Good evening and welcome to the November 17th, 2025 meeting of the City of Tusk the Planning and Zoning Commission.

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

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

We have Jim Bo Woodson, Deputy City Attorney.

Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leona Coyne, Principal Planner.

There are nine members of the planning commission, all who 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 commissioners to introduce themselves and state the occupation.

Again with Mr.

Rumsey.

Stephen Rumsey, Business Owner.

Dina Prince, attorney.

Portia Clark, 311 manager.

Tim Harrison, General Contractor.

And D Pugh, retired.

Bill Wright Business Owner.

There were sign-up sheets located outside for public comment.

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

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

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

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

Additionally, we hear certain matters involving the same property, such as the annexation and a rezoning matter concurrently, although we'll take separate votes on each matter involving the same property.

After the staff presentation, we'll then call upon the petitioner to present their case.

Petition 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 on any party in order of sign-up who desires to support the petition.

Thereafter will call on anybody who opposes the petition.

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

Provide your remarks.

Any written comments have been again included into the record.

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

Any rebuttal time will be limited to two minutes unless we vote 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 reasonable response will be limited to two minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time.

During the course of your 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 commissioners are satisfied, they receive all relevant information and will then 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 and public comments should be made at the podium into the microphone.

Jurisdiction.

And all matters pertaining to the following items.

This commission serves as the final authority.

Subdivisions located within city limits.

Subdivisions located outside the city limits, but within the city's planning jurisdiction, and developments with a special district and an approval letters for developments in the historic buffer zone.

As to all remaining agending matters, including annexations, rezonings, plan developments, street vacations.

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

In that regard, our decisions are in the form of a recommendation to be presented to city council.

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 a majority vote for an affirmative recommendation.

At this time, I'll ask do any members of the commission have any conflicts of interest as to any agenda matters tonight.

If so, please state for the record.

It has.

Thank you.

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

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

All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Ms.

Coin.

Good evening, Commission.

We're jumping right into unfinished business tonight.

This is rezoning petition continued from last month.

Z2425, Longleaf Engineering petitions to rezone approximately 0.18 acres, located at 1125 19th Street from MR1 to MR2, Council District 2.

You can see we're southwest of Central High School here.

You can see it's zoned MR1, surrounded by MR2.

I'm enclosed to some GC general commercial.

The applicant would like to rezone from MR1 to MR2 to construct a duplex on the property.

Here is that uh property today in that existing home, just a few different angles here.

Uh here's the revised site plan.

Uh, you can see it's just some changes to the the parking configuration from last month.

Um, and here's the letter submitted by the applicant, kind of explaining some of the the issues they ran into when trying to reconfigure the site plan.

Um I'll sit here for a sec so you can read that.

All right, moving into framework.

Uh this property is identified as multifamily residential RH.

Uh, this request does conform to the plan as well as the use.

You can see that identified here.

Here are permitted uses.

Uh, just to note a duplex is permitted in MR1.

They're having issues meeting the the lot standards for a duplex in MR1.

Um that's why they're looking at that rezoning tonight.

Uh, we did receive one public comment last meeting.

We did not receive any additional public comment um since October.

Do you have any questions for staff?

No ma'am, thank you.

Petitioner.

Good evening, Tom Sims with Longleaf Engineering, 1927 7th Street, Tuscaloosa.

I know we met on this uh last month, and I think the consensus was that we would try to see if we could get all the parking in the rear.

Uh that that seemed to be the holdup with the two spaces in the front.

And where was also some discussion about maybe even coming off 19th alley as an access point.

So we investigated both of those options.

19th alley currently is a uh has an elevation difference from the rear of uh of the yard uh on this lot to the street, and it has such an elevation difference there's actually an existing retaining wall there.

It's uh it's probably around four feet tall or so concrete wall.

Um additionally, and I'm not sure if this is something the city had approved before or whatnot, but there's also a uh a private access gate back there across 19th Alley for the I guess that's an apartment complex or something there.

So micro access.

I mean, building that yeah, I didn't mean to get anybody in trouble, but that those are the two things that we uh that we encountered when trying to come off of 19th, and then and then looking at trying to put all four spaces in the rear.

You can see the the bottom dimension there on that drawing with with the 20 foot that would basically push all the uh spaces right up against that existing retaining wall and not really leave any uh enough room to back out and make that turn back towards the street from that rear parking.

In addition, um, you know, would basically take up the entire rear yard.

Uh one other thing that I just wanted to point out that that we didn't uh talk about previously.

There seems to be some additional room there on 19th Street between the back of the curve and the property line, which gives it a little bit more uh green space landscaping area that you would normally have.

Typically, you know, we only have maybe 12-14 feet between the curb and the property line.

So there's a little extra green space in the front here that may help kind of you know offset our thoughts on front parking a little bit, and you know, talking to the uh property owner, she's also willing to maybe do some additional landscaping as sort of a screening for that parking between there and the right-of-way if that that helps.

Do you have any pictures of the do you have any pictures of the alley and the retaining wall?

I don't it's it's available on the Google map, so that street view will show it.

That's not their job, it's your job.

Okay.

Oh, how many how many how many feet are you talking about?

Green space.

There's about 26 feet from the back of curb to the property line, and then of course there's an extra uh you know five or six feet from there to the uh proposed parking area.

And your parking pad in front is what?

It's two spaces wide, so it's eighteen foot.

We're talking about five or six feet in green space.

Between the property line and and the spot, yes, sir.

Like I said, there's a a pretty significant grass area there already.

So it's the lot, is it the first lot?

With the fence.

Uh it's the second lot from there.

Is the blue house the one that's gonna be retained?

Or am I or are we looking at this property that's closest to us?

I'm I'm having a little bit of hard time.

Can you navigate up the street just a touch?

This is from 12th Avenue, yeah.

Okay.

So we're gonna see the blue house is is not the subject house.

There, there's oh okay, I see.

Right, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Go back, go back.

Yeah, uh, Leo, real quick, where you are.

Yeah, here's one of the concerns we talked about why we want the parking and turn me camera to the right in front of the blue house for me.

Right there.

That's what we I think as a body we're worried about is front parking.

This is not even a parking pass was parked out there.

Um is there just no way to keep people from parking on grass in front of houses?

No, we have regulations against that.

We have regulations against that.

Code enforcement handles those situations.

Are these people that white Cadillac and that other white car, are they in violation?

In this picture, yes.

But a lot of times we rely on 311 and people saying, hey, we've got issues.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

I mean they're not reporting over here like they would be in District 4.

So you're talking about the the house.

One one one two two is right here, the yellow one, the cream colored one?

The green color, yes, ma'am.

And you're talking about parking basically where that bush is.

So that would be about right, yes, ma'am.

So you're you're asking kind of for a for an up zoning.

You're asking for higher density.

Hey, Steve.

Or Mr.

Rumsey, can you speak in your mind?

You're asking for higher density.

You're asking for an up zoning.

And you're and you're you're well, what are you doing?

What are you doing to improve the city?

The for the trade-off on higher density.

I don't necessarily know that we're asking for a higher density.

We we could do the duplex in the current zoning as well.

We just have some setback issues.

So I don't think it's a it's not a last it's not allowed with the setback.

I mean, that's that's a zoning requirement.

I mean, it is right.

It's not allowed, so you can't do it.

You got to come here and we gotta vote for it, right?

Sure.

Okay.

Now, what are you doing towards you're asking to double the density of this property and the other properties are not duplex, right?

I mean, they're all single family.

So are we are we getting ready to are we getting ready?

Look, the whole neighborhood goes duplex and everybody's in in alignment with that.

That that would sound good, but what if you're what if you're next door and you're living your wonderful life, and and somebody builds a duplex and and now they've got double or triple the cars because they have guests, and and now we've got them in the front yard, we've got them in the backyard, we got the alley block, and and you're telling you're telling me that that that was too big of a hill to climb.

And I'm just wondering if it is.

That I understand.

I from a compatibility issue though, that there are apartments to the north and south of this property, so I don't think this is way out of line from the departments have the apartments have parking.

Sure.

Um you're saying there's no choice but to park them in the in the front yard, which is which is gonna look like the yard next door.

And so I'm saying that one of the things that we've we've been very successful in doing is we have we have formulated plans where the land the property owner gets something, they get higher density, which gives them the opportunity to raise revenues, and the city gets something, and they get cars out of the out of the yard.

But I can't tell me all right.

So you're not gonna do that.

What are you going to do to improve this site for the city of Tuscaloosa?

Because they're granting you, you're asking to be granted double double the the density on this site, which is double double the revenue.

Understood.

I I just I would say that this is not uh something that uh the owner is trying to do for it for an investment.

She wants to live here.

It's for family property.

They want to expand the house so that they can have uh both two different related families in the same same venue.

So from that standpoint, it's not you know, it's not something they were just trying to get around the rules just for for that.

Um and again, you know, we looked at the options.

We we we really tried to configure it uh the different ways, and and our only suggestion was the the landscaping.

Okay.

Thank you.

So what type of landscaping, like hedges or yes, ma'am.

I think she's open to whatever that you know the city might want to see there.

I I know it's just more of a screening issue, and and we saw the same picture with the cars in the house next door in the front yard, and we were aware of that.

Uh so but having some designated spots that are actually you know have a parking surface with with landscaping around them, but would probably be a much cleaner look than what you're getting next door.

Um, I guess my concern with it is it's just it's it's a lot.

It's it's it's trying to put a basketball through a garden hose here, to be honest with you, in my opinion.

I think that I don't the parking for the the back to you got two cars pull in there.

They if they can they're either gonna back across the line to get out on the other lot, or they're gonna have to back up all the way.

I just I don't it narrows those parking places.

I don't see the last car being able to back out without the first car being in there, so it's too tight.

Yeah, it just it's maybe this one just doesn't.

Is there a street parking time on the street?

Or is there is there a yellow curve?

What's the street situation?

I don't think there's designated street parking there.

It doesn't look like there's a yellow curb.

Pardon me, Zach.

Did you but there is there is or is not a uh parallel, I mean it's not designated parking, but it's not restricted from parking.

But you can park on the street right.

Can you go back to that pic of the street?

I mean it's lot six at the legs to ever put a fence up on that lot, you won't be able to get those cars out.

Right.

We we have the depth that you would normally have in a driveway situation there, so I would think we would be able to navigate it as far as coming out of a uh you know, a garage or something.

It's about 40 feet there from front to the back property line.

You know, Mike, over in district uh, I guess it's district four, you know how we we actually if if someone built bay parking in the city right away, they got credit for the for 50 percent, you know where I'm talking about.

What about I mean could could you could you in theory put baby the the sidewalk doesn't start till looks like about 20 feet I mean you know you could almost maybe get three parkings three if you couldn't get four in the back you might not be able to get four in the front but but if he doesn't have this wall then maybe he could you could almost get bay parking I mean what's going on with the sidewalk by the way starting way back there what's is that because there is a parking pad underneath the grass or something I my guess is that that sidewalk probably stops at the public right-of-way based on looking at uh Tom's drawing.

I guess what uh in other words next door when they were parked caddywalkers, you could have some organization if at least they were in other words, if at least if they if they had parks, they would at least park in the designated alignment and not just pull up in the front yard sideways here, there and yonder.

That might be a win.

But it'd be the only one, I get it.

It would be the it would be the only one, and I understand that.

Well, I the I don't think the zoning allows you to count or credit the parking that's in the public right away.

Um the the duplex requirement is that you have two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and they have to be on the property.

I don't know if there's an opportunity for a zoning board of adjustment variants or anything like that.

That's the way the code's written.

I think in I think in one district we actually changed the code to allow if someone would would build it, say they built six spaces in the city right away, they would get credit for three towards their party.

That's over in the that's over in the box.

In other words, we we wanted to encourage them to build spaces, but we didn't want them to use them to meet their requirement because they weren't on their property, so we gave them a 50% credit.

That's great.

Yeah.

Any other questions for a petitioner or any questions of staff?

Thank you, Tom.

Anyone care to no one did sign up for this.

Leota, do we have any any sign sheets for anybody?

Okay.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

All right.

Having heard none, we'll close to public and we'll discuss.

I think the challenge we we have is still the same challenge.

Parking cars in the front yard.

It's pretty much that simple for me.

Because it because they've shown that it's okay in this zoning that we can approve if we don't have to if it has new ones, right?

This has something it seems like it's going backwards because you're not gonna house will get bigger, right?

The parking will get smaller, but there'll be more cost.

Seems to me like it should be a trade-off.

It should be something possible.

And I'm all for those housing in certain areas meeting the spirit of the code, but I don't think I think stack them in the front yard is I'm I'm shocked that the neighbors are not here because it looks like a family neighborhood.

I can't imagine someone turning some my neighborhood.

If you decided to do a duplex, you would have you would have a ride.

What was the cut cast staff?

What was the comment from last uh the person that reached out, they lived north of the property near the the newer apartment uh complex here, and they had concerns about the construction process, issues with parking, garbage, construction noise, um those sorts of issues.

Thank you.

A duplex can mean many things too.

I I have five bedroom duplexes.

So what is this?

Because I mean, have they said what they're gonna do?

I mean, is it yeah?

Because I mean, like I said, I have you you can build up to five in certain areas of the city if you do certain things again.

You park in the rear and you yeah, yeah.

So we don't know whether the duplex that will be added will have an additional three, additional two, additional one, right?

Well, should we ask the developer is the petitioner here?

I mean it.

I think she is she was gonna add three bedrooms on that edition.

Just being a being addition, not it'd be an addition to the house.

Right.

To the duplex itself, the the extension of the duplex the striped area in the rear there.

All right.

So the duplex is the house that's retained plus the addition, because I was thinking that a duplex would be what was added.

Uh no, ma'am, it it would be converting the existing structure plus the addition into a duplex.

So there'd just be the front unit and the rear unit.

So the parking requirements for a duplex are two spaces perplex.

Yes, ma'am.

And it doesn't matter how many bedrooms you have.

That's my understanding.

That's kind of strange in my opinion.

Except for in the box, it would be one of the one to ones.

1.07 or you could potentially have three adults, three vehicles.

Yeah.

And you may have one couple that just filled three.

Right, right.

Just thank you, Tom.

Thank you.

I think Mr.

said it correctly earlier.

Like put a basketball to a garden hose.

Exactly.

I think it's too much.

Well, do you would we would we entertain this if they if they overcame this extraordinary big wall in the back and graded that thing and had some bay parking off the alley?

I mean, to me, that's that's what's hurting it for me.

Because getting the cars out of the front yard is something positive for the neighborhood, in spite of the fact that we're not really getting run over up here tonight.

Just right to right.

If you're gonna if you're gonna double your density, it just seems like you should do something positive to me.

And if that means maybe talking with your neighbor and grading the the wall if you can, then maybe you should.

But but if it's too big of a wall to overcome, then I wouldn't put it in a letter.

I'd take a picture of and show it to us because I can't really tell by looking at the picture.

So the wall is on the wall.

Somebody else's property.

Okay.

Where is it?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

I mean it doesn't have to that obviously that would that would change in my perspective.

Steven.

But I mean it's a it's a matter of they'd have to go in and inset another wall, obviously the can we see the wall again?

Or just grade it.

And get the neighbor to go along with it.

It doesn't look like it's that big.

I mean it could be a quasi privacy fence wall.

Oh, it goes in back of the blue.

There's that side.

See what I mean?

Because it is a gate.

I mean, you could count the blocks, can't you, Tim?

I mean, what was it maybe three or bow grade?

Looks like it's about four foot, like you say.

Yeah, if you knock the retaining wall there down, I don't know that it would matter.

I bet these people built it.

They the yellow.

He does get taller as you go down.

It's got a door.

Is that a door?

So the retaining wall is because of the units.

And what is the what is the private access gate?

It's gotta be.

That's something that Mr.

Gardner is going to be looking into.

This is an alleyway.

So that case should not be there.

If the alley hadn't been vacated, then the gate needs to be removed.

It looks like there is a dumpster enclosure at the far end that needs to be removed.

If the alley is not been vacated, then it's open to the public, and those things items need to be removed.

But you couldn't park back there.

Well, there are a number of dumpsters on city right away.

There's probably a thousand, but but uh to your point you wouldn't have approved probably the gate if it came in front of you, and it probably didn't.

There's no telling how long it's been that way.

So my question was, but you couldn't park back there.

No, you couldn't park.

And it still doesn't count toward the requirement for the duplex to have two I just meant as a practical park matter.

That yeah, and a practical matter, the road's not wide enough to allow parking.

They could put bay parking off the alley.

And or they could put bay parking in the front.

It might look a little odd, but it would be better than just pulling up in the front yard and and parking sideways.

I mean, at least it would be organized, and the obviously the city has right away to where the sidewalk starts.

So any more questions for staff or anyone else.

I think we're probably at a good point to make a decision on this.

Okay.

Having heard none.

All right, Commissioner.

Time to take a vote.

Okay.

For us, we have a Z 2425, the long leaf engineering petitions that rezone the uh location at 1125 19th from MR1 to MR2.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Motion.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Uh can we add a provision about the the uh landscape barrier in front of the parking?

We wouldn't necessarily you can say it on record, but we wouldn't necessarily hold them to it if the rezoning were were to be approved.

You couldn't hold him to it.

Right.

We're not gonna put a condition on a rezoning.

But I you know, in good faith, I think that Mr.

Sims and his group would follow that, knowing him and his past, yeah.

Well, I appreciate that they've tried to do this.

Um so I'm a little torn.

I don't like the drive.

I mean, none of us like the parking in the front yard.

Uh, but there is parking in the yard in the parking space across the streets, right?

There's no the department complex.

Uh I'm gonna vote yes.

No.

Uh no.

No, no.

No, no.

All right, Commission.

Moving into our cases to be heard tonight.

We're starting off with a rezoning petition that is Z 2525, ABC Investment Inc.

Petitions to rezone approximately 0.2 acres located at 1515 12th Avenue from IL to GC.

This is council district two.

You can see we're just west of Central High School here, um, south of 15th Street.

You can see that property today.

It's developed as a convenience store.

You can see that zoning, it's IL.

Um, it's touches MFR and MR2 to the south.

Uh, the petition, the applicant would like to rezone from IL to GC for you can see kind of their their description here.

Uh, this did uh kind of come to staff uh when they submitted a package store um liquor license application to city council.

So you can see they are a convenience store today.

Uh this is just a view showing that parking inside of the building, and you see that site plan from when they developed the property.

Uh and framework that's identified as a flex employment center FE.

I this request does conform to the plan as well as the use.

And you can see that flex employment center identification here.

Here are permitted uses in GC.

Um, moving through these here.

We did receive um one public comment in opposition to a liquor store at this location.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Staff do we we saw this property several years ago, correct?

Right.

They came forward under the old zoning to rezone to BN and they were approved of that rezoning, and that was to do a convenience store.

Um which is how they operate today.

And then when we went through framework, this is now uh zoned IL, which also allows for the convenience store by right.

So they're not a prior north non-conforming use.

Right, it's not a non-conforming use.

They're requesting to rezone.

The way that this came about was they had submitted an alcohol license for a package store at this location, um, which is not allowed, and so then it got bounced back to to you guys for the rezoning so that he can put a liquor um package store here.

So they they did they did try to put a package store.

Yes, it was um they were pursuing a package store at city council level, and we pulled it back because that's not an approved use in this zoning district.

Okay, is that it would be in uh GC would be in GC.

Okay, yes.

So that's really why they want it.

Right, and they can speak more to that, but that's my understanding.

In their petition.

Yeah, that's why we wanted to bring that to y'all's attention.

Currently participate in any light industrial activities, nor do we have any plans to pursue such business in the future.

I mean, I just wish they would tell us exactly their reason for seeking the rezoning.

And just for the the record commission, this is just uh a piece they had a more detailed description in their application that was posted on the packet.

I just tried to grab a piece that kind of covered it over all so that applicant can speak more to the specifics.

And and remind me one more time.

I I didn't catch everything you said, Leota.

Why does it conform to the um plan in uh the framework comprehensive plan in the flux employment center retail is uh a primary use that's listed in the plan?

So Zach, the last time that we approved this, we approved it.

Business, yes, neighborhood business, I think is what it was called.

That would have that would allow it it would have allowed a convenience store, which is why they came forward.

Um I don't recall if it would allow a liquor store or not.

I'd have to look back into it, but that wasn't the reason for their rezoning.

That zoning would have, provided they got a liquor license, correct?

Possibly.

I'll look into that and double check that.

Oh, I guess my question did they not build it at that time when we previously proved it.

They built a convenience store at that time, and that was what they've been up until this point.

Okay.

And so now they're just trying to get electric lines.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

No.

I think that's just coincidence.

Petitioner, please come forward.

Name and address for the record.

Good evening.

My name is Sam Shoja.

I'm an engineer.

I live at 5000 over Brooke Road, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 35405, and representing the owner.

In the year uh 2020, I think it was in December, we applied for rezoning of this property and request was approved.

I mean, thank you for that.

Since then we have gone through a fair amount of time, effort, expense, upgrading the site and the building for the proposed convenience store.

Sometimes during the city comprehensive zoning program, our property was zoned back to light industrial as it was in 2020.

And we've gone through all this again.

At that time we went, and now we are here taking your time and effort for the same reason.

We are in retail business of convenience store, gas stations, et cetera.

And we do not currently participate in any light industrial activities, nor do we have any plans to do that in future.

We all probably believe light industrial probably I'm not expert, but you probably are preferred not to be in that area.

And we went through all this to rezoning it to from light industrial to commercial.

And we all we also believe that this zoning was downgrowth, downgrading to our neighborhood.

And we limit us in altering and expanding our business in the future.

We all agreed on last time that we thought if you go from light industrial, it would be up zone.

In other words, it would be upgrading the in the zoning.

And now y'all put us back to where we were.

And we are here again.

We are asking to please put us to commercial.

We are requesting this property to be zoned GC.

How close is it to the school again?

Sorry.

How close is it to the school?

It would be not in the business of light industrial.

We are not even planning to pursue such a thing.

Um I think we're more concerned about what I don't know that was not intentionally done or what it's not my business.

So they're are they non-con I'm now confused.

The way that they are operating currently is permitted in light industrial.

So they are not non-conforming.

They're not non-conforming conforming use.

But but that was not that was never the intent when they asked to rezone earlier.

It was to be retail.

When they rezoned, I mean, we look at the current when we were doing this process, we looked at the that part.

Yeah.

I don't know what their intentions were because we saw a convenience store and we made sure that that conformed to what we rezoned it to.

I don't know what their plans were to expand their business at that time.

And I will also further uh state that even if this rezoning is approved, they are gonna have to go to the zoning board of adjustment and ask for a variance to allow a liquor store if this is what they wanted to pursue because of the proximity uh to be within a thousand feet of a residential zoning district, they're right next door to one.

And it would end up before the city council for liquor license.

Yeah, after all of that, if that were the case.

That's something that I guess I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump in.

I guess that would be discussed later on, of course.

It has to have a special permission.

But the main thing that you're requesting, this would limit us in altering and expanding our business in future, being in the light industrial.

SA.

So it was it was BN, and when we redid the maps, we put it back to IL or put it as IL.

Right.

I think I would encourage a GC it'd have been spot zone.

Yes.

And I think I would encourage you guys to ask what is their future, because their future request for uh what they want to do as a business because maybe it is permitted in I.L.

Just like a convenience store is.

We don't know what is based off of what he was put on his application, it's very unclear as to what he wants to do in the future.

So maybe we could learn that to get a better idea of if GC is appropriate versus IS.

Can you bring back up the familiar uses in the GC for us?

Yeah, how how does the light industrial limit you in the future?

That would help me.

I mean, we went through all this trouble in 2020 because the light industrial, we know what is limiting.

We are not in the light industrial business.

We requested to be zoned commercial.

And I don't understand why it was put back to light industrial.

It was intentionally or not.

We are here, we are requesting the same thing because we are in the retail business.

Maybe we want to do something else if the business doesn't work or whatever, or we have some other tenants or so forth.

So we think that light industrial would very much limit us in the type of business we are in.

Would I just need a further explanation of that?

I'm so sorry.

I'm not picking up on some.

He can't sell liquor.

But are there other things that you would like to do that you could not do in light industrial?

Let's take out the liquor business.

Are like are are there any other things like expansions or whatever?

How are you limited in light industrial?

We may not be limited right now, but we wouldn't have invested, we wouldn't have gone through all this trouble of you know, time, effort, and expanding this developing the site.

It was a two-story building, we downgraded to one story, and it used to be I guess old transmission shop.

And the type of business we are in, it may be convenience store, it may be something else later on if it doesn't work out.

So light industrial is just we are not in that business at all whatsoever.

We don't have anything, we are not planning to pursue such a business.

And this really I think it was a downgrade to our neighborhood also.

I think that's what we're concerned with is if this doesn't work out, what is it gonna turn into?

I mean, definitely we don't want light industrial, we are not in that business, we don't know.

We may want to have some other type of you know uh retail or something in the same uh store.

Well, the uh the again the proximity of this to the residential area is what concerns us.

And right now you're you're we we you're you've got a classification and you're operating on that classification, correct?

Uh I believe so, but yes, talking about the liquor store, this is something that comes a lot later on.

You say you say to us that we we understand, and I don't think you've ever said that, but we understand part of this process is for you to get a liquor license.

I understand, yes.

Okay, but you also say that it could be potentially open-ended for some another another use.

What we're trying to understand is what that potential other use might be.

Well, I mean, it's not limiting us for the convenience store with which is light industrial, I believe is is okay.

And we have got a business license to do that.

But what I'm saying, we went through this in 2020, and now how if we want to have some other retail business which is not suitable for light industrial, we cannot do it in the light.

Should we come through this board again?

But yes, you could at that point.

Well, I mean, we went one time in 2020, and this time in 25 about the same time.

Uh we really appreciate if y'all just give us the zone into um GC.

I think one of the other issues, you know.

In 20, you came with a convenience store plan.

Yes, sir.

And we have done that.

So why would you not get to ask the liquor license at that point?

Because it's it's you're saying here's where I'm going with that whole point is that you say you want a liquor license.

You could have said that in 2020.

And you say you want to add and grow in different areas, but we if we rezone it, we open ourselves up for many other things that could be in there that maybe aren't suitable for the neighborhood.

And so I worry about changing the zoning, not because of what you're doing now, what you might want to add on, but then what it could become if that does not work out.

Are you looking for additional revenue source?

You go, well, I can I can do this.

I can do that.

It's If you have come to us in the beginning and said we want to do a convenience store with a liquor store, that might have changed the whole equation positive or negatively.

Now you're saying you want to add liquor store and in a classification that's right next to some neighborhoods, houses or people live in.

And then we open ourselves up what all could be in the future beyond just the convenience store and the liquor store.

Well, that's kind of where I'm trying to grapple with.

Well, I mean, of course, we didn't know the owner didn't know if he cannot have a liquor store over there.

We understand it's limited.

We know it's a residential next door in 1500 feet, let's not 1500 feet or a thousand or whatever.

We understand that part.

But what I'm saying, this would really limit us, and does if you have to do some other kind of business.

We should really have tenants or ourselves operated, then we should come through this board again, do the for the third time.

Well we would have to.

If we change the zoning, no, you can you buy you might be permitted by the right to do something.

That's that's our that's our concern.

Usually when we rezone, we kind of want to know what's gonna happen, not just right then, but what we open ourselves up to what it could be.

Well, and that's our concern here is like okay, we're changing just so we can allow you to add a package store, which is not the most suitable thing in their residential neighborhoods, but then the other things it could evolve into, whether you ran it or the next person who had the facility, they could do whatever is in that classification, and that's what concerns us.

It's like you start I'm understanding.

Let's I don't want to ask for I'm not asking for a liquor license or uh variance on that right now.

We we've been through all this trouble, expending time, effort, taking your time in 2020, and here we are here again just asking the same thing.

This would really limit us in our business of doing then if this tenant comes here or is not going to work out.

If you go some other tenants wants, if it's not going to be allowed in the light industrial, well, is it would limit us?

It would hurt us.

You've gone through all this expense developing that site really is so much more appealing aesthetically to our neighborhood, and you put us we are back to what it were.

But you you're operating as a convenience store now and can continue to operate as a convenience store now, and if we rezone it, once it's rezoned, we can't take it back.

And if you come in and want to put something there that doesn't fit, we can't come in there and say, hey, we want to take it back.

If you decide you want something else there, or whatever.

That's when you come back to us and say, convenience store didn't work, I need to put up another business there, and then we talk about rezoning it that time.

There's no reason to rezone it now because you can operate your business just like you have since 2020.

Understand.

I don't think it has been made fair to us to come in 2020.

I ask for your permission and we appreciate that.

Thank you.

And now here again, and then if I have to have to do another type of business, then come through this again.

I don't think that's fair.

Do you permit?

Yes.

You can operate your store just like you did when you came to us in 2020.

If you decide to build something, operate some other business there, yeah, then you come back to us and we decide if it fits or not.

Honestly, if y'all hadn't zoned it to business, we wouldn't have developed that property.

Honestly, we won't.

I think we're kind of talking in circles here.

Uh-huh.

Maybe we should go down permitted, permitted.

Okay.

I think I need some help because I know, but it looks, I mean, I'm trying to compare what is permitted in GC and what is permitted in light industrial.

Almost the same.

And it is to me, it looks almost the same.

He can he's permitted to do everything under animal care or business services.

You get to food and bread beverage, and even GC is conditional, but he can even come back in and be a tavern as a conditional.

Wait, wait, wait, no, no, no.

Hold on.

Let me make it.

Yeah.

A bar restaurant, a turn.

Under light industrial.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm looking under IL.

C.

It's both of them are C's.

G C and I L are conditional uses.

Yeah.

I think you're looking at the HC.

Oh, I see out the case.

I don't think so.

Well, you can do a brew pub and a coffee house.

Otherwise, it needs to be a good idea.

But to your point, there are a lot of uses that coincide with IL and GC.

And I think we're just beating a dead horse at this point with not with there's no clarity into why he wants to rezone to GC.

Right.

From a specific use standpoint.

And I think we've passed the kind of 10-minute mark of the petitioners, you know, moment to speak.

We have asked a lot of questions, I mean any other questions for petitioner.

Thank you, sir.

We're gonna let someone has decided to speak in opposition.

Let's hear what they have to say.

Mr.

Chairman, we have one person who signed up speaking, Ms.

Jane Burroughs.

I'm gonna I'm Jane Burroughs, and I live at I'm I have the property at 1124 16th Street, which is adjacent.

There's one lot between me and the proposed zoning redoing.

And I represent Mr.

Alex Burrell, who lives next door, in between my property and the proposal of changing from the planning board.

Where is he?

He's the one that emailed me.

I beg your pardon?

Where's Mr.

Barrell?

He emailed.

He is deceased.

He sent us an email.

Leo to sent us an email on his behalf.

He called.

Let's let her finish.

He's got a connection.

Sorry.

Continue, please.

He's not with us any longer.

So I'm representing Mr.

Burrell, who lives between me and the proposal to change in the planning board.

He has talked to the uh zoning board head personally and told of his opposition for both Alex and himself.

He uh Russ lives across the street from both of our properties.

I am all three of us are greatly opposed to a liquor store going in there.

It's too close to central high school.

It's surrounded by student parking.

I mean student apartments, excuse me.

And they don't need another outlet to buy liquor when there's so many available.

I was gonna say, do you think we're gonna corrupt the students?

I think so.

And particularly the college uh people are living in the close proximity of the apartments.

That's not a good influence.

So what for the availability of like liquor so close.

Well, there are six stores within 400 feet.

I mean, aren't there?

That offer it.

There's plenty uh already available.

They don't need another outlet for uh securing liquor.

Uh the thing is that I live there personally from from um 60 5 to 72 with two small children.

It was a nice quiet neighborhood at that time.

Uh when we moved for zoning purposes for the school districts.

Um we started renting that property to university students, and it was still a quiet neighborhood.

It was um for probably 10 years or more, 15 maybe that we rented to students.

Then we rented to a local family that was the tenant for over 20 years until there was a uh fire and it burned the house.

So I still own the lot.

I at some time may decide to build back there, and I would not want a liquor store two doors down from me.

But you know, 15th Street is a business corridor.

I mean it's it's uh I mean it's look look around.

I mean, look around, look around you, you're surrounded by all flat roofs and trucks and trailers, and I mean it's almost residential almost looks out of place uh from this area.

I mean it it's it seems inevitable, honestly.

We got the same thing for us lake, but maybe not we don't have as much commercial surrounding it, but this this is this looks like an inevitable business development um in highest and best use.

What what's it look like on the map?

What's it what's it what is it so it it is it is light industrial?

So it it is it is light industrial?

And that's what he's asking for?

He's asking for no, but he's asking for GC multi-family.

You know, I may be in the minority here, but I I I I hope we never put another junior food martyr on 15th Street.

I mean, I I'm kind of I I'm kind of glad to see one off of 15th Street.

I mean they're just most of them are not all of them, some of them are very nice.

Many of them are just eyesores because they're non-conforming uses, and they're not doing anything to them, and I don't want to ever see no.

I'm glad to see something off of 15th Street, honestly.

Because they are gonna drink.

But I hear what you're doing.

I'm I'm concerned of the city.

But you think but you think you would go back and build a home there.

I and I it's possible.

I'm older and I that would be closer to my doctors and my at one time we went to Calvary Church and it was right down the street.

We had a pizza business on University Boulevard, which was right there too.

So we were close to our business as well.

But um, I'm concerned about Mr.

Burrell.

He's elderly, and if there's a lot of noise there keeping him away from the liquor store that the traffic would bring, it would not be.

That's not changed, right?

Well it will if it the uh noise is a factor from uh having a liquor store right there next door.

Anything else for Burroughs?

Any other comments?

I I guess not.

But I'm certainly you're opposed to as well as Mr.

Burrell and Russ across the street.

And there's a Mr.

Burrell who's still alive?

Yes, he is.

Okay, okay, good.

Yes.

And he he maintains my vacant lot, so it's not store.

That's not Alex.

Alex is passed on.

Correct?

No, Alex is talking with him before I came here tonight.

And that's my understanding that the convenience store has never opened.

So I was just wondering if it's this store is not open.

That's what I was told today by Mr.

Barrett.

That'd be interesting, kind of gives it to the case.

And I assumed that it was in this was an intended thing to go first to get it to go running the store, and then to what he really is it up is in this business in operation today.

And the hours or what?

Yeah, that's what I was gonna ask what are the hours.

Thank you, Sparrow.

Well, we're gonna ask you.

Thank you, Miss Burroughs.

Thank you.

Can you come back up, sir?

Can you give us the hours of operation currently for their business?

For the business, it's usually uh seven o'clock in the morning till eleven, twelve or something, whatever you know, was then there.

Seven days a week.

Probably so, yes, sir.

Probably so.

Yes, convenience stores usually are open at uh seven days a week.

Currently uh open.

Is it open for business?

Currently open for business.

Yeah.

So what hours do you work?

That's the hours they work usually on other stores that we have, but this one does not have a gas station.

So usually it comes from seven till not ten eleven at night.

I think you're gonna.

But the main concern really why you did we have to go through this trouble of we we reasoned.

We've already kind of yeah, we're just but the main thing is that I'm not expert in what goes in the light industrial, and you know probably better.

I'm pretty sure you know better, but it would really limit us in doing this business because it would slow us down again if you have to get another ten in the day, they they will not be interested in it, and you know what we have to go through to get it.

I don't know, for example, like a clothing store.

If you want to do that and the convenience store doesn't work, is it allowed in the light industrial avenue?

It's better looking than anything on 15th Street.

Let me ask you a question.

Yes, sir.

When this picture was taken, was this bill?

Was this were you in operation?

No, uh I think they recently just got the business, they were getting ready to open up.

Of course, they might apply for a liquor license.

It's shut down.

That's out of question.

We are not really asking for a liquor license.

We are just basically asking to put us back to a GC or neighborhood business.

Yes.

Give me a yes or no.

Yes.

Okay, wait.

Not yet.

As my understanding.

Wait, wait, just a minute.

I'm gonna ask you one question.

I want a yes or no.

Yes.

Is this are they currently operating out of this?

As we did they opt, did they open up today?

I believe they got the license and uh certificates to do.

I don't want you to believe that I said yes or no.

I don't think he knows.

He's the engineer.

They they were in the process of stocking up the store and stuff like that.

I'm not sure as the latest point right now, but I know they got the licenses or business licenses to do that.

So this horse point, you're you're the engineer on the project.

You're not the owners of the property.

No.

Oh but as I heard last time, the owner said they've got the business license to do business.

And they were in the process of it's probably the store was last time I looked at it, it was stocked up.

But is not completely ready to open.

When I saw it last time.

Since 2020.

No, recently they got the business license to do that.

Well, business license and what we did was they're different, they're different departments, and we don't get involved with the business license of the operation.

Thank you.

I I think I'm just very confused on why aren't the owners here because it's not you're you're here talking about the zoning and the engineering piece of it, but we're more concerned about the operating business.

What's gonna do what are they gonna try to do?

Um you can ask them to come back next month and tell us.

I mean, I don't know if that's uh uh changing.

I feel like I've seen an Abbott and Costello routine here.

What do you say?

I said I feel like I've got an Abbott and Costello routine.

I've asked questions and I can't get answered.

Who's on first?

I don't know what's on second.

I need some answers, and you're not giving them to me.

I don't think they're open right now for business.

But they have got the license business licenses to do that.

They were stocking up the store last time.

I seen the cool the coolers going, they got all the time to stop.

I guess from my standpoint, this thing was approved previously in 2020, and now they're just starting business.

It's set here for six years or something.

I don't know.

I I just need some answers, and you can't you're not giving them to me.

So maybe we need to get the owners up here to have this conversation.

So, Mr.

Chairman, may I call for a vote?

Sure, sure.

May I call for a vote?

You can vote if you know what you're gonna say.

Okay, no, no.

In 20 in April, April 15th, 2025 was the first time they applied for a business license.

And I'm not sure if they're operating currently, but they have a business license as of April 15th, 2025.

Prior to that, we don't have any record of the picking up.

They can open doors tomorrow as a convenience store without sell liquor, hard liquor.

Right, but I don't know what they've been doing since April 2025.

Sell beer and wine.

They could do that if they got their alcoholic.

They could sell alcohol, it's not hard liquor.

Right.

Okay.

See, the reason it took so long, the building was two story, and they were gonna go ahead and do that in me as an engineer and also sent tele engineer.

We saw every cut down.

Everything you say, and we've already heard, so yes, I think we're ready to make a vote.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from commission?

All right, thank you very much.

All right, Commissioner we have a rezoning request, Z2525 ABC Investments petitions rezone the 1515 12th Avenue from IL to GC.

Do you have a motion and a second?

Motion, second, Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

No, no, no, no.

No, no.

All right, Commission.

Next up, we have a companion case that's S9525 and SD0525.

This is the row on 14th town homes, the construction of six town home units at 2420 through 2424 14th Street.

Uh, this is zone DP.

You can see we are just right next to 359 north of 15th Street.

You can see there's three lots today, two homes, one has been demolished, as you can see in this photo here.

And just zooming in, um, just for a little additional detail here.

Uh, they'd like to take this lot, uh, convert it to six town homes, as you can see here through that subdivision, uh, one car garages and a uh parking pad located at the rear of each town home.

Uh, you can see that site plan here with some additional detail.

Uh, no variance requests, but this is a special district petition, which is why this is before you tonight.

Uh, like I said, this property zone DP, downtown perimeter.

Here again, that existing site, uh, that zoning downtown perimeter.

Uh, getting into the special district narrative here, they'd like to build six townhome units, each facing 14th street, um, each unit approximately 1700 square feet, three beds, three baths, one car garage, and a parking pad for each town home uh with additional street parking on 14th street, primary building materials uh will be brick and cementitious siding.

Here again is the site today, uh, that site plan, and then moving into our elevations here.

We have our front elevation, rear, our left side and right side.

Here are our floor plans.

You can see main floor on the left, second floor on the right, uh, and some renderings of those proposed townhome units.

We did not, oh excuse me.

Our architectural review committee did find that overall this meets the development standards for downtown perimeter.

They voted yes to recommend this project to y'all tonight.

Did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Ma'am, thank you.

Petitioner chairman, members of the commission, Brock Quarter, 1307, 25th Avenue.

Uh I think staff uh did a pretty good job explaining the project.

I'm happy to answer any questions uh that you may have on it.

It looked good.

Yeah, thank you.

It looked really good.

Any questions for petition?

Thank you, Mr.

Quarter.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Yeah, all right.

Having heard none, Mission Forest, we have case S 9525, the row of 14th town homes.

Um I have a motion and a second motion, second Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, motion approved.

Commission special district zero five twenty-five, construction of six town homes in the special district located at twenty-four twenty, twenty-four twenty-four, fourteenth street.

Motion second, Mr.

Romsey.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, motion approved.

All right, Commission.

Moving into our preliminary plots, uh, starting with S9625, resurvey of part of lot one and lot two, block 352, Vandegrafts, consisting of one lot on approximately 0.1 acres located at 1714 TY Rogers Junior Avenue, Council District 1.

You can see uh we're west of 359, east of Central Elementary in Westlawn Middle School.

You can see that lot today is vacant, and what they'd like to do is remove that remnant lot line that runs uh right down the middle.

So it's cleaning that up.

Uh we do have one variance request of sidewalks.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the sidewalk.

We have no objection to that request.

Thank you very much.

Petitioner.

Uh Mr.

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

Uh it's just basically covered everything, city water sewers there at the site, and just removing that interior lot line.

It's currently vacant, and they're planning to build a residence there on the site.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard no commission board would have S9625, the resurvey of lot one and two, block repeat two bandages.

One variance request engineering has no issues with you have a motion and a second.

Second, Mr.

Romsey.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes, motion approved.

All right, next up, S time 725, resurvey of lots 83 through 85 warrior edition, consisting of one lot on approximately 0.2 acres, located at 2131 Fifth Street East, Council District 5.

You can see we're in Alberta, north of University Boulevard East, uh, just north of the tennis center.

See the lot is vacant today, uh though it does have two remnant lot lines running through it that they'd like to remove to consolidate the lot.

They're dedicating right-away.

Uh, we do have one variance request for sidewalk construction.

We did not receive any public comments.

Do you have any questions to engineering?

We have no objection to that request.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Um chairman members of board micwire, it's an identical situation, just removing interior lot lines as all city water and sewers there on the site as well.

Don't need to do it.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none, Commissioner Force, we have S9725 Breesorve lot 83 through 85, warrior edition, one variance request sidewalk construction engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

I'm wondering if you should be moonlighting as an auctioneer.

Yeah.

I got that.

I got a doubt.

Sold.

Man, you got the pattern down, but all right, we're going to be able to do that.

Make up a lost time.

S 9825, Jack's family's restaurants, addition to Culver Road, consisting of one lot on approximately 2.2 acres, located at 3605 Culver Road, Council District 1.

See, we're at the intersection of Joe Mallisham, Culver, and Foster's Ferry.

You can see this light.

Um, it's being redeveloped currently.

Um, cleaning up those lot lines to be able to build.

You can see that without contours.

We do have one variance request for sidewalk construction.

We did not receive any public comments.

You have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

No objections to that request.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Good evening, Chairman and Board.

My name is Richard Harwood, 13668, Sharps Lake Road, North Port, Alabama.

And I'm here on behalf of Jax to give Westside hopefully their first franchise.

You know, we're not pass a regulation that if you're a certain distance from a school, you have to, and it took it out of our hands because we got tired of trying to judge on these emotional and you know, if you're a half if you're a half mile from a school, don't you have to put it in sidewalks and it's not up to us?

And in their middle world school about right down the road.

We have that, but you'd have to request a variance otherwise.

Pardon me.

We have that in our subdivision regulations, but you'd have to request a variance if you didn't want to construct the sidewalks.

I thought we put that in because we we wanted them absolutely, and we didn't want it to be up for debate.

Because I mean there are there are residences across um allesham that was if we're if we're gonna do that, then we may as well.

We kept having this deal where you would build a sidewalk to nowhere because there wouldn't be one on either side.

We said, well, that's not really an excuse not to build one necessarily if you're within say a quarter mile or I can't remember if it's a quarter mile or a half mile from a park or a school, or maybe even church.

But this one's a little little unique.

Uh Culver Road is U.S.

Highway 11.

And it's state, it's the state's right-of-way.

Um we did request uh during the review process, and the developers agreed, they are granting us some additional right of way off of Culver Road.

With the anticipation that one day there may be a sidewalk project by the state.

Uh, if if you're familiar north of this location up around Oakdale School, uh there was a sidewalk project done four or five years ago.

Uh we're trying to plan ahead for an extension of that.

But right now I just don't see a merit in them actually building a sidewalk.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

You're gonna be a hero, Harwood.

All right.

See how it goes, Mr.

Harlwood.

Commissioner Force, we have S9825 Jackson Family Restaurants addition to Culver Road, one variance request.

Engineering has no issues with.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Motion.

Second, Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Motion approved.

All right, moving on.

S9925, resurvey of part of lot 10, MC Fitz Farm, consisting of two lots on approximately 9.5 acres, located at 7312 and 7352 Unity Road.

This is not in city limits.

We're actually southwest of the subdivision you just saw.

Um, you can see that lot today.

It does have a home towards Unity Road.

You can see here they'd like to split it into two lots.

Here to see those two lots.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance request.

No objections.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Commission, uh Daryl Key, perk test and surveying West Alabama, 12242, Sanford Oaks Drive, North Port, Alabama.

I think she explained everything pretty well.

The only thing that it doesn't show is this is residence.

Mr.

Lancaster is behind me.

That's that's the reason for the division, is he wants to put a home there and currently lives there on the property, but he wants to put an actual home in his name.

So any questions.

I need to correct myself.

The right-of-way dedication is actually shown on the preliminary plat that was submitted.

So the variance requests that we're in favor of are just the other two.

He's dedicated, he is proposing to dedicate the appropriate amount of right-of-way.

I apologize for my error.

We don't need the variance.

You don't need the variance for that right-of-way dedication.

That's right.

We had rather not, but if it makes things go smoother, the additional right-of-way shouldn't be an issue.

We'll always take the right-of-way if we can get it.

Well, that's kind of where yeah.

You're often taking it doesn't make sense to give it away, but um it doesn't it doesn't property.

So petitioners living in the existing home there, right?

There is an existing home.

It's on the right-hand side would be on lot of the right hand side.

Yes, but uh Mr.

Lancaster, who currently lives on that property, wants to put a home back there on the lot one uh 108.

On the 10 10 8, okay.

He's he's on 10 B, he wants to do on build on 10 A.

He wants to build on T and A.

Lot 10B currently has a home.

Umce we do this, though, that minimum build line is um it's going to interfere with the existing home.

So I don't know if there's variances for that, how we go about that in the future, but the existing home currently will be across the minimum building line.

You said the existing home was located across not conforming then on 10B.

On 10 B.

It's just a non-conforming use.

Right.

If the house is ever destroyed, they can't build it back over set back.

Yeah, couldn't yeah, could build it there again.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, my eyes are terrible, so I'm trying to read as you guys go to.

Um that's the only thing I can think of that would hinder future development for that particular house.

If that house got destroyed, uh it would not meet the 10-foot setback from the side.

Okay.

The MBL.

Any questions?

That's my question.

Any questions?

You want to care speak for or against this request?

Yeah, we in our chair vice chair.

We talked about the lot configuration, you know, it's creating a flag lot.

And with the whole conversation's really around some kind of standard going forward.

I'm just saying it's for the record.

We need to talk about it going forward.

Is that this is county?

It's probably gonna remain county.

So we have to be careful not to set a precedent that doesn't have some kind of justification for approving the lot configuration.

I think that's kind of where we hung our hat, is it's probably not any time soon gonna be part of the city of Tuscaloose.

But it is worth noting that it we are granting a lot configuration variance, lag line.

So I just want that to be on the record.

Is the property adjacent, not Tuscaloose, Alabama?

We got 35401.

England farms.

That's great.

On the map, the lot frontage is 66.

Is that again?

The lot front edge for lot 10A is 66 feet.

So is that is that is that defined by five lot and sixty-six feet?

I mean, that's kind of greater and I think that's what we're trying to establish.

I mean, we got we we we we've tried historic historically not to approve flag lot, but in certain cases we we have, and whether this fits that case or not.

But then as chairman said, this is in the county.

And you've got to have 25 feet, is it 25 or 30 or 30?

County rule is 30.

Yeah.

So he has three.

This one has I mean, this it's different from a lot of them that we see, and it's got larger acreage.

I mean, the scale that's 1.5 acres and seven, almost eight acres they're doing.

not to approve flag lot but in certain cases we we have and whether this fits that case or not but in and as chairman said this is in the county and you've got to have 25 feet is it 25 or 30 or 30 30 county rule is 30 yeah so yeah it's this one has I mean this it's different from a lot of them that we see and it's got larger acreage I mean the scale that's 1.5 acres and seven almost eight acres to do them so and that's one gets on the record so yes I when you start talking about the um the flag lot that's kind of what came to mind is the county rule was 30 um which is kind of step for touch the microphone just like yeah the county rule is 30 so um when you started speaking about that's the reason I came back but the uh when you guys are doing this outside of city limits but it is inside the city's planning jurisdiction that's I guess that's kind of where that difference comes in.

That's why you're here yes sir thank you again do you want to care speak for or against a request having heard no commission before us we have S9925 the resurvey a part of lot 10 MC Fitz farm two variants request lock configuration capsule right away dedication has been granted by the petitioner do I have a motion and a second motion to approve second Ms.

Hornsby yes yes I'm kind of torn on this because we're doing the flag lot which we've we've not approved in the past except a special section I I wish we could I wish Mike I wished you and Zach could get together and see if we could come up with something on this I can't vote for it no I think I mean it's got three times the legal requirement I'm not even sure it is a flag lot but but but I'm gonna vote yes yes yes yes yes motion approved I agree with down some few that I I would like to this it looks like let's figure out what the litmus test is for one tell us you know we're shaped like a flag all right commission moving into other business uh we have a street vacation request that's V 325 vacating 0.24 acres of part of the right of way known as Jordan McE Road abuting unplotted land located south of 3560 Jordan McKee Road council district six you can see we are just north of interstate 20 here you can see that piece to be vacated um kind of backs up to I 20 uh you can see just that plan here showing that right away to be vacated and we have staff comments we did not receive any public comments do you have any questions for staff no ma'am thank you petitioner is there a petition anyone have any comments or questions about this vacation anyone care to speak for against this vacation I haven't heard none all right commission before us we have to ladies are you doing for this petition has none this week yet have we done what history ma'am we're at the end of the yes ma'am we have we didn't get it all right yeah it's um that's already been completed we can talk with them after yeah that's okay they they need some help getting right handy can't say all right okay commission again vacation 0325 as you see on the on the map there all those in favor say aye those opposed never mind eyes have it got it nope we got we got some code updates all right I'll try and go somewhat quick on this because you've had it for about a month now um so I sent this to you guys via email a couple of times we sent this out to stakeholders um posted it on a website for a a week and through all that we've received a few comments from stakeholders and we've incorporated them in here and I'll identify it but other than that we've received positive feedback on the proposed changes um and so just a quick overview how we've gotten here of course we started the new code in January 1 2025 that was a 300 plus page document and as part of this process we are going to keep keep a list of possible updates you know it's not just something that we're gonna throw on a shelf and it's good to go until we update it the next 20 years we're gonna keep a list of updates and that's my staff who's done that that's as well as when we've gotten um you guys to say something hey this isn't quite working or engineers architects developers so up to this point um we've had two code updates thus far uh specifically related to drive throughs and then one specifically related to townhomes but this fall 2025 update it's comprehensive it's not part of any specific topic um and it includes 53 total changes however 35 are clarifications which are just typos or things like that that were just missed and then 18 revisions and so I'm gonna go through the revisions with you guys um it's just to for the sake of you know time because the clarifications are pretty simple so 2530 2531 in definitions um we're just removing that it's only for mixed use or multifamily development for outdoor video displays so that's like a jumbotron or something like that an example of that is we allow these in

However, 35 are clarifications, which are just typos or things like that that were just missed, and then 18 revisions.

And so I'm gonna go through the revisions with you guys.

Um just to for the sake of you know, time because the clarifications are pretty simple.

So 2530 2531 in definitions.

Um, we're just removing that it's only for mixed use or multifamily development for outdoor video displays.

So that's like a jumbotron or something like that.

An example of that is we allow these in open space districts.

Clearly, there's not going to be mixed use or multifamily in that district.

Um this is section 2533 advisory.

Oh, and I forgot to mention I've got it in front of you guys.

The highlighted ones are what we're gonna go over.

The rest is what you know we've y'all kind of looked at already.

Um so 2533, this is zoning board of adjustment, just the membership in terms of office.

We took that out on accident.

We need to put that back in.

Clearly, that's important.

Um, and then zoning map amendments.

So 2536, when areas are annexed into the city, it used to it used to say SFR or sorry, R1.

Clearly, we've got to change that because now it's SFR1.

And then we're also proposing to change within half a mile of Lake Tuscaloosa, you come in as LR so that they don't have to rezone to LR when they come into the city limits.

Next up, we've got development within a special district.

So this is something that was in our previous code that we needed to put back.

So if there's a conflict, so say a special district uh development is also in a historic district.

It used to be that the historic preservation commission prevailed, and so that would just go through HPC instead of you guys.

We're adding that back in.

Um it just simplifies the process.

HPC is more restrictive than the the regulations that we have at Planning and Zoning Commission.

Um y'all can stop me if you have any questions.

So this noticed that it wouldn't be 2540 is not hand down.

Oh, yes, 2540.

Oh, sorry.

A caveat to that is we actually identified that after we posted it as staff that we need to put that back in.

Okay.

Um my bad.

2561 is in your packet, um, and that was posted online.

So this is to correct the minimum town townhouse lot size.

Um, and I'll just give you an example.

So that's that 2600 square feet instead of 3,000.

Um, and then I'm just gonna say that's in uh lake multifamily, but then we're also fixing it in MR1.

You can see 1900 instead of 2900.

And the reason being is we've found that um if you take the setbacks, you take the minimum lot size about 20 feet for a typical town home, you incorporate the setbacks in there with the lot width, you get uh 1900 square feet for MR1.

Um we want to see here on the right hand side, we want to see developments like this where you've got your townhome lot, but then you have basically your you know common space lot as one lot rather than when people are trying to meet that minimum lot size, they're just you know, they're just making huge lots in order just to meet that minimum lot size.

So it really cleans it up, it meets it doesn't change anything related to how you can develop um it's just a cleaner end result.

Um so going on, this is 2584.

So this kind of kind of came about from our uh drive-thru update.

So you can see number three there.

Uh we need to add that property with direct access to a street classified as a minor arterial grader, not within this area.

Don't they don't have a maximum front setback?

And so um the whole idea is university commercial.

You want that walkability, you want the buildings close to the um close to the street, so you can walk straight up into the front door.

However, some areas not bounded in that area, number three, are next to places like 15th Street or something like that, the old BAMable site.

Clearly, you want to push that back from the street.

So that's what that is.

Yeah, what sort?

The BAM old Bammable site.

Neighborhood commercial, so this just needed to be switched.

The minimum setback shall be 20 feet along streets classified as collector street or greater, and then the maximum to be 20 feet along other streets.

So essentially, this is kind of what I was just talking about, where um you don't want buildings closer to the street on busier high, you know, on busier roads, you kind of want to push those back and vice versa.

And so it was just written in correct incorrectly, and so we're fixing that.

This is allowing um putting a P in the column for dwelling duplex to permit do uh duplexes within the R district, the um the riverfront district.

So we already allow them in RPD and in RPD.

So if someone were to come forward with that, we want to also allow them an R.

Um it just makes sense in that regard.

This is a big fix.

So in R D D P D H E and UC districts, we had written in that no more than two bedrooms in each dwelling unit.

We want to make that three instead of two, two is pretty restrictive.

Um three is what we typically see.

So moving on to section 25101.

This is a new regulation for private event spaces.

So in all districts, no private event space greater than 100 occupants, she'll be within 500 feet of a bar use or other private event space.

So something like downtown social, which is a large private event space.

You can't have another large private event space within 500 feet, just kind of just kind of spreads them out a little bit.

You know, there's queuing and things like that that are issues, parking.

So this is the two dimes room.

Right.

Okay.

Um next, 25105.

So this is adding adding this as a special exception.

Um so MR1, adding a special exception for group daycare homes.

We already have it in SFR5 and MR2.

We just forgot to put the S in MR1.

So it's really kind of a clear a typo.

Here is section 25105 accessory uses and structures table.

So this is removing the permitted in D and DP to not allow outdoor video displays in these districts.

So hypothetically, if there was to be a jumbotron or something like that, downtown or downtown perimeter, it would likely be zoned in institutional.

Um so we're just removing that.

And again, just you know, jump in if you have any questions.

Section 25106, general standards for all accessory uses and structures.

So we want to change the maximum square footage from 600 to 650.

Those other two are just typos there, but the real change is the 600 to 650.

And the reason we want to do that is we want to actually remove in section 25107, which is accessory dwelling units.

We want to remove the 650 and just have everything like accessory dwelling units and accessory structures to be 650 instead of having to kind of bounce back between the two because 50 square feet is not significant enough.

So it's really just simplifying that 2511.

So these are um providing the ability for me to if I see something like a this is for a special event.

So if someone comes in and they want to do a special event, have a large party or something like that on a property.

Uh, they don't have to get a special event permit in some of these instances.

However, we want the ability for me to be able to say, actually, hold on, even though you don't require it because your special event is limited to less than 50 people.

Uh I see this as something that could be an issue that I want TPD or engineering or fire to look at.

Um so it just kind of gives the flexibility there for the city to kind of have a little bit more control over some events.

This next one, material and design and section 25150.

So in the downtown and downtown perimeter, historic edge and riverfront districts.

This essentially is we don't want you to have a we currently you could put up an eight-foot privacy fence in your front yard.

This is to prevent that.

We already prevent it in multifamily and in residential districts.

We need to do that in business districts.

Um section 25179.

This is something that was omitted in our it was in our previous code, it was omitted in the new one.

This is for electronic, digital, and video technology signs.

Basically, we're putting that back in.

One of the biggest things is the um one there, so it can't change more than eight seconds.

So really it's not like a TV, it's like, hey, we've got a billboard eight seconds later, we've got another advertisement, eight seconds later, something like that.

So we wanted to put that back in.

That's a safety measure.

Safety for sure.

Yeah.

Um and then 25182.

This is for shopping center signs, just clarifying.

It's clearly we wouldn't allow them in public right away, but we want to put that in the code and uh clarify that a maximum of one street sign one such sign is allowed per street frontage.

We got to change that to frontage.

Um whether or not you have an entrance.

So and that's how we had been regulating it in the previous code.

So those are the the code updates that do need a recommendation of voice vote okay.

Okay, commission uh heard from Mr.

Pons on these code changes.

All those in favor of those code changes, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

And then next up, we just need to vote on our 2026 meeting dates and deadlines.

All those in favor of approving the 2026 meeting dates and deadlines.

Say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

We are