Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening and welcome to the December 15, 2025 meeting of the city of Tuscosa Planning and Zoning Commission. Any written comments sent to staff were forwarded to this commission director. At this time, I'd like to introduce our staff. We have Mr. Jimbo Woodson, deputy city attorney. Michael Garner, city engineer. Zack Ponds, director of planning, and Leotaa Coin, principal planner. There are nine members of the planning commission, all who are appointed by the mayor for staggered terms with the exception of the city council represent who is appointed by the city council. At this time, I'd like to introduce the commission members. Uh, starting with Miss Hornsby

and Hornsby, attorney. Oh, Raven Howard, councilwoman. Eddie Pew, retired. Steven Ramsey, business owner. Dina Prince, attorney. Porsche Clark, 311 manager. Tim Harrison, general contract. Vest Doulie, UA campus, campus development. Bill Wright, business owner.

There were signup sheets located outside for the public comment. Four speakers are allowed to speak in favor of a petition and four speakers are allowed to speak in opposition of a petition. All speakers will have a maximum of five minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time. Tonight's procedures, the commission will take up items in the order of our final agenda. The commission will initially receive a presentation from the staff as to the details of the agenda item. Addition, 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 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 desire to support the petition. Thereafter, we'll call upon any party in order of sign up, those who oppose the petition. So again, when it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself stating your name and address to the commission to provide your remarks. 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 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 oppose the petition the opportunity to respond to the new information only. Any responses 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

interruption will not reduce your time. Once the commission members are satisfied they received all relevant information will then close for the discussion by the public at which time the commission members will discuss the matter and then vote. After the vote you are free to leave. These proceedings are video record and broadcast live. All in-person public comments should be made at the podium into the microphone. Now jurisdiction in all matters pertaining to the following items. This commission serves as the final authority. Subdivisions located within city limits. Subdivisions located outside city limits but with in the city's planning jurisdiction. Developments with a special district and approval letters for developments in historic buffer zones. As to all remaining agenda matters, including annexations, reszonings, planned developments, and street vacation. This commission serves as a recommending body to the city council. So 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 city council require majority vote for an affirmative recommendation. At this time, I'd ask, do any members of the commission have any conflicts of interest as to any agenda matters before us tonight? If so, please state for the record. I ask staff to confirm on the record that proper notice has been given to all parties in interest as required by law as to all matters before the commission tonight.

It has. Okay. Then one change to the agenda tonight. The following agenda items have been modified. So, uh, companion case on 21st Avenue, which is Z2725, S10125, and SD0625, have been requested for a move to the continuence area. So, do I have a motion and a second to move that case? Second. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Those opposed, eyes have it. With that, we will begin with the approval of the minutes. As the planning and zone commission has received the synopsis for the November 2025 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 I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it.

Good evening, commission. Starting off with the consent agenda tonight, we have one item. We did not receive any public comment and we did not have anyone sign up out front. Okay. Does anyone care to speak for or against this? Do not sign up. Having heard a commission before us, we have consent agenda S 11025, the reservey of lots 13 through 15, Stillwater. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed eyes have.

All right, moving to our cases requesting to continue. Uh, first up we have S10625. We did receive one public comment on this. Um, and the petitioner is here to request that continuence. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm Michael McGuire with uh GSA. Um this is uh a not not an ongoing little project, but we we still have a few things to get worked out. So, we we're requesting to continue it till next month if that's okay.

All right. Measurement reports. We have a contentious request of S10625 Cottage Hill. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion. Second. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. I thank you.

All right, commission. We have one um companion case. I'm requesting to continue as well. The petitioner is here. Um and if you could vote to continue each item separately, that'd be best for us. Okay. My name is Price McGiffford, 1313 Indian Hill Circle, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. I'm requesting a continuence on behalf of Halfp Price LLC in a project on 21st Avenue Town Home Subdivision.

All right, commission. We have a continuous request for three items. We need to take independent votes. So for Z2725, I have a continuous request for halfp price LLC. Do you have a motion, a second? Motion. All in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Eyes have it. Commission for S101-25 21st Avenue town homes request to continues. Do I have a motion and a second? Move to continue. Yes. All those favor say I. I. Those opposed. I just have it. Finish we have for us SD0625 request. Do we have a motion and second? Motion. All say I. I. Those oppos. Thank you.

All right commission. Moving into our cases to be heard tonight. Starting off with an annexation petition. That is AN2025 annexing approximately 6 acres located at 5300 McWes Fairy Road. You can see we're just right off of that new Mcritz Ferry Road here. You can see there's already a home on this property today. Um you can see that property to be annexed in blue, city limits in yellow. Uh they'd like to annex for city schools. Uh this is identified as a primary expansion area in framework. And here are our department comments. We did not receive any public comments. Do you have any questions for staff? Thank you, petitioner.

Name address for the record. James Hawthorne, 5300 Rice Fair Road. And you're requesting for city schools? Yes. Any questions for this petition request? No. Thank you. All right. Commission for an annexation request a 2022 annexing 6 acres at 5300 Mc Wright's Ferry Road. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. Eyes have it. Welcome to the city.

All right, commission. We have another annexation petition. This is AN2125 annexing approximately 2.9 acres located at 10197 Watermelon Road. You can see we're near the intersection of Watermelon and Ston Bend. You can see that uh piece of the property to be annexed. It does have a mobile home on it today. You can see uh that area in blue to be annexed, city limits in yellow. Uh they're requesting to annex for city schools. Uh this is identified as a secondary expansion area. Here are department comments. Um and like I said, this is unique. Uh this is a mobile home requesting to annex. So, it would enter city limits as a non-conforming use.

Any questions? Petitioner. Who is the petitioner? Good afternoon. Hold the microphone down, ma'am.

My name is Bonnie Hullman Forby. I'm requesting the 2.9 acres be put in the city limits. The reason being that I want um my grandchild over here to go to the city schools. Um I see that it's developing all around us. I have 43 acres that I'm probably going to put in city limits the rest of it a little bit later on. But today I'm requesting that the uh 2.9 acres be put in there. Uh the one of the reasons being is that I researched and Rock Corey is in the top 25 schools in the whole state of Alabama. Uh we live five acres, five acres, five miles from the school and a city school bus comes right by my house and stops right up past my house uh to a house on the left. So, the school bus is right there u in my yard just about. So, I'd appreciate you recommending and letting um us get this in the city limits. I I understand that the with a mobile home that is nonconforming. This uh mobile home's been up there for years. Um and I do understand that if it's moved that another mobile home cannot be replaced. So that's my request. Thank you.

No, thank you. All right. Commission before us annexation request 2125 2.9 acres located at 10197 Watermelon Road. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Eyes have it. Welcome to the city.

All right. Moving on. We have a reszoning petition that is Z3025. Seth Richardson petitions to reszone approximately 1 acre located at 820 21st Avenue East from NC to GC. This is council district 5. You see we're just south of the tennis center in Alberta north, excuse me, of University Boulevard East. You can see that property uh one lot's vacant, one has some existing structures. You can see it's zoned NC neighborhood commercial today. Uh they'd like to reszone from NC to GC to uh conform with surrounding zoning um and for future tenants um at this location. You can see uh the property today. This is from 21st Avenue East. Um and then this would be looking from University Boulevard East at the property. Uh this is a site plan submitted by the applicant. Um they're interested in possibly some fencing in that area in red. Uh in framework this is identified as corridor commercial. Um this request does conform to the plan. Um they did not specify the use though um in terms of how it would relate to framework. Um another portion of this property is identified as multifamily residential that is RH. Um since it's residential they're asking for commercial. Um this request does not conform to the plan. Um nor does the use. So you can see that here that multif family residential future land use in orange and corridor commercial um in red. Here are permitted uses in GC. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Can you go back to the colorcoded zoning map? Not the future land use but the So, which part of it is currently in the future use map? The parcel sort of on the right, is that the one that's classified as corridor commercial?

Yes. So, sorry, we're we're drawing at the same time here. Um, but yes, that parcel on the right is the corridor commercial. Um, and then that residential was the parcel on the left. And where is University Boulevard on that map? I'm having trouble figuring that out. Just probably just out of screen here. And just to also you can see it. It's just over the bridge. You can see the property. Just to also clarify, all of this is actually right of way too. It's actually what? right of way. So, this is not private property.

So, we put a zoning uh classification on right ofways. So, we do it to where it goes it it does go over the ride of way. Um yeah, it's a little confusing. We have a layer that takes that away that we could have put here, but that would have been helpful in this situation. So, what color would corridor I mean uh what are they wanting? They don't want corridor commercial, do they? What do they want? General business or general commercial? I mean, so that would be the red. What's the red right there? That's right. What is the What is the IP?

IP is um public in institutional public. Is that the road? It's probably something related to the University of Alabama. What is it? It's what? Let's see. Would be Bryce Hospital. Bryce. Yeah. To the south. Okay. No, that'd be to the west. It's confusing then. That would be West would be going the state of Alabama owns it, but it's vacant today. This property down here that's ownitutional. Yeah, this map doesn't show. Um,

all right. Okay. All right. Those looking at the aerial. I'm just trying to get because I travel that road a pretty good bit. Okay. And right those are apartments that are bordering on University across from that vacant lot that I guess is still right of way. Correct. Okay. Then when you go a little bit further down university on the left, there's that strip place with commercial business in it. What is that? Zoned corridor commercial or is it just um general commercial or

All right. So, these are the town homes you were talking about. Everything to the east of that is corridor commercial. And then you've got residential zone property up here as well as down here. Institutional here, which is a vacant piece of land, I guess, owned by Aldot maybe. And then this is all right of way. Don't really know how that came about, but Mr. Gardner might be able to speak more on kind of why that is. The tennis center property touches this pink property

just north of it. There's a residential piece in between the two that's vacant today, but it's commercial now. Right. Right. Neighborhood neighborhood commercial. So it's identified as neighborhood commercial as the zoning district today. And they can the petitioner's here. They can speak more of what type of uses they're looking for. Any more questions of staff? Bring the petitioner up. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Commissioner.

Good evening. I'm Richard Henry with Rightspace Commercial, 1650 Jack Warner Parkway and uh Seth Richardson, one of our brokers. Uh we've got this property listed for Mr. Zach Lawler. It's been his office for the last I guess he bought it right after the tornado. Um he's got his construction office there and previously, it's probably been a year or two ago, uh Neil Fitzu was there with his landscape company again prior to Framework. And so we're we're trying to lease it out for them now. And the issue we run into is in NC there can't be any use of the outside storage. Nothing can be stored outside. So we've had like a a landscape supply company want to come have some outdoor sales. It's not allowed. The current tenant we're working with right now as a university services business. They do like the stages for fraternities and sororities and all that kind of stuff. and they can't store that stuff outside in NC. And so that's really the whole reason we're here is because as you can see it's a big site that has a lot of layown yard but in the current NC they can't use it for anything.

Rich, when you say you can't store it outside, what do you I mean is there's no outdoor storage in NC. So like the stages that they would take and set up can't be stored outside. They must be stored inside. But but would but would they would you put that you talking about to the elements or not in a storage room? You talking about a separate structure or just sticking?

No. No. Just literally outside. There's no you can't store anything outside. It all has to be inside the building at night or you know throughout the I guess I guess you could have it maybe outside during the day but at night it would need to be put up. But so that's what we run into is there's just no outdoor use in NC. Again, I'm new to some of these particulars in the difference in NC and GC. And we talked about variances, but staff really encouraged us. They'd rather not have a variance and they'd rather have it zoned to allow it. So, that's what brought us here.

One of the things, Richard, we talked about in in the premeating was screening. um not knowing what is going to be on the property gave us some indication but other things be out there as well and being such you know close residential proximity and also the tenants facility but we're a little bit I'm a little bit concerned about how you going to screen it because we don't want to see especially we come over the bridge and look down there and see a bunch of stuff what

I guess it would be the same as the rest of the GC in the entire corridor would have the same requirements is everything to the east of this as well. And I think screening it depends on what it is. You know, if you're trying to sell bushes and trees that look nice, do you really want to screen the inventory? But if it's something, you know, if it's Yeah. If it's Yeah. If it's something that's not, I agree with you. And I don't know how to staff, can you give us a quick mechanic of what kind of screening we require?

Right. So outdoor storage area shall be enclosed and screened with an opaque wall made of masonry material. The height of the wall or fence shall be sufficient to screen stored materials from view of public street rightway, private streets, public sidewalks, and any adjoining residential development. And that would be a requirement that's in GC. That would be for outdoor storage, which if this was approved for GC and you chose to do outdoor storage here, that would be the requirement for it. But University Boulevard is elevated along that area, right? It is. Yeah. So, it would be pretty hard to screen it from view. We Right. We'd probably work with them on that. That would be pretty pretty hard to do.

But if it's if you were doing like a landscape supply, is that considered outdoor storage that would require screening? Um, it I guess it depends on what you're storing out there. like is it kind of like Home Depot where you walk into that area and you have bags of mulch and things like that that would probably be considered outdoor storage. So like Home Depot now as it exists, it has a chain link enclosure for their landscape supply. They wouldn't be able to do that in the current zoning. Not for what this says. No.

Okay. What about for security purposes? I mean, if you you're whoever I don't know, I can't remember now if you want if you're trying to sell or lease it, but lease would they not want to Yeah. I think it depends on what it is again. Yeah. And I think I think probably the bigger issue in that comment was masonry. You know, a block wall. Yeah. Yeah. Is is probably overkill versus maybe a screened fencing. Are you going to Are this are you actually going to store the stages? Is that that's the intent, but I mean I think that'll come back to trying to figure out if building a

$100,000 masonry wall around the site or can you put them in a tent tents like they use if they're storing I can just see exactly exactly shake his head over there. Hey, why why that was not my idea for the record. We'll back up the what can go with a GC. all the permitted uses in GC. That's the other thing, but you know, you can't put a tent up. Is that we get a little bit some You hear everybody get a little nervous when we start reszoning, right? It's nice. We would rather not. Fire would rather not. That's just every tenant we've run into, they need to be and we call city, they that needs to be GC, not NC.

Yeah. My I have a question for the staff, too. I don't know if this is an I'm wondering why you advised against a variance. I mean, if there was a specific um tenant potential tenant um then then a variance I don't like the reasonzoning without knowing what's going in. Right. So, I don't know what the hardship would be. Our new code justify variance. Our new code took away we used to have use variance requests. So, you could request a variance for a specific use like you're talking about here. Right. That's what I was thinking about. Is that gone? It's gone. Yeah. Okay. So, you can't you can't petition ZBA for a use. I see.

And I guess my question is is how did we get NC versus GC in the beginning when the future land use map oddly on half of it justifies it. I think it's the residential property right across the street. I mean, I think concern about that. But I have I mean, but to be fair, that used to be a hardware store, you know, before they built town homes on it. And it was a warehouse three years ago just storing appliances, you know. So, um,

right. So, with that masonry wall, does that kind of We'll cross that cross that wall when we get there, I guess. But I mean we have and I mean we'll follow the rules that are presented or we'll follow the policy to deal with it. So So Ann, you said you asked whether we could have a variance and Zach said no. Is that right? It doesn't work anymore for that for this for this kind. So yeah, and I just said I I have a I always have heartburn about reszoning a property without knowing exactly what's going to be done with it.

Well, you could lease it to I mean he could he's leasing it for somebody else, right? So I mean, but we don't know who and then the next time it could be I mean that lease goes away and then then it could be something else, right? I mean I think that's how we got here of like why are we even NC? Why were we not GC already? I mean, I think we're here more because of framework than we are because we're trying to do something that doesn't fit in the area. I mean, it's a 1400 square foot office with a 3,000 foot warehouse on it is what it is. And so with two acres of layown yard, I mean, that's what it's been my whole life, you know, since the very visible in the tennis cent's new.

Oh, I agree. And I mean, that's why we have the the code. we would build or modify with inside the code that is required and that's the process we just went through. I mean I think I don't think we're trying to get extra uses that aren't in this corridor in you know in this proximity as well. So,

so two things. One, it was previously RD2, residential detach 2 prior to framework. But also something to consider is we do we did, you know, substantially increase our buffer requirements as well buffer requirements. So if this were to be redeveloped, it is surrounded by by residential uses and so there would be that requirement of buffers just to give that ease to you guys if y'all were to choose to move that buffer. The buffer is the buffer going to change based on the use. Uh yeah, if it was a commercial use, it would be the buff. Yeah, but mostly triggered on full redevelopment. If it was scraped is existing, it wouldn't

What would the buffer be at? I will look that up for you right now. But I guess NC's got a buffer in it as well. I

think one of the big issues to me is it's right next to the tennis center. That's a main thoroughfare coming into the tennis center off of University Boulevard. And the city spent I don't know how many millions of dollars out there on that thing and just built more tennis courts. The Ravens. So university and they could have tennis matches and stuff here in Tuscaloosa. Whatever goes there, I want to look good. I don't junk out there. People drive through Mobile or somewhere.

I agree. And that's why it's GC, not any of the industrial zonings or any of that kind of stuff. So, it' be everything that would be in any of our commercial corridors. I mean, you know, you look at NC, you're still looking at, you know, you can still put a convenience store there or a a bank or you still got all of that stuff permitted. I mean, you can still put a laundry mat there. I mean, that's ideally not what you have, but it's still allowed in NC. So, I don't think the use table gets dramatically different. Z, you got the buffer,

right? So the buffer would be either 20 ft a wall made of masonry and then some canopy trees and understory trees and shrubs or 35 ft with four canopy trees, four understory trees and exponentially more shrubs. So you kind of have a you have a distance that you can make more of and then put a you could do 35 ft and more landscaping or 20 feet and a wall and less landscaping. Essentially, that's a Not a cement wall, right? It would be a CMU wall or something or Hardy. It could be Hardy. It could be wood, horizontal wood. Screening based on the use, right,

Zach? How how tall How tall is the wall? It'd be at least six feet in height. So, uh, are we storing anything taller than six feet? Not that I'm I'm not I'm not sure on the particulars on that. Okay. Cuz have something taller than six feet. on the aerial map. What there's a looks like some clearing that is has been done behind those apartment buildings. Do we know what's going up there? So that's basically an extension of this more town homes right here. Okay. I mean

I think Mr. Lawler owns the residential house that's left that's remaining there. Who does the the owner we represent owns? Yeah. The northern or the house right there on the north as well. Is he going to maintain that or? Yeah, I think it's just a rental. I think it's rented to like a family or something. Oh, somebody's living there residentially. Yeah. No, north of the development site. Right. Okay. Okay. He also want the one actual

Yeah. Yeah. So, he owns the residential neighbor that exists left. That's not a town home. And the railroad is the neighbor uh back to the west. They own that lot. Any other questions for petition? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody sign up for this one? No.

Anyone care to speak uh for or against this petition request? Okay. Having heard none, we'll close to public. I mean, I think the petitioner knows what is required if he so chooses to make a move as far as putting a tenant on there. Um, it's not that far of a deviation what the current zoning is. That's my two cents. So,

say that again, Bill. What is your position? It's going from GC to NC isn't a big leap and the petitioner obviously knows what's required if he's going to least to a particular type of tenant especially on the layown yard to GC going NC to GC I might meant going from NC to GC which is make makes me wonder exactly what we might get if it's not that much different but

so we can get it now basically where I guess where I kind of land like he could be doing whatever he's going to do now. It's just I think he wants to utilize that yard where it wouldn't fit in the NC so he's willing to take on the responsibility of the buffers as he gets there. Other words, if he changes, he's got that's kind of what I what I heard staff say. or or or whether it's tires or or I guess anything stored on that lot. Right. The lay down we call the lay down lot. That's right. Yeah. The outdoor storage regulations require screening. Screen.

Any other comments from commission members? Almost seems burdensome. Like 10 acres there empty. I mean, but I guess this is forever. Yep. Any other comments? I'm comfortable with the buffer requirements. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Having heard none. Did you Did he say Zach owns these town homes? No. No. He said he owns a house house to the out of Nor. Well, is the person that owns these town homes here?

That's They were notified, weren't they? That's who it's going to affect, right? I guess the question is, are they owners or runners? I I'm still just not comfortable without knowing what's going on there. And because of the elevation of the road, I think even a a wall is not going to necessarily What would be allowed? What would be allowed going to GC? In other words, you're because I mean everything but outdoor storage, right? or you can build a building there. Other words, I'm asking what would be our biggest fear of occurring. That's what I'm asking.

Uh tattoo parlors. Um uh is this the whole list? I don't I don't know. I just like I um all sorts of Well, you don't need That's a bad old self storage units. I I I just a liquor store. I mean, I understand. I I I I I can imagine looking down on a really nice nursery or I tend to agree that landscape business that would look really nice there' be a plus, but

you know like if there's tractors um or machinery or you said tires and I do understand the staff doesn't like variances but doing away with variances is not really a well I think they said it doesn't fit in the variance structure anymore. So, it's not that I'm particularly concerned about one thing or another. I just can imagine that there if if we had a particular piece of information about what was going to be there. I mean, maybe it's going to be the stages. I don't know. That doesn't sound too bad, but I don't know what that looks like. So, even

any other comments? All right, having heard none commission of course we have a reszoning request reszoning of Z 3025 Mr. Richardson reszone 1 acre 820 21st Avenue East from NC to GC do I have a motion and a second motion second Mr. Rumsy. No. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Where' we land?

Where do we land? All right. So, no. No. Five. No. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Pew. No. No. Yes. No. Five. No. Four. Yes. So, it goes to council with a non not recommended. All right. No. Very much.

All right. Commission. Moving into a companion case. We have Z2625 and S25. So, two parts here. Uh we're at around rather 5635 um Overbrook Road and 5430 Chestnut Street. First piece resoning approximately 60 acres from SFR1 to SFR3. Um, and then a subdivision for our second piece consisting of 108 lots, three open space lots, and this is on 107.3 acres. We are in Council District 6. You can see we are south of the interstate here. Um, just west of Bryant High. You can see that property today. It is vacant. You can see that zoning. It is SFR1 today. Uh the petition uh the applicant would like to reszone from SFR1 to SFR3 to accommodate a single family residential subdivision. And you can see that overview of those plans here and we'll look at this in detail with um the subdivision piece. Here are some examples of what the proposed homes could look like here. Um in framework, this is identified as suburban residential. um the request um and use they do conform to the plan. Uh here is that framework uh future land use character. Uh here are permitted uses in SFR3. Um moving into the subdivision now. So again resoning 60 of those acres for the subdivision. We're looking at 107.3 acres, 108 lots, three open spaces. So here again is at lot day. it is vacant. Uh so just to clarify the reszoning piece, we are looking at this section of the property to be reszoned. Uh this

parcel down here remaining SFR1. Uh you can see uh that without contours. Now getting into the details. So lot A um I said it was 108 lots. So 107 single family residential lots. This is the 108th lot. has not been platted as open space. Uh so is that lot A. Now moving into the details here as we get into the residential um area starting at the southern end. Uh we're looking north to the right just to to clarify as we go through this. You can see kind of those larger lots backing up to the homes on Chestnut. Uh kind of more in the middle. You can see about 65 uh feet in lot width, about 9,000 uh square feet in terms of lot size. You can see as we're headed north coming towards a culde-sac, that pattern continues. Um and now as we loop back kind of headed towards Chestnut, you see kind of similar pattern. 9,000 square foot lots, 65 ft in width um on average. As we move through, you can see a couple open spaces um and detention ponds. We do not have any variance requests on this. Uh we did receive 39 submitted comments um and 85 signatures in opposition to this petition. Do you have any questions for staff?

One of the confusing things I think popped up here like we saw in our previous meeting was the Okay, so this lot you're going east to west on, but when you looked at the the aerial, this kind of north to south, so it's kind it's kind of confusing. Does everybody see that? So yeah, north south here and now oops wrong direction south and that's east west. Yep. Now we're looking north to the right. So down here is the chestnut, right? Yep. This is chestnut. So now go back to the aerial. So maybe if I can get another orientation. So everybody got that? Mhm. Yeah. Thank you. That helps. Yeah, it's it was hard to get your mind around it.

So it backs up to those houses along Chestnut. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's where they I guess that's the only ingress and egress points are off chestnut. So there also that lot A um that's not being platted as open space. There are some stubs up here um for that lot as well. Okay. Nothing coming off of buttermilk. Right. But as the the lots are presented really those two access points on Chestnut um would be how you get to Okay. to this area here. So, all that traffic's off Chestnut. Okay. Anybody questions for staff?

More questions? Uh, petitioner.

Good evening. Um, Tom Sams with Longleaf Engineering, 1927 7th Street, Tuscaloosa. Uh just a quick little background history. This is a project that we had put together a couple years back uh in the same area for the same developer. Um and at the time we withdrew it before we got to planning commission because we had a uh a water uh capacity issue with the city. And here recently in the past few months that that is speak up a little bit.

Oh, I'm sorry. uh in the past few months that issue was resolved which prompted us to to re relook at this property. Um since the previous submission also we went through the new uh zoning changes and such with the city. So we are uh we're requesting a different um zoning than we previously did. I I believe previously we were looking at a pud type development. We are now asking for an SFR3 zoning. Um, technically these lots as far as size go meet all of SR4 or SR2 area requirements, but the uh frontages and setbacks and such uh are are a little different than we wanted. So, we we're asking for the SFR3 zoning. Um there are existing two stubs off of Chestnut there which we are proposing to tie to there on the south side of the property. Uh those those would be the the points of ingress egress for the subdivision. There's a significant amount of what you see in the blue there of uh wetland areas and flood zones and such that would be just preserved for non-developmental use in the future. Uh we are showing an emergency access tie-in on the north side uh there that that does go up and tie into the existing is that that's Peach Tree Lane there I believe. Uh that would be just for emergency fire ingress egress. Um but but the main main points of of access would be off of Chestnut. We did have a traffic impact study performed um and it it came back with uh no no real existing issues or for existing or future development. I think we have supplied the city a copy of that report as well.

Um, as far as the um development of the houses and such, the the builder plans to build somewhere around 1500 to 22 to 2,300 square ft homes in the area. That is the the current plan. They have been in touch with the Woodland Forest HOA. Um, they've had some communication via email, I believe. I don't know that they were able to get an actual uh in-person meeting put together. Um but they have shared information. I believe they've shared their proposed homes and and that sort of thing with with the with those guys. I know they have uh provided multiple responses to the city as well that we've been copied on. But uh that's generally it. If uh you guys have any questions, happy to talk through them. So 1,500 to 2,300 square foot homes.

Yes, sir. Um, you know, the things we always hear the most in these scenarios are, "How is it going to affect my property values as a neighbor, traffic, and usually a water runoff issue?" Um, you're telling us some of the things that from your side, obviously, we're going to hear from a lot of people that have questions, so you know that's coming, right? Sure. Um, so in that in that square footage, what's the price point range on a 15 to 2,300 foot home?

I believe they estimated the price per square foot of their homes to be around $170 to $175 per square foot. I think part of the correspondence they shared with the HOA was they looked at some historical home sales for the last I think 15 to 20 homes that have sold uh near here and they were selling in an average of about $120 per square foot. So they feel like they're bringing value to the uh to the development in that regards.

Who is the developer Mr. Sims Dr. Horton and well I have a question for Mr. Gardner. Does that culde-sac I mean how does I thought we had a limit on how long a culde-sac could run does it matter if there's some other streets is that what

yeah the connectivity of the other streets the the culde-sac distance is 600 ft without asking for a waiver and that's what's in the subdivision regulations 600 ft and the reason for that is if an emergency vehicle you know inadvertently goes down the the culde-sac sockets to limit the amount of response time for the vehicle to turn around and then get back to the correct street or address. But this geometry fulfills the subdivision requirement and it doesn't that is not considered a a long culde-sac

the emergency access that's brought under that back. Has that been approved by the fire department? Yes, they have approved that. Yes. Hard to see the numbers here, but what what's the average uh lot square footage size? We blow it up a little bit so we can see those lot sizes.

I believe it's going to be somewhere close to 10,000 square foot. All the lots are at least 9,000. I believe it the average is is probably just over 10,000. staff, do you have any idea of what the what the lot square footage size is of the Woodland Forest neighborhood roughly? Range like can't tell. Yeah, one of the smaller lots that we measured in the existing Woodland Forest was about 14,000 square feet up to what's um like some of the I don't know if we went up to but

can you give can you give us some offer off like the Chestnut Street area? That's the one that's been impacted the most. Yeah, we can take a look right now for you. You don't mind? Thank you. We'll come back to that while I'll look at that. Did anyone have any questions for petitioner? Uh why are you why are you asking for the reszoning? It's currently SFR1 and so they were just wanting to build a little different product than a than SFR1 product there. How's that? How's it different? Basically, the builder probably could speak to that a little better than me, but basically I think it's a little smaller home than than you would have on a SFR one lot. Is he here?

Yes, sir. I guess he can. Well, we got some people that want to speak obviously. Does anyone else have more questions for petitioner at this time? If not, we'll call on anybody signed up to speak and then we'll I'm sure we'll see you again. Chairman had four people sign up to speak. Uh first person signed up is Mr. James Phillips. Real quick, just to answer that question, um 25 to 36,000 square feet along Chestnut. That's that's for the smallest lot,

right? 26,000 was roughly the smallest, 36 or 25, sorry, and then 36 as the largest.

Okay. Thank you. Hi. Uh, good evening. My name is James Phillips and I reside at 4624 uh Peach Tree Lane in Woodland Forest. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight to voice my opposition uh to these um requests. Uh my opposition is based on grave concerns that I have that the proposed request will materially change the character of Woodland Forest subdivision uh for decades to come. I have four concerns I'd like to share with you very briefly. Um flooding was mentioned earlier that is a grave concern that that I have. Uh the proposed 60 acre building site is adjacent to this flood zone has been mentioned. Um further this proposed building site um is at an elevation above above the flood zone I believe. So the removal of trees and underbrush from these 60 acres in the addition of hard surfaces such as trees and driveways to accommodate 108 home sites can be reasonably expected to create significant water runoff which will add to the potential for flooding to establish homes already near the flood zone. I am not confident the petitioner's proposed retention f ponds will be sufficient to control the new water runoff and the highly questionable uh new gravel road that will run from the new housing development to the end of Peach Tree Lane has the potential I think to prevent rainfall from flowing away from homes at the end of Peach Tree Lane during heavy uh downpours. Should there be an increased flooding because of this new development, the homeowners of William Forest subdivision will naturally look to the city of Tuscaloosa for relief because the project developers and builders will be long gone to their next project. Second concern I have is aesthetics. Presumably, most trees on the proposed building site will need to be bulldozed to accommodate 108 homes and the streets on the 60 acre 60acre building site. Such a clear cutting of 60 acres of

trees in the heart of Woodland Forest subdivision will be an eyesore that will scar the character of the subdivision for decades. After all, the subdivision is named for the tall and stately trees that line the streets and adorn the yards of existing homes. Smaller homes on smaller lots will stand in stark contrast to the surrounding homes of Woodland Forest. Third, property values just been discussed here. Uh that is a concern. I got a little confused with the petitioner's uh price range and size of homes. I heard 1500 I think to 2200 or 2500 square f feet range of 100 square feet. Did I say 175? I mean that that that's a range from anywhere from $150,000 up to $437,000 based on my quick calculation. That doesn't reassure me as to what the price point is of these homes there. Uh using the nationally recognized real estate website zillow.com I determined that the 15 houses on my street lane and the joining street um Orchard Lane have an average market value of $343,000. I am concerned if the homes to be sold in the new development are priced lower. It seems inevitable that the values of existing homes in Woodland Forest will be adversely affected. Fourth, and finally, planned use. I'd like to know if the petitioner, property owner, developer, builder, or any other party uh who will be involved in the development or sale of houses in this proposed project uh discussed with or plan to discuss with any national firm known for purchasing large blocks of single family homes for the purpose of converting them into rental units such as Black Rockck or one of its subsidiaries or perhaps another private equity firm. The Woodland Forest subdivision is composed primarily of owner occupied residences whose owners take pride in the maintenance appearance of their homes, yards, and neighborhoods. A 108 rental housing community would be materially out of

character for Wooden Forest subdivision. In conclusion, the only reason the parties are requesting a zoning change is so they can place more houses on the property in question than the current R1 R1 zoning will allow. And more houses mean more money for the developers. Plain and simple. The current homeowners in Wilden Forest will not benefit from this project and will likely suffer monetary damage from reduced property values. To be clear, I am not opposed to progress, but I am opposed to this project. I would much prefer this property remain zoned as R1 and be developed accordingly in keeping with the rest of the surrounding subdivision. Therefore, I ask that you keep the property in question zoned R1 and vote no to the zoning request Z-26-25 and the related request S-100-25. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, next person signed up, Larry Murphy. Good evening. I'm Larry Murphy, 5519 Chestnut Street. Um, as a resident of Woodland Forest for over 36 years, uh, I'm representing my neighbors on Chestnut Street. Uh, the street that all these cars are going to come on to when they leave their subdivision. Uh, only two entrances uh, to this development, both on my street. 108 or more homes could result in over 200 extra vehicles traveling our street daily. Chestnut Street's already a main thorough affair for those going to Bryant High School and and Eastwood Middle School. Our street has no sidewalks, so our children ride their bikes and their rollerblades. Senior adults like myself uh walk on these on Chestnut Street. Pet owners, golfers and golf carts and school buses doing daily pickup and drop off. Adding the proposed amount of traffic will cause increased safety issues for all these citizens. We're concerned about the safety and damage to the street itself with the heavy equipment and vehicles that would be used for hauling timber, dirt, and construction materials for the proposed number of houses to be built on this heavily wooded acreage with Chestnut Street providing the only access. Existing homes would experience destruction of driveways and their yards in order to widen the two proposed entrances. The current zoning includes large lots with homes set well back from the

street. The proposed design and lot size, SFR3, is drastically inconsistent with our current lots. We have homes of of character uh around the entire Woodland Forest neighborhood. Like the gentleman said, we it's Woodland Forest. We're concerned about to be honest with you, the reputation of the proposed developer, Dr. Horton Company. research exposed many pending and settled lawsuits all across the southeast and the nation related to reports of plumbing leaks, foundation problems, electrical malfunctions, mold, flooding, often attributed to substandard construction practices. There's litigation involving breach of warranties and deceptive practices in mortgage lending. The company has admitted that over 400 million a year is set aside to deal with construction deficit claims in brand new homes. The consumer affairs rating for Dr. Horton and custom review rating from the Better Business Bureau is one out of five stars. Changing current zoning to allow this company to build poor quality homes in a neighborhood established well over 50 years ago. It is not in the best interest of the citizens of Tuscaloosa. We were not given enough time to organize an opportunity to meet with the developers to receive explanations about changes that have been made to their new proposal in 2024. We have questions about the proposed detention ponds, the amount of clear cutting that will be required, results from a recent traffic study, one sensor on the eastern side of the street, that was it for just days. It

was brought up down from my house. Who paid for that? This has all been done very very quickly over the holiday season when everyone has busy schedules. Uh we also have a question about the proposed gift of acreage to the city or the board of education. Uh this has all been done very quickly as I said and we have not had a chance as a neighborhood to ask these questions of the developer. I along with fellow residents of Chestnut Street oppose the zoning change and the proposed development of this property. We ask that you act in a way that will protect our investments that we have made in our homes over many, many years. We're depending on you to act in the best interest of the citizens of Tuscaloosa and the residents of Wooden Forest. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next person signed up speaks. Lyall Aken. How you doing? Lyall Aken, 4720 Apple Tree Lane. So when I moved into Woodland Forest, it it wasn't really because of Woodland Forest. It was because Shelley Jones was the principal at uh Woodland Forest Elementary School. So we just found a house in Woodland Forest and I've been there for 35 years. So I'm going to give you a little common sense approach to what's going on here. Could you switch to that figure where it's got the red line with the the green and all? There you go. Okay. Is that in front of you all?

Mhm.

Okay. All right. You're familiar with the term of trying to put 10 pounds of sugar in a five pound bag, right? That's what they're wanting to do in between woodland forest and woodland forest gardens. Okay. So, give me an idea. Um, you know, I ran a few bulldozers in my day and I know about drainage and moving stuff around. So, they're going to all that grain, it's gone. They're going to take care of all that. Now, off Chestnut Street to the north, it drops probably at least 100 feet. There's going to be a ma and once they take care of moving all the trees, there's going to be a massive amount of dirt moved. Okay? So, it's best guess for them to know where the water's going to go. And I know they can try to figure it out and make it look good. All right. So, you're familiar with Woodland Forest Gardens, right? 25 years ago, you know about all the lawsuits with the homeowner or the the construction and it was built on a lake bed. So, there are a lot of folks got a lot of money from their insurance companies and moved out of their house and went and bought another house. I don't know how many houses it was, but I know of one in particular. So what's going to happen? All that water's going to look for a low place to go, right? It's going right to wood to to Woodland Forest Gardens. And that's low area. There will be floods in Woodland Forest Gardens. I mean, that's just common sense on my approach. Um,

all right. So, we're talking what? 108 108 houses. So, couple hundred cars. All right. So, you want to go back to that where it shows just Chestnut Street. All right. You see that on your left side there? I don't know what the dis Chestnut's not that long. What's the distance there, Larry, between those two entrances? Probably four or five yards.

Four or five? Oh, would it be that long? Okay, maybe that long. All right. So, all those cars are going to go out one of those. I don't know what that they said that's emergency over here off that culdeac. I don't know what that is. They're not going out that way. All right. So all those cars, they're either going to go to through Woodland Forest out to Hard Grove near Woodland Forest School and up Hard Grove Road or they're going to go down Chestnut and then out through Woodland Forest Gardens on Bradford Lane over to Buttermilk. It's their only choice. Okay. So that's at least 200 cars. Probably more like 250. So how much time I have left? Minute 4.

Oh man. Do y'all need a break? Let me make sure I got it all covered here. I mean, I think you're understanding what what I mean is there's a lot of dirt going to be moved. No one's ever developed that before because it wasn't profitable. It's only profitable if you clear cut everything, bring in massive amounts of dirt, make it flat, and then put a lot of homes on it. And and you're jamming it in between two existing neighborhoods. I don't I don't know if it affect our our property values. I mean, that was affected when they did all the high schools and move that around, but um we just wish you'd consider that it's really not going to be in the best interest of of Woodland Forest nor of Woodland Forest Gardens for them to develop this project. So, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Last person signed up, Joan Bar. Good evening. Joan Bar, 5541 Woodbury Lane, and I'm here tonight to represent the Woodland Forest Association of Homeowners. Um, so the first thing I'd like to say is that we're supportive of the comments that have come uh before us. And then if I could take a second to ask my my sort of peeps here to raise their hands to show who's here in opposition to us at the Woodland Forest. So you can you can see um on a cold January night to get people to come out um is is a challenge and on short notice and we're here because there is shared concerns throughout the neighborhood. Um the the two things that I want to add to this are first I was here during framework. I sat here you know I was here I was here for different reasons um but I watched my neighborhood and I watched the zoning. This first proposal that came through in 2023 2024 was coming in while framework was going on. City planners were aware of that idea that somebody wanted to come in and develop it at a higher density than it than the residential zoning that it w that it was currently zoned. But we didn't do that. And I sat there and watched and I watched the Skyland entrance along Harrove in that area. And now we are here not even a year into this new zoning and asking for this to be changed. there was opportunity for that homeowner, the I mean the property owner and the developer to make that request at that time when we were planning and looking at the big picture

and they did not. So that's my first point. The second point is is that you can this sort of underscores a lot of what's being said. We bought our homes even at that time that was single family residential under the zoning. You can see those the streets are stumped out. You could imagine something would go in there, but you would imagine it's what it's zoned as. So, we buy our properties under the existing zoning with the neighboring areas being consistent with that and to have it be changed underneath us is just really disrespectful for the community that's built um around um woodland forest. So, I'm asking you tonight to respect our neighborhood, respect the framework process that you all went through, and keep this zoned single family residential. Um, if you have any questions for me with respect to the homeowners association, I'm happy to answer those as well.

Any questions, M? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. That's all we have signed up tonight. Okay. Petitioner, would you care to just like address a couple items that I heard? Um, I know there was a lot of concern about flooding and and and how that would affect future uh downstream properties. Uh we are we are certainly aware of the flooding. I mean we we've we're show represented the floodway, the wetlands areas and that sort of thing on the map and we and we have plans to address that as we normally do and of course city oversight and engineering would would ensure that we do that as well and and we have a lot of experience with these types of areas. So I I don't think this is anything that would be outside of of of you know anything that we thought we couldn't control and handle uh for future development purposes. I did I did uh note that Mr. Phillips I think mis misheard when I said what the price per square foot was. It was not a range between 100 and 175. It was it was approximately $175 per square foot for for all that. So just wanted to clarify that point. Uh and lastly, you know, Mason Blake here is uh is part of the development team and he was going to address a few items itself. Like I said, long we're addressing what was brought up. Stick along those lines.

Yeah, absolutely. Um, thank you'all for your time. Um, yeah, I just wanted to address name and address the record, please.

Yes, sir. Uh, Mason Lake, 25504, Huntington Park Court, Birmingham, Alabama 35226. Um, yeah, so wanted to address a couple of those comments. Um, first thing that I wanted to say was, you know, there's the question of why the reasonzoning from SFR1 to SFR3. Um, this landowner has hold on held on to this land for a long time. A few of the, you know, the neighborhood said that this is a a tougher site to develop. Um, so we want to build really nice homes in here. They're going to elevate the value, but we also have to have a project that will work. Um, when we did our estimates to do SFR1 size lots, we just the the project wouldn't have worked at all. Um, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't build super nice houses on these lots. Um, like Tom said, you know, approximately $175 a square foot. So, I'm estimating that's going to be in the low threes to the high threes around the, you know, potentially in the low fours. Um, and if you do look on a price per square foot basis, that is going to be significantly higher than what's existing there. Um, so it should elevate property values in that way. Um, I wanted to state on the record, this is not going to be a rental community. Um, I'll say that these would be for sale homes. So there's no intention of that. Um and as there was, you know, a couple comments about our company, um as well. So we are a big national company and with being a national company, there's news articles that happen and you know, things that happen, but um we build a lot of houses in the city of Tuscaloosa and and the county um and across the state of Alabama. And our average survey is a 4.8 out of five from our home buyers. Um, so we do make a lot of people happy in the state, even though if you Google things, we do a lot of business in a lot of places. So, um, sometimes things do happen. Um, and there was also another comment about, you know, potential land donation. I haven't talked to anybody directly at the at the city about this. I think I

mentioned it in staff, but there's about 14 acres on the east side of the flood zone, and just kind of brainstorming that that might be something that, you know, Bryant High School could add on to at a certain point. haven't had any conversations about that, but wanted to address it because we I think we put it in the note um to the neighbors. Um and I' I'd be happy to answer any other questions if I didn't cover anything. Y'all comfortable with addressing all the things you heard? Yes, sir. Okay. So, that being said, any questions for these two gentlemen? What was the size of the lots? The average size of the lots? 10,000 square feet is what Tom said.

And you said you said y'all did a traffic study. Did I hear that correctly? What what was it? What was that? What was entailed in that traffic study? What did they uh Skipper Consulting did the uh traffic study and and and basically uh states that there's an acceptable level of service now and would be a proposed buildout as to no no negative um traffic impacts there. Staff, did y'all have a chance to review that traffic study? We did and and quite honestly, you know, what Tom said is correct there. You know, the level of service probably doesn't change much. Um,

like level of service. Can you break that down for me? Level of service.

So, so in a traffic study, level of service of streets is graded almost like your school papers from A to F. Uh, anything that's a level of service C and above is considered pretty good. Level of service D is when you start seeing significant weight times at intersections, you know, whether it's a traffic light, uh, and the signal timing has to have you sit for, you know, 120 seconds or something like that, or if you come up to a four-way stop and there's four or five cars in front of you, whatever that number may be. That's how levels of service are determined in traffic studies. Um I'm not surprised that the level of st service stayed uh at an acceptable level here. There's there's three outlets. Now I know you have to get on Chestnut to get out of the neighborhood, but there's three outlets to your major thorough affairs. You can go down Woodland Hills Drive to either Harrove Road or out to Skyland Boulevard or you can go through Woodland Forest Gardens. Uh so it didn't surprise me that the level of service stayed in an acceptable. That's not to say that there will be a little delay in what the residents see today if these 107 homes are built.

So if you don't have many that many outlets, it it it affects that level of So So I haven't I did not refresh myself with the levelist with with the report before this meeting and I apologize. Okay. Um Tom, who is on the land owner or M that Mason referred to? Um the entity is CWC Development. Um I believe Mike Chambers. It's kind of a group, but Mike Chambers of Mike Chambers. Yes, sir. Um

I'll have one little I mean this is just out of curiosity about the traffic study because since I've been on this board commission, we've never had a traffic study come back that says there's going to be an impact. So if if if there if there is going to be an impact, do y'all does the developer at that point just decide not to bring it forward to the commission or I mean I let me let me take a stab at this. I I think it is an impact. It is going to have an impact. It's the definition of whether it's an acceptable Yeah. acceptable impact or not. And the level that it is acceptable, it just would extend the wait time, right?

Various various what my wife thinks is acceptable and what I think is acceptable is usually different. I I can understand how you define a lot of the results that we see from traffic impact studies when you say that there's never a a result from them but a lot of them are right turn lanes that get you out of the thoroughare to slow down and turn into the development or a left turn lane. you know, the goal is to keep the traffic moving.

Um, and so we do we we have seen changes or or things added to developments because of traffic studies. So, Mike, we don't know. You didn't you don't have a you don't have the grade report on this traffic study. I'm sorry. You don't have the grade report on this study or do you? We did get a study and I apologize for not refreshing my memory on on the this was there much of a change in the level of service like did it did it drop from a B to a C. Okay. So you have you have it in your hand. So can you answer that question? I ask him. Yes sir. I I don't knowing he has a report. So don't

Sure. Sure. Of course. Now I I brought the conclusion sheet so I could reference it. It did not list the actual levels, but if I recall correctly, they were mostly existing at A's and B's and and they did not drop from A's and B's. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions for petitioners? Mike, when you talk about flooding in this area, the city did the Noah's Arc project 15, 18 years ago and spent millions of dollars in Woodland Forest and all throughout the city. How much do y'all look at that when we talk about flooding issues? Because I know down where the culde-sac is and down in that area, it's low line and they have water problems all the time. That goes out to the interstate and we've had problems getting water across interstate to the drainage system before. You think that'll be an issue? I know they say they going to fix theirs. they're going to put in.

So, I said all that stuff, but what about downstream down where the culdeac comes out on?

So, in the the the drainage analysis on this project as it go if it's approved or when it however it gets approved in the land development permit process, there is a very extensive hydraulic analysis report that our office requires. Uh in simple terms, it means that they determine what the watershed runoff of the property is today before anything happens. And then afterwards, after the trees are removed, the grounds graded, the rooftops are built, the driveways, all of that is taken into account. And that increase in runoff has to be detained on the property before it can go downstream at the same rate that it was while all the trees were there. Um and and we are very conscientious of that um in our office in in the review process. Um you know secondly and along with that when you're looking at developing along a floodway or uh jurisdictional waters um in conjunction that the grading plan and how they manage storm water runoff during the construction process to minimize sediment loss or sediment impacts downstream and that's another important factor that we look at.

What's the what's the recourse? I mean obviously you don't know with certainty what the after effect would be of the water runoff. So let's say it's X and it turns out 2X. What is the recourse from?

So if a downstream property owner is damaged by an increase in runoff that can be proved that it was a result of this development, then that's going to be a civil lawsuit between that property owner. it gets damaged. And the entity that caused the damage, whether it be the owner of the development, the developer team, the the engineer, u whatever, it's it's not the it's not the city's responsibility. We're we're not the design engineers here. Uh so if there's a a flaw in the calculations and everything that that we review, if it's overlooked, if it's missed, the burden doesn't fall on the city. It falls on the design professional. Any other questions for petitioner?

Thank you, gentlemen. No information was brought up to allow more time to those in opposition. So at that point, we'll close the public comment and have a conversation between this body. Mr. Chairman, I will say that um any any from my standpoint, anytime a neighborhood has stub streets, there's an expectation that and potential land that can be built on, there's there's expectation that one day something can be built on. I think uh in this particular case, this is this is one reason why this board exists to make decisions on developments such as this. when you have a a neighborhood such as Woodland Forest in its current state and you're asked to to reszone the adjacent property to this type density u that goes through a a a main thoroughare through that existing um residential area residential community in my opinion it totally impacts the outcome of the overall development overall existing development it impacts it negatively to a point to where it's it's just It just changes the changes the whole makeup of it. Um having again in my opinion having this many lots uh to do what to to to to construct this many lots in that neighborhood means you're basically going to have to take the deforested um regrade it. And um having this in the bowels of Woodland Forest in my opinion is is not what this commission should vote for.

Anyone else?

My concerns are um going from L SFR1 to SFR3. I I do understand that yes, when we have sub streets, at some point we can expect development, but this development does not seem to be um in comparison to what's already existing. And then, correct me if I'm wrong, more than once, it seems that there's a significance a a significant difference between the lot sizes of what they're proposing to build and what's currently there. And I think that hurts the integrity of the neighborhood as it currently stands along with the, you know, the ideas of the traffic study and the um drainage issues that are already concerns. So, I'm not in favor of this resoning.

Any other comments? Sorry. I I tend to agree I know Joan Bar is going to be shocked, but I agree with Joan Bar. Um on the record

the frame the framework was project was took an extraordinary long time and a lot of people worked on it and and I don't think that the land owner could possibly not have known it was going on. I mean so I do think the jump from one to three is more significant than the jump from one to two for instance. And I know that we don't do a whole lot in SFR1 or whatever. So I'm trying to think about that, but in fact, we don't ever do deals in SFR1, do we? I mean, so I'm trying to think in terms of that, but I do I probably would have run up here and been talking to the to the planning and going, look, you don't ever do SFR1 deals, and if I'm going to get this land developed, I need to be talking to you guys about maybe uh putting it in two or three. That that obviously didn't occur. So, and and the lots are significantly smaller in some cases than the lots around it. So, I don't know. I just it just seems like I heard Tom Sims say that these lots all would fit in SR SFR2 except for they don't you know so it might be it might be easier if if it was to two then rather than three if if they materially if the lots materially would then I it seems like to me that perhaps they should work on that plan and try to get it closer to two and then it's not as big a jump or as much of an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

I don't think the neighbors saying don't build anything. I think they say don't put the square peg in the round hole. And that's what they're trying to do. Put something that doesn't fit in the neighborhood. Build on the property, but build like framework said it was supposed to be built. So just just doesn't fit.

Well, anyone else? I think everybody's make very good comments. I mean, I think one thing we sometimes do and it's not fair. Um, we talk a lot about needing affordable workforce housing and I I look at the the company that's trying to do this as provider of that and I think there's a place for their product in the market just not in this market. uh because we we need we talk about needs for workforce housing and and this and this is probably one of the only national that comes into this area and does it. So we don't want to totally discourage them maybe just say help them find the right places to do these types of developments because at the end of the day there are they're there to provide homes and make money in the process. We don't someone said I think one of you those in opposition they're not afraid of progress and this company can provide progress for certain areas of this community. So again, we just don't want to totally discourage that and let that be the message this body sends out in the in the greater world because we need more housing in this every market. So I agree in everyone's comments prior to anyone else. All right, having heard none commission before us we have a companion case. First item is Z2625 Long Engineering to reszone the 60 acres SFR1 to SFR3. Have a motion and a second.

Motion second. Miss Hornsby. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Commission of S25. Uh, pull that back up. I know there's no variance request if I can read it. Uh will enforce Glenn assisting the 108 lots ripping space lots. Have a motion and a second. Motion second. Mr. Ramsey. No, I I'm not even sure what I'm not even sure what I'm voting on. What have subdivision? Subdivision. Shouldn't really matter because the zoning,

right? But would that just be you? Well, we have to vote in case the council overrules us. Correct. They can come back. We've got control over sub. Yeah. But I'm talking about the resoning, right? Y'all already recommended a denial of the resoning and then the subdivision ends here. So, you guys are the final say on the subdivision. So you could approve this subdivision or deny the subdivision based off of your reasoning for the reasonzoning. So we got to vote.

But if we vote no, we have to tell you what reason we give voting note. Correct. Just like a regular subdivision. Yeah. I mean, so that's an right. Okay. So So my note would be Yeah. So So no. I mean, obviously, if I didn't vote for the resing, I wouldn't know with the sub. Miss Prince. No, no, no. No, no, no. No.

We can give um folks a second to head out here. All righty, we'll keep rolling. Here we have um another companion case Z2825, Z2925 and S10225. So we have two reszonings. Uh first one.33 acres from uh GC to MFR. This is at 5921 New Watermelon Road. Second reszoning uh 42 acres from MFR to GC. And then finally um a four lot subdivision on 9.25 acres. So, I'm going to go through the resonings together. I think it's going to be more clear. Uh, so you can see we are just right at the intersection of Mcrites Road and Bluegrass Parkway. You all are familiar with this property. You've seen it before. It's vacant today. You can see we have those two uh under a half acre pieces to be reszoned. Can see one on the left, it's GC today. They'd like that to be MFR. and then vice versa on the right. That MFR piece uh they'd like to be GC. And this is to um align with their revised site plan in preliminary plat. And here is that revised site plan for the site. Uh you can see uh just zooming in here, we have some residential on lot three um and then some commercial uses um on the other lots. Um this is just a key showing those um two reasonzoning changes. So in the red you can see MFR

to GC and then down here uh GC to MFR and that's to line up with the proposed uses on the lots with this revised site plan uh before you tonight. Here are some examples. We have um what the residential could look like on the left um and what that commercial could look like on the right. Uh we do have um two future land uses on this property as well. So first one is traditional neighborhood edge and framework. Um this request does conform as well as the use. Uh some of this property is also identified as limited commercial NC. This also uh conforms with that. You can see that here. It does have those two uh future land uses identified. Uh starting with our residential uses. Um, so I've highlighted the MFR category here. Uh, so that'd be for the residential reasonzoning. Uh, now moving into our commercial uses. That's for the the general commercial reszoning. You can see here. Um, moving into the subdivision now. So, four lots on 9.25 acres. Uh, you can see we're looking at all this land, uh, shown in the red. It's vacant today. Um, they'd like to split it up four ways. As you can see those lot lines here with contours and without. We do have four variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff

engineering on the variance request? We don't have an objection to the requests. Um maybe let the uh presenter make his presentation. the the sidewalk issue is something that I think we need to have just a little brief discussion about. Any other questions for staff before we bring the petitioner? Petitioner.

Good evening, Commission. Jimmy Duncan with Duncan Coker Associates, 2011 Town Center Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35406. Uh here tonight representing McCry Fairy Land Company LLC. a little background on why we're back. Obviously, Leo went through the kind of the the structure of the resoning uh request. Um I promise we didn't bring this back just for fun. I like seeing you guys, but um mechanically um you know, when we left this thing nine months ago with you guys, there was talk of a a second convenience store on the neighboring parcel to the north. Uh that has since gone away. uh the neighboring property owners work to deal with our client uh to purchase what's shown as lot two to build one store. Um with that is going to come some more cleanup type activities with the adjoining property, some future land swaps. That's anyway, long story short, the northern neighboring property is going to look completely different than what you saw uh with the reasonzoning. We're really happy that this came around um in this fashion. So, in doing so, uh, lot two, um, the convenience store lot, let's just call it, got, I would say, significantly smaller than what you originally saw, uh, with our original application package. So, with that, uh, the resoning did not match the boundary. So, this is to correct the lot two boundary to align with the, uh, proposed zoning. And in doing so, the apartment building you see there, the 15,000 foot apartment building, uh, we turned it basically on its axis, brought it further to the

Got Mr. Runy. Yes.

And so before, you probably remember that building was situated like so. So essentially, it allowed us to tighten up the site. Uh we moved everything forward um to accommodate the smaller convenience store footprint, rotated the building. The parking still works. Um there will likely be a future component of this of this another subdivision uh annexation, reszoning that's going to expand the residential component back to further to the east. um that'll be associated with this future land swap uh a type maneuver that's going to happen later down the road. And if I could uh Mike's comment about the waivers so we can we can run through them one by one. I'll spend the most time on the on the sidewalk waiver. Leot, can you pull those photographs up?

And so and I I appreciate Mr. Gardner. We spent extensive an extensive amount of time last week looking looking at this situation. So, um, guys, our clients, many of whom are really cheap. We have to do a lot of arm twisting when it comes to sidewalk waiverss and encouraging them to build the sidewalk, not ask for the waiver. Um, it never crossed my mind that this situation was going to get as much attention as it did. We u during the pre-esigned conference, of course, staff made the comment we're going to ask have to ask for the waiver. I completely underestimated how big of a ask that was going to be. Um so the comments that we got back was that um that waiver request was not going to be supported. Um furthermore that the the intended sidewalk component was the shared use path, not just the sidewalk a shared use path. So um if you look in the background, Leota, can you go to the companion picture of this view?

While you're pulling it up, Mr. Duncan, just so everybody knows, what's the width difference between a sidewalk and a shared use? So, a sidewalk by the subdivision ordinance would be five or six feet wide. That shared use path that's up there, I want to say, is 10 or 12 feet wide. Okay. Can you go back one or two? That's good enough. That's good enough. Okay. They're right there, Leota. So, just as a as a mental note, that was what was built with McCry Road. So, at this point, I'm standing on the subject property about on the rightway looking toward the the bridge down McRight Road. Uh shared use path there in the middle. There's a strip of grass of some four or five feet between it and the in the curb line and then behind it you've got this ditch. Okay. So, all that was part of the McCry Fair road scope. So when we first started looking at this trying to figure out a way to make even a sidewalk work, um there was obstacle after obstacle after another that that kept popping up with this. So in the case of our site, although we're asking for a waiver um of the half street improvements because of lack of curb gutter, this road obviously was built to today's standards, appropriate lane width, etc. So there's the edge of the paving today. Um to mimic what was done on the opposing side of Bluegrass Parkway, the shared use path would start about there. There's the back side of it. And now we've got this huge embankment back here in the back. Not to mention sanitary sewer, gas, u communications out here, uh alongside the ditch. Leota, can you advance a couple of pictures? And so this situation, this is in the middle of the driveway at the uh Wizard

of Paws dog groomer looking again back to the south. So we've got this ditch that runs the entire way overhead utilities and then again all the underground stuff. So you know I first took the approach of what would it take to basically pipe the ditch try to accommodate the sidewall the sidewall. Well, it just hydraulically and of course we've not designed it, but that's the pretty heavy lift with piping the ditch to put the shared use path on top of it. And then secondarily, we looked at trying to mimic what was done on the other side of blueg grass. So the shared use path and then move this slope back to here. Well, now the sanitary sewer lines exposed. We've got to move all the the power poles. Um just one thing after another. Um, and so Mike and I met on Tuesday and again on Thursday, um, you know, aside from the reasons that on this side of the road, this body most recently approved a waiver for the town home development that's about 1,000 ft north. Uh, similarly with Westervelt's development three months ago, Hidden Oaks, I think it was, that's across the street from Harbor Ridge. So essentially, we've got a very short segment um from here to Harbor Ridge that we'd be eligible to build this path in, sidewalk or otherwise. Um and so Mike and I brainstormed on it. I mean, personally, and I live in this area, I think the more forgiving side of the road, and this is not I'm not saying this in the context of the waiver request, but the the opposing side of the road is the most favorable for a shared use path. Uh you got appropriate rightway with Shamley Green, Grand Arbor, Harbor Ridge. The shoulder conditions are much better. So if we're talking about a a project of this magnitude, it really needs to be on the on the opposing side.

Did I cover everything, Mr. Gardner?

Yes, he did very thorough job. Um, I I'll have to add, excuse me, that it based on the way Mcrit's Fairy Road was designed and and the the path terminating uh before crossing the new Bluegrass Parkway. I almost believe the intent was that the path would not go further north. Um the challenges that you see in these images is is is an extremely costly burden to overcome. Um Jimmy and I's meeting Thursday. I really think if the city needs to get a sidewalk farther north in the near future or beyond, I do believe we need to look strongly at getting on the west side of Watermelon Road.

Mike, I agree with you. After we left the chair vice chair meeting, we discussed this. I rode by and looked at it and looking at the topography, looking at seeing all the utilities that were put in place, watching that during the project, I think it's an undue it's an undue burden. I a burden of this magnitude would effectively could effectively change the potential of this project moving forward. I think the um you know I think by the fact that we didn't have the room full the first two times this came before us we had a room full of people opposing this from Lexington down and and north um with the changes in this project are good changes for the people of that area I think it limits to one convenience store instead to the two competing convenience stores that we were going to get. So the meshing of all of this this whole proposal in my opinion effectively are acceptable. I mean kind of where we're at

and to that point our clients done a a very good job um keeping Lexon downs informed with this change which is I mean I think this was one where we had two develop two opposing competing developers finally got together and worked it out with the betterment of that that community up there. So much better situation indeed. This is This is a unicorn. Exactly. Anything else? No, sir.

In a way, it seems like you don't necessarily have to have the shared use path in front of the store, but coming on each side of it as a destination for maybe school children. I mean, as long as we don't give up on north. Yeah. I think I think is this northern corridor and what Mcicherry has done to that area out there as it expands further. I think Duncan's right potential for that sad use path would be on the opposite side of the road and would be a good addition and I hope I hope you know we the city we the city kne need to do a better job of mapping that out in the future especially going forward.

Well, who would build it on the other side? Well, I think it'd have to be a city program down the road if they if they did the expansion. And certainly certainly I mean Mcrit's Fairy Road moving north if if this growth is right will one day be will be widened out. Well, if you if you if they were somewhere else and they only had to build a 5 foot wide sidewalk, you could you not can you not um allocate what a typical sidewalk would be and then put it towards a project so to help it move forward later? I mean, I don't I don't think we have that. Northport has that in effect right now. The city doesn't. And that might be something that, you know, Northport basically effectively has a a sidewalk bank.

And look, I I understand when I was when I was looking at this, I had no idea about this big dip. And I understand what Jimmy's saying. It would be a it would be a it'd be a pain to build sidewalk there. Um, at the same time, we also know that there'll eventually be a school built up there and And it could be in direct contradictory to our policy on that too. I mean we don't know where they would locate. It could locate anywhere from about there to to the sections been road. I mean that that that shared use path is and it will eventually connect connect under the bridge all the way back to to how far does it go back? Where is it?

There's a section of it that's under Mcright's Fairy Road now that's not connected, but it'll it'll actually one hopefully one of these days it'll connect to the I think the pedestal park.

So, I'll give you a quick answer to that. The today the shared use path begins just south of Bluegrass Parkway and it ends on the other side of the pedestrian bridge that was just recently completed with the M Mc Rights project. Uh the design is underway for what's called Northern River Walk phase two, which begins at the end of the Randall Park um Cheru's path and extends north some 9800 ft along the river and will connect to that west side of the pedestrian bridge. When that's done, we'll have a, you know, an extended or a connected walkway from basically Bluegrass down to Randall Park. Uh, the Woolsley FEL Bridge is creating a pedestrian path on the west side and will stub out uh a path on Jack Warner Parkway by the Old Bryce Cemetery. Uh our plan is that we will take the the riverw walk that terminates today and transition and connect to it. And then the last leg of that puzzle is getting the path off of McFarland down to the intersection at Rice Mine Loop. Uh and then back under the bridge to connect back to the parking lot there at the Randall Park. U you know this may take another six or eight years. I don't know. A lot of it depends on the timing of the Wolfley Fenel Bridge. No need for us to move forward with some of our projects until we know when that's going to occur. Ultimately, you'll have a about a 10

mile path from the new Western Riverwalk down by the old Oliver Lock all the way to Bluegrass Parkway. So, in six years, you and I are going to be too old to go 10 miles. Ride your scooters. Exactly. Got your bicycle.

Well, that's all that's all that sounds great. and understanding visually now what the challenges were. I mean, we talked about chair, vice chair. I think we're all kind of like we like the thought of a shared use over the sidewalks because it it provides a larger connectivity for people and bicycles and kids and all that. So, not going to happen anytime soon, but if we ever do anything on the on the what side, shared use is hopefully the way we'll we'll track, but that's down the road obviously. sign up speed for us. All right. Uh, anyone have any more questions for staff before we look at this? Keep it back up. Oh, let's go with the the three. Right. All right. So, commission. Oh, does anyone care to speak four against this? Haven't heard enough. Thank you. All right. Commission force we have Z2825 the rights fairy land district is on the 33 acres from GC to MFR that's the realignment of the property the gas station then that little piece attached to that residential have a motion a second

motion second Mr. Ramsey. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved. Commission for have Z 2925 and Rice Fairy Land Company LLC resents 42 acres from MFR to GC. I have a motion and a second. Second. Miss Hornsby. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved. Commissioner, we have go back. Please have S I got it. We have S 10225, the Rosewood phase one subdivision. Uh variance requests were those four public street furnish lot configuration hash improvements sidewall construction which we heard a dissertation on. Uh do have a motion and a second. Motion to approve. Second. Mr. Rumsy. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right. Moving into our preliminary plat. First up, we have S10325 PE interstate properties phase five, a reservey of lot one, reservey interstate property section 2 and unplatted land consisting of seven lots on approximately 72.8 8 acres located south of 6730 J-Bird Road, east of 3009 Falcon Drive, north of 3430 Buttermilk Road and west of Buttermilk Road. This is Council District 6 and not in city limits. You can see we're just north of the interstate here off of Buttermilk Road. You can see that property today. It's mostly vacant. Um, and you can see they'd like to split it up seven ways. You can see that flood area is kind of um contained within the boundaries of lot 7. Uh you can see that without contours here as well. We do have three variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

The engineering. No objections. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Petitioner.

Commission again. and Jimmy Duncan with Duncan Coker Associates here tonight representing PE Interstate Properties LLC. Um the genesis of this division basically came from the need to create lot five uh for a commercial development that will soon be permitted with Mr. Gardner's office. Um beyond that, what you see before you is lots three and four. Um we teed these up as quick service restaurant sites. Uh nothing formally on the horizon with those two. Um lots one and two due to the current zoning. Um potential industrial development sites. Uh lot seven strictly a remnant for something obviously very compact in nature. And then to Leota's point, lot seven is basically everything uh south of the northern floodway back to the property line. and our client is uh considering making a donation of lot seven uh to the city of Tuscaloosa since it's littered with utilities.

Any questions for petitioner? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request? I can't I can't tell for staff. do I can't tell which so see J lot five is the corner of JBC road and buttermilk

it's across from the truck stop there's a that existing service there is a truck wash through you can you kind of draw live five there just so he can kind of get his lay of the land roughly right Hampton in right below it too. Yeah. Why Why would it be Why would it be beneficial to the city to accept a donation of that property? We hadn't made that decision yet.

Okay. Okay. I just I mean I just out of curiosity. I just wondered. It's I mean it's like Jim said it's got all these utilities in it which aren't necessarily city utilities and I just wondered what the advantage to the city might Where's the Can you circle the property Mike that that you're talking about on lot seven on this drawing because on the aerial image? Yeah, I'm having kind of see the outline of it. Draw that little line there. It's that just because they want to give it to you don't mean you have to take it reduces our lot that's lot seven generally speaking. Yes sir. It

I don't think you meant to start that. Did it's unbuild it's unbuildable terrain. Uh you know it's uh crisscrossed with utilities that the city put in years ago. So it's got flood flood planeish, you know, challenges as well along with topography. So it's a I I'd call it a non-buildable lot. And that may be how you going to denote it on the final bill. That's safe. And whether or not the this donation thing grows legs or not, we're still going to create lot seven. Um mainly in the interest of keeping the floodway component from impacting lots one through five. So, it's a it's a remnant that's worth basically basically nothing.

Years ago, there was an issue with vagrants on this property when I was on the city council. So, developing this is going to be a big plus. We had a lot of complaints about Holiday in hotels. There's a couple hotels out there. It's pretty dense. Any other questions for staff? All right. Having heard none, we'll close and we will discuss S 10325 the P interstate properties of seven lots on the 17.8 acres. A motion and a second. Motion to approve. Second.

Let me add with the three variance requests which engineering has no issues with. Had a motion and a second beginning with Miss Hornsby. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right, commission. Our next preliminary plat is S10425 Martin Estates being a reservey of lots 1R and 2R Martin crossings consisting of 27 lots, two open space lots on approximately 38.2 acres. This located north of 85 Martin Road, west of 12860 Martin Spur Road, and east of 200 Martin Road. This is not in city limits. You can see we're pretty far north here um near Highway 69 North. You can see that property today. It is vacant and you can see they'd like to split it up uh into 27 lots, two open spaces. You can see that without contours here as well. Just zooming in, starting kind of at the north end of the project, you can see uh minimum 1 acre lots about 130 um feet in width. And then as we move towards the south here, I can see those two open space lots. Um,

let me just clarify these two. Where's Where's the subject property there? I'm just saying. So, it's just all zoomed in so you can see overall the 27 lots or do you want to look at the vicinity map? That's the development there.

We'll come back to that. Won't you show us the vicinity map? So you can see we're we're pretty far um north here. This is kind of at the edge of our our planning jurisdiction here in the county. Back to the aerial, please. There we go. All right. So, moving back through those 27 lots, um, one acre minimum, you can see that just kind of zoomed in here. We do have four, um, variance requests. We received 14 comments in opposition. Do you have any questions for staff

engineering? Um, so the the bottom three, we don't have any issues with the lot configuration. Uh we're we're we'd like for the uh developer to present his case for requiring the or needing a lot configuration variance. When we had chair vice we talked about that and we reached back out to the developer or the engineer discuss those. We did we didn't see a change in the drawing. Okay, it's welcome

commission. I'm not sure if we reached out between our vice chair, chair, vice chair, and now this was in their initial comments though um received by staff during the preliminary plat review um to you know be prepared to discuss the need for law configuration. You all talked about in the initial meeting what we discussed in chair vice chair they were kind of aware that okay that's kind of where I was make sure they had heard something about the lock configuration issue any questions for staff yes the nature of the opposition I think they're all opposed for for what purpose for what reason

so there was um varied um some for density many were about traffic on Martin Road. Um, yeah, overall those two I would say. Any other questions for staff petitioner?

Commissioner, I'm Robert Martin with Duncan Coker Associates representing Beaker Property Group. Um, I want to dive a little deeper in on the lot configuration variance and how we ended up with this configuration. So when we originally started looking at this site and working through different layout options, obviously the developers would like as much density as they could possibly get. So when we originally laid this thing out, we had a culde-sac coming out crossing the stream sort of like that with lots coming off which was more dense than the layout we currently have. So this orange line here is a is a jurisdictional stream. We re-evaluated and decided it's best not to impact that stream due to the topography. Let's preserve the trees along the stream, preserve the stream, and lessen the impact. So what we ended up with is a 20 foot wide shared driveway with access to three 2acre lots. And in the subdivision regulations, two key principles with laying out a subdivision are to work with the topography and the drainage features. We feel like we've done that with this scenario. talked through that with Mike. Um, I felt like we were in had some common ground with that discussion. So, that's where we ended up working with the topography and preserving the drainage. All right. You mentioned a stream, that orange line, the stream you were talking about.

Yes, sir. So you you went away with the culde-sac cost of the strength. We we don't want to we want to preserve as many trees as we possibly can. We want to limit the impact and the 20 foot wide shared driveway accomplishes those goals. Is that an active stream, active moving water? It is. So now it's going to be in a Where's that water going to flow now though? So that it flows north into Carol's Creek. Flows north. That's right.

Can we see the full diary? Yeah, show us full layout. So it it flows. Go ahead. Back across 14, 15, and 13. That's right. and the topography along that stream is is very steep. Um, so I guess my question is is there enough room on 15 through 13 to build in front of that stream? Yes. Our intentwise our intent is just to to grade the roadways and get a building pad will be east of that stream. Everything west

east of the street. Okay. Everything west of the stream stay wooded Mike because I'm not 50.

Not not trying to sound I mean you've got two acre lots that are running this shared use path. To me, it appears there's enough room to create a 50-foot rideway and and make this a a public street. Um, to to Robert's point, in our subdivision regulations, it it does allow or or this is one of the caveats for this. Um, I just would

I just I if if if we go with this, there's got to be something in in in in the form of the subdivision plat or or deed restrictions or whatever. I don't I don't want these homeowners 10 or 15 years from now saying, "Oh, we got to make this a public street. We can't maintain it." You mean the the driveway? Yes, ma'am. Talking about this one little one little road here, right? or the whole whole road structure. Just one little piece right there. Just just that just that that serves those three parcels. So, we're going to have it in the covenants that that that driveway is maintained by those three lot owners. What about something on the plat? That's fine. We can do that.

I just sometimes people don't read those covenants. We can put it on the black. I'm not clear still. Like I I want I'd like I'd like something I mean uh I'd like something on the plat so that any any purchaser or anybody that pulls that drawing up recognizes that the city's not taking any responsibility for that becoming a public stream. May the buyer beware. But my you talked about as well is the that whole private road there as we're calling it. You know that's you got to not even have a hammerhead turnaround there. Yeah, you're going to have delivery vehicles, trash vehicles.

So that that turnaround meets the fire department requirements for a turnaround. Let's also stipulate that there won't be a gate. I mean, your trash pickup and everything, the fire department access, let's don't gate it. Better put that on there, too. You can put on there as a private drive, but 10 years from now, they going to come back when it's time to pave it and want the city to do it. No matter what you write, then they're going to want to put a gate up. And then they're going to be mad when you don't.

You know, there's always a a that's always a a possibility. Um the my experience with that has been you know we we've just run across this where we had to or we we're we're taking over a private street that's in the city limits. I don't know that this will ever become part of the city limits. So it may be more it may be more the county's public works department or engineering department needs to be weighing in heavily on these things because I don't think this will ever be the cities. You never know. I mean, there used to be an idea that a sewer line would run through this property that that never never came to fruition. So, I I just want to protect us the city's interests here with some notations on the plat.

Anything else, Robert? Good. Any other questions for the petitioner?

Did Did you conduct a traffic study? So, I was going to wait for the public comment before we got into traffic, but we can go ahead and dive into it. We did not get a traffic study done for this site. This is This is 27 lots. Does not meet the warrant for a traffic study. Doesn't it's not dense enough. Um, we discussed it with Mike's office, discussed it with the county, and a traffic study was was not required. Um, I understand there's a lot of traffic on Martin Road. I I grew up in this area. I've traveled that road. Um but the traffic problem on Martin Road is not due to the amount of houses on Martin Road. Um the issue is the pass through traffic from 69 getting back to Watermelon. Um I pulled the traffic numbers for Martin Road and the 2023 counts are 9,000 daily cars along Martin Road. Our 27 lot increase would increase the traffic on Martin Road by.3%. So our stance is that the traffic issue on Martin Road is due to the pass through traffic, not due to the density along Martin Road.

Okay. Thank you. If y'all would like, I can go ahead and expand on that a little bit or confirm it our way. Um, I know this is going to be something that the, you know, the people in opposition are going to say and I wish I'd have had this email a little earlier this evening, but u, and this comes from, uh, our the subconsultant that our office has on retainer for traffic related issues. Uh a one lane road is capable of uh the capacity is 1,000 cars an hour. An hour.

An hour. Yes. That's when you make the decision to go to an additional lane. So this this is well below the threshold of needing any any type of improvements to handle the additional 20 or 20 sublots. It's there's just not that big a demand there. All right. Thank you. Let's hear from uh Mr. Chairman, we had uh Gina, first person signed up speaks, Gina Span. Name and address for the record, please.

Gina Span 12890 Martin Road Spur. I do understand and respect the need for responsible growth in our community. However, this particular project raises several serious concerns that I believe have not been adequately addressed and that would negatively impact existing residents and the surrounding neighborhood. First, I would like to address the traffic. Adding 27 homes would significantly increase vehicle traffic on Martin Road. If any of you have traveled on Martin Road, you know how bad it gets backed up. And this would increase. There's no way you put 27 homes out there without it increasing the traffic. To my knowledge, no traffic study has been presented that demonstrates how this increase can be handled safely. Second, the issue of privacy. Homes built in this location would directly overlook my backyard and living spaces. This would severely diminish my privacy and ability to enjoy my property. No meaningful buffer zones, tree lines, or setbacks have been proposed to the project neighborhood. I would at least like a 100 foot buffer if this were to happen. Third, I'm deeply concerned about flooding and drainage impacts. The land behind my property currently absorbs storm water. Replacing it with pavements and rooftops increases the risk of runoff, erosion, and flooding onto neighboring properties. The current plan appears to lack sufficient storm water management to prevent downstream damage. Finally, the proposal isn't compatible with the existing character of our neighborhood. Our area consists of established homes with larger lots, several trees, a highdensity development of this size. It's inconsistent with that character. For all these reasons, I would respectfully urge planning board to reject this proposal. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next person signed up speaks, Andrew Hamner.

Andrew Hamner. I live at 110 Martin Road, Northport. Um the the actual creek, I've lived there my entire life. This was my pop off's property and I just didn't get a chance to buy the property. But that creek runs right through here and it's right down and it makes a turn and kind of goes back through them. There's a 6 and 1/2 foot 8 foot culbert up there on Martinsburg Road that our cattle used to go under the road and since then it's still been in there but it takes a lot of water. It takes on a lot of water. The we wasn't really opposed to the first 10 houses.

Can I ask you a question real quick? So that you drew that line. You're saying the water does it flow to the north? Yes, sir. And it go you know that's in the wershed. So it goes right to Lake Tuscaloosa. So all that's coming off of Martin's spur. Yes.

Okay. This thing is, you know, those houses are in a dish bowl. I mean, from from lot 26 up to that house all the way around, it's just like a big It's just like a big cereal bowl. Um, when Mike Dover first bought the property, he was going to put in 10 houses. I think it was Martin Crossing or whatever it was. 10 houses. We wasn't really opposed to that. But right down at the bottom, we had to bury likeund and something trees to get excavators and stuff in there because it was nothing but soup. It was just a mess. Um I've talked to Crawford Nixon. He looked at it the other day and he said, you know, it's just it's not feasible to put that many. Then Brian Crow bought the property and he was, you know, was going to put two houses in there and I wasn't opposed to that. Can you can you draw a circle about where you filled that with those trees where that was

right there? Um, and as you get to the back towards lot nine and 10, you know, it gets it's it gets messy back there. There would have to be a lot of fuel, but I don't know that it's so many hills coming off there that the water is just going to continue to run and it I don't know how how far you can build it up. You know, I didn't like the sewer idea. They had problems with the sewer when Mike was going to buy it. Um then my other issue, you know, like he said, 9,000 cars. It may not be that big of an issue, but my aunt's fisting to sell another 13 and a church is looking at it across the street. So, I live on Martin Road right now. You can't get out on the 69. It's backed up to my house. I I didn't know I could send in pictures, but I've got pictures, you know, all the way to my house every afternoon. It's backed up. Um, I think that's all I've got. Thank y'all for your time.

So, there are two creeks. See that orange line is a creek. And now you're saying you've got they've got Okay. Yes, ma'am. That in the back it's so muddy. In the back forge nine and 10, it's it was one big creek, but it's hard to tell, you know, where it all floods to and where the actual creek is. It's so wet. So, who would take over this road, Mike? Would it be the county? Thank you, sir. Yes. County. Thank you. Thank you'all, Mr. Chairman, the last person signed up, Lacy Williams.

Thank you, commissioners. My name is Lacy Williams. Uh, 200 Martin Road, Northport, Alabama. My family has owned that house and property that is adjacent to this proposed project for over three decades. They built the house that I live in with my small family now, which I inherited almost seven years ago. It's on Martin Road, the busy cutthrough road in Northport. Um, now I'm not anti-development. I love to see progress and growth in my hometown.

I am not anti-development. I love to see growth and progress in my hometown. I truly do. But this proposed project of 27 house lots is at best disruptive and crowded and at worst reckless and dangerous. As a child after school, I was the last one off the bus despite my house being one of the first houses the bus passed by. My mom had insisted I ride that whole route just so I would be let off the bus without having to cross Martin Road. That was 25 years ago. Um I can't imagine a child being in that situation now having to cross that road. It is it is awful. Um the the traffic is not only frequent, but it's fast. People fly down that road. Uh there's several known accidents that have happened on on that road, including in the specific area that this proposal is going for um to place their entry point to their neighborhood. The So we've it brings up only tra not only traffic issues, but it also poses safety concerns. My property is about 400 yards from the entry of this new project. And uh and like everyone else has commented, traffic truly does back up all the way right there. And I wouldn't be surprised if it would just back up right there uh right to the entry regularly. Um I I would be concerned that uh emergency vehicles might have trouble reaching you know me and my family as well as other folks closer to Highway 69. Um I'm also as Ben had said I'm or Andrea I'm very concerned with the extreme disruption of the natural habitat this project will no doubt cause. We are located in the Lake Tuscaloosa wershed. Um stones throw from Carol's Creek. Drinking water comes from Carol's Creek. Um ongoing construction will certainly cause runoff to an area where we can't really afford to have construction runoff. Not only that, the

project itself intends to build around and through the natural creek in the middle of a hardwood forest. Um so I propose that a traffic study, a true traffic study be done. Um, this will help shed light on just how busy and fast traffic is on that road. Um, I suggest the developer reduce the number of lots by at least half or less, 6 to 12 lots. Cutting that could help cut down on the addition of traffic. Um, even though he said maybe not the addition of traffic isn't the problem, but there's traffic. Um and then uh reducing the number of lots with an additional requirement no clear cutting be done would also help alleviate the burden on the local terrain and wildlife. Um the environmental environmental impact study would be also very informative in this regard.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. That's all we have signed up to speak. Anyone else care speak for against this request? Okay. Have you heard that? Dr. Co want to come back up.

All right. So, in the initial presentation, I failed to touch on drainage and what our intentions are with that. So, we have no intentions of clear cutting this site. Um, we're going to preserve the trees as much as possible, limit them out in grading just to the roadways enough to get building pads in there. um and hopefully preserve the tree line along the the neighboring properties. Um as far as drainage goes, our intention is to um let the drainage follow the natural drainage patterns of the site. Um we're not going to concentrate discharge points this close to the lake. Um let the drainage do its natural thing. slow it down in areas where we see fit so that it's not increased in the post development um condition. Um very similar to other developments that we've done close to the lake.

Hey Rob. So that that road and culde-sac is following a ridge line, right? So our intention is to but the lot where the house is sit looks like it I mean I I don't know what what are those lines are they two two feet five feet or what?

Those are those are two foot contours. So our intention here is to is to shave this knob down ridge down enough to build the road and get our building pads in here. And you're saying you're not going to masquer I mean that's a mass graded I mean you're going to take mas grading for the roadway but we're not going but when you mass grade for the road that's going to build the building pads too right? That's right. So everything's going to be gone right in that specific area. I mean we're going we're going to preserve these trees back here along the edges where you can't get the equipment anyway. We're we're going to clear as little as we possibly can to get the roads and building pads in there.

I'm just saying I'm not I'm just saying you kind of let it believe you're going to leave it leave it kind of natural and there's no possible way. You're going to have to have to hit it hard. Sir, you're going to have to hit it hard on the home sites. I mean, there's just no way to get around it. I mean, anyway, go ahead. I'm sorry. That that was that was it. I just wanted to touch on the drainage Robert on lots one through eight. Say that one more time. How much buffer are you going to leave that's currently there? I mean like the back property line this fan was concerned about.

So that that rear setback shown is is 35 ft. Um I mean due to the topography along that along that property line, we're not the houses are not going to be um extremely close to that property line, but we don't we don't have a buffer specified. So you can't say you the buffer the natural buffer there is there now. You got to have you saying 35. What's what's reality? What would it could it be? Or if you don't trip off all the

I mean without we haven't done a detailed grading plan obviously but I mean just looking at it I mean those houses I don't see them being closer than 100 ft from that property line back of the houses right

we'll have to dig them out when we build the Miss Pan brought up the concern about runoff, but what I've heard from one of the speakers is that it's running north, so it's going to run away from her. Correct. Or not. That's right. This whole area is draining north away from it all drain north. Was it north west? That's right. More north than west. Um,

those are the questions I really had was the concern about the runoff traffic study. We I mean we we heard the position of the city and the county. I don't I think I have to agree with them. It's not really warranted. We heard the whole traffic conversation with the Woodland Forest and that was two that was 108 houses 27. So I don't see there being a large impact on on that need for study. Um any questions for anything else you want to add based on what you heard? I think I'm good. What did we say about the buffer? I know you were saying that nothing is more than 100 ft

one through eight on the right hand. That's what I was asking about why it's one through eight. He was saying that he didn't see anything being built within 100 ft of that property line. Yeah, we don't we don't have a buffer specified, but those houses are not going to go close to that property line from what I'm seeing. Who is the developer? Beaker property group. Beaker. Yes, sir. Can you bring the aerial back up again, please, of that? So, it's pretty heavily forested right now, isn't it? I mean, it's pretty dense and you can see the creek.

Yeah. Any other questions for petitioner? Thank you. Thank you. Nothing else was brought up new to the conversation. So, we'll close to public comment and have a conversation amongst yourselves. Any comments. I mean, I think the motion we we um would have to be contingent on the notations on the plan. Correct. Correct. Those were we want to have private road. What was that? Maintenance.

Maintenance responsibility of lots 19, 20, and 21. Any any comments? All right. Commission Forest, we have S10425 the Martin Estates consisting of 27 lots on 1286 Martin Road and 200 Martin Road not in the city limits. uh four variance requests. Engineering has some issues with the half street improvements, sidewalk construction, cap sewer lot configuration we discussed, but we did want to have as part of the uh required plat would be the addition that the is a private road for lots. What was that? 20

19 20 19 20 and 21. Is that correct? 20 19 20 and 21 will be a private road on the plat and a shared use maintenance for those three lots for that road. Correct. As well as no gate. As well as no gate. As well as no gate. I knew there was something else here. No, no gate can be um installed on that private road. I have a motion and a second based on those variance requests and those notes. Say, say that again based on no variances on these variance request and the notes of the no gate. No being private,

but but but Mike says he does have a problem with the light configuration. I mean, you're standing on that, right? So, if if we add these notes that uh Bill is talking about to the plat, I think I'm going to be okay with the var the lot configuration request, but mainly because I don't believe this ever be in the city limits, too. So, so you want to start doing these private roads down little pig trails down the side of creek. So, I mean, buy buyer beware. That's right. That's county issue. All right. I need to repeat that. Or is everybody good with that? Good. I have a motion, a second. Motion.

Second, Mr. Ramsey. Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes. for the no votes. Who all was a no? I was a no. Start with you. You all right. I know there was no traffic study done, but I just feel like this is an unsafe road and that any of any any other cars coming out onto

they do fly. Martin, I know. I was just on it today. Speaking from experience there, Mr. Ro, but is that sufficient? Private drive. I agree um with Miss Prince. I used to dispatch for Northport and we had a lot of accidents up there. I think any increase in traffic on that road would be detrimental to the residents up there.

Due diligence on the traffic study and I also had questions about if the developer or petitioner had actually um met with the residents in the area as opposed to the private drive. I said yes because I want to see Baker do it. I don't believe he'll do it.

All righty. We'll keep moving here. We are now on S 10525. Reservey of lot 1617 Grand View Drive subdivision consisting of one lot on approximately 1.69 acres located at and around 11963 Grand View Drive, not in city limits. You can see we're way north on the lake off of Highway 43. You can see those two parcels today. There's an existing home. They'd like to remove that middle lot line, create a larger lot. Here you can see that without contours. We have one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff? Engineering.

No objections with that. Commissioner.

Good evening. My name is Lynn Corkran and my house is at 11963 Grand View Drive and I'm requesting that both of my lots be combined as one and the main reason is for future additions or renovations. Um, in March I just had a boat dock built on the lake and my next project was going to be a driveway up to the house. But you can see where the house is. there's not much land but by the property line. But then in May, a tree fell on my house. So, we have major damage to our house and I have an architect and a contractor after dealing with insurance. So, now my next project might be an addition to the kitchen since the whole roof is ruined. But they can't do that because it goes over the property boundaries.

I'm sorry. Thank you. It's a long process. So, if you have any trees near your house, get them cut. Any questions for petitioner? Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request? We love seeing a larger lots being created and I think this is a good reason to do it. So, sorry for the tree, but anyway. Anyone else have any comments or questions? Okay.

All right. Commission reports we have S10525 of the let's see reservey the Grand View Drive subdivision one branch cap sewer engineering has no issues with. I have a motion second. Miss Hornsby. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right. Next up, S10725, reservey of lot 15, block BME, Clark subdivision number one, consisting of two lots on approximately 46 acres, located at 6835 Janine Street. This is not in city limits. You can see uh we're in Cottonale. We're just north of um University Boulevard here. You can see there's two structures on that lot today. They'd like to put each structure on its own lot. So, creating those two lots here. You can see that without contours. We have three variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff? Engineering. No objections.

Thank you, petitioner. Steve McFersonen, 4121 Vassie Drive, Tuscaloosa. I'm here on the behalf of the Pate family. Their intention is to sell the portion to the north. And uh the block building has always been a mechanics shop for years. And as far as I'm concerned, that's all it'll ever be. It's just another shop. So, uh, the 9,000 square foot. I sent another map at one time and it it we changed the lot line between the two, but it hadn't uh it doesn't reflected on that that drawing. So, we've increased made sure both lots at least were 9,000 square feet. And uh they both have access to Diane Street. Uh like I the lot one he intends to sell to a young couple that's they couldn't afford to buy all of it, but that's that's what they could afford.

Just out of curiosity, what's the closest city limits in the area? It's hugely important. I'm just curious. So, um, this is just right off of University Boulevard East. So, I believe it's it's Mr. Pawns can maybe highlight it, but where Highway 11 is shaded in, I believe city limits runs along that. Okay. Just curious. Okay. Any questions for petitioner?

Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request? Having heard none commission for us we have S10725 the reservey the Clark subdivision consisting of two lots three variance request engineering has no issues with have a motion and a second motion second Miss Hornsby yes yes yes yes yes yes motion approved thank you very much

all right next up S10825 Five hometown addition to Alberta reservey of part of lot 21 Windsor drive and unplatted land consisting of four lots on approximately 5.3 acres located at 3315 through 3325 University Boulevard East Council District 5. This has been reduced to three lots since that legal notice was published. So you'll be looking at three lots tonight. So, you can see uh we're in the Alberta area off of University Boulevard East uh near Five Points. You can see that lot today does have three structures on it. And you can see they'd like to put each structure on its own separate lot. You can see that with contours here and without. And then just zooming in um on those three lots just for a little additional detail. We do have one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff

engineering on that configuration? We'll be okay with the block configuration variance as long as there's a note on the plat that lots two and three are do not have direct access to University Boulevard. Yeah. And just for everybody's that's the old Jim Meyers, right? Jim drugs. Okay. Commissioner Who's who y'all? Everybody wants to talk about it. Name and address for the record.

Uh my name is Joshua Jarbo. Address is 2155 Springville, Alabama. Um I'm the owner of the Jim Myers, all the buildings. And uh we're just, if you notice in the very first picture, um the current layout of it there, the lines go in between the middle building as you can see. So we're just trying to get them all on their own parcels. So, is everybody going to act use that one entrance there through the property? So, cross access easement for everybody. Oh, yeah. We've already got easements on there. And then another thing is I know they're doing the sidewalk and all that. So, it's we've already factored in the in one way and out the other way. So, we factored all that in when we submitted everything. Is that a mobile home park to the east

to the right of it? Yes, sir. From that picture. Any other questions for petitioner? Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request? I have a signup sheet. So, hello. Um, I'm Elizabeth Hall. I'm 21 Windsor Drive. Where is that? So, that fence that's backing up there, that's my house. And those and if you on the Yeah. Google Maps.

So, where's your house? You can see Well, my backyard goes right up against I'm in the culde-sac. Okay. Over here off. Okay, I see it. Yeah, that's all right. Gotcha. And then that's my fence. And those are my four barking dogs. And um we're just concerned about what's going to go back there. And is the wooded lot going to be separate and is that going to be available to be developed? Bring back the I guess the the drawings of the proposed. So you can see that they're creating that lot three will be that lad that last building and all the property behind it.

Will that be left undeveloped? I mean it's that's up to developer who whoever buys buys that property. There's a rideway through. Is that a ride? What kind of rideway is that? That's an ement. Sewer. There's a sewer easement that bicts through the property and then that rectangle that you see is an is a drainage easement. Those are the woods. Yeah. That gives us a buffer between the trailer park back there where all the automatic gunfire comes from. Yeah.

The what gunfire. And someone rented one of those warehouses and decided to they weren't making enough money so they put in a nightclub and they had highly questionable taste in music. So every Friday night we got to hear a little party. So I am now on a firstname basis with all the cops in Alberta which is not a good thing. What's the zoning miss? It's zone GC and we're aware of that situation and we you know we put an end to that. So then and yeah we will we will keep an eye on whatever use goes in this property that it is meeting that zoning ordinance. So understand it's already zone general commercial. I thought we approved it like an old folks home or something.

Yeah. I just need to know what I need to do to make that not be developed. Buy it. And I'm looking into that actually

cuz that's I'm I'm actually going to retire. I never thought I would, but you know, Tuscaloosa is not that bad. Um, so that's a big concern. We've just we've had a lot of breakins into our cars, and to our houses, and um now they're building the sidewalks along University, so that gives them even more access to our cars and houses despite the four obnoxious dogs. Um, so I guess I need to organize my neighborhood and make sure that whoever buys this, well, they can buy it and but they know what the limited uses are being a zone GC and that they want to do something different and they got to come before this body to explain. you heard us night. We're not going to just randomly

because I failed to show up at one of these and they built that system back there for the drainage and everything and the fact that nobody has contracted malaria from that is a miracle. You need to do it. It's a big mosquito factory got a response. Is that the detention basin that's shown? Is that so? Well, nothing's really changing at this moment. Okay. But we can't say it won't change. No drive-throughs, no Dollar Generals, GC, whatever going GC, no vacant condos. I don't think it'd be a good place for any of those things. Well, he's not reszoning the property. He's just re

I know. And and I was wondering how that's going to affect my property since I'm affect affect you in any way. Is it's the same thing. He just moved the line. I mean, same same anything that could go there before can go there now. Yeah. Okay. It's just challenging. Okay. It's a challenging site, but that doesn't mean somebody won't do it. Last case we heard was I mean, yeah, I've already kicked Tiner about this. I cornered him at PetSmart and said, "What are we doing? What are we doing?" Um, maybe something positive will happen there. What's in that?

Maybe something positive will happen with those three buildings and something good will build in there. Yeah. Who knows? Well, I mean, in the past, we never said anything and we thought, "Oh, it'll be okay." And and now it's not okay. Well, so I'm here, right? You may see me again. If somebody comes for a reasonzoning of that, those buildings will will be here and you'll get notified of it. Correct. So, yeah. And the and the driveway that goes out on the university is completely blind. I've lost pets. A lot of people have lost pets because when you come over that hill, everyone speeds. That's just the way they speed. I really hate to extend that. You can't see anything.

I got a question for Zach. I mean, Zach, what is that mobile home park with dirt roads? I mean, that must be in the county or something. I mean, surely I mean, how the It's in the city, but it's non-conforming. So, there to say the least you ride by, you probably didn't notice it. Been there forever. I mean I mean holy ship's going to fix it with that $45 million project. Yeah. I mean the property other side is paved other side county. Yeah. Trailer park is county and there's nothing we can do about it. No no he just said it's in the city. It's in the city but he Oh really? Okay. Which is good for you.

It may have a good thing there because it was in the county but it sounds like it's been annexed. We had a party in our neighborhood and New Year's Eve party and a bullet fell literally out of the sky and hit somebody in the thigh and they had to go to you. What goes up must come down. I mean, it's kind of a loss. Yeah. Hey, so more people just out of the sky. Just know that nothing's changing. And if it does something something goes in there, you need to find out what's going in there and make sure it can be within a GC zoning. Well, and and didn't you say a tattoo park can go on GC? Yeah.

I mean, it's a pretty broad zoning. I mean, I it would be a concern to me, but I mean, it's already GC, right? And we just we none of our neighbors want to lose the woods because we have groundhogs and fox and deer. And you got deer? We have deer that actually run up and down the street. Um, lots of groundhogs. We have coyote. We don't like the coyote so much, but um, lots of feral cats that emerge from the woods. They get regular meals, worldass healthc care now because of us. So, it's just our happy place. You need keep it that way. You need a Netflix series. No. Huh?

You need a Netflix series. Why? It's a great place to live in your four minutes from Target. He's got it. He's okay with it. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak for or against? No, I don't think we're good. Thank you. All right. Um All right, commission. We've heard the concerns and I think we're all I think the those in opposition understand what's going on here. Hopefully. Commission before us we have S10725 reservey of the ME Clark subdivision. No, I'm sorry. No, my bad. 108 25

hometown edition of Alberta going from previously advertised as four lots to three lots. Right. Motion to approve. Second. Got a motion second approved with one lot configuration. Engineering has no issues with facing the one drive. Correct. One found on the plat though. We requiring a note on the plat that lot two and three are denied direct access to to University Boulevard. They got to use the easement that's shown on the drawing. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um Mr. Rums. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved. Okay.

All right. Next up, S10925 reservey lot 9 and 10 cottages at Bignyan Creek consisting of one lot on approximately 2.8 acres located at 16282 and 16276 Holly Springs Road. This is not in city limits. You can see we're way north on Highway 43. There's two lots today. Um they have been developed. You can see that home, our aerial is just out of date. We're moving that middle lot line, getting a little bit of a larger lot. You can see that without contours. And we have one variance request. No public comment. Any questions for staff? Engineering. Engineering. Hello. Engineering. No issues. Thank you, sir. Petition,

I think we I think we need to get them to put sewer there. You got a budget on that? Give us a number. A lot. warn you. Kevin Hinkle with Montgomery Hinkle, Inc. 203 Harrow Road East, representing Chris Hall. Purchase both lots. Wants to combine them into one for future expansion next door in-law suite or whatever they want to do. Are you making two lots or one lot? Make one lot. Okay. So, that's a no-brainer. That's a no-brainer. Y Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against? No. Thank you. No one's here except for Kevin.

All right. Commission for us we have S10925 the reervey of the lots 910 college at Benyan Creek one bar cap sewer engineering so kindly told us he has some issues with have a motion in a second second missby yes yes yes yes yes motion approved all right commission one item of other business just voting on our 2026 chair and vice chair I nominate Bill I made Bill and Tim to do it again. And the new rule is it goes two places down to the right. Right. Does anybody ever want this thing back? I mean, um, I nominate Bill and Tim.

All right. Second. All in favor? Hi nay chair since he here that's what he good