Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the June 15, 2026 meeting of the City of Tuscaloosa Planning and Zoning Commission. Any written comments sent to staff are forwarded to the Commission directly. At this time, I'd like to introduce staff. We have Jimbo Woodson, Deputy City Attorney, Michael Garner, City Engineer, Zach Pons, Director of Planning, Leo DeCoyne, Principal Planner. There are nine members of the Planning Commission, all who were 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 their occupation, beginning with Ms. Hornsby.

Ann Hornsby, Attorney.

Eddie Pugh, Retired.

Vince Dooley, UA Campus Planning.

Portia Clark, 311 Manager.

Tim Harrison, General Contractor. 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 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. Tonight's procedures, the Commission will take up items in the order of the final agenda. The Commission will initially receive a presentation from the staff as to the details of the agenda item. Additionally, we 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, then call on any party in order of sign-up who desires to support the petition. Thereafter, we'll call upon any party in order of sign-up of those who oppose the petition. When it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself, stating your name and address to the commission, 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 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 commissioners have satisfied they have received all relevant information, it will then close further discussion by the public, at which time the commissioners will discuss the matter and then vote. After the vote, you are free to leave. These proceedings are video recorded and broadcast live. All in-person public comments should be made at the podium into the microphone. In all matters pertaining to the following items, this commission serves as the final authority. subdivisions located within city limits, two, subdivisions located outside city limits but within the city's planning jurisdiction, three, developments with a special district, and four, approval letters for developments in historic buffer zones. As to all remaining agenda matter items, including annexations, rezonings, planned developments, street vacations, this commission serves as a recommending body to the City Council. In that regard, our decisions are in the form of a recommendation to be presented to the City Council, and the City Council will make the final decision on those matters. Subdivision approval requires the affirmative vote of six members of the Planning Commission. All matters which are recommendations to City Council require a majority vote or an affirmative recommendation. At this time, do any members of the Commission have any conflicts of interest as to any matters before us tonight? If so, please state for the record. Having heard none, I would ask the staff to confirm on the record that proper notice has been given to all parties interest as required by law as to all matters before the Commission tonight.

Yes.

Thank you. With that, we'll begin with approval of the minutes. As the Planning and Zoning Commission has received the synopsis of the May 2026 meeting, I move that we dispense with the reading of the minutes of the same unless there are any deletions, additions, or corrections. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Minutes are approved.

Good evening, Commission. Starting off with our cases requesting to withdraw tonight, we do have one case requesting to withdraw tonight, Z1926. I don't believe the applicant's here, but they did ask to withdraw in writing to staff.

All right, Commissioners, we have a withdrawal request for Z1926. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, ayes have it.

All right, moving into our cases requesting to continue. We have Z1426 and S3226. These are continued prior to notice to the July hearing. No vote is needed. Next up, we have S4126 requesting to continue. The applicant couldn't be here tonight, but they also let us know they wanted to continue to July. Okay.

Commissioner, we of course have a continuous request for S4126. Applicant is not here. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, ayes have it.

All right. One more set requesting to continue tonight. AN 0626, GPD 0326, and PS 0326. The applicant is here. Just to get on the record, we had four comments in opposition in May. Since the May meeting, we've received one kind of neutral comment and one comment in support. So just want to make sure we get that out there.

Applicant...

Hey, my name's Jake Williams. I'm with Engineering Design Group, 120 Bishop Circle, Suite 300, Pelham, Alabama. We are requesting to continue. We need a little more time on the sewer. We're going to do a flow monitor study. And that takes about two weeks. So we're actually putting that in this week. And that'll give us a little more information on capacity, which is a big concern last time in our meeting. That's the main reason for continuing.

Any questions for this applicant? Okay, thank you. You said people have signed up. Anybody signed up for this?

No one signed up, but we did receive some email calling.

Okay, those will be entered into the record, so we appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Forrest, we have a continuous request for AN-0626, GPD-0326, and PS-0326, Marker Preserved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, ayes have it.

All right, moving into unfinished business, starting with preliminary plat. This is S3426 Capital Farm Subdivision, consisting of 57 lots and two open space lots on approximately 48.8 acres. This is north of Highway 82 East, east of Wuthering Heights Lane, and this is at 3700 Bear Ridge Road. This is not in city limits, and this is continued from the April meeting. You can see we're south of Woodland Forest Elementary here, just north of Highway 82 East. You can see that lot today does have some existing structures on it. And the plat has north pointed to the left, so just getting you prepared to look at that. You can see that layout here with contours, without. And now zooming in on the east end so you can see some more details. cul-de-sacs, lots over 20,000 square feet. As we move west, we can see that pattern kind of continue. We have four variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance request.

We're in support of those variance requests.

Thank you. Petitioner.

Hey, good evening. Philip Grimmer, Longleaf Engineering, 1927 7th Street, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Actually a pretty good introduction to the project. Have some variances. I think everything has been support from the county. If you get any questions, we're available, representative for the developers here also. Let us know. Can we pull back up the variance request real quick, please?

Let me interject one thing, and we are in agreement with these requests. The question of the stubbed streets versus the cul-de-sac, why we're in favor of supporting that, this is in the county, and the county has already granted them this waiver request through their county commission approval. We're going to support that mostly because of the likelihood that this property will would ever come into the city limits is very slim.

And that was the reason I wanted to see the variance request because the Stub Street issue. I mean, historically, we always require Stub Streets for future development. In this case, I mean, this is kind of going against what we've done historically. I guess we hope that this is not a continuing thing. But this is a county, so they can make their own decisions.

Mike, that is my concern, that this becomes the norm there. You're recommending it because you don't think it will ever be. I'm fine with it. As far as the norm, it's just a bad practice for it.

I think there's going to be instances where we need to look at these, and obviously our standard should be the stub streets that allow future development to continue for connectivity, public safety. understanding that when there's a potential for a tract of land to potentially become part of the city, I think it makes it more important for us to maybe be the ruling authority on that.

I guess my biggest concern is that we create a situation where an existing owner or heirs of an existing owner are landlocked with property. by doing this, but again, for future sale.

Yeah, and that's not the case here either.

Any other questions for staff or the petitioner? Thank you. Anyone here to speak for or against this petition request? Okay, having heard none. Commission, before us tonight, we have S-3426, Capital Farm Subdivision, with Five variance requests. Engineering has no issues with. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion to approve. Second. Mr. Dooley. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right, next up is S3826 Sanford Farms, consisting of 24 lots and one common area lot on approximately 49.2 acres. This is south of Walton Lane, east of Martinsboro Road, and north of 12745 Sanford Lane. This is not in city limits. This is continued from April. So you can see we're kind of north here of Sokol Park in the venue. See that lot today is vacant. And here's that kind of proposed layout with contours without. Now zooming in on the north end, you can see kind of the variation in lot size from about 0.9 acres up to almost seven on the north end as we move south here to that open space lot. We have five variance requests. We received one public comment in May that was signed by 13 neighbors. We have not received any additional public comments since the May hearing. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering? Again, these variance requests, we are supportive of the Stub Street issue that we just recently discussed. In this case, the land to the east where the Stub Street would be appropriate is owned by the state of Alabama, mental health. So the likelihood that there'll ever be any growth in that direction is very slim. The property to the north is already developed as a subdivision as well.

Okay. Any questions for staff?

Back out to the aerial.

Anyone else? Petitioner.

Good evening, Commission. I'm Robert Martin with Duncan Coker Associates, representing Baker Property Group. 24 lots in the county, varying lot sizes. The average lot size is a little less than two acres, so these are bigger lots. We're proposing a nice boulevard entrance off of Sanford Lane. with a 100-foot landscape buffer along Sanford Lane, which is going to be undisturbed just to kind of maintain the trees along Sanford Lane, maintain that wooded entrance. The developer also wants to do a nice wooden fence along Sanford Lane with a nice entrance sign. We are proposing 35-foot buffers along the northern and southern property lines, which is the green strip along the property lines. Those will be undisturbed, maintain the trees in those areas. We've talked with most of the neighbors and gotten their feedback. The biggest concern they raised to us was traffic. So we commissioned a traffic study. Traffic study came back and indicated the intersection at Martin Spur and Martin Road would operate at acceptable level of service with these added lots. The developer wants this to be a nice project. They're anticipating with their estimated lot sales that these homes will be $600,000 to $750,000 with quality similar to the newer homes along Sanford Lane. That's pretty much all I have. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I'm not sure I have any questions. I guess we've got someone who did sign up to speak in opposition. We'd like to hear what their issues are and then open it up to the public as well. There's a lot of people here. I'm trying to figure out what they're here for. This might be it. Any questions for the petitioner while he's here?

Can you repeat what you said about the traffic study again? I missed that part. So we analyzed the intersection at Martin Road and Martin Spur, and with the increase of these 24 lots, the traffic study states that it will operate with the same level of service as it does today. So there's going to be an increase in cars, but the level of service will stay the same.

And how do they, what's the service? Explain that part to me. What's the service versus, if you got more cars, I'm thinking there's more traffic, so.

So essentially, it doesn't warrant any improvements to mediate that extra car.

There's a threshold where it says improvement after this threshold, a certain number of cars. That's right. Gotcha, okay.

Thank you. Robert, on that, well, I got one question I have is on the landscape buffer to the, I guess that's north and south of the property. You said it's gonna, as current vegetation's gonna stay there, you're gonna? We're gonna maintain the existing trees within that 35 feet. And what's in there now, is it?

It's nice, big timber.

Okay, all right. Go back to that picture, the one that was just up. How are you getting a lot to,

So lot two will be the only lot that's accessed directly from Sanford Lane.

And lot one will come off of?

Lot one will come off Martin Spur.

I notice this is a big lot. Then I drop down here to lot 22, 23, 24, and they're not even quite an acre, and you're talking about six, $700,000 houses.

We tried to put the smaller lots toward the center of the development so that the larger lots are around the perimeter next to the existing neighbors.

Any other questions?

Thank you. Chairman, we had one person sign to speak up, Vanessa Gopal. Gopal? I hope I didn't murder that.

I'm used to it. I could have changed it when I got married and I opted out. Okay, I am here to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. My name is Vanessa Gopel. I live at 10570 Loganwood Drive, Northport, Alabama, 35473. Since you're curious who's all here, I actually am also because I didn't look behind me. Can I get a show of hands for how many people are here about this today? Is that an option? Can I query? OK, so we're not everybody. Anyway, so Logan Wood is, I believe, at the north. That's my property right there at the top of that 35 feet landscape barrier. I guess our concerns are threefold. And I did talk to the developer, and he was very nice, although I don't think that my questions influenced anything. First and foremost is traffic and safety. Perhaps it is acceptable at Martin Road and Martin Spur, but I would offer that if any of you have ever been on Martin Road at approximately 5 p.m., the intersection of 69 North and Martin Road actually backs up all the way to Martin Spur, which I haven't clocked it, but I would offer that's probably about a mile. So adding people turning onto Martin Road and then who are in turn turning onto 69 North is a very difficult exit and it is pretty much the only way out of that neighborhood. The alternative is if you are turning left, you are going towards Watermelon Road. That may also be a common path, but turning left against that traffic again becomes problematic as it exists. And then during the morning hours in particular with school buses and such, the traffic actually backs up gosh, past Union Chapel Road when you are trying to get out onto Watermelon. So the traffic is not a small thing, and perhaps most of our questions are really for the city planners because we also understand that there is a large church that has purchased a piece of property right there on the other side of Martin Spur and Martin Road, and that will add traffic. We also understand that there is another large lot at the corner of Martin Spur and Martin Road. We weren't alerted to that, so didn't have time to come and discuss it, but there's a lot of developments happening right there, and the traffic pattern is not going to withstand this without additional attention. Secondarily, we do have some concerns about the density of the plan. All of the lots, for instance, on Loganwood Drive, which is considered a neighborhood, are a minimum of three acres and a maximum of eight acres. Most of the properties up and down Martin Spur are large, large lots. And while the average of these lots may be just under two acres, 19 of 24 of these lots are less than two acres. And so we have some concerns about what the neighborhood personality is meant to look like out there. Obviously development is inevitable, but we would love to see a Development of half that size, not just for traffic, but also just for the neighborhood personality. The other questions we had were really about retaining the trees and the landscaping space. I have deer in my yard most days. also have possums but I like the deer and possums eat ticks and so we'd like to keep them. I understand that right now there is a plan to keep a 35 foot landscaping setback. I would like to see it double that at least. There's also a service road back there that allows a lot of the property owners to get back and forth to our pond which is on the north of that map. And I'm not sure if that's an easement or not. The property sketch does not show that it's an easement. And I assume that that service road is owned by the state in some way. But we have some questions about that. Let me see if there was anything else in my notes. We're also kind of curious how they're going to handle all the additional drainage. how many acres of existing forest are going to be cleared for this development. Let's see. There was a question about the fire department. Has the fire department reviewed and approved the proposed access plan? I think there were some concerns about all those houses maybe having one outlet as well. And that's my five minutes.

Thank you. Any questions? Is anyone else here care to speak for or against? Please come forward. We have up to four people total. Name and address for the record, please.

Jessica Johnson, I live at 10422 Loganwood Drive, just a little ways down from Vanessa. And again, to reiterate and to save time, all of the things that she said, in addition to, like we have a neighborhood lake that already, when we have hard rains, has trouble withholding the water that comes down the hill. Because she's up level with this development, but the rest of us are kind of, down lower and then it kind of goes up and then down again. So just curious of how the drainage plan for this with the density of it will affect our neighborhood drainage compensation system. So that's really all that I wanted to add to what Vanessa already stated. Thank you.

Anyone else care to speak for or against?

Okay.

Robert, do you want to come back up and take a crack at those issues, please?

So on the traffic on Martin Road at Highway 69, one thing that I didn't mention earlier is Northport's contemplating some improvements at that intersection. that could potentially take off some of the stress on Martin Road, the scenario where Martin Road backs up at that intersection. So I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that. As far as the drainage goes, Loganwood is actually upstream of this development. Our runoff runs to the southwest corner. You can see we've got a stormwater management area. which we will provide stormwater detention. And that area outfalls to the south. So it will not impact Loganwood. As far as the clearing goes, we're going to try to maintain as many trees within the development as we can. In order to grade the roadways, obviously, we're going to have to do some clearing. But outside of that corridor, we're going to try to maintain as many trees as possible to maintain the wooded landscape that's there today. That's pretty much all I have. I mean, the density, these are two-acre lots. These are not small lots. I mean, they mentioned that the average size in Loganwood is three acres. Well, two acres is pretty close. A little bit smaller, but pretty close. We feel like this is going to be a good product.

What's required for the buffer... I know they're offering 35. What's the standard? What's the requirement on that?

So with it not being in city limits, we don't have a buffer requirement?

So really, we're... We offer that out of the gate. Okay. All right.

Do you know anything about the service road she was speaking about going to some kind of lake?

We haven't seen an easement for that road in our research. But if there is one, I mean, it'll come up in the title report.

The service road may be a road that the city uses. We have a water line that runs along the north end of the Sanford property, and it's very common for us to ride our utility routes on a periodic basis for maintenance purposes. That may be what that service road is. I haven't personally seen it, but that may be what it is.

Can you point that out, Mike? Is that what I'm seeing to the north of the property there?

Go back to the site plan, the layout plan.

You may draw it on here, Mike.

So if you look in the buffer that they show on the north property line, you'll see that they show a 24-inch water line running through that buffer. And we have a 20-foot wide easement associated with that water line. So the total buffer is, or our easement doesn't encompass the total buffer, but it's in a part of the buffer.

That's the city's water line?

Yes, sir.

What is it? The Northport?

I don't know the answer to that one.

So that will obviously remain in... Couldn't build on it anyway.

Right.

That's right. You couldn't build a structure on top of it. No, sir.

What is the 10 feet each way or what?

Generally, it's centered on the water blind pipe. Yes, sir.

So that's 1, 17, 16, and 15 will obviously... That'll be on their plats as far as that even being there for them.

Yeah, it'll be required on the subdivision plat.

The access, what's the name of the access road that comes into the, Robert, that you're accessing the site on? Safford Lane. That's fairly small. Any concern about that? I mean, it looks like in the drawing. What's the cross-section of that?

It's got 12-foot travel lanes. 20-foot? 24-foot of pavement, 12-foot travel lanes.

Looks a little small in the throw. Is that a county road? Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Yeah, north and south. The question was about is there a south buffer, and there is, correct? It's just lost, sir. Yeah. There it is. Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you. Thank you. I don't think the petitioner brought up any new information of the opposition party. So, that being said, any questions of staff in this commission before we take a vote? Or any comments? We always hear about developments, and traffic's always one of the biggest concerns. A lot of times we ask for a traffic study, and it's always after the fact. But at least in this case, that was done proactively, so we're not having to fight that battle, I guess, to get that report. We can only go on what the report says, and we cannot... make a decision about this project based on what might happen with other projects and how that would impact traffic flow. And again, when those projects come before us, there'll be more traffic studies done. And then there are improvement needs. Those will be made by those developers, which is up on them. So I think the traffic, I understand your concern. That's usually one we always hear. A lot of times we also hear about, property values and how they're going to be impacted. In this case, we didn't hear that. But a development like this, I think, obviously wouldn't have a positive impact on the surrounding area just based on what the lot sizes are and the type of quality house and the price value of those houses being built would be a positive. So those are the things that I always hear that always get my attention. In this case, I think these kind of have been proven not to be a real issue to reject. So that's just my observation. Any other comments?

It also sounds as if the stormwater issue is, I mean, as we know, will have to be addressed anyway and monitored. But it looks as if that is also managed.

And that's through another, that's outside of our purview in terms of making sure the stormwater meets the criteria.

Right.

But it will be covered before anything can be permitted. It will be a part of our approval process of the project. Yes.

Okay.

Any other comments? All right, Commission, bring back up those. Thank you. Of course, we have S3826, Sanford Farms. Variance request five issues. Engineering is in support of those variance requests. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion to approve. Second. Ms. Hornsby.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right, next up is S4426, 1613 and 1615 Fifth Avenue East. This is a re-survey of part of lots six and seven, block C, Happy Acres, consisting of nine lots and one common area lot on approximately .8 acres. Again, at 1613 and 1615 Fifth Avenue East, Council District Two. This is continued from April. You can see we're in Forest Lake, just west of Midtown Village. See those lots today, an existing structure and some vacant land. Asking to put nine townhome lots here with one common area in the rear for parking. You can see that with contours and without. Three variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

We're okay with these. And they are doing right-of-way dedication as well. I mean, they say that, but I wanted you to know they are dedicating some right-of-way.

Okay, thank you. Tishner. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Al Cabaniss with Cabaniss Engineering, representing Harless Properties. So these are nine townhomes and one common space lot, so the parking is commonly owned. Alexander Architecture is doing the town homes. These are going to have some different character to the front. They won't be the same facade over and over again. They're going to look really nice. We've got just an odd-shaped piece of property, but it gave us a large common area in the back, so it's worked out pretty well as far as open area. As Mike mentioned, we are dedicating some right-of-way, and we're doing some half-street improvements, widening the street, a curb and gutter, and a sidewalk. Unless there's any questions, I think that's about it.

Any questions for petitioner? Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone here to speak in favor or opposition of this request? Having heard none, commission before us, we have S4426, 1613, 1615 Fifth Avenue East, three variance requests. Engineering has no issues with it, and there are some right-of-way dedications being made. Do we have a motion and a second? Motion.

Second.

Mr. Dooley? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right, moving on to new items tonight. So we're going up through our first kind of review of the subdivision regulations. So again, I'm doing a preview, and then I'll be sending these out to our stakeholders, and then we'll revisit them before we move into the next section next month. So we've got three articles here that we're looking at tonight. General provisions, article one. Article two is definition and rules for measurement. And then article eight, is administration amendments and legal considerations. So Article I and Article VIII are kind of the, you have to put them in the document type things where we don't really need to necessarily do a full review on, but you can see that here. It's the jurisdiction, general purpose for these documents, the effective date. That's what Article I is. Article VIII is gonna be those you know, the transition items. So, you know, if you're going through an application currently, how does it work when you're transitioning from one subdivision regulation guide to another? And then things like, how do you guys or the city view relationships with restrictive covenants or deeds? Things of that nature. So those are the two, Article 1 and Article 8, pretty much the same as what we've had in our previous one. So moving into Article 2, which is really kind of a little bit of the new stuff. So Article 2, rules of measurement. So we've got, you know, these are things like how do you measure lake frontage width? How is that measured? How is public street frontage measured? What does lot width mean? How do you apply the lot area? So it's just those items that are just to make sure that we have those in here in case someone needs to reference it, essentially.

Could you flip back to the... Yes. I'm sorry. You want to complete before we ask questions? Oh, you go ahead. I just want to look at the violations. Yeah, yeah, we can do that.

Let me get back.

I'm sorry, I thought you were done.

No, you're good. And then... going into Article 2, the next section for definitions. So essentially, you know, a lot of definitions that we have currently are staying the same. We're removing some of them, some of them like T-dot or metric, things like that that we really don't need in our new subdivision regulations or they're outdated. And then some that we're adding in here. So I wanted to highlight some of these. So flood hazard boundary map, flood insurance map, 100-year flood, floodway. So we just We looked at those items. We included flood insurance rate maps, so that's new. And then we just made sure that the other ones were accurate as of today. For waiver, so we called them variances today. We're going to shift back to calling them waivers, just to kind of clarify that and have a distance between zoning board of adjustment versus subdivision regulations, because that can kind of get confusing as well using the same terminology. And for the most part, Article 2, the definitions are pretty standard. We've added what is a land development permit, things like that that we don't really need to go over tonight but that are in that document that I'm going to share and you guys should look at so that you all can provide any feedback if we've had any typos or anything. But these are some items that I do want to go over. So, of course, we have master plan in our current regulation, master planning in our subregs, phasing. However, we didn't define them. So here are the definitions for them that we've come up with. So there's two kind of master plan elements. So one's master plan and conceptual master plan. And I'll go through master plan first. So this is a comprehensive one-time development plan for private development that contains all required elements of a preliminary plat for the entire development site. So an example of this compared to a conceptual is if it's like a Highgrove, right? Highgrove, when they submitted that plan, that had every single item that we would require for a preliminary plat for the whole development. They are creating it, they're developing it in phases, however, you know, phase one, was approved during that master plan approval initially, five years later when they're moving into phase two, that has already been approved by this commission. And so they can just go straight to LDP in developing that. So to summarize it, master plan review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not required unless substantial changes are proposed. With conceptual master plan, There's a difference in that where this is more of Markwood Preserve. Markwood Preserve has 200 plus acres. They are developing in three phases. However, they've really only supplied the first phase in as much detail as we would require for a preliminary plat. they have a preliminary plat for phase one that you guys are approving and they can move, if it was to be approved, and they can move forward to developing that section. But phase two and phase three, they are subject to what you guys approve. However, they're not in as extensive detail as we would require. And so therefore, they would have to come back for preliminary plat approval with you guys for every single phase as they continue. And then phasing plan, You guys know what this is, but it's a sequential development schedule that defines how a subdivision will be constructed in distinct phases. It's just putting a definition to what we've already been using. So we can go back to what Ms. Hornsby was asking, but I can answer any other questions that y'all might have. And again, I'm gonna be sending this document out to you guys, to our stakeholders, our surveyors, engineers, and then we'll kind of go through those next month. The whole idea being explaining what master plan and conceptual master plan is today so that in the future maybe there wouldn't be a question because we've already explained it today. But Ms. Hornsby, did you have a specific question that you wanted to go over? no I did not have a specific question and we'll have a chance to look at these in more detail yes and then of course you know next month we're gonna be opening up with hey let's review what any comments that we had on this let's open it to public comment and then we'd move forward to the next section on this section we're gonna hear next month okay that was my question to be was like what's the sequence of events for each of these that we're gonna tackle right we're gonna tackle an area

Get input, approve it, or whatever, right? Tackle the next one.

Right, that's right. Yep, and so our next section that we'll cover is subdivision standards and guidelines and condominium subdivisions. So obviously we're kind of starting out with the easy stuff, really, and then we'll move into the more technical items that will clearly require more discussion. But I can answer any other questions y'all might have. There's really no vote needed for this right now. Okay.

Has the stakeholders received this already, you said?

No, they have not. Okay. So we'll be posting this on the website tomorrow morning. We'll be sending out emails to all the stakeholders and everything tomorrow. And then, you know, we'll collect that feedback up to the next meeting. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks.

Thank you, Zach. All right, next up we have a rezoning petition, Z1826, 7150 Commerce Drive, LLC, petitions to rezone approximately 11.8 acres located at 7150 Commerce Drive from IP to IH. This is Council District 1. See, we're just west of the airport here, You can see that lot today does have an existing structure. It's zoned institutional public IP. The city recently sold this, so the applicants requesting to rezone from IP to IH, industrial heavy for their use. Again, you can see that site today does have an existing structure and framework. This property is identified as industrial. The zoning request does conform to the plan. The applicant did not specify a use. You can see that future land use character map here. Here are permitted uses in heavy industrial. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Thank you. Petitioner.

Stan Pate, 2900 Normandy. I entered into a contract to buy this property from the city of Tuscaloosa. We went down the path to get to a closing. And I think it was recognized somewhere near the end by both parties that, hey, this property is zone institutional. And it is not proper zoning. We agreed with the city to go ahead and close the transaction and come before this board to get it zoned. The city had a purchase that they were needing to get done. And I said, look, I'll go ahead and close. And we feel like we're in a good spot with planning, but certainly I'm willing to take any questions that the board might have. I have it really surprised all of us. We got right up to closing. Somebody said, well, what about zoning? And so we all kind of looked aside and said, let's figure this out. And I mean, we were able to close to accommodate the city. And so that's how we find ourselves here.

Right.

Any questions for petitioner? I think we're good, Mr. Pate. Anyone here care to speak for or against any of this rezoning? All right. Having heard none, commission, before us we have a rezoning request of Z1826, 7150 Commerce Drive, rezoning from institutional IP to IH. 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, next up we have a companion case, RPI 3, LLC subdivision. Three parts, annexing, rezoning, and a subdivision. The annexation and rezoning, we're looking at 5.8 acres at 704 Patriot Parkway. Asking to rezone from SFR 1 to HC. And then finally, a six lot subdivision on 19.6 acres. So I'm going to go through this piece by piece. You can see the overall track of land here. It's at the intersection of Highway 69 South, Patriot Parkway. It's right across the highway from Walmart. See that land today is vacant. You can see kind of the overall plan here to have some commercial development along 69 South and Patriot Parkway. So looking at the annexation rezoning now, this is the piece requesting to annex into city limits. You can see the existing city limit boundaries in yellow. They're requesting to annex again for that commercial development, and this is identified as a primary expansion area in framework. Here are department comments on the annexation request. All right, moving into the rezoning now. So once in city limits, your default zoning is single family residential one. They're asking to rezone to highway commercial, HC. Again, looking at that same piece of land, you can see the existing surrounding zonings in this area. Again, asking to rezone to highway commercial for that commercial development. And you can see that site plan here. In framework, this property is identified as corridor commercial. The request and the intended uses do conform to the plan. You can see that future land use character here. Here are permitted uses and highway commercial. And lastly, looking at a six lot subdivision. So you saw the five commercial lots, one remnant parcel on 19.6 acres. So again, the annexation rezoning on this part of the property, subdivision on the entire piece of property. You can see that division here with contours, without. We have three variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the variance request.

I'll take these one at a time. The drainage study component for the subdivision piece, we're approving that waiver as the construction plans come through for each one of the proposed developments, there'll be a drainage study required with the plan set for approval. The half street improvements here applies to Highway 69, and ODOT has authority over that. The third portion here, sidewalk construction, has got two components to it. One, again, sidewalk along Highway 69 is a requirement of our subdivision regulations, but ALDOT has submitted a letter on this developer's behalf that they do not want sidewalk on 69. And then the large remnant parcel, what, 4B? I don't have my glasses on. E. 4F. We're allowing a waiver of the sidewalk on that part until a development plan comes in for it.

Mike, go back to the site plan of the development, please. You said you're waiving the drainage study, but with the exception that they'll be delivered at each One of these lots is permit. You're going to look at them during the permit phase? I didn't understand what you were saying.

So we anticipate as this project develops, and I don't know who will go first and how closely they'll follow behind, but, for example, lot 4E will require stormwater detention before the land development permit can be approved. And then the other lots, again, if you start at the north end, each one of those lots that show a site plan already associated with them are designating an idea or a concept for stormwater detention within the lot. And that will be a requirement.

Per lot.

Per lot, yes, sir.

And then I'm looking at this. I've got a right turn off of. Right turn is the only way to turn back, get it out of the development, go back up Patriot Parkway and take a right.

That's correct? Yes, sir. Yeah.

Any other questions for staff? Petitioner.

My name's Corey Shoup. I'm with Good Mills and Cablewood representing Richmond Properties. Yeah, basically, I think they explained it pretty well. It's essentially just a six lot subdivision to support this commercial development. The remainder is not part of the annexation. So we're just we want to move the proposed commercial lots in the city for sewer. And we've got three proposed tenants now. So lots 4B and 4D are kind of Those are just kind of a concept of what potentially would be done, but there's no tenant yet for those lots. So the idea as far as stormwater detention, we'll probably submit it as part of two packages. So lot 4E, kind of be a standalone as part of that building permit, and it's got its own stormwater detention. And then the overall track there with the four lots, that'll kind of be submitted as one kind of overall development. And then we've got a stormwater plan for each of those. We've preliminary submitted our plans to ALDOT too for their preliminary approval on what our concept is as far as access from ALDOT. We did a traffic study that's been submitted to them as well. And as far as access through the lots, it'll be governed through an REA. So that'll be part of the development agreement. for access through all the parcels.

For two of these developments, you show a proposed stormwater pond or a proposed stormwater pond, and then the one that's in the middle, I don't see any. How are you going to handle that stormwater issue with that site?

for lot 4B. Lot 4C. 4C and 4B. Those will be controlled by the plans for a long linear pond that fronts along 69 there. So all of those lots have the ability to reach that, and so they'll be governed by that. The northernmost lot will have its own pond, and then lot 40 has its own stormwater. Okay.

Maybe I'm missing one, but I see the proposed pond on the northern lot. How many is it supposed to be?

As part of the development, it's three total.

So I see that. Okay. Okay, gotcha.

So basically B, C, and D are being handled by the retention pond.

Yeah, and all of the, that'll be part of the, at least the maintenance of that will be part of the development agreement too. It would be a shared maintenance.

So out of the gate, you're coming with A, C, and E. You're moving forward with a development plan for those. Am I reading that correctly?

Yeah, so essentially lots 4B and 4D. will be PAG graded and stubbed out for utilities. And 4A will actually be PAG graded as well. We'll run the driveway through it. I think that was a discussion in our pre-app meeting. But that end user will actually do their own development once it's all constructed. So it'll actually be PAG graded as well. And then they would submit their own building permit and design plans following it. But, yeah, those will be padded out for future development.

Any other questions for Petitioner? Thank you, sir. Anyone care to speak for or against this request? All right. Having heard none, Commission, of course, we have an annexation request. Annexation 0726 and annexing 5.8 acres, 704 Patriot Parkway. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, the ayes have it. Commission, of course, we have Z1526, Mr. Chute, petition to rezone the land from SFR1 to Highway Commercial. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion.

Second.

Mr. Dooley.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Motion approved. Commission for us has subdivision request 4626, RPI 3, LLC subdivision. Three variance requests, drainage study, half-story improvements, sidewalk construction, engineering has no issues with and a plan for those. They're all kind of unique. But do I have a motion and a second? Motion. Second. Ms. Hornsby.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right, next up we have another companion case. This is Parkside Flats. Two pieces, rezoning and subdivision. This is on .8 acres, requesting to rezone from GC to MR2. And then lastly, a law consolidation. This is at and around 916 22nd Avenue East, Council District 5. See, we are just south of the tennis center and University Boulevard East. You can see that lot today is vacant, has some existing paving. You can see it's zoned general commercial today. They're asking to rezone from general commercial to MR2 for a multifamily development. And you see that proposal here, so 12 one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units. on the site. Here's a sample elevation of the front and floor plans for the one bedroom and then the two bedroom units here. And framework, it's got two framework future land uses. So the first being corridor commercial, the zoning request and intended use does not, excuse me, conform to this framework future land use. Part of the property is also identified as multifamily residential in framework. The zoning requests and use do conform to the plan. You can see those two future land use characters identified here. Moving into our permitted uses and MR2, you can see those there. Now moving into the subdivision. So again, looking at the same area, just looking to consolidate the lot today. You can see multiple lots here. I'd like to remove those internal lot lines. You can see that with contours, without one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering on the right-of-way.

Again, they are doing some right-of-way dedication, just not the, I guess, the best way to describe it is the entire width that the subdivision regulations may call for, but they're doing right-of-way dedication on both of the avenues to widen the road to the minimum width and install a sidewalk.

We'll back up the aerial of this. So you're talking about on 21st and 22nd they're going to?

Yes, sir.

So am I correct in looking that we're going to have a three-story complex five-foot with a five-foot setback right off of University Boulevard, one lot off University Boulevard? Is that what I'm looking at?

Yes, that's what I'm looking at. Yes.

Let me answer that.

That's what they're proposing.

Okay. So five-foot setback, three-story building, one block off University Boulevard.

That's what they were proposing, yes, sir.

Okay. And the front of the building is facing University Boulevard.

I think if they want to speak more on their plan, but that's my understanding is that this is kind of the front.

I just wanted to give him a heads-up of what he's fixing to face. Okay.

Any further questions for staff? Petitioner.

Mike Hicks with Herndon Hicks Associates, 2728 Lerling Wallace Blvd, Northport. As was stated, the request was made in order to construct an apartment building here, which was what was on this property before the tornado blew it down. The little bit of the waiver, the variance we're requesting is, On the 21st Avenue side, it'll line up with the properties to the south. There are two other apartment buildings almost immediately south of these. So it won't be inconsistent with the neighborhood.

Are they three-story?

I'm not sure if there's two or three.

Mike, I just, I can't. I don't like it. I mean, I just don't think this is what we need in that area. I mean, you're putting three stories of building against an adjacent commercial lot that, you know, you're afraid to put apartments five foot off a potential fast food restaurant or a potential convenience store or something. And you'll have people on a balcony looking down at people driving through. It just doesn't favor anything. I mean, I can't.

The apartments, the balconies would face to the south over the parking lot. The developers are here.

Did I read it right? The front doors of these apartments, that right there is going to be Basie University Boulevard.

Brandon Clark, Enfield Concepts, 2201 Maxie Thomas Way. Yes, that's correct. The orientation of the building, the front doors will be facing the parking lot. The lot has some challenging grade, and I understand your questions about it going from commercial to residential. When you look along that corridor of University, there is one lot of commercial, and then it pretty much goes to residential. St. John's Flats, which you asked about, is three stories, which is Yeah, they're to the south. And we probably do have some room to shift the building further to the south to get some more room off the setback there.

Bring the zoning up right on showing that area right there, please. So St. John's is the MR2. All that's MR2, right? Yes. And St. John, that's MR2. That's the property line that has MR2 in there, right? All that.

If I may, we developed the townhomes at the corner of University Boulevard, well, Kicker Road and 9th Place East. They're parkside townhomes. Those are three-bath townhomes. We'd like to even out the unit mix and what's being offered there with some ones and two bedrooms. That's where we created this concept of a stacked flat, which is designed to give the appearance of a townhome from the exterior. But because you've got a one-story unit and a two-story unit stacked, it's not possible to use a townhome regime. We would typically use a townhome regime.

I'm not opposed to the development itself. I'm opposed to the way it's laid out on the lot with the adjacent lot. I just don't feel like it's... I keep visualizing that coming down University Boulevard and seeing this towering five foot off an adjacent lot line. I think it's limiting... it could potentially hurt you or whoever. Are these going to be rented? Are these rental units? These will be rentals.

We typically do townhomes, but again, because they're stacked, we're not able to do them as a townhome.

With the whole face of that complex running the whole length of that lot with adjacent commercials, in my opinion, it's just too close. Okay.

Have you spoke with Councillor Tyner about this project?

We were scheduled to meet with him a couple times, and that's been rescheduled to Wednesday now, but we had two appointments with him.

Zach, how is it that our regs allow this?

So it's because of the, it's because where the streets are essentially. So these are their front setbacks or these are where those front setbacks would be. And then this would be where the side setbacks are. And from a commercial development perspective, they're going to have a buffer, you know, in between. So they could either do a 20 foot buffer with a wall or they could do a 35 foot buffer right here.

That's on the commercial side. On the commercial side. So the commercial has the buffer, not the main.

No, the multifamily does not have the buffer from the commercial.

How does it shrink that commercial?

Yeah, it could impact what could be built there on a commercial.

Yeah, can you get back to the aerial? So I looked at this, anticipating that question. So this is about 125 feet. And Mr. Hicks can correct me if I'm wrong, if you know exactly. um and then looking at what would be required so the rear setback for gc is 15 feet so you have to at least have 15 feet here but then if this was developed as multi-family you'd have either 20 foot in a wall so an additional five feet and then they could build a wall along the property line which again to your point you know five feet A five-foot setback of a multifamily building with a huge wall right there might be hard on this development specifically, not necessarily the commercial development. And then they've got a 20-foot setback right there on the front.

So you're really limiting that commercial space to about 80 feet?

Yeah, you've got 125 total, 20 in the front and 20 in the back, we'll say.

About 80 feet of building pad. Yeah. I mean, that's not a ton of comparison.

I mean, but are we, I mean, we don't know what commercial.

No, but we need the commercial. I mean, you could be rendering that commercial useless for years to come. And I know that area's been slow to redevelop, but we know we can't have residential on that lot. Right. We don't want residential lots.

Do y'all own the property along University? We own one of the parcels. So we're actually limiting whoever owns that property, except for the one lot that they own.

It could be limiting to the commercial, depending on what wants to go there, based off the buffers.

Well, let me go back. So that's our commercial setbacks. That's going to be limited anyway. That has no bearing on what he's doing, correct? I mean, because that's what it is now.

No, but I mean, but think about it. He's taking a big chunk of commercial property and, you know, what's somebody want to come in there and larger development wants to come in and acquire that commercial?

If this property were commercial, would the setback be the same?

Yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. It currently is the same. That's what I'm saying. Currently it's the same. So I don't know how that impacts.

Would it be the same, though, if it were developed commercially? Is there still a 35-foot setback requirement?

Or is it less? No, there wouldn't be a buffer requirement between the two.

What about this commercial lot that would be instantaneously making it to a spot zoning?

This little guy.

That one there, I mean, that's a commercial lot. What does he do? Well, that's a good question. He's kind of in a... We're potentially negatively impacting multiple commercial... We are. Areas and potential commercial areas. I mean, I know we need beds out there. You know, beds and heads drive commercial, but... Oh, I tell you, this one, this one... Yeah.

Yeah. may i am i in the part where i can sure okay yeah i'll say that the one lot that is owned commercial is owned by how owned by hal corbin who has the largest assemblage of lots across the street and i understand it to be something related to that um i would also say as well just and i hope the staff can attest to this when we bring something to y'all we make a real effort to try to meet all the requirements and not come asking for variances And I understand a rezoning is different than a subdivision approval. But we've really made an effort to study your codes and understand all the different parts of the codes and account for all the different parts of it and bring you something that meets what the plan calls for. And the only variance we are asking for is with 11 and a half feet in one side and eight and a half on the other versus a few feet more. And we can give a little more right away there on either side to get there. It just didn't functionally help. with the roads because of the existing conditions and the new curbs put in by the city. So we hear your concerns. I think we can move the building back. You're not approving this specific plan right now that's shown to you. This is a concept plan being shown for your consideration with what we have in mind and we're trying to be forthright with that versus come to you with smoke and mirrors and not give you all the information. But it's not the final plan and it doesn't have to be the final plan tonight. So I do think that we can shift the entire plan to the south over five feet to give some more separation from the commercial property up front.

Pull back up, Mr. Alwyn. Number one, I appreciate you. I appreciate what you said. I appreciate you telling us and giving us all that information and being forthright with us. That's refreshing. You know, I just... The two issues here, obviously, it being so close to that property line as well as that satellite lot we'll be creating there, would be better served, in my opinion, if you can get us some answers on both of those before we move forward with this. I'll say that to you. Just in my opinion, if you want to. look at continuing, we would certainly consider that so you could come up with some better ideas. At least address our concerns, or my concerns. I'm only one vote, but those are my concerns.

May I have some concerns about the rezoning altogether? Whether that's the impact on the surrounding properties and creating that island.

You know, and we're a recommended body on this case. It's going to go to council. I think it'd be I would love to get the input from Councilor Tyner. I think he needs to, I mean, there's no one that's more invested in that area than he is. I think he needs to.

I agree. That would be one of my main concerns. I know you've tried to contact him, but, you know, just getting the input and the information some direction from Councilor Tyner on this would be, it's very beneficial to all of us, but especially to me.

I have issues with the property loan university. I don't want to limit what someone can do with the property that they own because you've built something before they do. And that commercial property is really important to the city as far as tax revenue and growth in the city. So I just have a problem with, and this doesn't meet, did you say it didn't meet the framework

So it was kind of split. Part of the property is identified as commercial in a framework. You see that in red. That southern piece is identified as residential, specifically for multifamily.

That's the one that meets conformity and the commercial does not. So basically the reason it does not is the same thing we're talking about here. Right. So there's a reason it doesn't conform. And I think we're all kind of seeing from the same hymnal on this. I think it'd be advantageous to hear what we're saying and meet with council.

Yeah, I'd appreciate that opportunity and ask to continue. And as one of the property owners on University, I mean, and having done a lot of commercial development myself, I'd like to see it develop commercially as well so we could look into how that could be done.

I think I'd work with Mr. Corbin if he's the one that owns the other commercial lot that would be You say we know him and everything, but I think he needs, he might not, he should have received some kind of notification of this, but I would definitely want to, if I'm him, I'd want to have a conversation with you.

He may not have realized the 35-foot step.

I mean, yeah. So you're formally asking for a continuance? Yes. Okay. All right. We appreciate that. Thank you. All right, Commission. Before us, we have a contingent request for Z.

Just real quick, public comments in case there are any.

My bad. I'm sorry. Yep. Is anyone here to speak for or against this petition request? I don't think anyone signed up. If you care to speak for or against, please come forward. Okay, having heard none, Commission, of course, we have a continuous request for Z1626 and S4726. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, ayes have it.

All right, next up we have a preliminary plat. This is S4826, CCVFD subdivision, being a re-survey of lot one, Stonehenge Place, and lots one through three, Stonehenge Place number three. This is one lot on approximately 5.2 acres, located at and around 11604 Stonehenge Road. This is not in city limits. See, we are way up north on the lake. You can see there's four lots here today with an existing structure. They'd like to consolidate this into one larger lot. You can see that with contours without one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering. We have no issues with that request. Petitioner.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Bobby Herndon, 2728 Lurlean Wallace Boulevard in Northport, representing the Carroll's Creek Volunteer Fire Department. They have one lot where one of the stations is on, and they're acquiring three more lots contiguous to it, and they want to consolidate it all into one big lot.

Pretty clear? Yes, sir. Anyone have any questions for the petitioner?

Hard to vote against the Volunteer Fire Department. No kidding. I said it's hard to vote against the Volunteer Fire Department.

I'm glad you say it that way, sir.

Thank you. Anyone who cares to speak for or against? Having heard none, Commission, before us we have S4826, CCV, FD Subdivision. One variance request capsular engineering has no issues with. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion. Second. Mr. Dooley? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes, motion approved.

Thank you, guys. All right, next up is S4926, McGuire Addition to Old Farmhouse Subdivision, Resurvey of Lots 1 and 2, Old Farmhouse Subdivision. This is one lot on approximately 6.1 acres, located north of Joe Namath Road and east of John Swindle Road. This is not in city limits. Again, way up on the lake. You can see that lot today is vacant. They'd like to remove that middle lot line. You can see that with contours without one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering.

No issues with that request. Petitioner.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Marty Montgomery, Montgomery-Ninkle Land Survey. Thank you. 203 Hargrove Road, East Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Representing Joshua and Jessica McGuire, we want to take these two lots and put together to build a house where the old lot line would be.

Any questions for the petitioner? How did he get the name Joe Namath Road? No history there? Actually, it's Joe Namath Pass. Joe Namath Pass. How about that? Okay.

Not path, but pass. Pass, I like that.

That's a really good question. I'd like to know.

I mean, it's way up there. There's some history there somewhere.

Joe Namath, I mean, he owns property on the end, and Joe Namath Road comes down, and that just connects the two, so. I don't know how it got Joe Namath passed, but it did.

That's pretty punny. That's right.

That's very punny. Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against? Having heard none, Commissioner Boyle, we have S-4926, McGuire, addition to the old farmhouse subdivision. One variance request capped sewer. Engineering has no issues with it. We have a motion and a second.

Motion to approve. Second. Ms. Hornsby. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right, last on the agenda tonight is S5026, 12th Avenue Townhomes, a re-survey of lots nine and 10, block 318, TCIL subdivision, consisting of seven lots and one open space lot on approximately 0.4 acres, located at and around 1124 17th Street. This is Council District Two. So you were just west of Central High School, south of 15th Street. See that existing lot today has an existing structure, and we're going to be looking at the site plan with north on our left here. You can see those seven proposed townhome lots, one common space lot in the rear for their parking. Without contours, you can see the additional parking in the garages shown here. They did provide some renderings for what these may look like when said and done. We do have one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering only. So we're going to be in favor of this request because there is an Alabama Power Company transmission pole that conflicts with the development of the alley in this particular case.

The alley is on the north side of the property.

Yes, sir. The pole is just a little bit off of the diagram there. It would just be an exorbitant cost to get that pole moved. It would be a deal killer. Their layout seems to be appropriate working directly off of 17th.

Mike, I know we are trying to get rid of alleys. We have an alley right there, don't we, all the way through that property? Right?

Yeah, so, you know, the developer could petition to vacate the portion of the alley that he has ownership next to. Ideally, I prefer that the entire alleys be vacated, but it would take... you know, the landowners on the north side of that right-of-way joining in to do a full right-of-way alley vacation.

Just out of curiosity, what's that commercial building up there on the northeast corner? What's that?

That's an apartment complex.

That's an apartment complex?

Or it's, I think, a quadplex, maybe. Really?

It'd be great if we could get those property owners to figure that alley out. vacate that. Maybe the petitioner will think about it.

Petitioner.

Hello, hello, everyone. Thank you for having me today. My name is Nick Angwar, and I'm the petitioner.

What's your address for the record, please?

My address here is 1210 16th Avenue Northeast, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 36265. Oh, wait, 35405, sorry. Yeah, my name is Nick Engler and I'm excited to represent 12th Avenue Terrace on quarter 17th and 12th. And we are our goal here is basically to build homes for the Tuscaloosa community or the future and present Alabama alumni. And this street means a lot. I was a student here six years, got my undergrad and my master's here at Tuscaloosa. I'm walking on the road because there's no sidewalk. I biked here, drove here and passed Miss Janet's grocery store for every single day almost. And that's exactly what the building, the existing building that's on there and hopefully turn into something beautiful. Vacant alleyway is something that I'm totally open to. I know the owners of all the properties and would be happy to help there too. But I know that we're wanting to move forward as quickly as we could, I think. And so if that is an option and would help the city as well, because you wanted to vacant it, we're definitely open to it.

So these are very similar to the ones that are down the street. No, sir.

Is it a different developer? You're your own developer? I am a small fish in a big pond looking to build something beautiful here. And we have some example renderings.

They look very familiar. Like that right there looks almost very similar to the ones down the block over, right?

I would say... The seven town homes are similar, but the design, the aesthetics, the building materials, the elevations, the dwelling floor plan, as well as the accessories are vastly different. We're not cookie cutter. We're trying to do something really beautiful. Where I'm from, I've lived in Atlanta for two years, live in Nashville as well. I want to bring something that's very unique and amazing to Tuscaloosa, but still have that charming feel as a city that we love and enjoy. Any questions for our petitioner?

It's an eyesore right now. It's going to be a vast improvement. All right, thank you. Anyone who cares to speak for or against this petition request? All right, having heard none, Commission, before us we have S-5026, 12th Avenue Townhomes. One variance request, alley improvements. Engineering has no issues with it. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion approved. Mr. Dooley? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved. Anything else from staff?