City Council - Regular Meeting

Um, I'm going to throw it over to the mayor because he and Mr. McClinton have a event to go to for the Finley Award banquet.

Yes. Thank Thank you, Mr. President. Got to uh give a few comments to all the Finley Award winners tonight. Big crowd at the at the Finley Center at 6 o'clock. Also want to invite everybody. The Stallions reached out to to us this week and they're doing a fanfest tomorrow between 4 and 6 at the Brock Scap Brewery. Uh AJ McCarron, the new new coach, will be there, some of the players, and uh they're uh a lot of their fan base comes from Hoover, so they're excited to come. They're actually going to be doing uh uh I'm not sure which elementary school tomorrow, but they're going to one of the elementary schools with bouncy houses and stuff. And the school system is very happy because tomorrow's the last day before spring break. So, they're looking looking for those kids to do something. So, uh if everybody's invited, uh out there tomorrow, I hope some can attend. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh let's see. Resolution number 878726 approving alcohol license for five-star concessions uh doing business as 2026 regions tradition golf tournament. Miss Harris, any issues with this? Very good. Getting ready for the busy time of the year. I'm probably going to bring up that uh we need Miss Levelvel to represent the council during the proam. Yes, Mr. Mayor. We're going to need you to get Miss Love on a on a team. All in all in favor say I.

All right. Resolution 878826 declaring that certain personal property is not needed for public or municipal purposes and directing the disposal. Mr. Moose.

Evening council. Mr. President. Um this is our annual process of getting rid of old hardware. Um computers, servers, docking stations, those types of things. Uh we've got about five pallets worth of equipment. I think pictures were included of some of that stuff. All of the hard drives have been removed from the equipment, so they'll be properly disposed of and destroyed in a separate process. Um all this used to get sent to auction, which nobody buys, and it goes to the landfill. Now we actually send it to a recycling company and depending on the types of materials I can get out of it, we actually get part of that money back which offsets our cost of getting it recycled. Very good. Any comments or questions for Moose? Is that a local company? It is. They're right over here off of uh

Oxmore. Well, it's right off of Lorna. I can't think of the little side road over there, but they're right over there. And so we don't pay for them to take the equipment. We don't pay to what? We don't pay them. They end up paying us. Well, it depends on what it is. if they can recycle, if they can get some of the metals out of it. We sometimes we get a check back, sometimes we write a check for about $500. So, it just depends on what the material is and what they can get out of it. All right. Um, Moose, you have the next one as well. Resolution number 878926 authorizes the mayor to execute a contract with AT&T Enterprises.

Yes. So, this goes back to the NCFI expansion. Uh, we had the fiber lines coming into the building. We had copper coming into the building. Uh, everybody's moving away from copper. Um, I think we, you as a body approved the cost from pulling new fiber in. The cost to pull copper in would be more than double that, approximately $60,000. So, we're not going to do that. We're actually going to replace the existing POTS lines or plain old telephone lines with a fiber solution inside of there. And so, our cost for that is, I think it was in the sheet there, but it's about $35 a piece for each of the wines per month, which is about what we're paying for them right now. So it's almost a wash for that just to change the technology. Very good. Any comments, questions? Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to resolution number 879026 authorizing the mayor e execute a service agreement with fire firehouse ministries, excuse me, for emergency shelter services. Mr. President, councel, thank you. This is just one of our annual service agreements that the firehouse ministries was late getting back to us. It's one we do every year and they provide some some bed space for us for our homeless population when needed with again it's a contract we do every year with them. Very good. Uh great organization. Any comments or questions for the chief? No, I did not I didn't say kickback. Thank you, chief. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to resolution number 8791-26 authorizing the mayor to exe execute an agreement with Shaw Engineering Company for flood plane management and flood mitigation grant program services. Mr. Gilbert

Mr. President Councel this is a resolution to renew our contract show engineering uh for fully plane management program. They would uh provide services city as far as flood plane management facility compliance with FEMA and the city's flood plane regulations. Um the in-house staff in the past as we hope this continue will come in one day a week which in the past has been Wednesday. They will have one-hour training class for building inspection, engineering and zoning. Uh in that time they also review flood plane development permits, elevation certificates and FEMA letter of map change and provide support services and they will consult and attend any meetings with regulatory agencies and insurance office uh specialist the ongoing management city planning uh city flood management program uh Phil they will also facilitate grant applications selected for FEMA hazard mitigation assistance and kind of in summary, manage the city's flood plane management, uh, flood plane program improvements and manage flood mitigation grant programs.

Very good. This will get us through the end of the budget year. Uh, any comments, questions from Mr. President, um, Mr. Gilbert, during the last term, did SH give the council any studies or surveys during that five-year period? Oh, I I would believe they have, but I can't say for certain. Well, I know that I wasn't here during that time and I know I would like a copy. I don't know about any of the others. We can provide you what we have. Thank you. All right, Mr. President. Were there any grants um that were because you said this is for flood mitigation grant program.

Yeah, I believe they had some FEMA grants, but uh again, I don't know that much. Okay. If I could have more information on what those were and if they were Okay. I believe they are also managing some of the the homes that qualify to be right that in a flood plane that can be bought out from the federal government. Yeah. Not just homes, but any properties that that fall in that category. Repeat offenders. Any other comments or questions? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Resolution number 879226 accepting change order number one and authorizing the mayor execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the change order for the NCFI addition project. Mr. Miller,

good evening. Uh just to answer a question from previously. So some of the FEMA grants, you're exactly right, Dr. Middlebrooks. The um was the buyout program, the FEMA buyout program. So we've applied for that twice. We've not been selected for any of our our houses to date for either of those application pieces. That's the latest update I have on that. So, all right. Now, we'll move on to the other one. Just a point of clarity on that. Those are still pending though, right? The the second round are still pending. That's correct. Okay.

All right. Uh the other item that you have in front of you, I've got here the uh change order for uh NCFI project. This is the first change order that we have. There's actually five different items in there. Total amount is $26,3721. Uh this all of these items come out of the contingency fund that is currently bid in the project which was $200,000. So with these five uh there would be a $0 change order. Um there's no additional funds that are needed for it and would mean that we have $173,962.79 left in the contingency fund for this project. Very good. Any comments or questions from council?

Okay. Thank you. Resolution number 879326 authorizing budget amendments for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2026 for the Hoover Fire Department and the Hoover Police Department and authorizing the mayor execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the purchase of equipment and completion of a jail security screening system upgrade. Dr. Lopez.

Good evening. Uh these are three items uh relatively smaller in amounts. The first one being $10,000 for the life pack training simulator equipment for the fire department that's coming out of the opioid money. Uh the second one being for the fire department. Uh they had received a a contribution from CSX Transportation. So, they're going to use that for some grounding and bonding equipment. And uh that was for $2,500. And then the third item uh is basically a a reallocation from uh the uh federal inmate funds uh to provide additional money for a security screening system at the jail.

Very good. Any comments or questions for Dr. Lopez? Thank you. Resolution number 879426 authorizing the mayor to execute a contract agreement with Pyro Shows of Alabama for a fireworks display. Mr. Pepper.

Good evening everybody. This is our uh agreement with Pyro Shows to do our annual uh Independence Day fireworks show which will be on July 1st out at the Hoover Met. Um this is a little larger show than what we've done in the past. This will be a 20-minute show. We'll shoot approximately 250 more shells than in the past. So, uh, we're adding a birthday barrage for to celebrate America's 250th birthday at the beginning of the show and then a red, white, and blue scene before the finale. So, we'll see how that looks, but should be a good time. Any comments, questions for this?

Mr. President, uh, just a quick question. Will this be um access inside said stadium or is is it outside like the uh right now it's still outside the stadium? Outside. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pepper. Mhm. I've got the resolution number 8777A26 amending resolution 877726 for the purpose of waving performance bond requirements for FanFest contractor Drummer Boy Productions doing business as Martin Sports Properties. Mr. Barnett,

Mr. President, council members, the um the contractor that you approved last last meeting uh that came afterwards um and ask Mr. Pepper to um amend um the agreement to wave the performance bond. I'm a fan of performance bonds as I've told your staff, but um in this situation, the request was um quite reasonable in that it uh you get half your money up front. you do keep, excuse me, they get half their money up front. You do keep half the proceeds. So, you do have some some leverage there for performance. U you know, their arguments were that they don't in their industry, they don't normally provide performance bonds. And if um if they could wave the expense, um they would, you know, that was their request. And so, um, in this situation, I would not necessarily, um, I I I would recommend it in the event that you all are like mind.

Very good. Any comments, questions, Mr. Driver? Just a question. Um, what is the nature of the services that Martin Sports would be providing? So, they're bringing basically a entertainment package to the baseball tournament in the form of FanFest. Um, they're going to they kind of say it as bringing almost a circus, you know, a family-friendly entertainment aspect. So, yeah, they're providing a service to to entertain our fans.

I guess my my only hesitation on that would be, you know, if if they fail to perform, yes, we don't necessarily owe them the second half of their money, but where does that position us with our obligations to the SEC? a big disappointment if they don't perform. Um and and half the proceeds, you pretty much nailed it. So, um we we would be fighting with their insurance carrier for the bonds to be produced, the bond amount to be produced.

So, we had a long discussion about this on Tuesday when when Mr. Peppers called me and I talked to Mr. Barnett as well. is um there was no uh your question is a very valid question as to where are we and and we were we didn't really we were in a situation there where it was a little too late there was no plan B so we are either we agreed to it or um he may bas did did you get that impression

yes sir I did um I haven't talked to him personally but I did see his long um request and professional request in an email version and Mr. Pepper can talk to that. But um you know worst case um they don't perform, they back out at the last minute and they've gotten their 50% proceeds. We've got the other 50. So we'd be fighting for the 50% that they've already received. So they wouldn't we wouldn't be able to double dip so to speak, but we would be able to fight to get that 50% back. So, we're 50% of the values on the line, I guess you could call it.

I'll say real quick. Go ahead. Yeah. So, uh, so since there's a, uh, ferry to comply, right? So, let's say hypothetically we have a performance bond, they can still fail to comply. What is our secondary goto? uh in the event that they don't perform because either way you're stuck because you have to go through court proceeds and you're still not going to have it in time, right? It's a contractual the if you're looking for a practical safety net about who who who helps the FanFest at that point. I I don't know.

Yeah, I was going to say let's say tomorrow he told us, "Yeah, I'm not doing this." Then I guess our plan B would be to go to the other company who submitted a a proposal. Now the time frame of that I don't know even if starting tomorrow it's going to be a rush for that that company to put it together. Let's say a week in advance he's he says I'm not coming we are definitely in trouble. Yeah. So I and I get from an operational standpoint you know they try probably trying to save money other things they've not do. Has that second company uh had any push back on providing said uh performance bond and also can they perform at the same levels?

I am not certain as to whether or not company number two um they haven't said anything to my knowledge but I don't think that they've had an opportunity to object because um as far as they know they were not selected. So So Mr. Pepper, can you give us the history of Drummer Boy Productions? Uh, as far as I mean, they're a pretty wellestablished company that have been performing for 25 years. If I'm

They have a a history deal um doing FanFest performances for Cincinnati Reds and other professional baseball teams as well as the Boston Bruins and Cleveland Cavaliers and then like University of Notre Dame, University of Michigan. Those were just the ones that were in his proposal. Um, you know, where he showed examples of what he could do. He has been in business for 25 years. He's also been after our business, the FanFest, for well over a year. He he contacted me before the last tournament, wanting to know how he could produce it. And I told him it was a RFP process and it would be coming out. So, he stayed in touch over the year and was patiently waiting. And when the RFP came out, he he submitted. He's been here at least once. I think he came twice kind of on his own dime to see I think he was here last year during the tournament to kind of see what it was looked like. He also attended the pre pre-bid meeting that was mandatory. And he's coming from u it's not Chicago. I say Chicago every time. But he's out of

Michigan. Yeah. U Michigan I believe where it is. So he's it was the the performance bond was definitely mentioned in the RFP and he he didn't question it. nobody did in the mandatory pre-bid mandatory meeting, but this was the first time that the bond had been included in our RFP process, like it wasn't included the last time. Um, so he he has done everything that we've asked him to. He's done the the Alabama business license, the Hoover business license. He's turned in all his other credentials that that we've asked, but this is just the one thing that he has pushed back on and said that it's not standard in his in his business. Mr. Murphy, you have something else?

I I'll follow up with some I don't want to believe the point. I'll stand down. I'll yield my time. Mr. Driver, anything else? No, I'll also follow up later. Thank you, Mr. shorts. So, basically what we had was this was and as you know we brought this to you on Tuesday which was after the Monday deadline to get it on the agenda due to getting payment to them and uh in time because otherwise it would have been in the second week of April the next meeting and so the item before us now is do we wave the uh the performance bond

Mr. Mr. Bernett, so if I understand correctly, if we proceed with the resolution as it is, this will negate the performance bond. If they fail to perform, we'll have to go possibly to court to get the money back. If we leave the performance bond in, they could still fail to perform and that wouldn't protect us as far as the SEC is concerned, but we would have an avenue to get the money back. Same court process. Yes, sir. Um but but would have another would have something else would would have the bond itself to

if they're going to fail to perform they're going to fail perform regardless and we don't have a backup. I I'll also say that he says that you know leaving 50% on the table he feels like that is a bond and this is a a two-year agreement with the possibility of extending it for a third year. So if he, you know, takes our money and runs, he's leaving 200,000 more on the table for the next two years. So I mean, he's he's forfeiting a lot of money.

Mr. President, um, has certainly he would have bid this with the bond cost into the profit margin that he had for his bid. Correct. You would you would think so, but he he says that whenever he was looking at the the RFP document that he read it if the bond was required and if the bond was required and honestly I got on the phone with him I'm like please tell me pull it up on your computer and tell me where you were looking and he looked I don't know it's a 59page document and he found it back on page 52 or something like that. I was like okay but look on page 10 number 19.0 says a performance bond is required. So yes, deeper in the document it said it it was in a list and it said if required, but you know, many pages earlier it it stated that it was that it was required. And he to that point he said, "Okay, I see that, but it's just not standard in our in our business." And he said, "It feels like that y'all have taken all your RFPs and everything and kind of mushed them together." He's like, "That's more common for road builders or people who are doing construction projects that might take years." So he he says that we're within a 60-day window and he's ready to get moving. So

So if we don't if we don't have him don't require the bind, can we give him the Riverwalk documents and have him read those too? Probably good punishment. Just just verify this for me from the bidding process, the nonresponsive process and and nothing against whoever company A, B, or C. uh it was multiple biders or two more than one right. So if one doesn't comply with said bid documents then we need to make sure it's not unfair advantage of nonresponsive of said bid which force you to go to number two. I I just want to just make sure you look you illegally look at that and if for fact of protesting

I will I will say this that uh in the event the council waves that contract requirement then it's valid for this bidder and um but if he's not going to comply you could certainly move on if if that's I mean if you do not wave it and he says I'm not going to comply. Okay. I hope that answer your question. Thank you. Perfect. Any further comments? How much does such a bond cost?

Uh, depending on the obviously the creditworthiness and the financial viability of the company, it could be half a percent up to 4%. Um, I believe Mr. Munger threw out possibility of three to 5% maybe or I can't remember that concept, but it's the city's credit. What's the city's creditworthiness? The city. No, it's not the city. if for whatever reason we did not require him to get the bond, but we were concerned enough to where the city chose to obtain the bond.

Um, or can the city obtain a bond for for their uh you could you could build that into the award if you would, but it would be a an insurance contract taken out by the bidder. And so it would be their insurance policy for that purpose. And the premium would again be anywhere from half a percent up to six depending on would that be enough of a change to require a rebid? I don't think you have time for a rebid. I I know that but in a normal in a normal aspect would it normally require a rebid where we shouldn't even talk about it?

No sir. I I say that the council can wave that contract requirement for any of the biders. Thank you. And Mr. President, this is a new requirement, correct? That hasn't been on previous contracts. It was not on the FanFest uh RFP whenever we did it in 2023. I don't know. I know our our purchasing department is trying to standardize U documents and so they they have added it in there, but it was not in the 2023 RFP request. Miss Schulz, you have anything to add?

Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. P. Um, one comment or question for council. Is everyone for now okay with this remaining on the consent agenda or should we be prepared to move this to the regular agenda? Let's move it to the regular agenda. Sar. Okay. We will move on to resolution number 879526 approving and asenting to a declaration of vacation of a utility easement located on the property at 250 Riverchase Parkway East. Mr. Martin.

Good evening, Council President and Council. Um, this is in conjunction with the platting of the first phase of Riverwalk, the residential sector. The Signature Homes is developing on the south end of the property. There is a 30-foot wide easement uh dedicated for use by Alabama Power uh that uh they are seeking to vacate on the property. Uh this was approved as part of the platting for Riverwalk phase one by the planning commission uh earlier in the month and so it comes to you for final approval.

Any comments or questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, uh we'll move on to resolution 878326 declaring as a public nuisance the conditions allowed to exist at the property located at 3766 Abbey Glenn Way and requiring immediate abatement.

Yes, sir. um believe we had some discussion on this at a previous meeting uh when we went to um approve the final amount for the abatement the last time we were on the site uh to go place the lean on the property. Uh the property is in a condition where it is out of conformity with our property maintenance code and um is a nuisance and so we staff are asking for the uh council to hold a public hearing and declare the property a nuisance uh so that we can move on to abading it once again.

Very good. Any comments or questions regarding this item? Thank you, Mr. Martin. All right, we'll have a second reading for ordinance number 262688, an ordin ordinance authorizing Hoover Fire Department to charge a fee for service for cost recovery of non-emergent lift assist responses to Alabama state licensed assistant assisted living, residential care, nursing facilities, and other healthc care providers within the city of Hoover. Chief, no change from the original first reading and what we covered last time. Correct. Any comments, questions from Yes, sir.

Chief, how did you come up with Paduca, Kentucky being the uh example that you wanted to use? Chief, you got to come down.

Thank you, Mr. Council. Uh, Mr. President Council, if I'm not mistaken, that's where the uh ambulance billing company that we use, that's where they're headquartered out of. Is that it? All right. Moving on for immediate consideration for ordinance number 262693 to amend chapter 16, article 2, section 1613 of the municipal code of the city of Hoover to change the time of the meetings. Councelor Schultz.

Yeah, we're asking for the Arts Council to move their start time from 5 to 5:30. Um, seems to be better for all the members in order to to make the the meetings. Very good. Any comments, questions for council? Just a quick question for the clerk. Um, do have we confirmed that doesn't conflict with any other standing meetings that would be used in the same room? Yes, she wrote this. Okay. Thank you.

All right. We will set a public hearing for resolution number 878626 granting conditional use approval for the operation of an event venue at the property located at 2084 Valley Road. Welcome back.

Yes, sir. Uh this particular item was heard by the planning commission and uh comes to you with a positive recommendation. Uh this particular location uh is approximately 7500 square feet of uh interior space. Half of that would be dedicated to the open event space. Uh roughly the other half is for uh offices as well as meeting rooms and other ancillary space uh back of house space. Uh the planning commission in bringing its recommendation to this body did have several comments or conditions uh that they would like placed on approval for conditional use and uh they are as follows that uh the parking and sidewalk are to meet the latest accessibility requirements. Uh two, improvements to the driveway access are to be made in accordance with the traffic analysis that was submitted with the application. Uh three, the plans for site improvements are to be produced by a civil engineer and per and submitted for permitting. And then finally, the applicant would obtain a business license prior to opening. Uh this location is within the PC plan commercial district of Riverchase plan unit development and uh the comprehensive plan supports employment center office light industrial types of uses in this vicinity.

Mr. Martin as an event venue. So I'm assuming people will be able to rent this out for parties, weddings and and so forth. I I looked at this on Google Maps. It's it's not a huge parking lot there. So, is there ample parking for an an event space like this?

Uh, there is in our analysis. Um, the actual space uh that would be dedicated to the open event uh portion of the site is um approximately uh 3,3500 square ft. And um the occupant load uh the maximum occupancy for that portion of the space is 179 occupants per the building code. And so when we went through the application, the analysis that was put to it, given the 179 app occupants for the open event space, uh that would require 63 parking spaces. And in addition to that, the general office back of house functions carry a uh one space per per 250 square ft of uh office floor area. Taking out any mechanical bathrooms and other space looking at functional space, uh we came up with um uh 10 required spaces for that component of the of the site. So total required parking uh 73 spaces and 76 are provided on the site. So it's very close.

Any further comments or questions for Mr. Martin? Did they provide any examples, Mr. President, of um what types of events would be held there? Primarily it would be um office gatherings, party events, um some wedding receptions. uh were also examples that were given. Um so generally oneoff kinds of special events. Uh nothing was communicated to us that um there would be any kind of regular occurrence any one particular event uh occurring there uh on a recurring basis.

So no type of like owner occupying situation. None occupied. Yeah. Any further comments, questions? Some quick just and if you don't know it right now, that's fine. What's the capacity of max events? They anticipated they give you any capacity numbers? 179 is the occupant load for the event space. You say 179. 179. But how many how many vehicles?

Uh let's see. According to the building code, uh we've got.35 parking spaces per um or 179 times.35 to get your 63 required spaces

carpool. We just need to ask the police department their thoughts. I don't have any more question. So that is right next door to a little strip mall there that includes ery and um a salon and so forth. Yeah, most of those are are day businesses, right? Is it? So if these are nighttime, then they could possibly move over to there. The u ragtime cafe, I know they operate evenings as well. Um but if there is a need for spillover, there can perhaps be an arrangement made between the two properties.

If uh the other property does not agree to that arrangement, do we have ample enforcement for people trying to park in rag times parking spaces? It would be a private property matter. Okay. Very good. All right. I have a is the applicant on the uh on the in the packet. Yes. Okay. All right. Janine Bailey and a partner of hers.

Any further comments on this item? We'll move on to ordinance number 262689 to adopt a revised zoning map of Hoover. Yes, sir. Um, we adopted a physical zoning map several years ago back in 2023. U as per state code, we're required to have that one physical official map uh that is on display and is amended as the city council adopts ordinances reszoning properties from time to time. Uh that physical map um has been revised a number of times since 2023. In addition to that, uh the wear and tear on the map itself from hanging at the public safety center uh renders it in condition that we would um we would like to retire that particular map and uh and go with a new one. So, um I will note that the new revised official zoning map that we are bringing for your consideration uh does not include any reszoning of property as uh as indicated on that map itself. It is a uh a timestamp of the zoning as it is today and uh would be amended as the council chooses to approve reszonings going forward. Mr. Martin, this is for an oversized map, correct?

That's correct. Um, is it possible to include an additional one for use here at city hall? I know I think council would appreciate being able to view that map at times and have it in one of our offices. I think we can work something out. Any further comments or questions for M. Martin on this item? I will say that we'll have to take care um this being the official map. Uh it is the one that our office will certainly be amending as the city council reszones property over time. Um so I I don't know I may defer to to legal how we need to handle a second map. I would hope for there to be confusion.

It would be behind it would it would also hopefully be amended at the same time. But that one over there at the public safety center would be the official and here would just be a working working copy if you will for the city council and others. Mr. President, isn't this captured on like GIS? Do we update in GIS? Would it would it be better to have uh maybe you set up a computer a larger computer that if it's questions about it uh it can we can look on that or maybe have access to a readable read only file? Um yes sir. Um, some not taking away from still needing visible maps because I like paper. I'm not a paper tiger, but still have it set up right there. So, it's real time.

I'm a librarian. I still like the paper. Like paper. I'm not saying I'm just saying but real time, you know, if it's changed or not. Paper changes by the day. Yeah.

Our our GIS team does an excellent job of updating the GIS side as we have zoning amendments come along. So, it should be the latest and greatest. Any further comments or questions? All right, Mr. Martin, you're still up. Ordinance number 262694, amend ordinance number 263, the city of Hoover, Alabama, entitled the zoning ordinance of the city of Hoover, Alabama for the property located at 3269 Monty Dioral Drive to be zoned to R1 single family residential district.

Yes, sir. This is a property that uh was annexed into the city is currently not zoned. Uh it is used for single family residential purposes and uh we are at this time asking for the property to be zoned R1 uh rather than just hanging out there without a zoning designation. Uh the R1 district would be in line with the neighboring property zoning as well as the use of this site. remember this annex? It's uh been several years ago because now we do a prezoning before we annex. Correct. In a lot of cases we do. Not in every case. Very good. Any other comments or questions?

I was just going to clarify. I believe if I remember right from planning and zoning, this one and number 20 were uh annexed in 2019. That's correct. So there was some sort of an oversight that those did not get zoned between then and now.

That's right. And in response to your inquiry at the planning commission meeting, uh, our GIS team did go back and do a thorough review of all of the properties that are still showing as not zoned. And so we do have a master list now of all of those properties. Um, of the properties that are not zoned, uh, there are, in addition to the two that we're going to be taking care of, this one on Monty Dioro and the one on Shelterwood Circle, uh, there are three that have been annexed but not zoned during my tenure. Um, one of them is a single family residence on uh, South Shades Crest Road that I anticipate being in front of the planning commission next month. Uh the other two are going to need some additional discussion. Uh, one of them is the Baines Bridge property that the city owns. And at least under the previous administration, there was some hesitancy to throw that into one of our non-residential districts uh because the the idea was we were wanting to more narrowly tailor what was allowed to take place on that site uh rather than the open-endedness of some of our zoning districts that are non-residential in nature. um haven't had a chance to have that conversation with economic development here recently, but uh that is one that would anticipate in the not too distant future as soon as we determine, you know, what zoning district is best for the city's long-term vision for that site. And the other is the uh Riverchase Country Club, the golf course. Um that was annexed in 2023. Um it is in the middle of and functionally I would say a part of a plan unit development. Uh so at least my

thinking would be we would need to amend that plan unit development to bring the golf course into Riverchase but it is something that I would like to confer with our legal council just to make sure we have the right process for doing that. Very good. uh for this individual home 2019. Man, I wonder what that previous council was thinking when they just Mr. Smith, do you have any idea what happened?

I I need a little more detail. Maybe maybe we could find the minutes, you know. All right, moving on to ordinance number 262691 uh to amend ordinance number 263 the city of Hoover, Alabama entitled the zoning ordinance of the city of Hoover, Alabama for the property located at 204 Shelterwood Circle being zoned from R1 single family residential district to R LSF Legacy Single Family District.

Okay. Uh this particular case involves a property whereby the owner is looking to add an unenced but covered front porch on the front of their home. Uh that particular front porch would encroach on the 35 ft setback off of the front property line that is established in the R1 district. The RLSF, Legacy Single Family Residential District, still has a 35- ft front setback for the enclosed portion of the house, but does make an allowance for 10 ft of encroachment uh into the front setback for an unenclosed covered front porch. Uh this uh particular zoning district was crafted because we had a number of cases coming up particularly in the Bluff Park area, older developed portions of town where homeowners were looking to reinvest, update their homes. Uh a lot of the building stock there did not include architecturally speaking front porches. And so that has become uh quite a trend as far as those reinvesting in the property to add front porches. and we were running up against a situation where the zoning was not permitting that. So, um just my general practice, if you have an item, uh coming up there there is a trend in your community and it's causing a number of requests for variances to your development criteria in the zoning ordinance, maybe it's time to take another look at the zoning ordinance. And so with the number of requests that we were getting to the BCA for variances to allow front porches, uh that triggered us to go and look at the zoning ordinance to see if there was a solution we could come up with uh in our zoning that could handle um this particular trend. And so that's where the legacy single family district

was born. It was tailor made for this particular application. Very good. Any comments or questions regarding this item? Martin, looking at the house itself, uh, was the house just built too close to the 35 ft because the encroachment doesn't look to be that big.

The encroachment in this particular case, uh, would be about five feet between five and six feet into the setback if you were to add a front porch. Uh, this particular case came to the BZA and for timing sake, they asked to continue. Yes, sir. That's it. Um, part of the reason that there there's a bit of a optical illusion, if you will, on the setback, that particular property is right at the beginning of a culde-sac. So, the road flares out and the front setback goes along with the edge of the culde-sac. So, that's where they were running into issues. They did receive a variance um to go ahead and start construction uh with the intent that they would apply for the resoning and they've made good on that promise.

Very good. Any other comments from council? All right. What about you back row Baptist back there? I see some of you nodding off back there. I know all this zoning talk. All right. Final one. Ordinance number 262690. An ordinance to amend ordinance number 263 to city of Hoover, Alabama, entitled the zoning ordinance of the city of Hoover, Alabama for the property located at 3236 Pinehurst Drive being zoned to R1 single family residential district. Uh this is the same scenario that we had in item number 18. Uh previously annexed property. It's not zoned presently and this would zone it to R1 in keeping with the neighborhood and the use on the site.

Very good. Any comments, questions regarding this item? All right, we're at the end of the agenda. Any comments or questions from council before we adjourn? Mac, before you leave, um how old is the master plan now? It is uh seven years. Uh we adopted it or our planning commission adopted it in 2019. Yeah. Originally it was going to come to the council and some point along the way when the council started having questions, they took that part out. Um How often does that kind of a plan does it get revisited and reviewed?

Preferably uh just our practice as planners, we would have uh that up for consideration every five years uh to look at it, review it thoroughly. Um I know particularly in the past 5 to seven years we've had some pretty major changes COVID and a lot of other things that um may very well skew the numbers as far as the economic analysis that went into it and so on and so forth. So our recommendation as certified planners would be every five years. So this term uh at least if not within the next 12 to 18 months that would be my recommendation.

Thank you sir. That's something else for you Mr. President. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? All right, we're journed.