OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Tuscaloosa, Alabama/City Council Meetings
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2026

City Council Meetings — Monday, October 19, 2026
BodyTuscaloosa, Alabama
SessionCity Council Meetings
DateMonday, October 19, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:40:42

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:32

Yeah.

Speaker 2

0:41

Good evening and welcome to the October 19, 2026 meeting of the City of Tusclose Planning and Zoning Commission.

0:47

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

0:52

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

0:54

We have Jim Bo Woodson, Deputy City Attorney, Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leota Coin, Principal Planner.

Unassigned speaker

1:05

There

Speaker 2

1:06

are nine members of the Planning Commission, all whom were appointed by the mayor for staggered terms, with the exception of the City Council represent who is appointed by the City Council.

Unassigned speaker

1:14

I

Speaker 2

1:14

ask the commission members to introduce themselves and state the occupation, you know, Mr.

1:18

Rumse.

Speaker 3

1:20

Stephen Rumsey, business owner.

Speaker 4 · Possibly Portia Clark

1:24

Portia Clark, 311 manager.

Speaker 1

1:26

Tim Harrison, general contractor.

Unassigned speaker

1:28

Vest

Speaker 5

1:29

Dooley, UA campus development.

Speaker 2

1:30

A bill right business owner.

1:32

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

1:36

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

1:42

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

1:53

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

1:59

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

2:09

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

2:15

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

2:21

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

2:29

Thereafter will call on any partner, any party in order to sign

Unassigned speaker

2:33

up

Speaker 2

2:33

that opposes the petition.

2:34

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

Unassigned speaker

2:41

to

Speaker 2

2:41

provide your remarks and any written comments again have been included into the record.

2:46

After receiving the remarks of those who oppose the petition, then have the opportunity to respond

Unassigned speaker

2:51

to

Speaker 2

2:51

the petitioner will have the opportunity to respond to those objections.

2:54

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

3:01

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

3:13

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

3:19

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

3:27

Such interruptions will not reduce your time.

3:30

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

3:42

After the vote, you are free to leave.

4:01

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

4:18

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

4:28

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

4:32

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

4:40

Subdivisions approval require the affirmative vote of six members of the planning commission.

4:48

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

Unassigned speaker

4:55

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

Speaker 2

5:04

I will speak for myself.

5:06

I do have one matter I have to accuse myself from.

Speaker 6

5:20

Um SDO4 and SD.

5:23

Or sorry, SDO5.

5:25

Right.

Speaker 2

5:26

Thank you.

5:26

Anyone else?

Unassigned speaker

5:32

I

Speaker 2

5:32

would ask staff to confirm on the record that proper notes has been given to matters in all parties and interest as required by law as to all matters before the commission tonight.

Speaker 7

5:41

Yes, it has.

Speaker 2

5:42

Thank you.

5:43

Changes to the agenda tonight.

5:44

The markwood preserved waiver of rule 13 is requesting to withdraw.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████37%
Zoning Regulations███████████████15%
Mental Health Awareness█████████9%
Traffic Management████████8%
Community Engagement████████8%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████7%
Public Safety██████6%
Procedural███3%
Environmental Protection███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2026

The Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission met on the evening of October 19, 2026, to consider consent items, a withdrawal, continuances, special district petitions, preliminary plats, rezonings, a street vacation, and a staff presentation on proposed subdivision regulation changes. Staff present included Deputy City Attorney Jim Bo Woodson, City Engineer Michael Garner, Planning Director Zach Pons, and Principal Planner Leota Coin. The commission approved most items on the agenda, continued two matters, and took no final vote on the subdivision regulations update.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the September 2026 meeting minutes by voice vote.
  • Approved the consent agenda by voice vote. Staff noted that parking shown on 22nd Avenue for consent item S7526 must meet downtown street cross-section requirements and would be reviewed during the land development permit process.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Written comments received by staff were forwarded to the commission. No speakers signed up for most agenda items.
  • For Springbrook Commons (S7026), Susie Smith of 17 Springbrook objected to the proposed development access to the neighborhood, citing statements made in 2016 and 2017 that the development would have no access into Springbrook. She referenced a traffic tally averaging 37 vehicles per hour entering and leaving Springbrook at 32nd Street, and expressed concern about demolition of 21 rental homes, loss of roughly 200 trees, and increased noise, light, and traffic if the 30th Street connection is opened.
  • Also for Springbrook Commons, Joan Barr of 5541 Woodbury Lane urged the commission to apply neighborhood compatibility standards, including drive-through setback and orientation rules, tree preservation, and buffering and screening requirements. She said Delaney Properties had not adequately engaged neighborhood residents and that Springbrook would set a precedent for other neighborhoods.
  • For Pearson Circle (S7326), adjacent neighbor Joseph Milton of 4321 Culver Road said he spoke for elderly neighbors who could not attend. He asked for clearer communication about the project, and expressed concern about unknown future uses, property values, sewer connections, and the possibility of crime or unwanted commercial activity near the residential area.
  • For the Jug Factory Road rezoning (Z2826), Ralph Markham of 707 Carnoosty, Show Creek, Alabama spoke in support of the applicant and said the proposed 250-foot buffer between the development and the adjoining residential area was intended to remain undeveloped.
  • Staff reported one written comment in opposition to the Markwood Preserve withdrawal request and one written comment in opposition to the Moton Court lot consolidation, though no speakers signed up for either item.

Cases Withdrawn or Continued

  • Markwood Preserve: The petitioner, Wade Lowry of Engineering Design Group, requested withdrawal of the waiver-of-Rule-13 appeal for GPD 0326 and PSO326 so the project could be reworked. One commissioner advised that the project would face significant opposition unless it came back as SFR1, and described the previous proposal as potentially the largest neighborhood in Tuscaloosa County. The withdrawal was approved by voice vote.
  • S7726: Chris Centel of Centel Engineering requested a one-month continuance because the property was still changing ownership. The continuance was approved by voice vote.

Special District Petitions

  • SD0426 - Indian Rivers Behavioral Health, 1401 Greensboro Avenue: Approved. The applicant proposed a 1,100-square-foot addition containing four patient bedrooms, one patient bathroom, one nursing station, and one storage room. The project would not increase the certified total of 12 beds; four beds would be moved into a new secure unit to allow involuntary mental health holds. The Architectural Review Committee recommended approval. Several commissioners questioned the lack of a 24/7 on-site physician, the downtown location, and the operation of involuntary holds, but legal counsel noted the commission's review in this special district case was limited to exterior design compatibility. The motion to approve carried.
  • SD0526 - 2002 University Boulevard: Approved. The applicant, Scott Burnett of CCR Architecture and Interiors, proposed demolishing the former Royal Dry Cleaners and constructing a 13,675-square-foot two-story commercial building with a convenience store, restaurant, and restaurant bar. The Architectural Review Committee found the proposal met downtown standards. No public comments were received. The motion to approve carried.
  • SD0626 / S8126 - Mills Row, 2201-2217 13th Street and 1307 23rd Avenue: Approved. The applicant proposed 16 townhomes, a mix of two- and three-story units, in three buildings, with parking off 13th Street and a rear pool. The companion subdivision, S8126, would create 16 townhome lots and one open space lot. The Architectural Review Committee recommended approval. Both the special district petition and the subdivision were approved.

Rezoning Petitions

  • Z2726 - ABC Investments, 1515 12th Avenue: Approved. The commission recommended rezoning approximately 0.2 acres from IL Light Industrial to NC Neighborhood Commercial so the applicant could open a laundromat. Staff said the request and use conform to the Framework future land use map. No public comments were received. The motion to approve carried.
  • Z2826 - Brandon Tow / Cheyenne Inc., south of 5500 Jug Factory Road: Approved. The applicant requested rezoning approximately 24 acres from SFR2 to IL Light Industrial for a family-owned commercial concrete business office, warehouse, and laydown yard. Staff noted the request did not conform to the Framework suburban residential land use designation. The applicant said the facility would be primarily an office during the day and that the 250-foot buffer near the adjoining residential area would be preserved. A supporter confirmed that buffer intent. No written opposition was received. The motion to approve carried.

Preliminary Plats and Subdivision Approvals

  • S7026 - Springbrook Commons: Approved with two variance requests. The preliminary plat creates six lots on approximately 5.7 acres in conjunction with a prior rezoning. Engineering required a bond for sidewalk improvements before plat recording. The petitioner stated the 30th Street access would be right-out only to Albright Road, left-turn entry would be restricted, drive-through windows would be at least 100 feet and menu boards at least 150 feet from residential zones, and either the 10-foot buffer with wall/plantings or the 20-foot buffer with plantings would be provided. The motion to approve carried.
  • S7326 - Pearson Circle: Continued one month. The proposed preliminary plat would create 11 two-acre lots on approximately 19.3 acres outside city limits. Public comment and commissioner concerns focused on potential truck traffic through the residential Pearson Circle loop. The developer, Crawford Nixon, said he would take the feedback and work on alternatives, including possible restrictions or covenants. Commissioners asked him to return with a revised approach. The continuance was approved by voice vote.
  • S7626 - Edgewater Phase 1A: Approved. The survey would consolidate lots 75 and 76 into one lot of approximately 2.7 acres so the homeowner could add to the existing house. Engineering supported the variance request. The motion to approve carried.
  • S7826 - Langford Estate Subdivision: Approved. The proposal would create two lots on approximately 4.3 acres at 4737 Holt Peterson Road. The petitioner said the property was being divided between a brother and sister, with lot one to be sold and lot two retained by the sister. Engineering supported the variance requests. The motion to approve carried.
  • S7926 - Bowman Young Subdivision No. 2: Approved. The survey would create three lots on approximately 22.2 acres east of 4651 Creekwood Drive. The petitioner said the owner's daughter and son would receive five-acre and two-acre parcels, with the remainder retained by the owner. The lots would use septic tanks and an existing gas well easement road for access. Engineering supported the variance requests. The motion to approve carried.
  • S8026 - Lake Island Subdivision: Approved. The proposal would split one roughly 10.4-acre lot into two lots south of Lake Island Road. Engineering supported three variance requests. The motion to approve carried.
  • S8226 - Neal Subdivision: Approved. The proposal would split approximately 10 acres at 12688 and 12711 Woodbriar Drive into two lots so one neighbor could buy the split-off lot. Engineering supported two variance requests. The motion to approve carried.
  • S8326 - Channing Park No. 2 Subdivision: Approved. The preliminary plat would create 14 lots and one open space lot on approximately 7.2 acres at 5851 31st Street. The petitioner said the applicant agreed to half-street improvements and a new cul-de-sac, and that an open space lot would manage flat-site drainage. Engineering noted a sewer force main loop condition. The motion to approve carried.
  • S8426 / SA426 - Peck Drive lots 45 and 46: Approved. The survey would combine two narrow lots into one lot for a single-family home. Engineering supported the variance request. The motion to approve carried.
  • S8626 - Legacy Point Phase Two: Approved. The survey would remove the interior lot line between lots 18 and 19 into one lot of approximately 0.9 acres. Engineering supported the waiver request. The motion to approve carried.
  • S8826 - Moton Court No. 5: Approved. The survey would combine two 25-foot lots at 3332 19th Street into one 50-foot lot for a single-family home. One written comment in opposition was received, but no one signed up to speak. Engineering had no objection to the variance request. The motion to approve carried.

Street Vacation

  • Approved a vacation of a segment of The Knoll subdivision right-of-way connected to the University Boulevard East project. The vacated right-of-way would be split between the city and an adjacent business owner, with the neighboring landowner receiving the full vacated parcel under the negotiated agreement. No public speakers came forward. The vacation was approved by voice vote.

Subdivision Regulations Update

  • Staff presented the second half of proposed changes to Article 4 of the subdivision regulations. No formal vote was taken.
  • Staff said homebuilders requested elimination of the stub street requirement for properties that abut a public road. Staff did not support removing the requirement, and commissioners expressed concern about a broad sweeping change, noting the commission already had authority to waive the requirement in appropriate cases.
  • Proposed sidewalk changes included a minimum sidewalk width of 5 feet instead of 4 feet, sidewalks within a half-mile of shared-use paths, potential shared-use path extensions within a quarter-mile, and 8-foot-wide sidewalks with 10 feet of separation on streets classified as collectors or higher.
  • Proposed street tree requirements would require trees planted in the right-of-way every 40 feet on center where sidewalks are required, with city maintenance of those trees.
  • Staff also proposed administrative review of alternative lot configurations and administrative sidewalk waivers when no sidewalk exists within 500 feet and no land development permit is required.
  • Staff referenced county minimum lot standards of 15,000 square feet and noted the city's proposed 9,000-square-foot minimum was intended to give the city more appropriate standards for properties in its planning jurisdiction. Discussion included satellite lots and watershed lot-size waivers.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved: consent agenda, September minutes, Markwood Preserve withdrawal, SD0426, SD0526, S7026, S7626, S7826, S7926, Z2726, Z2826, SD0626, S8126, S8026, S8226, S8326, S8426, S8626, S8826, and The Knoll street vacation.
  • Continued: S7726 and S7326.
  • No final action: subdivision regulations update, with further discussion expected at a future meeting.
  • Recommendations to the City Council were approved for the rezoning and street vacation matters; subdivision and special district approvals were commission actions.

Meeting Transcript

Yeah. Good evening and welcome to the October 19, 2026 meeting of the City of Tusclose Planning and Zoning Commission. Any written comments sent to staff were forwarded to the commission directly. At this time, I'd like to introduce our staff. We have Jim Bo Woodson, Deputy City Attorney, Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leota Coin, Principal Planner. There are nine members of the Planning Commission, all whom were appointed by the mayor for staggered terms, with the exception of the City Council represent who is appointed by the City Council. I ask the commission members to introduce themselves and state the occupation, you know, Mr. Rumse. Stephen Rumsey, business owner. Portia Clark, 311 manager. Tim Harrison, general contractor. Vest Dooley, UA campus development. A bill right business owner. There were sign-up sheets located outside for public comment. Four speakers will are allowed to speak in favor of petition, and four are allowed to speak in opposition of a petition. All speakers will have the maximum of five minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time. The commission will initially receive a presentation from the staff as to the details of the agenda item. Additionally, hear certain matters involving the same property, such as the 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. 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 on any part in any party in order of sign up who desires to support the petition. Thereafter will call on any partner, any party in order to sign up that opposes the petition. When it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself, stating your name and address to the commission to provide your remarks and any written comments again have been included into the record. After receiving the remarks of those who oppose the petition, then have the opportunity to respond to the petitioner will have the opportunity to respond to those objections. Any rebuttal be limited to two minutes unless the commission vows votes to allow a longer time. If the petitioner presents any new information in response to the objections, the commission will allow those who oppose the petition the opportunity to respond to the new information only. Any response will be limited to two minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time. During the course of the 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, they have received all relevant information, will then close the matter for the public by the public, at which time the commission members will discuss the matter and then vote. After the vote, you are free to leave. Subdivisions located within the city limits, subdivisions located outside the city limits, but within the city's planning jurisdiction, developments with a special district, and approval letters for developments in historic district buffer zones. As to all matters remaining agenda matters involving annexations, rezonings, planned developments, and street vacations. This commission serves as a recommending body to the city council. In that regard, our decisions are in the form of a recommendation to be presented to the city council, and the city council will make the final decision. Subdivisions approval require the affirmative vote of six members of the planning commission. All matters which are recommendations to the city council require a majority vote for an affirmative recommendation. At this time, I would ask do any members of the commission have any conflicts of interest on the matters before us tonight. I will speak for myself. I do have one matter I have to accuse myself from. Um SDO4 and SD.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com