The Mobile Planning Commission on Sept. 18 approved a rezoning from R‑1 (residential suburban) to R‑3 (multifamily residential) for property at 7211 and 7221 Cottage Hill Road, allowing multifamily development on the site.

Applicant Shabir Hussain told the commission he intends to construct 16 units on the site and asked the commission to consider the rezoning. Commissioners questioned whether R‑2 zoning (two‑family district) would allow the same immediate development while limiting future density, and whether a voluntary density restriction should be attached to an R‑3 approval to limit future owners.

Hussain said he would be open to an approval that limits development to the 16 units shown on the submitted site plan, but staff clarified that R‑2 would constrain the owner to duplexes on individually subdivided lots — requiring multiple lots and additional cost — whereas R‑3 provides flexibility to build duplexes or larger multifamily buildings without subdividing every structure. Staff also explained that R‑3 governs dwelling units and dimensional standards such as site coverage, while accessory office uses would be limited to leasing or other uses accessory to the multifamily development.

Commission discussion covered parking and density. Staff said a multifamily development’s parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit and that office space is calculated at one space per 400 gross square feet; density under R‑3 was discussed in terms of dwelling units per acre that could be allowed by right. Commissioners noted the practical tradeoffs between imposing a binding, long‑term density restriction and using an R‑2 rezoning that would force subdivision of each duplex unit onto separate lots.

After debate, the commission voted to approve the rezoning to R‑3 as applied. Commissioners who spoke in opposition raised concerns about the potential for higher density in the future without restrictions. The rezone action applies to the zoning classification only; any future change of use (including conversion of a unit to a non‑accessory office use) or a different site plan would require additional approvals.

The subdivision application tied to the same property was withdrawn at the meeting and will be resubmitted separately, staff said.