We're good on a quorum for the rest.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Mobile Planning Commission for July 16th.

Special called time meeting at 1 p.m.

as opposed to 2 p.m.

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

Please take note that these procedures have the potential to change at the beginning of this meeting due to an amendment.

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

This rule would stay the same.

The public hearing session agenda item would be called.

An applicant makes their presentation.

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

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

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

At one minute, a speaker will hear a warning beep asking you to summarize your comments in that final amendment.

After opposition speakers have spoken on an agenda item, the original applicant does have a two-minute rebuttal period.

If you do intend to speak, we ask that you come to the podium at the bottom of the stairs.

Speak into the microphone.

Do provide your name and address for the record.

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

After we hear an application, the commission would then go into deliberation in which we discuss each application with input from the staff as necessary, but with no input from the audience.

We would then vote on each application.

The results of that voting can be learned from the planning department if you're not here in attendance.

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

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

That does not mean they are directly involved with the application or the applicant.

However, depending on the circumstances, ethical rules may require the recusal, even if there is only the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest.

If a regular member recuses, we will have a supernumerary vote in their stead if needed.

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

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

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

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

Uh any devices, please.

If you do end up having to take a call, we understand this meeting could run long.

We ask that you exit the doors you will be let back in.

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

At this time, I'll call the roll.

Myself, Jay Stubbs present, Mr.

Kirk Mate, Mr.

Jennifer Denson, Mr.

Harry Brislin.

Here, Mr.

Larry Dorsey.

Here, Mr.

Chad Anderson, Mr.

Matt Anderson, Mr.

Nick Amberger.

Here, Mr.

Josh Woods, Mr.

Kenny Nichols, here, and Miss Ellie Edwards.

We do have a quorum.

And before we get to the agenda, I will read the commission operating rules and procedures for the consideration of an amendment to section 3G for our order of business.

We would like to consider as a planning commission to allow deliberation and determination of voting members immediately following the presentation and public hearing for each agenda item consecutively.

I've read that.

I'd ask if there's any discussion among commissioners or input from staff.

Entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

The motion for operating rules and procedures passes for section 3G.

What that means, audience, is that we will take each agenda item in public hearing and then immediately go to that agenda item for deliberation.

Uh this is a permanent change to our operating rules and procedures for the planning commission.

Please hold your applause to the end of the meeting.

I'll now ask for or I'll move to approve the agenda for uh the agenda items today, of which we have numbered 32.

Is that correct?

33.

Need a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

The agenda passes.

Okay.

Bear with me.

This is the new operating procedure.

We'll figure it out as we go, but it should be straightforward.

Number one, this is a holdover subdivision at 1930, Bay Bridge Road Cutoff and 124 Industrial Canal Road East.

Um Mr.

Chairman.

Go ahead.

Um I'd like to sorry, Josh.

Please go ahead.

Um, I'd like to offer an amendment to the agenda if we could possibly um I make a motion to move number 18 to the top of the stack um uh to accommodate um accommodate somebody.

That is medical circumstances.

Uh moving 18 to the top of the agenda.

I'll I'll need a second.

Second it properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, I thank you.

Number 18.

This is a modification at the east side of Hillcrest Road and south of Greelotte Road, District 6, major modification of a previously approved PUD, allowing multiple buildings on a single building site and shared access between multiple building sites to allow construction of a restaurant on a still single building site with shared access between multiple building sites.

If we do go through with consideration, there were potentially eight findings of fact and 12 listed condition.

The applicant is present.

Please state your name and address for the record and any presentation or comments you'd like to make.

Yes, sir.

Uh Brian Pugh representing um Piazza Kitchen and Patio.

And uh Lucas Benedetto is the developer.

Um he is uh with a family member in the hospital today and has asked me to be here to represent him.

I've been working with him on this uh proposed transaction for several months, and uh I think it's a great opportunity.

Um my address, uh Brian Pugh, the Pew firm, 1325 Dolphin Street, Mobile 36604 in Midtown.

Um it is approximately a 3,000 square foot restaurant that will have um an outdoor area.

It is a family friendly restaurant.

It is uh near Christ United Church, and the proposal is to purchase lot two of the Christ United subdivision.

Uh Christ United Church has submitted uh in favor of this, as have most of the other PUD owners, including um D BAT, which is a batting cage uh facility, CVS Corporation, which leases the property next door, uh Ronnie's car wash, grand slam storage.

There was one uh opposition filed from the gentleman who now owns the CVS lot that leases to CVS.

Um we've tried to negotiate with him, but he has not been cooperative in returning calls and discussing it with us.

His name is William Taylor.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for this modification on Hillcrest and Greelot?

Mr.

Chairman, go ahead.

Um Mr.

Pugh, the the site plan or the um included in the packet uh obviously includes uh uh connecting access to the the one individual that did not grant it, I guess, or does not want to grant it as far as the PUD's concerned.

Um there is an alternate uh I guess design or alternate site plan um that that would not link into the or would not expand the access, I guess, over to CVS.

Um instead it would it would have access to that access easement, I guess, in the in the back of the property.

That's correct, Mr.

Woods.

Um McCray Williams has designed the site plan and been working with with my client on that.

I don't know if there's anyone from McCroy Williams here today.

Um but uh that that is correct due to the um statements of Mr.

Taylor that the plan is now to have access through the access road.

Uh for anybody familiar, there's a there's a road leading from Hillcrest towards Christ United Church.

It branches off one side towards D Bat Batting Cage facility, and then the other side is access road that Mr.

Woods is referred to.

Gotcha.

And um, I guess uh as far as from a comment from staff, uh obviously in our packet, there's a site plan showing access to the CVS property um right now, and in order to I guess accomplish what's trying to be accomplished.

Uh is it okay that uh you know this site plan that's presented in front of us here um that they go with the other site plan, I guess.

If that you can just make a condition of approval that is the curb cut on the north uh to the CBS site is denied.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

And that's something I feel that the okay, okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

And just question for staff.

As a condition of the CVS approval years ago, were they required?

I mean, obviously, there's a stub there for a reason, and I'm sure it was contemplated that as this developed, there'd be cross access to the south as part of their approval years ago.

Were they required to provide cross access?

I don't know what the CVS development plan was that was approved.

Um if there was a curb cut shown on that plan, then that would possibly be consent years ago.

Um I don't know that.

I don't know if the staff has I guess the question is the CB was the CVS part of the original PUD.

Uh yes.

So the CVS was part of the original PUD, however, it has changed owners since that time.

Um it's also changed owners, I think, since the most recent PUD amendment, which um was an issue with respect to them providing authorization uh approving the PUD for some changes that happened along the north side, I think with the car wash and the storage facility.

So what we have here is kind of the same situation.

No, but this is the exact reason why we don't have PUDs anymore.

So any further questions or comments for Mr.

Pugh.

I have a question.

Go ahead.

I'm trying to understand.

I know of the back access, but doesn't that go into the CDS lot?

Yes, it does connect through near near where the drive-thru is.

We're picking up prescriptions.

But it's it's a access road and it's across Christ United property who has agreed to allowing access to that.

Okay.

And then there's a reciprocal access agreement that's been agreed to between the parties and filed of record in the probate court.

Okay, thank you.

Any others?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Pugh.

Um stand by if needed.

Is there anyone else in the audience that are here here to speak for, speak against or have questions about this modification application?

All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing on this agenda item and move into deliberation.

Mr.

Chairman, I would move move to accept the modification with findings effect.

A through H making note of denial of the property owner on the north side of the property in question.

I heard it.

Is that a second?

Okay.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The motion for that modification passes.

Thank you, Mr.

Pugh.

Best wishes to the applicant.

The we'll now go back to number one on the agenda holdover subdivision at 1930 Bay Bridge Road cutoff and 124 Industrial Canal Road East subdivision of one lot at 31.62 acres.

Planning commission would consider waiver of section 6C4 to allow the lot to not be not to not abut a public street.

Uh for consideration here, there are 12 conditions.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

Would you like to make any comments towards this application?

Yes.

Uh Jared White, 1200 Dolphin Street.

I represent the Rogers group.

Uh we spoke when this was before the Planning Commission two months ago, and it was held over.

And I'm gonna provide a little background on the company just because we do anticipate some comments from the community and want everybody to have the full context.

Uh the Rogers Group is one of the largest aggregate companies in the United States.

It's privately owned.

Uh they've had a presence in Alabama.

They bought this property from Parker Tilling about two years ago.

This property has been historically used for an aggregate or rock storage area supporting uh road building and construction projects in Mobile.

That's what Vulcan material was leasing it from Parker to use.

Rogers is continuing that use.

And of course, we're not here today to talk about the use.

Uh, but Rogers is certainly committed to being a good neighbor since they've been in the African town and mobile community.

They've had community meetings.

Uh, we'll continue meeting and having discussions with neighbors at all times.

Uh they've supported local groups.

They've made improvements to the property to be a better neighbor.

Uh Vulcan historically, the aggregate is brought in by barge.

Uh it was offloaded.

Vulcan used dump trucks to load there at Three Mile Creek, then move it to the yard storage area, then would dump it there.

And every time the dump truck would dump the load, you'd have that tillgate bang against the metal and make a lot of noise.

Uh Rogers has put in a new bulkhead along Three Mile Creek to preserve and protect that shoreline.

They've put a conveyor system that will automatically move the material from the creek to the yard, eliminate that dump truck movement on the property.

That uh conveyor system has a dewatering system to suppress dust.

So it will both benefit the community and the neighbors by having less noise, less dust.

Um and you know, Rogers has cleaned up that site and generally just tried to you know to make it a better uh site for the neighbors.

So uh you know, we're here about a subdivision.

You know, this was six parcels all zoned I2.

Uh that is just to do what is done in modern land use, which is have it as a single plot, a single one lot subdivision, uh, so that that's consolidated.

The benefit to doing that to the community is that number one, this protects there being any risk that some of this property gets spun off to a different user, you know, it's all gonna be one site used by Rogers, no properties we as it stands now.

You can sell some lots and some else can come in.

That's not gonna happen if you have a single lot.

The other thing is by doing a subdivision, Rogers brings itself under the new standards that apply within the African town overlay, including the 30-foot buffer that run along the north side of the property uh with the neighbors who live on Chin Street.

Um we were here in May, uh, our surveyor kind of inadvertently picked up a parcel.

We weren't even aware we owned, uh, which faced Chin Street and was zoned residential.

Certainly very much respect the neighborhood, have no intention of encroaching into the neighborhood or uh changing the residential character of Chin Street.

So we immediately, when learned when we learned of that, said no, let's take that out.

Uh so that's not part of this subdivision application.

That does create kind of the situation where there's not frontage on a street, but there is a deeded right-of-way, and that's how the property's been accessed for decades, and uh how we propose it would be continue to be accessed.

So we appreciate your consideration.

Uh happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from commissioners?

And Jerry, if I may add one more thing, I guess.

Um in our discussions with the community, one of the concerns that has been raised is drainage.

Uh a lot of that's to the north end of that, you know, water that comes down the slope along um Chin Street and gathers at the end.

There's some stormwater inlets.

I'm not even sure entirely where they go.

There's some on the east of our property.

Uh, but we've committed to working with the community and the neighborhood to resolve that.

I've reached out to Mr.

Amber's office, and we're in the process of setting up a meeting with the city engineers.

And certainly to the extent you know, we can help with that.

We want to be part of that process.

And we'll continue after today to going forward to be part of that process regardless.

Thanks, sir.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicants representative?

Uh Commissioner, go ahead.

Um Engineering, like he mentioned with the drainage.

Um, the city engineer did request that we get a uh public drainage usement for that drainage ditch along the north side of the property and then down the railroad right away to Three Mile Creek, so that can be maintained.

And and I I don't know who he's discussed that with now, but we'll look at getting that.

And there was some miscommunications.

We didn't find out about that until someone told me this morning or this afternoon.

Uh, we certainly I don't think have any objection to an easement on the north side of the property.

Um on the east side, I think it would probably be more logical to follow the property boundary, or at least we'd want to give some consideration to because as you can see, that railroad right-away easement is inset a little bit.

If there's an engineering need to inset the drainage easement into that versus just on the property boundary, we'd be open to discussing it.

But our preference, I think, would be just along the property line, so that you don't have uh string an easement that strands some property at the east side of it.

Would that be satisfactory?

Yeah, yeah, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh city engineer spoke with me about it.

And it there's just a tidally influenced body of water along the along the property line.

They just want to encompass that.

So if there is a need to get in there and do some maintenance with it, we're operating in an easement.

So it's it's nothing that would impact any of the usable usable uh parts of the property.

Probably something when you when you make them out on site, y'all look at and take a take into consideration.

Yeah, we're certainly clear to those discussions in the board.

Also, make a note that we've made we've maintained that ditch already, thinking there was an easement before because it is it is uh it receives water, city water as it is.

So it would probably be best to have that delineated enough.

Real easement.

Well, we have we appreciate it.

We certainly would like y'all to continue maintaining it.

So again, certainly no objection on the north side, it'd be the east side we won't discuss, but if that's a condition, then that's condition.

Thank you.

Just I'm clear.

So the what thing that triggered the rezoning is y'all trying to get rid of a lot on chim.

But we're not rezoning, we're just doing a basic legal fiction just to take these six lots and make them one lot so that they're unified together.

So if you do need a building permit, you can pull one permit versus a different permit for each lot or anything like that.

Is I'll just say that's the way in my experience, things are done nowadays, and we just want to try to be more modern versus the historic legacy of six different properties.

But we so that we wouldn't have to rezon week exclusive.

So that's why we're gonna do that.

I meant subdivision.

Yeah, sorry.

I that's like resigning.

I meant what's triggering the rezoning the subdivision is separating that lot on Chin Street off of those.

No, right now we have seven parcels.

So it was kind of one of these things, that was just how I was conveyed to the Rogers Group.

I had been held historically, and frankly, we looked at it and said, that's you know, it'd be a lot make a lot more sense to have one unified parcel.

So it's if you're pulling, for instance, a land disturbing sperm for a conveyor, instead of having to pull one for each lot it touches, you can pull one for the entire property.

And it lets the city review it as a cohesive site versus six sites that really are not six separate sites.

Gosh.

Any other comments, questions from commissioners?

I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience who is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions about the subdivision application at 1930 Bay Bridge Road cut off and 124 Industrial Canal Road East.

In addition to this lady, will there be any others?

Please know uh show of hands if there are one, two, three total.

I'm seeing three total.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Daphne Fryson, and I live at 359 Chin Street, 36610.

My concern about this subdivision is the drainage and the dust.

We met back in May at a community meeting, and the Rogers group assured us that it was not gonna be like the former company that was there, it would be no dust.

There's dust constantly on our vehicles.

And I mentioned to them in that meet that I was gonna get in contact with you all if that dust continue, and the dust is there all of the time.

And I just want to know about this drainage.

Um it rains real bad, the water's back there, wondering it's gonna come up on our property.

I'm so many feet away from where they're gonna be doing that um their business.

Um, I'm worrying about snakes, alligators, and all that source of uh coming on to our property, eating up our dogs, and probably myself.

I just want to make sure we are secured.

That's it.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, ma'am.

There is definite eyes on this property with respect to the drainage.

We've discussed it in this session today.

Cities on top of it, and it's a part of this application to be cognizant and aware from the developer and the group that owns the property.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Next anything besides drainage.

Yes, sir.

Sure.

I lost the house.

If you'd like to come down and spit speak your mind, but let's we are definitely aware of drainage and are taking that into account for this application.

State your name and address for the record.

Good evening.

My name is Kermit Mank Alpine.

I live at 308 Chin Street.

Yes, sir.

I have lost my entire house because of this drainage.

It shouldn't have to come to this from the get-go.

It was poorly designed from the get-go.

I don't know.

The young man said he that they've been meant maintained in the ditch.

I don't know what it she's talking about.

You come to my house, you can't even tell it's a ditch.

Since I've been here the last time, having nothing been done, nothing been cut, anything.

Like as I said, that's my main concern is about who who have the easement for the drainage for out for us down there.

That's where we we don't need to sit here and play, play you know, games who who who it belongs to.

Because I didn't suffer.

I didn't lost my whole entire house behind it.

Cause I didn't lost cars on on top of cars behind that drainage system that going on down there.

The main thing is we need something stated today in black and white.

Who's responsible for the drainage system?

We could talk about it all day long, but getting something done about it is something different.

Because see, that that ditch that he's talking about.

All of a sudden, they just cleaned this ditch.

I've been there 40 years.

42 years.

Never seen this ditch that clean.

The guy got his track o stuck trying to clean it.

I had to help him take my equipment and help him get out with it.

Never seen it.

But like I, and then by me doing that, that whole easement back there didn't collapse.

That's what my problem comes in.

If you come down there, the Rogers, I took them down there that day that we would had a meeting, and I told him, they said, Well, let's sit up in time.

No, the time is the day we can go see what's going on.

And that's where we you can see if during that time, if I don't take my track hole and clean it out just a little bit, I'm constantly just constantly, constantly getting flooded out.

And it's just like ain't nobody paying me no attention.

I've been calling by the ditch.

If you look and see how shattered the ditch is that run down the side of my property, where my house was at, real shallow.

You wouldn't even know you're in a ditch for really real.

But then if you look at it from the breed, it's all the way back, you see where it designed, everything designed to run down right down to me.

I brought y'all pictures last time, you know.

I believe I shared pictures with y'all.

Y'all seen exactly what I was talking about.

So we got let's try to get this thing on the right foot.

We're not here to block any from by it from doing anything.

We're here to get some easement for ourselves.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

For the for my notes.

When when did you lose your home?

What was the year?

I lost my house.

It's been um it's been it's been at least 10, 12 years at most.

So that would put it in 2012 uh 14.

And we're at Brian, and I I have you know, like well, we've been had problem even before Katrina hit down in there, it was already always problem.

But I never seen it that bad before.

I had dump trucks.

You couldn't even see nothing with that much of a bed of a dump truck.

That's bad.

All right, thank you, Mr.

McAlpine.

Let's let the next presenter uh or or speaker come on down.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Ramsey Sprague.

I live at 5404 Dogwood Court.

Uh I'm happy to hear that we're gonna be considering the drainage.

We really want to see a condition put on the on the subdivision application requiring that an easement be established that will carry the water from Chin Street all the way to Three Mile Creek.

It is shocking that there's not one.

That the city was unaware that they didn't have one.

Uh we are when I say we, I use the royal we, the community.

Many community groups are working uh with multiple entities to try to secure funding to augment uh the sorts of infrastructural investment required.

This is something that's a huge cost.

We need the city to have an easement so the city can say yes to the opportunity.

Uh I tried to reach out to Jared uh after June's meeting because I looked at the initial plot back in May.

Y'all received my comments back then.

I noticed there wasn't an easement at that point and was assured that the plot would be corrected when the plot was submitted in the portal.

I saw that it lacked an easement still.

Uh so I called engineering, and engineering assured me that they would be making comments about wanting an easement or seeing the necessity for an easement.

Uh, that was reassuring, but then we had our meeting canceled.

Here we are today.

I never got a call back from Jared, unfortunately, some communication complications, but uh we do look forward to working with the applicant to make sure that this is uh in the subdivision application moving forward and that we can come to some agreement on an expeditious time frame.

We will appeal to the council if we need to, because the community is not going to be satisfied without some clear assurance that the city is going to take responsibility for its own interests.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Sprague.

Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, go right ahead.

Just for the record, I'm gonna clear up clear up some things.

I mean, it's uh yeah, his in a lot of places like this, there are not drainage easements, uh, just simply because it's it's bo, it's a borderline creek, not a not a not a ditch in terms of what most people perceive as a ditch.

And it's also got a lot a lot of wetlands in there.

I think what was said earlier, we are trying to capture that within a drainage easement on the plat so that so that the city could go in there and make mitigation efforts to try to help it along.

But but make no mistake.

I mean, there is there's probably wetlands, it looks like in the northwest quadrant of it.

I'm sorry, northeast quadrant of it that are regulatory wetlands that are there.

So I just want to make be clear that don't expect the city to go out there with a track cool and just start digging digging these wetlands out.

Uh I think Mr.

Anderson had mentioned they've done cleaning in the ditch, but to get a drop of water from Chin Street to Three Mile Creek, it's a pretty lengthy effort there.

And that I'm not gonna refer to it as a ditch, I'm gonna refer to it as a tidally influenced creek.

Uh it's probably been there for an awfully, awfully long time.

I can't put a date on it, but it's following the you know what looks like a railroad track bed and was probably remnants from whenever there was an old track bed there.

So we are gonna do everything we can to help mitigate it, but I just want I want there also to be reasonable expectations and understanding for what it actually is.

Uh thank you.

And uh, Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um, to uh I guess address the first speaker on as far as the dust and everything.

Uh, you you have a representative here uh today, so maybe y'all can maybe y'all can touch base with that on that that definitely I definitely understand your concerns on that.

Um, as far as the as far as the water and everything, uh how it flows, um, you know, uh like this budget cycle is really the first time the city um has a dedicated now the city has a dedicated apartment to handling that kind of thing.

And uh you know, Mr.

Anderson kind of alluded to it a little bit in the fact that you know it looks like going out cleaning out these ditches that that haven't been touched in probably forever, and and idea identifying the problem, whether it's silts at the bottom or or maybe some maybe some infrastructure failures.

Um so I I definitely um definitely feel and understand what you're saying uh completely.

But um, what's proposed today seems like that's gonna be a very clean way of trying to address that situation if that makes any sense.

So I'm definitely hearing you, and um I definitely um you know, from from my seat at least would tell you probably to reach out to your council member, just make them aware of the issues, and uh maybe uh maybe there's some some things that they can uh they could at least be your voice a little bit for.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Would the applicant care make any further comments?

None at this time.

Was there any other call questions, comments from the audience?

All right, this time we'll close public hearing on agenda item number one hold over and now uh go into deliberation.

Doug, I have a question.

If we were to uh can we include uh a dedication of a I mean it it's relatively narrow ditch or creek, whatever you want to call it.

I think it would really only need to be a 20-foot easement.

I'm sorry, it probably only need to be a 20-foot easement.

Would we just make that a condition?

Add that as a condition to the subdivision.

I will let Nick answer that.

Yeah, I think it's gonna be best that uh their surveyor work with the engineering department.

He probably already has the topographic information where he can clearly define it, it may be a variable width that needs to be such a you can add that as a condition.

So uh give me some words or us some words.

I don't have I can I got you, Matt.

I I wrote it here.

The addition of a drainage easement uh satisfactory to the applicant and the city engineer.

Perfect.

That sounds great.

And for everybody's not uh information, you know, condition is the completion of the rezoning process and that process will take care of a lot of these issues as well.

There's there's no rezoning as part of this application.

Pardon remember Doug, there's no rezoning as part of this application.

Not here, but the condition is rezoning in the future before the plant signed because of the split zoning.

Am I looking at the wrong application?

Yeah, oh okay.

Never mind.

We'll strike with Mr.

Anderson's comment.

I got you.

Gotcha.

Just yeah, you can add that as a condition.

Yeah, entertain a motion, Mr.

Anderson.

Uh Kenny, Kenny had the words, I don't have them.

All right, yeah.

I'll move to approve subject to staff recommendations with the uh addition of a note um that there shall be uh a drainage easement uh satisfactory to the applicant and the city engineer uh to be determined.

Second properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

I any opposed the motion for subdivision passes.

We'll move on to number two.

We'll have to recuse Mr.

Kirk Matte.

We still maintain a quorum for this agenda item.

This is a subdivision hold over it for 5536 Sermon Road West and 5660 and 5680 Sermon Road North.

Subdivision of two lots, just over one acre.

We still are missing, and we have the opportunity for the applicant to to confirm what has been missing.

Still uh the plat does not include all properties required to be part of the subdivision.

The written consent from the owners of all properties required to be included in the subdivision has not been provided, and no revised notification labels or re-advertising fees were submitted for the revised three lot subdivision requests.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, I am Pete Reim.

I live at 3904 Camellia Drive.

I am here representing the applicant.

And as you said, this is a holdover.

And uh if y'all remember this subdivision was actually done 15 years ago, and that road was built 15 years ago, but for whatever reason, the subdivision was never properly completed, and the street made a public street.

So it's been an error in 15 years.

This has been an attempt to correct that.

We have to the city's requirement, we have contacted all property owners, in addition to the applicant, there are five other property owners which have been contacted.

They are all aware, and we have responses from all of them.

Two of them have signed letters in support, two of them have responded in with emails saying they don't see how this affects them, they have no interest in it, and they are not going to sign anything either way.

And then we have one owner that opposes this action because he doesn't want it to be rezoned, even though rezoning is not part of this application.

He doesn't want any subsequent rezoning, so he opposes it.

So we are left at an impasse where we have contacted all owners.

The owners except one do not oppose what we've been living with for 15 years.

So since we have one that uh opposes us, we can't meet the unanimous, so it forces us.

I think the only option is to withdraw this application, but then I ask the city that presents a conundrum to the applicant.

So we can't move forward and correct this subdivision.

So does the city have a solution for us?

Do we ignore this illegal subdivision for another 15 years?

Do or should we block the road off?

Or or is the city going to force the applicant to remove a road that's been regularly used by the public for the last 15 years?

I don't know where we go from here.

We've been discussing this for a couple of months now.

It is a crazy situation, and we can have more discussions in the future to try and see how we can resolve this.

But they're withdrawing it, so the smooth owner.

Sound good, Mr.

Reem.

No, but I I guess you're gonna leave us with a conundrum and no solution, but well, it's not the city's fault, Pete, but I know there's no there's no answer that anybody can give right now, no solution.

But uh the city staff is more than willing to see to work with y'all to see what we can get done.

I I would be in support of a withdrawal.

It gives you the opportunity to work with the city and take it off this planning commission's agenda.

Is there anyone because it's on the agenda?

Is there anyone else here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards it?

Please come on down to the podium, state your name and address for the record.

Yes, sir.

But it is it is an application that the applicant has agreed or his the representative has agreed to withdraw.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Chairman is withdrawn.

We've got 33 things on the agenda.

I know he's come down here, he's spoken in the past.

Yes.

I'm not sure what the purpose of hearing any more comment is.

Is we it's withdrawn, it's not on our agenda anymore.

Mr.

Cooper.

We got a solution.

Well, if he's gonna withdraw, the solution would be with the city.

Well, I was trying to offer a solution.

They say that they want to get a signature so they can move forward.

All I'm asking they they do is withdraw their withdrawal their uh plans to turn that into a big parking lot to park semi-trucks, to park tractor trailers, to to accommodate somebody that's that's in the back.

I told them, and they asked me, would I sign a plat?

I said I would.

Let's let's the person that's buying that.

I'm here with my grandson, by the way.

He's trying to see how this works out.

It's okay.

This can be solved so easily, as long as the person buying the property abides by the same standards and rules that I have to abide by, we could move forward with this, and everybody would be happy.

But they want to buy that property.

They own about a hundred thousand square feet in the back, and it's really junky back there.

They want to have spillover parking.

That's the reason that they they need to get this road approved so they can then come in for rezoning or reuse or whatever.

I'm against that because I've got a big investment there.

I built, I bought four lots in that subdivision, and there's other people in that subdivision.

We don't, and that's and I bought that because it was one of the nicest subdivisions for industrial business in Theodore.

And we're trying to upgrade the lookout there.

If they want to park trucks, there's parking lots all around, there's truck parking lots within a thousand feet of that property.

They can park their trucks there.

I'm for I will help them work this out.

So they don't have to withdraw it.

If they will just contact me and work with me.

And that's that's a simple solution.

Now, if they want to go a different route, then it puts the planning commission and everybody here, they've got to try to work with somebody that uh it's trying to make a change out there and disrupt everything in the theodore area.

So that's that's all I have to say.

If you want to ask me any questions, I'm just here to try to solve the problem.

Thank you, Mr.

Cooper.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, many times I I have this I have the same uh same issue kind of when it comes to comes to things in front of us.

Um the the in front of us isn't a rezoning at the moment.

I understand that could be another that you know.

Uh should you choose to make that a battle?

That could be another battle for another day.

Um, right now, I from my understanding and and talking with folks, uh, asking inquiring about this.

I think they're just trying to trying to kind of clean it up a little bit.

I want to help them clean it up.

All I'm saying is drop their plans for in and keep it like it is.

I'll sign off and work with them.

It's that simple.

Yeah, but but at the moment, though, we're we're looking at a subdivision, not not the um not the potential for an up zoning, I guess.

I was told by by Pete Reim, they're probably not going to zone it anyway, so why would they waste their time?

And and in B3, um, and again, kind of question for staff.

I mean, B3 can't be a parking lot, I guess.

Right.

Uh, it cannot be a freight depot, which is what I believe is being described.

What do you say?

I didn't hear it.

It can't be a freight depot.

B3 zoning cannot be a freight depot, um, kind of like what we're what I guess what what the I want to keep it like it is.

Yeah, why would they waste their time?

We can get this road approved right now.

Mason can go on and do his thing, and the people buying this property can develop it just like I had to develop the property.

I bought four lots out there, and and I want to take any more of y'all's time, but I want to help them any way I can.

Thank you, Ms.

Cooper, for your uh offer of help.

I'm sure that if the applicant is willing to seek out that help, they will address that with you directly.

This application has been withdrawn.

Uh, there's no uh further public hearing needed.

Excuse me, public hearing is closed and no deliberation needed because of the application is withdrawn.

Number three on the agenda.

This is a subdivision.

We have to still maintain recusal of Kirk Mate.

We still maintain a quorum for number three, even with a slight recess from our uh one of our commissioners.

3,000 Bryant Road, subdivid resubdivision of the resubdivision of revised Bucci subdivision of two lots, 2.48 acres.

If the planning commission considers approving this request, it would be a waiver of 64 of a lot to a butt on a street.

There are potentially nine listed conditions.

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon.

Johanna Bucci, I'm the owner and resident of 3000 Bryant Road.

Out of respect for your time and your very long agenda.

Um, I know we are a holdover and you've asked us to bring a few things which we should have now.

I hope we're not missing anything, but I just wanted to uh let you know that I am present here with my husband Jordan Geerheim, and uh we would be happy to answer any questions that you all have about our application.

Just questions for staff where all things have been received and in good order.

Yes, the plat was revised um as recommended, um, and that's what we're voting on today.

All right.

Questions from commissioners for the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision at 3,000 Bryant Road.

We'll now close close public hearing, bring into deliberation, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

We will welcome back Mr.

Kirk Matte from your cusal.

We will now recuse Mr.

Larry Dorsey from number four.

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

Notes for commissioners, there's potentially 10 findings of facts and six listed conditions.

Is the applicant present for this rezone request for single use family applicant is present by show of hands and verbal?

Are you in agreement with the listed conditions and an understanding of the potential findings of fact in the application?

The applicant is in agreement.

I'll ask now if there's anyone else here just here to speak for, speak against this application or have questions towards it.

I'll ask if any commissioners have questions towards this application for rezone for grace redemption community church.

Seeing none, we will close public hearing, uh open up deliberation, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

We need even findings of fact.

There are 10 potential.

That's my bad.

Move to approve with findings of fact.

Uh subject of staff recommendations with findings of facts one through ten.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact one through ten.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for rezone single family use of the church is permitted.

We'll welcome back Mr.

Dorsey.

This is a rezoned application.

We will send away again, Mr.

Kirk Matte for recusal.

We still maintain a quorum rezoned at 97 Center Drive, Silverstone Enterprise LLC.

This is a rezone from a single family residential district R1 to multifamily residential suburban district R3.

Commissioners, there are potentially seven findings of fact and rezoning request conditions that would follow under voluntary use and full compliance.

Yes, sir.

Yes, uh Casey Pipes, 150 government street.

Um I'm here representing the applicant.

We presented two months ago and it was held over.

Uh just briefly for those of you who aren't here.

This is a rezoning from R1 to R3.

Uh this is consistent with the future land use map, which calls for this area to be a uh mixed density residential, which is appropriate with R3.

The uh grounds for the rezoning, uh it's compatible with current development trends.

Uh the sites bordered by R3 on the north, east and west side.

The south side is R1, but it's the rear of a parking lot uh for a church that fronts over onto East Drive.

So there's not a single family residence abutting the property.

Uh the changes in the area are all of the green you see on the map around you.

I mean, this is this area has been developed as R3.

It's coming down from Old Shell Road to this area of Center Drive.

Uh, particularly with a development called the Social, which is across center drive from the subject property, uh, which is the source of a lot of the complaints of the neighbors uh the activity that happens at the social.

I would submit that this property owner, which is directly across the street from the social and shares the road that the social does is impacted more than they are on West Drive and the Farron Woods subdivision.

Uh, since the last meeting, I met with several of the residents that spoke in opposition in the atrium after the meeting, uh, traded an email with Dr.

Woods about uh you know where I got some of the information that was contained in the application, offered to meet, nobody seemed to want to meet.

Reached out with Councilman Fleming, uh sent him some information, spoke with him.

He he didn't want to meet further about it, you know.

So we're just back here to uh ask for the uh the rezoning to be approved.

Uh one other thing that we did since the last meeting, there was some question or confusion about how many bedrooms there would be, and so we gave up uh signed a voluntary use restriction that caps the number of bedrooms at 32.

I don't know that we'll be able to even put them all in there, but they're yeah, but with the voluntary use restriction that's a record uh with this application, there's a maximum of 32 bedrooms.

Thank you, Mr.

Pipes.

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

We have heard about this application for some time.

I'll ask now if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application for subdivision.

Excuse me, rezone.

Uh commissioners, uh, we'll remind you that you have there is.

Oh, well, please come on down.

Uh you do need to get some uh some data from uh enrollment of the University of South Alabama for since 2013 through 2026.

Uh I'm sure that our uh speaker is going to reference that.

However, I am uh in full support of our president and the University of South Alabama and its growth trajectory.

Uh I feel like the university is growing, so I appreciate these, but I don't know how much weight it holds.

Go ahead, sir.

Uh good afternoon, Roger Woods, 6094 Fernwoods Court, about half a block south of this proposed rezoning.

I think you all know by now I'm not related to Commissioner Josh Woods.

Uh I oppose this rezoning request.

I sent written comments to the commission, which I'll summarize now for context and for information.

This application is justified by claim of change in conditions.

That is a sudden large increase in university enrollment.

So the intent is to market and lease these proposed new units to students.

And the commission will remember last meeting.

I showed data for university freshman enrollment, much less than stated in the application.

Now the explanation is that the planning application used figures from a university press release focusing on the number of new freshmen.

But the planning application omitted the word new and didn't cite the data source used.

The figures for freshman enrollment that I presented last time showing a far slower rise in enrollment were taken from the university's publicly available database and are as accurate as the database.

Now, planning decisions should be based on hard, accurate scientific data, not upon press release headlines highlighting isolated figures designed for maximum publicity.

While the new freshman figures may make a good headline, what's important for planning purposes is the excess number of students over university owned housing places.

So I looked up the actual figures.

They copied on this handout that I left at the front desk.

I hope you're all able to pick up a copy because I can't include a graph in online comments.

I'd ask you to look at the green bars on this handout.

The green bars are the total student enrollment, less campus housing places.

This was 24% higher 10 years ago than it was last year because the university has been steadily developing its own housing stock.

Just since December 2024, the university increased its student housing by over 1,500 beds by developing its traditions and South Poor Village complexes.

Now, exact university enrollment data for fall this year are obviously not yet available, but it's estimated to increase by around a couple of hundred over last year.

But the university-owned housing stock has increased much more.

Remember those 1,500 beds.

The number of students not having university housing will certainly decrease significantly this year.

So it's just not true that there is a change in conditions favoring a new R3 development.

The major argument for this application is not borne out by the data available.

There's no need for this rezoning given current and projected university enrollment and housing data and the lack of community consultation and support.

Neither is R3 accommodation suitable for faculty and staff, despite the application's claims.

Also at the last meeting, access through center drive was raised.

Lot eight in Ferrine Woods has road access to center drive, and so could the other east side Fairnwoods properties, although none has so far chosen to do so.

Now at the previous hearing, I believe Mr.

Pipes stated that the rezoning application should not be denied because that would treat his client unfairly as he'd been expecting to rezone the lot when he bought it.

Well, if this applicant accurately represents the applicant, that should have been a condition of the purchase.

It's unreasonable to attend this hearing and say, in effect, I bought this lot and sound no, and so now you must rezone it because that's what I want.

I hope the planning commission will not be swayed by that, and perhaps Mr.

Pipes might be able to confirm if that's what he meant.

Comments I made at the last meeting regarding regarding rampant antisocial behavior from the adjacent R3 development and associated reduced property values remain valid, but I won't repeat all that today.

Hope you still have those comments.

Mr.

Pipes also stated at the first hearing that any poor behavior in the social R3 development across the street would be felt by his client as owner as well.

But neither Mr.

Pipes nor the owner will be living there.

They wouldn't have to put up with poor behavior from occupants of the social, but they're quite happy to increase the antisocial behavior that current residents must endure.

As a small development, this rezoning will hardly impact student housing at all, particularly when compared to the major new housing developments being undertaken by the university itself.

There's little positive outcome from this proposed rezoning at the cost of a very drastic deterioration in the neighborhood, as voiced by clear community opposition.

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.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Dr.

Woods.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that speaks for, speak against, or have questions towards this application.

If so, please come down to the bottom of the stairs, state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon.

I'm Mary Devereaux.

I live at 6004 Sussex Drive, which is southeast of this proposal.

If you could put back the site plan view.

Thank you.

So when I spoke last time, uh, regardless of what happens with this property, we talked a little bit about water management, and I don't see anything that's advanced on that.

This property now sits north of Mainoia Place, Sussex, Farron Woods, and the future item that's coming up later today that will go from East Drive back to Center Street.

It sits elevated.

There's been a problem with drainage.

The city's had to come in on Center Street and put down remediation.

And I see the parking lot is on the south end of the site.

And I was hoping that at very least uh you would insist on some kind of water management and a permeable parking lot and anything else to kind of slow the water coming down the hill during bad storms.

Understood, Ms.

Devereaux.

I will let the applicant address your concerns on a rebuttal.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience?

Good afternoon.

Renee Smith, 6040 Sussex Drive.

Would you all be able to go back to that um plan that was up there with the green showing the apartment?

Yeah.

Um I just want to address that as we're worried about a precedent setting going on if an R3 is approved from an R1.

And as you can see, if that green is all the apartment complexes, are those all the R3s, it looks like.

We'll take them each agenda item separately.

We don't worry about 15 combined with this one.

We can address it at that time.

Okay.

Let's let's focus on this one.

Okay.

Thank you.

So really it's just the precedent.

If R3 is approved for this, we're concerned that R3 will come down and swallow us, swallow us completely up.

Um, also I was given a comment by one of our other members about the unsafe infrastructure.

Most of the multifamily properties targeting students for the university are on Old Shell Road, a four-lane road.

Center Drive is wide enough to be a two-lane road.

However, in front of the social student apartment complex, it's a fire lane with no parking signs on uh with no parking signs on both sides.

Students and or their guests from the social apartment complex regularly park on both sides of Center Center Drive in the fire lane, making the right-of-way passage impossible for for fire or emergency vehicles to get through.

If additional student housing R3 is built on Center Drive in this location where the subject proposed rezoning will be, more overflow cars will park on center drive in the fire lane, creating additional traffic and fire emergency passage hazards.

This will delay fire emergency vehicles from accessing the student housing as well as back of the homes in our subdivision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Smith.

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um, just uh uh as far as the fire lines concerned, um, not necessarily a comment.

Um, Councilmember Fleming has contacted PD about it, and um, I can assure you they'll be be looking into that uh uh making sure and start policing that a little closer.

So just wanted to add that comment since you brought it up.

Any others from the audience questions for questions against or have questions towards this?

Well now I'll offer up the opportunity for Mr.

Pikes to come back and address the concerns that have been brought up specific to the changing conditions of the enrollment of the University of South Alabama which is go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, South Alabama is growing.

Uh I don't know what the data is about where it was 24 years ago or or whatever.

It just seems like it's been growing lately.

It's also been transitioning from a commuter school for local people to to more of a destination school.

It's only since 2021 that all freshmen were required to live on campus.

Uh so I think that the demand has gone up, even if the the total number of students has stayed flat or declined.

Uh, and and you've seen this the school take an initiative to buy up other apartment complexes and other housing to try to meet that demand.

What you've also heard, you know, uh I heard Dr.

Woods say there's no need for this rezoning, but I think the simple fact is there will never be a single family residential house built on that lot.

The dilapidated house that's there now is is unlivable, and no one will build a single family residential house right there on the center, facing the social, facing all the the issues that you've heard about or read about, you know, that the uh people in Fairon Woods and Sussex court have brought up.

That's why the rezoning is here.

That's the justification for the rezoning.

Uh, I couldn't really hear about the comment about drainage, but obviously there's a regulation that we don't increase discharge of water post-development from pre-development.

So uh this is a conceptual site plan.

You know, the formal drainage plan would come up at permitting stage or later, or at some other stage than this.

We don't have that done, but we certainly don't plan to discharge our water in a way to cause damage to downstream areas and for parking.

This is in the campus overlay district, so there's an extra 10% parking requirement, and uh the site plan meets those requirements.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant regarding his comments when during rebuttal?

Seeing none, we'll now close public hearing, open up deliberation.

Potential findings of fact here if a motion is brought forward, entertain a motion one second.

No motion is being brought.

One uh here a motion to do anything else, Mr.

Chairman.

I move to deny the application.

Yeah, my chance to and I can give you findings of fact if you'd like, Doug.

Can you give us a reason?

If you would yeah, based on uh based on incompatibility with with the surrounding land infrastructure, uh we cannot prove that there's a significant change in conditions that makes some amendment necessary and uh general capacity of the area to handle an increase of that volume was that a second from Mr.

Josh.

We have properly moved and seconded for denial of the application of rezone.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

One opposed opposition.

The nays for deny or the agreements for denial uh override the one opposition.

So the motion does not pass for R3 on the rezone.

We'll now move into new agenda.

Excuse me, extension agenda item.

This is a well, welcome back, Mr.

Kirk Mate.

We'll be here for a while.

Number six is a subdivision at 5451 Hall's Mill Road, Clover Leaf Plaza Unit 1 subdivision.

Is it requesting an extension of an approval of a two-off subdivision at 26.67 acres?

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present just to confirm with staff.

This is their first extension request.

That's correct.

First extension request.

Anyone in the audience have questions towards this extension?

I will move to approve the extension.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The extension passes.

New agenda item number seven, subdivision at 3812A, Bayfront Road, Sunrise Prayer House Subdivision, one lot point one five acres.

There are seven listed conditions, and uh commissioners, there's a potential level waiver of section six C2A1A substandard lot area.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present.

Are you in agreement with the seven listed conditions?

Applicant is in agreement with those seven listed conditions.

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

Sir, do you he's behind you raising his hand saying he's in agreement?

Maybe y'all should have sat together.

We're all good on this conditions.

There's no further comments needed unless you need them.

Uh I will now ask if there's anyone else in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards 3812 A Bayfront Road.

Any questions for comments from commissioners on this subdivision?

Seeing none, we will close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations uh with uh waiving 6C2A1A.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number eight subdivision application at 2620 Rose Court Annie's Place Subdivision, subdivision of one lot point eight nine acres.

There are nine listed conditions.

Potential waiver of section six C9 for irregularly shaped lot.

Is the applicant present?

Two hands.

Applicants.

Mr.

Burr, he's the applicant.

You're just the engineer.

Surveyor.

Okay.

Uh in agreement with those nine listed conditions.

Anyone else here in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item?

Seeing none, we will close public hearing.

Deliberation.

Questions or comments from commissioners on Rose Court?

Entertain a motion if none.

Move to approve subjects of staff recommendations, uh waiving section 6C9.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

The motion for subdivision passes.

Number nine, subdivision application, northwest corner of Elmyra Street and Chatham Street.

Subdivision of one light, the one lot point one four acres.

Nine listed conditions.

Applicant present.

I'll ask again is the applicant present.

Question for staff.

Do you have any indication from the applicant on whether or not they have any issues with the nine listed conditions if this subdivision were to go through?

Other than the initial application, we have not received any communication from the applicant.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll just make note of uh of the comment number two uh about the waiver of six C6.

It sounds like that's gonna be one that comes up all the time about the corner radius, but it sounds like it's been uh notes been written such that city engineer can make that city or traffic engineer can make that decision once once they actually look at it, uh whether or not a radius is required.

Duly noted.

Is there anyone else in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards agenda item number nine at Almyra and Chatham Street?

Seeing none will close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion, make a note that the applicant is not present, but we are not aware of any issues.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, second properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes for subdivision number 10 subdivision application at 130, Myrtlewood Lane, subdivision of two lots at 0.67 acres, nine listed conditions.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present.

Are you in agreement with the nine listing conditions?

Not of the head, yes.

Myrtlewood lane.

Seeing none will close public hearing.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

Number 11, subdivision application 4297, revered to chain road.

Subdivision of three lots, 10.63 acres.

Potential of a waiver 6C9 for a flag shape lot design.

There are 10 listed conditions.

Is the applicant present?

Come on down.

Z cuts and row engineering and surveying 3502 Lawton Drive.

Uh the condition of the radius at uh River Dien, which is an overpass and interstate 10.

Um that number three.

That's correct.

Okay.

Like to waive that.

Also can you give us a some reasoning on it?

Well, this has been before you before, um, and it expired before in in previous conversations.

I think that uh Mr.

Amberger had looked at that and decided that it was would not be necessary as there's uh since it isn't overpass, there is the likelihood of a needing a turnout radius from an elevated uh crossover.

Doesn't seem like it would be necessary.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll just add, I mean, this is you know, we got into this before where I guess maybe a major street plan required the 350 or suggested the 350.

Nick outs, you know, existing is 300.

You know, for them to do an act of widening the interstate and acquiring the acquiring real estate's a whole whole nother whole nother matter.

So I mean Mr.

Hammer, I think I think that's number four, yeah, not number three.

It's only I would like to also address the the 350 when we get to that point.

But I'm sorry, I was a but currently it's the turnout radius at reproducing an I10.

Yeah.

Oh wait, let me get back to that.

Sorry.

Well, yeah, yeah.

I mean, it's it's basically the same thing though.

Where but I think the note on four again allows the city engineer or tra and traffic engineer to work with you on what that final plat says.

So I think I think the note's okay.

I think the bigger the bigger issue is note number three, which talks.

But you you can't you can't turn from River Desheen Road on to I-10.

I wouldn't encourage it at least.

Right.

That's so it's uh you're only gonna do it once.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think we're gonna end up where where that's actually four is likely gonna be struck from the from the plat once once they can look at it withdrawing and look at it with you.

Understood.

Uh thank you.

Does that satisfy your concern?

It does.

I do have one other uh in regards to the 350-foot requirement for uh interstate 10.

Uh, right now there is a uh building that's been constructed along with a detention pond that's in the southwest corner of that property.

Uh in giving right now, we're showing that we have 150 feet to the center line of I-10 on that particular corner.

Um if we had to give up another 25 feet, right?

And I'm also showing it's about 15 feet from the right-of-way fencing that's there that from L dot to the top bank of that detention pond.

If we were to give up an additional 25 foot on that end, that would put the detention pond within the right-of-way, at least a you know, a portion of it.

So we would like to waive that and bring it back to the 300 foot.

I guess my comment would be to the best of my knowledge, there is no plan whatsoever on the SRP C long range plan to widen out 10.

So I'd totally be in favor of striking number three.

Thank you.

I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item at 4297 Rivier de Chain Road.

Seeing none we'll close public hearing.

Entertain a motion for the subdivision.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Um, if we are if the planning commission chooses to waive uh consideration number three, it would be a waiver of section six dot B, as in boy dot nine of the subdivision regulations.

So there's a potential for six C9 and six B9.

We'll take those in alphabetical order, so it would be six B9 first, then six C9.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations waiving section six B9 and six C9.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes for subdivision.

Doug, we're one third of the way through.

Number 12, subdivision at 64 1645, 1655.

Dawes Road, subdivision of four lots, 1.61 acres.

Seven listed conditions.

Commissioners, potential waivers of 6B969.

Is the applicant present?

Applicants present with a raise of hand.

Are you in agreement and understanding of the seven listed conditions?

Absolutely.

If you have questions, come on down.

Reminder to state your name and address for the record.

Honor is Jared Oates.

We're in uh we're looking into 1645 dolls to be divided into four different units.

Um we're basically asking what are the conditions y'all are imposing on this.

So I will be brief in the restatement of the conditions that are listed, and you should have a copy if you don't have a copy.

We can get one for you right there.

Retention of the 45 foot foot front yard setback on the final platinum additional right of way.

Retit number two, retention of the lot sizes in both square feet and acres as a label on the final plat or provision of a table on that plat providing the same information.

Number three, retention of a 25-foot front yard setbag along Daws where lots two and three are at least 60 feet wide in compliance with unified development code sections.

Compliance number four, five, six, and seven are simply compliance with engineering traffic, urban forestry, and fire.

Do you have any questions on any of those?

We do not do you understand all of them.

Yes, sir.

Understood, Mr.

Oates.

Anyone else in the audit?

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application on Dolls Road?

Seeing none will close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion.

Yeah, applicant is present and in agreement.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations waiving sections 6B9 and 6C9.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes for subdivision number 13, subdivision application 101 Marine Street.

Residences at Oakley phase two for lots 0.57 acres.

13 listed conditions.

Potential for waivers of 6C2 B3 for substandard lot width.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present.

Raise of the hand.

Are you in agreement with the 13 listed conditions?

And she is in agreement.

I'll ask if there's anyone else here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application on Marine Street.

Seeing none, we will close public hearing.

Deliberation, entertain a motion.

Applicants present in agreement.

Oh, I have a question.

Go ahead.

Do we need to waive 6C6 as well?

That's for staff.

That is if corner dedication for that radius, similar to the one Mr.

Amberger brought up uh previously, uh, would be granted by the engineer, city engineering.

Okay, so we don't need to do anything with that one.

If the applicant's in agreement to provide that dedication, then no, there's no requirement for the waiver.

Got it.

Yeah.

Entertainment motion.

So I would uh move to approve subject staff recommendation waiving 6C2B3 of the subdivision regulations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

The motion for subdivision on Marine Street passes.

Number 14.

Subdivision application at 1308 Old Shell Road and 109 North Ann Street, Old Shell Landings, 10 lots, 1.3 acres.

11 listed conditions.

Potential waivers of sections 6C2A, 6C22 B3, 6C3.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant's present make applicant is present.

Are you in agreement with the 11 listed conditions?

Got any questions towards anything on the conditions?

Applicants present, good to go.

Anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application.

Go ahead.

State your name and address for the record, please, sir.

Good afternoon.

John LeParry, 115 North Ann Street.

Um I am not born or raised in Mobile, so it gives me a different perspective, especially with regards to your historic districts and the aesthetics and how special it is.

It's right on the corner of North Ann Street and Old Shell.

It's very visible.

The generals, generally speaking, the properties in that neighborhood have much larger footprints than what's being proposed on the plat.

I mean I I come from a city in the northeast where they're not quite as diligent as you are here, and not quite concerned about aesthetics or anything else.

To put 10 buildings on that lot on that corner when the lots are so small, is just it's it's just gonna bring the uh whole neighborhood.

It won't bring it down.

I mean, I'm sure they'll get good money for whatever they build, but it's it's just not gonna look nice.

And I really chose mobile because I think it does look nice.

So I would just ask you to consider the site, not the size of the lots, it's really really small for uh for that neighborhood and the general the uh single resident houses there.

I mean, my property has almost 150 feet in front, so it's a largest lot in the neighborhood, and I'm not against development, but I think to shoehorn 10 prop 10 buildings on a lot that size on a prominent corner is really not gonna do any credit to the district.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments.

I'll ask if there's anyone else to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application.

Old Shell Road and North Ann Street.

Seeing none, I'll give the applicant an opportunity to speak to address the concerns brought up.

I guess specific potentially to the development and its curb appeal.

My name is Illis Foster on 550 Marine Street.

Um just in response to that.

Um now reinventing the wheel here.

This is a lot development that is particularly already been done in historic district and been approved.

And they turned out quite beautiful and was well received by majority of the neighborhood on Dona Marine and Church.

And those were actually 28-foot wide lots.

I mean, as a tablet wider than that.

So I do respect and I appreciate you know his care for the neighborhood, but I can assure you that they'll fit in great with the character of neighborhood.

Thank you, Mr.

Foster.

Mr.

Man I just had a question for the weekend.

Ellis uh quick question on your preliminary plat shows a 20-foot ingress and egress easement on the north side of lots one through seven, and then that same easement on the west side of lots eight, nine, and ten.

I guess is the intent to have a singular access off Ann Street, and then just basically allow all those lots to share access on kind of an alleyway.

Yes, or other the um driveways abut into that easement.

Okay.

And rear garages in the back.

Okay, so no, so no lots will be none of the lots will have access, direct access to and street or old shell, correct?

Oh sir.

Okay.

That's all I had.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

Anyone else in the audience questions for, questions against, or comments towards this application?

We'll close public hearing, go into deliberation.

Entertain a motion for the subdivision.

Move to approve, subject to staff recommendations, rave waiving sections 6C2A, 6C2B3, and 6C3.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with waivers noted.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes.

Number 15, subdivision application at 162 186 East Drive.

Spring Hill Villas subdivision 13 lots, 3.96 acres.

There are 12 listed conditions with commissioners' potential waivers of 6C2B2 and 6C7.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a raise of the hand.

Are you in agreement with the 12 listed conditions?

Thumbs up from the applicant.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision at 162 and 186 East Drive.

We have one show of hands for anyone else.

Two, three, four.

That'll be our maximum.

Again, a reminder to state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon.

My name is Riley Bailey.

I currently live at 151 East Drive.

Coincidentally, I'm the president of our Jaguar Real Estate Club, the University of South Alabama, and part-time work with the Czarza companies.

My only main concern for this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that it looks like that the you know the entrance exit uh of the cul de sac.

Is though are those if a car is coming out, are those headlights gonna be directly you know, pointing through my front windows uh continuously.

It might be a little bit south.

I couldn't really tell with the uh the documents there.

And my second concern is that for the lot looks about to be lot one will be directly across from me.

Are there gonna be any plans to put fencing along the east side of that lot just for you know the privacy of obviously whoever owns that lot?

And so you know that way I'm not staring into the person's backyard constantly.

Um, as well as just a couple questions on if there was a proposed date to start construction, uh, what is the duration of that construction, and as well as the um and as well as what is the city's time frame of when that you know construction is allowed to be done from the you know a.m time to PM time to for you know noise restrictions.

All right, I've got your questions noted here, headlights, fencing, dates of construction, duration of construction, and city management of construction duration times during the week.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

So considering this is a subdivision application and not an application for all those other things.

Um we're gonna let Mr.

Anderson, let's let the other two and then we'll go into our commentaries, Commissioners.

Uh good afternoon again, Roger Wood, 6094, Fairingwoods Court, one of the closest lots to this proposed subdivision, not related to Commissioner Josh Woods.

Uh, I just have a few questions about this subdivision application.

Firstly, is it true that if approved, this subdivision is for 13 lots only and could not revert to 23 lots as previously proposed and timed out without a further hearing here?

Secondly, if approved, then can you confirm the only buildings permitted are detached single family residences, each constructed of brick, and each having an enclosed attached garage, as stated in the staff report page five.

And finally, are there any plans for a wall around the west side of this uh proposed uh of the of the the lots of the subdivision?

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Dr.

Woods.

The lot count will be stuck at 13 as the application is there.

Uh the home type and the fencing will address we'll let the applicant address when they come back for rebuttal.

Good afternoon again, Renee Smith, 6040 Sussex Drive.

And I also have a question as to um what Mr.

Dr.

Woods was talking about is what is actually going to be built there.

I don't know if you have to deal with that today, but I believe there's a standing court order that uh confines the builder to build only our uh what Dr.

Wood said, the detached single family homes, brick on the outside.

Um that is how I believe they got their R1, same same uh company, they got the R1 change to R2.

I believe they went through the court because the planning commission uh denied them an R2.

They went to the court, and I don't have a copy of the order, but I believe it's it makes them bound to build only what is written in the staff report.

So I just wanted to confirm that and make sure that's what it is going forward.

The commission has no uh say so, no jurisdiction over what is built.

This is just a subdivision of the property, and uh the enforcement of a judicial order would be between the parties.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Miss Smith.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Deborah O'Correct.

Yes, ma'am.

Mary Devereaux, 6004 Sussex Drive.

So um we too have questions, a lot of us about what exactly is going to be built there.

To us, some of the applications seems a little vague.

Uh, for example, number of bedrooms, how high the buildings will be, things like that, the amount of green space, um, anything else that's gonna be placed on the property.

The fencing is a really good idea, and we've thought about that also.

Umsex drive was Magnolia Place, which was going to be a 400-unit apartment complex.

Um, the zoning commission denied it, and De's construction came back with single-family homes, and they were required to put a fence around the property between it and adjacent properties.

I think that's a good uh precedent here, particularly since we're on a um we're called-de sacs trying to maintain safety and security and keep people from cutting through.

Not all of uh the north side of Sussex has a fence, it only goes about halfway up, maybe 60% of the way west.

So I think uh for privacy and safety, preserve the cul-de-sac and put the fencing all around, including East Drive.

Um, the other thing was to see if there are any green space calculations by the planning staff and see if that can be enforced.

We do have some existing trees, uh, particularly along the southern border of that, uh, that we're hoping to maintain, but they seem to only have the common area, and if those trees are kept, which I'm assuming because the common area is out of slant, which is where those trees, some of those trees would be.

Uh, there doesn't seem to be any other attention to green space or uh water management.

And just one last note.

We really welcome having development in keeping with our neighborhood.

We just like I said, we're affordable homes.

We want to maintain the quality of our neighborhoods between center, east, and west drives in Ridgefield.

So thank you.

Thank you, Miss Debreau.

That was our third and final, I do believe.

I'll now give the applicant an opportunity to come down and address the questions, and I'll rehash those for for you as you make your way down.

There was a question specific to the headlights coming out of the drive, potentially.

Um also let me back step.

This is a simply a subdivision for the lots to go to 13.

Um, so I'll let you comment towards that as well.

Fencing, potential dates of construction, duration of construction, uh, home type, lot count max, and that uh fencing was on east of the property as well as west.

Go ahead, sir.

Your name and address for the record.

Uh name is Jonathan Petty with Access Engineering Group, 200 West Lower Avenue, Foley, Alabama.

Uh, let's start with headlights.

So I don't know really how to mitigate the headlights, but I do know when they do come down Spring Hill, Springville Lane, they would be directed in between the two lots adjacent and across the property, so no direct shine into any homes.

I would suspect.

Um for the fencing, I'm not positive that the client uh anticipates any direct fencing as of right now, but we will be working with staff through the engineering review process and planning commission or planning and zoning, and if it's a recommendation and a requirement for the fencing, then of course we will include in the plans.

Um construction timeline again depends on uh the review process with engineering.

Once those plans are approved, uh then we'll move to that construction timeline.

I would say six months, uh six months to a year.

Um, I know the timeline for a an approved uh set of engineering plans.

What is that two years?

Want to say but oh, I'm sorry, one year is the uh one year time you have to record the plat.

Planning and zoning does not approve permits until that um that's process has been finalized.

Okay, um, and other questions home type.

I think there were some uh recorded information in the previous uh I guess zoning requirements for this particular property for a cottage style community, 1800 square foot to 2300 square foot homes.

Uh so those are part of the requirements, which is what we expect to see coming from this development.

And I think that sums it up.

Did you have uh any idea on the exterior of the home?

The exterior of the homes.

I guess the question was are they going to be brick homes?

Or do you know that yet?

I I don't have that answer.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions?

Mr.

Petty, any questions for follow-up from commissioners for Mr.

Petty?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Petty, uh, as far as height of the building, the the residence, um, we looking potentially looking at single story, multi-story, or same yeah, single store, single family residence.

Yeah, thank you.

Yep.

Any others?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Petty.

Uh, question for staff.

The one of the um audience members brought up a the court order R1 R2.

Doug, you mentioned it was between two parties.

Well, it's it's a judicial order.

Uh I was not involved in that case.

I don't know who represented the city on that.

So I don't know what it says, but if it's an order, uh if it's if the order was granting these rezoning with conditions, then those conditions would have to be honored.

I just don't know what they are.

Okay.

I was just trying to find some sort of answer for the audience member that asked that question, but uh I don't think it applies at this time for this subdivision application only.

Correct.

Anyone else in the well, I think we're done with that.

We'll move from public hearing to deliberation.

Subdivision entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations recommendations waiving sections 6C2B2 and 6C7.

Second, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye.

Any any opposed motion for subdivision passes.

Number 16, subdivision application, north side of Greelot Road, 1110 east of Leroy Stevens, extending north 2730 feet to south terminus of Navion Drive, Cavalo Ridge subdivision 141 lots, 51.7 acres.

Is the applicant present present with a show of hand?

17 listed conditions, thumbs up and agreement.

Anyone else in the audience here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item subdivision on Gree Lot, Leroy Stevens, and Navion.

I don't see any hands.

I see a lot of movement, but I see don't see any hands.

Somebody's waving to somebody by that's not to come speak on this.

All right.

Seeing none.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

I will just simply ask that due to the volume of this.

All right.

We'll close public hearing.

Deliberation.

Entertain a motion.

Applicant is present with an agreement.

17 listed conditions.

Potential of waiver section C2B2.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations waiving section C two B2.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

One opposition still maintains favor quorum.

Subdivision passes.

Application passes.

Number 17.

This is a subdivision sidewalk waiver at 380 Schillinger Road North.

Specifically to request the wave of the construction of a sidewalk along 7th Avenue.

This is looks to be just a portion of the property.

Mr.

Bird.

Jerry Bird, Merch Air Van 2609, Hall's Mill Road Mobile.

Yes.

I asked for the waiver at the corner of Scholinger's Road and 7th Avenue.

Yeah, there's one oak tree.

There's a water line with a fire hydrant.

Um ATMT pedestal, uh fiber optic cable, all mingling right in that turn radius.

And it'll it was sidewalk would run a short distance in the open.

Then you hit the paved driveway.

Don't really need one to go across the driveway.

And then where a sidewalk would end at the other end on Avenue E in about 15 20 feet.

There's an open ditch because they don't have curbing gutter on Avenue E.

So it seemed like difficulty up here, a little good paved driveway ending at a ditch.

It doesn't seem necessary to build a sidewalk.

This is just on seven.

There is sidewalk going your agreement on the chilling on the in there's some sidewalk going in on Schillinger though.

Oh at the corner of Sheldon's road.

Build the one on Chillinger's Road.

It's the corner radius, and then along Seventh Avenue.

Got it.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

And um, Mr.

Bird, uh, just to reiterate on the chair did as well.

I mean, 7th Avenue.

Um, it it's really it's a smaller street.

Um, obviously, like you're saying, it dead ends to Avenue E for the most part.

Um I mean, there's there's not a lot going on on 7th, but you are you are willing to do or the the applicants willing to do Schillinger Road.

So we we have the we'll have the sidewalk along Schillinger, but but you're asking at the point to waive for that 7th Avenue little stretch there, I guess.

Yeah, right.

Thank you.

And the and the property on the south side is already developed into uh commercial uh based on the old right-of-way, and there's not room over there for the sidewalk.

And then um, I mean, I I'm I'm in agreement with uh should the colleagues here uh be in agreement as well.

I'm in agreement with waiving it.

I mean, uh, if you go further up north on Schillinger, I think there's the waffle house, and as as development's taking place, we're slowly building that sidewalk on your applicant's gonna add that sidewalk as well.

So it definitely definitely helps build out that whole that whole Schillinger Road area.

Yeah.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

Anyone else in the audience to hear speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this sidewalk waiver application?

Seeing none, we'll close public hearing.

Entertain a motion, Mr.

Woods.

Move to approve the sidewalk waiver, second, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye, aye.

Any opposed sidewalk waiver passes.

Number 18.

We're into the modifications section of our agenda.

This is at east side of Hillcrest Road, 290 feet south of Gree Lot.

Mr.

Chairman, we've already gotten this one.

Oh we already did 18.

This was one.

See, y'all always support me.

Number 19, Kirk is recused.

Just trying to save you some time.

Appreciate you.

Modification location of one, three, and five mobile infirmary circle, which is a private road.

I will not read out all of the infirmary drive addresses, and then mobile infirmary boulevard.

This is obviously at mobile infirmary, major modification of a previously approved PUD, allowing multiple buildings on a signal building site, shared access parking between those sites, facilitating the expansion of an existing hospital emergency room and incorporation of an additional lot into development for commissioners.

For commissioners, there's potential eight findings of facts and eight listed conditions.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present.

Understanding of the findings of fact.

And are you in agreement with the eight eight listed conditions?

We got a thumbs up from the applicant.

Seeing none, we will move from public hearing.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

From public hearing to deliberation.

Entertain a motion for this modification.

Move to approve service staff recommendations.

We need findings of fact.

A through H.

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

Second.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for modification passes.

We can work welcome back.

Mr.

Mate.

Number 20 on the agenda is a rezone application.

4600 A Hamilton Boulevard.

K and R diesel Repair.

This is a rezone from residential agricultural district RA to heavy industry I2.

Commissioners, there's potentially eight findings of fact, and then of course the condition of full compliance.

Mr.

Byrd.

Yes.

Jerry Bird.

A refresher.

Hamilton Boulevard, which you'll probably have this in your report.

Our site is here.

When this came in was annexed into the city.

This property that we're dealing with was a uh hydraulic crane repair and rental, I believe, on that site.

Should have been zoned I2 at that point in time.

There's a 60-foot strip of land to the west of it.

It joins that's actually a lot in this recorded subdivision.

I two up to it, 60 foot strip.

We're asking here to be zoned.

There's a note on the plat that all construction is denied in here except utilities, drainage utilities, and ingress egress.

So there's no residence could be built in there.

Um that's our one of our justifications for doing this.

Uh like I say, mostly it should have been zoned at that point in time when it came into the NA and X into the city.

Mr.

Chair.

That's it.

Questions or comments from commissioners?

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Chair.

Um, Mr.

Bird, uh, I guess the the use of the property, um, kind of trying to match that up with the the zoning requested.

I guess it's a diesel mechanic shop, I guess.

That's right.

That's what he wants to put there.

Um working on the um 18-wheeler trucks.

Gotcha.

And um at this request is to ask for I2.

Uh uh, I mean, it's allowable automotive repair, all the classifications of automotive repair, truck stop, truck, uh, truck repair, heavy truck, gasoline sales, auto service.

Um, all that's allowable in I-1.

Um, would the applicant potentially be willing to instead of up zoning to an I2 uh consider an I one in this case or probably I think an I-1 would accomplish, you know, or by right would allow that.

I I think there is um some concern just about uh you know the speculative zoning and potentially to an I2, I guess.

But I'm I I don't know if uh the applicant in your opinion would accept an I one, I guess.

Um yeah, he purchased the property, probably shouldn't have bought it before it was rezoned, but he wants to move his business there.

I mean, I it based on he doesn't want to go beyond uh diesel repair, so if it's allowed, I guess I want to be fine.

And now just to confirm with staff, I guess diesel repair does fit in the allowable for an I1, I guess.

That's correct.

Okay, yeah.

You must have been talking to Ben Reynolds.

That's that's uh that's what I'm here for.

I'm the council chairs.

Question for staff though, in the I one uh the aggregate surfacing.

Is that is that allowed by right or is that a is that a it is allowed by right and then I one okay.

That's generally that's generally the hang up.

I wanted to make sure that wasn't hang up.

Well now I well, I would like to point out to commissioners there is opposition in writing uh from property owner in your file.

Um it does go through some specifics.

One of those specifics is use of the zone.

Perhaps we can make some clarity for that.

Uh also some other commentary specific to drainage elevations.

I'll now ask the audience.

This they may be in here.

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

So I've got to raise are y'all together or one separate.

So we have two.

Is there anyone else?

Make your hands shown if you're here.

Three.

Anyone else?

All right, we'll go and order one, two, three.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Alex Kraft.

I live at 1219 Texas Street.

I am a adjacent property owner, and I was one of the people that uh contributed to the comment letter that you were referring to.

This is your letter in our file.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So uh so we have your comments here, and we were able to read them if you'd like to summarize that.

Yeah, that's that's it.

I wanted to make sure that y'all had seen them, and uh just obviously uh we'd like to there were some additional points to the staff report, I think that we hadn't seen when I submitted the letter, but uh specifically there was a uh community meeting correspondence uh letter that was sent to us, and at the time uh we were unable to uh to attend the community meeting that was given at the date.

Uh I corresponded with Mr.

Byrd via email and sent him a list of our concerns that were very close to what was in the protest letter.

Um he assured me that I had valid concerns and that you know, addition he repeated the the previous use uh statement that he made.

Um, and that's fine, but when I went to read the staff report, it indicated that you know there was nobody at the attendance of the community meeting, which was true, but there was no mention of uh any correspondence or any other neighborhood uh discussions that were had, and I find that's a little bit um a lack of uh candor, if anything, uh to say that there was no you know, no concern.

So that's the first thing.

The the second thing um is that the previous use has been stated that it was a crane repair uh facility, and that is not correct.

Um I I actually hydraulic crane service.

This was the previous uh sorry, hydraulic crane specialist was the uh previous owner, and I actually have used them for about 25 years as a supplier off and on.

That facility was a crane storage facility.

Um if you look at uh exhibit B in the letter that I sent, uh it's a Google shot of the cranes underneath the the pole barn, basically.

The repair facility, if there is one, is over in Sarah Land, it's their main business.

So the purpose of that business for their specific use at the time, um, prior to the annexation and everything, was to um stage their equipment for use along the industrial canal for their larger pieces of equipment that were too big or too costly to mobilize from Sarah Land.

So that's something that was in the application that we find is incorrect.

Um, or at least up for contention.

Um the next thing is the stormwater drainage.

If you'll look at the exhibit D and E uh in the letter that I sent y'all, um the drainage uh on that on that lot or the applicant slot is directly adjacent to uh our property line, my property line, and also to Mr.

Johnson's property line to the north.

Um in addition, you know the uh that drainage that natural drainage goes straight into two ponds that are not on the site facility plan that are shown.

Uh so I I basically made an attempt to to delineate where the ponds were um so that everyone can see that this is a major a major uh estuary for uh I guess Rabbit Creek and then Dog River.

Um and besides the fact that you know these are both stock ponds that we've spent a lot of time developing the aquaculture on.

We have some concerns about uh the potential use for a diesel repair shop uh in terms of uh drainage.

Uh lastly, I think um if you look at uh and and this is this is something that I it's a uh it's not a given, but it's not it's not very uh it's not a good advertisement either.

If you if you go and look at the uh the the K and R diesel's current facility that's over on uh uh La Rustina Road, and you look at the Google Earth uh map, there's you know truck parts everywhere, there's tires everywhere, there's oil spots all over the concrete, or I'm sorry, all over the gravel.

And I just don't feel like that's a conducive use for a prop piece of property that was zoned RA, purchased as RA, and you know, we're going to have to to look at see smell and and uh deal with in that condition if the current condition was to be applied.

So and that's all I have.

I think uh I can turn it over to Mr.

Johnson.

He's got some more questions.

Thanks, Mr.

Kraft.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Uh my name's Joe Johnson.

I live at 4562 uh Hamilton Boulevard.

I got property directly north of him of this proposed site.

Uh I knew that that site was residential.

Uh when I bought the property, I bought the property because of it's uh because it was residential around me, thinking we were pretty good right there and wouldn't have to worry about it.

Also, all the natural woods back there, the ponds that all connect that run all the way off into Rabbit Creek back there behind my property.

It's just a beautiful place.

Uh and I am very concerned about these chemicals and what have you might be used as he stated in those pictures.

There's another clean, what I call a clean pond that attaches to my pond.

This all runs off.

This is these ponds are a natural waterway straight into a creek that runs to Rabbit Creek.

I've stocked that pond, I've cleaned that property, I built that property, I spent $350,000 of my hard-earned money that I've I've worked for all my life to build this place.

And I I don't want to see a runt uh by changing this to an a place that if he decides not to do it with these um zonings or asked for what potentially may come if he decides not to build and sell it to somebody else, even so I propose and I ask that it's that it remains residential as uh as it is now.

My pond and all that stuff as a major ecosystem that uh normally I don't even understand why anybody would want to change it or mess with it.

We're we're big on uh conservation and stuff because I spend a lot of money to the conservation, Alabama conservation uh around here.

I hunt, I fish, and I love nature, and uh I don't think this is gonna be healthy for it or for my property value for that matter.

That's all I got.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

You don't make okay, your thumbs up, you're good to go.

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

Again, it was applied for as R-A to go to I two.

Is that correct?

And then there was commentary uh between uh commissioners and the applicant on the potential for lesser.

I'll now close public hearing and go into deliberation, open it up.

Mr.

Byrd, you do get a chance to come on down.

My apologies.

It's been a long day.

Mr.

Byrd, please go right ahead and address the concerns that were brought up by Mr.

Kraft and Mr.

Johnson.

I did talk to them on the phone uh the concerns about water running um here.

Hamilton Boulevard's down on this now.

And the owner, this is the owner over uh this gentleman over here, and he's already talking to an engineering company, putting a detention pond up here.

Water will drain into it and re be released at a slow rate, like it is.

That that water runs down into this wetland area that they're referring to, also.

But we're gonna take care of ours, and uh it'll uh it'll meet city regulations, be submitted when they uh go into before we're going to construction.

Any questions or comments from Mr.

Byrd and the applicant?

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Uh I did want to clarify a comment that staff made recently uh just in um response to the question about the I1 and aggregate surfacing.

Parking other than what uh is provided beyond the required amount is required to be paved, just to clarify.

So the aggregate surface would be regular daily vehicle versus paved on any stored vehicle.

So aggregate would be allowed for any sort of vehicle inventory, any storage areas, and any parking uh provided in excess of the minimum amount required.

Okay.

Commentary questions from commissioners?

I guess just a question for staff.

I want to make sure I'm looking at this correctly.

The future land use map designation does have this uh property as well as the property to the uh east and immediate north as heavy industry, correct?

That's correct.

And do we know?

So one speaker said the previous use was for heavy equipment repair.

The other said it was not.

The photo we got looks like it was a shed.

Do we do we know?

Uh the most recent uh at least registered history we have with the site was for the um crane repair.

What they were doing without any sort of approvals, we would not have access at them to that information without any sort of test and testimony from the previous property owner or any business activities that you know that could be proven, and that would be done through business licenses and the sort of property.

I believe one of the um gentlemen who spoke and had concerns has pictures in his comments about the former uh owner and the storage compared to an actual repair facility.

So that would be under public comments.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners?

All right, we will we are now at the end of public hearing.

We will move into deliberation for this, and we'll entertain a motion or an amended option as we discussed in public hearing.

Is there a motion to be had, whether for or against?

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman, I will move to deny the application based on no manifest change in the conditions in the area, making an amendment necessary or desirable uh for general health safety and welfare purposes and lack of compatibility with some of the adjacent properties.

We have a properly moved and seconded for denial of the application that is as stated RA to I2 with specific findings of fact listed.

All in favor for the denial of the application.

Aye.

Any opposed?

We have one in opposition.

The remainder are in approval.

The application for our I2 is denied.

Number 21.

This is a rezoned application at 2604 St.

Stephen's Road from single family residential urban R1 to limited neighborhood business urban LB2.

Commissioners, there are potentially eight findings of fact, and of course, condition of compliance.

The applicant appears to be present.

Yes, ma'am, go ahead, state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon.

I'm Nabra Williams.

The address for the application is 2604 St.

Stephen's Road.

I currently own the lot located at 2600, which is zoned for commercial mixed use.

And I am my application is to rezone my property at 2604 St.

Stephen's for mixed use.

My intention is to build a residential apartments on cop on top with ground level apartments, excuse me, ground level businesses on the bottom, bringing to the community much needed um development in that area.

Healthier food choices such as a cafe.

Keeping in mind that it is residential.

However, um St.

Stephen's Highway 45 is also commercial as well.

How long has that property on the uh on the corner of Reynolds and Stevens?

How long has that been?

LB2?

Is that a recent rezoning or is that is that legacy?

No, that's the legacy.

Um I was born in 75.

It used to be an auto shop when I was a little girl there.

Okay, cool.

To answer your question, um, Mr.

Anderson.

Uh it was formally rezoned in 2007 to the LB2 designation.

2007.

Yeah, LE2 didn't exist for a long time.

Um questions for the applicant, Miss Williams.

All right, thank you, Miss Williams.

Uh I'll now ask if there, and did you understand your the finding potential findings of fact that were listed there?

I was I'm not familiar with them.

Is there a copy of that that I can well we'll let you review those while I ask these?

There they're traditional findings of fact that would go along with the potential approval of the rezone.

Things that you would understand that need to be taken care of, consistence, uh, compatibility, health safety, there are reasons for us as commissioners to potentially award the approval or grant the uh rezone or not.

Absolutely.

I plan to work very closely with I'll now ask if there's anyone else in the audience to hear to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application.

I have one show of a hand.

Was there anyone else?

Just you, young lady, come on down to the podium.

Miss Williams, let's please make room for this individual that has questions.

And reminder, ma'am, to please state your name and your address for the record.

My name is Gwendolyn Smith.

My name is Gwendolyn Smith, and I live at 2613 St.

Stephen's Road, which is directly in front of this property.

I have questions.

Uh I see that the information has been presented, that this is the corner properties included and the property directly in front of me.

At the time of the community meeting, uh the owner did not own the corner property.

So that property at this point has been acquired.

And so if that property has been acquired, then this plan is shared, includes 20 uh include uh 2304 and um and also the corner property as shown rather than on the uh where we're looking at it here.

It did not show uh both addresses.

That's that's my question, basically.

And then also how do we determine if the procedures are carried out correctly as these properties are developed?

Thank you, Ms.

Smith.

And we will let the applicant come address those questions in her rebuttal, but I'll ask real quick if there's anyone else behind Ms.

Smith.

All right, seeing none, Miss Smith, you can make your way back to the seat and we'll allow Miss Williams to answer those questions.

Um Ms.

Smith's first question was specific to the acquisition of the corner corner lot.

Staff, can you provide clarity on that?

Um the application at hand is not for the corner lot, it is already zoned LB2.

This application concerns the lot in question, which is just to the northwest of their which is currently zoned R1.

They're proposing to rezone it to the same zoning district as the corner lot.

So that's the lot that we're focusing on today.

All right.

So I think we've addressed that one, Miss Smith.

Ms.

Williams.

Yes, and as to her concerns as to um will I be following rules and guidelines?

This will go through the zoning department that um for permits and so on, and will be professionally constructed after the job has been bidded.

So any guidelines, laws will all intend to be followed throughout the building of this um mixed use.

Thank you, Miss Williams.

Any questions or comments from commissioners on this agenda item?

Seeing none, we will close public hearing, entertain a motion with potential findings of fact if listed move to approve subject to staff recommendations adopting findings of facts A, C, E, and G.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed motion for rezone passes?

Number 22 on the agenda.

This is a rezone application at 4460 Dauphin Island Parkway.

Rezoned from single family residential suburban R1 to Maritime Light District ML.

Potential eight findings of fact, seven listed conditions.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant's present with a raise of his hand.

Are you in understanding of the potential findings of fact?

And then also more importantly, the seven listed conditions in agreement with those.

All right, we got a thumbs up and a yes.

I'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience that has questions towards this in favor of or in opposition to this rezone from R1 to Maritime Light District at 4460 Dolphin Island Parkway.

We have one, we have two.

Is there anyone else?

All I saw was a gentleman in the green shirt and the orange shirt, and was there another one?

If there is, we'll go after the gentleman in the orange shirt.

Reminder, sir, to please state your name and address for the record.

I'm Don Banks.

I live at 1263 Skywood Drive here mobile.

I'm a board member of the Alba Hunting Fishing Club, which has property on Dog River very near the applicant's uh property, and we're very familiar with what he is doing and proposes to do.

If you look at the area uh aesthetically, it fits right in with what's there.

There are two or three marinas there, there's uh the orange pile driving uh facility there, all of those have vessels there, they store store vessels there, and the shrimp boat that Mr.

Noel has uh fits in very well with that area, and he also the proposed use would uh enhance that area by uh by allowing seafood to be brought in local seafood uh that would make it very convenient for the neighbors and the residents in that facility to have access to that.

So I think it'll it would greatly enhance the value of properties and the use of the property and uh potentially tax revenue for the city if that matters.

Thank you, Mr.

Banks.

Yes, sir.

Orange shirt.

Was there anyone else besides this gentleman coming down the steps?

If so, please raise your hand high.

All right, I don't see anyone else.

I will also, while this gentleman gets ready to for his comments prepare.

Um you've got commissioners, you've got comments in the public folder.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight for your review.

Yes, sir.

Yep, my name is Harry Day, 2814, Kings Mill Drive West Mobile.

And uh I have uh been associated with Dolphin Island Parkway, Fulton Road, Cedar Point Road, whatever you want to call it when I grew up there for 76 years.

Uh this type of of business going into where we're proposing it, would do nothing but enhance it.

We we it gives us the opportunity for fresh seafood off the boat from the loop all the way to Dolphin Island.

And not only would it enhance the Dolphin Island Parkway people, he would have deliberately enhance all of Mobile, and I think it would be a very good decision for him to go ahead.

I actually sold seafood to this place uh when I was 16 years old on Dolphin Island Parkway.

It was a business.

I don't know when it got changed, but it was a business, and uh back then mullet was five cents a pound.

So that give you the idea how long it's been.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else questions or comments from commissioners on the potential of the rezone R1 to Maritime Light District?

I will ask staff just to confirm so we get it out.

This maritime light district's first time I've seen it in a long time.

Can you give us a brief?

Can you give us a brief is it on in my notes here on what it will allow?

I see Mayor Time Light.

As far as the just general description of the zoning district.

So maritime light districts are intended more or less uh to be located on or near in proximity to navigable uh water bodies and consists of maritime supporting commercial or light industrial uses, such as marine supplies or ship chandleries.

And looking at the map, I mean it's just low distant density residential, but we we've gotten approval verbally and written clearly.

Uh question other questions, comments from commissioners.

Entertain a motion, move to approve move to approve service staff recommendations with findings of fact A through G.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with findings of fact A through G from uh all in favor?

I aye.

Any opposed motion for rezoned to ML passes.

Number 20.

Number we'll pass the plate.

Motion 20 number 23 on the agenda.

Uh this is a rezoned agenda item or application at 1509 Navco Road, Bayview Auto.

Go from B2 to B3.

Potential.

Eight, one, two, three, four, five, seven findings of fact and full compliance with codes and ordinances.

Is the applicant present?

Applicants present with a raise of hand in the back of the audience or the auditorium.

Are you aware of those potential findings of fact and in agreement with the potential conditions on ordinances and codes?

The answer is yes.

I'll ask if there's anyone else here speak towards it or have questions towards it.

You have a question towards it or want to speak for it or against it.

If there are anyone else, all right.

Please come on down.

Reminder to please state your name and address for the record.

And the address is 1501 Navico Road.

I just had a question for him.

Uh we our business is right next door to him.

Uh RW use Westbrook.

Will you get a little bit closer to the microphone with the red on it?

I'll my business is located right next door to uh the location he's uh obtaining, and then I just had a question for him about the uh will there be any fencing uh in the type thing that he would put up to separate the business since this will be a car dealership and the B isn't just so close together.

Will he uh have anything to divide the two?

So once where I will proper the line is uh is seemed like to me his parking lot is gonna be small for a uh a dealership.

So I was just wondering, would we have to be concerned about the cause on our property line?

Well, you do we need to uh do something about the dividing it, or will he be doing anything about it?

All right, thank you for your questions.

I will let him address those.

I'll now ask while he gets in the preparation to come answer those.

Is anyone else here to speak for, speak against, or uh have questions towards this application, and just to refresh question.

There was questions on potential of uh fencing, uh, and then size and I guess use, but give us give us your reasoning on B2 to B3 and state your name and address for the record.

My name is Mohammed Haifa, 6595 Red Mabel Drive Mobile.

We're rezoning this property from B2 to B3 to be a used car lot sale.

This building has been vacant for 20 years.

We took it over two years ago.

We totally remodeled the building, spent a lot of money on it.

It's gonna make the community look good, it's gonna create jobs in the community.

Speaking on her concern about the fencing, there is fence.

There's a car wash on my right-hand side of the building.

If you're facing the building, there's a car wash on the right hand side, which is there's a brick wall in between us.

And behind the building behind my property, there is a chain link fence, and the tire shop next to me has his own chain link fence.

I'm not sure which business she owns next to me.

And the mechanic shop behind us, which is there's a fence separates us.

But if anything I could do to keep her confident or happy, I don't mind.

That's make her comfortable.

You're willing to work with the community.

I will yes, sir.

All right.

Any questions or comments from the commissioners on B2 to B3 for the applicant?

All right, thank you, sir.

Seeing none, we'll close public hearing, go into deliberation, entertain a motion for the potential of the rezon B2 to B3 with potential findings of fact.

I have a comment in general.

First of all, I appreciate the applicant stating he's renovated the building and things like that.

Uh certainly anybody who's willing to invest money in the city should be applauded.

But you know, as I thought about this and you know, going from B2 to B3, it reminded me that, you know, I guess it was uh a couple months ago with a similar application on Moffat Road.

And uh, you know, the concern there uh from the neighboring residents was you know, there's no way to control how many cars are gonna be on the lot.

And uh while the presentation was going on, I was actually looking at this site, and I noticed that the site we did not on Moffat Road was 0.6 acres, and this site is 0.3 acres.

It is half the size of the rezoning quest for same thing on on Moffat Road.

And uh so you know I I struggle with that's that's one of my struggle is, and I'll just say that for the record.

Yeah, and also for the record, I could reiterate that I guess the problem, the challenge with that one is is probably could be a challenge with this one, hopefully not.

Uh, but a lot of times these these car uh used car dealerships end up parking their vehicles on the right-of-way.

Uh they encroach into the roadway, uh, they create a visual nuisance, you know, for the for the neighbors and the traveling public.

Uh this appears to be a fully fully paved uh surface in some instances where they're grassed, uh they tear up the grass, tear up the right-of-way.

So uh if this does go forward, I mean I'll just advise the applicant, you know, be a good good steward with your neighbors and you know, don't encroach in you know over into the into the into the right-of-way.

You need to you're gonna need to know exactly where your property line is because that has become a uh an unfortunate but reoccurring problem with some of the car dealerships.

So Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Uh that I was actually um had that exact same request in mind.

Uh uh the planning commission denied it or did not recommend it for approval.

Um, it's in front of a it's front of council right now, actually on our agenda automatic holdover.

We'll we'll take it up next week.

Um, and and again, I kind of do share those concerns.

I I definitely greatly appreciate the fact that anybody that wants to reinvest in the city of Mobile um should be applauded.

So thank you for that.

And and thank you for for taking a building, like you said, that's been sitting there for 20 years, 20 plus years.

Um, but then but do but touching on that though, and uh and again, you know, addressing the fact that you know a lot of times these vehicles might end up on the right way for display.

And um, I guess my question to the applicant would be um would you be willing uh to potentially uh uh consider or be willing to to maybe allow conditional, I guess, a voluntary use restriction of of how many how many vehicles at one time you would have there, I guess, just to prevent overcrowding because I I kind of look at the map.

I think next door, like you're saying, there's a there's a car wash, then behind that is more of an automotive uh repair business, and it seems like they have some cars in the back, and then um, and then uh to to your the the comment we had before, we you know she does have a tire shop.

So I guess that being said, um, you know, would you be willing to to limit the amount of cars at any given time that's for sale because you are gonna have to accommodate because I'm I'm sure whatever business you're on, you're gonna have customers.

Um you are gonna have to accommodate the parking with the customers and everything.

So okay.

Um, is there a number in mind that you potentially would consider?

No more than 15.

No more than 15.

Okay.

15.

Do you know how many parking spots uh parking spaces, excuse me, or on the property now?

Come on down, please.

I just want to I just want to say just say one thing before he answers this.

If we uh you know, obviously everybody was thinking of the same example when looking at this one.

You know, the there was uh the amount of impervious surface on that previous application might be lower than what was even though the site's smaller, it might be lower than this.

But I don't want us to get into a position where we're making an arbitrary decision just because we're eyeballing it, you know what I mean?

I would I would rather know how you know how much space is here that you could actually park a car.

Well, that's why I asked him how many spaces there are if they're in existence now.

And I I'm just saying that for the for the purposes of the staff.

If something like this comes up, it's it it does become impossible for us to avoid making making an arbitrary decision, which is the kind of thing that we have to go to court over, you know.

So that's that's what that's what's on my mind.

Good point, and y'all could hold it over and asking to submit a detailed site plan to show what the area is for the parking uh for the cars and the customers.

If you allow me to say this, when we started remodeling this site two years ago, our engineer approved us for 12 parking spots for customers for a retail sport that just for customers to park as a retail store, but the parking lot is enough to fit at least 50 to 60 cars.

If you do like these car dealerships where they park them bumper to bumper, but we're not gonna do that.

We're gonna try to keep the site more space for customers and more space for us and the vehicles that we're gonna carry, we're gonna kill the quality vehicles, so we're not gonna keep too many crowded vehicles in there.

I could fit 60 vehicles if I want to bark them bump with the bumper together, but I think between 15 and 20 max I'll have on the parking lot, which is lengthy space on there.

Right now we are approved.

If you look at the city maps, we have a CO from the city, and we are abroved for 12 parking spots.

And the rest of the park a lot, we're just gonna add three more to it on the whole entire rest of the space in the park a lot.

Staff confirmation on the current B2 has got 12.

Could you check that?

The site plan we were provided does not have any parking delay, so I cannot confirm.

For from our fellow commissioners, I think we add up nine existing parking uh spaces in front of the building.

Um that's how many bumpers there are.

And I do want to point out, uh, Mr.

Chair, that the previous use of this site required so many parking spaces, and the site did not accommodate those, and it therefore was given non-conforming status with respect to parking.

That non-conforming status does not extend to the proposed use because they're completely different.

Um I just want to make that a point for the commission.

Any further questions or comments for the applicant?

Do you want to get some confirmation up there?

It was 15.

Down here it was 15 to 20.

Let's land at a potential number.

Should it be brought up for a motion that would include okay?

Thank you, sir.

Entertain a motion, or do y'all need more time?

Again, this is B2 to B3.

Would the 20 include parking for customers and staff?

Good question.

I think the number we're saying that we're discussing is 15 for sale.

But you gotta have some sort of inclusion of the number for those working in the building.

That's correct.

Um, and I do want to point out with respect to the um restriction on the use as it pertains to the number of inventory.

Um, it would seem most appropriate for the applicant to file with our department um a voluntary uh use restrictions form because it's notarized and it will have to be recorded in probate court with any potential rezoning ordinance.

Make sure that that's aware of if should this move on through.

That and um I think traditionally we would also have a condition that it's recorded concurrently with an approved zoning ordinance.

Now I guess similarly with I hear what everybody's saying, and again, like I'm looking I'm all for people doing what they want to with their property.

What's that?

Sorry, you know, turn them up, Doug.

Uh, you know, I look, I'm off for people doing what they want to do with their property, but also I think we need to, you know, apply our considerations fairly.

And if I remember one of the questions or concerns with the Moffat Road issue was who's gonna police a voluntary use restriction on the number of vehicles.

And you know, quite frankly, respectfully, it shouldn't be this lady's you know, job to police her neighbor uh and have to call you know 311 or whomever every time.

And so, you know, all I'm saying is that you know, in my mind, I look at this very almost exactly similar uh as the Moffat road case.

Um, because if I recall correctly, that discussion about you know uh restrictions on a number of cars on the lot at any time, you know, was discussed.

And I think the applicant at the time was willing to agree to something, and ultimately, you know, this commission elected to deny that application.

All right.

Comment noted, was that a movement?

Was it seconded?

Uh it was not a it was not a motion, but I I will make the motion to deny the application.

Do we have a second for denying the application to go from B2 to B3?

All right, we have a second.

All in favor for denying B2 to B3.

I need to get a show of hands.

We have one, two, three.

Four.

One, two, three, four.

One, two, three, four.

Is there anyone here?

Well, the other four saying no to the denial.

Let's ask that question.

One, two, three, four.

No, I'm for denying.

For denial.

I'm asking those who are saying no.

So we have one, two, three, four.

All right.

That brings it down to the chair.

I too will also deny the application.

And the commentary there is I agree with commissioner on the previous applications.

Moving on.

So I just want to say this is exactly what happened previously.

You got a voluntary, uh, you know, some movement voluntarily from the applicant, and then they get denied anyway, which is just kicking people in the teeth.

I think when these come up, we we got to do something differently because it's it feels like a huge waste of time and energy.

With it, I would suggest what would what would be helpful probably in both of them is uh is a site plan that shows the actual number of the maximum number of vehicles and where they want to place them.

Uh, you know, remember the one on Moffat Road, there was a significant amount of green space out in front of it, and that was that was the concern.

So sites are a little bit different, but I think that would help us if we had a had layouts.

All right, moving on.

This is number 20 24 on the agenda rezon application 255 church street, amendment to downtown development district regulating plan, rezoned property from T-5.2 to T6, potential seven findings of fact and full compliance with codes and ordinances.

Yes, sir.

Hey, good afternoon.

Jay Watkins Major Next 711, Northwater Street, uh suite 24290.

I don't think there's any opposition, but I did want to just uh for the record provide standards review.

This is 255 Church Street, which is racistally right behind y'all.

It's the quality end facility there.

You know it as a an older style hotel, all the rooms open up onto the parking lot.

Uh it's dated.

Uh that style of hotel these days are not in favor.

Uh the landowner would like to come in, uh, remove that site, redevelop that site as a mixed use of new hotel retail and potentially residential.

Uh, in order to do that, they would like to go higher than the five-story uh limit that's in the T52.

So they're asking to go to T56 under the charter permitted uses under the DDD.

It's almost identical in terms of uses that's allowed.

Uh, I think the only real difference would be that uh you could have venues there that have more than a hundred people without a uh by right as opposed to having to come in for a permissive use.

So uh certainly here to answer any questions, uh, but would ask that you consider favorably uh rezoning this to T6.

How many stories would um be allowed on?

And at this point, they have not got uh design drawings yet.

They have not spent the money to hire an architect or an engineer to actually design the site.

They wanted to get the zoning in place first.

Uh depending on how much on-site parking and what would have to be done in terms of a parking deck, uh, will determine kind of what they need to do uh going up.

Um they're in the neighborhood 1520 stories probably.

Okay, thank you.

We're looking now to see if there's a limit in T6.

Is there's no height restriction in the T6?

2025.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant on the downtown development rezone?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Watkins.

I'll now ask if there's anyone that's in the audience that is here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item in the downtown development district.

Seeing none, we will close public hearing.

Come back to liberation, potential seven findings facts for potential for entertaining a motion.

Move to approve service staff recommendations of findings of fact A through G.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, the motion passes.

Number 25, rezone 1451 Cedar Crescent Drive.

This is a rezone request from multifamily residential suburban R3 to multifamily residential suburban R3 to remove the previously approved rezoning condition, limiting the number of mobile dwellings on the site to 133.

So we would need commentary from the applicant on the reasoning and the number there.

For commissioners, there's potential uh seven findings of fact.

Uh and then for the applicant, there would be potentially five conditions.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Ray.

That's spelled RAY.

My address is 1100 Comstock Drive.

It's in Las Vegas, Nevada, 89106.

I uh apologize.

I don't have quite enough, but I do have six small packets with some photographs.

I would like to be able to distribute to some of the I'll wait till those photos arrive.

Yes, sir.

In the meantime, in the meantime, I will uh state a little history on the property.

I bought this property approximately 12 years ago.

I'm the sole member of the of the property owner on LLC, Tenacious 4.

And I bought this property through a bank.

I have a loan on the property.

The bank lent me money to purchase the property based on 447 lots.

And since the property has been built in 1970, it's been 447 lots.

The water company every year since 1970 has been billing me, not myself, but the property owners based on 447 lots.

They don't care if one lot is occupied or 447 are occupied.

They're gonna charge me the same amount of money.

Okay, that is a hardship.

The property had been the property had been previously managed by a firm, Sherman and Hemp Street, a property firm in Augusta, Georgia.

They really did me a disservice and did not follow the requirements that were required for the privacy fence.

Move away.

Yeah, perfect.

I don't do this every day.

Okay, thank you.

Um basically back in 2022, uh, property manager went in front of the city council as I am today with regards to the question of the privacy fence.

The privacy fence has now been well started at an eight-foot height under my direction.

I fired that property manager two years ago.

Okay.

These are examples of the homes that people live in.

I don't rent the homes, I rent the land.

So what you have here is a community of property owners.

They care about their properties, they maintain them, and there's rules and regulations for the maintain that condition.

So I'm here today to ask a request to go back to what it was originally built for of 447 lots.

At this time, uh rather in 2022, without my permission, the property manager agreed to go back to 133 lots.

So basically, I'm just one more point here.

I'm here with Mr.

Jerry Byrd, by the way.

He's assisting me on this application.

The water issue I've hit on property manager.

It's it's it is a source of affordable housing for the residents.

They own their own home, and it's a source of commercial activity because you've got more people wanting to buy merchandise.

That's the bullet points I'd like to relay include in your packet.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Questions or comments from commissioners specific to his request to keep R3, but to remove the dwellings uh limit of 133 to his requested number for 437?

It's 447, and I I would like to add that this is not going to happen overnight.

Okay.

I'm not a magician to add in you know, magically 300 units.

But over time, I would like to have that ability and would also solve the dilemma I have with the lender who lent me money based upon 447 spaces.

Any further questions or comments from commissioners before I ask if there's anyone else questions for it?

I have a question.

Go ahead.

So the uh in the in the staff's comments, and I'm I don't know if you've seen all the comments that I have.

Yeah, that would require considerable changes with regard to landscaping and and even perhaps the layout would have to change based on the you know the having to provide a certain amount of open space per unit and things like that.

Are you prepared to meet those requirements?

Yes.

Mr.

Reg got a question for you.

You said that the condition of the zoning in 2022 to limit the number of mobile homes was done without your knowledge or consent.

Correct.

I guess my question for staff is um any type of rezoning requires an owner authorization letter signed by the owner of the property in 2022 was within the last 12 years.

So I guess help me understand how that one might have slipped through the cracks or the authority.

So what his agent did to limit the number of mobile homes, if there was a discrepancy there, that would have been between from my understanding him and the property owner.

I guess what what I'm trying to get at is the property owner at least sign an owner authorization form.

That's correct.

Do we know the reasoning behind the 133 limit four years ago?

I don't remember it being like a point of contention.

Um we can certainly look back at the minutes.

Um I think that it was brought up just over the history of the site's non-compliance with certain certain conditions that allowed the use as a mobile home part never being um complied with.

Um I think that was more of uh an intent to try to assuage fears that the surrounding community might have about you know further development of the property, but I that's speculation.

Um I don't remember there being any uh outright conflict with respect to the increase in number.

I think that was just a request made by the applicant at that time.

And this has been a multifamily mobile home property for over since the 1970s, yes.

Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Uh so as of right now, um one of the things that uh one of the conditions was the fence.

I think they did away with the buffers on back in either 2002 or another time that got this got touch.

But um, as of right now, the fencing, the fencing is done, completed.

There's an eight, there's an eight-foot fence.

It is not completed, it's an eight-foot fence.

We've got a very good start out about 50 percent finished.

Okay.

What's your anticipated time of getting that done?

Max 90 days, we bear at 60.

Okay.

And then um, as far as the makeup of this, the 133, I guess.

Um, since we don't really have a real explanation of where 133 came from, um, you're saying right now, um right now there's hookups for 400.

It was built for the 447, those all those hookups are there today.

Water sewer power, water sewer power, every one of them.

Okay, and uh mobile home dwellings here is what was being referenced, and we're talking about manufactured homes or are we talking about RVs, I guess.

No, no RVs.

Okay.

Thank you.

All the pictures that we're seeing show, you know, they're showing things that are appear to be in pretty good condition, pretty well maintained.

What we don't show is any pictures of the actual roadway infrastructure that any residents might actually be using.

We're looking, I'm looking at some aerial photos and I can't really tell.

Can someone speak to the bas the basic condition of the roads?

Because I mean if you're if you're at 133 and you're trying to go home to go to 400 plus, it's almost like you're you're bringing on 300 plus potentially new residents into uh into a subdivision, and if that roadway infrastructure, you know, is in a marginal condition.

I mean, I think there's probably some concerns that that would be.

So if there are any conditions on the roadway that needs to be dealt with, they'll they will be dealt with.

Well, that's much the same as any any subdivision that this body approves.

You know, when we approve the subdivision and the houses are start starting to be built or starting to come online, you know, the roadway condition is in like new condition before you start putting all that extra additional traffic on there.

Uh I I'm just curious what what the condition of it is.

Aerial photos look like there's there's possibly water issues in there in curbing gutters.

I just I just don't know.

I don't know if if the surveyor can it it was built with drainage.

It was built with drainage and then maintaining it like that.

Yeah, this is just a uh uh a perspective that but that if that condition is changed and brought back up, you know, I think it needs to be have a condition where that infrastructure is brought back into you know brought back into modern functional, you know, safe, you know, safe for residents to live in condition and really prior to any normally this would be prior to signing a plat, but this is really prior to removing a condition.

Uh I think in this case.

Mr.

Ray, how many units are in there now?

I believe it's a 135.

So it's two over.

It's I that's what they're stating, yes.

How many how many acres is the site?

I believe I'm not mistaken about 56.

Yeah.

There is enough open space.

Just by nodding your head, you did you did the layout of this potentially.

Actually, that layout was based off of maps I got from Malls that they showed the original layout from 1970.

And we put it together.

It was a PDF copy, but we was able to scan it and get it positioned in.

And then on that map, there's some that are the existing mobile homes that are there now, and then the rest of them over filled in from that map.

I've seen in the past, I've seen the development plans for that uh park, but they're not in my office now, I guess.

I I searched hard.

But uh yes.

All right.

So and I think to answer Nick, uh there's a large ditch along the south property line.

Uh I don't know which way it flows.

I guess it flows toward the bay.

Uh but uh park seems to drain that way.

Yeah.

Yeah, just a very cursory view of an aerial photo.

Uh I mean it looks like the roads and the drainage system or systems, whatever they may be through there, are in very poor condition.

I mean, I just that's all I can tell from an aerial photo, but you know, you can see you can see standing water, you know, on the road in a lot of places.

It looks to me that perhaps the site needs a lot of maintenance uh to get the you know to get it back up into a condition, you know, especially if you've got potentially you know 300 more residents coming online, even if they're coming along line one at a time.

Uh, you know, it's just it the site looks to be in poor, looks to be poorly maintained from what we can see here.

Jerry, he said he's selling land or leasing the land.

They're leased lots.

Leasing what what size are these lots that he's leasing?

Oh gosh.

I don't know.

That's because they're not lot, they're not planted lots from what I understand.

The what you're saying is that the original plan back in 1970 something was one big lot, and they said, okay, you can have 400 and some odd trailers or mobile homes.

They're probably 35, 40 feet wide.

Because it was set with a and there are a lot of extra uh concrete pads out there, but the trailer, the pad, and the utilities all shown.

Okay.

And um, I won't say that they're all of the pads are out there.

I think it's the first mobile home park that's come up for any sort of consideration, I guess from the R3 zoning perspective, which UDC allows 25 units per acre, but typically that's you know apartments instead of you know individual mobile homes.

Is that still a does that density still govern in the case of something like this?

Uh potentially, um, it would depend on the original conditions from the special exception from the 1970s, I would imagine.

Um however, if it were to be applied today, then this is just the numbers, I don't want to you know upset anybody, but they would be allowed to have 1,652 mobile homes on the property.

So that's not withstanding open space requirements, which is 700 square feet per dwelling unit.

Um so that would reduce that number significantly, but so to answer your question, it it it if it applies, um this is still the the lesser of the two Mr.

Chair.

Go ahead.

Just keep in mind we still have to request if everybody in the audience needs to wants to speak for, speak against or here or have questions towards this.

Go ahead, Josh.

Um, I'll be real quick.

Uh there's uh newances uh numerous times and in the you know in the I guess the the history here it says that municipal enforcement's been has been kind of busy at work at this place um out of curiosity outside of the fence.

Is there anything else that we can report back that municipal enforcement has been been kind of working on here?

Uh from zoning, uh not so much other than the uh the conditions from 2022, which was the if I go back to it real quick, the provision of the eight foot tall privacy fence along the east side um in compliance with the remaining conditions of the 1970 rezoning, um, which included buffering along all remaining property lines except the south property line.

And the buffer is gone 2002, kick the buck right or okay.

Again, my memory is a little fuzzy from 2022, but since that time those conditions in full have not been complied with.

Yeah, I would kind of point out one other thing on um, I think for the um figuring the amounted area 700 square feet per mobile home is what the city is looking for.

I took 66 acres, whatever 447 times 700 is, deducted that, deducted the streets, deducted the clubhouse, and wound up with about 200,000 square feet extra green area that's uh out there, and there's a large playground right there in the middle also.

Thank you, Mr.

Bird.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

If y'all will have a seat, I need to ask the audience uh for this agenda item if they're here.

Anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards it.

Please raise your hand if you do.

We have one, we have two.

Is that all?

All right, we'll let the ladies go first.

Reminders, uh please state your name and address for the record and any questions, comments for or against.

Good afternoon.

But Tina Bailey, resident uh 3206 Bayfront Road.

Um I am along the east side of this property.

Um my family's had property there since probably the 40s.

Uh ever since this property has uh gone into effect.

We have fought here and there to try to keep everything in compliance or make sure that they keep everything in compliance.

Um 2022 when the trailers were reduced to 133, that number was reduced.

Um it was set that the fences were supposed to be repaired along our side, nothing has been touched.

There have been more um trailer pads, I guess you'd call them placed along where the wetlands used to be in the very beginning, years, years ago when the wheel family owned that property.

Um I believe when they first started.

They knew that there were wetlands through there.

Um it was kind of like good old boys' club from what I understand.

The um they could use that portion as long as they you know planted a tree somewhere else.

Well, now there are plans.

I mean there are um trailer pads right up against the east side property line.

Um the crime and not necessarily crime, but a lot of instances that have happened through there, people jumping over the fence, shootings back there, um that type thing that has decreased since this number of trailers, you know, has decreased, but bringing in 300 more trailers, we don't want to go back to everything that we had to deal with before you know the loud music and the people just everything going on back there.

Um I can't even put my dogs out in the backyard by themselves because fences have not been repaired.

Um my understanding is it an eight-foot fence that's supposed to be between is that is that right?

I mean, the fence that that is there, it was ground level, they raised it up like two feet, so I don't know if that's their eight-foot fence or or not, but um we are opposed to more trailers in this area.

I don't think is that all, Miss Bailey.

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you, Miss Bailey.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name's Edward Franklin.

Uh I grew up at your last name, sir.

Edward Franklin.

I grew up in 1400 Tampa.

Still own the residence there.

I live at 908 stand road right now.

Uh as a kid, I remember when he first built it.

Crown was like slowly rising here and there.

I remember the issue with the fence.

Because the people who came to was a lot more.

They were complaining on the fact that people were crossing their property, making their own trailways to the other side of the streets.

Uh there were instances with the police chasing down people and stuff.

But just from a factual standpoint, I'm just looking at traditionally studies show that transient people, and especially when you got the ITN corridor real close by, they tend to want to stay in these areas where they can have fast access as well as do what they normally do.

And I'm just against having more people brought into an area where they got it limited right now.

Um I don't know if anything can be done for his situation with the water and power and all this other stuff where they can renegotiate and just look at it on a unit by unit basis, but um we don't need to have those numbers escalate and then have crime go up even further.

That's my quote.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Franklin.

Was there anyone else to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this?

I don't know that the applicant, Mr.

Ray, address those concerns brought up by those citizens.

Uh thank you for the opportunity.

The comments were made by the last two.

Um I didn't quite catch up with the residents or neighbors, but they I I would not disagree that five years ago, four years ago, maybe even three years ago, they may have been issues.

But since I terminated Sherman and Hemp Street from the management company, I can guarantee you that it's not the same park.

I've got a husband and wife on site residents that live in the park, and two employed three employees beyond them, that their sole purpose is to maintain and secure that park from any problems.

So and that's what we've been doing for the last two years.

Any quote further questions or comments for the rebuttal from Mr.

Ray from commissioners?

Follow-up question for you, Mr.

Ray.

You're you're you've got 133, 135, whatever the numbers it's that's irrelevant.

And you're asking for four forty-seven.

The originally built.

Is there any compromise between where you are now?

Well, listen, we're we're all grown-ups here, okay?

And I understand your hesitation, your reservation when you get comments from the from the neighbors of certain things that happened in the past.

If you want to say, okay, well, maybe a certain amount this year and take it take a reading on it.

What does it look like in a year's time?

What is it like in two years' time?

But for me to go to the bank and say I no longer have 447, that's that's a perilous situation to be in.

And uh I I really don't think that limiting it is gonna help the neighborhood.

It's gonna probably hurt the property owner and maintain the uh loan conditions.

I'm not gonna well no just Mr.

Chairman.

Uh my Go ahead.

My comment is I think I think it'd behoove the this commission to hear uh from the staff, give the chant the staff a chance to go back and review the minutes and find out there's got to be something to an arbitrary number of one thirty-three and and why I think it would help us to help us to make that decision.

We applaud you trying to improve it and wanted to wanting to make it better.

Uh but I mean I think there are some concerns at least at least from my perspective on the condition of the infrastructure and bringing more people back in, but I think it would be helpful for this body to hear what that conversation was via the minutes back when those restrictions were put on because there's there's got there's I I'm sure there's a reason why.

Uh we heard from the from the two uh neighbors that are against it, it's probably that plus some more.

So I just think it would be you know, be helped that.

I mean my recommendation would be to lay this over to the next meeting and then have have a chance to get more information.

Yeah, I I agree.

I've I've got I've got a lot of concerns from it.

This the fact that we render service here, we pick up trash and garbage.

Adding that many units is going to be an is an additional trash route.

And we have a really uh really tight schedule on those services, so we would need to do some analysis to determine what we can even do with that kind of uh volume.

Mr.

Ray, would you be amenable to a holdover for your application so that not only our staff and this commission can wrap our hands around what may be an appropriate uh number or to to either meet your request or find some middle ground, it'll also give you an opportunity to finish your fencing that has been uh part of the uh the previous agreement.

That's fine.

I just want to comment on the gentleman's um concern about the trash.

Um we do pay tax bills for trash on based on 447 lots and a water bill based on 447 lots that runs about $15,000 a month, and they will not reduce that water bill if I have 133 or 120 or 250.

I'm still paying that same water bill and the same trash bill based upon those units for since 1970.

You you do not pay additionally for trash for any of those units.

Well, I I apologize if I'm not correct on that.

I do know the water is based on 477 lots.

Yeah, yeah.

I apologize if I'm wrong there.

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Reference uh the zoning application from 2021, it's uh 001915 2021.

Um it was actually based on the site plan that was submitted uh for 66.09 acre site developed with 129 mobile homes and one office club house structure.

A note on the plan states that four additional mobile homes are planned to be placed on the site.

So it was I and I'm still saying let's look at it, but it based on this, it's the site plan that was submitted back in 2021.

I I'd have to refer um to my surveyor how what happened there, but I wasn't aware.

All I know is that it was built for 447, sure, and that's what the bank lent me money on.

So my hope is that you can maybe work with Mawes on that a little bit um to to reduce that uh that you're not operating 447 lots.

They're pretty adamant they're not gonna change the water bill.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Thank you.

Any further comments, commissioners?

We'll close public hearing, go into deliberation.

I'm sorry.

I moved hold over into the August meeting.

Second.

Before I bring that to a vote, I'll ask staff if the August meeting agenda items are at account.

Um the August 20th meeting is fine.

Uh the deadline for that's not till next week.

However, I would ask that if there's this additional information that's being requested that we're specific about what the commission is asking for, so that we can provide the applicant with a deadline to provide us with that information in preparation of next month's meeting.

Yeah, I would request that the staff basically just provide us the basis of what that 33 information that they had, review the review the minutes uh and the discussion, and just give us a better understanding of how we uh how we arrived at the 1330.

Understood.

And I would add the it would be helpful for us, but I think especially the applicant.

That last paragraph of the planning comments was a point that I kind of got hung up on that mentions that you know the removal of the condition would not necessarily restore the development and intensity compatible by the 1970s, and it kind of goes on the you know, there may be additional approvals that will be required under the current UDC and references special exemptions and conditional uses.

I just think you know my read of that was even if this was approved, there's other steps to the process.

Um the comment was made under speculation just in case there was additional approvals that were necessary.

The question came up um that by limiting them to 133, and that was codified as part of an ordinance, um, removing that and allowing additional units.

Did that mean that it basically started over from the beginning of the process?

What would that look like in terms of approval for this type of use?

Currently, a conditional use permit is necessary for a mobile home park in an R3 district.

However, at the time it was developed, a special exception was what was required for approval in an R3 district for the use.

So that's more of a question for uh legal to kind of untangle, but it was put in there for discussion.

Do we have a motion?

And the second?

Yeah, yes, miss for a holdover till August planning commission meeting.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

Mr.

Ray, get with staff after this meeting because there is if there's anything required before the deadline of next week, we want to make sure we get that material to you and Mr.

Bird, or you guys get access to that.

All right, moving on.

Number 26 on the agenda rezone application, west side of Winaker Avenue, 151 feet north of Virginia Street.

It's a rezone request from single suburban residential urban R1 to two family residential R2, potentially seven findings of fact and conditions pending.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant is present with a raise of the hand.

Um have you read the potential findings of fact there and would be understanding of the of the conditions?

The applicant is in agreement.

This is going from R1 to R2.

I'll ask if any of the commissioners have any questions based on your readings of the file.

I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that would have any questions for is uh towards this application is for it or against it.

If so, raise your hand.

All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Go into deliberation.

Any questions or comments again from commissioners?

I would move to approve service staff recommendation with findings of fact A through G.

Second.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The rezone to R2 is requested as granted.

We have a combo application number 27.

This is a subdivision and a sidewalk waiver at 4086, Rivier Duchain Road, hack by Hack Barth Gardens subdivision.

The subdivision application is one lot at 19.2 acres, and then a request to waive the construction of side law sidewalks along Rivier de chain and Lloyd Station Road.

For the subdivision application, there's potentially 11 conditions, and on the sidewalk waiver, we will leave that to the applicant.

Yes, sir.

Patrick Garsteck, uh CMG Engineers, 457 St.

Michael Street.

Um we are good with the subdivision comments.

Uh there's 11.

I think there's 11 comments.

Is that right for considerations?

Um on the sidewalk waiver, I just want to reiterate that to my knowledge, there's no sidewalks on uh Rivier's uh Duchenne.

It is no curb and gutter as well, so there's ditches on both sides, and a ditch on this side, especially.

Um, and then you have that intersection of at Lloyd Station as well.

That would be a little complicated for a sidewalk, and also the overpass on I 10 is not uh wide enough for a sidewalk, so I don't see much of a need for a sidewalk here as well.

Any questions or comments from commissioners for Mr.

Garstec regarding either the subdivision or the sidewalk waiver?

So regarding the sidewalk, this isn't gonna be pro this isn't gonna be a public amenity or anything like that.

Yeah, so this is it is it like a driveway we're looking at the site plan.

Is it just like a driveway going in and then going around it?

Is that effectively what that yep to a uh a garden area for family that lives actually further down the street on Riviera de Chane?

Any further questions or comments?

Thank you, Mr.

Garstecky.

I'll ask the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this agenda item, which is a combo application of a subdivision, and a sidewalk waiver along Riviera de Chane and Lloyd's station.

All right, seeing none, we'll go close public hearing, get into deliberation, take them separately, entertain a motion for the subdivision.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations, second properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, I need opposed, the motion for subdivision passes sidewalk waiver application.

Move to approve the sidewalk waiver, second, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed motion for sidewalk waiver passes number 28?

It's a dual application of a subdivision and a modification at 753 and 755 bowling brothers boulevard, 90 65 commercial park subdivision.

On the subdivision, it's three lots, 34.3 acres, and then on the modification, it's a previously approved uh planning approval, allowing a baseball park, stadium, ice rink, and museum, and a B3 community business suburban district to modify the lot lines into in coordination with the proposed subdivision and remove two lots from the existing planning approval on the subdivision.

There are potentially 10 listed conditions, and on the major modification, there are potentially eight findings of fact there, and then again 17 listed conditions.

Is the applicant present?

The applicant's present with raise of hand on the subdivision.

Are you in agreement with those conditions?

Thumbs up on the major modification, understanding of the potential findings of fact, and then on the major modification, the 17 listed conditions, thumbs up again.

Thank you, sir.

Give commissioners a chance to review that.

I'll ask them the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this application, yes, ma'am.

Reminder to state your name and address for the record.

Susan Jamerson, 2751, South Barray Drive and Mobile.

Um, what are you going to turn that into?

Speak to the rest of the questions to us, and then they'll they'll figure out what is he gonna turn it into is the question.

Why is it going to get turned into two different lots?

That's the only question.

Understood.

Also, I'm sorry, and how much traffic will it bring?

Because with all the businesses that's been there, it's really hard to get out on to Halls and Mill Road from visiting that Costco or wherever.

Gotcha.

All right.

Do you like to comment for your plans?

Brian Metcalf, Metcalf and Company 5 Dolphin Street.

I represent the ownership.

Uh so we have a 34-acre site that we've been trying to market as one site.

So we have two interested parties in in commercial use, both um national companies.

So we're simply uh subdividing the property into three lots, all B3 type uses.

So to answer the the citizens' question, it would be going from one lot to three on the subdivision, but there's no development planned.

No development plan pass what's there now.

Correct.

Yeah.

No.

I think that was it.

Any comments, questions or comments from commissioners for the applicant, Mr.

Metcalf while he's here.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Metcalf.

Any further questions, comments from the audience?

Seeing none, we'll close public hearing, go into deliberation.

We'll take them separately.

Subdivision.

Three to one to three.

Excuse me.

Yeah, one to three at 34.3.

Move to approve search staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Subdivision passes.

Modification.

Lot lines.

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

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for modification passes.

Number 29 on the agenda.

Dual application of subdivision and rezone.

2694 government boulevard and 2750, 2754, 2756 Brooklyn, Sagging Oaks subdivision on that subdivision.

It's one lot 2.53 acres on the rezone request from R1, B1, and B2 to a combined B3 on the subdivision, potential 10 listed conditions.

We would have finding facts on the rezone and conditional of compliance and rezoning process.

Mr.

Bird.

Yes, Carrie Bird.

Um the rezoning.

There's no changes planned for the building, the property.

Yeah, as it shows there.

R1 is between this property and McDonald's, B1 at the West End.

The balance of the property is on B2, but then used as a B3 use through, I guess, Board of Adjustment.

And properties is being sold.

New buyers want to bring it into compliance so they don't have to keep coming back to the Board of Adjustment, but whatever.

Um we would like to ask for the to waive condition number one and two.

I think that's the widening of the street, dedication of right-of-way.

Wherever there it is on Government Boulevard.

Says that's a 250-foot wide necessary right-of-way.

It is existing 236.

And two streets down from our site, this subdivision was put in 2019, and it's 236 foot right-of-way.

So apparently the planning commission then waived that 250 foot requirement on Brooklyn Avenue.

That served they're asking for uh 60 foot right away.

It's existing 50 foot, but it has served many years of good use down through there.

Well, I guess with no problems and no additional right-of-way ever being required.

Um I know it's been in existence.

I've driven on that street ever since I was 16 years old, and that's a long time.

Um but uh we're asking for the waiver of both of those um widening, other than that the conditions on the uh subdivisions we're agreeable to and the zoning will meet all the codes.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Bird.

Questions from commissioners specific in his order, we'll do the rezone first.

Any any reasons, questions, concerns on the rezone to combine into B3?

And then for the subdivision, any questions?

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Um, I just wanted to point out that um prior to this meeting, staff was able to locate the uh L dot right-of-way map for this location, uh, which establish a 236-foot right-of-way, which is illustrated on the plat for government boulevard.

Um, so staff would be amenable to um the uh removal of condition number one.

Mr.

Burr was asking for one and two or just one on you.

You were asking for waiver of condition one, uh and two one and two.

Any commentary on the waiver or potential for Brooklyn?

We would defer to traffic engineering or engineering regarding any future improvements.

Yeah, that there's nothing that I'm aware of that that would that would be a widening or need for any additional right away on Brooklyn.

All right, I'll now ask if there's anyone in the audience that was here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this combination application at government and Brooklyn.

All right, seeing none, we will close public hearing, go into deliberation.

We'll take them separately.

We'll do the subdivision first.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, waving uh items one and two.

Second, properly moved and seconded, waving item conditions one and two.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed subdivision passes the rezone taking R1, B1, and B2 to a combination B3.

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

Second again.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed for the rezone?

That rezon passes.

Number thirty dual application of subdivision and rezone at 320 and 330 Western Drive, Aiden property subdivision.

That subdivision is two lots, 2.41 acres, and the rezone request is a B3 and I one to combination I one light industry.

Mr.

Chairman, can I ask a quick question to my other commissioners?

Are all your iPads at around seven percent or less of battery life?

I'm at 47% because I turned mine on low power mode.

I I I asked that question in all seriousness.

Uh I got eight.

Mr.

Byrd, yes, we need to speed up because his die pads about to die.

We still got set.

Yeah.

Uh as I'm in a report.

Which is probably in there.

You can see that approximately 50 feet, south 50 feet of our property is on B3.

The balance of it is I one.

I one and we're just asking for that to come on down and be I one on the complete um subdivision.

There's I one as you can see there's I one all throughout the neighborhood there.

And it looks like that B3 was intended to be along Moffat Road, and um don't really see what there would be a problem on that.

You're good on the conditions for the subdivision.

Sir You good on the conditions for the subdivision?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

I'll ask the audience if there's anyone here to speak for, speak against, or have questions towards this subdivision application or rezone into combination I one located on Western Drive.

Seeing none, I'll ask if any questions from comment or or comments from commissioners, subdivision or rezone.

All right, we'll close public hearing.

Thank you, Mr.

Byrd.

Deliberation, take them separately.

Subdivision, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendation waiving section six C9.

Second properly moved and seconded, wavering section six C9 for for lot design.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion for subdivision passes.

Need findings of fact potential on the rezoned and conditions.

Entertain a motion.

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

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The application for rezone passes to I one.

Number 31.

Combination, subdivision and rezone 4213 and 4221 Spring Valley Drive South, the resubdivision of lots three and five, spring valley subdivision unit two and lot seven, adding to Spring Valley Subdivision.

Two lots, point eight seven acres on the sub and then on the rezone.

It's an application to go from R1 and R3 to single family residential suburban R1.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant is present with a show of hand.

Are you in agreement with the conditions on the subdivision?

The applicant is in agreement on that.

And then on the potential for the rezone, are you aware of the potential findings of fact and of course the conditions for it?

Yes.

Questions or comments from commissioners regarding the subdivision or the rezone.

Seeing none, we will go from public hearing to deliberation.

Take them separately.

Subdivision, entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendations.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Subdivision passes.

Rezone, potential findings of fact and conditions.

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

Second.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed for the rezone?

That rezoned application passes.

Number 32, subdivision application and rezone combo, 2665 government boulevard, and 604 and 610 Mandrell Street, Sunset Estates.

On the subdivision, it's three lots, 1.69 acres.

On the sun uh rezone, it's from R1 and neighborhood suburban B2 to single family R1 and community business suburban B3.

Mr.

Bird.

Yes.

Jerry Bird.

Um the subdivision.

The we've reconfigured the lots based on existing fences.

This was all owned by uh man and his wife who have since passed away.

The children are wanting to dispose of the property, and one of them lives on lot three.

Uh we would here again like to waive the requirement for the widening of uh highway 90, government boulevard.

Um same reason there was 236 down on the other side.

There's a subdivision just to the north of this, it is older, but it honors the 236 foot right-of-way.

The rezoning, it was always a result.

So the son told me that dad would come down.

I guess they got it waived one time for uh uh either on all the sales or a tire store on uh on the lot facing uh government boulevard, and then if that tenant moved out and another one to move in with the same thing, they had to come back and get it.

Um get another board of adjustment here again.

They want to sell the property, and the um want to just clean it up to where we can say, hey, you could give BB3 zone just like a history of uh uses on the property, and the other two lots on Shannon Street B R1, both of them.

Any questions or comments from commissioners regarding the subdivision or and his request for the potential uh strike in condition one and then the rezone?

Anyone in the audience here for this application located at 2665 government boulevard and Mandrel Street.

All right, seeing none, we'll close public hearing.

Staff comments on the potential for number one.

Um for the same reason as uh number 29.

Uh, this portion of government boulevard does have the correct 236 foot right-of-way, and it is illustrated correctly on the plat.

So staff would be amenable to uh striking number one.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject staff recommendation, waiving condition number one, second.

Properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes with condition one number one strike struck on the rezone potential sevens findings of facts and conditions entertain a motion.

Oh move to approve staff recommendation with findings of fact ACDEFG.

Second, properly moved and seconded with findings of fact ACDEFG.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes for rezoned.

Number 33.

Subdivision application and rezone dual, northwest corner of Bear Fort Road and Moffitt.

I'm back.

Is that why you wore that coat today because you're going to crop here so many times?

On the subdivision, I have to let me get through the announcement.

On the subdivision, it's three lots, 12.2 12.63 acres on the rezone.

It's going from R1 to B3.

Will we will need some reasoning behind that?

On the subdivision, there are eight conditions on the rezone.

Obviously, findings of facts and conditions.

Mr.

Bird.

I can say I have no problem.

No problems.

What is the reasoning on going from R1 to B3?

The rezone.

The rezoned.

Oh, the reason reason for the request.

Um the owner of the property, owns the property immediately adjoining on the west.

He wants to expand his camper business, camper sales, repair, maintenance, um, on to the first lot, and has a buyer that wants to buy the next lot and they want to operate a um mobile home sales um site on that.

The third lot, there's no development plans for it at present.

Uh both of the um lot two and three both have entrances coming out off Bear Fork Road.

All right.

Anyone here to speak on this application?

Dual uh combo application at the northwest corner, Bear Froke and Moffat.

Public hearings closed, deliberation, subdivision separate from the rezone.

Entertain a motion.

Move to approve subject to staff recommendations, waiving section six C three.

Second.

Properly moved and seconded with a waiver of six C3 for width to a depth ratio.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for subdivision passes on the rezone R1 to B3.

Entertain a motion.

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

Second.

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

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion for rezone passes.

That concludes the agenda items 33, which I believe is a record for my tenure on this commission.

We'll now go to two items of other business.

Thank you for those who are stuck around through the entirety of this meeting.

You don't have to stay now, but the adoption of the 2026-27 planning commission filing deadline and meeting schedule is on your iPads if it still works.

The deadlines and meeting dates for August of 2026 through September of 2027.

I will move to approve those dates.

Move to approve uh the dates with a voluntary agenda item restriction of 15.

We don't have the authority to do that, but I don't think we're gonna let that happen.

Uh unless we have a hurricane or something.

Gosh, knock on wood.

All in favor?

Aye.

The dates pass review of the minutes from the following planning commission meetings.

We will do this in a batch January of 26, February, March, April, and May of 26.

Move to approve.

We got two motions.

That's two, that's seconds.

Uh all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

These will pass, and I would also like to point out that this is the final batch of agendas.

Well done.

And we didn't even have a June meeting, so she is caught up, y'all.

Hey, thank you for everybody, especially the staff.

I know this was a burdensome meeting with the volume of applicants uh or applications.

Um was I think we did a good job.

Josh, okay, I'm checking it.