2026-10-15 - Planning Commission

00:04Yeah.

00:09Yeah.

00:12>> I think it does a good job on that one.

00:13>> He does.

00:16Thank you, man. I appreciate it.

00:18Are we done with our little case here?

00:20>> Huh?

00:22>> I don't think we

00:23>> Kind of a sign-off.

00:24>> I know, but my client asked me to

00:28if he will return the damn money.

00:34Okay.

00:39Okay, and which is a heavy heavy deal.

00:42What?

00:44All right, we'll figure out. He's out of

00:46money anyway. I know that.

00:48>> I know that.

01:14>> Number nine.

01:16>> [clears throat and cough]

01:19>> I thought she was scared of the sidewalk

01:21wave.

01:22I thought she was scared of the sidewalk

01:23wave account.

01:39I'm going to stop it.

01:43>> Good afternoon and welcome to the

01:45meeting for the Mobile City Planning

01:46Commission, October 15th, 2026.

01:50I'd like to take a moment to review our

01:51general operating procedures.

01:53If you haven't been to a Planning

01:54Commission meeting in the last couple of

01:56months, these are different from the

01:58past.

02:00We will call each agenda item and it

02:02will be divided into two sessions,

02:04public hearing and then deliberation. In

02:07a public hearing session, the agenda is

02:08called, applicant makes their

02:09presentation, commission members ask

02:12questions if any and members of the

02:13public make their comments to the

02:15commission. Reminder that only four

02:17people can speak for an agenda item and

02:19four people against. Each speaker is

02:21limited to 5 minutes subject to

02:23questions by the commission and speaker

02:25will have a 1-minute uh bell or buzzer

02:27that will tell them to summarize their

02:29comments.

02:30If there is opposition, a applicant will

02:33have a 2-minute rebuttal period to

02:35answer or address any questions or

02:36concerns. If you do intend to speak,

02:38come to the podium at the bottom of the

02:39stairs. Please speak into the microphone

02:41and provide your name and address for

02:43the record.

02:44Direct all your comments to the

02:46commission only and not to the

02:47applicant, the staff or the audience.

02:50After hearing the application, the

02:51commission will then go into

02:52deliberation on that application. We

02:55will will discuss each application with

02:56input from the staff as necessary but

02:58with no input from the audience unless

03:00we need it. Commissioners will then vote

03:01on each application and the results of

03:03that can be learned from the planning

03:05department. If some issues arise during

03:07deliberation that were not addressed in

03:09the public hearing, the chairman has the

03:10discretion to allow additional comments

03:12pertaining to those issues in order to

03:14resolve them or will call for the

03:16application to be held over for

03:17discussion at a future meeting.

03:19Occasionally, there will be a

03:20commissioner that will recuse themselves

03:22from discussing and voting on an app

03:24application. The recusal does not mean

03:26they're directly involved or uh uh

03:29with the application or the applicant

03:31but depending on the circumstances,

03:32ethical rules will require the recusal.

03:35If a regular member recuses, a

03:37supernumerary will vote in their stead.

03:39Reminder that the planning commission

03:41makes final decisions on subdivisions

03:43with appeals of these decisions to the

03:44circuit court. The planning commission

03:46is strictly a recommending body for

03:47rezonings, conditional use permits and

03:50planned developments. The city council

03:52makes the final decision on these

03:53applications and all appeals of the city

03:55council are to the circuit court. At

03:57this time, do me a favor, turn your cell

03:59phones to silent or vibrate. Uh if you

04:02are needing to take a call, please exit

04:04the auditorium. Commissioners and staff,

04:07please turn on your microphones when

04:08speaking. I'll call the roll. Myself,

04:10Jay Stubbs, present. Mr. Kurt Entenmann.

04:13Ms. Jennifer Denson, Mr. Harry Brezlin.

04:16>> Here.

04:16>> Mr. Larry Dorsey.

04:19Mr. Larry Ms. Mr. Chad Henderson. Here.

04:21Mr. Matt Anderson. Mr. Nick Amberger.

04:24>> Here.

04:24>> Mr. Josh Woods.

04:26>> Here.

04:26>> Mr. Kenny Nichols.

04:27>> Here.

04:27>> Ms. Ellie Edwards.

04:28>> Here.

04:29>> We do have a quorum for today's agenda.

04:31I will move that we

04:33uh pass this agenda item on these agenda

04:35items for today.

04:36>> So moved with a

04:38question/comment.

04:41>> Go ahead.

04:41>> Uh

04:42given the relationship between

04:45application

04:47one and five, would it make sense to

04:50move one to four so that those two are

04:54discussed concurrently?

04:57Or I guess it and one after the other

04:59rather than a gap between

05:02those few.

05:03Uh if he makes a motion, I'll second

05:05that.

05:06>> Any any objections or questions or

05:07concerns from staff on moving agenda

05:09item one to the number four position?

05:13>> No, sir. As long as what is currently

05:15number one, the decision is made for

05:17that one first.

05:20Correct. Yes. Hence my reason for saying

05:22four.

05:25>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

05:27favor?

05:27>> I.

05:28>> Any opposed? A motion to pass. Motion

05:31passes. We will hold uh hold talk about

05:33that one in just a minute. We're going

05:34to go to number two on the application.

05:38Holdover.

05:40Modification.

05:42Major modification of a previously

05:43approved planned unit development

05:45allowing shared access and parking

05:46between multiple building sites to allow

05:48construction

05:49of a 2150 square foot building and 32

05:52additional parking spaces at 801 South

05:55University Boulevard.

05:57Reminder for commissioners, there are

05:58potentially eight findings of fact. Is

06:01the applicant present?

06:03Does the applicant have any questions

06:04regarding the potential findings of fact

06:06or the conditions if approved that are

06:08listed as 14? The applicant is present,

06:10wave of a hand and gave a

06:12uh a nod of agreement on findings of

06:15fact potential and the conditions.

06:18I'll ask now if there's anyone in the

06:19audience that is here to speak for or

06:21speak against or have questions towards

06:23number two on the agenda, modification

06:25at 801 South University Boulevard.

06:31All right, seeing none, we will now

06:32close public hearing, go into

06:34deliberation.

06:36>> Mr. Chairman, both supernumeraries will

06:38be allowed to vote since we've got two

06:40regular members absent.

06:42>> I keep the

06:42>> Both both supernumeraries will be

06:44allowed to vote cuz we have two regular

06:46members absent.

06:47>> All right, keep us on track with that

06:48today, Mr. Anderson.

06:50>> [snorts]

06:52>> Any questions or comments from

06:53commissioners regarding this

06:54application?

06:57Entertain a motion.

06:58>> Move to approve adopting findings of

07:00fact A through H.

07:03>> Properly moved and

07:04seconded with findings of fact A, B, C,

07:07D, E, F, G, and H.

07:10All in favor?

07:11>> I.

07:12>> Any opposed? Motion for modification

07:15passes.

07:18Number three, holdover dual application.

07:22We will have a recusal, Mr. Kenny

07:23Nichols.

07:25>> And Mr. Chairman, I have a potential

07:26conflict, so Mr. Wyatt will sit in as

07:29legal counsel on this application.

07:30>> We'll accept that trade-off.

07:39So, dual application subdivision and

07:41rezone located at 255, 257 and 259

07:45Dogwood Drive.

07:47Subdivision of one lot, 2.82 acres and

07:50rezone from single-family R1 to buffer

07:53business suburban district B1.

07:55On the subdivision, there are

07:56potentially 10 listed conditions.

07:59On the rezone, there are for

08:01commissioners potentially seven findings

08:03of facts and then four conditions.

08:08Is the applicant present?

08:11Would you like to make any comments

08:13towards

08:14either component of the application?

08:17And reminder to please state your name

08:19and address for the record.

08:23>> Yes, thank you very much. Good

08:24afternoon. Melissa Hadley with Goodwin

08:25Mills and Caywood on behalf of our

08:27applicant.

08:28Um I would just like to highlight a

08:29couple of things in the application. Uh

08:32number one would be the location and the

08:34zoning district that's being proposed as

08:36B1. This is for buffer business, so that

08:40is intended to be a buffer between

08:42residential uses and higher

08:45intensity commercial uses, so that's

08:48exactly the situation and the context

08:50that our property sits in.

08:52And then the second thing that I'd like

08:53to highlight are the voluntary

08:56restrictions that the client has put on

08:58the property and agreed to have

09:00recorded, sort of like covenants that

09:03would

09:04go with the property for conditions of

09:06use.

09:07And those things address um things that

09:08are not necessarily required of him, but

09:11that he is proposing to do voluntarily,

09:14such as hours of operation, uh trash

09:17collection and uh the like.

09:21So, I'm available if there are any

09:23questions for the um

09:25regarding the application, as well. And

09:27also, I do want to point out that there

09:29was an updated traffic study that was

09:31done and submitted and was approved by

09:33the traffic department.

09:37>> Thank you so much.

09:38Any questions or comments from

09:40commissioners for the applicant

09:41regarding the subdivision?

09:43>> Mr. Chair.

09:43>> Go ahead.

09:45>> Um

09:46I guess this is a question towards

09:47traffic. Um I mean the the most recent

09:50study, I haven't seen it. Obviously,

09:52this has been before this body before.

09:54Um also before council. Um any any

09:56concerns that that need to be noted, I

09:58guess, as far as traffic's concerned.

10:01>> The

10:03the updated traffic impact study uh

10:05mostly got rid of the left turn lane

10:07that was required originally to be

10:10getting rid of and they showed a little

10:12bit of a decrease in the level of

10:13service on some of the intersections,

10:14but there were no other major changes

10:17that were of note.

10:18>> Got you.

10:19>> Thank you.

10:19>> And we did revise our site plan in light

10:22of the comments and the traffic report

10:24that was issued. So, there's no left

10:25turn proposed off of Airport into the

10:28site.

10:30It is a right in, right out condition

10:31only.

10:32>> And then also into the neighborhood and

10:34um off of Dogwood Drive, I I you know,

10:36there's an in and out there.

10:37>> Correct.

10:38>> Uh as far as exiting the facility, exit

10:41proposed uh site, I guess.

10:43>> Yes, and the exit only again to the

10:46right going north on Dogwood.

10:48>> Thank you.

10:55>> Question for traffic. Those left turn

10:57lines, the

10:59the prevent the left turn.

11:02Are there regulations on how high those

11:04need to be or are?

11:06I mean, you see them some are

11:08minor, some are significant.

11:12>> Please clarify. Do you mean height or

11:14you mean how

11:15>> yeah. I mean, you see some of those and

11:18a car can easily get around it. Turn

11:21left over them.

11:22>> Uh there's

11:23>> Others are substantial. They're, you

11:25know, a foot or more high and they

11:26actually prevent a car from taking a

11:28left.

11:29>> Yes, there is a uh standard for

11:31non-traversable curb,

11:33If that's what you're referring to,

11:35sounds like you're referring to, and

11:36yes, there is. You can commonly uh refer

11:39to

11:40in the Ala Dot standard drawings, there

11:41is details for them. Uh we have

11:43currently this curbing out on uh Airport

11:46Boulevard where they were originally

11:47proposing to do the left turn lane. So,

11:50the original proposal would have been to

11:51remove that curbing to allow for a left

11:53turn. And so, currently there's not a

11:55left turn lane there for them to turn

11:57left into that driveway.

11:59>> talking more about the

12:01asking in relation to the Dogwood left

12:04turn lane.

12:06>> That is a existing

12:08>> the exit that would be on the west side

12:10leaving, you know, preventing people

12:12from taking a left on Dogwood.

12:15>> That's correct.

12:16>> Yes.

12:18>> If you zoom in also, and in particular

12:20on the Airport one, you can see the way

12:22that we designed it where it has a break

12:24for um pedestrians to be able to

12:27continue through and an ADA accessible

12:30route through there, so it would be

12:32extremely difficult for a car, I mean,

12:34to try to run over that curb. It it is a

12:37raised curb, yes, sir. And the same

12:39condition on Dogwood, it would be a

12:41raised

12:42um

12:43channeling

12:45that would happen.

12:49>> To refer to your question, I think if

12:51somebody is determined enough, they're

12:52going to turn left either way. They're

12:54just going to might do a three-point

12:56turn. I mean, at some point

12:58it's

12:59someone could be determined enough to

13:01make a left anyways.

13:09>> Any further questions or comments from

13:10commissioners for the applicant?

13:16Forgot to ask if you were in agreement

13:17or have any questions towards the 14

13:19listed conditions on the subdivision

13:20component of the application.

13:22>> We're in agreement.

13:23>> All right.

13:25All right, thank you, ma'am. I'll now

13:26ask if there's anyone else in the

13:27audience that is here to speak for,

13:30speak against, or have questions towards

13:31this application for 255, 257, and 259

13:35Dogwood Drive. And while this gentleman

13:37makes his way down, I would like to

13:38remind commissioners in the public

13:40comments folder there are three comments

13:43for you to read or review there if you

13:45haven't done so already. Yes, sir. Name

13:47and address for the record.

13:48>> Uh Jerry Spiegel, 4320 Babs Street. My

13:51office is 5 Dolphin Street.

13:53Um I'm here for the applicants. Uh

13:57as

13:58uh most of the commission members know,

14:01this uh application was before you

14:04um last year.

14:06Believe it was. And um

14:08was unanimously recommended to the city

14:11council to approve the rezoning.

14:13Um and

14:16uh

14:17went to the city council.

14:18Um the city council unanimously

14:21um denied the rezoning request. Um the

14:25applicants appealed. Um unfortunately,

14:28uh which was my fault, I missed the

14:2942-day

14:31deadline since I wasn't aware of it. Um

14:33it was a new ordinance and I just missed

14:35it. Um but before it was dismissed,

14:37interveners came in. Um I filed a motion

14:40for summary judgment.

14:42And

14:43um

14:44the response from the city

14:47um to the summary judgment um was

14:51I'll just read it to you. Um

14:54It it is first referred to the latest

14:57development company um

14:59application for rezoning

15:01uh which was approved by the planning

15:04commission and by the city. This

15:06property, as you know, um

15:08is

15:09directly south of the Publix

15:12development. As a matter of fact, the

15:14Publix development extends farther east

15:16than this property.

15:17Um that was noted. It was also noted

15:20that um the city litigated the CBS

15:23uh rezoning

15:25which is next just to the west of this

15:27property.

15:28Judge Stout granted that

15:30um

15:31that application for rezoning there. And

15:37I have not seen the staff report in this

15:40on this round

15:42cuz I just got the call this morning to

15:44come down.

15:45But um

15:46the city in

15:49in response to our motion for summary

15:50judgment said this in concluding, "Based

15:53on the above, the undersigned, which is

15:55the lawyer who was representing the city

15:56at the time, the undersigned cannot in

15:58good faith make a credible argument why

16:01plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

16:02should be denied." I also take note that

16:05the city councilman who made the motion

16:07to deny stated in a public city council

16:10meeting that he knew the council's

16:12decision would be overturned, but he had

16:15to make the motion to deny regardless.

16:17The circuit court of Mobile County has

16:19already determined that there's a change

16:20in the surrounding area that justifies a

16:22rezoning. So, I would just ask the

16:24commission to do just what the

16:27commission did last time, which is

16:28recommend rezoning to the city council.

16:31I don't think there's

16:32any doubt that the

16:34surrounding area has changed. This

16:39is an appropriate use of this property.

16:42If you look at what's going on and I

16:43know all of you have on all those four

16:45corners of University and Airport um

16:50I think this is appropriate

16:51application for rezoning.

16:54I'll take any questions, but that's

16:56that's all I had to say.

16:58>> Mr. Chair.

16:58>> Go ahead.

16:59>> I don't have any questions, Mr. Spiegel.

17:01Thank you. And I definitely respect the

17:02fact that you came down and and shared

17:04that information, but um I would just

17:06like to remind everyone on this board

17:07that we have to stick with what the

17:09criteria for decisions are based on this

17:11planning commission board. I think you

17:13you have to kick out the fact that Um,

17:15what you said with legal legal ease and

17:17everything that went through the legal

17:18process, I think that this board has to

17:20be reminded that we have to stick to the

17:22criteria that were that were charged

17:23with. So, thank you for your comments.

17:25That's it, Mr. Chair.

17:28>> Thank you.

17:30Are there any others in the audience who

17:31would like to speak for, speak against,

17:33or have questions towards this agenda

17:34item?

17:46Reminder, please state your name and

17:47address for the record.

17:48>> Yes, Wanda Cochran, 465 Dauphin Street.

17:52I'm here on behalf of Steve Bailey and

17:54Candace Robbins. Those are my clients.

17:56They are long-time residents of the

17:59Government Street Highlands subdivision,

18:01of which these three properties are part

18:04of.

18:05Uh, the staff report shows that the

18:07subdivision was recorded in 1942. This

18:10was before Airport Boulevard had a name.

18:13It was actually Government Street Road.

18:15Uh, and in the 80 years since then, it

18:18remains a vibrant and desirable place to

18:21live.

18:22Um, the three parcels that

18:25are part of this rezoning effort are

18:29uh, they were platted as single-family

18:31residential, they were zoned

18:33single-family residential, and they are

18:36currently occupied by two of the owners

18:39as

18:39single-family residential and a the a

18:42tenant as single-family residential. So,

18:45for 80 years this neighborhood has been

18:47undisturbed, except for the CVS

18:50development on the corner, which was

18:53referenced in a prior action. That was

18:55back in 2016.

18:57Really, none of that matters, because as

19:00you know, the Planning Commission has

19:02adopted a brand new comprehensive plan,

19:05and also a brand new zoning ordinance

19:07called the UDC. That was not in effect

19:09in those prior court actions. So, as

19:12Counselor Wood says, we are here on a

19:14fresh application and you've got to take

19:16a fresh look.

19:18I want to

19:19pull back the framing a little bit. Um,

19:22the the precise ask before the

19:26commission is for you to change the

19:29zoning map.

19:31Right. So, this is it's going to move

19:33the boundaries and have the commercial

19:35zoning on the corner seep in across

19:38Dogwood Drive, a neighborhood

19:40residential street, and increase that.

19:43It will eliminate residential use on

19:46that area.

19:48Um,

19:50there is no justification to support a

19:54change in the zoning on these three

19:56parcels.

19:57There is nothing in the record that

20:00supports the rezoning.

20:03Remember,

20:05I know this, but for the benefit of

20:08people who don't, when a commission is

20:10looking at a at a rezoning application

20:13that's been filed by a private

20:14individual,

20:16they're

20:17looking for

20:19reasons

20:21that the existing zoning isn't working,

20:23needs to be changed. That's what the six

20:25criteria are.

20:27And it's not about whether the project

20:29is good or bad, whether it's a great

20:31deal, whether it's it's not a it's not

20:34that kind of a thing. It's trying to

20:36gather evidence so that you can make a

20:38recommendation to the city council

20:41that says, "Hey, we're the commission.

20:43We own this plan. We adopted it. You

20:46wrote an ordinance based on it. And so,

20:49we're going to tell you whether we think

20:51it's still good or not." And so, the

20:53zoning ordinance itself says the

20:56commission is supposed to either

20:58approve the application,

21:01deny the application,

21:03or approve with conditions. Now, the

21:05staff has recommended no conditions.

21:09The ones that were submitted by the

21:11developer don't really provide any

21:13information.

21:15Dumpster hours is not the problem here.

21:18The problem is this proposed extension

21:21of a commercial development into a

21:24neighborhood

21:26is inconsistent with the city's

21:27comprehensive plan. I don't know the

21:30exact date, but I believe it was in the

21:31late 2022-24

21:34area and it was completely overhauled

21:37including the future land use map. And I

21:39gave y'all a handout and I'm not going

21:41to go through it, but I you know, I just

21:43wanted to to hit home one

21:46one

21:49law.

21:52>> 1 minute.

21:53>> 1 minute left?

21:54>> Yes, ma'am.

21:54>> Which is the prime directive of all

21:57zoning ordinances and and that's under

22:00tab one and it says this is from the

22:02zoning ordinance.

22:04It says these

22:05uh land use requirements

22:08uh are intended to implement the

22:11comprehensive plan. And the city council

22:13did implement the comprehensive plan in

22:16the zoning ordinance and that's in tab

22:18two and they have a list there that says

22:21B1 is not included in the categories of

22:25land uses

22:26to be put in an R1 district.

22:29I don't know

22:31um I don't know how you can even make a

22:33decision on the record that is before

22:35you.

22:37There has been no

22:38uh the first time around they wanted a

22:40bank with a drive-thru. That's not

22:42allowed by right in a B1 district. And

22:45the rest of my handout gives you all the

22:48uses that go into a B1 zoning

22:50classification and others.

22:53Mr. Chairman, may I have 10 seconds?

22:55>> Go ahead.

22:56>> Um

22:57there is not enough information for you

22:59to really make a decision because they

23:02they they are saying they are asking you

23:05to imagine this beautiful office

23:08development,

23:09but there's no guarantee it's going to

23:11be built.

23:12And the zoning ordinance, this is the

23:14law here. This isn't the plan. This is

23:16the law. The law says you guys have to

23:18evaluate compatibility.

23:21That that that is a imaginary exercise,

23:25because we don't know.

23:27Nobody has said in the conditions, I

23:30noticed they didn't say we're not going

23:32to come back with a special exception

23:33request for the B1

23:36to get a drive-thru bank. So, the bottom

23:39line is

23:41and and I promise you I'm going

23:43>> Yes, please do.

23:46>> The way I think about this,

23:48and I didn't make this up. This comes

23:50from a guy named Chuck Marohn, who runs

23:53an organization called Strong Towns, and

23:55I highly recommend you you look him up.

23:59And he recently spoke in Mobile at the

24:01Downtown Alliance luncheon, and maybe

24:03all of you guys or some of you guys got

24:05to hear Chuck speak.

24:07But when he talks about

24:11change,

24:12here's the deal. Everything changes.

24:16Every neighborhood must change. No

24:19neighborhood is exempt from change.

24:23But no neighborhood should bear the

24:26brunt of a radical change.

24:29>> All right, thank you, Ms. Coffey. We

24:30need to

24:31close your comments.

24:34I'll now ask if there's anyone else in

24:35the audience that would like to speak

24:36for, speak against, or have questions

24:38towards this application.

24:47Reminder to please state your name and

24:48address

24:50for the record.

24:51>> As soon as I get settled here.

24:53It is a second.

24:58>> I will remind you, sir, that we are

24:59going to start your time now.

25:06>> I'm Steve Bailey. I live at 4671

25:10and 4675

25:12Airport Road.

25:14Road.

25:15Which is in the Government Street

25:18Highland subdivision.

25:19But I'm about a third of a mile from the

25:21intersection of Airport and University

25:22Boulevard, which I travel through

25:24multiple times a day.

25:27This intersection, as you know, is one

25:29of the most dangerous, well, it is the

25:30most dangerous in Mobile, if not the

25:32entire state.

25:34The updated traffic study that was

25:36supplied by Skipper Engineering makes no

25:39mention at all of any safety issues.

25:42It's a traffic flow study.

25:45And doesn't discuss any of the current

25:48causes

25:49of

25:51>> Pull that mic closer to your mouth a

25:52little bit.

25:53>> Pardon?

25:54>> Speak into

25:55>> the mic a little more if you don't mind.

25:56>> Okay. It's the one with the red light.

25:58>> one.

25:59>> Right here. Right in front of you.

26:02>> Oh, that one.

26:03Oh.

26:04Sorry. Okay.

26:06So,

26:07this traffic study has absolutely no

26:10discussion of any safety issues or the

26:13cause of current causes of the

26:15accidents on Airport Boulevard.

26:18Moreover, the flow data in one aspect is

26:20invalid because the data for this study

26:22were acquired a month ago.

26:25And while the current CVS is

26:28not functioning, it's empty, so there's

26:30no traffic coming to or from the CVS.

26:33When another business opens there,

26:36traffic on Dogwood Drive is going to

26:37increase substantially, and they'll have

26:40to degrade the level of service from the

26:42D that Skipper gave it to something

26:44worse.

26:46And

26:49I would like you, if you could, to look

26:51at my 26-second video that should be on

26:53your machines that shows what the

26:55traffic looks like around this area.

26:57It's right on your machines and you can

26:58see that some of the typical things that

27:00happen with traffic interaction.

27:02One of the major issues compounding or

27:05the the already hazardous intersection

27:07is the eastward bound traffic

27:11on Airport Boulevard.

27:13And right here is the

27:16lane the

27:17right turn lane off of University to go

27:19east on

27:20>> on on Airport.

27:21>> There's a queue here

27:23and people will be looking back over

27:25their shoulders in a direction they

27:26can't see looking for a gap.

27:29What they really should do is they

27:30should wait for the University light to

27:32favor University, but they don't. They

27:33look for a gap and then they surge

27:35forward.

27:36And that's the cause of of accidents

27:38because they can

27:40misjudge the gap. People from the middle

27:43lane can move into the right hand lane

27:45and that's a really huge problem. Plus,

27:48the same thing is facing people who are

27:50exiting Dogwood. Moreover, the people

27:52that going off of University can rear

27:54end the people exiting Dogwood cuz they

27:56can't see them either if they're looking

27:57backwards. So, it's a huge mess right

28:00now

28:00and what's going to happen if you

28:03put this new entrance here is you're

28:06going to increase the number of

28:09inner crossings because the person who

28:11wants to get into the turn lane that

28:13they're proposing probably isn't going

28:15to bother doing that until they get past

28:17University Boulevard and they're going

28:18to be turning into the same lane that

28:20these people are going to try to access.

28:23This is a total recipe for disaster.

28:26Um and um

28:28uh

28:29so

28:30uh

28:31moreover, this distance here

28:34these distances from here to here and

28:36here to here are less than those

28:37recommended by most traffic agencies.

28:40So, the

28:42uh none of the uh of the

28:44there were no comments by um

28:46your folks

28:48on on the appropriate safety issues were

28:51missing from this traffic study.

28:54Moreover,

28:56there's a whole bunch of people from

28:57university that are trying to make this

28:59turn and some of those are going to

29:01going to go into this new business and

29:02they're going to be crossing the same

29:03mess.

29:05So,

29:06in conclusion, I would like to say that

29:08a vote for this development would lead

29:11to more accidents

29:12and even deaths

29:14happening at this intersection. Thank

29:16you very much.

29:17>> Thank you, sir.

29:21Any questions for

29:25from commissioners?

29:26All right, thank you, sir.

29:27>> Mr. Chairman,

29:28could could we validate what he said? Is

29:31there consideration in those traffic

29:32studies given to the fact that that

29:33building is not currently occupied?

29:37Is is there Is there any thought to

29:38that? Is Is there one done subject to it

29:40being occupied versus subject to it not

29:42being occupied?

29:47>> It would

29:48It would depend on when the traffic

29:49counts were recorded.

29:51There's no evidence within the study of

29:53them adding that site or adding

29:55imaginary traffic counts for that site

29:58cuz there's no telling what the site

29:59could possibly be.

30:01It's going to be according to its zoning

30:04without having any kind of developer

30:06applying for that site. It would be

30:08difficult to tell what those impacts

30:09could be, but that at that time another

30:11traffic impact study would be warranted

30:13if it's increases the traffic

30:17to that extent.

30:18Yeah.

30:21>> Mr. Chair.

30:22>> Go ahead.

30:23>> Obviously, we've seen this

30:25before us before. Uh

30:27I'm assuming there's a a prior traffic

30:29study and this is the second traffic

30:31study.

30:32I guess the

30:34Does traffic take both of those into

30:35consideration when recommending or what

30:38does that kind of look like, I guess?

30:42Yes, I'm I'm just looking for um all

30:44right, is there any deviation between

30:46the first study and possibly the second?

30:48Again, I don't know how many traffic

30:49studies have been submitted to you.

30:53>> For this site or for the CVS?

30:56>> Uh for this site. Um I'm assuming in the

30:58time frame, um there might be different

31:01considerations, but um again, I I don't

31:03know. I don't do traffic studies per se.

31:09>> I have was not part of any other traffic

31:11impact study, so I don't know the answer

31:13that offhand. Uh

31:15the

31:16the difference between this the first

31:18study and this study was the increase in

31:19traffic along Airport Boulevard.

31:21So, that's why the new study came up to

31:23make sure there was no additional

31:24changes. The the sensitivity of the

31:26site.

31:28And that's it.

31:30The changes showed a slight decrease in

31:32level of service and they removed the

31:34left turn lane.

31:40>> Any further questions or comments from

31:41commissioners?

31:42All right, thank you, sir. I'll ask if

31:43there's anyone else in the audience that

31:44would like to speak for or speak

31:46against. We've had two in opposition.

31:48I've got you counted as number three.

31:50Will there be any more?

31:52By show of hand.

31:55That'll You'll be number four.

31:57Is there any And then we'll have the

31:58applicant rebuttal. Yes, sir, go ahead.

32:01>> Uh my name is Evan Duffy. I live at 272

32:03Summit Drive. So, my street is um

32:06the my backyard abuts residences on

32:08Dogwood.

32:10So, [clears throat]

32:11just give you kind of lay of the land.

32:13We've heard a lot about traffic studies,

32:14drainage, all these kind of things

32:16related to this plan, but I just want to

32:17talk to you as a human being. Um I'm the

32:20third generation in my family to own the

32:22home that I live in, that my children

32:23live in.

32:24Uh one day when I pass, they'll be the

32:26fourth generation to own that home. Um

32:29so, my my grandmother built the house uh

32:31in the '50s, one of the first on the

32:33street, and it's always been kind of a

32:35pristine little pocket of of peace in

32:38the middle of what has become a very

32:39busy part of town, obviously. Very

32:41highly developed. Um but um I know that

32:44since the I've lived in the residence

32:45since the CVS project went through and I

32:48can attest to the fact that the noise um

32:50from knocking down all those trees and

32:51kind of eliminating some of that buffer

32:53has just gotten exponentially worse. I

32:55you can't even have a conversation at

32:57times in my backyard uh because of the

32:59sound of loud pipes, people with PA

33:01systems on the outside of their

33:02vehicles, all kinds of crazy stuff. And

33:04uh even though it doesn't seem like it

33:06would maybe have a big effect, that's

33:07those trees used to buffer that sound

33:09and now it comes straight through and

33:11it's almost inescapable. Um another

33:14thing that uh I've noticed since that

33:16CVS development occurred was that

33:18traffic has gotten exponentially worse.

33:19And it's not that the traffic count

33:21necessarily is any different or maybe

33:22it's increased along with the

33:24development of Airport Boulevard. What

33:26has become a a

33:28a challenge is getting out of our

33:29neighborhood. So, our neighborhood has

33:31no outlets other than um you can go out

33:33Summit onto Airport or you can go out

33:35Hillcrest onto Airport. And that's it.

33:37It's a horseshoe shape. So,

33:39every day that I leave the house, I have

33:41to deal with traffic when I go out to

33:42Airport. Uh traveling west on Airport

33:45Boulevard from our neighborhood,

33:47it used to be only around 3:30 to 5:30

33:49that it was trouble. You can't get out.

33:51You just can't do it now. You can get

33:52lucky every once in a while, catch a

33:54break, and get across, but those uh

33:56opportunities are few and far between.

33:58Even going right, because of the

33:59staggered way that the traffic flows

34:01from the intersection down Airport

34:03Boulevard, I'll sit there for 10 minutes

34:05sometimes waiting to turn right onto

34:08Airport Boulevard. I understand we live

34:10in a busy part of town, but I just feel

34:12like as someone who owns a home, I've

34:13worked hard to to have what I have, um I

34:16just am uh don't appreciate the the

34:19further development. We already deal

34:21with some development around there and

34:22the fact that we now have the CVS

34:24project that was kind of crammed down

34:25our throats sitting vacant on that same

34:28corner is just further points at the

34:31reason that this is just maybe not the

34:32place to do this. There are other places

34:34that have been previously developed or

34:35already adjacent to development that I

34:37think maybe be would be more well-suited

34:40for that kind of project.

34:42And I don't know, I mean, Mobile's

34:44landscape has kind of turned in that

34:45part of town into a a cacophony of

34:48storage buildings, car washes, and and

34:50empty bank buildings. So, I'm not sure

34:52why

34:54our rights as property owners who have

34:55been there and who have an established a

34:57presence there should be infringed so

35:00that we can build another bank then in

35:01another 5 years will be sitting there

35:03empty.

35:04We can't get those trees back. We can't

35:06get that development back. It'll be

35:08changed the character of our

35:09neighborhood that has been there as

35:10someone attested for more than 80 years.

35:13Uh and we just we won't be able to

35:15reclaim that. So, I just implore you.

35:17Thank you for your time. Implore you to

35:19consider those of us who who live there

35:21and how this will impact our lives

35:24and as as opposed to another development

35:26that could be done in another place.

35:28Thank you, all.

35:29>> Thank you, Ms. Duffy.

35:38And final reminder to speak your name

35:40and address for the record and please

35:41pull the microphone down a little bit so

35:42you can get it closer.

35:44>> Good.

35:44>> A little closer to you.

35:46>> Good.

35:47>> There you go.

35:47>> Perfect. Before I you start my time, may

35:50I have 1 second to

35:52make a side note that in July of this

35:54>> Your name and address for the record.

35:55>> I'm sorry. Candace Robin, 317 Dogwood

35:58Drive.

35:59>> Thank you, Ms. Robin.

36:00>> Uh in July there was a meeting at E.R.

36:02Dickson and there were 22 in attendance

36:05to that and when asked who was in

36:08opposition opposition, 21 did raise

36:10their hand. I wasn't sure if that was

36:11noted for you guys.

36:13Um

36:14I am a resident of Dogwood Drive and I

36:17have a unique and deeply personal

36:19connection to the neighborhood. I'm a

36:21second generation. I've raised a third

36:23generation.

36:25And I am in my childhood home. So, I ask

36:28that you understand that these are not

36:29simply parcels

36:32of land being considered for resounding.

36:34These are homes.

36:35They have history and an important part

36:38of Government Street Highlands. We're

36:40not just an older neighborhood frozen in

36:42time.

36:43We're a living, evolving community.

36:46Longtime residents live alongside new

36:48families and people of different

36:50generations, backgrounds,

36:54uh they contribute to our neighborhood's

36:56diversity and strength. Our large wooded

36:59lots give Government Street Highlands a

37:01rare quality,

37:03a peaceful, country-like feel right in

37:06the heart of the city. That character is

37:08what makes our community special and

37:11worth preser- um preserving.

37:14I recognize that property owners have

37:16legitimate interest in developing the

37:17land.

37:19However, those interests must be

37:20balanced against the rights and

37:22reasonable expectations of neighboring

37:25homeowners

37:26and the long-term well-being of the

37:28community. All three parcels are on

37:32Dogwood Drive, a minor residential

37:34street, while only one of fronts Airport

37:37Boulevard, a major a thoroughfare.

37:39Dogwood already serves as a cut-through

37:41to University Boulevard.

37:43More intensive development could bring

37:45additional traffic, noise, and activity

37:49to a street within an established res-

37:52residential neighborhood.

37:53Changes in land must be carefully

37:55considered

37:57with conservation and the character of

37:59the land in mind.

38:01Our neighborhood is defined by mature

38:03trees,

38:04large wooded lots, and green space. We

38:08should preserve these natural assets,

38:10not replace them with more blacktop and

38:12pavement. Responsible planning means

38:15considering not only what can be built

38:17today, but what should be preserved for

38:20tomorrow.

38:21We have already seen in the impact that

38:23commercial development can have on this

38:25area. The now closed CVS is a case in

38:28point. Its development occupied four

38:31parcels

38:33and changed the scale and character of

38:35that portion of our neighborhood. Its

38:37closure also leaves us with an important

38:40reminder. Commercial development does

38:42not only remain

38:44a lasting or a successful does not I'm

38:46sorry does not always remain a lasting

38:49or successful presence while the effects

38:52on the surrounding neighborhood

38:54can endure.

38:56The city's future land use map is

38:58another important consideration. It

39:00helps guide the city's long-term vision

39:02for development and the intended

39:04character of our communities.

39:07If the applicable future land use map

39:09identifies this area for continued

39:11residential

39:13use, the commission should carefully

39:15consider whether this proposed rezoning

39:17is consistent with that vision.

39:21Any departure from the city's long-term

39:23plan

39:24deserves careful scrutiny and a clear,

39:27well-supported justification.

39:29If this zoning is approved, what

39:31precedent will it set?

39:34Each change has the potential to

39:36gradually erode our neighborhood's

39:38residential character

39:40one parcel at a time. The commission

39:42should consider not only this individual

39:45request, but also its potential

39:48long-term impact.

39:51In closing, we're not asking the city to

39:53stop growing.

39:55We are asking the city to grow

39:56responsibly. We're asking for thoughtful

39:59planning, respect for existing property

40:02owners,

40:03and protection of a neighborhood that

40:05continues to welcome new families and

40:06future generations.

40:08Government Street Highlands is not just

40:10a collection of parcels on a map. It's a

40:13community where where people have built

40:15their lives, raised their children, and

40:17invested in their homes and in their

40:19future. A mature neighborhood

40:22should not have to continually defend

40:25its boundaries one parcel at a time.

40:29For these reasons, I respectfully ask

40:31the Mobile Planning Commission to deny

40:33the proposed rezoning request and

40:35preserve the existing zoning and

40:38residential character of Government

40:40Street Highlands. Thank you for your

40:42time and your service

40:44and your consideration to the the

40:46residents.

40:48>> Thank you, Mr. Robin. We'll now allow

40:50the applicant [clears throat]

40:52to address any of the concerns that were

40:53raised by

40:55any of the opposition speakers regarding

40:57traffic, community,

40:59neighborhood.

41:02>> Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

41:05Um a couple of things that have come up.

41:07So, there's been a lot of discussion

41:08about the traffic study.

41:10So, um I don't have a copy of the

41:12previous traffic study on me, but I do

41:14believe that the CVS was built at that

41:16time. So, it would have been considered

41:17at that time.

41:19Um and so, those counts would have been

41:21included. Um but in the current traffic

41:24study, we do and we uh portion of the

41:27traffic model is um future traffic. So,

41:31that use would have been included in

41:33future traffic and the impacts. So,

41:35those things come into

41:37um way when the uh traffic engineer

41:41makes their recommendations. They're

41:43considering historical patterns, current

41:46patterns, and future patterns. And so,

41:49our um proposal and our site plan is in

41:52full compliance with the recommendations

41:54by the traffic study and by the traffic

41:56engineer who is licensed to do that

41:59work. Um safety, uh all the things that

42:02are required in the traffic study um are

42:05included. So, um the city has reviewed

42:08our traffic study and approved it and I

42:11don't believe that there are any um

42:13issues with that. So, I feel like we

42:15have satisfied uh the the conditions,

42:19the questions as far as the traffic

42:21study would go.

42:22Um

42:24there was a comment made that there's no

42:26guarantee that this will be built. Um

42:28the

42:29the client has done a lot of work with

42:32an architect and a lot of architectural

42:34uh renderings. You know, certainly if

42:37the rezoning is approved, that is their

42:39intent. [clears throat]

42:40Um the this project in this particular

42:43location, Airport Boulevard, is one of

42:45the most important commercial corridors

42:48in the county of Mobile and in the city

42:50of Mobile. It's a a prime east-west

42:53corridor that relies on um

42:56commercial uses on it, and that's where

42:58people go when they want to find

43:00commercial things that they need. So,

43:02the impacts that happen as a result of

43:05that um

43:07is just because the city's healthy and

43:09it's growing. Every healthy organism

43:12grows. And so, what we're seeing here is

43:14growth. Um the

43:17um the developer is very sensitive to

43:19how this might impact uh the adjoining

43:22the adjoining um neighbors, so they are

43:24proposing to save as many trees on site

43:28as possible, particularly along the

43:30property lines. There are very mature

43:32trees that will provide those buffers.

43:35Our setback further than the minimum is

43:37required by the ordinance to allow for

43:40that wider buffer and to maintain those

43:42existing trees.

43:44Um

43:46as far as a by-right use, if you look at

43:49the definition in the zoning ordinance,

43:51a use that is conditional or by special

43:53exception says is permitted as long as

43:57particular conditions are are allowed or

44:00are met. It doesn't say that it's not

44:02permitted. So, a conditional or special

44:05exception use is a permitted use just

44:08with particular conditions attached to

44:10it.

44:14So, are there any other questions or

44:16concerns?

44:16>> Yes. Thank you so much. Is there any

44:18question further comments questions of

44:20commissioners on the rebuttal from the

44:22applicant?

44:25All right. Thank you, ma'am.

44:26>> Thank you very much.

44:26>> We'll now close public hearing.

44:29Move into deliberation. I'll remind you

44:32we do have

44:33two absences today and we have one

44:35recusal. So, that means we will have a

44:37supernumerary supernumerary vote

44:40in place of the absences.

44:42We still maintain a quorum for the vote.

44:46Any discussion among commissioners?

44:49Thoughts?

44:49>> Mr. Chairman.

44:50>> Go ahead.

44:51>> I have a question for staff. I don't

44:53have the previous application in front

44:56of me. Is there any

44:58considerable material change from the

45:00previous application that we voted on

45:02compared to the application that we have

45:04in front of us now?

45:12>> So, the only change from the original

45:14submission is that the left turn lane

45:16coming from airport coming from Airport

45:18Boulevard

45:19has been removed. So, that's the only

45:22change that has been made to the actual

45:24request and the layout of the site as

45:27proposed.

45:28>> So,

45:29um

45:30So, the only the only changes to the

45:32application we've received are traffic

45:34related in general.

45:35>> That's correct.

45:36>> Okay. And then I guess I have a question

45:38for JB then or BJ, I'm sorry.

45:41Um so, considering that the the

45:44application we have in front of us is

45:46materially very similar to the

45:48application we previously approved,

45:51is is there a risk that if our vote

45:53changes that it's necessarily arbitrary

45:57because some of the circumstances around

45:59the site are different than they were

46:02a couple of years ago.

46:07>> I don't think you're bound by the I

46:09don't I don't think you're bound by the

46:10previous um

46:13decision to to follow this

46:16um

46:19because there is a slight change, but

46:20it's

46:22it's

46:23I I don't think it would be arbitrary if

46:25you voted to deny it.

46:27But

46:29um you'd have to be

46:30to the

46:31commission to determine whether um

46:35the changes in the area are different

46:37today than they were then and the

46:39factors that you considered then.

46:42So, there may be other factors other

46:44than

46:45the change in the traffic

46:47access.

46:48>> Right, thank you.

46:57Any further questions or comments from

46:59commissioners commissioners?

47:05All right, we will take them separately.

47:07Confirm with staff, subdivision, then

47:09rezone.

47:10Entertain a motion for the subdivision.

47:18>> Is it with this subdivision if if this

47:20subdivision was

47:22uh approved, would it be would it be

47:24conditional to the approval of the

47:26rezoning or is it going to be

47:28standalone?

47:29>> No.

47:29>> So, the subdivision would not be

47:31contingent upon rezoning cuz it doesn't

47:33create a situation of split zoning or

47:35any other violation that would require a

47:36rezoning. So,

47:38why doesn't our previous subdivision

47:40approval

47:41What was that one?

47:42>> The approval expired before they could

47:44finish it.

47:50>> I'll make that motion move to approve

47:51subject to staff recommendations on the

47:53subdivision.

47:55>> Second.

47:57>> On the subdivision, we got to move to

47:58approve and

48:00I have a second.

48:01I'll ask all in favor.

48:03>> I.

48:04>> I.

48:05>> Is there anyone opposed?

48:08Subdivision has passed.

48:11A rezone application from R1 to B1.

48:16Any discussion?

48:23Entertain a motion.

48:28>> A question for VJ. I

48:31completely agree. These are two separate

48:34you know,

48:35applications can

48:37based on what we did

48:39a few years ago.

48:43So, I'll say that with a caveat of I am

48:45curious because we don't always know and

48:48it was mentioned by

48:49someone earlier. So, last time we

48:52approved this

48:53council denied it.

48:56That was appealed. Correct?

49:00What was the outcome of that appeal?

49:06Or to wander must be

49:08>> Mr. Spiegel spoke to that earlier that

49:09the

49:10>> a bar association meeting in here today.

49:12>> The applicant's motion

49:15was granted

49:18ordering the council to rezone.

49:22Interveners came in

49:23raised the issue that

49:25the appeal

49:26was not timely. It was made within 30

49:29days.

49:30The judge vacated the order based on

49:32that.

49:33>> Yeah.

49:34>> Summary judgment had been granted on the

49:38>> Technically, the case was dismissed for

49:41lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

49:44The court's motion on summary judgment

49:46was made with no

49:48notice to the neighborhood.

49:50It has

49:51no precedential effect whatsoever. Not

49:53here, not in the court.

50:00>> What's the point of good argument on

50:02that one topic?

50:04>> The city's

50:05response to summary judgment will be

50:08part of any subsequent appeal.

50:11>> Except there was no good faith reason

50:13not

50:14>> at that time.

50:16>> Well, then I was

50:17>> It's It's not We're not We don't really

50:19need to go back.

50:20>> Thank Thank you guys, lady and gentlemen

50:22in this audience. Please leave it to the

50:23commissioners. We'll ask you if we have

50:25any further questions or comments

50:27needed. Thank you.

50:30Still over to you, Mr. Matheny, if any

50:31further questions or comments to follow

50:33up regarding

50:35that process that was just outlined.

50:55Does anyone intend to make a motion

50:57regarding the rezone?

51:03>> Mr. Chairman, let me offer up a comment.

51:04Just a reminder to my commissioners that

51:07this is a uh

51:09our our vote is a recommendation to the

51:10city council, so this matter still will

51:12go back before the city council.

51:15Uh and

51:16assuming it is approved by this body, so

51:18just as a

51:19reminder to everybody, uh you know, our

51:22uh

51:23our vote is not final, so to speak, so

51:25to speak.

51:26So, I'll make the motion motion to

51:27approve uh

51:29uh

51:30the zoning change, adopt the findings of

51:32facts A, C, D, E, F, and G.

51:45>> We have a motion.

51:48With findings of fact A, C, D,

51:52E, F, and G.

51:53Is there a second?

52:10All right. Question for staff with not a

52:12second on the motion

52:14means we do not have a vote.

52:17So, in a in evident the application

52:19would not be approved.

52:21Is that the way you see that, guys?

52:26>> Yes.

52:28>> All right. So, we have a no vote on the

52:31motion on the floor.

52:38Any clarification from staff?

52:43All right. Seeing Seeing none, we've got

52:44a no vote on the motion. Uh we will now

52:47close deliberation and move on to the

52:49next agenda item. That means that this

52:51application for the rezone with no

52:53second motion or vote does not pass for

52:56the rezone.

52:59We will move on. Agenda item

53:02listed in the agenda on number four,

53:04it's our third point.

53:07We'll welcome back Mr. Kenny Nichols.

53:10This is a rezone application at

53:14numerous addresses located on Old Mill

53:16Avenue, Griffith Circle Circle West,

53:18Griffith Lane North,

53:19Griffith Circle South,

53:21Circle East, Halls Mill Road, and McCray

53:23Avenue.

53:24>> [snorts]

53:25>> And it's been suggested by staff to hold

53:28this over until November 19th Planning

53:29Commission meeting.

53:31Is the applicant present? Are you in

53:33agreement with that holdover?

53:35Have any questions?

53:39Well, we'll have that opportunity. Would

53:41you like to to

53:44Specifically, I'll read uh site plan are

53:47still required revisions to the site

53:48plan are still required. Uh one

53:50discretionary we can only do one

53:51discretionary holdover. It is suggested

53:54to hold over until November 19th so that

53:56all required revisions should be

53:57submitted to planning and zoning by

53:59November 3rd.

54:01So, it's revisions.

54:03Any further questions?

54:04All right, seeing none. Since it's on

54:06the agenda, I'll ask if there's anyone

54:07in the audience who would like to speak

54:09for or speak against or have questions

54:10towards this rezone, which is

54:12specifically a uh I didn't mention this

54:15in the agenda. It's a going from R1 and

54:18R3 to multi-family residential R3 and

54:22then a conditional use permit approval

54:24to allow expansion of the existing

54:25mobile home community in an R3.

54:28So, if you have questions towards it,

54:29would like to speak for it, or speak

54:30against it, you're welcome to do that

54:31now, or

54:33it will be on the agenda for November.

54:37All right, seeing none.

54:38Well, I'll close public hearing

54:40deliberation. I will move to

54:43move this agenda item to November.

54:46A second?

54:47So, prop- properly moved and seconded.

54:49All in favor?

54:50>> I.

54:51>> Any opposed?

54:53All right, the motion to move to

54:54November has passed. We're going to go

54:56back on your agenda in print to number

54:59one

55:02as it was moved to the fourth item. This

55:04is a subdivision application at 59 and

55:0661 Bradford Avenue and 1311 Azalea

55:08Street, Second Annunciation Greek

55:10Orthodox Church, subdivision of six lots

55:12at 0.76 acres.

55:15For commissioners, there's potential of

55:17um waivers of section CB9, C62A1,

55:21and C6C4.

55:24Our applicant is here. Name and address

55:26of record. Yes, sir.

55:28>> Uh yes, Brett O'Rail with Poly

55:30Surveying. Um

55:33And so, just just to be clear, we're

55:35voting on the minor subdivision first,

55:37slogan. This is what's in front here.

55:39>> Agenda item number one. Yes.

55:42>> Number one.

55:42>> Okay.

55:44>> Yeah, uh

55:45probably try to summarize this in one

55:47fell swoop right right behind it. So, uh

55:49>> I'll be your best friend if you did

55:50that.

55:50>> Yeah. Yeah.

55:51>> Yeah.

55:51>> So, so the church is ultimately

55:54acquiring uh what is labeled there as

55:561A, 2A, and 3A.

55:59As part of that, uh there are two

56:02uh

56:03dwelling units in an R1 zoning that are

56:06uh currently, I think, apartments that

56:07are being demoed as part of this. So,

56:10we're cleaning up some zoning as part of

56:12this uh process. You'll see those noted

56:14there to be removed and it's stated in

56:16the staff report. Ultimately, what we're

56:18after is the the two properties along

56:21Bradford and the one along Zelia will be

56:23stand-alone single-family residential.

56:25It'll clean up the zoning um in the

56:27configuration that is presented. We'll

56:29adjust the setbacks to the historical

56:31zoning. Um and then what is happening on

56:34the backside is is those three lots

56:36mentioning the the one, two, and 3A will

56:38then go and comprise and be part of the

56:40overall uh church property. So, what is

56:44happening is there's a simultaneous

56:46simultaneous conveyance that's happening

56:47with one of the church members to

56:49acquire those properties that the church

56:51church owns. He's then donating that

56:54property right back to there. That's why

56:55it's a odd configuration that you're

56:57seeing. Ultimately, it says six lots,

57:00it's really four. So, if you think about

57:01it through through that lens, um the

57:05says six for this, but

57:07the overall development will be four

57:08lots and we're calling that balance lot

57:10A. So, all that'll be comprised in the

57:12one. There's no intent to develop at

57:14this time. There is a comprehensive plan

57:16that they're going to look at in the

57:18future and we know that at that time

57:19we'll have to adhere to any uh drainage,

57:23sidewalk, any other conditions or or or

57:25zoning conditions that are approved. We

57:27agree with the the condition, you know,

57:29about denying access, which I think is

57:31on the next one to Bradford. So, we're

57:33really in agreement with everything.

57:35Just want to go on the record that

57:36there's nothing really being developed

57:37at this time. It's really just some land

57:39swapping and cleaning up some existing

57:40zoning. Um so, we're just asking that

57:43the commission approve both applications

57:45today. We're going to take them

57:46separately, but thanks for consolidating

57:48it for your for our efficiencies. Thank

57:49you, Mr. O'Rail. And uh anyone else in

57:52the audience that has questions to Well,

57:54excuse me. Any questions or comments for

57:55the applicant?

57:57From commissioners?

58:00Anyone in the audience here today on the

58:02first agenda item 59 and 61 Bradford

58:05Avenue and 1311 Azalea Street, which is

58:07the six-lot subdivision 0.76 acres,

58:09speak for, speak against, or have

58:11questions towards it?

58:15All right, seeing none, we will close

58:16public hearing, open up deliberation,

58:18entertain a motion for that subdivision.

58:20>> Move to approve said staff

58:21recommendations.

58:23>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

58:25favor?

58:25>> Aye.

58:26>> Any opposed? The motion for subdivision

58:28passes.

58:30We're now back on track, number five on

58:32the printed agenda. This is a triple

58:34application for the same property. The

58:36applicant is remaining for questions.

58:39This is a subdivision application and

58:41two modification applications at 50 and

58:4360 South Ann Street. Same property.

58:46Proposal is the subdivision of one lot,

58:483.58 acres, then the major

58:50modifications,

58:52and the potential expansion of the

58:54existing church in an R-1 single-family

58:56residential district, and then a PUD, uh

59:00planned unit development.

59:02For commissioners on the modifications,

59:04there's potentially eight findings of

59:05fact on both.

59:09And the applicant has already stated

59:11that they're in agreement with the 11

59:13listed conditions on the subdivision,

59:15and the 13 listed conditions on both

59:17modification applications.

59:20Any questions from commissioners for the

59:22applicant?

59:24>> Can I just quickly point out something

59:26just so everyone sees Can we come back

59:28one page, please?

59:30>> Uh sorry, the the original plat. So So

59:33here where we have the one, two, and

59:34three A, just want to be clear that

59:36where we're showing the lot A,

59:38ultimately those lots are going to go

59:40away as part of this application and

59:42will be comprised within lot A. I know

59:44it's very unique to see this way,

59:46um but that's the intent. Just wanted to

59:48go on record and state to the staff and

59:50I I don't see any issue there uh in

59:52doing that. So really this would be

59:54representative of the four lot

59:55subdivision that I stated previously.

59:59>> Thank you, Mr. O'Neal.

1:00:05I'll because it's still the same one,

1:00:07I'll still ask on different agenda item,

1:00:09is there anyone in the audience for this

1:00:11triple application modification and

1:00:14subdivision, speak for, speak against,

1:00:16or have questions towards it?

1:00:19All right, seeing none, we'll close

1:00:20public hearing, open deliberation. We'll

1:00:22take them through all three separately.

1:00:24Take the subdivision first.

1:00:27Entertain a motion.

1:00:28>> Move to approve subdivision

1:00:29recommendations.

1:00:30>> Second.

1:00:30>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:00:32favor?

1:00:32>> Aye.

1:00:33>> Any opposed? Motion for subdivision

1:00:35passes. Modification on expansion.

1:00:40Entertain a motion.

1:00:42>> Move to approve subdivision staff

1:00:44recommendations adopting findings of

1:00:45fact A through H.

1:00:48>> Properly moved and seconded with

1:00:49findings of fact A, B, C, D, E, F, G,

1:00:53and H.

1:00:55All in favor?

1:00:56>> Aye.

1:00:57>> Any opposed? Motion for modification

1:00:59passes. Second modification on the PUD.

1:01:05>> Move to approve subdivision staff

1:01:06recommendations with findings of fact A

1:01:07through H.

1:01:08>> Second.

1:01:09>> Properly moved and seconded with

1:01:10findings of fact A, B, C, D, E, F, G,

1:01:14and H.

1:01:16All in favor?

1:01:17>> Aye.

1:01:18>> Any opposed? The second modification

1:01:20application also passes.

1:01:22That concludes the whole over portion of

1:01:24our

1:01:25today's agenda. We'll now move into new

1:01:26applications. Number six

1:01:29is a subdivision application at 251 and

1:01:31255 St. Louis Street and 106 and 160

1:01:34North Jackson Street, the Ace Hardware

1:01:36and Spirit subdivision, subdivision of

1:01:39one lot at 0.92 acres.

1:01:41For the applicant, there are potentially

1:01:4312 or there are 12 conditions.

1:01:46And

1:01:47there he is. State your name and address

1:01:49for the record.

1:01:51>> Jerry Byrd, merchant our man, 2609 Halls

1:01:54Mill Road. Uh

1:01:57under subdivision

1:02:00items two and three corner radiuses

1:02:03uh recommended uh asking for waiver of

1:02:06that based on

1:02:08the

1:02:09engineering department's comments B

1:02:12where they are recommending and

1:02:14supporting a waiver of

1:02:16the 25-ft uh corner radius.

1:02:20Previously, the subdivisions were

1:02:22recorded without it.

1:02:24And uh we're just combining two lots.

1:02:31Other than that, we're okay with the

1:02:32rest of the recommendations.

1:02:34>> All right, question for staff on the

1:02:36applicant's

1:02:37comments regarding conditions two and

1:02:39three on corner radius.

1:02:42Any issues?

1:02:45>> Freddy George

1:02:50Uh

1:02:51I have no issues.

1:02:56>> Any further Thank you, Mr. Byrd. Any

1:02:58further questions or comments from

1:02:59commissioners regarding this subdivision

1:03:02application?

1:03:04All right, thank you, Mr. Byrd. Is there

1:03:05anyone in the audience that is here to

1:03:06speak for, speak against, or have

1:03:07questions towards

1:03:09this property and its application to

1:03:11subdivide one lot, 0.92 acres on St.

1:03:13Louis and North Jackson?

1:03:17All right, seeing none, we'll close

1:03:18public hearing, open up deliberation.

1:03:21Entertain a motion.

1:03:22>> Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Do we do we

1:03:24specifically need to wave 606?

1:03:27Or can or do we just need to wave those

1:03:29two, number two and number three?

1:03:33>> But I don't I mean, they do seem to kind

1:03:35of

1:03:35>> Yeah, so there's specific um

1:03:39sections within the subdivision

1:03:40regulations that apply citywide, but

1:03:42also to the downtown development

1:03:43district. They're not listed here. We

1:03:45can uh wave those requirements, deleting

1:03:48numbers two and three.

1:03:51>> Okay, we'll do that.

1:03:53Move to approve subdivision staff

1:03:54recommendations, waving conditions

1:03:56number two and three.

1:03:57>> Second.

1:04:00>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:04:01favor?

1:04:02>> Aye.

1:04:03>> Any opposed?

1:04:05All right, the motion for subdivision

1:04:06passes.

1:04:08Number seven is a subdivision

1:04:09application, 659 McLemore Street, Chapel

1:04:12Hill Estates subdivision, two lots, .34

1:04:15acres.

1:04:18Is the applicant present?

1:04:20Applicant is present, wave of hand and

1:04:23in attendance. Are you in agreement with

1:04:25the eight listed conditions? Applicant

1:04:27is in agreement with the eight listed

1:04:29conditions.

1:04:33I'll ask if there's anyone else in the

1:04:34audience that is here to speak for,

1:04:36speak against, or have questions towards

1:04:38this subdivision application on McLemore

1:04:40Street.

1:04:44Seeing none, we will close public

1:04:45hearing, open up deliberation, entertain

1:04:47a motion.

1:04:48>> Move to approve subdivision staff

1:04:49recommendations.

1:04:50>> Second.

1:04:51>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:04:52favor?

1:04:53>> Aye.

1:04:54>> Any opposed?

1:04:55The motion for subdivision passes.

1:04:58Number eight is a subdivision

1:04:59application at east side of Duval

1:05:01Street, 384 feet east of Michigan

1:05:03Avenue, between Arlington and Kellogg

1:05:05streets. It's the triangle at Brookley

1:05:07North subdivision, two lots at 36.82

1:05:11acres.

1:05:14Is the applicant present?

1:05:17Applicant is present. Are you in

1:05:19agreement with the 11 listed conditions

1:05:22or have questions about any of them?

1:05:24>> Yes, we're in agreement.

1:05:26>> They're in agreement with the 11 listed

1:05:27conditions.

1:05:31Any questions or comments from

1:05:32commissioners?

1:05:34Anyone in the audience to hear hear to

1:05:36speak for, speak against, or have

1:05:37questions towards this application of

1:05:40subdivision on Michigan Avenue between

1:05:41Arlington and Kellogg streets?

1:05:45Does that mean you're coming down,

1:05:46ma'am? Okay.

1:05:47Will there be anyone else?

1:05:51All right.

1:06:02A reminder, ma'am, to adjust the

1:06:03microphone and speak clearly and then

1:06:05use your name name and address for the

1:06:07record.

1:06:10>> Tammy McElroy, uh 2015 Boykin Boulevard.

1:06:14Um my question I just have question.

1:06:17Um what is the planning uh for that once

1:06:21the subdivision is done?

1:06:24And also um

1:06:27is there any adjustments or changes

1:06:29foreseen any adjustments or changing

1:06:32changes for the flow of traffic

1:06:35uh in that area

1:06:36or on those lines?

1:06:40Thank you.

1:06:41>> Thank you, Ms. McElroy.

1:06:43I'll now leave it to the applicant to or

1:06:46representation to address the question,

1:06:48which is what's the plan

1:06:50uh for the subdivision.

1:07:03>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Harlan Foster,

1:07:0416283 Scenic 98 on behalf of the

1:07:07applicant and my associate Stan

1:07:09Waterhouse is here and he's been dealing

1:07:10directly with some of these matters, but

1:07:12the plan on this property is to build a

1:07:14250 unit phase one apartment complex to

1:07:17support the loss of the residents that

1:07:19were vacated during the HUD

1:07:20redevelopment. So, after all those

1:07:22properties were demolished, it was

1:07:23important to the city and to other

1:07:25residents to have

1:07:26a

1:07:27replenishing of all the residents that

1:07:29were there. So,

1:07:30we've uh

1:07:31put together a plan for phase one to

1:07:33have a full 250 units

1:07:35and that center road that we're using to

1:07:37subdivide will subdivide two of the

1:07:40phases.

1:07:45>> All right, thank you, Mr. Foster. Ma'am,

1:07:46did you hear that?

1:07:48All right.

1:07:50>> Thank you.

1:07:50>> Absolutely.

1:07:54Anyone else in the audience have

1:07:55questions

1:07:57regarding this application?

1:08:00Seeing none, we'll close public hearing,

1:08:01open up deliberation.

1:08:04Entertain motion.

1:08:05>> Move to approve subject staff

1:08:06recommendations.

1:08:07>> Second.

1:08:08>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:08:10favor.

1:08:11>> May I Can you hold on 1 second, Kim?

1:08:13The applicant.

1:08:16The question of private or city street,

1:08:21what do we have to show that it is a

1:08:24private road through there? We just want

1:08:26to make sure that's not going to create

1:08:27a problem in the future for a vacation

1:08:29or a right-of-way.

1:08:33>> Are you asking me what support we have

1:08:35that it is private?

1:08:36>> Yeah.

1:08:37>> It has been public in the past. I think

1:08:39that a motion maybe has a request has

1:08:41been made to make it private or we're

1:08:42willing to cooperate in whatever makes

1:08:44the what makes the most sense, but

1:08:46obviously in the past as a HUD

1:08:47development, this was not supported by

1:08:49the residents there. It was supported by

1:08:50the city.

1:08:52>> Answer your question. It it it it does.

1:08:55Just in in the past, we found those HUD

1:08:56developments had given the streets to

1:08:59the city by way of the the city

1:09:01commission by way of resolution. We just

1:09:03don't want that to cause you a problem

1:09:04in the future.

1:09:06Kind of you got to go through a vacation

1:09:07process.

1:09:08>> Uh

1:09:10Understood. I think

1:09:11my partner said if you did more

1:09:12discussions about that exact matter, so

1:09:14I'll let him address it.

1:09:18Uh good afternoon. Stan Waterhouse. Um

1:09:21with Harland and we're based out of

1:09:23Fairhope. Uh

1:09:24the question is about whether it's a

1:09:26public or private roadway.

1:09:28We believe it to be a public road

1:09:31based upon our uh inspection and our

1:09:33folks having gone and looked at it.

1:09:36Um our the gentleman that actually is

1:09:38representing us on this particular

1:09:39subdivision

1:09:41application believes it's a public road

1:09:43as well. We are considering

1:09:46uh asking the city

1:09:48to abate or to abandon that and it

1:09:51become a

1:09:52private road.

1:09:54So, that will be done at some point time

1:09:55in the future. We'll

1:09:57move down that pathway.

1:09:59Does that answer your question, sir?

1:10:05>> I I'm okay with the moving forward, but

1:10:07I I think, you know, when we when we've

1:10:08done research on these other housing

1:10:10those old HUD projects in the past,

1:10:13unfortunately, we found that those

1:10:14streets were accepted and they were

1:10:16accepted in the way of minutes of

1:10:18minutes of a meeting. They weren't like

1:10:19our normal modern day street acceptance.

1:10:23I just don't want it to cause you a

1:10:24problem down the road and we find out

1:10:26that in fact that is a city street going

1:10:29through there. So,

1:10:29>> Right.

1:10:30>> I

1:10:31I I think we'll make a motion. I've got

1:10:32an idea we can make a conditional motion

1:10:34and just let us do a little research

1:10:36with the city clerk and confirm one way

1:10:38or the other because if there is a city

1:10:40street there uh that's been accepted,

1:10:43you're going to have to go through a

1:10:43vacation process to get it to get it

1:10:46>> And that would be our intent if if that

1:10:48in fact is the case. We began walking

1:10:50down that pathway.

1:10:51>> say that if the private streets are

1:10:53ultimately dedicated for public use and

1:10:55maintenance, 100% of the cost of the

1:10:56improvements required to bring the

1:10:58streets up to the standard will be

1:10:59assessed to the owner at the time that

1:11:01they're dedicated. So,

1:11:03it's the money's a wash either way.

1:11:06>> Right.

1:11:09Okay, thank you.

1:11:11Thank you, gentlemen.

1:11:14We were We have a motion with a a

1:11:16second, and we were about to call the

1:11:17vote, but I'll pause and see if there's

1:11:19any further questions or comments from

1:11:20commissioners.

1:11:24I'll call the vote. All in favor?

1:11:26>> Aye.

1:11:27>> Any opposed?

1:11:29The motion for subdivision passes.

1:11:32Number nine, subdivision application at

1:11:347951 New York Cabin Road, A, Rain Tree

1:11:37Farms subdivision, two lots at 39.54

1:11:41acres.

1:11:42>> Mr. Chair.

1:11:43>> Go ahead.

1:11:44>> Um for number nine, um there was

1:11:47originally in your staff report a

1:11:48recommendation to hold this over to the

1:11:51November 19th meeting. Um the applicant

1:11:53has since resolved that uh issue with a

1:11:56letter from the neighboring property

1:11:57owner, um admitting that they are aware

1:11:59of the situation, they are not uh

1:12:02amenable to joining the subdivision. Uh

1:12:04we have accepted that and have prepared

1:12:07um

1:12:07draft considerations, which are in the

1:12:09actual folder

1:12:11under number nine.

1:12:14I should say considerations. Um those

1:12:17have been emailed to the applicant. Um

1:12:22just to make the planning commission

1:12:23aware.

1:12:24>> All right, for commissioners, if you go

1:12:25to number nine in your devices,

1:12:29considerations, potential waivers of

1:12:30section 6B3 and 6B9 for closing street

1:12:33turnaround dedication on the terminus of

1:12:35Second Creek Drive South, and section

1:12:376C2B2 for substandard lot width, and

1:12:40there are potentially nine listed

1:12:41conditions.

1:12:43The applicant is here,

1:12:45and reminder, sir, please state your

1:12:47name and address for the record.

1:12:49>> Uh for the record, I'm Jay Ross, the

1:12:51Mobile County Attorney, 205 Government

1:12:53Street, 10th floor.

1:12:55And gentleman is correct.

1:12:58The only thing that the county asked

1:12:59against a little bit late is would the

1:13:03commission staff consider the waiver of

1:13:06number one. This is going to be

1:13:08dedicated by the county as a public park

1:13:12for extension of the West Side Park,

1:13:15which is on Schillinger's Road and Leroy

1:13:19Stevens. There'll be no ingress or

1:13:22egress access point as relates to the

1:13:26potential turnaround on item number one.

1:13:30County agrees if it's ever that road is

1:13:32ever opened to ingress and egress from

1:13:35Schillinger's Road, we would want and

1:13:38expect and plan to come back to

1:13:40commission on how to do it.

1:13:42The ask is it not be a restriction on

1:13:46the plat. So that if the county were to

1:13:49develop that park for some kind of

1:13:51recreational use, we wouldn't have this

1:13:54limitation.

1:13:55But recognizing of course if ever opened

1:13:58to the Schillinger's Road side for

1:14:00ingress and egress, we would have to

1:14:01come back and ask to it. We'll say there

1:14:03are two ingress and egress access points

1:14:06already off Leroy Stevens Road. This is

1:14:10roughly a 7.5

1:14:12acre tract the county wishes to purchase

1:14:16from the ownership group.

1:14:18Everything else the gentleman says

1:14:20exactly correct. We worked hard

1:14:21yesterday to get all the signatures from

1:14:24the ownership group to not be part of

1:14:26the subdivision.

1:14:30That's all the staff will agree to

1:14:31number one. It came from Mr. Wicker.

1:14:33>> I'll ask staff if we are amenable to

1:14:36that. So it is an unopened and

1:14:38unimproved right-of-way street,

1:14:41potential street that would have access

1:14:42to Schillinger Road. Um but the

1:14:46section in the subdivision regulations

1:14:48does require it to be

1:14:50um reviewed and determined by the city

1:14:53engineer.

1:14:54So, we will defer to the city engineer.

1:14:58>> John

1:15:01What exactly are we asking?

1:15:04>> We're We're We're asking that the

1:15:06restriction on number one not be

1:15:09included on the plat.

1:15:11>> He doesn't have that in front of him.

1:15:13>> I have Kim, you want to give him one of

1:15:15>> Thank you.

1:15:15>> I'm going to read it. How about that?

1:15:17Number one is it's

1:15:20it would be the revision of the plat to

1:15:22illustrate dedication of sufficient

1:15:23right-of-way to provide a turnaround at

1:15:25the western terminus of the unnamed

1:15:27unopened right-of-way in accordance with

1:15:29section 6B3 and 6B9 of the subdivision

1:15:32regulations as determined by city

1:15:34engineer and in accordance with the most

1:15:36recently adopted internal fire

1:15:37international fire code.

1:15:39>> Of course, we would We're never The

1:15:41current plan, of course, life changes is

1:15:44to not access that and there'd be no

1:15:46need for a fire truck. And today, that

1:15:49far away from two ingress and egress

1:15:52access points.

1:15:54>> I I I don't I don't have any problem

1:15:56with that. Um but it you know, in the

1:15:59future if if there were going to be

1:16:02um something constructed there for

1:16:04access, then we would

1:16:05>> We We agree with that, absolutely, and

1:16:07understand your concern.

1:16:10>> Question for staff, what was the was the

1:16:12intent of the note where there's the

1:16:13unopened right-of-way

1:16:15that that stubs into the property

1:16:17to leave a place for a a future

1:16:20cul-de-sac there? Was that what what was

1:16:22that

1:16:22>> That's correct. That's correct.

1:16:23>> Okay.

1:16:25>> No, he's saying the western terminus

1:16:27>> Yeah, it is It actually is, Kenny. I

1:16:29apologize.

1:16:32>> I think he's saying that the intent of

1:16:33that note was

1:16:34>> It's been a little bit of rush,

1:16:36commission, on our part cuz the owner is

1:16:39extremely interested in selling quickly.

1:16:41>> I don't I don't think it's a concern the

1:16:42way that it's

1:16:43>> Uh

1:16:43>> Chairman, go ahead.

1:16:45>> Um and Mr. Ross, as far as kind of

1:16:49obviously this

1:16:50again I appreciate West Mobile County

1:16:51Park. It's It's a beautiful park.

1:16:53>> For district 6 it's a wonderful

1:16:54district.

1:16:56>> Um

1:16:57>> Like to walk my dog out there.

1:16:58>> Yeah.

1:16:59So obviously over the course of the last

1:17:022 years Mobile Mobile County has

1:17:04purchased

1:17:05that piece all the way from Schillinger

1:17:07that touches the park.

1:17:09>> Right.

1:17:10>> I think there's a city around that that

1:17:11gave us money towards it for an awesome

1:17:13splash pad and everything. So the

1:17:15>> And that's exactly right. That is a

1:17:17plan.

1:17:17>> And then

1:17:18the county intends to kind of tie that

1:17:20into West Mobile County Park as it

1:17:22exists today the old softball city.

1:17:24>> Correct.

1:17:24>> So I mean in reality there and then on

1:17:26in addition to that over on the soccer

1:17:27fields, I mean there's a there's a an

1:17:30ingress there egress there. Maybe it's

1:17:32not officially tied in based on county

1:17:35spec versus city spec, but in reality I

1:17:37mean there's already two ingresses and

1:17:39egresses to the park. So really the the

1:17:42future plan of that and I hopefully very

1:17:45soon Commissioner do it. I'd be I'd be

1:17:47jumps on that.

1:17:49But I'm very soon

1:17:50>> You know him he likely will.

1:17:52>> And very soon there will be really a

1:17:53third access point and this is just

1:17:55adding to the existing parcel that was

1:17:57softball city and then tying it into to

1:18:00that city.

1:18:01>> It's to the to the to the north of where

1:18:03that softball city was the park the park

1:18:05>> Yeah the softball city soccer fields

1:18:08>> That's right.

1:18:08>> adjoining land.

1:18:10>> Okay, thank you.

1:18:13>> Any further questions or comments from

1:18:15commissioners from Mr. Ross?

1:18:18>> No, sir.

1:18:18>> Thank you Mr. Ross. I'll ask if there's

1:18:20anyone in the audience that has

1:18:21questions about this agenda item that

1:18:23would like to speak for it or speak

1:18:24against it.

1:18:27Seeing none we'll close public hearing,

1:18:29open up deliberation,

1:18:30entertain a motion

1:18:32with potential of striking condition

1:18:34number one.

1:18:35>> Move to approve staff recommendations

1:18:37condition number one on the special

1:18:39consideration sheet as provided today.

1:18:42>> Second.

1:18:43>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:18:44favor?

1:18:45>> Aye.

1:18:45>> Aye.

1:18:46>> Any opposed?

1:18:48The motion for subdivision passes. I'm

1:18:49glad we got that one.

1:18:51And thank you, gentlemen.

1:18:53Number 10, subdivision application

1:18:56at 2126 Johns Lane.

1:18:59It's uh three lots at 1.22 acres.

1:19:02Is the applicant present?

1:19:08Do not see any hands or anyone saying

1:19:10they're here.

1:19:13There are eight listed conditions. I'll

1:19:15ask staff if they're aware of

1:19:19>> The applicant was provided the staff

1:19:20report with the conditions. Um we have

1:19:22not received any communication either in

1:19:24favor or against any of those

1:19:26conditions.

1:19:28>> All right. And then we do have one

1:19:31um

1:19:33written

1:19:34in public comments

1:19:36for agenda item number 10. So, I'll

1:19:38remind commissioners of that.

1:19:43I'll now ask if there's anyone in the

1:19:45audience that would like to speak for,

1:19:47speak against, or have questions towards

1:19:49this subdivision application located at

1:19:512126 Johns Lane.

1:19:58All right. Seeing none, we will close

1:19:59public hearing.

1:20:03Open up deliberation.

1:20:09Entertain a motion.

1:20:11>> Move to approve staff recommendations.

1:20:13>> Second.

1:20:14>> Properly moved and seconded.

1:20:17All in favor?

1:20:18>> Aye.

1:20:18>> Aye.

1:20:20>> The motion for subdivision passes.

1:20:23Number 11, this is a subdivision

1:20:25application at two Burger Road, the

1:20:27Burger Road subdivision. It's three lots

1:20:29at 0.34 acres.

1:20:33For the applicant, there are potentially

1:20:3511 listed conditions.

1:20:40I sorry.

1:20:41>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Mann.

1:20:42Uh, again, uh,

1:20:45item three,

1:20:46requesting waiver of the 25-ft

1:20:50radius on the corner.

1:20:51Uh, city engineering in their comment D,

1:20:55they recommend and support a waiver of

1:20:57it.

1:20:59We're okay with the rest of the

1:21:00recommendation.

1:21:05>> Any questions or comments for Mr. Byrd

1:21:07regarding this application or that re-

1:21:11uh, request and statement? I'll confirm

1:21:14with staff, city engineering.

1:21:16Yeah. Nod of head. All right.

1:21:18>> Mr. Chairman, I got a question for Mr.

1:21:20Byrd.

1:21:20>> Go ahead.

1:21:21>> The existing sidewalk along McGregor

1:21:23there, is the drawing that we're

1:21:25looking, is it accurate, is it what's

1:21:27showing, it's showing that it's on

1:21:28private property, not on not on

1:21:30right-of-way.

1:21:34I know the city we built that, we built

1:21:36those sidewalks a few years ago and I

1:21:38don't I don't recall getting a sidewalk

1:21:40easement uh, for that, but I just I I

1:21:43want I think we need to confirm.

1:21:45>> The plat,

1:21:46>> [clears throat]

1:21:46>> excuse me, the plat that was submitted

1:21:48was

1:21:50taking the right-of-way.

1:21:53That was a previous dedication. This

1:21:56plat that I have

1:21:58is now providing a 25-ft from the center

1:22:01line of the road, which will require a

1:22:05little additional dedication.

1:22:07And also that puts 25-ft building

1:22:10setback into the existing house, which

1:22:13is not going to be removed. So, we would

1:22:16have a note on the plat that states that

1:22:18the improvements would stay.

1:22:20Uh, any new construction would adhere to

1:22:24the

1:22:25new building setback line.

1:22:27>> Well, it appears on the on the on the

1:22:29plat here that there is a sidewalk

1:22:31encroachment.

1:22:32>> You see that there?

1:22:34>> Looks like the

1:22:35based on where you have your

1:22:38property corners.

1:22:39>> Yeah. Yeah, there is a sidewalk

1:22:41encroachment. Right, that was

1:22:45that was the previous survey that was

1:22:47submitted.

1:22:47>> Okay.

1:22:51I guess uh I'm just going to make a

1:22:53comment here. Uh

1:22:54This is dated 7 7 26, which is after the

1:22:59McGregor

1:23:00carbon gutter and sidewalk improvement

1:23:02project.

1:23:07>> I think the right we just need to sort

1:23:09out which which one is which

1:23:10which one which one is correct

1:23:12>> or there's a if there's a dedication

1:23:13that needs to be

1:23:14>> the sidewalk will stay inside the

1:23:16right-of-way once it's dedicated.

1:23:18>> Okay.

1:23:19We would we would we need to sort that

1:23:20out or have a or have a dedication so

1:23:22that sidewalk comes into the

1:23:23right-of-way or or sidewalk easement and

1:23:26it's better better if it comes into the

1:23:28right-of-way.

1:23:29>> And Nick, it looks like in our packet

1:23:32the

1:23:33the property line kind of runs through

1:23:35the middle of the sidewalk.

1:23:58>> [clears throat]

1:24:01>> I just I think we need to reconcile just

1:24:02which which which survey is correct and

1:24:05then I mean, hopefully it's just one you

1:24:07handed me that that shows all the

1:24:08sidewalk on the right-of-way. What if

1:24:10it's not? If it's not, then we've got to

1:24:12get with the we'll have to do something

1:24:14to clean that up.

1:24:16>> All right.

1:24:22>> I just draw back. We got We got the same

1:24:24thing here.

1:24:25>> Yeah, I don't need it.

1:24:27>> [snorts]

1:24:30>> Mhm, same thing.

1:24:317726

1:24:34Yeah, no, no. It's the same thing.

1:24:36What was your purchase through lightning

1:24:37there right there?

1:24:43Daniel, something's changed.

1:24:51Hold on.

1:24:53This kind of lot one after dedication is

1:24:55a little bit different than this.

1:24:56>> Mhm.

1:24:57>> 777

1:24:59And then 90 or something like that.

1:25:02Oh, cuz the lot lines are different

1:25:04there.

1:25:05That shows a dedication, this shows

1:25:07existing.

1:25:09>> So what So are we Are you proposing a

1:25:11dedication or you're not proposing a

1:25:12dedication?

1:25:13>> No, that would be

1:25:14That one shows it.

1:25:15>> Based on being 25 ft from the center

1:25:17line.

1:25:19>> Well, not No.

1:25:20>> That's what I was talking about. That's

1:25:21what I'm talking about.

1:25:22I mean, the setbacks I'm talking about

1:25:23the actual property line.

1:25:24The The dimensions are different. The

1:25:26depth

1:25:28The depth of these lines are different

1:25:30on this survey and this other survey.

1:25:33The date is the same, but they're not

1:25:34the same.

1:25:38>> We [snorts]

1:25:42Our surveying office did not prepare

1:25:43that. Now, we are the Mobile office of

1:25:46Smith, Carter and Associates. Smith,

1:25:47Carter and Baldwin County prepared that

1:25:49survey and they asked me

1:25:51to represent it.

1:25:53As what the surveying was done on that,

1:25:56I'm I'm not

1:25:58>> Okay.

1:25:59>> Do we Do we give you a a minute to

1:26:01look at these and try to reconcile it

1:26:03and maybe take this back up a little

1:26:05farther down the agenda?

1:26:06>> Let's do that.

1:26:06>> Yeah.

1:26:07>> Either that or

1:26:08hold over to get it right.

1:26:12Um

1:26:14>> I'm going to ask Mr. Well, we also have

1:26:16another question or comment from

1:26:17Commissioner separate from this sidewalk

1:26:20and and plat issue.

1:26:21>> Did Did we subdivide this recently?

1:26:25It wasn't mentioned in the

1:26:26>> No, this was not part of a recent

1:26:28subdivision.

1:26:29>> yeah.

1:26:31Let's make that up.

1:26:32>> There was There was a

1:26:34There was a certain There was a

1:26:35subdivision application

1:26:38around the corner on McGregor from

1:26:40this one.

1:26:42>> But there was not

1:26:45not this one.

1:26:57>> All right. Um because it's on the agenda

1:26:59and we Any further questions or comments

1:27:00from commissioners for the applicant,

1:27:02Mr. Byrd?

1:27:05All right. We will now see if there's

1:27:06anyone in the audience that has

1:27:08questions or comments

1:27:11about this application on Byrd Road.

1:27:16Hello, ma'am. And reminder to state your

1:27:18name and address for the record.

1:27:20>> My name is Nancy Stone and I live at 106

1:27:24South McGregor Avenue, which is uh

1:27:27directly across the street from lot

1:27:30number one.

1:27:31And I am opposed to this subdivision

1:27:34because lot one is small and the large

1:27:37trees will need to be cut down and the

1:27:40lot will be covered with house,

1:27:42driveway, and I do not know how they are

1:27:45going to hold the water or is it going

1:27:48into the drains at Byrd Road?

1:27:51The drains are already in overload.

1:27:55Um

1:27:56and one of the drains runs in front of

1:27:58my property. And when there's a heavy

1:28:01rain, the overload of water escapes and

1:28:04comes out on the west side of my

1:28:06property. And the first time this

1:28:08happened, the water came out, it took

1:28:10some bricks in the walkway by my

1:28:13mailbox. You could see the drain from my

1:28:16yard. You could also see it from where

1:28:18my mailbox was and the bricks came up.

1:28:22The

1:28:23I called my yard man to come and look

1:28:26and see what I should do.

1:28:29First, [snorts] he said call the city.

1:28:31Then he said he could bring in a load of

1:28:34stones and see how see if this would

1:28:37work. We were both hoping this would

1:28:39solve my problem, but water is still

1:28:42escaping from under the sidewalk and has

1:28:45been moving the stones further onto my

1:28:48property.

1:28:49Obviously, the drains cannot handle what

1:28:52they are supposed to handle now.

1:28:54And this subdivision will definitely

1:28:57affect me and make my problem worse.

1:29:01Uh I sent you all pictures.

1:29:04I hope you got them. I don't know if you

1:29:05did or not. But I know I need help from

1:29:08the city. With with continuing

1:29:11development in my area.

1:29:14But please reject this subdivision until

1:29:17the drain problem is solved. Thank you.

1:29:21>> Thank you, Ms. Stone.

1:29:27I'll ask if there's anyone else in the

1:29:28audience that would like to speak for,

1:29:30speak against, or have questions towards

1:29:32this subdivision application at 2 Burger

1:29:34Road.

1:29:37>> I showed Mr. Byrd

1:29:40compared just to what y'all were looking

1:29:42at.

1:29:43This was prepared after staff comments

1:29:47to correct what

1:29:48the issue was in the other one with

1:29:50that.

1:29:52So, this is the one he wants to go with

1:29:53which has the sidewalk completely

1:29:56outside of the lot.

1:29:57>> we believe that's the correct the

1:29:58correct survey.

1:29:59>> Okay, got you. Thank you.

1:30:06>> All right. um, Mr. Byrd or the

1:30:07applicant, would you would like to

1:30:08address the concerns that were brought

1:30:10up?

1:30:12No? Okay.

1:30:14Any further comments or questions from

1:30:15the audience?

1:30:17All right, we'll now close public

1:30:18hearing.

1:30:19And we'll enter into deliberation.

1:30:26>> Uh

1:30:28So, what's on the iPads is

1:30:32it's been revised with

1:30:34this what we're holding here, what Jerry

1:30:36presented.

1:30:37Same same date

1:30:40as what's

1:30:41on your iPad in in your packet.

1:30:44Um, but it has the

1:30:46south property line

1:30:49uh parallel to the to the right of way

1:30:52to where the sidewalk is completely

1:30:54outside of the

1:30:56uh

1:30:57property.

1:30:58It's in the right of way.

1:31:00So, if there's going to be a need, I

1:31:02guess

1:31:04if there is there might be a need for a

1:31:07dedication.

1:31:09I don't know.

1:31:13Yeah, if

1:31:14>> I think I think their engineer is going

1:31:15to have to work out. You talking about

1:31:16for the access?

1:31:17>> Well, no, uh

1:31:19just the the width

1:31:22if this revised survey has any of the

1:31:25actual lot outside of the property line

1:31:29if they're changing the legal

1:31:30description because they changed the the

1:31:33south property line, uh there could be

1:31:35additional

1:31:36fee simple on the owner, which now is in

1:31:39the right of way

1:31:40and dedicate would need to be dedicated

1:31:43to the city.

1:31:48So, I I I just I would

1:31:50I have no problem with approving it

1:31:52subject to that

1:31:54revised survey, and if there's any

1:31:57dedication issues, just let the

1:31:58engineers work it out.

1:31:59>> Yeah.

1:32:00>> And and like to address the the drainage

1:32:02piece a little bit from our

1:32:03commissioners and from Ms. Stone.

1:32:05Uh when South McGregor was was was

1:32:07reconstructed through there probably

1:32:09seven or eight years ago, a significant

1:32:11amount of drainage work was done in that

1:32:13section section of McGregor.

1:32:15Uh

1:32:16you know, they're still in times with

1:32:17the rain events that we get that that

1:32:19part of the drainage system can be

1:32:20overwhelmed. So, for the for the

1:32:22applicant and anybody building there,

1:32:25uh you know, you will have to look at

1:32:26the drainage coming off those sites and

1:32:28really not not do any more uh discharge

1:32:31from those sites as opposed to what's

1:32:32already already there. And if you have

1:32:34the ability to hold back more, you know,

1:32:37we'll certainly ask for you to do that

1:32:39and as part of your development with you

1:32:40know, presumably three houses going in

1:32:42there, uh they will likely fill up a

1:32:45large part of the the real estate that's

1:32:47there. Uh and so, we will have to look

1:32:49at the drainage very carefully on this

1:32:51to where it doesn't doesn't make any any

1:32:54concerns any any worse that may be, but

1:32:56we'll say that they were improved very

1:32:58significantly

1:32:59uh with the past project that was done.

1:33:02>> Mr. Chair.

1:33:03>> Go ahead.

1:33:04>> And um just to Ms. Stone, thank you for

1:33:05coming down and uh talking about that.

1:33:07Um obviously Mr. Amberger well-versed in

1:33:10all the engineering going into that

1:33:11area.

1:33:12Um and and just like you said, uh you

1:33:14know, they're going to be required to

1:33:16any any uh obviously water doesn't go

1:33:18through impermeable

1:33:20surfaces. So, they're going to be

1:33:21required to at least meet a guideline.

1:33:23So, Mr. Amberger's right that um they're

1:33:25they'll definitely whenever this comes

1:33:26time to to do whatever they're going to

1:33:28do, they're definitely going to look at

1:33:29that. And um and you coming down today

1:33:31expressed that concern, so it definitely

1:33:32brought light to it.

1:33:37>> Also like to point out from this

1:33:38position that there is the simply

1:33:40subdivision at this time.

1:33:42Simply subdivision.

1:33:47Any further comments or questions from

1:33:49commissioners?

1:33:51>> What is it So,

1:33:54I'm not real familiar with whatever

1:33:55y'all all with the plat, but

1:33:59what is the minimum lot size we have in

1:34:03>> These are zoned R1 single-family

1:34:05residential suburban, so 7 You said lot

1:34:08width or lot area?

1:34:09>> Lot size.

1:34:10>> Lot size would be 7,200 square feet.

1:34:13>> So, is that shrinking these lot sizes?

1:34:15Cuz we're right at that with

1:34:19>> Each of these lots meet the minimum area

1:34:21requirements for the underlying zoning

1:34:24district.

1:34:27>> But, does that change

1:34:28>> I think

1:34:28>> Does that change it there cuz we're

1:34:30right at 7248?

1:34:34>> If it does, then the planning commission

1:34:36would need to

1:34:37approve a waiver of the lot area.

1:34:40But, again, the comments that were

1:34:41provided to the commission were based

1:34:43off of the preliminary plat submitted

1:34:45with the application, not what was

1:34:46provided today. So, it might be best to

1:34:49hold it over to allow time to address

1:34:51these comments more

1:34:53um

1:34:53comprehensively.

1:34:57>> Because if that lot line moves closer in

1:35:01to keep then then it does have a square

1:35:03footage issue.

1:35:05>> Possibly, yes.

1:35:05>> Yes, on on on lot two as I read it

1:35:08because it's the one closest to 7200.

1:35:12Entertain a motion.

1:35:14>> Move to hold over to the next meeting.

1:35:16>> Second.

1:35:17>> Properly moved and seconded to move hold

1:35:20over this agenda item until the November

1:35:2219th Planning Commission meeting.

1:35:25The deadline for submission and

1:35:27corrections would be November 3rd. Is

1:35:29that correct?

1:35:31>> Yes.

1:35:34>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:35:35favor?

1:35:36>> Aye.

1:35:37>> Any opposed?

1:35:39The subdivision application will be held

1:35:41over until November.

1:35:43Number 12 is a subdivision application

1:35:46at 7500 Airport Boulevard, resubdivision

1:35:48of lot one Westgate Pavilion.

1:35:51It's three lots at 13.15 acres.

1:35:55For consideration here of waiver section

1:35:576C9

1:35:59for lot design. Is the applicant

1:36:01present?

1:36:02Applicant is present, raising his hand.

1:36:05Are you in agreement with the seven

1:36:06listed conditions?

1:36:09Got a He nodded his head on agreement of

1:36:11the seven listed conditions.

1:36:13Is there anyone else in the audience

1:36:14that is here to speak for, speak

1:36:15against, or have questions towards

1:36:18the subdivision application at 7500

1:36:21Airport Boulevard?

1:36:26Seeing none, we'll close public hearing.

1:36:28Deliberation.

1:36:30Entertain a motion.

1:36:36>> Move to approve subject to staff

1:36:37recommendations.

1:36:38>> Second.

1:36:40>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:36:41favor?

1:36:42>> Aye.

1:36:43>> Any opposed?

1:36:45The motion for subdivision passes.

1:36:47Number 13, subdivision application 5201

1:36:50and 5213 Persons Drive, Rosemary Hill

1:36:53subdivision. Five lots at 1.6 acres.

1:36:57Potential waiver of section 6C2B2

1:37:01for substandard lot width.

1:37:03Is the applicant present? Applicant is

1:37:05present. Mr. Byrd raised his hand.

1:37:06You're in agreement with the nine listed

1:37:07conditions. He's in agreement. Is there

1:37:09anyone else in the audience that is here

1:37:11to speak for, speak against, or have

1:37:12questions towards number 13 at Persons

1:37:15Drive?

1:37:19Seeing none, we'll close public hearing,

1:37:21go to deliberation, entertain a motion.

1:37:25>> Move to approve subject to staff

1:37:26recommendations.

1:37:27>> Second.

1:37:27>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:37:29favor?

1:37:30>> Aye.

1:37:31>> Any opposed? The motion for subdivision

1:37:33passes.

1:37:36Now enter the sidewalk waiver portion of

1:37:39our agenda. Number 14 is a sidewalk

1:37:41waiver application at the north side of

1:37:43Creelot Road, 1110 ft east of Leroy

1:37:46Stevens Road, extending north 2,730 feet

1:37:50to the south terminus of Navy on Drive.

1:37:52The request is to waive the construction

1:37:54of a sidewalk along Greylock Road. Is

1:37:57the applicant present? The applicant is

1:37:59present. Would you like to make a

1:38:00comment towards the request for the

1:38:04waiver?

1:38:11>> Brandon Mason, 2200 Town Center.

1:38:14Just to highlight what was in the staff

1:38:15report, there's a couple things that

1:38:17come with this. The

1:38:20the slope that comes off of Greylock

1:38:21into our property is raised, and with

1:38:24the subdivision,

1:38:26we're having to widen Greylock Road,

1:38:28which kind of accentuates that

1:38:31that raise, so it'd be hard to get in

1:38:32there. And then on the left and right

1:38:35side of our property, it is a double 48

1:38:38culvert to the west and a 48-in pipe

1:38:41with a good depression, so it kind of

1:38:43annexes our property.

1:38:45So,

1:38:47those are the the main reasons why we're

1:38:49requesting a waiver.

1:38:55>> Any questions or comments for

1:38:57commissioners?

1:38:59From commissioners for the applicant on

1:39:01this sidewalk waiver application.

1:39:05Question for staff. My aerial photo here

1:39:08shows no other sidewalks on Greylock

1:39:10Road in that

1:39:12That's correct.

1:39:14>> Mr. Chair.

1:39:15>> Go ahead.

1:39:15>> Um so, obviously, Greylock Road, um this

1:39:19section of Greylock was built while this

1:39:21town was in the county or this this area

1:39:23was in the county. Um I don't think the

1:39:25county has a a complete streets plan,

1:39:27and I while I understand the challenges

1:39:29that that maybe this sidewalk would

1:39:30potentially offer, um you know, the city

1:39:33council did pass the complete streets

1:39:35plan, um and I I'll be voting in

1:39:37opposition to this. Um

1:39:39that's all I'll say.

1:39:42>> Thank you, Mr. Woods.

1:39:45Any further questions or comments from

1:39:46commissioners?

1:39:47Oh, excuse me. Anyone in the audience

1:39:49that is here to speak for, speak

1:39:50against, or have questions towards the

1:39:52sidewalk waiver application?

1:39:56All right, seeing none, we'll close

1:39:57public hearing.

1:40:03Entertain a motion.

1:40:06>> I'll move to approve the waiver

1:40:08um

1:40:09based on engineering's recommendation.

1:40:13>> Second it.

1:40:14>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:40:16favor?

1:40:17>> Aye.

1:40:18>> Any opposed?

1:40:20>> I oppose.

1:40:21>> The motion for sidewalk waiver passes.

1:40:24Number 15, sidewalk waiver application

1:40:275263 US Highway 90 West.

1:40:31Request to waive the construction of

1:40:32sidewalks along US Highway 90 West and

1:40:35Halls Mill Road. Is the applicant

1:40:37present? Yes, sir.

1:40:39>> [snorts]

1:40:41>> Go ahead, sir.

1:40:42>> I'm Vince LaCoste with Bethlehem

1:40:43Engineering, 4103 Ridge Lawn Drive.

1:40:47I'd like to address these separately, at

1:40:49least as I speak, cuz there's one

1:40:52condition on Highway 90, another

1:40:54condition on Halls Mill Road. And I

1:40:56noticed a few minutes ago we were

1:40:57actually not on this drawing showing the

1:40:59improvements. I apologize for that. I

1:41:01don't know why that didn't show, but

1:41:03there's

1:41:03basically a car lot that's going to be

1:41:05here, um you know, building

1:41:08uh and a car lot that has passed through

1:41:10traffic that'll go all the way from

1:41:12Highway 90 to Halls Mill Road.

1:41:14And on Highway 90, this um which first,

1:41:17if you will go back to that drawing,

1:41:18you'll see just how many contours are on

1:41:21this property.

1:41:22There are This is a very, very steep

1:41:24property. And so, even if you look on

1:41:26the Highway 90 side, which is to the

1:41:28left, a lot of grade going down the

1:41:31hill. And then, uh just adjacent to us

1:41:34on the north is is Mr. Henderson's

1:41:36property, and it's his Henderson

1:41:38collection.

1:41:39And if you've ever been out there, you

1:41:40know that there's about a 5-ft retaining

1:41:42wall that drops off right here at the

1:41:43property line.

1:41:45So, in addition to that, this is an

1:41:47ALDOT right-of-way. And ALDOT has uh

1:41:49expressed to us they will not allow the

1:41:51sidewalk on their right-of-way, which

1:41:53means we would be backing it up onto our

1:41:55property. And if we back it up onto our

1:41:58property, we're going to run it into

1:41:59that 5-ft retaining wall

1:42:01on the north side. So, uh I think that's

1:42:04a good reason to waive the sidewalk. Um

1:42:07uh you know, other reasons

1:42:10um

1:42:11is is if we do build this sidewalk,

1:42:14there then has to be a path from the

1:42:17sidewalk to the building.

1:42:19And this property is well over 10%. The

1:42:22maximum grade of a sidewalk's five.

1:42:24We're going to end up with a zigzagging

1:42:25ramps back and forth coming from the

1:42:28sidewalk all the way to the building. I

1:42:30know that, you know, obviously it's

1:42:31doable, but it's it's a it's a

1:42:34difficult thing to achieve at a at a

1:42:36very high cost to get people from a

1:42:37sidewalk to a building

1:42:39again that goes nowhere.

1:42:41Um

1:42:42Also, just down from this is Halls Mill

1:42:44Bridge, which has no shoulder at all.

1:42:46It's about a foot on each side. So, I

1:42:48mean, pedestrians in this area would be

1:42:49a a very dangerous thing.

1:42:52Um

1:42:55Okay, so I think that's all I have to

1:42:56say on the Highway 90 side.

1:42:59On the Halls Mill side,

1:43:02there is a roadside ditch there. And I

1:43:05don't believe I don't know if there are

1:43:07any of these photos are actually Halls

1:43:08Mill. I I apologize for that, too. But

1:43:11there is a ditch on the Halls Mill side.

1:43:14There are also power poles with guy

1:43:16wires that extend into the property.

1:43:19And so, we would have to be behind the

1:43:20guy wires in multiple locations.

1:43:23Uh and the slope itself, the back slope,

1:43:25because of how steep this property is,

1:43:27extends well into the property. So, the

1:43:29sidewalk would have to be about 20 ft

1:43:31into the property to even be

1:43:32constructible. Which kind of uh creates

1:43:35some issues with what he's planning on

1:43:36doing with a development. Um

1:43:40and then also a connection to the

1:43:42building is required. And the building

1:43:44is going to be all the way over on the

1:43:45highway 90 side of our 500 ft away.

1:43:48So, in addition to the sidewalk he'd

1:43:49have to do on Hall's Mill, he'd have to

1:43:51run 500 ft to the building.

1:43:53So, uh this I will say in that area too

1:43:56is more like supplier industrial type

1:43:58businesses around [snorts] there.

1:44:00Uh so, for for those reasons I would

1:44:02request the waiver on Hall's Mill.

1:44:05>> Mr. Chair.

1:44:05>> Go ahead.

1:44:06>> Um I appreciate the comments and thank

1:44:08you for your detailed explanation. Uh

1:44:10as city council seat on on planning

1:44:12commission, um again, I I just want to

1:44:14express the council representative's

1:44:16desire that um obviously we have a lot

1:44:19of conversations going on around

1:44:20Tillman's Corner. Uh you know, there's

1:44:22potential uh for for more investment and

1:44:25development in Tillman's Corner. Um and

1:44:27it is the you know, not only the the

1:44:29representative of of of district four,

1:44:31um but also the state representative for

1:44:33that area of of attempting to try to

1:44:35build these sidewalks. I know we've

1:44:36we've had discussions about a previous

1:44:38development and I think a sidewalk

1:44:39waiver was granted. But um in at the

1:44:41day, I I think even even uh when it

1:44:43comes to the mayor is concerned, uh you

1:44:45know, trying to reinvest in that area,

1:44:47revitalize Tillman's Corner. Um and it

1:44:49is the express um you know, I'm just

1:44:51again uh carrying the message here. Uh

1:44:53it is the express um I guess um

1:44:57attitude of the council member for this

1:44:58district that, you know, any any type of

1:45:00highway 90 sidewalk be built because

1:45:02again, a connectivity of of different

1:45:03areas. And And again, this area has been

1:45:05overlooked for years. Um but um as far

1:45:08as the Hall's Mill Road side, uh you

1:45:10know, the kind of again carrying the

1:45:11message, the representative understands

1:45:13the challenges when it comes to Hall's

1:45:14Mill Road. It's very tight on there due

1:45:17to the way that that got developed and

1:45:18and power lines were ran. Definitely

1:45:20understand that. So, um again carrying

1:45:22the message, uh my my chair here would

1:45:25would ask that um you know, we take up

1:45:27the sidewalk on you on Highway 90, but

1:45:29then also allow the waiver on Halls Mill

1:45:31Road.

1:45:34>> I always

1:45:35So, [clears throat]

1:45:36it's the position of of the city

1:45:38councilor that we should waive Halls

1:45:40Mill and keep 90.

1:45:42>> Yes, sir.

1:45:46>> Okay.

1:45:48>> And Mr. Chairman, let me add further

1:45:49just for the conversation. Uh yeah, I

1:45:51think it is the desire of the city

1:45:52holistically to have sidewalks and a

1:45:54good good

1:45:55good walkable walkable city.

1:45:58Uh

1:45:58I can tell you out out is planning on

1:46:00replacing the bridge on Highway 90 a

1:46:02little farther to the north of your side

1:46:04and they are planning on widening that

1:46:06so that so that a pedestrian feature

1:46:08could be there.

1:46:10However, the and then the sidewalks all

1:46:11along 90 while there's a desire to it,

1:46:14you know, it really needs to be a

1:46:15project that's probably undertaken by

1:46:16the city. So, it's holistically and it's

1:46:19put together because of the grades,

1:46:21there probably does need to be a lot of

1:46:22grading work that needs to be done to

1:46:23make them make them functional, make

1:46:25them safe, make them buildable, and make

1:46:27them where they they don't look like

1:46:29they've just literally fallen out of an

1:46:30airplane.

1:46:31Uh so, from the from engineering's

1:46:34perspective, you know, while we we

1:46:36certainly like the private sector to

1:46:37build the sidewalks, this is probably

1:46:39one of those cases where to get the the

1:46:41desired result that I know has been out

1:46:43there it's probably better it to be a

1:46:45future city project. And so, uh

1:46:48at least from from our perspective, I'll

1:46:50be voting to approve the waiver on both

1:46:52sides. Halls Mills is really the same is

1:46:54really the same the same way.

1:46:56Uh you know, there's just

1:46:58it's it it's it's geometry and it's

1:47:00function and we'll end up with a

1:47:02hodgepodge

1:47:03uh piece of sidewalk out there if it's

1:47:05not done at a later time in a holistic

1:47:07project. Would ask if the waiver is

1:47:09approved that when you look at the

1:47:10design that you consider

1:47:13trying to reserve some real estate there

1:47:15that could be could be incorporated into

1:47:18a

1:47:18uh

1:47:19into a future project. In all likelihood

1:47:22because of Highway 90 right-of-way is so

1:47:23wide,

1:47:25the city would probably try to work with

1:47:26ALDOT and do a cooperative maintenance

1:47:28agreement if the sidewalk were built

1:47:29there where where where a sidewalk was

1:47:30built in a in a more uh

1:47:34uh less topography challenged place of

1:47:37the place of the right-of-way.

1:47:40Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Uh fully understand

1:47:42the uh of the the setup and everything

1:47:45and and I definitely understand and and

1:47:46coming from the city council side again,

1:47:49uh

1:47:50complete streets, I understand the

1:47:51challenges there. Um and again, the city

1:47:53the city coming out of out of out of

1:47:55pocket to pay this project, um you know,

1:47:58that that's that's another another thing

1:47:59to weigh. But um you know, at this point

1:48:01in time, I I definitely understand that

1:48:02the the the challenges here. But again,

1:48:05I I I stand in opposition to it.

1:48:10Can I speak one more time, please?

1:48:13Sure. Okay.

1:48:14Again, I just want to point out this

1:48:16sidewalk would end at a 5-ft retaining

1:48:18wall drop-off.

1:48:23Any further questions or comments from

1:48:24commissioners for the applicant, Mr. La

1:48:26Coast?

1:48:27Thanks, sir. Anyone else in the audience

1:48:29that would like to speak for, speak

1:48:30against, or have questions towards the

1:48:32sidewalk waiver application at US 5263

1:48:35US Highway 90 West?

1:48:38Seeing none, we will move from public

1:48:40hearing into deliberation.

1:48:44I move to approve the waivers. Second.

1:48:47Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:48:49favor? All right. Any opposed? I oppose.

1:48:52The motion passes for the sidewalk

1:48:54waiver.

1:48:56Number 16 is a waiver request at

1:48:58multiple addresses of Halls Mill Road,

1:49:012651 through 57 of Griffith Circle

1:49:04South, and 2641 Griffith Circle West.

1:49:08>> [snorts]

1:49:08>> This is a request to waive the

1:49:10construction of sidewalk along Halls

1:49:12Mill Road.

1:49:15The applicant would like to have

1:49:16commentary towards this waiver

1:49:18application.

1:49:20>> Um yeah, Owen Gates uh 11601 private

1:49:23drive, Spanish Fort. Um as you can see

1:49:25from the pictures, we've just got a lot

1:49:27of topography to deal with and

1:49:29really just not enough room to put a

1:49:31sidewalk, so we are requesting that

1:49:33waiver.

1:49:35>> [snorts]

1:49:37>> There's also no sidewalk for us to

1:49:40join to on either end either end.

1:49:45>> Is this considered a residential

1:49:48development? Question for staff.

1:49:50>> This is actually part of the um Griffith

1:49:53Mobile Home Park that was held over.

1:49:55Um as part of the requirements for that,

1:49:57they are required to come into full

1:49:58compliance with current regulations,

1:50:00which includes the construction of a

1:50:01sidewalk. So, this will be

1:50:04technically uh multi-family residential.

1:50:08>> So,

1:50:09you answered my question, I guess um

1:50:12given that

1:50:14the application for subdivision zoning

1:50:16were held over, does it

1:50:18>> Those Yeah, those are not They're not

1:50:21contingent on each other. This is a

1:50:23stand-alone

1:50:24request.

1:50:27>> Any further questions or comments for

1:50:29the applicant, Mr. Gates?

1:50:31>> Yes, sir.

1:50:32For the applicant, would the um

1:50:35would there be internal sidewalks in the

1:50:36development itself?

1:50:38>> Uh that is not a requirement, um but

1:50:41these are private driveways, you know,

1:50:42low speed, so

1:50:44you know, there's plenty of safe space

1:50:46for the residents to walk.

1:50:47>> So, no?

1:50:48>> Correct.

1:50:49>> Okay. Thank you.

1:50:53>> Any further questions?

1:50:56All right, thank you, Mr. Gates.

1:50:58Anyone in the audience speak for, speak

1:50:59against, or have questions towards the

1:51:01sidewalk waiver application?

1:51:04Seeing none, we'll close public hearing,

1:51:05go into deliberation.

1:51:09Entertain a motion.

1:51:12>> So, so the

1:51:13>> [clears throat and cough]

1:51:14>> the the reasoning on this one

1:51:17is

1:51:19is just that they don't want to do it.

1:51:23Cuz the topography looks fine.

1:51:26From what I just looked at.

1:51:27>> Mr. Anson, there's a engineering comment

1:51:29whereby the

1:51:31engineering recommends that this waiver

1:51:33be approved.

1:51:36That this waiver be approved.

1:51:38>> That that is correct. Due to location of

1:51:40the existing roadside drainage ditch and

1:51:42physical encumbrances along the property

1:51:44line,

1:51:45fences, etc., it is recommended that

1:51:47this request be approved.

1:51:59>> Oh, I see I see that now. Okay.

1:52:10>> So, if we're waiting on a motion, I'll

1:52:11make a

1:52:12>> Yeah, if you are worth that stage.

1:52:14>> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the

1:52:15waiver.

1:52:16>> Second.

1:52:16>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

1:52:19favor?

1:52:20>> Aye.

1:52:21>> Any opposed?

1:52:22>> Opposed.

1:52:23>> Motion for sidewalk waiver passes.

1:52:29Number 17

1:52:31is a rezone application at 7211 and 7221

1:52:34Cottage Hill Road.

1:52:36It's a rezone from a single residential

1:52:39R-1 to a buffer business suburban B-1.

1:52:42Four Commissioners of potential seven

1:52:44findings of facts and the condition will

1:52:47be full compliance with all codes and

1:52:48ordinances. Is the applicant present?

1:52:50The applicant is present. Raise of hand.

1:52:52Would you be understanding of those

1:52:54findings of fact and in agreement with

1:52:55condition? Got a thumbs up from the

1:52:56applicant.

1:52:59Doug, would you like to hear some

1:53:00reasoning from the applicant regarding

1:53:02R-1 to B-1?

1:53:04Would you please step on down and give

1:53:05us a little insight.

1:53:09State your name and address for the

1:53:10record.

1:53:11>> Jonathan Petty, 200 West Low Avenue.

1:53:15Uh there any comments or questions for

1:53:17the application or you all just want a

1:53:19brief understanding of what we're

1:53:20looking to do?

1:53:21>> On a rezoning, we just need some

1:53:24uh input from the developer to

1:53:27see if the application meets one of our

1:53:29four criteria for rezoning. So, we just

1:53:32we can't make that decision ourselves.

1:53:34We need input from the developer to

1:53:36uh to button it up. Thank you.

1:53:39>> From my understanding, the uh this

1:53:41property was rezoned

1:53:44at some point in time without the input

1:53:46of the owner. Uh it was mis-

1:53:49I guess un- or rezoned improperly

1:53:52according to him. Uh which was one of

1:53:55the considerations.

1:53:57>> Mr. Chair.

1:53:58>> Go ahead.

1:53:59>> Can I add some context to this? So, this

1:54:01was um out in the county and whenever

1:54:02annexation happened, this came into the

1:54:05county. Um so, it it was zoned

1:54:07appropriately based on

1:54:09the the moment from this body. See?

1:54:11There there is and I would like to know

1:54:13there is no incorrect zoning when it

1:54:14comes to this.

1:54:15>> Understood.

1:54:19>> Um

1:54:21>> Go ahead. I'll let you finish.

1:54:22>> with my question.

1:54:23So,

1:54:25the

1:54:26we approved a rezoning

1:54:30a Excuse me, we approved uh a rezoning

1:54:33for this and it was subsequently denied

1:54:36by the city council. Uh what was the

1:54:39context of the discussion reasoning for

1:54:42that denial?

1:54:43>> Uh Mr. Chair.

1:54:44>> Go ahead.

1:54:45>> Um so, uh this body approved the zoning.

1:54:47Um there was discussion uh regarding

1:54:50maybe some voluntary use restrictions. I

1:54:52recall when it came to this, I believe

1:54:53it was number of cottages um

1:54:56uh uh potentially because I think this

1:54:58is a town ho- townhouse development, I

1:55:00believe. Um uh there was some

1:55:02discussion, um, but never taken up and

1:55:04approved, um, uh, regarding number of

1:55:06cottages and also I believe, uh,

1:55:09um, if I recall, um, maybe total total

1:55:12occupancy when it comes to how the

1:55:14division of the townhomes are, um, and

1:55:16then also I believe there was discussion

1:55:18about, um, uh, height height. So, and I

1:55:22I think those were offered, um, or at

1:55:24least brought up in conversation, but at

1:55:26the end of the day, um, it was a it was

1:55:28approved without any voluntary, um, uh,

1:55:30conditions.

1:55:33>> So, then

1:55:35subsequent question for staff.

1:55:38B-1, if my memory is correct,

1:55:42B-1

1:55:44allows for residential

1:55:46at

1:55:47up to 25 units per dwelling acre. Is

1:55:50that correct?

1:55:54>> Let me double-check. Just give me 1

1:55:55second, please.

1:55:57>> And, um, Mr. Chair,

1:55:58>> Go ahead.

1:55:59>> um,

1:56:00uh,

1:56:01to my fellow commissioner, um, another

1:56:03another thing in this or another another

1:56:05part of this is, um, I believe that the

1:56:07applicant, um,

1:56:09uh, would like to use potentially one of

1:56:11the cottages as an office, I guess.

1:56:13>> Um, there was a separate So, one of the

1:56:16cottages would not be an office. It

1:56:17would be a separate building. A

1:56:19building. Yes, a separate building.

1:56:20>> Got you. Thank you.

1:56:23>> To answer your question, um, that is

1:56:24correct. 25 dwelling units per acre is

1:56:26the limitation.

1:56:29>> So,

1:56:31the new application,

1:56:35instead of requesting R-3, requests B-1,

1:56:38but ultimately the end result

1:56:41could be the same thing and I would note

1:56:42that the

1:56:44plan shown here

1:56:46is probably much more in line with an

1:56:48R-3 request than a B-1 request. Is that

1:56:51a

1:56:52fair statement for the applicant?

1:56:54>> I would say whenever we were in the

1:56:56early discussions with city staff that

1:56:58it was suggested that we should pursue

1:57:00the B1 zoning.

1:57:04>> And any context to that reasoning from

1:57:06your recollection?

1:57:08>> Uh from what I remember it would

1:57:11achieve what we're looking to do as far

1:57:13as these cottage home communities along

1:57:15with the office space included in one

1:57:18parcel.

1:57:21>> Was the prior one apartments and this is

1:57:24cottages? Is that

1:57:26solve your concern?

1:57:28>> I think just

1:57:29I guess my just my general

1:57:32uh you know, questioning

1:57:35uh

1:57:36Clark is just trying to understand, you

1:57:37know,

1:57:38how we went from approval to then denial

1:57:41to where we're kind of back to the same

1:57:42thing and to Mr. Woods' point, I

1:57:43remember

1:57:44discussions about some voluntary use

1:57:46restrictions um

1:57:48especially as it related to density cuz

1:57:50I do believe there were

1:57:52concerns from the prior application

1:57:55surrounding that.

1:57:57Um

1:57:59and so just

1:58:01uh I guess

1:58:02trying to wrap my mind around what's

1:58:03being asked now.

1:58:06Um again, noting that we did approve uh

1:58:09R3 previously.

1:58:11>> Don't we have tons of R3 that have

1:58:13leasing offices and stuff? Is that

1:58:16>> Correct. So, the leasing office would be

1:58:17considered an accessory use to the main

1:58:19use of the property.

1:58:21>> Oh, so this is an unrelated office.

1:58:23Okay.

1:58:24That was not clear from the

1:58:26>> Right. That's not That's That's a

1:58:29speculated use at this point.

1:58:31>> And and I guess again, apologies for my

1:58:34lack of memory on certain things with

1:58:36this.

1:58:39When

1:58:40when we approved R3

1:58:43was that under condition of any

1:58:44voluntary use restrictions on density?

1:58:50>> No, not that I remember and not uh not

1:58:52during staff research to be find that

1:58:54information. A lot of that was uh the

1:58:56discussion that I remember um had to do

1:59:00um

1:59:00with the subdivision that was

1:59:03uh concurrently considered

1:59:06not fully outlining the boundaries of

1:59:09how the property was going to be

1:59:10situated.

1:59:11>> Right.

1:59:11>> Um

1:59:14that was withdrawn.

1:59:16And the uh recommendation for approval

1:59:18was made by the planning commission uh

1:59:20subject to standard conditions.

1:59:23>> And what was the end result of I guess

1:59:25it it went to council. What was the end

1:59:27result there?

1:59:28>> Uh the city council on March 10th um of

1:59:31this year denied the request. And there

1:59:33was no subsequent um appeal during the

1:59:35appeal period.

1:59:43>> Mr. Chair.

1:59:43>> Go ahead.

1:59:44>> Um obviously I I think there's a lot to

1:59:47be kind of fleshed out here. Um I I

1:59:50don't know if there would potentially

1:59:52um if the applicant be willing to uh

1:59:54take a voluntary holdover till the next

1:59:56meeting. Um and maybe there maybe some

1:59:59more stuff can be fleshed out on this

2:00:01and and we can kind of we can kind of

2:00:02see and move forward. That that would be

2:00:04that that would be my um right now in

2:00:06front of me I I don't I I I I can't vote

2:00:09on this. I I I would oppose this. I

2:00:11don't know if there's some time that can

2:00:12be the things can be kind of worked out.

2:00:14I think there is some voluntary use

2:00:16restrictions if if willing.

2:00:18Um but uh I that that's just my my

2:00:21stance on this. I I think that the that

2:00:23um obviously this is a this is a very

2:00:25dense area. Um looking at the traffic

2:00:28obviously there's some things that I you

2:00:29know I personally would feel more

2:00:31comfortable working out talking with but

2:00:33um again I'm I'm just one vote here and

2:00:36um that that would just that would just

2:00:38I think that's just something that needs

2:00:39to be considered.

2:00:40>> Is your concern more so about the B1

2:00:43zoning as opposed to an R3 zoning?

2:00:47>> Yeah. That yeah. I I think that um and

2:00:49then also still I still have concerns

2:00:51about about R3 um given given the I

2:00:54guess the where it's at what's what the

2:00:56surrounding area looks like is it with

2:00:57character of the neighborhood or the the

2:01:00area um cuz it is a it is a commercial

2:01:02corridor. I just I still have have a lot

2:01:05of reservations and

2:01:07I again I'm just one vote. I'm that's

2:01:09that's just where I'm at.

2:01:10>> Would the R3 allow for a separate office

2:01:12building on the same parcel?

2:01:14>> That'd be a question that staff could

2:01:16probably answer.

2:01:17>> I'm sorry, could you please repeat that?

2:01:19>> Would the R3 allow for a separate office

2:01:21building on the parcel along with the

2:01:22cottage homes?

2:01:23>> If it were associated with the actual

2:01:26housing development. Like a leasing

2:01:28office or property management office.

2:01:30>> But not if it was a separate office for

2:01:32him to like run a separate business out

2:01:34of. It would have to be then be that be

2:01:35one.

2:01:37>> Correct.

2:01:40>> I guess my reservation reservation

2:01:44with that is

2:01:47for the holdover.

2:01:48Um

2:01:49you want to hash it out to like

2:01:52see if we wanted to pursue the R3 zoning

2:01:55but I I know that he wants to have like

2:01:57that separate office building

2:01:59unrelated to like not being a leasing

2:02:02building or

2:02:03just out of separate for his own

2:02:05business.

2:02:06Um

2:02:09I know he'd want pushback on

2:02:11a holdover if that were the case if you

2:02:13want to just do that just for another

2:02:15rezoning.

2:02:20>> Are there other concerns

2:02:22besides

2:02:24R3 or B1 specific to the office

2:02:26building?

2:02:29Commissioners.

2:02:33All right.

2:02:34Thank you, sir. I'm still in public

2:02:36hearing so I'll ask if there's anyone in

2:02:37the audience who would like to speak for

2:02:39or speak against or have questions

2:02:40towards this rezone application from R-1

2:02:42to B-1.

2:02:46All right, seeing none, we will close

2:02:48public hearing, go into deliberation.

2:02:51For your

2:02:52knowledge, there are potentially seven

2:02:53findings of fact.

2:02:57Entertain motion.

2:03:06>> So, I didn't What was he okay with the

2:03:07hold? Did he want a hold over or not?

2:03:09>> What was the answer?

2:03:10>> About to ask the same question.

2:03:11>> Are you

2:03:12Do you want to hold over to work some of

2:03:15these issues out, or would you prefer us

2:03:16to vote?

2:03:17>> Um is the hold over just for the R-3 to

2:03:20B-1?

2:03:21>> It would be holding over everything, so

2:03:23you could work through some of these

2:03:25concerns that were expressed.

2:03:29>> And then it goes to the November

2:03:29>> There's only zoning before us.

2:03:31>> So, it's just

2:03:31>> Yeah.

2:03:32>> Holding over for

2:03:32>> There's no subdivision today.

2:03:34>> Yeah. It's just the rezone to November

2:03:3619th.

2:03:38Giving that time frame to discuss with

2:03:40the owner

2:03:41as the office building necessary, and

2:03:43any other issues that may come up.

2:03:49>> I wouldn't oppose a hold over if if if

2:03:51this would be

2:03:52denied right now, wouldn't oppose a hold

2:03:54over. Yeah.

2:03:55>> We haven't put it to a vote yet.

2:03:57>> I know.

2:03:58>> Um

2:03:59>> I'm gauging the temperature.

2:04:00>> I'm gauging the temperature.

2:04:02>> You want to hold over hold over?

2:04:04>> What I had stated in the very beginning

2:04:05of the meeting, which is something I

2:04:06felt like yesterday, if there are

2:04:07concerns or issues, we have the right to

2:04:10potentially bring up hold over, so that

2:04:11all of those can be addressed.

2:04:13>> Yeah, hold over is fine.

2:04:14>> Yep.

2:04:15>> All right.

2:04:17>> I will move to hold over until the

2:04:18November 19th meeting with any further

2:04:21information needed prior to when this

2:04:24application uh deadline will be November

2:04:263rd.

2:04:26>> Second.

2:04:27>> Yeah, second.

2:04:28>> We have a properly moved and seconded

2:04:30motion. All in favor?

2:04:31>> Aye.

2:04:31>> Aye.

2:04:32>> Any opposed? Motion for hold over

2:04:34passes. We'll see you, sir, in November.

2:04:37>> [snorts]

2:04:39>> Are you recusing or are you just

2:04:40stretching? Okay, 18 I'm moving. 18

2:04:43rezone application Southwest corner

2:04:44Church Street South Jefferson C

2:04:46amendment to the downtown development

2:04:48district regulating plan to rezone the

2:04:50property from T3 to T4.

2:04:55Seven findings of fact four listed

2:04:57conditions specific to the downtown

2:04:59development district code. Mr. Byrd.

2:05:02>> Jerry Byrd, board chairman.

2:05:04Um

2:05:05the owner is proposing

2:05:07T4

2:05:08uh rezone it from T3.

2:05:11His proposal is to construct two-story

2:05:13building.

2:05:14Business on the first floor, 2,000

2:05:16square feet.

2:05:18Second uh floor would be one

2:05:212,000 square foot apartment to be

2:05:23rented.

2:05:25The

2:05:26property next door

2:05:29has a

2:05:30has a house on it.

2:05:32It faces Church Street.

2:05:35This proposed building faces Church

2:05:37Street.

2:05:39One next door is zoned T4.

2:05:42Uh on the north side of Church Street

2:05:45vacant property behind Greer's grocery

2:05:49it's zoned T4.

2:05:52Uh

2:05:53as stated in the

2:05:55>> [snorts]

2:05:55>> staff report, we are eligible to

2:05:58apply for an upzone to T4 in the

2:06:03uh DDD.

2:06:05At the

2:06:07neighborhood meeting

2:06:09two or three of the neighbors were

2:06:10opposed to a business being there.

2:06:14A lot of concern because of parking that

2:06:17is now coming from

2:06:19the bars and businesses down on Canal

2:06:22Street, parking on the street, blocking

2:06:24driveways, and this kind of thing.

2:06:27Um

2:06:28the owner was there

2:06:31and explained that he would not let it

2:06:34happen. They were concerned that what

2:06:37after you, what happens? So, he has

2:06:39proposed the voluntary

2:06:42uh submitted the voluntary

2:06:45use restrictions that prohibits

2:06:48bars,

2:06:49brick [clears throat]

2:06:50clubs, restaurants, theaters,

2:06:53entertainment catering,

2:06:54anything that would create that massive

2:06:57parking problem.

2:06:59His envision of the business would be

2:07:01something like a B1

2:07:04attorney's office,

2:07:06insurance office, something similar to

2:07:08that.

2:07:13>> Thank you, Mr. Burden.

2:07:14>> I'm going to yield the other conditions.

2:07:16>> Any questions or comments from

2:07:18commissioners?

2:07:22All right, I'll ask if there's anyone in

2:07:24the audience to speak for, speak

2:07:25against, or have questions towards it.

2:07:27Yes, sir.

2:07:30Uh yes, ma'am.

2:07:35A reminder to state your name and

2:07:36address for the record.

2:07:44>> Hello. Uh I'm Dandy Dalbear. I live at

2:07:47157 South Jefferson, which is

2:07:51the middle of the block across the

2:07:52street. And

2:07:55we are concerned about another business

2:07:57moving in. We have been

2:08:01I don't know uh behind us uh in front of

2:08:04us.

2:08:05We've got a building right now behind us

2:08:07that's a a business that's been empty 2

2:08:10or 3 years with an apartment in it.

2:08:13I'm behind Hot Pounds. I'm behind

2:08:16Icebox.

2:08:18And as he said, the parking has gotten

2:08:20ridiculous. We're not opposed to another

2:08:23residential, whether it's apartments or

2:08:26single family home.

2:08:29We just don't need any more businesses

2:08:32on that block. There's only about eight

2:08:35houses left

2:08:37that's residential only and we would

2:08:40just like to keep it residential.

2:08:49>> Thank you, ma'am.

2:08:50>> Thank you.

2:08:53>> Is there anyone else to speak for or

2:08:54speak against or have questions towards

2:08:56this rezone application? Again, to go

2:08:57from T

2:08:593 to T4.

2:09:01I'll ask staff since we don't see

2:09:05downtown development district that often

2:09:07on rezone to go to T4.

2:09:11The primary difference would be to as

2:09:13Mr. Byrd stated

2:09:14a business which the

2:09:17um

2:09:18Can you give give us some insight on

2:09:20what all would be allowed in T4? Do you

2:09:22have that?

2:09:24Or is it Can you direct me to

2:09:26where in my document

2:09:29I know it's in here somewhere but I

2:09:30don't want to start scrolling and waste

2:09:32time.

2:09:32>> So, appendix A of the unified

2:09:34development code is our downtown

2:09:36development district code. Um

2:09:38What's on your iPad? If you move to page

2:09:4027 begins the use table. Uh there's a

2:09:43matrix there that provides uh

2:09:46the uses that are permitted in a T4 well

2:09:49all the transit districts but especially

2:09:51T4.

2:09:55>> Thank you for that. I'll I'll give

2:09:56everybody a chance to

2:09:59review that.

2:10:06And we will close public hearing

2:10:09and go into deliberation.

2:10:14>> Mr. Chair.

2:10:15>> Go ahead.

2:10:15>> And I guess the voluntary conditions and

2:10:17use restrictions um

2:10:19no restaurant, bar, catering,

2:10:20entertainment theater, brew pub.

2:10:25as far as what the applicant

2:10:31>> Those uh

2:10:32restaurant bar cater and entertainment

2:10:34theater group of are already not allowed

2:10:36in the T4.

2:10:37>> Yeah.

2:10:38>> Thank you.

2:10:59>> Entertain motion.

2:11:05>> Move to approve.

2:11:07>> Move to approve subject to staff

2:11:08recommendations adopting findings of

2:11:11facts A, C, D, E, F, and G.

2:11:14>> Second.

2:11:18>> Properly moved and seconded with

2:11:20findings of fact A, C, D, F, and G.

2:11:24All in favor?

2:11:25>> Aye.

2:11:26>> Are there anyone opposed?

2:11:28Motion for rezone passes.

2:11:32Number 19 is a dual application of a

2:11:34subdivision and a sidewalk waiver at 200

2:11:36Dunlap Drive, Orca Subdivision. The

2:11:39subdivision is one lot at 9.87 acres.

2:11:43And then the sidewalk waiver is to

2:11:44request

2:11:45Excuse me, wave the construction of

2:11:47sidewalk along Dunlap Drive. For the

2:11:50subdivision application, there are eight

2:11:52listed conditions. Is the applicant

2:11:53present?

2:11:55Are you on the subdivision application

2:11:56in agreement with those eight listed

2:11:58conditions? They are by nod of head.

2:12:01We will need to hear on the sidewalk

2:12:04waiver on your reasoning behind asking

2:12:07for that on Dunlap Drive.

2:12:09But while you are coming down, I'll see

2:12:10if there's anyone else in the audience

2:12:12that is here to speak for, speak

2:12:13against, or have questions towards this

2:12:15dual application

2:12:17on Dunlap Drive.

2:12:19All right. Yes, ma'am.

2:12:20>> Yes, good afternoon. I'll be brief. My

2:12:21name is Carla Davis. I'm representing C

2:12:24E R M on behalf of our clients Warka

2:12:26Inc. and Keywit Massman and Traylor.

2:12:29They will be constructing the I-10

2:12:31Mobile River Bridge. And so we are using

2:12:33this site as a temporary site. We

2:12:35understand that the city deems any

2:12:37operation of 6 months or longer to be

2:12:40considered as temporary. However, I mean

2:12:43not to be temporary but to be permanent.

2:12:45However, um our

2:12:47my applicants are going to be using this

2:12:50just for the construction of the bridge.

2:12:52So they will be using this ideally for

2:12:54the bridge to bridge we will no longer

2:12:55be using of this site. So we are asking

2:12:58for a sidewalk waiver for that reason.

2:13:01Thank you.

2:13:02>> Any questions for Ms. Davis regarding

2:13:04the subdivision or the sidewalk waiver

2:13:06application?

2:13:08All right. Seeing none, we'll close

2:13:10public hearing. Thank you.

2:13:12Entertain or excuse me,

2:13:14take a second and entertain a motion for

2:13:16the subdivision.

2:13:17>> Move to approve subdivision staff

2:13:18recommendations.

2:13:19>> Second.

2:13:19>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

2:13:21favor?

2:13:21>> Aye.

2:13:23>> Subdivision passes. Sidewalk waiver?

2:13:26>> Move to approve the waiver.

2:13:27>> Staff recommendations.

2:13:29>> Second.

2:13:30>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

2:13:32favor?

2:13:32>> Aye.

2:13:33>> Any opposed? Sidewalk waiver passes.

2:13:36Number 20.

2:13:37>> Vote for four.

2:13:38>> [laughter]

2:13:41>> Mr. Chair.

2:13:43>> I didn't hear a post from him.

2:13:44>> Mr. Chair.

2:13:46>> Um who was the first and the second on

2:13:48that sidewalk waiver?

2:13:50>> On the sidewalk waiver, who firsted?

2:13:53>> Uh

2:13:54>> Who seconded?

2:13:58Yeah.

2:13:58>> Josh did.

2:14:05>> We're still online if everybody's

2:14:06watching. Uh number 20.

2:14:09It's a dual application subdivision and

2:14:11a modification.

2:14:13957, 959, 961 Lyons Street and 354

2:14:16Cherry.

2:14:17Five lots, 1.31 acres, major

2:14:19modification application

2:14:21allowing the expansion of an existing

2:14:22church in an R2

2:14:25district to modify lot lines in

2:14:27coordination with the associated

2:14:28subdivision. On the subdivision, 10

2:14:30listed conditions. On the modification,

2:14:32potentially eight findings of fact and

2:14:3418 listed conditions. Mr. Byrd.

2:14:37>> Yes.

2:14:38Uh subdivision just to remove four of

2:14:41its floodway lots.

2:14:42Um

2:14:44from the overall property. Ironically,

2:14:47that's the way it used to be before they

2:14:48combined them in 2002.

2:14:50But anyway,

2:14:52uh

2:14:52we're taking those lots out.

2:14:55The

2:14:58little different on the corner radius

2:14:59this time. Staff

2:15:01in their planning comments said however

2:15:04the lot is developed, speaking of the

2:15:0625-ft radius on the corner.

2:15:09Um

2:15:10already developed, most streets have

2:15:12been long established. Additionally, the

2:15:14site subdivision

2:15:16in 2002 did not require dedication to

2:15:18the corner radius. Therefore, waiver may

2:15:20again be appropriate.

2:15:23It's not mentioned in their

2:15:24considerations except they say

2:15:27compliance with engineering comments.

2:15:30Engineering comments said provide 25-ft

2:15:33radius. So, I'm asking for a waiver of

2:15:3525-ft radius at the street corner

2:15:38of um

2:15:39Cherry and Lyons.

2:15:42On the planning approval

2:15:46Yes, I'd like to remove

2:15:48lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the planning

2:15:51approval

2:15:52and let

2:15:53it only affect the modified planning

2:15:56approval only affect lot one, which will

2:15:58be the existing church building.

2:16:06Any questions or comments for Mr. Byrd

2:16:08or

2:16:10concerns from staff?

2:16:12>> Mr. Chair.

2:16:13>> Go ahead.

2:16:14>> Um as part of the considerations, it

2:16:15does state that uh if the planning

2:16:17commission considers approving the

2:16:18subdivision request that a waiver of the

2:16:21section 66 uh of the subdivision Excuse

2:16:24me, subdivision regulations will be

2:16:25required. And that is to waive the

2:16:27corner radius dedication. So, it was

2:16:29cons- recommended as a consideration.

2:16:33>> Okay.

2:16:34>> Good. All right, just clarifying.

2:16:36>> Should we ask George?

2:16:39>> [laughter]

2:16:41>> Yes.

2:16:43Yeah, I I

2:16:44I I That's fine.

2:16:46>> All right.

2:16:49All right.

2:16:51Any other questions or comments? Anyone

2:16:53in the audience?

2:16:55Close public hearing deliberation

2:16:56separately, subdivision.

2:17:01Entertain a motion, potential waiver.

2:17:03>> Move to approve several staff

2:17:04recommendations waiving section 66 of

2:17:06subdivision regulations.

2:17:10>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

2:17:11favor?

2:17:12>> Aye.

2:17:12>> Aye.

2:17:13>> The motion for subdivision passes,

2:17:15modification.

2:17:19I don't think anything changed on that,

2:17:21Mr. Byrd. You were just in agreement

2:17:22with

2:17:24the second part of number one in the

2:17:26conditions.

2:17:28Where it reads lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 are

2:17:30hereby removed from the planning

2:17:31approval.

2:17:31>> I approve only applies to lot one.

2:17:33>> Okay.

2:17:34>> And

2:17:35and remove 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the plan.

2:17:38>> It says it says that in the in the

2:17:40conditions.

2:17:41It's already in the in the conditions.

2:17:43>> Yeah, that's our black and white. That's

2:17:44what we read. So, we're good to go if

2:17:47we so choose. Entertain a motion.

2:17:51>> I move to approve the planning approval

2:17:54uh several staff recommendations with

2:17:55findings of fact A, B, C, D, E, F, G,

2:17:58and H.

2:18:02>> Second.

2:18:02>> Is that properly moved in second with

2:18:04findings of fact A B C D E F G and H.

2:18:07All in favor?

2:18:08>> Aye.

2:18:09>> Any opposed?

2:18:11The motion for modification passes.

2:18:1421 is a subdivision

2:18:16and a rezone on 5685 I-10 Industrial

2:18:19Parkway, PL Russell subdivision.

2:18:22It's about two lots, 3.22 acres

2:18:25on the sub

2:18:26with potential waiver of 69, flag-shaped

2:18:29lot. And then on the rezone is to go

2:18:33from B3 and I1 to all I1.

2:18:38Potential eight conditions on the

2:18:40subdivision. And then for commissioners,

2:18:42potentially seven findings of fact with

2:18:44conditions.

2:18:45Mr. Byrd.

2:18:46>> Yeah.

2:18:47Okay, with the conditions, subdivision

2:18:49simple two lot

2:18:50cutting out around an existing fence,

2:18:53isolating one building from the balance

2:18:55of the property.

2:18:56Um the other lot being developed also.

2:19:00Um we had a neighborhood meeting.

2:19:03One person showed up um

2:19:06to discuss it. Uh they actually

2:19:09face Highway 90.

2:19:11And I think they join our south line.

2:19:13They thought maybe it might be affecting

2:19:15them.

2:19:16But they had no problem with it.

2:19:18Um

2:19:19the zoning there again is mentioned in

2:19:22the staff report that I1

2:19:25uh encompasses the bulk of the lot,

2:19:27about 60%, about 40% was B3.

2:19:31And everything to the west of our site

2:19:34is I1.

2:19:39>> Any questions or comments for Mr. Byrd?

2:19:43Anyone in the audience to speak for or

2:19:44speak against or have any questions

2:19:45towards these distal application of

2:19:48subdivision and rezone?

2:19:50Seeing none, we'll close public hearing

2:19:52deliberation, subdivision first.

2:19:55In agreement with those conditions,

2:19:56entertain a motion.

2:19:58>> Move to approve staff recommendation

2:19:59waving section 69 of subdivision

2:20:01regulations.

2:20:02>> Second.

2:20:03>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

2:20:04favor?

2:20:05>> Aye.

2:20:05>> Any opposed? Subdivision passes. Rezone.

2:20:10All continuous I-1.

2:20:14>> Move to recommend approval of the zoning

2:20:16application subject staff recommendation

2:20:18with findings of fact A, B, or A, C, D,

2:20:22E, F, and G.

2:20:25>> Second.

2:20:25>> Properly moved and seconded with

2:20:27findings of fact A,

2:20:28C, D, E, F, and G.

2:20:33And all in favor?

2:20:35>> Aye.

2:20:35>> Any opposed?

2:20:37Motion for rezone passes. We have three

2:20:39other business items.

2:20:42>> Come on.

2:20:44>> Thank you for your patience.

2:20:46This is a previously approved

2:20:48subdivision. The applicant is requesting

2:20:50approval of a revised plat

2:20:53at 1308 Oldshell Road and 109 North Ann

2:20:56Street

2:20:58to move the approved number of lots from

2:21:0010 to eight. Any comments or questions

2:21:03from staff?

2:21:04>> Mr. Chair, this was before the Planning

2:21:06Commission in July, I believe,

2:21:09and approved as a 10-lot subdivision.

2:21:12They thereafter went to the Board of

2:21:14Zoning Adjustment to allow some reduced

2:21:16setbacks, reduced lot widths, etc. Um in

2:21:18doing so, they revised their layout to

2:21:21eight lots because it's a reduction from

2:21:2310

2:21:24lots, there was not an additional public

2:21:26hearing required. So, this is really

2:21:28just amending the plat um having

2:21:30Planning Commission approve it as it's

2:21:31been revised.

2:21:33>> Any concerns from commissioners?

2:21:35I'll move that we approve.

2:21:37>> Second.

2:21:37>> Second.

2:21:39>> All in favor?

2:21:40>> Aye.

2:21:41>> Subdivision eight 10 to eight approved.

2:21:45Previously approved subdivision at 6950

2:21:47and 6960 Moffett Road, city is

2:21:49requesting to waive section 6B9 of the

2:21:52subdivision regulations for substandard

2:21:54right-of-way to remove condition number

2:21:55two from the letter of decision. The

2:21:57original condition reads, revision of

2:21:59the plat to illustrate dedication

2:22:01sufficient to provide 50 feet from the

2:22:02center line of Moffitt Road.

2:22:07>> So moved.

2:22:07>> Second.

2:22:08>> Properly moved and seconded. All in

2:22:10favor?

2:22:11>> Aye.

2:22:12>> That too has passed. We have minutes to

2:22:14approve September 17th. We'll move to

2:22:16approve.

2:22:20All in favor?

2:22:21>> Aye.

2:22:21>> Aye.

2:22:22>> Thank you very much for your patience.

2:22:24Everyone have a good weekend. Enjoy the

2:22:26weather.

```*