess the other thing I one of the reasons we're here, does everybody realize that this was already done 15 years ago?

This is all exists.

This should have been all of this should have been done 15 years ago.

That road exists, and people are using that as a public road for 15 years, and really this is a cleanup of what exists.

The road is there, the cleanup is there.

There's two uh there's a lot that was uh split, and there's remnants are on either side, and all we're trying to do is clean this up and put it with the other.

The drainage from the common area that was modified 15 years ago with the culprit, so the drainage for the whole subdivision has been working for 15 years because there's a cover.

So I guess that's part of what I'm missing is all of this exists and was done 15 years ago.

We're just trying to get it right on the records.

Well, what we've got to get it right for the subdivision application to have the owner on there, the one that's in Aruba.

Well okay.

We'll discuss it in deliberation.

Thank you, Mr.

Reem.

Is there anyone else that's here to speak for, have questions towards or speak against this subdivision application on Sermon Road West and Sermon Road North.

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

These are all remaining new agenda items.

Number two, 1930 Bay Bridge Road Cutoff and 124 Industrial Canal Road East.

Rogers Group Subdivision for those in the audience that are here for this particular agenda item prior to this meeting.

The applicant has requested a holdover until the June 18th Planning Commission meeting.

However, since it's on the agenda, I will ask if there's anyone here that has questions towards wants to speak for or speak against this agenda item.

Reminders state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Jared White, 104 St.

Francis Street.

I'm the attorney for the Rogers Group, and even though it's we've requested holdover because there are people here, and I think people who address them will provide a little background information.

So Rogers is the largest privately owned construction aggregate uh company in the United States.

Uh this site we're talking about here was owned by Parker Towing.

Rogers bought it about a year ago.

Prior to Rogers purchasing it, Vulcan Materials had leased it from Rogers and used this as an aggregate yard.

They would bring in aggregate, which is your limestone rock, by barge, unload it, move it by dump truck to the middle of the property, then take it out as needed by dump truck.

Uh Rogers has continued that same use.

Uh the all the property except for the northeasternmost piece uh facing Chin Street is zoned I2.

And we did actually did not realize that our good surveyor did, but Rogers missed that that piece was included in the application.

It's not our intent to uh intrude on Punchin Street or do any kind of upzoning within the Africa Town Safe District or facing Chin Street.

So we're holding it over so that one parcel that faces Chin Street can either be removed entirely from the subdivision application or uh set as a separate lot that would remain a residential lot.

So that's the reason for the holdover.

Uh but just write a little more additional information.

Uh as I said, Rogers is continuing the same use that was uh useful previously.

This subdivision would simply combine these six other I two parcels into one to ensure uniformity to ensure that if there's a uh construction, you can get one permit for the entire parcel.

Uh by doing this voluntarily, Rogers will make itself subject to the 30-foot buffer that exists within the African overlay that would not currently be applicable.

It also provides an assurance to the community that Rogers does not intend to separate out this parcel and sell part of it off to another industry or another user.

Rogers will continue to be the sole occupant of this property.

And the year that Rogers has been operating it, uh, we've had meetings with community members, uh, including yesterday with some of the people we're gonna speak today.

It's certainly our goal to have an open dialogue, be transparent with the community and continue those discussions.

Uh Rogers has implemented uh you know, permit obtain permits and implemented improvements to the site consisting of a rebuilt bulkhead along Three Mile Creek to protect the shoreline, installing a material conveyor so that the product after it's unloaded is moved by moved by conveyor to the lay-down yard in the middle of the property.

That conveyor has a built-in dust suppression system so that it minimizes the dust, which has been one of the complaints by the community members when the property is operated by Vulcan.

Another thing that conveyor does is it eliminates the dump trucks.

So uh again, under Vulcan's operation on the site, it was moved by dump truck within the 30-acre parcel, and a lot of dump trucks back and forth, back and forth all day.

And then every time a dump truck's unloaded, you got the tailgate doing that big plane, it disturbs people in the neighborhood.

So this conveyor will address that and eliminate that noise source.

Uh Rogers is also on the loader it purchased, put a white noise backup alarm, ocean requires you have that for the workers, but by using white noise, the workers who are within the immediate vicinity can hear it, but that you don't get the beep beep beep that might travel to the community.

Um, this property does have a natural vegetated buffer along the north side along Chin Street.

Rogers is maintaining that, and uh, but obviously the subdivisions approved, that will be a mandatory requirement as part of the new subdivision application.

So we appreciate your consideration.

Our plan will be back next month uh with that Chin Street property uh clearly denoted that it will not, there's no request to up zone that title again, no interest to that.

Rogers is evaluating uh that property may end up divesting itself of it, but we're certainly not going to utilize it for an industrial use in that neighborhood.

So appreciate your consideration, and uh we'll be back next month.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

White.

A lot of information.

Be prepared for that next month as well.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have any questions towards this agenda item?

1930 Bay Bridge Road cut off and 124 Industrial Canal Road East.

Reminders, please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening.

My name is Kermit McAlpine.

I live at 308 Chin Street Mobile, Alabama.

I am here today to speak about several concerns affecting the neighborhood.

First, we have major drainage problem in our area.

Whenever it rains, the water builds up heavily, causing fluid throughout the community.

Additional water flows from the nearby bridge directly into our neighborhood, making the flooding even worser because of the drainage system.

The flooding also brings alligators and other dangerous animals into the yard neighborhood, creating safety and concern of children, families and children.

Another major concern is the train effective in our area.

The train begins operating early in the morning and continue running all through the night.

The constant noise has been seriously disturbing for many residents, and it's providing people, preventing people from getting proper rest and sleep.

They need we also have concern regarding the rock company in our neighborhood.

They have begun working early in the mornings with existed noise and spreading large amount of dust through our area, which affect the quality of life for residents.

Additional several properties in the areas have not been properly cleaned or maintained since Katrina.

These properties are filled with trees, debris, and other grounds, condition, negative impact of the community.

We need to be clean and maintained to help make the neighborhood safe and better for everyone who lives there.

Thank you for listening to my concern.

I sincerely hope you issues are heard and addressed so positive changes can be made.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

McAlpine.

And I do have pictures of the drainage.

I have pictures of two alligators that I caught at my yard.

I do have pictures if you'd want to see that if you'd like to take a look at the pictures.

If you if you would like to turn those pictures into the staff, they will add them to the file.

Yes, sir.

Are they your pictures and do you need them back?

My pictures I need them back.

All right.

Okay.

We'll make sure that those get properly copied.

Thank you, Mr.

McAlpine.

Thank you.

Just so he'll understand.

Uh this is not a change in the use.

This is just what you see in yellow on the screen is seven different tax parcels.

Uh this is just an application to combine it into one legal lot of record.

It's not a rezoning, it's not a change in the use, not changing the boundaries, is just making it one legal lot of record.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

Yes, sir.

Name and address for the record.

Yeah, good afternoon.

Uh my name is Ramsey Spregg.

I'm at 5404 Dogwood Court.

Uh I'm the president of the Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition, which was founded by Africatown residents in September 2013 to address environmental justice issues in the community.

I've been working with the folks you just heard from uh for about 10 years now on these issues.

You're correct that it is a subdivision application, uh and there are implications because this community and especially these residents here trusted a process during the zoning code rewrite, the UDC process that there would be uh code enforcement, that the rules around this industrial development that is so recklessly close to their properties would be addressed systematically.

Uh we did meet with the applicant yesterday uh and had a productive conversation about a lot of concerns and potential opportunities to resolve some of the issues, but there are many things that were uh brought up during that UDC rewrite process by our CBO.

Uh I don't know that any of y'all were involved in that period, but I know Mr.

Anderson and Bert and Ms.

Biko were all involved.

And my organization was one of the most engaged uh CBOs in the city, if not the most engaged, in terms of written public comment provided to the city in black and white, including issues around this particular parcel uh and the desire for greater uh buffer protections for the community.

So it's been uh a concern that there have been uh uh construction permits issued for the site.

We have questions around if all of the requirements of the overtown Africaton overlay were properly uh investigated by the planning department in terms of uh what's what applies and what doesn't is the crime prevention through environmental design requirements, were those enforced in the uh permitting process, were the uh landscaping requirements that are the buffer zone exists, but there are specific landscaping uh requirements around the the type and quality of the landscaping that are specifically named in the Africatown overlay referencing, cross-referencing the tree list.

Uh so there's a lot of very specific things that we believed at the time we could trust would happen as these deliberative processes play out.

Uh, we're really happy to have this ongoing dialogue with the with the company.

Uh, we're happy that we'll have a longer period of time to review more of the uh written correspondence, but there are also some substantive issues that were lacking in the plat itself.

Uh, Mr.

McAlpine spoke about stormwater issues in the area, and uh in conversation, you know, it became clear that there doesn't seem to be a stormwater easement that the city has responsibility for on the property, even though there is a large ditch that used to be a tidal ditch.

Uh residents, these residents here used to be able to fish and crab in their backyard.

At some point, a natural gas pipeline was installed, uh, and the drainage assumed from the Africa Town Cemetery that flows underneath Chin Street into that ditch is assumed to go all the way out to Three Mile Creek.

But the archaic design and the lack of improvement of the uh that any of that stormwater infrastructure after the expansion of Bay Bridge Road into the Africa Town Boulevard that we have today in the 90s, uh there was no subsequent updating of any of the stormwater infrastructure.

So we have this localized flooding that has uh Mr.

McAlpine didn't mention it, but he just had to demolish a home this year that was damaged from flood waters.

So these are serious, serious deficiencies.

We hope that there's ways to resolve these things by working with the applicant and with the city to address these things in a comprehensive way that the residents can really rely on and trust.

We just began our conversation, so we wanted to get on the record about these things and trust that uh the planning commission and staff will take us seriously uh and be deliberative in our questions because we're not coming out of nowhere with them.

So is that my one minute or is that my one minute?

Okay.

Uh so I just want to make sure that I'm covering everything, right?

Uh the the questions about the plat uh really go to the heart of like, and and I've spoken to with Derrick about this a little bit.

Is there this chin street itself doesn't appear illustrated?

So the frontage, even if that one parcel that's that forms that flagpole lot up there, even if that is subdivided properly, if it's subdivided separately, there should be uh uh all the frontage easements and all the uh residential zone requirements for that property should also be applied.

And because it's residential to code enforcement does apply.

The lack of code enforcement in this area has been a severe hindrance to the quality of life of these residents, and so we want to see comprehensive code enforcement.

We want to see comprehensive accountability of all the requirements on this applicant because we believe they're operating in good faith, and we want to celebrate the good work of the city and these uh developers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Sprague.

Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application?

Yes, sir.

Reminder to state your name and address for the record.

It's good afternoon.

I'm Robert Clumpton 2612, uh, Charlotte Oaks Drive.

Well, Bill, Alabama 366.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I will be brief.

We're very, very concerned about the situation that has been um presented to us from the citizens on Chan Street.

Now, who we're president of the NAACP.

And our only mission is to ensure the political, the social, educational, and economic equality of rights of all people, of all people at all time, and to fight any race-based hatred or discrimination that we might find, not saying that that's there at this particular time.

However, they do have some concerns that we are concerned with when it comes to quality of life.

Three phases were introduced earlier.

One from the flooding, lack of uh uh water easements, and then again the dust.

All right, that's created from the rocks.

Uh the train noise, uh, those are simple things that most citizens take for granted, but in this case is uh quality of life, and it is a matter of urgency.

So, from our perspective, we will be working hand in hand with this particular uh subdivision neighborhood, street, chance street, to assist them in any way that we possibly can to ensure that their quality of life is maintained.

We will be intentional, we will be strategic because basically they need uh equitable uh aspects, uh quality standards.

Um I thank you for you, time.

Thank you, Mr.

Clawpton.

We have one more slide if anybody would like to take it.

All right, seeing none just on this agenda item a reminder, it will be uh voted on for potential holdover till June 18th.

Number three on the agenda is a subdivision application at 354 and 358 Gulfwood Drive, Lila's Place subdivision.

This is a subdivision of three lots at 0.64 acres.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a raise of her hand.

Are you in agreement with the 10 listed conditions?

The applicant is in agreement with a nod of her head for the 10 listed conditions.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application at 354, 358 Gulfwood Drive.

Mr.

Chairman, go ahead.

I'd like to know from staff or the are the existing houses on the property, have they been demolished?

Uh they have not yet been demolished, but as uh condition of approval, they are required to be demolished and the demolition process completed before we'll sign the final plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Amberger.

Any further questions from commissioners?

No comments from the audience on this subdivision.

We will move on to number four.

Subdividend subdivision application at 63, Parkway Drive, Parkway Commons subdivision, five lots, 1.76 acres.

Please state your name, Mr.

Esse, and address for the record.

Uh Sean Estes 7 Dogwood Circle.

Uh there are 10 listed conditions, and unless you're have questions towards any of those, give us an agreement on that or move on with whatever you got.

Well, no, I don't really, other than the I know there was uh uh 30 foot uh from center line for future development that right-of-way future dedication dedication for future right-of-way.

I just wanted to see if there was any uh leniency or uh uh a potential waiver for that, just it being a low uh density residential dead end street.

I didn't know if I mean that seems a 60 feet of right away seems excessive.

Uh used to be 50 feet.

I know my streets 50, and so is there any any uh way around that or I guess a a waiver to that?

Do you have a suggestion or recommendation?

A request.

Request specific feat.

Um well, if we could get it to the 25 from center line, that'd be that'd be a future of of 50, which would be more comparable to what's around the city now.

Is that is the 60 a new requirement?

Stand new standard.

Um minor streets within the subdivision regulations that have not been improved with curta curb or gutter improvements do require a 60 foot right of way, so 30 feet from the center to accommodate um the construction of that infrastructure.

If it's a minor street that has been equipped with curbing and gutter improvements, then it's a 50 foot right-of-way since those improvements had already been made.

So there's the answer on the 30 and 30.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, however, the city engineers here.

I hate to throw them on under the bus, but technically I'm not the city engineer, but I will answer the question.

From that department.

Uh the the city did recently in a in a recent recent effort improved the road.

It was a gravel road.

Um go ahead, Mr.

Amberger.

I I don't foresee the road having any more improvements on it.

Was a it was a gravel, a gravel road.

Uh Mr.

Epstein uh provided a little easement to us in which we could do some drainage there to to improve it.

I think he's got a common area that's probably gonna address his his site's runoff.

Uh I just don't I don't see there being any more improvements done done to the road in the foreseeable future.

Okay.

All right.

And then the um the I think according to the the the comments uh it it spoke to the turnaround at the end.

It the comments led to what me to believe that the city wasn't really internally aware that they had already built the turnaround.

Are we is that clear now?

I mean that yeah, there was a hammerhead for for the my fellow commissioners.

There was a hammerhead turnaround constructed with that effort.

That's what the little the little jog that you see in between lots four and lot five.

Right.

So all that's built.

So I just wanted to clarify because it didn't really speak to that in the in the comments.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't think it shows up on any aerial photos or any RGIS, so you almost probably wouldn't have known.

Okay.

All right.

Other than number one, Mr.

Essis, any other ones?

That's it.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Uh note for commissioners, potential waivers of section 6C2A for reduced lot area and 6C3 for width and depth once we get to deliberation.

Is anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application of five lots at 1.76 acres located on Parkway Drive.

Seeing none, we will move on.

Number five, subdivision application at 1370 and 1408 Cody Road North, the villas at Cody Crossing subdivision.

This is a subdivision of 229 lots encompassing 16.44 acres.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

I will welcome you to the podium.

Reminder for commissioners, we've got a potential waiver of section 6C2A and 6C2B2 and 6C7 double frontage lots.

Yes, sir.

Name and address for the record.

Yeah, uh good afternoon.

Jay Broughton, Broughton Associates, 314 Magnolia Avenue, Fairhope.

Um this probably looks familiar to you all because it was presented and approved uh in March of last year.

Um it's the exact same application, haven't changed anything from the variances or or anything about the plan.

Um we were submitting construction plans in April of this year, and that's when you know we we found out the extension deadline had had passed.

So um we're respectfully, you know, requesting approval for the preliminary plat.

Yeah, contention on staff comments.

We got no objections to those um and approval of the variances by the BZA.

So just to confirm you're in agreement with all 19 conditions of the current application.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

The only thing that's changed is time.

That's that's right.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Broughton.

Is there anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application on Cody Road North?

Yeah, yeah, I got a question for the applicant.

Um on the traffic engineering comments, it talks about the traffic impact study not completed.

Uh review hadn't been completed, the reports incomplete, doesn't include a warrant analysis for left and right turn lanes, and I don't see anybody from oh you're there.

You are uh has that impact study been approved?

It's still under review.

They are they have not resubmitted anything yet, so it's still in review at this time.

So I I will say that the warrant we have completed the warrant analysis.

Um so and we're just trying to update the recommendations of the warrant analysis.

So it's it'll be approved by the time we resubmit for construction plans.

Nothing's been submitted to us yet.

They may have done it on their side.

If if it calls for left or right turn lanes, y'all are willing to do that.

I mean, we we're talking about 294 lots in one entrance on under a onto a busy road.

And I just want to make sure we don't approve this without making sure that the traffic's gonna be taken care of.

And if if we're gonna require if traffic engineering is gonna require a left turn or DXL lane or whatever, I just want to make sure y'all are going to be able to do that.

We're we're fully committed to complying with whatever recommendations the traffic impact study comes back with.

Appreciate it.

Yes.

Typically reinforce whatever's required by the traffic impact study unless otherwise waived by the traffic and strain director.

Mr.

Anderson, do you want specific verbiage in any of the conditions stating that we want to talk about it?

Deliberation, Mr.

Chairman.

I mean, is there is there is there a preview of the traffic impact study?

I mean, obviously something's been done.

I mean, it is looking like the term the the considerations that were or the warrants that we're really talking about has to do with the level of service on Cody Road, which is at a C and the traffic that will be exiting the development, specifically the uh westbound to northbound movement heading right up Cody Road.

So um we're we're like I said, trying to finalize the the results of that.

If there are any, you know, turn lane warrants or excel or D cell lanes, we'll be glad to make that.

But that's that's specifically what is is what we're talking about.

Yeah, I think the concern is just kind of the uncertainty of approving the subdivision, very large subdivision, with the uncertainty of our turn lanes going to be required.

I mean, is there any preliminary recommendations?

So we is it leaning towards needing turn lanes or is it leading to the case?

Not on Cody Road, no sir.

The only thing that's warranted is the uh uh a right turn lane out of the development on the Cody Road.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, and while we're on the track, that was that was my concern.

Um so just for clarification, I guess they'll there'll be a point of entry exit on Victor, and then also the point of entry exit as you come around the curve on the Cody, I guess.

That's that's correct.

And on both of those entry points, exit points, no gates or anything, and no gates on Victor, no knocks boxes or anything like that.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then um, I guess, and I guess a question for traffic would be Victor Road.

Um, you know, 300 ounces.

Uh Victor Road was taken into consideration, I guess, in the traffic study, I guess.

Yes, sir, it was.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions for Mr.

Broughton from commissioners?

All right, thank you, sir.

I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for or speak against or have questions towards the subdivision application 1370 and 1408.

Asking that again.

All right.

Seeing none, we'll move on.

Number six on the agenda is a subdivision for a sidewalk waiver at 175 West I65 Service Road North.

Can Quintessa properties.

This is West I-65 Service Road and Zimlik.

Specific request to wave construction of sidewalks.

We'll welcome the applicant to the podium for reasoning behind this application.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chris Lee with Leban Engineering Company at 7671 Parker Road in Farob, Alabama.

Um the reason for this request is that there is along specifically along the I 65 service road, there is a fairly deep um paved ditch in the out eye right away.

And specifically up in the northeast corner, the right-of-way pinches in, and there's there's really not room to have the ditch and the sidewalk there for pedestrian safety.

The sidewalk either has to be too close to the road or you're um you're you're right up on the concrete ditch, so you'd have to build a wall or something there to be able to get a sidewalk that's wide enough to conform with the the city requirements.

And that that's the one of the main reasons why we're we're trying to get the sidewalk waiver.

Any questions from commissioners?

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Uh so I'm I'm in opposition and the council representative for this district in opposition.

Um, there's a sidewalk project that's tying in the village of Spring Hill and their sidewalks that's gonna take from the corner of Old Chill all the way down to uh all the way down to uh uh Dolphin Street.

So uh waving waving this.

I mean, there's room for a sidewalk.

Um there's uh you know, I don't I don't I don't foresee in the opinion of the council representatives don't foresee is is not seeing the waiver of a sidewalk in this area.

It's uh it's interconnected, there's a sidewalk to the south, um, about to tie in the sidewalks to the north.

Uh, you know, it'll it'll be part of the complete streets plan.

Um, so I you know the council representative for this district and and I'm also don't we don't really see the the need or or you know sidewalks are going in anyways, and it is part of the UEC plan to install those sidewalks.

Thank you, Mr.

Woods.

Any further questions or comments for the applicant from commissioners?

I I'll just add for my fellow commissioners on it.

It does look like the the way the preliminary development uh is the um the parking pads are set back from the property lines.

It does look like you've got some real estate there to accommodate it.

It is a very large ditch there, be very expensive to pipe the ditch, but it does appear to be you know, as you've got the site laid out, you know, that it could reasonably accommodate it.

So uh while I'm standing here, let me ask if if the sidewalk waiver is um not approved, can we put the sidewalk on private property in an easement?

Or does it have to be in a answer that yes?

Any further questions from commissioners?

Thank you, Mr.

Leeb.

Anyone else in the audience on this sidewalk waiver application?

Seeing none, we will move on to number seven on the agenda.

It is also a subdivision application of a sidewalk waiver at 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway.

Specifically a request to waive the construction of sidewalk along Dolphin Island Parkway.

Please station name and address for the record and reasoning for the application.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Brock Jones, Kimley Horn, uh 11 North Water Street.

Um reason for the sidewalk waiver.

So we are uh replacing existing Moz Lyft station.

Uh pretty much at the southwest corner of the site.

The um existing site is kind of right at the at the foot of the bridge as you cross Dog River.

The right-of-way within the owl that right-of-way is pretty much an open ditch, not enough room to put a sidewalk.

Uh, additionally, the north part of the site, we're trying to leave as natural vegetation as part of this to kind of limit impact to any residents or any future development that may happen in that area.

Um, so we would like to respect the request uh waiver the sidewalk in this area.

It's also tidally influenced, so there's constantly flooding going on in that area.

Um so that's what those are the reasons.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Jones.

I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I'll just add that that section of Dolphin Island Parkway has a has a dedicated bike lane on it, uh, and I believe shoulder as well.

Uh part of this area, it's got title tidal marsh in there, so they that they you know I don't think they could, I don't think there's real estate to adequately construct a sidewalk the full length of the way.

And it really wouldn't lead anywhere.

There's there's right there's the foot at the start of the bridge across this dog river as well.

That's correct.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience on this sidewalk waiver application?

Seeing none, we'll move on to number eight.

We will recuse Mr.

Larry Dorsey.

We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item for public hearing.

The rezone application at 6455 Howells Ferry Road, Grace Redemption Community Church.

Request for conditional use permit approval to establish and operate a religious facility on property zoned R1 single family residential suburban.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a show of her hand.

Are you in agreement and understanding of the requirements for this rezone?

Nod of the head.

Does state submit a revised site plat demonstrating compliance with the development standards of Article 3 of the Universal Development Code?

Got a nod on that as well.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this rezone application at 6455 Howells Ferry Road.

Seeing none, given it's a rezoned application.

I'll ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant.

And seeing none, we will welcome back Mr.

Dorsey, and we will move on to the rezone application of agenda item number nine.

This is an application or rezone from single family residential suburban R1 to Buffer Business Suburban District B1 at 7241, 7251, 7261, and 7271 Green Lot Road.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a raise of his hand.

There would be potentially seven findings of fact for this rezone application and condition of full compliance with all municipal codes and ordinances.

Are you gonna have you read through those findings of fact and would be in agreement with those should it move through on deliberation?

Mr.

Chairman, I think on this one, the applicant needs to make a presentation.

There's some opposition, and we just can't rely on the staff report for information.

We need to hear from the applicant on what the plans are.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

I would welcome you, sir, down to the podium and give us a reasoning on the rezone application.

Sure.

Hello, my name is Jimmy Lyon.

If you would, Mr.

Lyon, make sure you got the microphone.

Oh, this one here.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Okay.

The one with the red on it.

Okay, my name is Jimmy Lyon.

I live at 2205 Fremont Drive West, Mobile 36609.

And what we have here is Mr.

Cooner has owned this property for probably 15 years.

And he was there was actually four different businesses here when it was in the county because there was no zoning.

So they were a real estate office, a uh I think an insurance office.

I know I when I was a builder, I had a cabinet man uh on that one light that built cabinets for me, and then Cooner had his uh roofing business, livery roofing.

And what what he did when he decided to get out of the roofing business, he cleaned up the property, tore the buildings down, and cut the grass and put it up for sale.

Well, he didn't realize he had moved across the bay, and they had uh gone from county to it being acquired by the city and and uh zoned it R1.

Well, REMAX is to the right of that that plat up there, and they have like six.

You can see that one big building.

There's like six businesses in there, uh Embrace loan, home loans, Remax, uh some other ones in there, and that is zoned uh LB2, the purple one.

And so we had a a meeting, a neighborhood meeting, and we had about 12 neighbors come, and they were opposed with the LB2 zoning, so they were okay with the B1 zoning, and so we agreed to just do it B1.

What we basically are wanting to do is you can't list a piece of property that's zoned R1 and try to sell it as commercial, so we figured would go ahead and zone the property B1 and then have and then put signs out there and sell and try to sell the lights B1.

Um, each each person that buys a lot or two or three or four lights, they could buy all of them.

They could do like Remax did, and they'd come in here and they'd do a site plan at that time and have retention requirements and uh you know parking and setbacks and all the things they do, uh, that would become before the planning commission then based on the use.

Uh but at this time we're just trying to go from a R1 zoning, which is there's no single family houses on Green Light Road facing Green Light Road, so it doesn't make sense.

Um we felt like that.

Um we felt like that if we just could go back to the use it was before, then we could list the property as commercial, and then they could go from there, whoever buys the property or properties.

And uh and the neighbor, the the neighbors that came, and some of them came from the neighborhood of the north, some of them came from around because we actually ended up having two meetings because Ms.

Cooner's mama died, and they had to go to have a funeral in Birmingham, and we missed the deadline of getting in for last month's uh by a couple of days, so we had a second meeting for the homeowners.

Y'all have any questions?

Mr.

Chair.

Go um thank you, Mr.

Lyon.

I'll now ask if there's any questions or comments from commissioners.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Uh I definitely I follow your I follow what what you're trying to accomplish and definitely understand.

Um I you know, I know I I have received some some feedback, and I know that we have comments um here, uh, but I I think one of the things that was missed in this process is the notification of the city council representative.

Um so uh, you know, with the changes with the UDC code that came up that the council representative for that area was not notified um of the community meetings, and even though you had two.

Um so uh you know I I just wanted to make note that that you know council wasn't wasn't notified on and um we could talk about it in deliberation, say yeah.

Well, Steve being the owner, he got Maria York and she gave us an outline, and he was the one that sent the letters out, and and we didn't know that we were supposed to contact anybody else.

So question for Mr.

Woods.

Did Mr.

This is Mr.

Fleming?

Uh this is me.

This is you, yes, sir.

Okay.

Forgive me for not knowing my landlines.

I get confused myself sometimes.

Yeah.

We can see that okay.

All right, thank you for that information.

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

Well, also before we get to that, I'd like to point out in the application materials for the commissioners to review any of the comments that are there between now and deliberation.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience on agenda item number nine at 7241, 5161, and 71 Greelot Road that has questions for is against or is for this agenda item.

All right, seeing none, I'll now move on to the next agenda.

We'll we'll discuss that when the deliberation.

Number 10 on the agenda 5101 Moffat Road application for a rezone.

This is from B2 to B3.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

B2 to B3, Mr.

Anderson.

We would like to hear application reasoning there.

Yes, sir.

Please please come on down and give us your criteria for the rezone.

And reminder to state your name and address for the record.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is George Herb.

Uh my address is 11070 Irvington BLB Highway.

And this is for rezoning Moffitt Road.

Uh, it was established 15 years ago as a convenience store, and it was for quite some time.

And the building was left alone for quite a while.

And uh there's uh a leasey for the property, and it wants to turn it into a uh car lot and uh light work, uh mechanical light work for the uh uh for clients, and um basically the property needs to be remodeled interior.

Uh we're not making any changes to the structure of the building, uh basically cleaning up, fixing the parking lot, and uh it cannot be opened as a car lot under the current zoning of B2, so that needs to be changed to B3, and and that's our request for that.

If I may, Mr.

Chairman.

The reason I wanted you to make a presentation, we had a really bad issue with a similar situation on highway 90, uh, a piece of property got a variance or conditional use permit or whatever to um to operate a used car lot limited to what 15 20 cars, not parking the right of way, and they ended up having about 150 cars and parked all over the every inch of the lot, and we had to take them to court and get an injunction.

So I just say you're gonna do that.

I just want to make sure uh we have a discussion about how many cars you're gonna have, and you know, just how are you gonna operate the facility?

Um I guess basically how many cars do you think you're gonna uh max out at as far as having them on the lot at one time?

Uh yes, sir.

Um I I think the architects and the engineers and uh city permitting uh and I don't know if that's also part of zoning.

Um, but they're applying for how many cars should be on the lots, and I I don't presume it's gonna go over like 15 or 20 uh at most.

I don't think it can hold that, so definitely um, you know, what got where whatever is applied through the architect and engineers and approved by the uh by the city of mobile.

That's uh that's that's the amount of cars that will be parked there.

And the I'm assuming let me pull it up on my laptop here.

So looking at that, what's on the screen, the middle part that's shaded will be paved, but everything else would be grass.

Is that correct?

Uh no, sir.

Okay, you explain it to me.

Uh so on the uh on the upper part of the building there and the lower part, uh, those are green areas there, but where you see the parking and on the right hand side, that's that's all paved.

And uh, but there is an entrance.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, you can see that there's an entrance from uh Moffat Road and then an exit on uh Overlook Road.

Um so of course the uh entrance and exit areas will not be blocked.

Um, but as you can see, there are um enough area on the left hand side as I'm looking at it there to also have possibly a row of parking.

Um so that would like maybe maximize the area of of 20 vehicles.

Uh now there is also on this side where the greengrass area, there's going to be a uh dumpster pad there, um and so on.

So there won't be anything on the back side or the top and bottom areas, left and right of the building, they're just in the front areas of the parking, and not to obstruct the entrance and the exits for the for the property.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Uh would some sort of voluntary restriction or agreement be allowing the number of cars for sale.

That you know, it could be voluntary, we could place it on them as long as it's not arbitrary.

I just don't know with the size of this lot, um, what's a good number, reasonable number to allow him to have.

I mean, if you would agree uh voluntarily to limit it to 20 cars or or whatever, you know, we can make that a condition of approval, or we can say cars only parked on paved areas.

Uh I'm not sure what even looking at that site plan.

I'm not sure what all is going to be paved, but um would you be willing to agree to a maximum number of of cars at one single?

Yes, sir.

If that's if that's what required, yes, sir.

And what would you suggest a reasonable number to be?

I'm not sure what you said earlier.

20.

Yes, sir.

I said 20.

If if we can be approved between 25 and 30, that would that would be fantastic.

Okay, thank you.

And yes, sir, we we'd be able to write a commitment regarding that as you requested.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Harb.

Well, any further questions or comments from commissioners on this rezoned application of B2 to B3 for the applicant.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Harb.

Thank you.

Uh also note that the applicant did conduct community meeting.

And I did not see any other comments in the application materials.

I'll now ask if there's anyone at the audio in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this B2 to B3 application at 5101 up Moffat Road.

All right, seeing none, we will move on to agenda item number 11.

This is a rezone application at 97 center drive.

Silverstone Enterprises.

It's a rezoning request from single family residential suburban R1 to multifamily residential suburban R3.

Notes for commissioners, potential seven findings of fact here.

Yes, sir.

Uh good afternoon, Casey Pipes, Helm Sing Leach, uh 150 government street.

This is the application to rezone 97 center street, or sorry, 97 center drive, uh R1 to R3.

Um we're agreeable with all the staff comments and recommendations.

Uh, but there were uh comments in opposition, so I can present a little bit of the justification for the rezoning.

Uh the first justification is you know, or the first question is is it consistent with the comprehensive plan?

And this one is uh this is uh the comprehensive plan calls for this area, this particular property to be mixed density residential uh under the future land use map and under the matrix that corresponds designations to uh the current zoning districts R3 is appropriate, so it's consistent with comprehensive plan.

Uh second kind of criteria is it is it compatible with the uh current development trends in the area, and this one is as you can see.

This site is surrounded on the north, east, and west by R3, the north and and east or sorry, the north and west properties have been developed as apartment complexes.

The one that's to the east is actually the other half of the subdivision for this property.

There used to be a four-lot subdivision, two lots fronting on east drive, two lots fronting on center drive.

Our property or is the two lots fronting on center drive.

The ones on fronting on East Drive were previously rezoned to R3 and merged into one lot, either in a subdivision or a PUD.

It was kind of hard to tell.

Uh, but you can see the development trend has been to uh convert either dilapidated single-family residential or vacant, you know, R1 property into R3 along this area.

The only abutting property to this that's R1 is to the south.

And if you look at the aerial that was just on the screen, uh the property to the south is a uh church that actually fronts on East Drive, and so the property adjacent to the subject is the rear parking lot, and looks like they store some trailers back there for the uh I think it's the Jehovah's Witness Church, but it it fronts on East Drive.

Uh so that's our only neighbor that's zoned R1, but it's not a single family residential property.

And uh third issue is changes in the area call for rezoning.

The first change is you can see from the aerial, there is a very dense student housing development across center drive.

It's called the social.

The driveway into 97 center drive, our property is directly across the street from the driveway into the northern driveway into the social.

And you know, there were plenty of negative comments about the social in in the comments that were posted online about this application request.

Yeah, I would submit our property is as impacted by the social as anybody's.

We're on the we share the street with them where the Farron Woods subdivision uses West Drive.

The other change is that the University of South Alabama has kind of been converting from more of a commuter school to a on-campus residence school.

They've been growing their enrollment.

Uh what I'm getting from the University of South Alabama is the source is that their student enrollment, particularly freshman enrollment's been going up three years in a row, they're up 30 percent freshman year, and since 2021, all freshmen full-time are required to live on campus.

Uh we have uh Denise Brown who was at the neighborhood meeting.

She's a representative of the owner.

If there's anybody that has any questions about the neighborhood meeting, uh, but those are the only comments I have time for, but love to entertain any questions.

Question from me, Mr.

Pipes.

What is the site plan?

I'm counting eight units.

Is that correct?

Yes, Mr.

Cairn.

And case any further questions.

So the the site plan and the narrative show, let me find it.

Uh show eight units, yet two-story.

And so there's it's confusing.

I counted 32 total bills.

There's there's eight units shown on this plan, but the narrative says two stories, so that would be then 16.

So trying to get some clarification on is it eight total units or 16 units.

I I think it is eight total units with four bedrooms in a unit.

That's the the staff report just depicts two two-story apartment buildings, each containing four dwelling units with four bedrooms per unit.

So I counted 32 bedrooms.

Right.

And I guess my question is Yeah, you got four buildings shown there.

That's I mean four ground level if you're looking at it from the top, so that's eight total.

And if it's two-story, then it's 16, not eight.

There's eight shown there.

But if you if he can confirm just that there's gonna be four buildings with two units per building, but it'll be on the same page.

That's the question of those, you know, is it they stacked like this, or like each of the four is two stories?

I just want to make sure I was clear on that.

I'm uh looking around, and I'm not you're not 100% sure that we have the guy that drew that on there.

Uh I know when we counted the when we did the calculation for the parking, it came up to 32 bedrooms.

Okay, and that's why it because we're in the university district, you have to have 10 percent more parking, you know, 1.1 for each bedroom, and so we have we meet the parking requirement.

I the only drawings I've seen are what we submitted, and so I'm sorry.

Uh no, I just knew I want to I want to make sure I was clear.

Yeah, because the I was not 100% clear on the wording, so it's either eight units that are two-story units, or it's eight buildings with a first story residential and a second story residential.

And I think it's yeah, is it like one unit, and then maybe there's a kitchen and maybe one bedroom, laundry room, living room on the first floor, and then four bedrooms upstairs it could be.

And I've I yeah, I know we've capped the number of people that are gonna be there.

I'm just not sure what the layout of that building is, Kenny.

I'm sorry.

So I guess from the standpoint of just a question for me, which I don't know if you can answer this.

Um from that standpoint of of it being eight units total, is that a an acceptable voluntary density restriction?

Oh, yeah, so we we're we're fine to I mean, we're the number of of bedrooms.

We're we're back, you know.

Okay, we're we're very happy to make that a voluntary use restriction.

Okay.

Uh Kenny is what I don't know is uh I what I'm not sure about is to your original question of how is it stacked and and whatever, right?

We're we're fine to limit the number of beds.

Right.

I'm I'm irrelevant.

I mean, yeah, I couldn't care less how it gets laid out.

I just want to make sure that you know it wasn't eight or four, four, four, four above.

So that's that was all I was trying to clarify.

Yeah, but uh I think the uh density or the total number on there was I think it was right, Mr.

Anderson, 32.

Okay.

That'd be a perfectly acceptable voluntary use restriction for us.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, this was another one that I uh the council representative uh councilman Fleming didn't receive notification on, um, started kind of getting questions about.

Um so I you know I I think there is based on the comments, based on the calls that I think that they've received, and um I know I've received I think there is some unclarity as associated with this.

Um I don't know if uh you know if there's the the will for a voluntary layover possibly to at least talk to the community a little more and provide some clarity because you know kind of like the confusion here is is what's the density gonna look like here, and um so I I just that's just that's just a comment I wanted to offer out.

I don't know if there's some some leeway and provide maybe more conversation over the next 30 days to to lead up to planning commission or or what so it it would be fine and and we can hold over.

We uh I was not at the neighborhood meeting, and if you read the comments, neither were a lot of people who who are now opposed to it, and so we've not had that conversation.

One person said they tried to get in touch with the applicant, which is me, but uh you know they can't get my contact information off the city's publicly available information for the application, and so yeah, and I'm sure the sign was at the end of Center Drive and not everybody comes down center drive all the time.

And so I'm sure the sign was at the end of Center Drive and not everybody comes down center drive all the time.

I mean, why that's like we had that discussion.

Why would you drive down there if you live?

I mean, it makes no sense.

The pavement ends not too far south of this property and you know, the Fair and Woods subdivision accesses you know off West Drive, and so you wouldn't have a whole lot of reason to go down there from there, but it but to your point, uh Councilman Woods would be happy to do a holdover.

And it is kind of in a cluster.

I think it's in your district.

It but according to the map we had, it was, and so we mailed you a letter for the neighborhood meeting.

But it the district we're right on five, six, and seven within you know a quarter mile of this site, and I think the boundaries moved after the uh the meeting went out.

We were trying to comply with the notice.

It's just the city's website was out of date.

Mr.

Chairman, go ahead.

Uh the drawings that are contained with the application on the second page of the drawing that shows that each of the rectangles that are the eight rectangles are two-story apartments with four bedrooms.

So it is going to be a total of eight units, each being two stories with four bedrooms.

Thank you, Brooke.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bert.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

Note for Commissioners.

Uh referencing the commentary towards this application in your materials on your device.

Located in application materials under number 11.

And also emailed to each person.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that are given the lay of the land here that the applicant has spoken.

We've got confirmation on the units.

This will go to deliberation, and if so voted, more than likely a holdover until the next zoning, excuse me, uh planning commission meeting.

However, if you're here and you would like to speak, have questions towards this agenda item to speak for it or to speak against it, you're welcome to come down.

Yes, sir.

After this, gentlemen, will there be anyone else?

That's two.

Three.

Anyone else after that?

Those two ladies in the row?

And we may have a question.

All right, that'll be four.

Yes, sir.

Your name and address for the record.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Roger Woods, 6094 Fairin Woods Court.

I'm about half a block south of this proposed rezoning.

I must make clear I'm not related in any way to Commissioner Josh Woods, as far as I know.

Uh I oppose this rezoning request.

I've sent two detailed written comments to the commission through the city planning website.

I'm going to summarize those comments now for context and for information.

Uh, firstly, I was not aware of the community meeting apparently held March 26th, as I live just over 300 feet from the lot in question, so I wasn't on the mailing list.

Photographs of the signage used to advertise this meeting are required in the application package, yet none are included.

This meeting was clearly inadequately publicized.

Um Ferrin Woods is actually accessed by center drive, contrary to the applicant statement just now.

There are some lots that back onto center, and I myself walk past this lot four times a day.

I became aware of this rezoning request through a chance meeting with another resident living within 300 feet of the lot.

The submission documents on the commission website have redacted the address of the company concerned, so I've not been able to contact the applicant.

The proposed rezoning will drastically change the character of this area.

It's opposite a large R3 complex called the social, where multiple cars routinely park, obstructing the center drive fire lane.

That's the serious matter.

And that complex has produced greatly increased vandalism, litter, and noise compared to the neighborhood prior to that complex being built.

An additional R3 lot will inevitably encourage further antisocial behavior in this neighborhood, reducing property values.

The applicant's justification for this rezoning is quite simply incorrect for several reasons.

The applicant commented on the university's enrollment.

I looked up the actual figures, and they copied on this leaflet that I left at the front desk.

I hope all the members of the commission were able to pick up a copy, because the application uh the the actual data show that in fact university enrollment peaked in 2016.

Freshman enrollment has not increased by 30% over the last three years as claimed, and nor is the 2025 freshman class enrollment record setting as the applicant states.

The 2025 freshman class was record setting academically, but that doesn't concern us here.

Freshman enrollment was lower in 2025 than three years ago, and also prior to 2018.

Freshman enrollment 10 years ago was 28% more than in 2025, and total enrollment 10 years ago was 15% more than in 2025.

University faculty and staff do not contribute to pressure on rental apartments.

They prefer their own properties despite the applicant's claims.

Rezoning decisions should not be based upon cherry picked and inaccurate data, but rather on trends over a long period, at least 10 years.

The applicant has not explained why housing levels adequate in 2016, and that have since increased both on and off campus elsewhere, are not adequate for over 2,000 fewer students now.

The commissioner will remember from February last year a reasoning application for a very close by lot, 186 and 162 East Drive to be rezoned R3.

That application was denied for several reasons, most of which apply to the present case as the two lots are so close together.

In summary, the reasons were the proposed amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

It's not compatible with current development trends of the subject property and surrounding land uses.

It would adversely impact neighboring properties and reduce property values.

It does not promote the community's public health, safety, and general welfare.

Infrastructure is not in place to accommodate the proposed amendment.

There are no changing conditions in this particular area that make an amendment necessary and desirable.

It is not in the city's and larger communities' best interests.

Full text is given my written comments to the Commission.

Mr.

Chairman, I respectfully and strongly urge the Commission to deny this request for consistency with the Commission's previous decisions, making clear that this application falls short of the required standard for support of the local community.

I'd also like to say that I'm against uh postponing this for a month.

It's a big deal for us to come down here.

I had to take time off work in order to come here.

Uh and that is something that I can't do lightly.

So I would uh prefer, if possible, that the commission make a decision today.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr.

Woods.

A reminder of speech and speak your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Mary Ann Travado, 6122 Farron Woods Court.

I also live in the Farronwood subdivision, which is to the immediate west.

And pardon me, my I have um paralyzed vocal cord to the immediate west of the subject property.

Mr.

Woods did an excellent job in explaining pretty much everything I wanted to say, but I wanted to address a couple of issues on the application.

One specific one line specifically said there would be no adverse effects.

My backyard beyond that is the social.

While we may utilize West Drive to leave our neighborhood, there are several student apartment complexes in our area.

There are numerous student apartment complexes on Old Shell Road.

There is litter when we go down West Drive.

So as Mr.

Wood stated, this would definitely deter from the neighborhoods around us.

We are single family homes in our community.

There are numerous single-family subdivisions down West Drive.

I understand.

Students need a place to live, but there's plenty of land on the campus of South Alabama where apartments could be built for them.

We would like to retain our single family residence and avoid more noise disturbance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Rado.

Next in line from that row.

Good afternoon.

Do you make that up?

My name is Renee Smith.

I live at 6040 Sussex Drive.

And my uh neighborhood is an R2 that is close to this development.

And the comments that I believe the applicant talked about regarding the social that is a student housing complex on Center Drive across the street from about across the street from where they're proposing their zone change.

Those comments, um I believe he said his property would be more impacted if I'm misspeaking of what I heard, thought I heard.

Uh please let me know.

But I believe he said his property that they're planning to rezone would be more impacted by the social than Farron Woods.

If that's what he said, um truthfully, his rezoning and building this apartment complex is really just going to add to the problem that Farronwoods is dealing with.

Um I'm not a resident of Faradin Woods, but I understand where they're coming from because I'm dealing with the same situation and a lot right behind me.

So these if it's rezoned to R3, and again, I guess we're talking about two-story apartments.

It'll just combine with the social and create an even bigger problem of noise, garbage, foul language, partying, and all of that that Fairnwoods is already dealing with, and that we are now going to deal with on Sussex because we are very close to that lot.

So I'm opposed as well as others on Sussex Drive, who I believe will be talking, um, were opposed to the rezoning.

We want to try to keep it uh if it's R2 now, uh, that would mean I believe duplexes, uh something less than what could be built under an R3, which we just see as problematic to our area that we're getting sucked up by these apartments and R3 rezoning to R3s.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Smith.

Hello, Commissioners.

I'm Mary Devereaux and I live at 6004 Sussex, which is south of this proposed development.

So I mostly have a few questions uh for clarification about the project, especially whether it's 32 or 64 bedrooms because I looked at the calculations, and the parking spaces are appropriate for 32, but way short if it's 64 bedrooms.

Secondly, I question if someone who has handicapped or mobility issues move in, the lot is so tightly drawn.

Where can you put any handicapp parking?

Uh we've also noticed that there are no green space or amenities for any of the students, no landscaping, no dumpsters, and a really big concern for us down the hill on Sussex is that Center Street, part of it's unpaved and the top part is paved.

It often has erosion problems after bad rainstorms as cities come in and put down stone, I don't know what to call them, stone blocks, gravel and everything to kind of control the erosion.

This application makes no mention of water management, retention pond, anything like that.

And since they're elevated above us, then it would be coming down towards us.

Um sorry about that.

Oh, I did want to point out that uh South just bought or was announced yesterday and today on WLALA and WKRG that South has a thousand new beds at the central house of Stadium Drive, and that should be ready some of it by fall.

So uh I agree with my neighbors we want to preserve our neighborhood character.

Living next to students is is not bad.

It's just that we don't want to be surrounded by you know high-rise apartment buildings.

So it's very important to us whether this is one floor or twos and how large the development is, and that things like erosion control and trash disposal are addressed.

Um I can say just as an aside that the social is very social, even though I'm closer to East Drive.

We often hear the partying weekends.

I want my dogs back on Center Street and through their surrounding neighborhoods, and often take a trash bag and walk through the social and pick up cans and bottles for recycling.

Not uncommon.

So uh I think the last concern is just uh we've often heard that if it's granted R3, that that means any R3 use can put be put in place.

So on behalf of my neighbors, I'd like to ask, you know, what constrains this property if it's made R3 to this particular drawing or adds in those different uh items for clarification.

Thank you, Miss Devereaux.

I'll take I think number one and number two from your questions at the beginning.

We've just we've yeah, it kind of got lost in track.

We discovered through staff reports and the application, and it was going to be eight units at um four bedrooms per unit, so a total of 32.

It will be 32.

Yeah.

Okay, just one to be sure.

That was also uh the applicants does uh was also agreeable to uh possibly voluntary use restriction on your second question on the green space and the handicapped parking, they would have to comply with the with the handicap standards of the development.

Um on the site plan, there's that's really all that's been submitted as a site plan, not a development plan.

So I'm sure we would see that in time.

Uh I'll turn it back over to anybody with the city specific to the stormwater drainage if it would be required in that area or not.

Looking at the back of Nick's head.

Uh yeah, actually, stormwater detention would be required, and we would look at that when they bring that plan in for their development permits.

So once the development plan is established, they would we wouldn't yeah, because center street really does flood.

Sometimes it's impassable.

It comes down those channels on the side in particular, and then we'll even move uh branches and logs and things.

And specific to the comments on the on the the type of family or resident of these we don't know that's that's not been divulged to us, so we don't know if it'll be students or retirees.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes the four allotted speakers for against uh remind the uh commissioners that you do have comments there for this application.

I'll now allow a two-minute rebuttal from the applicant for addressing any of those concerns that we're just addressed, Mr.

Pipes.

Just very briefly.

Um we're willing to do the holdover.

We didn't come in asking for it.

I mean, I I get the point of people don't like coming back, and we didn't try to come down here and then ask for that holdover, but we're willing to do it if that's the will of the uh commission.

Uh you know, I think everybody here would probably agree with me, including the people that spoke in opposition to this, that this property is not going to get developed as a single family residential house.

It's not.

It's a dilapidated house out there now on a vacant lot.

It's never going to get reinvested as a single family residential lot because of everything that's already gone on around it.

We've got a little bit of a buffer using the back, you know, of the church parking lot.

We're not butting up to another house.

But if this, you know, if if a rezoning doesn't happen, the houses or that lots is going to sit vacant forever.

And that may be fine with them, but it's not fair to the property owner.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

Casey, if you would, if you look at that, and when we come back for the holdover, the the yellow outline for your property, if you move that across the street, it looks like there's gonna be more buildings.

Uh the density is gonna be more on the opposite side of the street.

Could you get that information so we can compare this development to that one?

Yeah, we can do that.

Thank you.

Anything else, Commissioner's all 11.

One question for you.

I I think I heard Mr.

Woods say something that contradicted something you said.

I I don't think I fully understood it, but I think you said residents in Fair and Woods don't access their neighborhoods from center, and he said that was not true.

Did I hear that correctly?

Looking for from what I'm looking at, I I don't see where Fair and Woods does access their neighborhood from Center Drive.

So can you help me with that?

I I I could only say I looked at something along the lines of this city map, and I see the the main entrance to Fair and Woods Court off of West Drive.

But Mr.

Anderson, I didn't drive down there, you know, to the past the site to see how they get in and out.

And if I misspoke, and and Mr.

Wood says that they have access off center drive, then he's right and I'm wrong.

Well let's clarify street access, not pedestrian access.

Yeah, I I just went by aerial maps and and things like this off the uh GIS and revenue commissioner website.

So I I don't know if any of those Farron Woods houses front or have dual frontage in and out on center drive and on the interior street or not.

I I'm seeing what you see, so that's why I'm asking.

Okay.

I'm just saying I might not be the right person to answer that.

Well, I that's what I see too.

Thank you.

Any further questions from commissioners?

Thank you, Mr.

Pikes.

Thank you.

Go on to agenda item number 12, rezone application R1.

B3 5361 Moffat Road, Nikita Pleasure as the applicant.

Is the applicant present?

If you would please come on down and explain your reasoning to go from R1 to B3.

And for your commissioners, our commissioners, we have potential seven findings of fact on this application.

Hello, I'm Nikita Pleasure, and this is my assistant here, Bridget Lewis.

So she's pretty much been the one that's handling the rezoning process.

So maybe we can answer those questions together.

You have her last name again.

Bridget Lewis.

Thank you, Miss Lewis.

All right.

State your name and address for the record as well.

Bridget Lewis, 2469 Elong Drive, Mobile 36605.

Um the reason why we submitted the application for rezoning is um Miss Pleasure would um like to open her own real estate office at 5361.

Moffat Road.

Um right now is um a residential property uh built in 1929, and we would like to um leave the facade as is, um update the inside um per um ADA and commercial uh guidelines set by the city.

Um we would like to add um a proposed um addition that also still uh gives to the original facade of the outside, um, although it'd be a business um to be able to add a few more offices.

Um the request was uh presented um for B3 um because there is a um moving truck that uh Miss Pleasure uses that she um provides her um clients um when they buy a home or use her as their agent.

Um and that truck um she would like to add another one.

So that's the reason why we were told it needs to be um B3, um, just because of uh that she already and they parked on Moffat Road.

I don't know if many people have seen it, but it's got this space on it.

But um that's the reason why we requested it to be um B3 um zoning, but mainly it'll just be used um as a real estate office with regular business hours, um, and um some office spaces uh uh attached.

Okay, thank you, Miss Lewis.

Mr.

Pleasure, what did one moving truck or two?

Uh it'll be it'll be another one.

So it'd be two.

Do you know the size?

Um it'll be bigger than the 16 footer can say at least a um maybe 24 feet probably still be the largest.

And that staff was the reasoning for the B3 as opposed to B2 because of the parking of those two potential parking of those two vehicles.

Um, that was not made part of the application that would be accurate, and that uh the overnight parking of vehicles of that size are limited to a B3 zoning district.

Excuse me, not limited, but permitted in a B3 zone.

All right.

So question for staff.

So the primary function of Ms.

Pleasure's business is helping clients buy and sell houses and a value add aspect of that is hey, you know, here's a moving truck.

It's not primarily a moving business.

Correct.

So there's no so the ordinance is very clear in Article 3 that uh and I believe also Article 4 of the unified development code that trucks of that size used for business have to be zoned appropriately.

Um in this case it would be a B3 because any sort of overnight storage of large commercial vehicles is not permitted in residential districts, it's not committed permitted in the B1 district.

Um and I think there are some limitations to the B2, but the B3 is the most compatible for allowing that as an accessory use to the uh main business.

What I failed to add to that, um the reason why we also had to do it was um she um for storage because we um stage property we stage properties, forgive me.

We staged properties and we are currently uh renting two storage spaces, um, and we just figured that we could add um because the property is so big, uh a storage unit on the back um to be able to house the uh furniture that we buy that we use for um the staging.

So we just wanted to make sure that we requested the right zoning early on to facilitate um having the storage and parking her truck.

All right, I see that on the site proposed site plan.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners from Ms.

Pleasure or Miss Lewis?

Uh Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um, just for clarification, um since she does have these vehicles and uh are really asking for the B3, the top of the the zoning classification, uh is a if if her business could operate in a B2, um, could a variance of some sort from the Board of Adjustment be sought for the vehicles that are parked on her property?

If the ordinance is specific enough to uh delimit that zoning designation, then yes.

Um you know, making that a decision or making that as part of the decision.

Yeah, and then um, I guess a question for the the applicant on the storage building.

Uh obviously, um like you said, you have stuff that you store and uh you you stage houses.

Would you be looking to put an exterior building on that, get a shop um to put kind of on that property, or would you be looking to construct something and and uh and attach it to the building, I guess?

It's going to be detached.

Um it's gonna sit further back on the property as you see.

Um actually it's it's actually sitting there, it actually has uh the verbiage there, but it's going to be on that um site plan there.

Gotcha.

And then on question back, um, I mean, that would have to be that site plan would have to be approved with that proposed exterior building or non-attached building and whatever if the board of adjustment needs to issue a variance for the for that.

I mean, I guess right now what we're looking at is the B3.

Um, and I'm I'm unclear.

Uh, does the B3 allow for two buildings to be to be put, or do we what would oh yes?

Um so there's not a limitation on the number of buildings, but there is a limitation on site coverage, which in the B3 district is 50 percent.

Okay, and that's anything under a roof, again it down to if this was presented as a B2, could the same structure be constructed?

It could okay question for any of those two commissioners are we getting at maybe B2?

And if so, are we should we ask the applicant if they would to avoid future B3 issues?

So I I'm just trying to get what we all are thinking.

Yeah, I I think Mr.

Chair, I guess as far as as where I'm at, um and talking with um the council representative for this area.

I think there's still some some clarification.

I I think there's some comments that that she's received.

Um I think there's just some vagueness associated with especially the B3 designation of what what you're asking for.

Um, so I mean I I would I would potentially consider asking if if we might could we might get to hold this over to next month and have more community meetings, or would um would y'all consider opening this up to a B2.

I mean then going and maybe seeking any variance you need for parking those trucks.

Um before she answers, let me say on behalf of the BOA, you know, getting a variance, she's gonna have a hard time proving a hardship.

I would I would potentially consider asking if if we might could we might get to hold this over to next month and have more community meetings or would um would y'all consider opening this up to a B2 I mean then going and maybe seeking any variance you need for parking those trucks um before she answers let me say on behalf of the BOA you know getting a variance she's gonna have a hard time proving a hardship I mean if if you're gonna rezone this B2 and and lead her to believe that okay you can do your real estate office and go get a variant so you can do your your moving trucks and your storage facility I'm not sure that's gonna happen so one be careful going down that road I just want to make sure she's aware of that one puzzle piece doesn't fit the next one so under the advice um of the city is the reason why we went ahead initially just to make sure that we were covered is the reason why we um plan to do it um as a B3 um in our meeting we didn't meet any um resistance at all I'm not sure I looked and read um comments to see if I saw um anything of that nature um I'm not sure if I missed exactly where um you found that but most of the um adversity actually all of the adversity we met um had nothing to do at all um with what we're trying to do um it was highly confused with um the the hives on the lot next door um none of the residents um they stated that um they would not have shown up if they had known that that's that we had no relation um to that lot because um buying the property miss pledge was actually oblivious that it wouldn't the full span you know just not knowing what three acres you know just looks like until we looked at the survey and realized that that portion um does not belong to her so uh we did meet a lot of residents that were fired up and they were ready to eat lunch and I did not pack my lunch that day but when they realized that none of that that they had all the adversity um about had anything to do with um this real estate office they were all fine and quite glad to see us um you know come into the community um because Miss Pleasure does hold ties um in the community her family um currently resides in that um zip code and um probably the majority of Miss Pleasure sales uh focused um in that particular zip code um being one reason why we would love to um be in that area but as far as the moving truck like I said the city um advised advised us that that definitely was the route that we needed to take um doing that and being able to have the storage on site um which obviously you know to bring that revenue um back versus keep paying somebody a hundred and sixty dollars per unit a month you know to hire some sofas and tables but um like he stated it's just Ms.

Pleasure and I got uh doing this um all right I'm glad he mentioned that but that may be a little bit you know over my head being able to do that but the city was gracious enough when we started this to uh recommend that that was absolutely the route um that we needed to go to do this gotcha thank you all right thank you miss lewis any further questions or comments from commissioners I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak for speak against or have questions towards this agenda item at 5361 Moffat Road seeing none we will move on agenda item number 13 it's a dual application subdivision and rezone subdivision component of it is a holdover this is at 4630 4700 and 4960 Dolphin Island Parkway Peach Creek Dockside Marina subdivision two lots 19.8 acres and then a rezone suburban district B3 to community suburban district B remove excuse me remove a previous condition of rezoning approval limiting development of the site to a planned unit development Mr.

Bird name and address for the record for the subdivision properties consisted of uh two parcels of land one a lot in a subdivision one meets and bounds the two owners uh separate owners on those the two owners are doing a little land swapping that's the reason for the subdivision when one parcel at least one parcel was rezoned there was a condition in the rezoning that it be part of a plan unit development and we're trying to remove that condition since they're not required anymore that is the only reason for the rezoning so all the conditions of the subdivision you're in agreement with yes for commissioners there's potentially seven findings of fact Mr.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application, which is dual subdivision and rezone, which technically or rezoned is to remove a previous condition.

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

The last agenda item for public hearing is number 14, a dual application subdivision and rezone 2609 and 2651 Spring Hill Avenue.

And then 152, 157, 158, 159, Mobile Street, and 144 Highland Avenue, the Covenant Presbyterian Church.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a raise of a hand for the subdivision.

There's potentially nine listed conditions.

Are you in agreement with those?

The applicant is present with a nod of the head.

For commissioners, there's potentially on the rezon seven findings of fact, and for the applicant, two conditions, completion of the subdivision process and full compliance with the municipal codes and ordinances, nod of the head on that.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

The rezone is potentially R1 and B3 to combination B one.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Anderson, do we want to get we got a no from Mr.

Anderson?

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for this?

Is it just because we're eliminating split zoning?

Okay.

Is there one anyone in the audience that would like to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application for Covenant Presbyterian Church?

All right.

Seeing none, we will close public hearing, and I will do our best to get through this agenda on the deliberation side.

A reminder for Mr.

Dorsey on number eight.

We'll have a recusal.

We shr.

Anderson's kids are still here, so I'm assuming he just went to the restroom.

So I hope we have a quorum by the time we get to number eight.

He he left me a note that said he was parked in a two-hour spot and he does not want to get towed, so he's going to move his truck.

So as long as we do not get through the first seven, but I'll ask for leniency for Mr.

Anderson.

Should we get to number eight before he gets back so that we can have a quorum for the vote?

Number one on the agenda.

5536 Sermon Road West, 5660, 5680, Sermon Road North.

We heard from Mr.

Ream with respect to the application not containing a letter of acceptance or or from gentlemen that or for the property owner that is out of the country.

Let me ask the staff a question.

I don't recall last month why it was recommended from a two-lot to a three lot subdivision.

Is that to create a legal lot of record for the right-of-way?

So the subdivision affects a common area that's associated with Collins subdivision, uh first edition.

And because the common area is tied to the subdivision ownership and maintenance responsibilities, the affected property owners have to authorize it.

And in order to do that, uh they were splitting off that additional lot so that while it was tied with this subdivision, it was basically taken away from the comp of the Collins subdivision first edition.

So basically swapping that area out.

Is that currently a private street?

Uh yes, it is not publicly maintained at this time.

Okay.

Right.

That was part of the I believe the Collins edition.

Oh, so we're we're lacking a letter and the plat, lacking both both documents.

The plat, yes, but also um letters from all property owners within the Collins uh subdivision first edition, uh, which if it's three people, then it's three people that we're waiting on letters for.

So it's any any member of that HOA that that owns that has an ownership interest in that common that common lot of the question needs to um sign off on it.

So essentially resubded up, adding their property as well.

So what's the most expedient thing for us to do is this is it to not deny or holdover?

Well, this has already had one holdover, and the subdivision regulations only allow a holdover with uh one holdover, uh, with any subsequent applications being new applications with new fees and everything.

Oh, question regarding the holdovers.

I know there have been correct me if I'm wrong.

The applicant is allowed one holdover, but the commission can elect to hold over.

I believe the way that we did this previously is the commission waived section uh 10.c.3a of the subdivision regulations, which limited it to one holdover, and then held it over.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we hold this over until next month, waiving section 10 C3A.

Second, properly moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

We'll hold over until June 18th, Mr.

Ream.

I hope we can get gentlemen to sign off or the owner, excuse me.

Don't know if it's a gentleman or a gentle lady.

Number two on the agenda.

No, we won't worry about that.

It's been recommended for holdover until June 18th by the applicant.

I'll move.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion for holdover on that agenda item passes for June 18th meeting.

Number three.

Subdivision at 354 and 358 Gulfwood Drive.

Subject staff recommendations.

Second.

With can y'all insert the waiver.

Section 6B9.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, including the waiver.

Seconded.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number four, subdivision application 63 parkway drive, parkway commons, five lots, 1.76 acres, potential section waivers here as well.

Entertain a motion.

To approve subject staff recommendations waiving 6C2 and 6C3 and amending uh condition number one to provide 25 feet from the center line of parkway drive rather than 30 feet.

Second, Mr.

Chairman.

Go ahead.

Um with respect to the uh turnaround, the fire apparatus access road.

Uh number two of the proposed conditions would also need to be either eliminated with a waiver or amended to agree with uh engineering's comments.

I say option two.

So moved.

Do we have a second?

Sorry.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number five, subdivision application 1370, 1408 Cody Road North.

Applicant is present and in agreement with all 19 listed conditions.

And we had a little bit of traffic discussion.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

What about the traffic impact study?

Are we doing number five?

We are at five.

Can we just make it conditioned upon any recommendations determined in the future by the traffic engineer once they complete the traffic impact study?

Thought that was a given.

I guess that would be uh that would be comment number sixteen.

Okay, I didn't know it was already in there.

Okay, thank you.

Placement of a note on the final plant stating all traffic engineering comments noted in the staff report.

You good we voted.

Any opposed motion for subdivision passes.

Sidewalk waiver application number six, one sixty-five west I65 service road.

Motion to deny.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

The side won't waiver does not pass.

Number seven, sidewalk waiver at 4250 Dolphin Island Parkway.

Entertain a motion.

To approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

The motion for sidewalk waiver does pass.

We will recuse Mr.

Larry Dorsey.

We still maintain a quorum for this rezon application number eight at 6455 Howells Ferry Road, Grace Redemption Community Church, religious facility on property zoned R1.

The applicant is present and in agreement with conditional use permit approval and revised site plan demonstrating compliance.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Mr.

Chairman.

Go ahead.

Um, based off of the uh considerations agenda.

This was recommended for holdover to allow them to show compliance with Article 3 as required by the applicable conditional use permit requirements.

That is my oversight.

So I'm gonna apologize to the applicant.

We have to vote down the approval that just occurred, reinstate the application for a holdover for June 18th, and then have the compliance move forward from there.

Are you in agreement with that?

I apologize.

So I will move to strike the vote for approval.

Second, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Now entertain a motion for holdover till June 18th with compliance pending.

A move.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

Number nine on the agenda.

Seven miss will welcome back, Mr.

Dorsey.

7241, 7251, 61, and 71 Greelot Road.

This is a rezone application from R1 to B1.

The applicant is present with representation explaining their reasoning for app for commissioners, potentially seven findings of facts, and of course, conditions of compliance with codes and ordinances.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations with findings effect A through F.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I oppose.

The motion still passes.

Number 10.

This is a rezone application of 5101 Moffat Road.

Rezone from B2 to B3.

The applicant and representation representative were present.

Extensive discussion.

Entertain a motion.

Move to deny.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

The motion still passes for denial of the B3 application.

Move on to number 11.

After extensive discussion, we have the opportunity.

Well, I'll entertain a motion for what the commission would like to consider here.

Move to hold over until next month's meeting.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded for holdover until June 18th.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

Number 12.

5361 Moffat Road.

Rezoning from single R1 to B3.

Just to remind y'all, this this use might be acceptable to the adjoining property owners or the neighbors, but if you rezon it to B3, you could be any B3 use in the future.

I'm not telling you how to vote, but just keep that in mind.

So that could be one of them, I assume.

Because there's there's an ample landscape buffer on the southwest.

Um as of right now, under Article 3, um, if it were to be rezoned, um the proposed additions to the property trigger full compliance with our requirements, which does include uh residential protection protection buffer where it adjoins residential property, which in this case is on all sides of the property with the exception of Moffat Road.

We have requirements yeah, to me that sounds like a pretty reasonable question is you know how much of a buffer for that southwestern direction would you want?

Because there's a lot of room back there.

So the minimum standard is 10 feet in which nothing can be built, and that includes parking, um, which is you know different than if it were just a setback.

So it would be 10 feet in width around the entire uh length of the property line with the provision of a six-foot tall privacy fence or wall and a um six-foot tall um vegetative buffer planted on five foot centers.

So the the applicant site plan for first off.

I mean, I got no problems with with this.

I think it's a great idea, and I think it's really smart to be able to have you know storage area for staging and have a you know set of moving vans.

Um it's kind of a value add service to your client.

So um, you know, I I guess looking at the applicant site plan here, you know, there's a hundred and twenty-five foot, you know, I'm talking about improvements, not parking and other things, but you know, large landscape buffers, you know, at the rear for that storage building 128 feet more or less to the what would be the north, 160 feet, you know, one side and you know, 140 feet the other side.

I mean, I guess if we could have some, you know, enhanced buffers, but I don't want to you know overburden the applicant, but I guess maybe understand what they could live with, because like I said, I'm totally fine with this use, and if B3 is what is required for her to be able to store her trucks there, then so be it.

And that buffer would have to be on two sides because you got residential on the south east and southwest.

No privacy fence and additional buffer.

And just to clarify, the ordinance would require in this instance that a buffer is required on all sides of the property that adjoins residentially um zoned properties or utilized properties.

And I guess question two.

So looking at the site plan, the proposed asphalt driveway, and it's hard to see from the aerial because it's so densely vegetated.

Um I guess is there any ability to bring that driveway in more towards the center of the property to expand those landscape buffers.

I don't know if you're able to she would have I'm sorry, go ahead.

I think we're we're we're looking at the what look at something that's a little bit more of an enhanced in the yeah, this is like a this is like a detailed plan right here.

It's got detailed measurements between the buildings and property lines, and it looks like it's got a tree survey and some other things.

And I guess what I'm asking is just this is shown on here is proposed driveways, and and in order to be able to give those buffers, you know, could the driveways be tightened up a little bit so that we could you know approve this for B3 subject to enhanced landscape buffering?

They they would have to, because if you're gonna require a an a privacy fence and a landscape buffer on those two sides, um the parking that she has on the southeast property line would have to be moved moved back.

So this site plan would have to be redone uh with the buffers y'all are talking about.

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um Logan, I might be pulling my every bit of brain capacity you have.

Um, but where McIntyre Drive goes into that vacant lot or that lot that we show R1 there between Moffitt and MacIntyre, so to the I guess just to the top of the subject property.

Um we recently reviewed that for a subdivision, I believe, of R1 residential.

Is that was that am I thinking correctly?

I guess that that was part of I believe the hive subdivision which was adjudicated um recently to be approved.

Or I say recently, I think it was a year ago now.

Gotcha.

Um but just uh I just used the I was just looking at the flame and everything.

Sure.

Non-related, they have not uh moved forward with that subdivision.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Anything twenty foot?

Yeah.

So just should I take a just a wag at this and see if everybody pay attention.

I don't know before you do.

I mean, I I I want to make sure you know we're working with the applicant and trying to figure out something that you know works for them.

So like a 20-foot landscape buffer all the way around.

Is that something that would be acceptable?

Um we could make it work on the right side, but on the left way it looks like the driveway comes in.

Um that side right there has a commercial driveway already uh has been built on the uh property from the roof.

Um the only entrance um we have for micro road, other than that commercial off to the side is that drawing right there.

Um that driveway on the right and that would like it's like a plain 14-foot reserve, you know, regular residential uh entrance, but the double driveway is on um next side.

So I'm not sure you're talking about you're talking about the one that's kind of on towards the top on the left, because it shows that's what I was saying is like this drone Shaw's proposed driveway, which leads me to believe it did not exist, and so both of those are it.

I believe the curb cuts in the one on the right, um, because the trees on that corner explorer entrance, otherwise the problem would be if we would be having to make our clients come in off the service road, and we didn't want to do that to the third because it's only one house on the service road, right?

But we didn't want mandatory traffic to have to go across the front of that person house.

We wasn't gonna close it off, but we would put a gate where nobody could like uh come up with that racing and being turned on the service road and fly through our park a lot and go out the other side.

So that was one of the only concern that we made clear with uh the residents that we weren't gonna open that service road entrance to make it a regular fair for which is only one house right there on the whole service road facing, but we we were we can only intentional using that is our main entrance of the property at least the two driveways that are already.

So for staff from my proposal for staff, if we if if the buffer, so he said 20 feet, if you put in that 20-foot buffer and there's an existing curb cut there, are we also gonna require them to move curb cuts and everything else?

I believe so.

That would be something that they'd have to coordinate with traffic engineering, and I believe this is an LDOT maintained roadway, so they'd be dealing with as well.

Do all vegetative buffers or whatever have to be do all the buffers not be anything located within that buffer, um, whether it's a roadway, whether it's a parking space.

Yeah, yeah.

But does the does the buffer have to be continuous for each side and equivalent in depth on each side?

Yes.

And just to clarify, that's the minimum buffer, that's the 10 foot wide buffer.

Right.

So essentially what you're saying is that if this was if we took action based on this sketch, which looks like it's you know fairly close from our survey, we've only got a seven foot buffer.

So if we so just to um also clarify, this is just a concept plan.

The um additional construction that's being proposed triggers full compliance with our requirements.

So they're going to have to come in, and if that curb cut has to be moved, we would coordinate with trial.

They would be required to provide uh compliant access maneuvering spaces, parking spaces, tree planting landscape areas, uh buffering, etc.

That we that they comply with our conditions than us make conditions based on this.

Right, no, no, right, no, but and like I said now, the fact that the the land the the driveway is actually in place and not proposed, obviously changes things.

So it's all that we're decidable for correct, but and while that might be considered non-conforming uh as a condition um where the rezoning to be approved under Article 6 of the UDC non-conforming sites have to be brought into compliance um when a change in footprint uh is and this is either by deletion or addition of uh building footprint uh occurs that's 50 percent or greater.

So with the addition of the uh structural extension as well as the proposed storage building, that ink that's well over 50 percent of the existing footprint, so they do have to comply with everything.

So that I mean this site plan will change significantly to conform to our requirements, the city's requirements.

And and also just the plain rezoning from residential to commercial mandates full compliance.

So just that rezoning would force the compliance anyway, except the non-conforming use of the existing curb cut.

I would say not necessarily because they have to put in a compliant uh with driveway to the case.

So they're gonna end up having to do it anyway.

So if we do the buffer and they comply with that condition, then it's six and one half a dozen of the other.

And we can alleviate some of the potential future conflict with neighbors.

This I mean the buffer will be a buffer will be required regardless.

Yeah, so okay.

So what's the number we want we we want to go with yeah?

Yeah, I would uh so let me wait.

Let's see here.

So uh move to approve subject to staff recommendations with findings of fact A through G, including a requirement for a 20-foot vegetative buffer.

Is that fair enough?

And the fence is already required, right?

Right.

So I'd maybe clarify you know a residential a 20 foot wide residential protection buffer because the language of the ordinance would allow us to enforce the fencing as well.

Perfect.

So moved.

So that's I'm glad you said that.

That's a good point.

And and to deny access to Sawata Drive.

End of end of motion.

So everybody got it.

Does the applicant hear that?

We'll explain.

It it I think you're be okay.

We'll have discussions afterwards.

So we have a proper we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Yes.

Second.

Yeah.

Properly moved and seconded for the rezone.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Oppose.

Motion for rezone still passes.

Number 13, dual application, rezone and subdivision.

The applicant was present.

Gave explanation as an agreement on all conditions for the subdivision for commissioners, potential findings of fact.

Are present.

We'll do them separately.

Hold over subdivision, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes the rezone for to remove the previous condition rezoning approval.

Move to approve subjects to staff recommendations, adopting findings of facts A through G.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of facts A through G.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for that zone application passes.

Number 14, dual application, rezone and subdivision.

Subdivision is three lots right at four acres.

The applicant is present and in agreement with those nine conditions, potential findings of fact on the rezone, which is going from R1 and B3 to a combination buffer business B1.

We'll take them separately.

The subdivision entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes for the rezone application.

Findings of fact potential.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations with findings of fact ACDE and G.

Second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for rezone passes quickly.

Other business will batch minutes approval November 20th and December 18th.

I will move to approve.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion for the minutes of November 20th and eight December 18th for 2025 passes.

Thank you for your patience, everyone.