Good evening and welcome to the April 2026 meeting of the City of Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission.

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

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

We have Mr.

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

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

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

Marsby.

Ann Hornsby, attorney.

Councilwoman Raven Howard, District 2.

Eddie Pugh, retired.

Stephen Rumsey, Business Owner.

This duly UACAP is developed.

Jim Harrison, General Contractor.

A Bill Wright Business Owner.

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

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

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

The nice 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, we'll then call upon the petitioner to present their case.

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

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

Thereafter will call upon any partner in order to sign up in opposition to the petition.

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

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 uh 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 they have received all uh the pertinent information, then close further discussion by the public, at which time the commission will discuss the matter and then vote.

After the vote, you are free to leave.

These proceedings are video recorded and broadcast live.

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

Jurisdiction.

In all matters pertaining to the following items, this commission serves as the final authority.

One subdivisions located within city limits.

Two, subdivisions located outside city limits, but within the city's planning jurisdiction, and three, developments with a special district, and four approval letters for developments in historic buffer districts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, please state for the record.

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

It has.

All right.

With that, we will begin with the approval of the minutes as the planning and zoning commission have received the synopsis of the March 2026 meeting.

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

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Steph, I think we have some items that are gonna move off of the you gonna do framework first, or you will do yes.

We'll address the uh items that moved off the consent agenda here in a little bit.

All right, so since we have oh pretty much half or most of our frequent flyers in the room tonight with a huge agenda, um, we thought this would be a good opportunity to give you a little teaser.

So our subdivision regulations update is coming.

Um so framework, as you all know, the conference plan was adopted in 2021, our zoning ordinance in 2024, the sub regs were adopted in September 1980.

So they are due for um modernization.

So a couple of key points that we're gonna hit that we heard through the framework process through a survey that we had you know sent out related to the subregs.

We want to modernize modernize the regulations and align those with framework, develop lake-specific standards, create procedures for master planning and phasing, as well as simplify the processes for things like lot consolidations.

Um I know we've got a QR code.

This might be somewhat of a long meeting, but we do have since we I think it was 2022 that we did the survey previously.

Um we created a new survey uh with four questions.

Um pretty simple, but we just want to hear from land surveyors, engineers, as to what they think you know needs to change or needs to be updated within the zoning or within the um subdivision regulations.

So I'll leave this up for a quick second.

We'll also email this out to all of y'all as well.

Um but you know, to kill some time during this meeting, you could also do it right now if you'd like.

Um, but I can answer any questions with you guys.

So you know, hopefully, next um meeting we'll have more of a laid out plan as to you know, as to what we're gonna go over and how long it's gonna take, like we did with framework and the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

All right.

So staff question on the two items that are moving off the consent agenda.

Will they fall in the numerical order?

They are listed as, or will they no?

So uh Miss Coin is gonna come up and lead you through these.

All right, Commission.

The consent agenda tonight.

We have three items.

I believe someone accidentally signed up on S2526.

Um they cross it off, so that one can stay on consent agenda unless we have someone here tonight.

Uh but S2926, we did receive public comment ahead of the meeting, so that one will be first on the cases to be heard tonight.

So no one else signed up, but if anyone else is here, um we can double check.

You had a sign-up sheet on S2526.

So they crossed their name out, so I believe it was an accident.

Um we're gonna move all those to cases to be heard after we just do it the unfinished so only S2926, S2326, and S2526.

Unless someone's in the audience that didn't sign up, you're able to keep those on the consent agenda tonight.

Okay.

All right.

So we have two items on the consent agenda, which is S2326 and 2526 will stay on the consent agenda.

2926 rolls off.

I think it's only fair we ask does anyone here have you questions about 2526 or 2326?

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Forrest, we have those two items on the consent agenda, meaning all regulations and approvals necessary.

Do I get a uh aye if you approve or nay if you do not approve?

So all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Ayes have it.

All right, we do have one case requesting the withdrawal tonight.

That is S3126, and the petitioner is here to request that.

Petitioner Jonathan Gewin, uh 1333 Downing Ridge, Tuscle Sal6.

Here to request withdrawal of this petition.

I was the original petitioner for this.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions for the petitioner?

All right, Commissioner, we have a withdrawal request for S 3126.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Thank you.

All right, moving into unfinished business.

We're gonna start with a rezoning petition tonight.

That is Z0726.

James Beard in petitions to rezone approximately 0.2 acres located at 2842 18th Street from MR1 to SFR5.

This is council district one.

Is this continued from the March meeting?

See, we're just west of or excuse me, east of West Lawn Middle School.

Um you see that property today.

Um satellite imagery is a little out of date.

That house has already been demoed.

Um you can see the existing zonings, MR1.

Here's that property today.

You can see that house has been removed.

Um the African is requesting this rezoning change from MR1 to SFR5 to build a duplex.

Um and here is a conceptual site plan.

So the whole lot you can see on the left side, and then I just zoomed in on the the duplex units on the right for a little additional detail here.

Um and like I said, this is conceptual at this time.

Um staff does have cons some concerns with the layout as presented.

Um here's some sample floor plans.

You can see the first floors on the right, second floor on the left.

Um and framework, this property is identified as traditional neighborhood core.

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

You can see that identified here.

Here are permitted uses in SFR5.

Um, and you'll see a duplex, it is permitted in their existing zoning of MR1.

Um they're not meeting the lot requirements to build in their existing zoning.

Uh, we did not receive any written public comment.

I know we had a few folks last month, and some folks did sign up to speak tonight.

But do you have any questions for staff?

Who backed up the uh street view of of the property that house on the right, is that vehicle parked on the grass, or is that that's not a parking spot, is it?

It looks like it might be parked on the grass.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

Staff petitioner, James Beardon, 2420 12th Street, Tuscalist Alabama 35401.

Staff on the I'm gonna staff a question first.

On the um pull back up the site plan, please.

So I'm seeing two-car parking in the front, correct?

I'll have to change that per speaking with uh zoning.

Looks like four-car parking in the city.

I guess my question is how are you gonna?

I mean, you have to fundamentally change the whole building, wouldn't you?

I just put two.

We're gonna put the parks in.

I'll put two in the back and two in the front.

Accessing the two in the back of the alley.

Yes, sir.

But even still, are we gonna encourage that?

I mean, is that where we're going?

I mean, the word traditional.

I mean if we start it, are we gonna be able to stop it?

You know what I'm talking about, Bill.

Contrary to the plan we put together downtown.

Leo, do you you when you when you describe this?

You said that fundamentally y'all had an issue with the current layout.

What was the primary concern is the four cars parked in the front yard?

Um, we would allow a maximum of 20 feet of paving for the zoning ordinance.

Um, and I believe in this zone, a maximum of 50 percent overall paving in the front yard.

So between the four cars, it's not meeting the parking requirements.

So I guess Mr.

Beard, my my issue with this is that I mean I understand the process by which you're going through, and we're trying to change the zoning so you can conform with this use, but without us seeing the actual product that's going here, it's hard for us to make a decision.

Okay.

And this is just this is this seems to be just a schematic representation of what you could do there because you're having to do all the changes, these changes to make to make concessions.

Okay.

So need to show another parking layout.

I would like to show you what you're actually gonna build.

I I know for me, if I can interject, I would like to see more details.

I mean, of of what you actually like, as he just said, I don't know how else to say it, but what you actually plan to do in a way that that conforms with what you are requesting here before us today.

Okay.

So how wide?

I'm trying to so the lot is 50 feet wide, is that right?

Yes, sir.

So you could get, I guess if you if they allowed you to go property line to property line, you can get four and a half spaces at nine feet wide and maybe closer to five at eight and a half.

I'm I'm doing some quick math.

Could you not bay park four to the rear in that in that schematic and get them out of the front yard?

That would be preferable.

Okay, but then their primary access to the driveway would be through the alley.

Yes, and and then of course you'd have street parking.

I didn't say a yellow curve.

I mean, they could park on the street, it appears, so guests could park in the front access, and the owners or tenants or whatever could park to the rear legally, and we could reestablish for not start a president that could well Mr.

Barry, I obviously you acknowledge you have some work to do, and you and the councilman's asking for a better, more clear visual of what you're gonna build, I think.

So you got an option.

You can you can ask for a vote and we can vote on this, what we see here, or you can ask for a continuance and try to work the bugs out with the staff on what they want, and maybe give them this Howard and or at least have some show her that makes her feel more comfortable.

If he if he if he if he kind of made a pinky promise to may park from the rear and and get that approved by Mike and staff.

Well, we also have some public comment as well.

We do, and we'll hear those.

He did okay.

All right, well, what I tell you, the best thing we can do here is let these folks spent time effort to get up here and hear them as well.

That way you'll hear their concerns and maybe in this whole pre-process you can kind of help put them at peace too.

Sure.

Right.

You're gonna ask for continuance, correct?

Is I hear that's that's fine.

That's what I think would be wise.

Okay, so have a seat for a minute.

Let's call these people up real quick and let's hear from them.

Mr.

Chairman, first person's uh signed up to speak is Ms.

Beverly Wilson.

Yeah, my name is Beverley D.

Wilson.

I live at Peter 416, Third Court East, Tuscaloose, Alabama, 3545.

My church is near this dwelling, near this uh property.

And I was wondering why it's our single dwelling on that street, and now he wanted to make a duplex.

And one of the dwellings has had a renovation, somebody bought it and renovated the house, and uh they moved in.

And he was saying it was an alley.

I don't know where the alley is.

It's not an alley.

Oh, it doesn't exist in the back of it.

It doesn't exist.

No.

That's a problem.

And I've I've gone to church, I'm 75 years old, so I've been in that neighborhood that long.

And the house next door, they said there was I know the man next door to on the right has uh a driveway.

Now, whether somebody parking on the grass every now and then, I don't know.

Are we not looking in a paved alley?

I've said, can we do a streetscape on that real quick?

Isn't that an alley?

That's like an alley right behind you, what alley where?

It's off that 29th alley.

That's another street.

That's an alley.

That's an alley.

That's what he's talking about.

That's what he's talking about.

He's that's he's calling that the alley.

Yeah.

That's that's now oh okay, thank you.

Yeah, but the clarification.

That's all that helped that's okay.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Everybody on the streetscape, cancel that.

Mr.

Chairman, next person signed up from Cheryl Lewis.

She would have been y'all together.

Did you both sign up?

I signed up.

Yeah, yeah, come on, kill two words of one snow.

Let's go.

Cheryl Lewis.

Northport Alabama 35473.

And I'm Alena Wilson, 5124, Pano Trail, Northport, Alabama.

3541.

35473.

I'm sorry.

No, we we do have some questions because I do have a lot there.

And they were saying that they want to rezone 0.2 of my uh lot for this to happen.

And so I have some questions about rezoning my property for this to happen.

Oh okay.

And that lot is right behind where he's trying to do.

So every time y'all say put a car.

I don't think we're rezoning your lot to make this happen.

It said two-point something on the house.

Yes, it does.

No, we're not rezoning yourself.

We should not be rezoning your property.

Somebody else's rezoning.

So we're rezoning Mr.

Beard's property.

Yeah.

So y'all be zoning his property.

Yeah.

Oh, he's requesting to rezone his property.

Yes, ma'am.

So it's not gonna take from our lot.

No, no, ma'am.

No, no, no.

It's just that's just the size of his lot.

What you read is just the size of his lot that belongs to him, not you.

Okay, I think that's what the confusion is because it's kind of sounded like he was taking uh point two of our lot, which is behind him.

So every time y'all say he can drive or take from that lot.

Oh, okay.

You were being rezoned because you're adjacent property.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I'm sorry, notifying.

Not rezoned.

Okay.

Okay, as long as it don't mess with our light.

Yeah, you're nothing changed.

Yeah, yes, but it is like it the park, the uh like the parking.

I don't see how the parking can happen there.

Like some in the back.

I just don't see enough land there for the mountain.

So that's why I said he kind of confuses us because when he says he can park in a bag, then it's no bag, and he wanted to be a big on his park on his property.

Access and using that alleyway to get there.

That's as long as we we it doesn't affect you guys at all.

Okay, everything's say the same.

Okay, because there's no alley, so I guess that's what the confusion is.

That is an alley.

It looks like it's paid, but it's a street name.

Oh, it's a nice alley.

Yeah, there's a lot of confusion.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, ladies.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else care speak for or against?

Yeah, all right.

Uh Fisher, please come back up the so at least you heard the people did sign up.

So now you have to formally ask for a continuance.

I like to ask for continuous.

Fair enough.

All right, commission.

Before us, we have case Z0726.

Mr.

James Beard asking for a continuance.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, ayes have it.

Case continue.

All right, next up we have a preliminary plat.

That is S1226 BH Robinson, consisting of two lots on approximately 0.5 acres located at 2803 and 2805 Herman Avenue.

This was in conjunction with Z0426, Council District 1.

This is continued from the March hearing.

Just to remind you, last month you saw the rezoning associated with this.

That was Z0426, SFR3 to SFR4 tonight.

We were just looking at the subdivision.

Um, so just a little refresher.

This is the lot today.

It's vacant off of Herman Avenue, north of 29th Street.

You can see that um vacant lot, and here's what it looks like from the road today.

Um, to remind you, there were two homes here previously.

The applicant wanted to rezone for the ability to be able to put back two homes pictured here to today.

Um now looking at the preliminary plot.

Um, you all recommended the rezoning last month um as part of this.

So they have the two lots here today with contours without no variance requests.

We did not receive any public comments.

Do you have any questions for staff?

So this was because we didn't have a quorum last month.

Okay, gotcha.

This is because we didn't have the the six members to vote on the subdivision piece.

Okay, right.

I'd have helped for those who aren't here.

Any uh cases that we heard uh other let us let it remind us what how we voted for those two if you don't mind right.

So it was recommended unanimously for approval.

The rezoning was yeah, well, I think okay, petitioner, Mr.

Chairman members commission, Chris Centel, Centel Engineering, 639 Black Bears Way.

Uh like you they said this did a good job of explaining uh there were two houses there before they're torn down, and uh the developer wants to build two new houses, single family residentials.

Uh answered your questions.

You weren't here, but we definitely liked what he showed us to build.

Let's just hope he builds what he showed us.

Yes, what did you say, Bill?

I said he showed us what he was gonna build, and I think we all unanimously like what we saw compared to what was there.

And let's hope he builds what he showed us.

Everything in my power.

There you go.

But but we're still encouraging parking in the front yard.

Any uh any questions?

Uh petitioner.

I mean stepped away, but was Rumsey have a comment?

Uh I can't remember what it looked like.

I'm sure it's great, but it would it does show parking in the front yard again.

Yes, it was parking in the front.

I mean, and he's got all the backyard in the world, but no access.

Yep, but are they already been built?

Okay, if he hadn't built them yet, he'd drive right down the side and redraw.

That's true.

That's a fact.

I mean, if it hadn't been built, I mean it would be requested.

I mean, does it say plan meeting framework?

It is conceptual at this time.

Yeah, it's not held to the at least you got one house on a 52-foot wide lot, so it's not cramming two.

It's better than the last situation.

So all right, uh speak for or against this petition request.

All right, having heard none commission before us, we have S1226, the BH Robinson two lot subdivision.

All those in well, I need to get a motion and a second motion, sorry, Mr.

Rumsey.

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

All right, next preliminary plat.

This is S 1326, STNL, Harky Lane, free survey of lot four, Harkey property, phase two, and unplatted land.

This is one lot on approximately 1.37 acres located at and around 4730 Harky Lane.

Last month, this is in conjunction with ANO426 and Z0526, Council District 3, and not in city limits, continued from our previous hearing.

So to remind you of those cases, we had an annexation of 0.4 acres, a rezoning from SFR1 to general commercial.

That was unanimously recommended last month.

Tonight we're looking at a law consolidation on this property.

So just to remind you, we are near the intersection of rice mine and old colony.

Um, these are the four lots today.

They are vacant.

Um, they'd like to consolidate them.

You can see here um with the goal to build a vet clinic.

Um that's why they annexed and rezoned a piece as part of this.

Um, you can see that plot with contours without no variance requests.

We did not have any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

No, ma'am.

Petitioner.

The petitioner came down last month from Ohio, and y'all didn't have any questions, so he's not here tonight, but if you have any questions for us, we're happy to answer.

Any questions of staff for this subdivision?

Okay, having heard none.

All right, Commissioner Force.

We have S 1326 STNL Harky Lane.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Motion to approve.

Ms.

Hornsby.

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

All right, next up is S1526 resurvey of lot three and four, old farmhouse subdivision.

This is one lot on approximately 6.2 acres located south of 18441 John Swindle Road.

This is not in city limits.

This is continued from the March hearing.

See, we are way north off of 43.

See those two lots of state are vacant.

They'd like to remove that middle lot line, create one large lot.

See that with contours without one variance request.

We did not receive any written public comment.

We did have someone come last month to the hearing.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance request.

Uh no issues with that variance request.

Thank you, sir.

Petitioner.

Um Mr.

Chairman, members of board on Michael McGuire, Guardian Associates.

Um, she pretty much covered it.

We're just removing that one interior flat line.

Uh I think our clients can build actually right on that line.

And that's it.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none.

Commissioner for us, we have S1526 survey of lots three and four old farmhouse subdivision.

I have a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

With one carrying capsule engineering issue with Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up, another preliminary plat.

This is S 1626, Amber Drive addition to North Side.

This is two lots on approximately 19 acres located at 11242 Amber Drive.

This is not city limits.

This is continued from the March hearing.

See again, way north on the lake here.

They have one lot today with an existing home, and they'd like to split it into two lots.

You can see here with contours.

Here's a plot without.

We have four variance requests.

We received one public comment last month.

We did not receive any additional public comment this month.

So you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the four variance requests.

We're in agreement with those.

Thanks, sir.

Petitioner.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, Marty Montgomery, McGomber Ninkel Land Surveying 203 Hargrove Road East, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, representing the lenders in this uh property division.

Uh they're just wanting to sell the house and uh re retain the 14 acres in the rear for personal use.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you, sir.

Did have someone sign up?

Mr.

Chairman, we had one person sign up in favor of Mr.

Thomas Snyder.

Lender Linder, I'm sorry, Linda.

Mr.

Linder.

He's on Tim Cast.

He signed up.

Do you care speak, Mr.

Linder?

Can I ask Mike a question?

Can I ask Mike Gardner a question?

Yes.

You good?

Okay.

Mike Mike Gardner.

What are they?

What do they need the uh variants for on the road front?

Is there 30 not yet?

It'll be what it serves that property today that the county recognizes.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

All right.

Having heard none, Commission, before us, we have S 1626, Amber Drive addition to North Side.

Four variance requests.

Engineering has no issues with.

So Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right, Commission.

Another preliminary plat.

This is S1726, Martin Estates.

This is a resurvey of lots.

One R and two R Martin crossings consisting of 26 lots, two open space lots on approximately 38.2 acres.

We're north of 85 Martin Road, west of 12860 Martin Spur Road, and east of 200 Martin Road.

This is not in city limits.

This is continued from the March hearing.

Here that lot today.

Both are vacant.

It was denied.

They came back for a waiver of Rule 13.

And now you can see the submitted site plan from last month.

Excuse me.

Now you can see that with contours without.

Now just zooming in so you can see some additional detail here starting at the north end and moving south.

We do have three variance requests.

We received uh no public comment last month, five public comments in opposition this month.

Do you have any questions for staff?

First engineering on the variance request.

We're in favor of granting those variances.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Petitioner.

Good evening, Commissioner Robert Martin with Duncan Coker Associates representing Beaker Property Group.

I want to go over the um the changes we've made to the layout since our original submittal.

Um we originally had a shared access drive in the southwest corner there serving three lots.

There was some concern over the the maintenance and use of that driveway.

So we've eliminated the shared driveway and converted that that area to two estate lots, which will have individual driveways.

But there's currently a thousand cars in the AMP and 800 cars in the PMP.

We'll be adding 22 cars in the morning and 28 cars in the afternoon.

So that's roughly a one percent increase in the traffic along Martin Road.

Um traffic volumes indicated there's not sufficient for a turn lane in either direction.

Um it has acceptable levels of service in each direction.

That's the high points of the traffic study.

Um I'm sure we can go into more detail if needed.

Engine Beaker does want to come up and say a few words, but if you have any questions for me, be happy to answer those.

Staff, did we get did y'all get a copy of that uh report from traffic study?

Yes, sir.

We did.

And I'm in agreement with it.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Beaker.

Good evening.

Uh in S Beaker 6500 waterfront drive.

I'm a local developer here in Tuscaloosa, and uh appreciate the chance to come up and speak.

Uh we had this project a few months ago, and we took the feedback seriously, and so we we implemented the changes, got rid of the flag lots.

Uh we um we doubled the uh buffer on the meaningful sides on the Martin Road Spur, and we also um what's it uh so we we did the the flag lots, did oh, we did the traffic study.

So uh we feel like this is a low density project, it's one to three acre residential lots.

Uh it's gonna be somewhere in the 450 to 550,000 dollar range house.

We feel like this fits the area well, and we really look forward to to doing this project and would love your consideration and happy to answer any and all questions.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, um you coming back up or you good?

Okay, all right.

Anyone sign up for this?

Anyone in the audience cares speak for or against this petition request, please come forward?

State your name and address for the record, please.

Andrew Hamner.

I live at 11 Martin Road.

On the traffic study.

Well, you said it didn't really matter last time, but I mean we did it when there was no traffic on the road, and I was asking about the uh the sewer, and that being a total flood zone.

I mean, what what about the sewer systems down there?

What about you know, just cap sewer septic tanks everywhere, and it being a complete flood zone, you know, like it is.

Um the other question I had was uh did they do anything on the entrance far as um is there any gonna be any kind of turning lanes being it's in that turn right there and people coming around that turn?

Did we do anything with that?

Um I think I heard we say that the traffic study didn't warrant a necessarily having a turn lane, correct?

Is that what I heard, Mike?

Yeah, it it so the traffic study the warrants for a left turn or right turn were not they didn't meet the criteria okay for for left turns or right turns as far as the septic system just gonna have to meet the county regs for them to install the septic system if they got water issues.

Yeah, I knew the last the last two times we've tried this, they said it perked, but nothing was really perking like they wanted it to on you know 25.

So thank y'all.

Thank you.

Anyone else care to speak for or against having heard none?

Any final questions of this body to the staff?

Are the uh petitioner have any additional comments or want to make any comments on what was brought up?

Yeah, I just I just want to clarify that we will each lot will have to perk and be permitted through the health department before the platter is recorded.

So if there's an issue with that, we won't be able to plat the lots.

Thank you.

Okay, any final questions this body to staff?

Okay, all right.

Having heard none, we'll close and we will take up case S1726 Martin Estates.

We back up those variance requests, please.

Uh three variance requests, which engineering has no issues with.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Motion to approve, second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right, Commission.

This is our last piece of unfinished business tonight.

This is S1826, resurvey of lot one, Skelton Corner, and part of lot two, Cleveland Farms.

This is a reconfiguration of two lots on approximately 25.6 acres, located at 12489 Hidden Falls Drive and 17539 and 17541 Wagon Trail Lane.

This is not in city limits.

This is continued from the March hearing.

You see the existing lots today.

There's two lots here.

They are reconfiguring those two lots.

And just to clarify the change here, this is the new proposed lot line in pink.

So you can see that with contours without.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

No issues with those variants requests.

Thank you.

Robert McPherson, 42 4121 Vasi Drive, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Here on behalf of uh Joe Freddie Calchon and Ms.

Ernest Smith.

And uh their intention is she needed some more money, and he's purchasing the land, the additional land.

And that's it.

No changes to no excavations, no new buildings or anything.

Couldn't clean those lot lines up a little bit.

Do what?

You couldn't clean those lot lines up a little bit.

That's that's the most that's the craziest looking lot.

I think I've got to be able to do that.

What a mess.

I'm afraid too.

It's just it's a mess up in there, but I oh my gosh.

All right.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thanks, sir.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none, Commission.

Before us, we have S 1826, the resurvey lot one skeleton corner in part two of Lot 2, Cleveland Farms.

We have some variance requests uh for which engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion second, Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, motion approved.

All right, moving into cases to be heard tonight.

We're gonna start with S2926.

This is the item on the consent agenda that was pulled off due to public comment.

Um so this is Collier Row, a resurvey of part of lots 364 and 365 original survey of the city, Tuscaloosa, because since oh, consisting, excuse me, of five lots and one common space lot on approximately 0.7 acres located at 905 almond avenue.

This is council district four.

You can see we are downtown, um, south of the federal courthouse on almond avenue.

You can see the property today does have a remnant lot line on it in an existing home.

Um, this is the street view from Almond Avenue, just to refresh your memory of the house.

Um proposing five lots here, four town home lots in a proposed common area in the back, keeping the existing home on its own lot.

You can see that without contours.

Um here's the site plan.

So this has already been before the historic preservation commission.

Um we'll just kind of look through that briefly tonight just to give you an idea of what um the historic preservation commission saw.

So this is the design of the proposed town homes.

Um, this is it next to the existing home and an angle um showing the rear access to the town homes.

Um we do not have any variance requests.

We received one public comment in support um that had some requests of you all that was sent your way, and then one comment in opposition to this request.

Do you have any questions for staff?

The historic preservation commission.

It was approved.

Correct.

All right, back and share those.

All right.

Uh petitioner.

Good evening, Commission.

Jimmy Duncan with Duncan Coker Associates here tonight representing Crawford Crawford Nixon Construction Company.

Leota pretty much covered everything.

No variance request.

We've been through HPC a couple months ago.

Any questions for the petitioner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No one signed up.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Okay.

All right.

Having heard none, which was on a consent agenda.

Can we take a yay or nay vote on it?

Since this item was on consent agenda.

Um all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, I saw.

All right, next up we have a rezoning petition.

This is Z0826.

Longleaf Engineering petitions to rezone approximately 1.25 acres.

Um, this is west of Le Vera Drive at 2093 Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Um, and the requests rezoning is from SFR1 to GC General Commercial.

This is Council District 6.

So you can see we are east of Home Depot in Target, south of Veterans Memorial Parkway.

That lot today is vacant.

Um now, just to align with the site plan.

We're looking north, is to our left here, just to clarify.

Um see that existing zoning, it's SFR1, single family residential one.

Um, here's a photo looking into the lot from La Vera Drive.

Um, and then this is on the north side of Veterans Memorial Parkway looking towards the property.

Um, they'd like to rezone from SFR1 to GC to build a contractor's office and small retail associated with this use.

Here's a conceptual site plan that you all saw in the packets.

Um we got a new a new version, um, an updated version here after packets were posted, as well as some elevations for what this could look like.

Um, and framework this is identified as limited commercial.

Um, this request does conform as well as the use.

And you can see that future land use character identified here.

Here are permitted uses and GC.

Clicking through these.

Um, we did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Yeah, thank you.

Petitioner.

Good evening, Tom Sams with Longleaf Engineering on behalf of uh developer Clay Smith.

Uh this is pretty straightforward uh request.

Uh general commercial front and veterans here.

It's uh surrounded mostly on commercial uh on either side of it and across the street.

So he just has in mind to try to develop us a sort of a retail establishment with some storage uh that's associated with it.

He's in some discussions with some potential tenants, hadn't wrapped that up yet, but that's the plan back at the drawer.

Can we see the photograph into the property again?

And after that, show the rendering again, please.

Is that level?

Yes, ma'am, for the most part.

Is it yes ma'am?

Thank you.

Any any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Okay, having heard none, commission before us we have Z0A26, long leaf petitions to rezone the uh 290 2093 Veterans Memorial Parkway from SFR1 to GC.

I have a motion and a second.

Motion second, Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Motion approved.

All right, Commission.

Next up, we have a companion case.

This is River Bend Ranch Subdivision.

Um, five parts here.

We have an annexation, three rezoning requests, and a subdivision.

So overall, we're looking at 5.5 acres.

We are at and around 4178 and 4202 Rice Mine Road Northeast, beginning with the annexation piece.

Um, we're annexing, excuse me, they're requesting to annex here 1.05 acres.

Um, you can see the overall site here.

So this is the whole 5.5 acres on rice mine.

See, there are some existing homes.

Um, they've been doing a lot of clearing work in the last couple weeks here.

Um this is a few weeks old.

I know the the land's been further cleared at this point, but this is looking from rice mine road.

Um, and overall um their request is this site plan here, um, conceptual site plan of multifamily in the rear and two commercial lots fronting rice mine.

So, with that, now getting into the annexation.

This is the piece requesting to be annexed into city limits.

You can see that property be annexed in the blue hatch.

Um city limits in yellow.

They'd like to annex it in for this multifamily and commercial subdivision.

Uh that piece is in the primary expansion area, and here are department comments on the annexation.

All right, moving into the rezonings now.

So gonna go through these all at once.

I think it'll be a little clearer.

Uh but we're looking at 2.5 acres going from general commercial GC to MFR multifamily residential.

Another 1.1 acres going from SFR1, uh single family residential one to multifamily residential MFR, and then lastly, 0.04 acres uh requesting to go from SFR1 uh to general commercial GC.

So these are all those pieces um highlighted here.

Um you can see that existing zoning um on the property.

Um again, they're requesting this rezoning to match the site plan and the preliminary plat for this proposed development.

You can see that here.

So lot three being that multifamily apartments, lots one and two being commercial lots.

And these are all the pieces they're requesting to rezone.

So I think this makes it a little more clear.

Um, kind of that orange color is GC to MFR, that red piece is SFR1 to GC, and the yellow SFR1 to MFR to match the site plan.

Um here's a rendering um drawing rather of the proposed apartments here, and again the site plan showing um all three lots in framework.

This property is identified as limited commercial.

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

Um, small multifamily residential is identified as a secondary use in this um future land use character.

You can see that identified here.

Getting into our permitted uses.

So, first, this is um in multifamily residential MFR, and then moving into GC general commercial, clicking through those here.

Um, we received six comments in opposition to this request.

Do you have any questions for staff?

We go back the very first picture of the I guess the clearing of the lot.

I have a question about what I saw.

Okay, right there.

To the left of that driveway, is that the gainwood subdivision?

And am I seeing it?

Is that the rooftops over there?

Yeah, so approximately here.

Yeah, right there.

Yep, to the left.

So those are so basically the rooftops are about level with the development site.

I think it's further to the it's the next tree line is where the gains will where the it's right at the edge of the the pictures where can you pull up the site plan?

Uh that is the line.

So this is gainswood along this this side.

So that's right there where we're looking at that line of tree, small trees and the rooftops we were looking at, right?

Right.

Okay.

That's just so one of the here is that driveway that you're seeing in the image.

That's the one that's being taken out.

Right.

That's okay.

That's the one that exists today in that image.

So you can get a feel for where that property line is.

But but to your point, was that a was that a power line easement going down through there?

Is that I didn't see that.

Now can you go back one more time?

It just wasn't sure.

Are those is that a power line easement or is that or are those power lines just on my screen?

I think the petitioner might be able to answer that when he comes up.

I would love them.

You follow what I'm looking at.

Yeah.

Uh petitioner.

Good evening, Commission.

Uh Chris Crawford with T TL 3200 Rush Mine Road.

So I suppose it's Alabama 35406.

Uh you want me just to directly answer the question or I do because I know that in the in the past, we had a lot of people from Gaineswood had concerns about you know closest to their properties to the future developments that never happened, but this is close to it.

And you know, want to kind of get understanding of the elevation of where Gaineswood is to where your project's gonna be.

So like we mentioned there, I guess that first drive is the very southern part of this property.

Um this development is obviously the the three lot subdivisions what we're asking for.

Um yeah, it's on there.

Uh you'll have the two commercial, this commercial area is already zoned on the front right now, so we're not asking for anything different there, but then the multi-family on the back was requested.

There is a 75 foot offset though from the property line uh to provide that buffer for the building.

Uh in addition to that, we're also putting in a 20-foot landscape buffer to help shield some of that.

And Mr.

Rumsey, I don't believe that's a uh power line easement.

I think that was just the service that was to the previous house that was there.

So you're 20 foot buffer landscape buffer.

Okay.

Before we'll see the first parking spot, correct?

Yes.

And you can see there's a dimension there on the back part of that parking right there, it says it's 75 feet to the building.

I guess you got several spots that parking spots that would be parking facing the Gaineswood.

Facing the landscape buffer for sure.

Okay.

And Gaineswood, yes.

But there's a you're showing a retaining wall in front of it.

There's a retaining wall there.

We we have not gotten very far in any kind of design.

Uh this property definitely slopes.

So on that initial picture you see, it goes up.

You can kind of see where obviously we want to take that down to balance the site as much as we can and keep that wall as low as possible.

I'm sorry, where's the retaining raw?

The dark bold line at the bottom, Raven, and it kind of goes up and turns.

Okay, okay, okay.

Sorry, I don't have a pointer up here.

Okay, no, we got it.

You got it.

We got it.

Chris, that is a retaining wall and not a buffer wall, correct?

It's retainable off of the dirt.

It is a retainable.

It will have um you know, fencing.

And you'll have what's so then you'll have a buffer, your landscape buffer beyond that.

Correct.

And what did you just say about a fence?

Fence on top of the retailing wall as well as just additional.

Are you higher?

Are you higher than Gaineswood?

Yes.

Yes.

Most of this site's a little higher than Gaineswood, yes.

Well, what what I if I'm remembering correctly, one of the oppositions from Gaineswood to the earlier proposal was that there were houses all along there that would be looking down into basically their yards.

And there's no longer any this proposal doesn't happen.

Is that the same?

Well, and with this, this is a smaller scale, you know, trying to be upscale uh residential as well.

It's it's only the three floors, so uh it's a lot less than I think some of the neighboring property that's that's on the MF uh two right now that's maybe five stories, so this is a lot smaller.

That's right.

Thank you.

Any other questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, do we have anybody?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

We have two people signed up.

First one is Ian Kazia.

Oh well, the um public comments coming up.

I apologize.

I forgot to click through the preliminary plot, but really it just follows the site plan.

You can see it with contours without one variant of quests here.

So I got a little ahead of myself ending, but okay.

Just want to make sure we got that on the record.

Let me ask real quick engineering on the light configuration.

Engineering doesn't have an issue with that.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Uh Jan, because I uh I'm the HOA president for Gaineswood.

I live at 1873 Gaineswood uh drive.

Uh a couple of things about this project and a prior project.

Seven years ago, we had Cederbrook uh putting in apartments just west.

Actually, they border this property.

And we had some of the same issues that we'll have with this property along our light line.

Uh and you were correct in what you were saying about all pretty much most of that will the line that'll be the south line of this project, but uh will be higher than Gaineswood.

And especially up there in that corner next to the road, those those uh uh that area right there is is right up at the roof line of those houses in there.

One other issue we've had, and it's and I've talked to Mr.

Palmer, he's been out and talked with me, and he came to our HOA meeting and talked to us uh about this project.

And uh one of the big issues right there in that corner next to Rice Mine Road is we got three or four lots right there that have a lot of water issues that we've apparently been getting a lot of water off the top.

Mr.

Gardner's very familiar with that because the city came out and actually put some French drains in there behind some of the uh sidewalks to try to relieve some of the water because at one time we had water actually coming up under the pavement coming into the lights on the across the street.

So it has helped some.

What they they've done, they kind of relieve some of the water from those lights when after it rains, but when it rains, those lights are are pretty well saturated in there, and and some of the residents have put their own little drains in trying to get relieved some of that water.

But in talking to Mr.

Palmer, that was one of the major issues that we got to make sure we take care of on this project, whatever they do up there, and that buffer zone is a big big to-do.

I for me, I don't think 20 feet up there is enough.

We had we got those apartments before we actually when they got approved, they had a 50-foot buffer on them, and they weren't gonna build any apart uh buildings within a hundred feet of our line.

So as you can see here, that's gonna be a lot closer.

Uh also uh the lady mentioned that these were apartments.

Now we've been led to believe all these were gonna be condominiums coming in up there, and uh so you know we're not we're not real happy about apartments being being there with all the traffic involved.

Condominiums is a different animal, you don't have as many much density there.

So if you're gonna rezone this property that they can build apartments there, we would definitely be opposed to that.

We would be more in favor of a zoning that we could put a lower density in on that property.

Uh it's already zoned as what general commercial, I believe it is, and the property to the west is uh MR2, I believe it is.

What's the difference between the density on those two?

If you go so there is no max density on MR2.

There is no what maximum density on MR2, it's just the the way that the site has to be configured and everything like that that dictates the density.

So on this property, what would the maximum density be?

22.

22 units per acre.

So you're talking about with what he's explained to us, you're gonna have commercial lots on the front, so you'll have about three acres there.

So you'll be able to put what or actually but close to four acres, he'd be able to put about 80 units up there.

Is that correct?

Showing 52.

I know it's what he's showing, but he's told us a lot of things, and and he's he's actually communicated with us, but he's been very unclear as to what they're actually gonna do up there.

Actually, even that drawing there, he took to our HOA meeting and said that well, we're not really sure exactly how we're gonna do that.

But our main thing is our visibility into uh Gaineswood, which is gonna be lighting and the water issues, and then of course we've always got traffic issues up there on Rice Mine Road, and I know we built Mac Rice Ferry Road, but people are coming in off of the office 69 cutting through Old Colony Road, coming down.

There's a huge development development going in Old Colony Road, they're building up Rice Mine Road, so the the traffic's I mean, yes, better right now, but in a few years it's not gonna be be much better.

So uh but that's our concerns, and I'm not sure.

You know, we could work through this, but but engineering-wise, and and the and how we have buffers up there, it's gonna be very important to us.

Thank you, Mr.

Cassar.

Well, hopefully that those guys address that for you.

Okay, Sherman.

Next person we have signed up is Lou Dan King.

Well, he's coming up just to clarify them.

It's gonna be a multifamily product.

Of course, they could condo that in the future as well.

Name and address for the record.

Vice Chairman couldn't make your name out.

So name is Lewis De Villa.

De Villa?

De Villa, yes.

1900 Gaineswood place.

Um seven years ago from Atlanta.

And moved into this area because a nice tranquil township.

Small town growing into a big city.

What I see here is in a way good, but it's not clear as to what exactly their intentions are for density.

The number of homes or number of condos, townhomes.

I had the impression that these were going to be town homes, uh, condos, which would have square footage that would dictate the uh price of homes in the area.

Um so that would increase our value.

Um I was concerned about that, but um the other was that the parking where it's located, it's right on the back side of my fence.

Um it's it's going to provide um for uh less security from race mine road people driving in, parking in temporarily, maybe jumping the fence, that sort of thing.

It's just not going to be a secure environment.

I would prefer having that parking lot on the north side, uh, leaving more green space between their between their condos and or town homes.

I'm not gonna say apartments anymore, because that's not what we want.

Um, but moving that parking lot to the north side, uh everything else is okay with me.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Mr.

Chairman Sawhead signed up.

All right, petitioner, would you care to uh address what you might have heard and want to clarify?

Certainly.

Uh made a note on drainage.

Uh certainly we want to address the drainage will be required per the LDP uh to meet this previous development.

Uh so there will be no additional drainage created off this project.

Um this is actually kind of limited, I think, by the parking that you can fit in this site for density.

So what we're proposing is pretty much maxing this out.

Uh I don't think that we could do much more there.

Uh lighting uh is is gonna be designed to be projected downward, uh, so it wouldn't be ambient lighting that would be out anywhere and unfiltered.

Um traffic, you know, there will there will be additional traffic.

I mean, there's nothing here today.

This is just a really nice infield development.

Um, so there will be additional traffic, but hopefully, with uh, as they mentioned in the Wright's ferry that took some traffic off of this road, uh, we can stand to get this in here and and have a nice development uh for this area.

Uh as far as buffer, uh, again, I think we're providing a little bit more than what's required now.

I think we probably get a 10 on that, but uh there could be additional landscape on top of the retaining wall section as well uh in that green space uh by the parking to prevent lights and headlights and things like that shining through.

Anything else?

Well, that was one of the questions that I originally was asking about the rooftops and where this the parking was gonna sit, and again I know your your parking lot lighting will be directional down.

I don't think that's an issue, but you've obviously got some plans to handling forward parking cars that they'll be screened by through your buffer that'd be it, whether it be the wall or whether it be the vegetation, right?

I think that was we hear that a lot of adjoining property don't any kind of development like this, so we just want to make sure that they're clear that they're gonna have that protection built in his project.

Yes.

The actual the actual fence, I guess it's it's a fence behind the landscaping on the on the property line.

What will it be?

That's existing.

What is that fence?

Yeah, wouldn't fence six foot.

So what you're proposing, so what you're telling me you're proposing is putting putting landscaping adjacent to that barrier, and then some intermittent landscaping on the other side of the retaining wall script.

Uh defuse the lighting issue.

That's right.

Is anything stopping you from flip-flopping it from a design standpoint?

I'm just curious.

I mean, you know, they mentioned they'd rather have the parking on the other end.

I didn't know if there's a is it even feasible to flip flop it?

I don't know.

I'm not asking you to.

I'm just curious.

So the neighborhood compatibility of the 75 feet might be uh one restriction that they would have.

You have to be 75 feet away from a neighborhood in order to build the three stories that they're proposing.

Okay.

The lower entrance where the parking lot is.

That's a ride in ride out correct.

Yes, correct.

So you'll just get traffic coming from like snow well from the spillway in you won't get it coming in.

So you just go cut the traffic in and out in half at that entrance.

Yes, and and they can still access through the middle of the commercial lots as well.

So somebody on rice mine goes up has to go up to and and take the street that's uh dissecting the two commercial lights.

Is that right?

So that again.

Or if you're entering this project, you don't enter on the yeah, or let's say you're going north.

Um you still take a left on that street, right?

Correct.

The one that by six.

Yeah, that's gonna be the northbound traffic.

That'll be their only access to the residential component if you're headed northbound.

The that is a ride in and a ride out, and dictated mainly because there's not the ability to create any left turn movement outside of the travel lanes with the entrance where they have it.

Any other questions or petitioner?

How many square how many square feet are the units?

12 1200 1250 per unit.

121250 per unit.

These are designed to be uh exactly like the first in Maine on downtown North.

Three bedrooms.

Any other questions for petitioner?

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Any comments or questions of this body to staff or to each other?

On I guess you'd have to build as shown, right?

I mean, or does someone shows I know that what do we call it?

A PUD before, right?

Or if someone exhibits a building drawing like this and a certain number of units, are they tied to that?

I guess is really what the HOA's at.

Is that what that's kind of the I kind of got the the sense that they wanted some you know defined parameters based on the zoning?

Is that well it I would think this is obviously the max of what they can build site um we do you have one more gentleman who'd like to to provide public comment?

He didn't hear the announcement.

Is that okay if he comes up?

I think we still had two slots available.

Two minutes addressed the record.

Hey there, my name is Andrew Newby.

I live at 227 Brandon Parkway.

Um I'm not vehemently opposed to what's going on on the other side of the street, but I do know as somebody who moved here from out of town seven months ago that it takes me from seven to nine minutes to turn left out of my neighborhood onto Rice Pine Road to get over the bridge to get to work.

Um so I'm not sure if one, this is gonna be a gated community for entry and access.

Two, if there's gonna be any kind of street light, uh traffic lights that are gonna be coming in there.

Um, but has there been a traffic study about what's going on?

Because everybody talks about MacRights Ferry being open, and that's fabulous, but I mean it's great for him because he gets to turn right in the morning, but then he's got to turn left in the evening, and I'm the exact opposite.

So I'm not opposed to, you know, especially if somebody wants to open a hardware store, that would be great in that area.

You're having you're having to wait seven to nine minutes to turn left.

Oh, yeah, because it's I've got a barrier in between entry and exit.

There's like grass, so cars back up and branding place, waiting for us to get out because you've got folks because it's only one side, there's no turn lane turning left or right.

So if somebody's trying to turn right going north on rice mine, and they're behind four people trying to turn left, clear your schedule because it's it's not gonna be any better.

And that I know is like a tertiary issue.

Nobody's looking into my property because I'm across the street, but there's gonna be more traffic because if we've got you know as many residents as well.

I'm on rice mine, also, and I've watched my turnout increase, but seven to nine minutes is a long time.

Yeah, well, if everybody's leaving to get because I'm looking at my watch and I'm only two minutes, and I feel like it's an eternity.

Yeah, I can do a video for you.

But that's my comment.

No, I'm not I'm not uh I'm not saying you're not telling the truth.

I'm just saying that I had never been up there in the morning.

I've heard about it.

Clear your schedule if you show up in my house.

I got five kids too.

That's a good time, but um that's uh two minutes.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Mike, there this project didn't require traffic study, obviously.

Or I don't think I heard any need for one.

We've we have not asked for a traffic study.

Um you know I understand the concerns, but the it's kind of very similar to Martin Estates.

You know, we have a um a fairly large traffic number on this road, and this this increase is gonna be a small percentage.

Just for the record, how you had to put a number on it.

What percentage of we lost on that road when the act of the opening of McRights Ferry?

Do you think it took a lot of pressure off that?

I know it's still bad up there, I'm sure, but so the people that I know that that still use rice mines say it's a tremendous improvement.

So McRights is getting utilized.

Good.

Um, I don't know where this gentleman's headed, but if it's taking him seven minutes to get out of his neighborhood, you know.

And and I understand about the right turn if you want to leave and turn go north, and I made a note of that for us to consider if there's something that we might could look into, but you would spend less time doing a loop getting to McRights than you would be trying to struggle just to turn left into that queue of traffic in the mornings.

That that's a fight for another day, another that's that's a fight for another day, another conversation.

But I mean that's that's a branding place issue, sounds like to me, but but I mean I I hear you.

You're saying it'd be but you better turn right and go up there and do a U-turn.

Well, if you're here if you're headed to Jack Warner Parkway or headed to downtown, it it seemed to make sense.

Yeah, I mean, I'd rather be driving than sitting.

I mean, well, that's again that's a different day to the fight.

Um where we were any final questions for staff?

I think we've I don't know if there's anything that Jamar brought up that really.

So uh Todd, are you gonna condo them or are you just gonna rent them?

Of course, like sell or rent.

Ms.

Palmer, come the microphone and say that on the record so we could pick it up, please.

Todd Palmer.

Good evening.

Yeah, so you're gonna I wouldn't hear you walking up.

Just just yeah, just clarify what you said out there.

What we did at Pinnacle Park for sale for rent.

So to clarify for the uh the code's the same for the two products, and he can do either.

He but he's saying for the record he's gonna sell, which is conduit.

He said sell or rent, is that yeah.

But you'll sit you'll you'll rent them until you sell.

Which is what we yeah.

Right.

I guess and and the water issue that is very important to them.

I think we solve that easily.

And it's just it's just been a natural flow for years.

And when that goes flat, it won't flow.

Let's hope.

I don't know.

I think you're right, but let's hope you know.

I I'm well, we know nothing else, you're not gonna put any more water on them.

No, no, I think the water's hope is too.

I think it goes away, and then one other point, the dirt you're seeing from rice mine, that all gets pushed back.

So that'll get flattened out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You can stop them having any headlights in their in their house.

It does get lower as you go back.

So it it doesn't, it's not as high as it looks from the road as you access the back.

You can just see the contour, how it's starting to fall off.

Thank you.

All right.

Again, commission, any questions for staff or comments before we tackle this case.

All right, haven't heard none.

Bring up our five items, please, in order.

We'll tackle the annexation first.

Again, we have a parcel that is in the county.

Commission for the annexation 0526.

We're annexing 1.05 acres.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

I have it.

That parcel is now in the city.

Okay, so we have three separate zoning requests.

Well, again, each one will be voted on separately.

Z 709 26.

That's the 2.5 acres.

We're gonna take it from GC to MFR.

Do I have a motion and a second?

Second.

Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

Z 1026.

We're rezoning 1.1 acres from SFR1 to MFR.

Do we have a motion and a second motion?

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Commission Z 1126.04 acres.

From SFR1 to GC.

Do I have a motion and a second?

That's a move.

Second.

Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Uh back to now.

We have the subdivision 1926, River Bend Ranch Subdivision.

Variance request of lock configuration.

Engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion.

Mr.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right, Commission.

Moving into our second companion case tonight.

This is 4B Spectrum.

Um, this is a rezoning and subdivision Z1226 S2026.

We're looking at 0.58 acres located at 620 through 634 25th Avenue East.

And maybe I should pause.

Let I think you're good to go.

All right, pretty quiet.

Um, we're on 25th Avenue East, the rezonings from SFR4 to MR2.

Um, and then we're looking at a seven-lot subdivision.

Um, we are in council district five.

Can you see we are just north of University Boulevard East, um, east of the tennis center.

Um, you see those lots today, they are vacant.

Um, and you can see that existing zoning of SFR4.

Um, applicants requesting the rezone from SFR4 to MR2 to allow for six town homes and one duplex with two units.

Um, eight units total.

Here is um a photo of the site.

This is taken from Alberta Parkway.

Um, here's that um conceptual site plan.

So you can see the six town homes fronting Alberta Parkway, and then that duplex on lot seven, um, fronting 25th Avenue East.

In framework that's identified as traditional neighborhood core.

This request and use um both conform to framework.

You can see that future land use character identified here.

Um, here are permitted uses in MR2.

I mean, can see in their existing zoning SFR4.

Um, these same uses are allowed.

Um, just for some added context on this one, I might be easier to explain with the site plan.

Um, if in SFR4, their existing zoning, they have enough density to allow for eight townhome units.

Um, however, our zoning ordinance we define a townhouse as three or more units.

So having this up here is a duplex according to us, it has a different density requirement, and that's why they're asking to rezone because they aren't hitting it in their existing zoning.

Um, so moving through here into the subdivision now.

So seven lots.

I'm really matching the site plan.

You can see here um those seven lots with contours without two variance requests, um, both for right-of-way dedication.

I split them up here because I know engineering has some comments.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Mike on the variance request.

I know that your hope was the alley.

Did we ever so the I'm okay with the right-of-way dedication on 25th Avenue each?

That there was additional right-of-way purchase several years ago when 25th was improved.

Um, the dedication of the additional right away on the alley.

He can either dedicate additional right-of-way for his proportional half of a 20-foot alley, or he can vacate the portion of the alley since it's it's never been you know improved.

But we've pretty much established a standard with developments along alleys that are less than 20 feet wide that we get the dedication as a part of the subdivision.

So while at the I'll let the petitioner address that, but I'm not in favor of waiving the debt the the dedication of the alley width.

So in reality, you'd like for someone, whether it be this petitioner in conjunction with the adjoining property owner.

And it doesn't even have to uh engage the adjoining property owner.

That would that would be my preference to vacate all of the alley, but there have been instances where we vacate part of an alley, and he can he could vacate his share of that existing alley.

Okay.

But that actually gives him more land to deal with, right?

It does.

Yes, sir.

Gives you more flexibility to for a better product, I would think.

That's right.

Okay.

Petitioner.

Show us that.

Everybody's going over that alley.

It's to show us that parcel that shows the drawing that shows the can you draw like can you draw it with a colored pencil somewhere?

Show us that.

Is it here?

I don't know.

You want me to draw it or then draw?

Next to property one.

This is the alley.

After the survey, the the alleys doesn't match the width on the plat, but that was we we recovered the monument, so um it the neighboring encroaches onto the alley.

I'm not uh opposed to vacation to the alley at all.

Um I are we allowed to vacate half a half a right-of-way.

I mean I'm I mean I it gives me more land.

I I just the only reason we don't want to give up right away to do the alley, it's not improved, it never has been improved, and it's been that way for a century.

So we don't we lose a lot of density that strip.

So I mean I I'm not opposed to applying for a vacation right-of-way.

It gives you more uh I mean absolutely, and then and the developers for that too.

So we just I had already submitted this, and If we if we can put that on the record that there that that's gonna happen.

Can we can we put that on record and and proceed?

Because I'd be obviously it gives me a part of the motion when we okay.

Yes, thank you for that.

And I'll go on record as saying that I won't approve a land development permit until the daddy the vacation has been fully completed.

It's a fairly lengthy process.

Yeah, uh, it's got to be advertised and heard by city council.

So on the on a most folk on vacations now, you have two adjoining property owners.

No, you can vacate just your portion of the portion.

Yes, but but the other one.

Why would they not want to go ahead and try to get all of it?

I will make every effort.

I think they don't have to, but they don't have to.

They probably would, though.

They get free land too.

I mean, unless the other one is.

But wasn't the other side vacated all the time?

It appears that it it may have tried to be, but I don't think it was.

So basically you got 20 feet sitting there, right?

Is it about 20 feet?

I hear right.

Yeah, we'll we'll I'll start that process tomorrow.

I mean, I think I think that would be a candidate.

C doesn't want to maintain that.

You get more property.

Yeah, absolutely.

No, we will just that's what it is.

So yeah.

Why not grab it?

I think we got people that want to speak.

We will we'll tackle that on when we do our motion.

You'll have to explain it to them because when somebody comes offering them free land, they're not gonna believe.

It's not gonna be free, isn't it?

Well, it is mostly free.

I mean, it's it's a value based on the adjoining properties.

If there's a house there, that affects it.

But that I don't think have you charged anybody for it.

That's more of a legal question for OCA.

I know that they're uh obligated to pay the advertisement costs uh for average publisher the vacation and in um you know legal notice, and there is generally some value of uh established for the property for it.

But it's gonna be based on what on earth can be.

You know the process.

I know the process.

Well, weaver's got you and weaver, you and weaver got rid of that.

Are there any I'll start that tomorrow?

I'll start the process.

Any other questions on the development?

Yes, can we can we go back to the uh the rendering of it, the one before this one?

Okay.

So all of the parking is in the rear.

Yeah, we have a dumpster and all the parking in the rear.

And then we're allowed just according to city staff, the three put spaces along Alberta Parkway.

We can use those two.

You say there was a dumpster.

Yeah, there we we were we're we have to use it have the dumpster.

Just must be invisible.

I don't see it.

Where were the dumps?

Where'd you put the dulster, Mr.

Romsey?

Where would I?

Straight ahead.

Hmm.

Well, there's only six units.

I'd probably get the city to pick it up.

Is that where it's gonna be?

That where you that's where we're gonna propose to put it once we did the site development.

Okay, up there.

I mean, you know, because of uh a dump a a garbage truck is gonna run up the parking lot six units.

I mean or I mean we got one I made sure I got my subsurface condition, my side service anyway.

Direct questions for the so is there a buffer, uh buffer requirements um on the side of the property where the houses currently exist.

There's not with this type of development.

Okay, because it's town, it's residential adjacent.

Residential.

But if he gets that property, there's your button.

Yeah, I'll have to I'll have the buffer.

But you know, we he he's uh a well-known developer in Alberta City, and he puts solid wood fences up along this building the boundaries on each development.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

We have someone sign up, Mr.

Chairman.

One person sign up, Flora Thomas.

Again, name and address for the record, please for both you ladies.

My name is Flora Thomas.

I live at 2400 Alberta Parkway.

My name is Jacqueline Anderson, and I live at 2426 Alberta Parkway.

I'm listening to about an alley.

It was an alley origin.

If if if you put that uh those houses back up again, I can show you where the alley was there with habitat first build those houses out there.

And it's not another alley over there now, so I'm trying to figure out now what is the alley they talking about.

Can you highlight that originally built over there?

Our backyard was in that alley.

We're calling it an alley because that's what everybody calls land city owns or road between parcels.

You can see it right there.

It I guess it'd have been alley with the 25th Avenue side.

But obviously it was never used.

It was, it hasn't been used in a while.

You see off of 25th Avenue.

See how see that little pink line they just drawn?

That's the alley.

He's that's that's we're calling the alley.

It's just it's city-owned property right now.

Was it ever improved?

Doesn't look like it.

I don't know if it ever was.

It's never been improved, it's always just been grassed.

The city gave that property to the homeowners.

They gave half of that alley to each homeowner.

Each homeowner that lives there.

And so that and that's what I was asking about.

I didn't mean to stop them from speaking, but that's what I was asking about.

I thought I recalled something like this coming before the city council not long ago.

Unless I'm mistaken, unless it's another part, or was it the alley behind those houses?

Or maybe it wasn't this particular, it's the ones behind the houses.

You're saying it's already happened.

That that's already been taken care of.

The alley between sixth street east outway.

Yes, it's already so this this so this is the other side.

Other side.

Well, see that little pink line.

There, that's a that's a city-owned property right now.

The alley, I think you're talking about it was in the backyard basically between those houses between the yachts.

It's running.

Habitat housing there house sitting on the corner of this one.

No, look, look, you see the new pink line.

I believe that's where the alley you're talking about is that that was vacated, yes, ma'am.

Okay, so yeah, that's that's that's been taken care of.

That's not part of this.

So this is just part of it.

Can you put that back up with those how homes that's in that vacant lot that's sitting on uh the diagram with a home, the home, the lot they try and the lot that they they trying to occur?

The lot you had a lot up there, a vacant lot laying on it.

The street V grass only that one there right there.

Okay.

Now, where are you all talking about the the city on what piece of land?

It's hard.

So about where that black car there, as you see.

Straight back.

Between those two trees, it's probably like right back there.

There you go.

Okay, that run straight up by my land then.

It might run next to the side of it.

Okay, that's the only side of my property.

But we're talking about the what we're talking about vacating is only the parson right on this, Mike.

Pull back up the site again.

The part the part of that alley they're talking about vacating for this project is whenever it's only gonna go to that end of that property line, correct, Mike?

Can you can you show me where that's gonna end?

He's not vacate, he's not purchasing, he's gonna vape from right there on down.

That's all the alley that we're talking about vacating to the property owners.

What do you mean by vacated property?

The city owns it right now.

And what you're gonna do, give that to them.

You have half and half, half to one side and half to the other.

So Anderson, lot 18 there, they have the the right, half of that, whatever that distances between the property lines.

Well, they own 18.

I'm understanding that.

Okay, so property owner 18 has the legal right to want to buy that half of that alley.

This property owner has the right to have the option to buy the other half.

Now, 18 might not want it, and that gives this property under the building to buy all of it, and vice versa.

So it's just a little sliver of land that these two property owners have the option, right?

Whatever, to ask to be vacated, and they'll buy it.

But only they have any.

Huh?

You're talking about meeting, right?

Are you on you on 18?

You on lot eight.

I mean, I'm on right there in that that split of that landing.

Where are you?

Show me, show me that's you right there.

That's you, Ms.

Anderson.

Yeah, so you right there.

You have the ability to purchase half of that alleyway.

I think what you're talking about right there, just a drop-off.

See, that land right there.

Actually, when we build those houses of habitat coming down that that uh 7th Street, that land got a sidewalk elevated that goes down like that.

So the water is running from 24 to 25th when it rained all the way down there.

So that land actually is a flood zone over there.

So where is all that water gonna go to?

So they're not gonna when they build this development, they're gonna manage, they're gonna be required to manage their water.

They cannot dispense water on you.

I'm not worried about dispensing on me because it's not dispensing on me.

Now you just stand it.

Well, they'll maintain they'll have to handle that, they'll drain it.

Yeah, they'll maintain it.

They'll maintain it, they'll handle that water.

You just gotta you gotta get with this petitioner over here, and if if you have an interest in and you two guys getting together and and and buying that from the city, then work it out, and they can work with the city.

If you don't want to buy, then the other property, the guy that's doing this project, he can buy all of it.

Okay, I hear what you're saying.

So y'all need to you y'all need to talk to each other and say, do you want to buy whatever it is?

I I still haven't got an answer on what the width of this alley is.

Let's just say it's 20 feet wide.

You have the ability to buy 10 feet.

I understand to get 10 more feet.

He has his 10 feet.

Then y'all have a property line.

Gotcha.

Okay.

But now they're talking about building some townhouses on the on 25th Avenue right there.

Right.

That kind of complicates our neighborhood.

That's a neighborhood that's sitting there.

Now you can put apartments there.

So now what looked like would happen to me is they would put some homes there.

Let's be town homes.

Accommodate was already that's there.

These are town homes, they're not apartments.

Well, they when they get through, they're gonna look just like apartments, they're gonna be up and down, they can be up, they can be town homes or they can be condos.

Either way it goes, it's not gonna be the same thing that we already got built, and we got se we got family homes built there.

He had he had based on the zoning has to go on down the road there, it's all the way down the road is family home.

Well, based on the zone, he can do this project.

If you want if you wanted to build a two-story house on your lot, you could too.

So if you wanted to build a two-story on your lot, you could too.

You have the same right.

Yeah, I mean, you have you have the right to ask for the same right, I should say.

In other words, or if you want to.

Why are you rezoning this area?

Four town home.

If he can already do it, he can build the town homes already in the zoning district that exists today.

He just can't, he can build eight units, eight town home units.

It's just he can't get the configuration correct to make it to where this has three instead of two.

And the density is different.

And so he's requesting to basically build eight units on this property.

One of them being a duplex and one of them being six town homes.

If you didn't rezone, he could still build those six town homes.

Um it's not changing the fact that town homes can go on this property.

So they're two level.

That would be the outside.

Two floors that's gonna be elevated up.

So the up part can look down on our own homes.

Uh you're gonna look down the park, they're gonna go down the parking lot.

You see how they're they're laid out there.

That's they're all gonna face Albert.

Alberta Parkway.

They may have windows on the end.

The parking lot's a lay in the front of them or the back of them parking lots in the back is in the rear.

In the back.

No parking out front.

So if that's still the case, they're gonna be elevated up, and our homes are sitting down.

Parking lot won't be elevated up.

The houses parking lot a lot to be elevated.

Well, the you have this home would be elevated up.

He can build the second floor, though.

I don't I don't think I mean you can build a two-story house like Mr.

Rumsey said, but the the any windows you you're seeing there are gonna be looking into the parking lot.

They won't be looking back into you or on the side.

You'll have you might have some windows on this one on unit one, but that's the only one that would have that might even look into your property.

Do they so they do they have okay?

Do they have west west windows?

We don't have any well, any elevations beyond that.

We have no elevations yet.

I I'll I'll say this.

This this developer has built quite a bit in the Alberta area.

He's probably the only person that's been building an Alberta area.

Um we got no problem with the building in our area.

No, we wanted to accommodate what we already have in our area.

We're not saying don't build in our area.

And I would encourage you all to speak with the petitioner and the developer so that you'll know.

Um, because I know what it's like to have development taking place next to you where you have you know purchased a home where you live.

So I think it would be you know best that you speak with the petitioner and the developer so that you can get the details of this development and make sure that you know uh what they're gonna look like, the aesthetics of it, where the windows are gonna be, you know, uh, make sure that it's not too intrusive.

And I believe Mr.

Centel will be um more than willing to speak with you about it.

So what you say, Ms.

Howard, that we can continue this because we don't know anything about, but just I think I think I think the most important thing is that if he took off number seven, he could do all of one through six already.

The only reason that they had to come before the rezoning is because number seven wasn't necessarily done the same way as one through six, it didn't fit, it didn't fit.

So instead of it being three units that he could have put up there at top with number seven, it's only two, which changed the configuration of it.

So he can he could still do this if he took away number seven, he could do one through six already.

So it wasn't really like a true rezoning and bringing something that wasn't allowed to this area.

I think the best thing to do is to speak to the developers because there's nothing like he hasn't got anything set in stone.

Y'all are the homeowners, and I think all of the homeowners on um on Alberta Parkway should meet with the petitioners.

I mean, I I think y'all should do that anyway.

Because that what that would do is that would give you an opportunity to see exactly before he actually starts construction what it would look like, and you make it uh maybe you may be a minibus so some suggestions that you may have to make it you know better to your liking that fits in the community.

So but he may can show you what he's done in the past, that would give you some ease or comfort as well.

He he could actually build one through six, turn them sideways, and all six of them are looking down in your backyard with frontage on 25th street.

He's limited right now.

He's the way he's configured this is the least impactful against your house.

That's true.

It really helps, it really under the current zone without even coming up here.

He could take one through six, turn them sideways, and all of them be looking in your backyard.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, we we don't have the legal authority to basically we don't have the authority to tell him he can't turn on there.

Right.

If we approve it tonight, yeah, I'm not gonna still gotta go for the city council and Miss Howard and Kill.

You're right.

So if you've got issues, you can contact Councilman Tiner and Miss Howard and tell them what problems y'all have with it because we're proving it tonight, it still gotta go to the city council for final approval.

Y'all need to get together by time, correct?

Brown area.

Is that the back side of the ma'am apartments?

The browned area in the back.

No, that this is just a consensual drawing to show the kind of like from uh an area view, like the roofs of it.

That would be the ground is the building, the building.

Yeah, the building is the brown in the empty space right there.

That's Miss Um Booker property, right?

So this is the front here facing the Alberta Parkway, like correct this.

That's correct.

Okay.

That's right.

I will further my conversation with you.

Y'all need to get together and talk about the alley, and y'all can have a conversation about the the building itself, but definitely want to talk about the alley.

Yeah, we will talk.

So the alley, I have one more question.

The alley goes from the front of the partway between Miss Bougal property and the young man's property.

It goes all the way over to 24.

Or the sixth, right?

Is it going to six?

What was it?

Six.

It goes all the way up to sixth street.

It's a continuous alley.

See it there.

See?

Oh, it goes it's gonna run all the way across.

All the way across.

It's a continuous strip of vacant.

Yes.

So it's not going from.

I'm kind of confused.

I'm just being honest about it.

It's not going from the Alberta Parkway all the way over to the 20 uh four where the College of Baptist Church.

That's just the alley you all talking about.

It stops right there.

It stops at six.

Up and down.

It stops up the right.

So gonna stop in my backyard if adjacent to my backyard.

So this doesn't matter.

Yeah, but this doesn't show a house in the backyard.

This doesn't have this doesn't show a house on the adjoining lot.

Is there one?

Is there you have a house?

What's that that's your lot?

Mark her lot, please.

A big X.

There's a lot, yes.

It's just a lot right now.

You no, yeah.

Yeah, it's just going to the side.

Okay.

Yes, all the way to six.

Yes.

It ends at the end of that lot.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

But this won't this won't be y'all's first time to be able to have input on it, but I do suggest y'all get with Mr.

Centel.

Okay.

We will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank y'all.

Anyone else have a comment or to comment on this petition request?

That's all on the list.

All right.

Having heard none.

All right, Commissioner, we've got panion case here.

We have Z1226 Spectrum Properties.

Quest to rezone from SFR4 to MR2.

Do I have a motion and it's Mr.

Rumsey?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Shall we have the forest?

S 2026.

4B spectrum.

Two variance requests.

All right, Mr.

Attorney.

We want to put some language in here about how the petitioner will file to request vacation of the alleyway east of his property.

Working potentially with the adjoining property owners, correct?

Yes.

As a condition.

As a could as stated as a condition.

As stated as a condition.

Is everybody good with that?

That'll be bulletproof.

I move we approve with the stated condition that the owner.

So I have a motion to approve that stated condition, whatever I said, right?

Stated condition that the vacation of the portion of the alley.

Then we'll ask you, Miss Hornton, to make the first call.

Is that a yes or a no?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

I'm sorry.

All right, Commission.

Moving into our preliminary plots tonight.

Starting off with S2126 Skelton McCracken subdivision consisting of three lots on approximately 24 acres, located south of Lewis Spur Road and west of 14584 Lewis Road.

This is not in city limits.

See, we're pretty far north on the lake.

You can see that lot today is vacant.

Um and they'd like to split it three ways.

You can see here with contours and without.

We have three variance requests.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

We have no issues with those variance requests.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

There's not an alley on this one.

No alley, and I'd like the city to vacate all empty alleys from here on out.

Just go ahead and take that one as well.

So we're taking this in dividing into three roughly seven-acre lots.

So lot two is gonna already have a potential residential home for the McCrackens.

Uh the other two will be remained vacant.

No other anything out of the ordinary.

Questions for petitioner.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none, Commissioner.

S2126, the Skelton McCracken Subdivision 3 variance request.

Engineering has no issues with a motion and a second.

Motion.

Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up we have S2226 resurveyed lot one Nutters Run, consisting of three lots on approximately 7.4 acres, located at 17719, Highway 43 North.

This is not in city limits.

You can see we are way up on Highway 43.

One lot today with an existing home.

They'd like to split it three ways.

You can see here proposed developments on the two new created lots.

See that without contours.

One variance requests.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance requests.

No issues with that request.

Petitioner.

Representing the owner of the property to create some lots for some homes.

Mr.

Hinkle, would you confirm that Nutter was a dog?

I could not but I heard another was a dog.

We could ask your engineer over there because I think he wouldn't know.

Just want to get down to the record.

Yeah.

Any questions for petitioner.

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none.

Commission before us, we have S2426.

Nope.

Uh S224226.

Resurvey lot one of Nutters Run.

One variance request, no issues.

Do we have a motion and a second?

Motion to approve.

Miss Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up we have S2426 McKinnon subdivision being resurvey of lot three R Old Buttermilk Road.

Resurvey and unplatted land consisting of two lots on approximately 17 acres, located at 4570 and 47 4770 Old Buttermilde.

This is not in city limits.

See, we're just north of Eastwood Middle School and Bryan High.

You can see there's two existing structures on the lot today, two lots.

And they'd like to draw a new lot line here.

You see that with contours, without, and then just zooming in on the two pieces here so you can see more detail.

Um the left.

Engineering.

We're okay with those requests.

Thank you.

Petitioner.

Mike Hicks, Hicks Associates, 2728, Lurling Wallace Boulevard, Northport.

She pretty well summed it up.

The uh Mr.

McKinnon wants to sell the two buildings, so he's adding the unplatted land to the south, and then redrawing the dividing line there.

The old old buttermilk road is unpaved.

It's being maintained and used by Alabama Power Company, and that's the only person that uses it.

Okay.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you, sir.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none.

Commissioner for S2426, the McKimma Subdivision, for variance request.

Engineering has no issues with of a motion and a second.

Motion.

Second.

Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up is S2626, right house on eighth, being resurvey a part of lots one through three.

Block C Hobson Owen property consisting of one lot on approximately 0.6 acres, located at 1511 through 1519 East Street.

This is Council District 4.

You can see we're between Queen City Avenue and Bryant Denny.

You can see multiple structures on the existing lots today.

Consolidate the lot.

You see that without contours with the goal to build triplexes on the site.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

We're okay with those.

Petitioner.

Mike Hicks, 2728, Learling Wallace Boulevard, Northport.

As she said, these she's uh Kelly Rod is wanting to combine these lots into one and build two triplexes.

We matched the uh right-of-way to the property to the south along 15th Avenue, and giving up the 25-foot radius in the northeast corner.

Okay, any questions for petitioner.

I haven't heard none.

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against having heard none?

Commissioner Freud, we have S2626, the right house on eighth, two variants of quests.

Engineering has no issues with.

Motion.

Second.

Ms.

Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion approved.

All right.

Next up, S2726, resurvey of lots three and four, Cardin Family Subdivision.

This is a reconfiguration of two lots on approximately 18 acres, located at 4301 Charity Lane and 8610 Eastern Hills Drive.

This is not in city limits.

You can see we are east of Buttermilk Road, south of I-20.

See those existing two lots.

And just to clarify, um, there's a section line running through here.

So this is one lot here.

This is the other lot.

Um see they'd like to reconfigure it based on this easement through here.

Just uh to clarify, you can see that with contours without we have four variance requests.

We received one public comment in support of this petition.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance request.

No objections.

Thank you.

Petitioner, Mr.

Chairman Gary Cobb, Black Warrior Surveying.

Um, as Leo was saying, this is just a reconfiguration of the two lots.

Ms.

Wilson wanted to incorporate the existing house on one of the lots to go ahead and give to her two daughters.

Very nice.

Any questions for petitioner?

I haven't heard none.

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against commissioner for if we have S.

I move quick around here.

Yeah, I'm Evelyn Wilson.

That's my house up there.

Um, so my husband passed away in November.

I have two daughters, one that's here with me right now.

Um, and she would like to come out to the the property.

I have a daughter that's moving in from Huntsville, and she would like a lot of land.

The one from Huntsville doesn't want very much.

So that's sort of a dynamic thing that we're working on, and that's kind of a story.

Best of best of luck to you.

Well, we know who the favorite daughter is now.

That's right, who got the most all right?

So commission before us we have S2726, resurvey lot three four card and family subdivision, four variance requests, engineering has no issues.

We do have a motion and a second.

Motion to approve, second.

Uh Mr.

Rumsey.

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

Next up, we have S2826, April Sound Resurvey of Lot 1R, resurvey of lot one R S D 1 RA, SD1RB of resurvey of lots one and two April Sound.

This is four lots on approximately 2.7 acres, located at and around 11485, April Sound Drive.

This is not in city limits again, way far north on the lake.

You can see the existing lots today.

This was originally two lots, each with their own satellite lot.

You can see they consolidated at one point.

Now they're wanting to go back to what they had originally, two lots, each with their own satellite lot.

See that without contours here, one variance requests.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

Petitioner.

Mr.

Chairman, members of Commission Alcab, and this was Cabinet's engineering representing Mars rentals.

That's uh Ronnie Robertson.

Um, and as Leo does said, these are lots with with satellite sewage disposal lots because of the 300 foot setback.

Um was originally two lots on the water at some point.

Someone combined them into one lot, and we're trying to go back to two lots.

It has been um the SD1R, you'll see some new perk tests that's been that's been recently tested and approved by the by the health department.

Okay.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request?

Having heard none, commission before us.

We have S2826, April Sound resurvey.

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

Second, Ms.

Hornsby.

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

Next up is S 3026 resurvey of Emerson Court condominiums.

This is one lot on approximately 0.3 acres located at 900 Gene Stallings Avenue, Council District 4.

You can see again we're between Queen City and Bryant Denny.

Um, you all saw this, I believe, over the summer.

It was a condominium conversion.

They want to just undo the condo conversion.

So you can see that plat with contours without one variance requests.

Do you have any questions for Sarah?

What are they doing?

Undoing the condo engineering, no issues.

Petitioner.

Commission Jimmy Duncan with Duncan Coker Associates, 201 Town Center Boulevard, uh Tuscaloosa Alabama 35406.

One variance request on concerning the right-of-way dedication.

The reason this same variance request did not come before you when we did the condominium over the summer last fall.

Uh, that right of way dedication does not apply when it's exclusively a condominium conversion.

So essentially the owners got down the road with the condominium uh process uh form forming the HOA's insurance and all that, and realize it was a bad idea, so they're going back to conventional apartments.

Any questions for petitioner?

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone care to speak for or against all right?

Having heard none, commission.

Before us, we have S 3026 to resurvey the Emerson Court condominiums.

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

Motion to approved.

Second, Mr.

Rumsey.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, motion approved.

All right, one item of other business tonight.

That is a street vacation VO226, vacating point 08 acres, a part of the right-of-way known as South Side Drive, abutting lot one R of factory edition three.

This is council district two.

You see, we are just west of 359 here.

See that piece of land to be vacated outlined in red, and you can see that on the plat here.

Here are department comments on the street vacation.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

No ma'am.

Anyone care speak about this vacation?

Or petitioner.

Trying to get ahead of it.

I don't know what you're gonna tell us.

It's gonna enlighten us anything.

Go ahead.

Just Marty Montgomery, we want to take a land surveying 203 Harbor Road East, uh, representing the owners in this vacation.

Just wanted to add to their property.

Questions?

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner.

We have a vacation request vacating point zero eight acres.

South side drive.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, aye seven.

Vince.

Vince would like to say so.

Not you, but I'm gonna adjourn it has a comment.

Real quick, I just want to thank you all for your uh prayers and your sentiments.

I'm gonna pass it to my father.

So I just wanted to appreciate everybody appreciate everybody on the commission and city.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Yep, that's right.

Any other staff anything?

Then we are adjourned.