Are we good to go?

Good evening and welcome to the October 2025 meeting of the City of Tuscles Planning and Zoning Commission.

Any written comments sent to staff or forward to the commission directly.

At this time, I'd like to introduce our staff.

We have Mr.

Jimbo Woodson, Deputy City Attorney, Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leo DeCoin, Principal Planner.

There are nine members of the Planning Commission, all of whom 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 Commission members introduce themselves and state their occupation occupation.

Again, Ms.

Hornsby.

And Hornsby attorney.

Raven Howard, Councilwoman, District 2.

Stephen Rumsey, Business Owner.

Dina Prince, attorney.

Portia Clark, 311 manager.

Tim Harrison, General Contractor.

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 Commission votes to allow a longer time.

Tonight's procedures, the Commission will take up items in the order of our final agenda.

The Commission will initially receive a presentation from the 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 then call upon the petitioner to present their case.

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

At the conclusion of the petitioner's remarks, we'll then call upon any part in order of sign-up which desires to support the petition.

Thereafter will call upon any party in order of sign up that those who oppose the petition.

When it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself, setting your name and address to the commission to provide your remarks.

Any written comments have been 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 the commission votes to allow a longer time.

If the petitioner presents any new information in 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 the commission votes to allow a longer time.

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

Such interruptions will not reduce your time.

Once the commission members are satisfied that we've received all relevant information, I will close for further discussion by the public, at which time the commission members will discuss the matter and then vote.

After the vote, you are free to leave.

These proceedings are video recorded and broadcast live.

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

Jurisdiction.

Subdivisions located within city limits.

Subdivisions located outside city limits within the city's planning jurisdiction.

Developments with 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 the recommending 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 city council require majority vote for an affirmative recommendation.

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

If so, please state for the record.

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

It has.

Thank you.

Okay, there are small small changes to the agenda tonight.

The following agenda items have been modified.

S 9025, the resurvey of the second resurvey of lots two and two A, Steve Tucker subdivision is requesting to withdraw.

Do I hear a motion and a second to move this item on the agenda to the case is requesting to be withdrawn?

Motion.

Second.

All those papers say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Yes.

Okay.

Talking to my call.

I'm sorry I'm sorry.

I thought I had I'm recusing on Hackberry.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

With that, we will begin with approval of the minutes.

As the planning is on commission as received the synopsis of the September 2025 meeting, I move that we dispense with the reading of the minutes.

Same unless there are any deletions, additions, or corrections.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Aye se have it.

That's approved.

Good evening, Commission.

Starting off tonight with the consent agenda, we have one item S9225.

We did not have anyone sign up out front for this one.

Okay.

Seeing no one has signed up to speak for or against for this consent agenda item.

S 92 25 Danner Place.

All those are say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

I have it.

All right.

Moving into our cases requesting to withdraw.

We have S9025.

Uh, we did not receive any public comment, and we did not have anyone sign out up front for this one.

Okay.

So Mission S 9025 has withdrawn.

Uh Mr.

Woodson, do we need a vote on the withdrawal?

Okay.

Okay.

All those in favor of approving the withdrawal of S9025 say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, aye seven.

All right.

Moving into unfinished business.

We have a companion case that is River Bluff Subdivision.

Uh, this is an annexation and subdivision AN 1525 and S 7025.

You first saw this one in August.

Um, it's located south of 3685 River Bluff Drive.

Starting with the annexation, uh, you can see we're just north of the Black Warrior River here off of the new McWrights Ferry Road.

Uh, you can see um that lot today is vacant, and you can see that area in the blue hatch uh is the area to be annexed.

Uh, they'd like to uh annex into city limits for City of Tuscaloosa infrastructure, and this is identified in framework as a primary expansion area, um priority one.

Here are department comments on that annexation, and here is that uh revised plat.

We'll we'll get into the detail here as we move into the subdivision.

Uh 25 lots um on 40.8 acres.

It has been reduced to 24 lots after the legal notice was submitted.

Uh, you can see that lot again today is vacant.

You can see that plat with contours without um and now moving into the comparison.

We have the October plat on the left, or excuse me, August plat on the left, uh the current plat on the right.

I can see there has been a lot of changes, particularly um in this area over here.

Let's see.

This area over here.

Um compared to that August submission.

Zooming in, uh, you can see starting in the northeast corner, those kind of uh over one-acre lots in the middle, some uh half acre and larger lots as we move into the northwest, and then those larger um acre close to an acre laws as you move towards the river.

Uh, we do have two variance requests.

Um we did receive one public comment in August.

We received a second one for tonight's meeting.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the marriage request.

We have no objections to those requests.

Thank you.

And commission, I'm sorry, I forgot to point out um they did uh do a 40-foot minimum bill line for these uh three lots here against the the subdivision to the north.

Um just wanted to make sure that was pointed out.

Petitioner.

Proposal.

How many?

It was uh 31 lots, um, one of those being an open space lot.

No, 31 24 23.

Um, Mr.

Chairman Paul Barcalter here representing the developer.

Um, we've met with the homeowners association for Acadian place, and actually uh Doug Simpson is here if you have any questions for him.

Uh worked out all the issues that they had.

Uh we did do the 40-foot minimum building line that they requested and reduced the number of lots to meet the uh requirements for that river buff development.

Uh we have talked with them about becoming part of the homeowners association, and we are going to adhere to their restrictive covenants.

Um what did you say?

We're gonna restrict their we're gonna adhere to their restrictive covenants.

So they've got some covenants set up for that particular area.

Um so I guess the only thing that we need to add, uh I did talk with Josh in New York, who is the adjacent owner to lot number one before the meeting, and we're gonna give him a 20-foot minimum building line along that lot.

So uh that's in addition to the 40 that we've already shown.

Just to you know, just we're just trying to make sure we have enough building area on lot number one.

So if there's any questions, I'll try to address them, or if there's any comments from Doug or anybody else.

So you're gonna add a 20-foot onto that number.

Okay, yeah, it'll be a 20-foot side yard, really, for that lot.

Well, I I applaud y'all for getting together, and I mean, from a developer standpoint, you took a lot hit, but you made some improvements for the the adjoining neighborhood, so I think everybody should be pretty pleased with the yeah.

Well, it's like I told Doug at the meeting when we had with HOA, you know, we want to we don't want to do anything to impact the existing development.

Sure, we just want to add to it.

Great, I appreciate it.

Okay, any questions for the petitioner?

Did write a book on this about your goodwill.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody sign up to speak?

Uh yes.

Uh we have a Cadian place HOA assigned up, Mr.

Doug Simpson.

I think good evening, Commission.

I just want to thank you and your efforts uh in August.

I'd also like to thank Paul and the Dominion group for being able to come in.

We had very fruitful discussions.

It wasn't always easy, uh, but the discussions did go as well as planned.

So thank you for your efforts in August to enable us to suspend this until this time frame.

Uh, also with the adjacent uh with the York family extending that to 20 feet for a side yard.

I believe this will be a much better addition for Acadian place as a whole.

Look forward to having them as part of our HOA in the future.

We've also hired an attorney to help navigate that in alignment with Dominion uh in Paul itself to kind of help navigate the the mounds of legal discussions that we'll get into and how do we uh I won't know if the right words annex, but bring them on as our uh members of our HOA, but we look forward through this process.

And again, thank you guys for your efforts.

Could you real quick uh name and address for the record?

Doug Simpson, 3625 River Bluff Drive, uh Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Thank you.

Next person, Mr.

JD York.

My name is JD York 3690 River Bluff Drive.

I am the property that is adjacent to lot one, and uh we're satisfied.

I'd like to thank Mr.

Burke Halter for listening to our concerns and going from five lots to one right there.

That's a big relief, and uh uh expanding the uh minimum build line there for us.

So uh we're in agreement and uh yeah, everything looks good.

So I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

That's it.

Well, this one worked out nicely.

Uh anyone else care to speak for or against this petition request.

Concerned Mr.

Burkhart is gonna run for mayor.

He's got part of the caddy of vote money.

All right, uh as we're wrapping this up, let's get to the voting of this.

All right, folks.

Our first is the annex station 1525 or annexing 40.8 acres south of 3685 River Bluff Drive in conjunction with S 7025.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, I have it.

Welcome to the city.

Commissioner forwards, we have S 7025, River Bluff Subdivision, the 25 lots, 23 lots, and it has two variance requests of substreets and public street front engineering has no issues with.

Can we also add the 20-foot okay?

All right, fair.

And we will add as a note for the record the uh 20-foot minimum bill line on a lot is that like one of the new uh addition here.

So motion to approve second, Mr.

Rumsey.

Uh yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, motion approved.

All right, moving into our cases to be heard.

Next up is an annexation request that is AN 1825, annexing approximately one acre located at 4216, 4230, and 4040 Nickel Park Road.

You can see uh we're pretty far north on Lake Nickel here, uh, near the sexton bend cutoff and new watermelon and watermelon intersection.

I can see that property, they are looking to annex portions of some properties to the east to um annex their their home and to city limits.

You can see that that boundary to be annexed in the blue hatch um in existing city limits in yellow.

Uh, they'd like to annex in the city limits to uh go to city schools.

This is identified as our secondary expansion area and framework.

Here are department comments.

This is the one that's just the entire screen.

And we did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Not yet for me.

Any questions for that?

All right, petitioner.

I have one little okay.

I just want to ask Jim Bows.

I'm okay.

That's that we don't have lasso.

Is that not a lasso annexation?

No, lasso will be where you go down there.

They road only, okay.

All right, yeah.

Petitioner, Jonathan Grammar, 4040 Nickel Park Road, Tuscaloosa 35406.

Gibson Robert W, 4310, 4230, and 4216, Nickel Park Road, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 35406.

Okay, so I'm so this is my uncle.

He's allowing me to uh request that y'all annex that 20 foot strip across two of his parcels uh to get to mine annexing across two different property owners that what part you own which parcel yes or the the parcel that's inside the that contains the one acre, that's a 25-acre parcel that's mine, yes, sir.

And when I built the house, I obviously annexed or I uh mortgaged that one acre with the house.

Uh the rest of that land is is not mortgaged with the house.

So what I wanted to do was just annex that one acre that's mortgaged with the house into the city limits.

Are you obviously doing this?

Are you doing this for school?

Yes, sir.

I've got two at uh Rock Quarry Elementary and one at Northridge Middle School.

And then you know, just just for reference, several years ago.

If you look to the southeast, that the parcels to the south of the of the one acre that's already in the city limits south of the road.

That's mine as well.

Uh when I bought that, it was 31 acres.

It's not on the page there, but in that southeast corner, we annexed in one acre off of that 31 previously.

Um so I was you know gonna do the same thing on that one up there on that 25-acre parcel.

You can't see it on that map, but the to the southeast below where the key is for the map.

There's one acre there that was annexed in several years ago.

Uh same thing, one acre off of 31.

And when they what they did, Tim was when it was annexed in, they just assessed it at the courthouse as a separate parcel, uh, obviously in the city limits and broke it, broke it out from the the larger 31-acre parcel.

So I've got a 30 and then a one-acre in the corner, and then that piece in the northwest corner of that 31.

I bought it two years ago.

It's about a two-acre parcel as well.

Staff, could y'all do me a favor?

Would you all right?

We got one petitioner, we got two interested parties here.

Can you somehow label the petitioner's property?

And then interesting parts.

Okay, that's gone.

All right.

On the interested party, the uncle?

Yeah, it's my uncle.

Okay.

So just to clarify, this part and this part is your own.

Yes.

That's right.

Okay.

So you own the two uncle owns the yellow and also the larger one too.

Yeah.

Yeah, he's got four parcels right there.

Why does the why does the that need to be annexed?

I mean, can you just annex your property?

No.

It has to be contiguous.

We got to get from just one acre, yeah.

See the yellow piece in there?

That's in the city limits.

And to get that other square up there, you've got to touch that yellow, and then keep it going until you touch his purple square up there.

So that it's not an island.

Well, it's it's well, island are really there just in the PJ.

We call those islands.

But that's that's kind of an I don't you just don't want to annex your whole big blue block up there.

No, ma'am.

I don't want to restrict all my land just to get that one acre and house in there.

You don't want to what?

I don't want to restrict my full use of my property any more than I have to, so that's why I want to just get that one acre in there.

Who who owns the parcel below the house?

One right there.

That's a lot of people, a lot of heirs on that part, that parcel, not not my family.

I just realized that hang on.

You what?

Hey, can you turn on your mic?

I see it.

No other choice.

Yes.

No, this is me.

Here's here's here's the concern we have, obviously, John.

We sets a heck of a precedent for us.

Something like this, to this extent.

And that's what we're concerned with.

What precedent does it set?

Well, I mean, look at it.

The strip annexation or the just the one acre out of my 25 years.

Look at how how you're going about getting that.

I mean, going across two separate properties.

So if we go back out to Watermelon Road, there's a strip annexation out there that goes from Highlands up to D.

Cunningham Road.

If we go over to the dam on Lake Nickel, we go out a strip along the road.

There are there are there are we have been trying to stop doing that, to be honest with you.

Capture these property like this.

So I mean, there's ways to remedy it in the sense of a subdivision if you wanted to subdivide and get you know some of this property on to actually make it up a parcel.

Um which one is which one is it is best practice to annex in the whole property and not do this, but there aren't any regulations specifically related to it that we have.

So how how does the I mean the uncle?

I'm sorry, I forgot the name.

I mean, Mr.

Gibson, I mean, how does that impact legally or taxation standpoint that property that's now in the city?

It's assessed separately, and I get a separate tax bill for it.

But I mean, how in the heck what's what's the width of that annexation?

20 feet.

20 feet.

So you got a 20 feet wide by how long is that?

Uh let me look at the legal on it.

We we do it while you're figuring it up.

We always sometimes we'll get variance requests for lock configurations of a property or subdivided.

So from the one acre that's already in the city that property and Alice have that strip running east-west across the south boundary is 315.62 feet.

Then it turns north and runs 441.47, then it runs west 3162, then it runs north 6224 to hit my one acre.

Well, what I was saying is that when we have a subdivision in the city, we always frown on crazy lock configurations.

Basically, we're creating a crazy lock configuration annexing the city.

So Bill, is he is he won't do the just the yellow piece?

Is that right?

No, just the blue, the blue check.

Oh annexing starting at the the yellow piece and going this way.

But but he owns the right below it too, but doesn't want to.

He owns the Mr.

Gibson owns the two over here.

You know, you could clean it up a tad by just bringing that square down to where the yeah, I mean, like I said, uh that's a tad, but at least it helps it a little bit.

Or why not go this way on this property he owns?

No, we have all the way up.

Just do a little three-acre lot or something, not just crazy things.

So that's so Jonathan Grammar was below that?

No, sir.

Could I clarify something for you?

Sure.

Okay.

And these claims.

In 2001, I petitioned to have my one acre.

In 2010, I petitioned to have my one acre, which is in the yellow there, which has the right-of-way to the property that's contiguous to the lake.

All right.

My brother-in-law, his father owns all of the land below there.

The two one-acre parcels and next to it to the east.

That X belongs to his father.

The rest of those two parcels right there also belong to them and his sister.

All of the other four properties there belong to me.

The reason that we requested to be annexed into the city of Tuscaloosa was to take advantage of the city school system because I have a grandson who needed to go to kindergarten.

And thus we didn't want to pass by two brand new schools to go to kindergarten or ride a bus.

So it was done in 2010.

And that's the LP.

That is that one where the X is the property that we annexed into the city of Tuscaloosa in 2010.

And the only request that they made or of us then was were we requesting city services?

And since it had we were not his request as it was presented to me is to annex his one acre that has been previously subdivided from that property and mortgaged for his so he doesn't have to have a mortgage on his entire property, and for the purpose to send his children to city schools.

No purpose other than that.

And I don't know of anything that's changed over the years in the way of rules and regulations that would prevent that from being so.

So from 2010, I believe it's exactly 2010, it may have been nine or eleven, but we have been there and we've enjoyed sending our children to our grandchildren, excuse me, that live with us to the city schools.

I don't I don't think anybody has any objections to what your goal is.

I think it's a issue, concern, trying to figure it out how to make it work.

Yeah, this and it looks so the city's gonna spend or elevate that's one of the big elevate projects at Lake Nickel, and so the city's gonna spend millions of dollars upgrading Lake Nickel at some point, or hopefully, as a quality of life issue.

Now, obviously we'd like to grow the city that by by annexing it allows us to grow further, but you're saying that you're we're worried about the precedent because of these lines, right?

I figured 20 the the right-of-ways are getting us there, or the easements or whatever.

Zach, what give me a give us some options on giving me?

I mean, seriously, we what what are our other options?

I mean, you could tell them the annex and the whole thing, which go back to the drawing board and we can work with them out, go back to the drawing board and we can work with them outside of this.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would make this work better unless you know.

I mean, they own all of this property up here, so there's ways to make parcels that are go off of off Nickel Park Road and just go up and grab it, you know.

So the Jonathan grammar parcel that's the bigger parcel, you do not want the whole thing.

No, sir.

And what and we don't own, we don't own the parcels along the road frontage.

That one and then the one little triangle in the corner there.

We no, well, we don't own that either, but the one on the north side, yeah.

We don't own that, so we can't follow the road like you're talking about.

What is your what is your fear about doing the whole parcel?

I just don't want to put any additional restrictions on the rest of my property that would come with being in the city limits.

Draw draw off of Nickel Park Road and grabbing the acre.

I'm gonna have those restrictions on the one acre.

No, not that, that or just come off Nickel Park Road on the or the other right there.

Why can't we do something like something straight or just put it out that way?

It wouldn't be much more you're saying that you'd become you'd come in under R1 and you're worried about you might want to do like R3 in the future or something.

This this X right here isn't in city limits, so they couldn't oh you gotta connect the city, you gotta be touching it.

That's right.

Okay.

And all right, so Zach, if we put that off there Jimbo's told me before that because each and every property is different and specifically different, that you really don't create a precedent.

But are we is there in any way creating someone's level of expectation on a different case?

So to answer that question, I'll use his example.

I mean, he's using this, and you know, I'm not for or against anyone in this room, but they're using this as the reason for this should be okay because they were able to do it in 2010.

You need necessarily set a precedent in 2010, but 2010 this created that, and then now we're here, you know, 15 years later.

And uh and and that wasn't the first one that was done either.

The ones I mentioned to tell them earlier, there's two or three others up there that have that 20-foot strip to other places.

What about something like that right there?

What they're drawing right there.

I must have missed that meeting because I was I would have removed it.

That make it like that right there.

If you did something, you followed your property line to the side, like he has the red, and then went over to the Easter property line, like that right there.

That would be I I could stomach that besides what you're trying to do.

Yeah, I think that at least makes it so non-looking.

And on the West, I guess it's the West.

Are we talking about bringing that one out even with the property below it?

Saying do something like that little red square.

Yeah, like that.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think I do that, just but at least make the lots logical looking.

Yeah, it's it's not completely unprecedented, and that's how we got Mercedes Benz in those case.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, I I I got no problem with I mean I think we're warming the city, but it's not a good process.

Yeah, no, it's the county.

It's a county, right?

Until you get to the gate.

Yeah, so you can't so the only way we're getting there is by by virtue of him doing his because he couldn't do his because he wouldn't be able to touch this bigger piece of the cost of the state.

Right.

My parents annexed that 20-foot strip from the lake property.

That strip that goes from the lake property over.

My parents did that for Uncle Robert and Alice when they annexed their one-acre in y'all.

Go back and look at Watermelon Road and Lake Nickel Road on the other side by the dam, and you'll see more strips than just that one right there.

So you're saying that we've done something like this?

Yes, sir.

You go from Highlands over on Watermelon Road to the west, there's a strip up okay.

Cummins family property.

I did that to get up there to de cunningham.

I did the house.

And then there's an but then you keep adding strips, and you've suddenly got a well actually that was kickerboard toolman tool development.

Yeah, I remember, yes, sir.

So my desire would be you go sit down and staff and work on the planet's filing.

Oh that's just one.

Tell me it doesn't sound like the staff has an issue.

There were no issues on that.

It sounds like the commission has the issues, not the staff.

So we would be bringing it in in what R1?

It would be R1.

So the commission has the issues, but the staff is the best is so I'm trying to think of what he would not be.

So if he wants to develop his property, he could probably be more dense, and he's afraid if he does more than it'll it'll cost you, right?

So can I answer?

Mr.

Rumsey, I have no plans to develop that property.

I'm just trying to think of it.

Yeah, I'm not I'm it's timber land around me, it's gonna be like that as far as I don't listen.

I'm all around you.

I just realized I'm all right.

Yeah, I'm not gonna develop it.

The the original owner for the property did so with 1600 or 1800 to about 1864, which will be his grandfather, his grandfather's grandfather's grandfather, uh, my wife and them, and they've been in custody of most of this property and the city uh condemned or took uh 40 acres of the original 40 for the water supply for like Tusc uh Lake Nickel, and in doing so, and that was in about 1950, whatever, before the lake was built.

Uh one of the springs that feeds that lake is on that piece of property that I own.

And I have no, yes, you I have absolutely no desire, and then the property behind us is another feeder spring that serves that lake.

And as far as my family, my children, and my current grandchildren, we have absolutely no desire to see anything developed there.

Uh is one of the reasons why we're doing this this way.

I can go out and sit on my back porch and look into the mocking birds and watch hummingbirds, and you understand it's in our best interest.

And you understand it's in our best interest.

We just don't want to meet ourselves in the road.

I I I do, Mr.

I understand that in the Cummings family and my wife used to work for them, and that was years ago.

But I understand a good bit of how development and all that wants to be.

So it the reason for in my lifetime, it will not be developed.

Mr.

Grammar, you seem to be upset just at the mere mention of trying to meet in the middle somewhere.

Is there is there a reason for that?

No, ma'am.

No, I will also say that this is a recommending vote.

So you know, y'all could vote on it and make your intentions clear as to what you know which way you're voting, and then ultimately city council would be that decision on the case.

In other words, we could toss it.

It is a in the end to council decision.

Well, we just got well if we're gonna make we make a comments, it needs to be obvious reporting passed the city council just to say exactly.

We have no objections with annexation.

We just want to make sure that this body going forward.

I won't care what happened 30, 40 years ago, but in 2010, that we aren't this body won't hear.

That's right.

But we're trying to do things the more logical, I think.

That's my only thing, like it'd be a odd looking subdivision if we asked for that.

You are in the city.

I'd be like, heck no.

This uh maybe worth mentioning, even if you were to develop it, it's within the one mile of the drinking water basin, so you have to have one acre minimum lots and and subject tanks uh have in other words, you don't have sewer, and you're not gonna have sewer up here for a while.

Well, it may it'll eventually get their problem.

30 years, I I don't know.

Where is it at North River Yacht Club on the corner at Todd Palmer's hell?

Yeah, all right.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

So it doesn't make what we do is going to the council.

It's going to council, but I mean, I think if if if anybody on this commission wants to, I guess, add a comment or talk for the council to consider from our perspective and let them have it at their level and good luck.

My preference would be to see an alternative that was more in like keeping with the things that we've suggested.

I would feel much more comfortable voting yes.

Um with a with a plan a plan that was more in keeping with the kinds of things we've been suggesting.

I think we I think we're on the comment.

I think that's what we're gonna probably do.

We're probably gonna pass it on the council with some comments, and then you'll have a chance to take your case in front of that body.

But I think we at the end of the day, I think we would like annex, you know, isn't that the issue?

It's not a either or it's what you gotta figure out what we think from this body makes some sense.

All right.

Anyone else care to speak for or against this petition request?

I th I think it would okay.

Kevin Hinkle, 2107 Forest Lake Drive, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 35406.

I don't have anything to do with that, but it would seem that annexing that in the way he has it to benefit his children going to school, it would open up doors of opportunity for the property that he's going around to annex into the city, which could steamroll steam rolls, theme roll, where you do create large developments for the city along Nickel Park Road.

That's just an observation that Deborah Neil track.

Yes, very much so.

That's just an outsiders' observation.

Yeah, Kevin, I you know, it's not that we don't want it.

We we do want it.

We want that, we want the kids to go to school.

We want we but there's some configuration issues, as you would understand.

That comment wasn't brought up.

I just thought it would be good to add it in.

Thank you, Kevin.

Good point.

Let them shoot it down if they don't want it.

I guess I'd uh I'd love to give everybody's input just briefly of what your thoughts might be so the council can hear those or consider them.

Anybody Mr.

Rom Gain?

I would I I'm kind of I'm kind of with him on it opens up opportunities to to spread the city and and and bring more kids growth into District Three eventually uh that corridor since we've got the new watermelon is it what's the new extension called?

Yeah.

Oh, I agree.

It's got it's coming.

I would I I'm kind of I'm kind of with him on it opens up opportunities to spread the city and and bring more kids growth into District Three eventually uh that corridor since we've got the new watermelon is it what's the new extension called price car yeah oh I agree it's got it's coming I mean I'd like of first we like I mean we'd like to see it in the city but just um want to make sure that we're doing things we do have a absolute brand new plan and we've been adhering to a lot more um they're not really strict but they're more comprehensive and sort of more foresight um in our new rules and I would prefer not to see this kind of configuration regularly um um but and we should think we come back to something else with us you know uh I bet I'm sure we have done things sort of similar to this but the vast majority of annexations are in what I would say blocks you know we we have a big city you know boundary and then we have a block that's attached to it that's the normal way we do annexations and uh that's in my opinion the the better way to do it this looks more orderly and so I I think a better plan needs to be presented if they come back to us but then they want to go to the city then if they go to the city and the city does not allow it do they have an opportunity to redraw it and come back to us okay what kind of time would they have as soon as they can be able to for the next meeting so rejection and create a six month I agree with Ms.

Morrisby I just it it's not that we don't want the annexation and not that we don't want the children to come to city schools but I think it's it's a logical request to ask for it to just be tidied up I don't feel like that should be I don't think that's that big of an ask.

So I agree with Ms.

Hornsby so I'm not speaking for everyone on the council but um I know that most of all of my colleagues feel the sentiments that I have that we respect the time and the recommendations of this body so I'm for the annexation as it is I believe this is uh could be seen as an isolated incident or not the term the best term but an isolated situation or agenda item and so and I understand the consequences surrounding it and then the uncle does own the majority of the land to the what right of this property so I mean and then it does open up more opportunities for the property owners below your property and across the street to annex into the city in some whatever way that that benefits them.

However, since this is a recommendation to the city council I do believe that some consideration could be given to some of the options that were recommended here tonight such as making the um the amount of acres that's going to be annexed in just increasing that a little bit but I don't know how this would go with the city council and like I said that I am for you know once you're in you in so while it's not in in the city it's still in our planning jurisdiction correct so but to his point if you did the whole thing it would be R1 and that would limit see the the real issue is because of where it is they're gonna have to be minimum one acre lots so you can zone an R1 you can zone R3 it doesn't matter they're gonna have to be one acre lots because they're in the the the within one mile of Lake Tuscaloosa which is the drinking water schools so it's really almost a non-issue as far as the well I guess what looking more closely one thing that says about opening up to other area growth areas but in reality that's not true because you really don't open up to one more lot.

That's the lot of the south because the petition has no no plans to okay yeah zone rezone the other or annex to the park so you want to add another body in one lot.

So so Bill if they did so let's say the person that the the Deborah Neal or what the person south if they annexed in at some point can you go across the road or does that not you can you can go across so that actually would open up south of the road you see what I'm saying but then but then okay they'll open up two lots because then there's no way to but but is but like if you come let's say this Deborah and I'm gonna keep calling her name because I'm looking at on land glide the the the box of seven acres just south that would allow them to come south of the road and then I don't know what's going on way over all this over here south of the road but it does open up the entire south of the road as everybody's touching each other if they there's a benefit to them particularly because of school as that develops residentially well we've you've got your work cut out for you.

Well, we've you've got your work cut out for you.

We do.

So the all right, so the but I appreciate everybody's comments.

Yeah, I hope that I hope the staff will not advocate for any position, but at least be able to explain the different scenarios we were talking about with we're just talking about, but others have talked about as far as being an alternative idea.

And they they let them do as they wish, but yeah, and to my point earlier, it is best practice to not do this.

That's all you can do.

Okay, so now as far as there's people that on this on this boat, we usually do a voice vote.

Do we recommend taking a roll call vote?

Is that necessary?

I don't think I think you'd have some yes and nays, and all you got at some point you gotta be able to count the heads, right?

I'm not sure if it's coming up.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I think we should have roll calls.

So I guess I'd ask for a motion for the annexation of 1825.

Motion second.

All right, Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

No, yes.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, Commission.

We have another annexation request that is AN 1925, annexing approximately 4.5 acres located at 3311 and 3327 Hargrove Road East and 3728, 34th Avenue East.

Uh, you can see we are just south of the interstate here, east of the uh Belk Center.

Uh, you can see that property today does have some homes on those lots, and you can see um that uh area to be annexed in the blue hatch mark uh city limits in yellow.

Uh the city is pursuing an island annexation here.

Uh this area is identified as a primary expansion area and framework.

Here are department comments.

Uh and just some context.

I I don't know if anyone on this board has seen um an island annexation.

Uh so this is coming from the state code uh that municipalities may annex um islands that are less than 15 acres and fully enclosed within city limits for more than a year.

Um and this is kind of that that whole uh law written out here.

Uh, we did receive one public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

I've never seen one of these.

When was the last annexation of this nature that was done by the state?

Last one submitted was in around 2000.

I think I don't think that went through.

It's probably between 96 and 98.

Okay.

And then some reason when the city stopped doing them.

Okay.

You want an explanation as to what they are?

Sure.

All right.

It's uh state code um that includes Tuscaloosa, uh parcels of 15 acres or fewer, enclosed within the corporate limits of the municipality for a period of one year or more.

Annexation must be in the best interest of the public good and welfare of the municipality.

It's effective filing adoption publication and filing in probate.

So is this this is an island annexation?

Right.

Is that what we have and the petitioner in this case is the uh planning corporate?

So will the petitioner would please come forward and state their case.

I would say it's the city.

I'm sorry, it's the city, I would say.

We're we're not bringing it for it as the planning division.

Somebody come up here and state.

Name and address for record too by it.

So obviously, annexations are not an engineering matter, but I do think this comment uh applies here.

Nothing.

If this is gonna get developed, it needs to be put on our public sewer system, and the only way that can happen, whether it ends up being commercial, residential, whatever, is for it to be in the corporate limits.

So I guess from the engineering department, I'm advocating we annex this so that it can be properly developed at the time that development is proposed.

What what's there now?

Houses homes, there's houses there for the our list residential.

For the our list residential.

Staff remind everybody what's what's happened here the last couple of months with this parcel.

Right.

So the past couple or I don't know the exact dates, but January, I think it's the first one.

On two occasions, there have been an annexation and a rezoning request for the northern portion portion of this.

So this is all one lot, and then you've got two lots here.

So on these two lots here, we have seen a request for the commercial or um what it contractor offices.

So that would be a rezoning to general commercial as well as an annexation because of course they need to connect to sanitary sewer.

So the there's three lots.

Three lots.

And the lots one and two are owned by one individual.

Right.

And the lot to the south is owned by separate or the same individual.

Separate.

So you got two different property owners.

Right.

Now were they notified of this annexation?

So is there any legal requirement?

No, there's no legal, and normally we would courtesy and them a copy because they're the property owner.

They have known about it, and we have had correspondence with their attorney and with him directly today or to yesterday.

And they've objected, is it correct?

Yes, they object to being annexed.

And just to also remind you how those votes went, of course, the two annexation requests were recommended for approval.

Um, but the two rezoning requests as part of you know what he brought forward, what they brought forward were recommended denial.

So the the petition in January did not pass, or they withdrew.

I was not here.

Uh they just didn't pursue city council.

They went back to the drawing board.

So they came back before us last month or the uh I think it was a few months ago, August, yeah.

Okay, and that one we did a lot of the neighbors came out against it as well.

It was the same kind of argument as the first one.

So in the January petition, lots of problems.

Came back in August, attempted some improvements, still didn't pass, right?

Yeah, y'all did not recommend approval of the rezoning.

And there's another plan that was possibly gonna be submitted for this again, right?

They're I believe they're working on another project.

And that was probably gonna be better or worse.

Do we have any idea?

What did they ask for last the last time they were?

Was it a storage universal property?

Yeah, it was well.

So the last time they asked they asked both times for uh contractors' offices.

Annexation and a rezoning and rezoning, and so this is annexing and bringing in as R1 or then they're and so it was the same request both times, it was just a different, you know, different concept of the same use.

Was it um for several different people?

Weren't there gonna be several different businesses located in that building?

So the way that a contractor office works is yeah, they'd have multiple tenants.

I mean, how they were gonna get around it.

I might be confusing it.

I don't think this was the two-story office businesses.

We didn't know what they would be exactly.

No, this I think it was the aesthetics of the rows of warehouses that had the tradesmen where they had the roll-up doors and a small office area there.

That one, but then I think they came back with that.

So I don't know.

So you're saying that if uh the the city is somewhat petitioning because it's an island that needs to be under our purview right now.

We're gonna keep I mean and that's that's that's all legal based on what was up on the screen on X number of months, right?

One year fifteen acres.

I I get the we have the legal right to do this, put on the city half for a second, but as we talked a lot up here about property owners having rights.

I I mean I struggle with the us just saying that we're gonna do this as a vice property, they're not petitioning.

Now I it should be in the city, I've agree with the 100%.

But the way we're doing it, I just I mean yeah, I think all the property owners when we've done this have always been opposed.

Otherwise they would have just petitioned so when do we notify these property owners of this idea?

When for council.

Oh, wait, no, no, when when would when will these three property owners or two property owners notify this intention to do this to annex it?

Like when they haven't been they haven't been?

I thought I heard they had been, and I'm well they have not been sent a postcard, but we have been in communication with them since last week.

So for a week you've been talking to what zoning are you recommending?

The R1.

We're not recommending any rezoning.

So they're we're recommending an annexation, which in turn would they would come into the city as a SFR one?

That's it.

Was one of the I mean I'm just sitting here wondering how this that development as it was proposed.

How could they operate with the septic time with the septic system?

I mean, if they can't hook on to our sewer, was that not one of our concerns?

Yeah, it would.

Okay, good.

I think so if they propose a development, it's gonna have to have a land development permit for my office.

We're not gonna approve an on-site sewage disposal system for any form of development here with sewer adjacent to it.

It won't happen.

They could propose storage units that do not require any site that wouldn't low storage units and wouldn't have any sewers or no office, no storage unit.

So and what is the current zoning?

Wouldn't you require zone?

It's not in here.

So those stores could have no office at all.

It would have to be stored.

That's what we want to avoid.

I get it.

Would but you would have they would also, even if we annex it, it comes in at R1, they would have to request a rezoning change, and that's gonna be a piece of property that's totally surrounded by residential.

If I remember the map, yeah, okay.

Look, there it's totally surrounded.

I mean, I know we don't do you know spot zoning anymore, but that used to be spot zoning.

There is some commercial around the area.

Across we there is some commercial around the area.

Well, but it's I know to the north in the church.

Is that still in the county though?

I mean, is that where the commercial is?

Is that I believe there's some commercial within city limits in this area?

I could I could be okay with the um annexation because the council person for this district, um, I guess this district seven.

I will, yeah, this would be will be annexed into the district seven, district six.

So at that time, the residents and the councilperson would definitely have some input on the rezoning if that happens.

Because when it's annexed in, it'd just be annexed naturally into R1, right?

That's right.

It would it would come before us before it goes to the council for any rezon in the future if it ever happens.

Do you have any problem reading the letter from the property owners opposing when you put it into the record?

I know there's a letter from the opposing.

Do you mind reading it for the record?

I've been the I had a citizen request.

Quite extensive.

Well, before you read that, I do want to say I don't remember there being Miss Prince any egress and ingress issues, but I do remember there were some concerns about traffic on Hogwell Road in the traffic study.

I think I do remember that clearly.

The whole thing.

Okay.

We'll be here a while.

Well, this goes to city council anyway, so and to miss how we we never had two more complicated annexations in.

I mean this is true.

So Miss Howard's point, obviously the uh the district six representative is aware of this request.

They're in support of the request going through to council.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be in front of you guys today.

Anyone else have any more comments or thoughts?

Point obviously the um the district six representative is aware of this request there in support of the request going through to council otherwise it wouldn't be in front of you guys today anyone else have any more comments or thoughts anyone care to speak for or against while we collect our thoughts all right I'll say we discuss it one last time or we just we can take a phone moving on this is this is um all news uh to us right um and I don't see any real urgency about it uh wondering if wow if if there's a way to uh take some time and look at it further you know I guess the urgency would be this is that this petitioner has come several times for his body and got rejected and he's looking at a way to possibly do a storage without an office which would be a big middle finger to this body and this stat and this is a way to protect that from happening I hate to say it that way but that's probably the damn true to the residential I mean I agree with you it's it's I spoke with Miss Hagler's daughter on the phone and she seemed like she was not opposed of the the annexation and that's the third property owner that is the second property owner one this other so she's probably about the same thing she's probably going like I'm okay with it because this guy's probably gonna put a warehouse in the off no no no bathrooms and then but to miss Mr.

to your point earlier just now you know it's not really necessarily about us or you guys and the whole middle finger to quote you sure come on sad it's also the the you know y'all are looking at it as this perspective of the neighbor the neighborhood let's characterize the neighborhoods the property is trying to do something with it is getting nowhere and of course last meeting we had a comment about hey we're not gonna let him tap into the sewer so he's like okay then I'll I'll I'll show you I'll figure it out and he's got a way to figure it out and nobody's gonna like it well staff or us or the councilman that threat does occur from time to time but rarely does it ever raise its head because people don't usually do what's in the highest and best use of a piece of property won't is there an act what's the access to the lot for you know the bottom the bottom line oh okay but building it in our planning jurisdiction also even if they or you're saying they can just go build menu storage is without coming up no water yeah no no water no doesn't need to tap into the sewer I mean so it's no who wrote chicken storage building the old chicken farm scenario we talk about all the time in the county meaning the county you can do anything you want to that would be a chicken farm or a bunch of warehouses on there with no water saying I want to become a chicken farm I say it's gone down Steven I can I can wear both hats I see the city hat I see the property owners hats so anyway any last comments from any by the commission if not we're gonna take a vote on it all right I think we need to take a roll call vote on this one as well all right I have a motion to take a vote on annexation motion all right miss Hornsby yes yes yes yes yes yes yes was that a roll call vote do a roll call vote or was that for the annexation yes yes you relate to all right commission next up we have a rezoning petition that is Z2425 longleaf engineering petitions to rezone approximately 0.18 acres located at 1125 19th Street from MR1 to MR2 you can see we're south of 15th Street here near Central High School you can see that property today does have an existing home in a shed uh located off the alley you can see that zoning it's MR1 on that block today they'd like to rezone from MR1 to MR2 to build a duplex on the site you can see this is the property from the front and just a side view of the property here is a uh conceptual site plan um they like to to build that unit on the rear to make it a duplex um this is identified in framework as multifamily residential uh that does allow attached residential development so this request does conform uh to uh framework as well as the use you can see that multifamily residential uh zoning here uh you can see our permitted uses in MR2 um as you can see in MR1 uh a duplex is also permitted um they are not meeting the lot standards in order to build a duplex um whether from MR1 or on non conformity section in the code so just to clarify that for you we did receive one public comment do you have any questions for staff back up well the rendering that they had up there yeah I want to say that to yeah

Uh you can see our permitted uses in MR2.

Um as you can see in MR1, uh, a duplex is also permitted.

Um they are not meeting the lot standards in order to build a duplex, um, whether from MR1 or on non-conformity section in the code.

So just to clarify that for you, we did receive one public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Hold on back up the rendering that they had up there.

Yeah, I want to say that to yeah, one here.

So that kind of structure could they so I believe what they're doing is using the existing house and adding oh sorry, this top portion is the existing house, and they want to add a second one that I believe will you know have access either off of here or off of here?

So this will be one duplex, and this will be one duplex it have to be fixed to the current structure.

Yes, they're gonna, yeah.

That's kind of like a big what I understand as to what they're trying to do.

Like an addition, but as a dwelling, a separate dwelling.

So the driveway goes all the way through the lot.

Is that the behind the property?

Yep, two in the back.

What district is this?

Sorry.

Two district two?

That's me, I believe.

Is this district two?

Yes.

I'd love your your thoughts.

I'm not sure.

We're we're looking into it.

Okay, yeah, I believe so.

But um, okay, so that driveway, that driveway will be behind the the proposed property.

So the the driveway is behind the house.

No parking in the front.

And this this driveway comes all the way up to 19th Street.

Right.

So they'll have a and the petitioner might be able to speak to the designer buildings.

Let's let's hear that.

And it is district two.

Yes.

Sharon Harrison's owner.

Who does?

Good evening.

Tom Sams for Longleaf Engineering 1927 7th Street.

Um yes, this is uh this is an existing residence, and uh Miss Harrison was um proposing to extend that residence to the rear and then extend the driveway uh to the rear as well.

There would be two parking spots per unit, so two uh uh in the front and two in the rear.

So one at the top and one at the bottom of the drawing.

So basically, you're gonna put it you're gonna park front for the front residence would be a parking in the front.

Yes, sir.

They have separate parking for the front and the rear.

The current drive we saw a picture of is going to just be extended down.

Correct.

The current driveway is shaded in gray there, it kind of stops right there now, and then we would extend it uh the rest of the way to the back up there.

So if I basically that cars park, they're gonna be parking in front of that.

If you remember when we when we increased the density in the box, we re-established the front yard and put parking to the rear, and everybody was wondering, although the density was increased.

We the the streetscape was improved dramatically okay with that.

Um to that point that they're currently you know, they don't have a garage structure now, so they currently park in the front.

So that portion wouldn't change.

We would just add parking to the rear.

That's not Tim, that's kind of like that's that's an existing driveway.

I wouldn't call that, might call that park in the front, but putting those two spaces up there.

That's really parking front.

Sure.

That's like can you circle where the on the proposed light where the parking would be?

Is it like right there in the corner coming off the street?

Um okay, so that's the parking for the existing building.

And that okay, gotcha.

Yeah, that one's on the alley, one's in the in the front yard.

Is there no room to put all four spaces in the back?

Looks like there is it's it's possible.

We could add the spaces in the back.

Uh you know, maybe a little more inconvenient for the front or the for the existing house.

Right.

The nice man for the proposed house.

Or what if we left it like it is for the existing house but improved it to put the parking in the back on the proposed house.

I'm sorry, could you hear me?

That that's I thought that's what did the parking on the back on the new lot.

Right.

Okay.

That and that's what that's what we're proposing.

Okay, okay.

Okay, then leave the driveway though for the front instead of adding.

I guess I guess kind of like just grandfathered in since it's already like that.

That's already existing, but I do like the idea of having the parking in the back.

But you could strike it.

I mean, you can strike it because if you're giving them the right to increase the density and increasing the value of their property by virtue of doing so, reestablishing the front yards and and doing something positive for the neighborhood would be a I would like to be consistent.

You could put four parks in the rear and and have them park park them all to the to the rear and make sure that maybe they have a five foot tall fence at least so the headlights don't all shine into the adjoining neighbors to the rear's yard, and then they all park to the rear, and then you then you can tell the neighbors that yes, we did give them greater density, but we also are started a press of a re-establishing front yard grass and that sort of thing, which we want to an award for that plan in the box.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, it's a lot wide enough.

Is a lot wide enough to say parking right now to go around it and parking in the rear?

Uh yes, it it is.

There's there's uh approximately 12 feet or so between the side of the house and there's I mean exactly.

If you're the if you're the owner of the property in the front, you're gonna not be really excited about parking in the back and walk up all the way to the front.

And you're gonna Tennessee is to park there where she is now, but then you're blocking the unit in the back getting around there.

They're gonna drive a yard.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

Yes, uh, I don't think that would be an option for them to continue parking there because it would block the access to the city.

That's why I said yes, it wasn't it's not enough room to not you said 12 feet though, right?

Right, and they're not would you be able to you know have this one access or from the alley?

I don't know, so that way she can still or they can still use the two parking spots.

Yeah, yeah, I don't know how I will also say that this is just conceptual, you know, they're not gonna be held to any of the site plan or anything like that.

You could bay park off that app and get and get five spots on it.

I think there's a need to protect that, no park in the front yard.

Yeah, I would like for us to keep that consistent and to say that, President, that we're keeping it consistent.

We are increasing the the value of the area.

I think we can work with staff and trying to get an acceptable layout there.

And as always, I I'd really like to see what the conception is of what it's gonna look like, and not just something that knocked down by yeah, it would be better if you you force them to park off the alley.

I didn't see the alley, I'm sorry.

Uh and you bay park it off the alley, and then you don't have you don't have that car traffic beyond the side of the house, which could be a little bit more than a lot of people.

Or you would have to have a driveway open again.

Yeah, right.

I think their intent was to try to maintain some of that rear yard, you know, it's currently fit fenced in, but I mean we can I'm sorry the the rear yards currently fenced back there, you know, and so you would kind of eliminate that.

You're gonna lose a lot of the backyard with the parking back there.

Well, how many feet?

I'm not saying they would be against it, I'm just saying that I think that was their thinking initially.

Actually, uh parking space is is 22 feet, so you can get some idea about how deep if you bay parked off the alley, you would still have basically where that parking the parking design is.

That would be could be yard, and you would get rid of this parking in the front, and it would probably be an improvement overall.

Now it's gonna create some trap.

Is this an alley that that's traversed generally?

I don't I don't know what the current traffic uh is on there.

Some of our alleys are not though it's oh that's a good alley.

Yeah, it is not and see what's the one.

And this is a well with your city right-away, you'd have actually more space and uh I think that's well no, you could come off of 12.

And is this the only uh multi-family lot?

I believe it's something on 18th street, right?

If you go back to back to that area to the south of them, yeah.

Good and Martin below and and and to the north across the street.

Yeah, I think we just had the alley repaved.

So what I would like to see.

No, we just got the alley paved, I believe.

But what I would like to see is some renderings, our conceptual drawings, and then uh another design of the parking.

Okay.

We can we can uh table it for 30 days if that's trying to make you some money.

Yeah.

I think the council person appreciate that she set it for the record.

So continuance requests.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Forrest, we have a continuous request for Z 2425.

All those in Paris Aye.

Those opposed.

I have it.

Thank you, Tom.

All right, Commission, we have our preliminary plates starting off with S8925 Cloverdale at Hackberry, a resurvey of lot 43 Cloverdale and unplatted land.

This is consisting of one lot on approximately 0.95 acres, located at 1405 and 1431 Hackberry Lane, Council of District 4.

You can see we're north of 15th Street here near the bread factory.

Now they're back before you tonight for the subdivision.

So you can see that existing configuration here today.

There's some commercial in the south, um, uh a residence on the north lot.

They'd like to remove that lot line, create one lot as you can see here, um, and then develop some triplexes as you can see in this um uh conceptual site plan.

We do have one variance request for right-of-way dedication.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the right-of-way dedication.

So we are we are in favor of it, and it's not a complete waiver of the right-of-way dedication, but we've worked with the engineer on what we can acquire and kind of stair steps through the development plan.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, Al Cabinets with Cabinets Engineering, representing Chase Adcox.

This is the one which y'all saw 30 days ago for a for a rezoning.

Um the um as Leo just told you most everything about it, we're removing that one interior lot line.

There was originally a platted lot part of part of the Cloverdale subdivision that has the one remaining small house on it, so we're removing that lot line.

Um combining it.

Yes, I'm sorry.

If you could get a little closer to the mic, okay.

So uh so we're removing that one lot line so we can you know have four buildings on the one parcel, it's slightly less than an acre, point ninety-five acres.

Uh four buildings, total of 54 beds, so we're well under the density uh meeting all the setbacks.

Uh as city engineer just spoke, uh we are dedicating right-of-way that eventually gets back to the existing right-of-way.

The lot two at the top of the screen there was recently redeveloped, so it's new the cross the street to the north.

There's a recent redevelopment, and then the railroad crossing, of course, it's established with the paving and sidewalk, so we're uh kind of stair stepping back in in a way that makes sense for the future.

We are part of the uh site plan.

We're reconfiguring the intersection there so you get away from the odd intersection that's there now.

We get a full four-way intersection.

So we're we're aligning, we're aligning with 14th Street.

Currently, the commercial driveways up here creates kind of an odd traffic configuration.

So we are improving that.

I'm sorry, can you go back?

Did you say you're eliminating the four way?

So actually, you can kind of see it there.

Um really line up.

And so when we get through the center lines of those streets will will align.

That's a can be a difficult traffic area, and that alignment improves that.

It's not a turn lane.

No, no.

Now, as to what could happen in the future, there would be a right of way for there to be a turn lane, but I don't I don't know if there are any future plans for improvement there.

Like a lot of cars coming out of that little piece of property now.

They're gonna be trying to go away from campus towards 15th.

They're gonna have a high getting out of there.

So Bill, I'll point out there is a center turn lane there today.

It's a there is you know directional turn lane for both the north and the southbound traffic to use three lanes that kind of starts the turn.

So that's that's actually that's actually the current striping right now.

Well, it's center turn line.

But really, it's you know, once you cross the railroad track, or I guess all the way down Hackberry, it's got a center the center lane that you can turn left on and turn right on.

Would it not be wise for the C to make that an actual turn lane into this because we call it?

Well, you've also got an access point into the shopping center.

Did we see the area as well?

Yeah, let's go back to the area.

Okay, so they'll go back.

You got the turn lake along the 14th Street right there where Hackberry Lane, that's where we start currently at least L is right here.

There's an access right trying to draw this language well.

There's an access there that if someone was northbound, they would need to turn left the other side.

I don't think we should make that a dedicated direction.

I think it should stay as it is uh today.

You can turn right or left in that center lane.

That makes sense.

It's hard to see the striping on that, but that center turn line actually is striped today.

All right, we've seen most of the anybody got more questions for a petitioner.

Thank you, Mr.

Cabby.

Anyone here to speak for or against anyone signed up for this petition request?

Okay, having heard none commission before us.

We have S 8925 Clover Delith Hackberry with one marriage request right-of-way dedication, which engineering has worked it out with the petitioner and has no issue with.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Motion to approve.

Mr.

Rumsey.

That's right, I'm sorry.

Um we have S9125 Arcadia number nine, a resurvey of lots 72 and 73, Arcadia number five, consisting of two lots on approximately 0.93 acres located at and around 72 Arcadia Drive, Council District 5.

You can see we're in the Alberta area just west of Arcadia Elementary School near five points.

You can see there's two lots here today.

Um, one of those is vacant, one has an existing home.

Getting ready to build on that corner lot.

You can see that existing lot line here, just shifting this way a bit.

And here's that plat without contours.

We do have two variance requests.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variety quest.

We concur with those requests.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Kevin Hinkle, Montgomery and Hinkle Inc.

Professional Land Surveyors 203 Harbor Road East.

Representing the petitioner.

Somebody wanting to build a house on the vacant lot.

She agreed, but she'd like to move the light line over to give her a buffer beside her driveway and get another home built in a desirable neighborhood.

What's that make the second lot size acre-wise?

Okay.

17,860 square feet.

Half acre.

Any other questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Commissioner Forest, we have uh S 9125 arcade number nine.

Uh City Two Light Subdivision.

Two barriers requests.

Engineering has no issues with.

Have a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up we have S9325, resurvey of lots 9 through 16, block 89, TCIL subdivision, consisting of one lot on approximately 1.47 acres located at 1000 through 1016 13th Street and 1211 11th Avenue, Council District 4.

You can see we're just south of Tutweiler in the Evergreen Cemetery.

You can see there's multiple homes and lots here today.

What they'd like to do is remove all those lot lines, create one large lot here.

You can see that without contours, and with that, uh build duplexes on that lot.

We do have one variance request.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

We don't have any issues with that request.

Petitioner.

Commissioner, I'm Robert Martin with Duncan Coker Associates.

Yeah, we're rendering what the duplex will be.

They'll look exactly like the existing two that are on the corner there at the southwest corner.

Same property owner.

Yes, sir.

And the only purpose of getting rid of these lot lines is so we can construct the parking more efficiently.

Um instead of having a driveway for each duplex, we'll just have three driveways coming off the alley.

Yeah, it's good.

Okay.

Any other questions for petitioner?

Oh, we're good.

Uh alley.

Yes, sir.

That's dumpster enclosure.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against having heard none.

Commissioner Boy have S9325, the restart video lots nine through 16.

Uh we had a right away.

Dedication bearance request engineering has no issues with.

I have a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

Mr.

Rums.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up we have S9425, a resurvey of part of lots 27 through 29, block B, WE Bowers, consisting of one lot on approximately 0.24 acres, located at 9121st Avenue East, Council of District 5.

See, we're in the Alberta area just south of University Boulevard East here near the tennis center.

You can see that property today is vacant.

And what they'd like to do is remove these two uh remnant lot lines.

And we did receive um a revised plat since the packets are posted.

This is what you saw in the packet.

You can see that revision here to get that uh radius in the northeast corner.

Uh you can see with contours, without uh, we do have two variance requests.

We did receive one public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

We're okay with those requests.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Chris Centel, Centel Engineering.

Uh very well explained.

We're eliminating two lot lines to make consolidate the lot.

Uh the city requested a radius on the northeast corner, and we gave it to them.

Hang tight, don't be heard.

Do you have any questions?

I'm hungry.

Any questions for petition?

Y'all know where this is?

With the public habit was about side.

How can you build two things?

Yes, our waiver for sidewalks along the east and north is because we we we feel like with the due to the terrain, it's such a steep slope that we would not meet ADA compliance with sidewalks.

Okay.

Sidewalk to nowhere, right?

And there's no sidewalk currently, anyway.

There's a house there.

There used to be a boy scout troop 89's boy scout scout hut used to be there.

Um, and there's you can see the shadows on the north side.

There's a retaining wall, and that's that's in already in place.

So you're gonna put two structures on this lot?

Yes, ma'am.

You can we can do that, please.

Is that new?

It's an access one of them's an accessory structure.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, I didn't.

Yeah, there's a square footage limitation on accessory structures, but yeah, we we we just are the developers have been doing it throughout Albert City.

Okay, build two houses on one lot, right?

Okay, we can't see 26.

Are there sidewalks on 22nd Street?

Uh 21st.

Uh there's some there's some current sidewalks.

Uh I I don't even know.

Is there not?

I'm I'm not sure there is.

Public comment is what I was looking at.

I there's there's maybe some sidewalks on that development right there.

Yeah, but that would be it.

That's the only thing on that street.

Maybe she's just owning that's where it is.

Any other any other questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against?

No one's here to speak for or against.

All right, Commissioner Force.

S 9425, the resurvey of lots 27 to 29 block BWE Bowers.

But motion is seconds.

So be yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Motion approved.

Staff, can we get these computers fixed?

If not, you better bring them to Seuss next time.

Yeah, next to them.

I wasn't aware that they were broken until.