Somebody.

All right, I'll go ahead and get this this part started.

Good evening and welcome to the September 15, 2025 meeting of the City of Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission.

Any written comments sent to staff were forwarded to the Commission directly.

This time I'd like to introduce our staff, Jim Bo Woodson, Deputy City Attorney, Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leo DeCoy, Principal Planner.

There are nine members of the Planning Commission, all of them are appointed by the mayor for staggered terms, with the exception of the City Council representative who is appointed by the City Council.

I ask the Commission members to introduce themselves and state the occupation beginning with Ms.

Prince.

Dina Prince, attorney.

Portia Clark, 311 manager.

Tim Harrison, General Crown Director.

Ann Hornsby, attorney.

Raven Howard, Councilwoman.

ADP, retired Bill Wright Business Owner.

There were signup sheets located outside for public comment.

Four speakers are allowed to speak in favor of petition and four speakers are allowed to speak in opposition of a petition.

All speakers will have the maximum of five minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

The commission will take up the items in order of the final agenda.

The commission will initially receive a presentation from staff as to the details of the agenda item.

Additionally, we may hear certain matters involving the same property, such as an annexation and a zoning matter concurrently, although we will take separate votes on each matter involving the same property.

After the staff presentation, I will call upon the petitioner to present their case.

The petitioner will have a maximum of 10 minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

At the conclusion of the petition's remarks, we'll then call upon any party in order of sign up who desires to support the petition.

Thereafter, call upon any party who opposes the petition.

When it's your term for comment, please introduce yourself, stating your name and address to the commission.

Provide your remarks.

Any written comments you have been would be included into the record.

After receiving the remarks of those who oppose the petition, the petitioner will have the opportunity to respond to those objections.

Any rebuttal will be limited to two minutes unless commission votes to allow a longer time.

If the petitioner presents any information respond in the response to the objections, the commission will allow those who oppose the petition the opportunity to respond to the new information only.

Any response will be limited to two minutes unless Commission votes to allow a longer time.

During the course of the presentation, you may be interrupted by any member of the commission for a clarification or additional information.

Such interruptions will not reduce your time.

Once the Commission members are satisfied that they have received all relevant information, will then close further discussions by the public, at which time the commission members will discuss and on the matter and then vote.

After the vote, you are free to leave.

These proceedings are being recorded and broadcast live.

All in-person public comments should be made at the podium into the microphone.

Jurisdiction.

Subdivisions located within City of Tusk and City Limits, subdivisions located outside of the city limits, but within the police jurisdiction.

Developments with a special district and approval letters for developments in historic district buffer zones.

As to all remaining agenda matters, including annexations, rezonings, planned developments, and street vacation.

This commission serves as a recommended body to the city council.

In that regard, our decisions are in the form of a recommendation to be presented to the city council, and the city council will make the final decision on those matters.

Subdivision approval requires the affirmative vote of six members of the planning commission.

All matters which are recommendations to the city council require majority vote for an affirmative recommendation.

At this time, I would ask do any members of the commission have any conflicts of interest to any matters before us tonight?

If so, please state for the record.

Having heard none, I would ask staff to confirm on the record that proper notice has been given to all parties and interest as required by law as to all matters before the commission tonight.

It has.

With that, we will begin with approval of the minutes as the planning and zoning commission has received the synopsis of the August 2025 meeting.

I move that we dispense with the reading of the minutes, and unless there are any deletions, additions, or corrections.

All those in favor of the approving approving the minutes of August 2025 say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Good evening, Commission.

Starting off tonight with the consent agenda, we have one item here.

I don't recall if um the person we had sign up tonight was for this one.

Would you mind double checking chair?

Gotcha.

So no public comment on this one.

Um good to vote.

Okay.

All right, staff.

We have consent agenda item S8425.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, aye.

All right, moving on to cases requesting to continue.

We have uh a companion case here.

Um they continued this prior to uh mailing, so no vote is needed tonight, nor do we have anyone sign up out front.

Uh moving into our unfinished business, we have a preliminary plot.

That is S 7625 resurvey of a portion of lot 10 Thompson Place, consisting of four lots on approximately 4.7 acres located at 15329 through 15343 Bluff Drive.

This is not in city limits and is continued from the August meeting.

You can see we're pretty far north here off of Highway 43.

You can see that lot today.

Uh it's one lot, it has some mobile homes on the property.

They'd like to split it up four ways.

You can see um all the lots hitting a minimum of one acre here, and you can see that without contours as well.

Uh we do have four variance requests.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on those variance requests.

We don't have we don't have an objection to those variance requests.

But I do want to point out that uh may not be quite clear on the map, but Tiers Patent is a minor arterial.

So we're we want all the lots, only one access to Tiers Patent Road to be allowed.

I think the way they've got it drawn, it looks like maybe lots two and three are gonna share a driveway, but we need lots four, three, and two to share a driveway.

Okay, all right.

What about one?

Are you okay with it?

Uh lot once uh they got a note saying it's gonna access Marina Drive.

Okay, so two, three, four.

We got issue.

That's right.

Okay, all right.

So petitioner.

Name and address for the record, please.

Jonathan McKinney, one five three one seven Woodbend Road, Northport Alabama.

Tell us about the access.

Yeah, we're working engineering has an issue.

Um it looks like we're sharing driveway.

We've just got it split up, but it's it's only one entrance going in as far as I can tell.

I don't see a driveway at all.

For lot four, especially.

Almost oh, yeah, lot four.

Obviously, yeah, I'm just right beside the other two.

We only had one entrance coming in.

We just had to split it three ways and have land coming all the way in because of uh I think it was the county that made us do that.

Mike, you okay with him saying this, and then at some point he's gotta pull a permits, right?

So, what will we require when they submit the final plant to divide the lots?

Is the the access easement that they're showing will have to include uh reaching the property line of lot four.

So right now they're showing a 15-foot access, which is fine, but if there's a gap of land on lot three that the easement does not join the western boundary of lot four, so it'll have to be adjusted to come that makes sense.

Whatever we go to touch forward, it would work.

Yes, sir.

That's right.

That may make sense to you.

Yes, sir.

I understand.

Okay.

Anything you want to tell us other than we're just trying to clean the place up and put some nice house on it.

That's it.

I think that's desirable from what I know.

We're planning on building 1.5 two million dollar homes, three of them on the property and removing all the stuff that's currently there.

Any other questions for petitioner?

Thanks, sir.

Anyone sign up for or care to speak for or against this petition request?

Okay.

Well, Mike, you're gonna take care of this.

It doesn't have to be anything that we vote on that says it's I think we're gonna say for the record that I think you need to add it in your uh recommendation for approval that there'll only be one access to Tears Patent.

Yeah, I agree.

Anyone else?

All right, Commission.

Before us, we have S 7625 of four variance requests.

Engineering has no issues with the hash street improvement, sidewalk construction, or cap sewer.

However, on the lot configuration, we want to make sure that the petitioner is aware that he must increase the access statement to include and reflect that on the plan to include lot four has having access easement on it.

Fair enough, staff.

Okay.

That being said, I have a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Moving into our cases to be heard tonight.

Starting off with the companion case.

It's 14310 Santorini Street.

It's an annexation and rezoning of.031 acres.

Once annexing, rezoning from SFR1 to LR.

You can see we're pretty far north on the lake in the gates of Emerald's Ed subdivision.

You can see that triangle.

That is what they would like to annex and rezone.

You see the lots vacant today.

You can see that triangle piece to be annexed into city limits.

And this may look familiar.

You saw this subdivision last month.

You can see that proposed lot 74G did pick up that triangular piece.

Rest of that lot is already in city limits and zoned SFR1 or excuse me, LR Lake Residential.

That's why they would like to annex and rezone to kind of create a consistent uniform lot.

This is in our future service expansion area.

Here are department comments on the annexation.

Moving into the rezoning, again, rezoning from SFR1 to LR.

Here's that piece again vacant today.

You can see the rest of that lot is already LR Lake Residential.

I'm just kind of cleaning up that rezoning again just to have a consistent lot.

Here is that again.

You can see that subdivision you saw last month.

And eventually they are building a home here.

In framework, this area is identified as lakeside living, which is kind of that residential area up on the lake.

So this zoning request and use do conform to the plan.

You can see that lakeside living use identified here.

Here are permitted uses or LR.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Ma'am.

Petitioner.

Commissioner Robert Martin with Duncan Coker Associates.

Be happy to answer any questions.

I think this is pretty straightforward.

Annex and rezoning the trying the base there.

Robert, you finally got an easy one, didn't you?

William Miller got his easement.

Good dude.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

All right.

Having heard none.

Commission before us, we have an annexation of AN 1525.

We're gonna be annexing.

Oh sorry.

And annexation 1625.

We're gonna annex at 0.31 acres at 1430 Santorini Street.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Ayes have it.

Commissioner Force have Z2125, Mr.

McKay, petitions rezone.

3.31 acres located from SFR1 to LR in conjunction with annexation previously mentioned.

We have a motion and a second.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Miss Prince.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right, Commission.

Next up, another companion case.

This is at 6950 University Boulevard East.

Um, this is an annexation of.7 acres as well as a rezoning from SFR1, that default zoning to GC General Commercial.

So you can see we're in the Cottendale area, right off of University Boulevard and Hurricane Road.

You can see that lot today.

It has been developed.

Our aerial is a little out of date.

There's an existing sea store and fuel station at this site.

You can see they'd like to annex that property into city limits.

They'd like to annex for uh future utilities.

Uh this is identified as a primary, oof, primary, excuse me, expansion area.

You can see our department comments here regarding the annexation.

Um moving into the rezoning.

So once annexed, um, hitting that default zoning of SFR1, uh liking to rezone to general commercial.

Here again is that site.

Again, it has been developed.

You can see they do touch other general commercial uh property.

And they'd like to rezone as part of that annexation request.

You can see this is that site plan of showing what has been built here already.

And here again is the photo of the site today.

In framework, this is identified as corridor commercial.

So this request and use do conform to framework.

You can see that corridor commercial identification here.

This is their application did state.

That they'd like to annex for those future utilities.

The petitioner can confirm more about their annexation.

What are the what's utilities or they own?

No, they own it.

Do we have Silver?

I don't know that sewer is readily available at the site.

We're just gonna get ready just in case if it does and take their taxes.

No petitioner.

Yeah.

Okay, my name is Donish, I'm Sudan.

2260 Old Gold Run, Hoover, Alabama, 35244.

So yes, for a future, like we can possibly connect to City Sewer, but really we I have another business like a mile down in Cottendale, which is already in the city.

Um it'll just make streamline doing accounting and keeping up with all the taxes and everything will be in the city.

So explain to me the future utilities.

Right now we have a research septicank system right now because there's no sewer around, but like in the future, if city ever decides to put sewer, it'll we can connect to that city sewer if we're already in the city.

Why wouldn't you just wait till it ran?

I'm sorry.

Why wouldn't you just wait till it ran?

Why would you annex it now?

Oh, yeah, we could possibly do that.

I was just thinking they would streamline all our accounting and all our pay stores design.

I've got like uh another uh Texaco convenience store, which is about a mile down the road, which is already in the city, which is further from the city.

So I think I think that business is connected to City Sewer already through the Mercedes.

Mr.

Wilson, they and the PJ are it's in.

I had to come for the city to get an alcohol license for Monday through Saturday.

Yes, yes, I've been here for that too.

They've already got an alcohol license from the city.

Yes.

Yes.

So that'd be automatically grandfathered in the yeah.

Okay.

That's what I wanted to do.

Okay.

Hey, we get more revenue, I guess, right?

My leg, okay.

Anything any other questions for a petitioner?

Thank you, sir.

Anyone cares pay for against these requests?

Having heard not.

All right, Commissioner Force, we have an annexation 1725.

Uh annexed 0.7 acres 69 University Boulevard.

Do I have a motion?

Well, all those in favor say aye.

Those opposed.

I have it.

Commissioner Force have Z 2225, Delta Investments and Development.

Petitions to rezone since there are now annexed from SFR1 to GC, which they currently are.

So a motion and a second.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Welcome to the city.

Starlink.

They were.

All right.

Next up we have a rezoning petition.

This is Z2325.

Chase Adcox petitions to rezone.

Approximately 0.78 acres located at 1431 Hackberry Lane from UC to MRU.

You can see we're right next to 15th Street, the bread factory.

You can see that site today.

Tonight we are only talking about this property here.

And you'll see that as we move forward in the plans.

But that property today, you can see it's currently zoned.

The applicant would like to request a rezone to allow for the construction of four U triplex buildings.

You can see the site today.

It's a package store and laundromat.

I mean you can see kind of the adjacent properties to the north of the site.

Here are some elevations that the applicant submitted of those proposed triplexes.

Moving around to the rear and the side elevation on the north.

Here's a rendering taken from Hackberry.

You can see those here.

Since the packets were posted and we received those renderings, they have a revised the site plan.

So you can see that here.

So this property, just to clarify, that is the one you saw on the map.

That's already zoned MRU.

So really tonight we're just looking at this property to the south.

Um in the future.

Moving into our analysis, this is identified as campus services and framework.

This does excuse me, this does conform to the plan and the uses identified in framework.

You can see that campus services identification here.

I've been moving through that.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

The gas station on the corner there.

Where is that hole?

Where are we at?

They uh I'm presently reviewing their their LDP plans.

Okay, that's gonna provide plenty of commercial use for guessing about the peers.

Okay, petitioner.

Mr.

Chairman, members of commission Al Cavanus with Cabinet's engineering representing Chase Adcox.

Um and thanks to Leota for a good presentation.

Doesn't leave me a lot to say sometimes.

Uh we have looked at we first looked at this property and trying to deal with the with the good with the commercial zoning.

Of course, that was the new map, and that's current use there.

So understand why that's there.

The uh can we go can we go back to that photo there?

Please uh showing the yeah, there maybe maybe yeah, maybe even aerial view of the yeah.

So the parking lot, the existing commercial retail there, uh the parking configuration is pretty creative, but it doesn't meet anything that would work now.

So we would have to have 90 degree parking.

Uh you but you take in your setbacks, you end up with about 40 feet of building depth if you were trying to build residential in there, which is not a real functional space.

I don't think we want to build any more non-functional commercial space.

Uh we looked at trying to just have a driveway by the building and park in the rear, and again, you just get you get an awkward piece of property with some depth there that you just can't really use for a good retail use.

So then we looked at just doing the whole thing as with the same type development that that's been redone in Cloverdale.

Um, we're about to permit one here in the next couple of weeks, the one of the remaining lots there that's in this photo.

Um, so we're looking at triplexes.

We're looking at four triplexes.

We're at 54 beds right now.

Uh that works out to like 57 beds an acre.

We're way under the allowable zoning.

Um this is uh this is where we are right now, but this is pretty close to where we're gonna be.

We'll we'll develop this into a preliminary plant.

You'll see next month that we're successful here.

And um so this is this is our concept.

We have uh, of course, a sidewalk along Hackberry that we'll be reconstructing.

There's already a sidewalk north of us getting you to uh Wesley Place, and then there's a sidewalk we did a number of years ago along the lot on the north side there that gets you to the railroad, so it's uh very walkable to campus, and we feel like it fits in with the surrounding development, same type, same density, same type buildings uh that surround us.

Uh so we think it fits in the neighborhood.

I think it's a better use than then trying to force some commercial in a place that is way too narrow and way too deep for us.

Are these leased by bedroom or by apartment or triple?

Yeah, they're they're leased by at least by building or by unit by you list by unit.

Of what?

By unit.

So if there's triplex each you would someone would sign a lease for first floor, second floor, third floor.

Okay.

Preferable.

But in reality, they're all signing individual leases for the bed.

I'm sorry.

They're assigning individual leases.

No, I don't think we're going to be able to do that.

You're signing one lease.

Signing one lease.

Yeah, but I a lot of them go into saying you gotta sign your own lease.

I I ran recently.

Anyway.

I'm trying to figure out your number for your parking space.

You got three number 55s on here.

I counted them and you got spaces.

I just trying to figure out your number.

This one here.

Yeah, see.

Where I'm where where are we over on the hard to hard to make copying text auto cad and not change the numbers?

All right.

Anyway, there's a spell check, but there's not number check.

Well, the this is a pretty easy one right here, but obviously we want to see those clearer picture next time you come up.

You would see a much clearer picture on a preliminary, yeah.

All right, any other questions for Mr.

Cabinet?

Mr.

Adcock.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition?

All right.

Having heard none.

Commission before us, we have Z 2325, Mr.

Adcock petition to rezone 0.78 acres at 143 Hackberry Lane from UC to MRU.

I have a motion and a second.

Second.

It's Prince.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

See you next month, right?

All right, Commission.

Moving on to our next uh item here.

It's a preliminary plot.

This is S8325 Lake Hove Estates number four, consisting of nine lots on approximately 9.8 acres, located south of 11992 Grandview Lane and east of 12,004 Cherokee Drive.

This is not in city limits.

You can see we're pretty far up on the lake here off of 43.

You can see there's one large parcel today.

You can see more clearly here in the plat without contours.

Um starting at the top, just moving south.

I mean you can see about one acre lots or more as we move through this property.

You did see this last May.

Um they just need some more time to get rolling before um recording that final plot.

We do have two uh variance requests here.

We received one public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on those variance requests.

We don't have any objections.

Petitioner.

Members of the commission, Bobby Herndon.

2728, Larly and Wallace Boulevard Northport.

Uh this is one that you guys uh we brought to you back last May, and then somebody in my office, namely me didn't keep a watch on the calendar, and the construction company hadn't got started yet.

We've got approved construction plans ready to go.

Um just the um we'll look at the time thing.

We'd just like to get this renewed or reapproved.

Staff is there.

Um I can ask him, but I'm asking you is is same, no no changes, no.

Uh it's the same as it was previously.

I'll make sure of all right, and we approved it last time with a majority vote, obviously.

Right, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Herndon?

We do have someone that signed to speak, let's hear them out real quick.

Let's favor have one person sign up, Mr.

Mike Butts.

Well, Mike Butts 11837 Grandview Drive.

Uh lot actually reside at lot 33 there uh at the end of Grandview Drive, not Grandview Lane, just for uh clearance uh purposes.

Yeah, um so yes, this has been brought before the commission multiple times now and everything, and um I would like to ask um has the petitioner or the landowner submitted any restrictive covenants to the city for this um development for this subdivision.

Staff is telling us no.

I no there are no there have not been any restrictive covenants submitted.

Okay.

And then since the landowner essentially owns or is in control of approximately 10 acres, uh has a stormwater drainage study being conducted and the results of that submitted to the city.

So the trigger for a drainage study at the preliminary plat phase is 10 acres.

This would fall below that threshold.

So we did not require a drainage study when this thing was approved in May.

Even with the uh the county's right of way, does that is that can take in consideration of the 9.8 or is that eliminate the nine.

No, it's already existing.

Sure.

So you're saying that a stormwater's drainage survey was not required for this for this.

And like I said, the cut the threshold for a drainage study in our subdivision regulations is a development of 10 acres or more.

And this is 9.8 acres.

We did not require drainage study.

Okay.

In relation to the variances, which I know they have been approved and stuff, and we did have uh some of the concerns that I just wanted to make sure that those were kind of revisited.

Um we wanted to make sure that the the street does maintain the current width and configuration and the new subdivision uh to make sure that they got a uniform design and appearance to both sides of the street.

Uh so whatever's done on the new side, the new developed side is you know, lines up and matches with what's on the old side.

Uh if there's any new right-of-ways uh required uh for this to go on the new side of the subdivision, um and that a provision for control of stormwater drainage uh be brought about because uh any new development.

I know that in the past and other parts of uh other development in this area, there were some stormwater drainage issues from prior development in the neighborhood.

Um I think that was even made part of the commission's meeting record back in 2019.

Uh so that is a major concern for many of the residents that live in this part of the subdivision.

Uh as far as CAP Sanitary Sewer, um I noticed on the plat application that the applicant had marked yes, where it asked if there are existing septic tanks and field lines, and to my knowledge, there's no septic tanks or field lines that exist on this property.

Um do we know whether or not this the property will actually perk for uh for septic or not I mean these are questions you can ask.

I mean that's yeah, we're we're not ignoring you.

No, we're we're just trying to the developer can speak to these questions.

Okay, like you want to.

Well, this body really doesn't address that.

That's a that's a decision or that that comes from the public health department, our environmental division of our public health department.

If the property will not perk, then there will not be a structure built for it.

I mean, that's just that's just as simple as it is.

But this this is not a the forum to answer those questions.

We okay that's the health department doesn't answer.

Okay, okay.

Um and then as far as the construction, I know this is a major sticking point.

I think last time uh the uh the turnaround uh at the end of Grandview Drive.

Um as we discussed, you know, in previous meetings, we want to make sure that our that the developer presents and demonstrates a turnaround design that meets or exceeds the satisfaction and approval of the city engineer uh that the city would not allow the final plat to be signed until all infrastructure is in place before any lots are developed.

Um there is a little bit of concern about how close that turnaround is to the Barksdale property line there.

Um and then I'm not sure how this how this works, but a concern over the the change in elevation of how that would actually be uh developed and sloped.

And then I'm not sure how this how this works, but a concern over the change in elevation of how that would actually be developed and sloped.

And I think Tim, you had mentioned last time that a lot of this would probably wash out in the final LDP process.

But again, I just I just kind of wanted to revisit all these concerns and kind of get a status update to see what has transpired transpired since the last time.

You know, we were here and brought all this before the commission.

I think the main point is just to ensure that the neighborhood retains its integrity, uh, that any new development enhances all of our properties.

Um there are some concerns, you know, when if and when this does get start development starts about heavy equipment in and out, uh worker vehicular traffic parking up and down Grandview and Cherokee Drive.

Um erosion or sediment control, things like that, uh keeping dirt and mud off the streets while uh development's going on, those kinds of things.

So and um talking to some of my neighbors, they did have uh some concerns about the setbacks, particularly on I think it's number 37 40 and 41.

Well, those uh setbacks are so narrow where it adjoined joins their property.

Okay, all valid concerns.

I think Mr.

Get back to Tishner up here and again address some of those issues you brought up.

I feel pretty confident nothing's changed from the previous you're talking about 37 41 and 42.

Is that correct?

That is correct, so let's bring the engineer back up.

I think he can answer some of these along with our engineer.

As far as the road construction, sorry, the uh the plans have been approved, and the contractor will use utmost care in taking care of the integrity of the street that's there, the yards, the driveways, uh they'll be put back if they're damaged, we'll put them back just in the same shape that they were in.

Um as far as the setbacks, he's addressing on some of the some of the lots on some of the lights that have uh front setbacks are on two different streets, and so the side setbacks are a lot narrow, be like 10 feet instead of 30 or 35 feet.

Um probably the rear setbacks on those three lots.

Why are those not reflected?

I thought I I say rear.

I'm assuming that's the rear where it butts up against those existing houses.

Um which lots though four circle ones there.

41427 41 and 42.

Yes, it don't uh do we consider those side lots, side light lines, um because we've got two fronts as it is on those lights on the corner lights.

They're using like on 37 using Cherokee as your front light, right?

And then you're using that.

I mean by by code, yeah.

I get it, and see what you do when you maximize the building there building up getting somebody's backyard.

Well, if um we can look at that with staff and see if we need to adjust that.

Well, I think maybe a curtius thing to do when you build up against the start.

I understand you get by with it because of the code, but it works, but I mean I think you can look at it and make that work that'd be happy to maybe a little more palliative.

All right, we'll see what we can do.

Um this is county.

So the LDP process, will you review this?

It still applies, yeah.

It is in the county, but it still applies.

So you're gonna you'll you'll maintain that.

Yeah, and we it will get notified before construction starts.

We that's part of the condition of the approved LDP.

So we'll we'll we'll do monthly inspections of the construction activity.

Uh to document and and in some cases, we uh you know we send out a letter to the developer, you know, if there's deficiencies when we were mentioning mud in the streets and so on and so forth.

Our our office monitors that during the construction process.

Can't recall where we landed on that.

What's what's there now?

There's not any curbing gutter in this area.

No, not any it's gonna be what's that called channel.

Yeah, well Burbig's no no curb and gutter of any kind.

This is all asphalt, yes, sir.

Okay, so you're not gonna do any kind of and that as we discussed before.

There's a dedicated culture sac that the county has on the old plat there between lots 35 and 34.

Well, that will be vacated by the county whenever the new cul de sac is built.

It's not it's not constructed, it's just was dedicated on a plant from 50 something years ago.

Okay, any other questions or you have a comments you want to make, Mr.

Turner?

Sir any other comments, no sir.

Well, that being all I don't think new was brought up.

So I mean, I feel like that we approved this before.

Obviously, we've changed and improved some of our requirements.

Um I can't see where anything surfaced that would cause me any kind of hard burn.

Any other questions or comments from the staff or commission?

I appreciate it.

Okay, all right, Commissioner.

Before us, we have S 8325, Lake Cove Station 4, two variance requests, high street improvements cap sewer engineering has no issues with this.

Is a petition we have approved before that being said, of a motion and a second.

So moved.

Ms.

Hornsby, yes, yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, motion approved, or reapproved.

All right, commission.

Next up, we have another preliminary plat, S8525 Nolan addition to Spain Drive, consisting of two lots on approximately 13.6 acres, located at 15012 Spain Drive.

This is not in city limits.

You can see it we're pretty far north here on watermelon road.

See that property today um already has a home on site, and they'd like to split it onto two lots, putting that house onto its own uh separate lot.

You can see that without contours here.

Um, it does not have any street frontage.

You can see that access easement shown on lot one.

Um and with that, we do have three variance requests.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance report.

We have no issues with those variance requests.

Thank you.

Petitioner Kevin Hinkle with Montgomery and Hinkle Inc.

Professional Land Surveyors.

203 Harbor Road East.

Tuscaloosa 35401 representing the Nolans, their uh family land uh sell the residents and hold on to the 10 acres.

And that's what we're trying to obtain.

Fair enough.

Sir, any questions for the petitioner?

I haven't heard nothing.

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against?

Commissioner force, we have S8525 Nolan Edition.

Two lots.

Revariance request engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion approved.

Second.

Ms.

Prince.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

That's yes.

Motion approved.

All right, another preliminary plot.

S 8625, Brown addition to 24th Street.

This is a resurvey of lots 42 through 44.

JJ Harris survey of the mallet lands consisting of one lot on approximately 0.55 acres, located at 2622-24th Street, Council District 2.

See, we're just west of I-359 here.

You can see that lot today is vacant, does have that slab of concrete on site.

You can see there's three remnant lots here.

They're just cleaning up those uh lot lines kind of in the middle of uh the overall lot.

Um you can see they're dedicating some right away as well, um, but really just a lot consolidation.

We do have one variance request um for sidewalk construction.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering?

No issues with that request.

Thank you.

Petitioner Kevin Hinkle with Montgomery Ninkle Inc.

Professional Land Surveyors 203 Hargo Road East, Tuscaloosa 35401.

Representing the petitioner on this lot consolidation.

Any plans on removing the concrete, giving up right away, and securing an easement for the sanitary sewer.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you, sir.

Anyone care to speak for or against?

Having heard none.

Commission before us, we have S 8625.

Uh, with one variance request sidewalk construction engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

Miss Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up, S8725, resurvey of lot nine and ten, old farmhouse subdivision, consisting of one lot on approximately 6.3 acres located at 18495 John Swindle Road.

This is not in city limits.

You can see we're way far north here off of highway 43.

There's two lots here today.

Um they'd like to consolidate those to construct a house.

You can see on the plan here and on that plat without contours, just removing that middle lot line.

They do have one variance request.

Uh we did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

No issues with that request.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of board of Michael McGuire with McGuire and Associates.

Um she pretty much covered it.

They're just moving.

He owns both those lots and just moving removing that interior lot line so it doesn't conflict with his new house.

Thank you.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against?

Having heard none, Commission for us, we have S 8725.

One variance request capsule.

Engineering, no issues with.

Motion approved.

Second.

Prince, Ms.

Prince.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up, S 7825 SBR subdivision, consisting of two lots on approximately 10.6 acres located at and around 2701 31st Street.

This is Council District 2.

You can see we are just west of 359 here again.

You can see those lots today.

Just to clarify, this also includes this lot here today.

You can see that in that flat with the contours here, creating two lots with con without contours here.

Excuse me.

This is that proposed lot line between those two lots.

We have no public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

We don't have any issues with those requests.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I'm Michael McGuire with McGuire Associates.

So it's pretty much a similar thing here.

They they don't really have any plans for this property at this moment, but they they are looking into developing it, so they wanted to go ahead and remove that interior lot line.

Thank you.

Questions for petitioners?

Having heard none, thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

I haven't heard none.

Commissioner Force have S8825, two variance requests.

Engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Anything else from staff tonight?

Well.