Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we good to go?

Good evening and welcome to the October 2025 meeting of the city of Tuscalosa Planning and Zoning Commission. Any written comments sent to staff were forwarded to the commission directly. At this time, I' like to introduce our staff. We have Mr. Jimbo Woodson, deputy city attorney. Michael Garner, city engineer. Zack Ponds, director of planning. Leota 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 representative who is appointed by the city council. I ask commission members introduce themselves and state their occupa occupation. Again, Miss Hornsby

and Hornby attorney. Raven Howard, councilwoman, District 2. Steven Ramsey, business owner. Dana Prince, attorney Porsche Clark, 311 manager. Tim Harrison, general contractor,

Bill Wright, business owner. There were signup sheets located outside for public comment. Four speakers are allowed to speak in favor of petition and four speakers are allowed to speak in opposition of a petition. All speakers will have the maximum of five minutes unless commission votes to allow a longer time. Nice procedures. The commission will take up items in the order of our final agenda. The commission will initially receive a presentation from the staff as to the details of the agenda item. Additionally, we may hear certain matters involving the same property, such as an annexation and a zoning matter concurrently. Although we will take separate votes on each matter involving the same property. After the staff presentation, I'll then call upon the petitioner to present their case. The petitioner will have a maximum 10 minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time. At the conclusion of the petition's remarks, we then call upon any party in order of sign up who desires to support the petition. Thereafter, we'll call upon any party in order of sign up that those who oppose the petition. When it's your turn for comment, please introduce yourself, setting 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 the commission votes to allow a longer time. If the petitioner presents any new information in response to the objections, the commission will allow those who oppose the petition the opportunity to respond to the new information only. Any response will be limited to two minutes unless the commission votes to allow a longer time. During the course of this presentation, you may be interrupted by any member of the commission for clarification or additional information. Such interruptions will not reduce your time. Once the commission members are

satisfied that we've received all relevant information, I will close for further 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 recorded and broadcast live. All in-person public comments should be made at made at the podium into the microphone. Jurisdiction and all matters pertaining to the following items. This commission serves as the final authority. Subdivisions located within city limits. Subdivisions located outside city limits within the city's planning jurisdiction. developments with special district and approval letters for developments in historic district buffer zones. As to all remaining agenda matters, including annexations, reszonings, planned developments, and street vacation, this commission serves as the recommending body to the city council. In that regard, our decisions are in the form of a recommendation we present to city council, and the city council will make the final decision on those matters. Subdivision approval requires the affirmative vote of six members of planning commission. All matters which are recommendations to city council require majority vote for an affirmative recommendation. At this time, I would ask to any members of the commission have any conflicts of interest as to any agenda matter before us tonight. If so, please state for the record. Having heard none, I would ask the staff to confirm on the record that proper notice has been given to all parties and interest as required by law as to all members before this commission tonight.

It has. Thank you. Okay. There are small small changes to the agenda tonight. The following agenda items have been modified. S9025, the reservey of the second reservey of lots 2 and 2A Steve Tucker subdivision is requesting to withdraw. Do I hear a motion and a second to move this item on the agenda to the cases requested to be withdrawn? Motion second. All those say I. I. I. Those opposed. Eyes have it. Yes. Okay. Turn your mic. I'm I'm sorry. I thought I had I'm recusing on Hackberry.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. With that, we will begin with approval of the minutes. As the planning and zoning commission has received the synopsis of the September 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. Those opposed. Eyes have it. This approved.

Good evening, commission. Starting off tonight with the consent agenda. We have one item S9225. We did not have anyone sign up out front for this one. See how no one has signed up to speak for or against for this consent agenda item S9225 Danner Place. All those say I opposed. Eyes have it. All right. Moving into our cases requesting to withdraw. We have S9025. Uh we did not receive any public comment. We did not have anyone sign out up front for this one. Okay. So S commission S925 has withdrawal. No reason to vote, is there?

U Mr. Woodson, do we need a vote on the withdrawal? Okay. Okay. All those in favor of approving the withdrawal of S925, say I. I. I. Those opposed? I have it.

All right. Moving into unfinished business, we have a companion case that is Riverbluff subdivision. Uh this is an annexation and subdivision A&1525 and S7025. You first saw this one in August. Um it's located south of 3685 River Bluff Drive. Starting with the annexation, you can see we're just north of the Black Warrior River here off of the new Mcrit Road. Uh you can see um that lot today is vacant and you can see that area in the blue hatch uh is the area to be annexed. Uh they'd like to uh annex into city limits for city of Tuscaloosa infrastructure and this is identified in framework as a primary expansion area um priority one. Here are department comments on that annexation. And here is that uh revised plat. We'll we'll get into the detail here as we move into the subdivision. Uh 25 lots um on 40.8 acres. It has been reduced to 24 lots after the legal notice was submitted. Uh you can see that lot again today is vacant. You can see that plat with contours without um and now moving into the comparison. We have the October plat on the left or excuse me August plat on the left. Uh the current plat on the right. I can see there's been a lot of changes particularly um in this area over here. Let's see this area over here um compared to that August submission. Zooming in, uh, you can see starting in the northeast corner, those kind of, uh, over one acre lots in the middle, some, uh, halfacre and larger lots as we move into the northwest, and then those larger, um, acre, close to an acre lots

as you move towards the river. Uh, we do have two variance requests. Um, we did receive one public comment in August. We received a second one for tonight's meeting. Do you have any questions for staff? engineering on the marriage request. We have no objections to those requests. Thank you. And commission, I'm sorry, I forgot to point out um they did uh do a a 40 foot minimum build line for these uh three lots here against the the subdivision to the north. Um just wanted to make sure that was pointed out. Petitioner, how many lots were in the Augusta? How many?

It was uh 31 lots. Um, one of those being an open space lot from 3124 23. Yeah. U, Mr. Chairman, Paul Barkalter here representing the developer. Um, we've met with the homeowners association for Acadian Place and actually Doug Simpson is here if you have any questions for him. Uh, worked out all the issues that they had. Uh we did do the 40 foot minimum building line that they requested and reduce the number of lots uh to meet the uh requirements for that river buff development. U we have talked with them about becoming part of the homeowners association and we are going to adhere to their restrictive covenants. Um

and what what did you say? We're going to restrict to their we're going to adhere to their restrictive covenants. So they've got some covenants set up for that particular area. Um, so I guess the only thing that we need to add, uh, I did talk with Josh York, who is the adjacent owner to lot number one before the meeting, and we're going to give him a 20 foot minimum building along along that lot. So, uh, that's in addition to the 40 that we've already shown just to, you know, just we're just trying to make sure we have enough building area on lot number one. So, if there's any questions, I'll try to address them or if there's any comments from Doug or anybody else.

So, you're going to add a 20 foot onto that num. Yeah, it'll be a 20 foot sideyard really for that lot. Well, I I applaud y'all for getting together and I mean, from a developer standpoint, you took a lot hit, but you made some improvements for the the joining neighborhood. So, I think everybody should be pretty pleased with Yeah. Well, it's like I told Doug at the meeting when we had with HOA, you know, we want to we don't want to do anything to impact the existing development. Sure. We just want to add to it. Great. I appreciate it. Okay. Any questions for the petitioner? Need to write a book on this about your goodwill. Okay.

Thank you. Anybody signed up to speak? Uh yes. Uh we have Aadian Place HOA signed up. Mr. Doug Simpson, I think.

Good evening, commission. I just want to thank you uh in your efforts uh in August. I'd also like to thank Paul and the Dominion group for being able to come in. We had very fruitful discussions. It wasn't always easy. Uh but the discussions did go as well as planned. So, thank you for your efforts in August to enable us to suspend this until this time frame. Also with the adjacent uh with the York family extending that to 20 ft for sideyard. I believe this will be a much better addition for Aadian Place as a whole. Look forward to having them as part of our HOA in the future. We've also hired an attorney to help navigate that in alignment with Dominion uh in Paul itself to kind of help navigate the the the mounds of legal discussions that we'll get into and how do we uh I don't know if the right words annex but bring them on as our members of our HOA but we look forward through this process and again thank you guys for your efforts.

Could you real quick uh name and address for the record? Doug Simpson, 3625 Riverbluff Drive, uh Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Thank you chairman. Next person, Mr. JD York.

My name is JD York, 3690 Riverbluff Drive. I am the property that is adjacent to lot one and uh we're satisfied. I'd like to thank Mr. Burke Halter for listening our concerns and going from five lots to one right there. That's a big relief and uh uh expanding the minimum build line there for us. So, uh we're in agreement and uh yeah, everything looks good. So, I thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? That's it. Well, this one worked out nicely. Anyone else care to speak for or against this fishing request?

I'm concerned Mr. Burkoff is going to run for mayor. He's got part of Kadia vote. All right. Um, since we're wrapping this up, let's get to the voting of this. All right, folks. Our first is the annexation 1525. Our annexing 40.8 acres. Okay. South of 3685 River Bluff Drive in conjunction with S725. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Those opposed. Eyes have it. Welcome to the city. Commission reports. We have S725. [Music] River Bluff subdivision, the 25 lots, 23 lots, and it has two variance requests of sub substrates and public street furniture engineering has no issues with. We have a motion and a Can we also add the 20 foot? Okay. All right. Fair. And we will add as a note for the record the uh 20 foot minimum build line on lot one of the new uh addition. So, motion to approve. Second. Second. Mr. Ramsey. Uh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right. Moving into our cases to be heard. Next up is an annexation request. That is AN1825 annexing approximately 1 acre located at 4216, 4230, and 4040 Nickel Park Road. You can see uh we're pretty far north on Lake Nickel here uh near the Sexton Ben Cutoff and new Watermelon and Watermelon intersection. You can see that property. They are looking to annex portions of some properties to the east to um annex their their home into city limits. You can see that that boundary to be annexed in the blue hatch um and existing city limits in yellow. uh they'd like to annex into city limits to uh go to city schools. This is identified as our secondary expansion area and framework. Here are department comments.

This is the one that just and we did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff? Not yet for me. Any questions for staff? All right, petitioner. I have one little I just want to ask Jimbo. Okay, that's that we don't have lasso. Is that not a lasso annexation? No, lasso will be down a road only. Okay. All right. petitioner

Jonathan Grammar 4040 Nickel Park Road Tuscaloosa 3546 Gibson Robert W 4310 4230 and 4216 Nickel Park Road Tuscaloosa Alabama 35406 So so this is my uncle, he's allowing me to uh request that y'all annex that 20ft strip across two of his parcels uh to get to mine. Annexing across two different property owners.

Yes, sir. the the parcel that's inside the that contains the 1 acre that's a 25 acre parcel that's mine. Yes, sir. And when I built the house, I obviously annex or I uh mortgaged that one acre with the house. Uh the rest of that land is is not mortgaged with the house. So, what I wanted to do was just annex that one acre that's mortgaged with the house into the city limits. Are you obviously doing this? Are you doing this for school? Yes, sir. I've got two at Rock Corey Elementary and one at Northridge Middle School.

And then, you know, just just for reference, several years ago, if you look to the southeast that the parcels to the south of the of the one acre that's already in the city limits, south of the road, that's mine as well. Uh when I bought that, it was 31 acres. It's not on the page there, but in that southeast corner, we annexed in one acre off of that 31 previously. Um, so I was, you know, going to do the same thing on that one up there on that 25 acre parcel. You can't see it on that map, but the to the southeast below where the key is for the map,

there's one acre there that was annexed in several years ago. Uh, same thing, one acre off of 31. And when they what they did, Tim was um when it was annexed in, they just assessed it at the courthouse as a separate parcel, obviously in the city limits, and broke it broke it out from the the larger 31 acre parcel. So, I've got a 30 and then a 1 acre in the corner. And then that that piece in the northwest corner, that 31, I bought it two years ago. It's about a 2acre parcel as well.

Staff, could y'all do me a favor? Would you All right, we got one petitioner. We got two interested parties here. Can you somehow label the petitioner's property and then interested parts? Okay, that's keep going. Option. All right. You can do a different color on the on the interested party. The uncle.

Yeah, it's my uncle. Okay. So just to clarify this part and this part is the your right. Okay. So you own the two uncle owns yellow and also the larger lot too. Yeah. Yeah. He's got four parcels right there. Why does the Why does the that need to be annexed that I mean can you just annex with your property and giving me an easement across it. You have to It has to be contiguous. We got to get for just one acre. Yeah.

It had See the yellow piece in there. That's in the city limits. And to get that other square up there, you've got to touch that yellow and then keep it going until you touch his purple square up there so that it's not that island. Well, it's it's well island or really they're just in the PJ. We call those islands. Who? What? That's That's kind of a I don't You just don't want to annex your whole big blue block up there. No, ma'am. I don't want to restrict all my land just to get that one acre and house in there. You don't want to what?

I don't want to restrict my full use of my property any more than I have to. So, that's why I want to just get that one acre in there. Who Who owns the parcel below the house? One right there. That's a lot of people, a lot of heirs on that part, that parcel. Not not not my family.

Just hang on. You what? Hey, can you turn on your mic? There's no other choice.

Hold on. Hold on. Let him talk. Do I hear a question? Yes. This is me. Here's here's here's the concern we have. Obviously, John, I mean, we sets a heck of a precedent for us, something like this to this extent. And that's what we're concerned with. What what what precedent does it set? Well, I mean, look at the strip annexation or the just the one acre out of my 25. Look at how how you're going about getting there. I mean, going across two two separate properties. So,

well, if we go back out to Watermelon Road, there's a strip annexation out there that goes from Highlands up to De Cunningham Road. If we go over to the dam on Lake Nickel, we go out a strip along the road. There are there are there are, but we have been trying to stop doing that. Be honest with capturing this property like this. So, staff. Yeah. I mean, there's ways to remedy it in the sense of a subdivision if you wanted to subdivide and get, you know, some of this property on to actually make it a a parcel. Um, so which one is which one is

I don't know. It is best practice to annex in the whole property and not do this, but there aren't any regulations specifically related to it that we have. So, how how does the I mean the uncle I'm sorry I forgot the name Gibson I mean Mr. Gibson I mean how does that impact legally and from a taxation standpoint that property that's now in the city? It's assessed separately and I get a separate tax bill for it. But I mean how in the heck what's what's the width of that annex annex 20T

20T. So, you got a 20 ft wide by How long is that? Uh, let me look at the legal on it.

We we we do it while you're figuring that out. We always sometimes we'll get variance requests for lot configurations property or subdivided.

So, from from the one acre that's already in the city that Robert and Alice have, that strip running east west across the south boundary is 315.62 62 ft. Then it turns north and runs 441.47. Then it runs west 31672. Then it runs north 6224 to hit my 1acre. What I was saying is that when we have a subdivision in the city, we always frown on the crazy lot configurations. Basically, we're creating a praise lot configuration and annexing the city.

So, Bill, is he is he want to do the just the yellow piece? Is that right? No, no, just the blue the blue check. So, annexing starting at the the yellow piece and going this way, but but he owns the right below it too, but doesn't want to do that owns the big one. He owns and Mr. Gibson owns the two over here. You know, you could clean it up a tad by just just bringing that square down to where the Yeah. I mean, like I said, that's a tad, but at least it helps it a little bit. Or why not go this way on this property he owns

just and just do a little threeacre lot or something. Not just crazy things. So that's so Jonathan Grammar is below that. No sir. Could I clarify something for you? Sure. In 2010, I petitioned to have my one acre which is in the yellow there which has the right away to the property that's contiguous to the lake. All right. My brother-in-law, his father owns all of the land below there, the two oneacre parcels. And next to it to the east,

east, that X belongs to his father. The rest of those two parcels right there also belong to them and his sister. All of the other four properties there belong to me. The reason that we requested to be annexed into the city of Tuscaloosa was to take advantage of the city's school system because I have a grandson who needed to go to kindergarten and thus we didn't want to pass by two brand new schools to go to kindergarten or ride a bus. So it was done in 2010 and that's the yellow

that is that one where the X is is the property that we annexed into the city of Tuscaloosa in 2010 and the only request that they made or of us then was were we requesting city services and since it had we were not now his request as it was presented to me is to annex his one acre that has been previously subdivided from that property and mortgage for his so he doesn't have to have a mortgage on his entire property and for the purpose to send his children to city schools. No purpose other than that. And I don't know of anything that's changed over the years in the way of rules and regulations uh that would prevent that from being so. So from 2010, I believe it's exactly 2010, it may have been nine or 11, but we have been there and we've enjoyed sending our children to our grandchildren, excuse me, that live with us to the city schools.

I don't I don't think anybody has any objections to what your goal is. I think it's a a issue concern trying to figure it out how to make it work. Yeah. And that's and it looks so the city's going to spend or elevate that's one of the big elevate projects on Lake Nickel. And so the city's going to spend millions of dollars upgrading Lake Nickel at some point or hopefully as a quality of life issue. Now obviously we'd like to grow the city that by by by annexing it allows us to to grow further, but you're saying that you're we're worried about the president because of these lines, right? I figure 20 the the rightways are getting us there

or the easements or whatever. Zach, what give me a give us some options on on on getting them in? I mean, seriously, we What What are our other options? I mean, you could tell them to and ask them the whole thing, which go back to the drawing board and we can work with them out. Go back to the drawing board and we can work with them outside of this. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would make this work better unless you know I mean they own all of this property up here so there's ways to make parcels that are go off of off Nickel Park Road and just go up and grab it you know

so so the Jonathan Grammar parcel that's the bigger parcel you do not want the whole thing no sir and and we don't own we don't own the parcels along the road frontage that one and then the one There's a little triangle in the corner there. We No. Well, we don't own that either, but the one on the north side. Yeah, we don't own that. So, we can't follow the road like you're talking about. What is your What is your fear about doing the whole par I just don't want to put any additional restrictions on the rest of my property that would come with being in the city limits. Exact draw off of Nickel Park Road and grabbing the acre.

I'm going to have those restrictions on the one acre. No, not that that or just you come off Nickel Park Road on the or the other right there. Why can't we do something like something straight up there? Something straighter and just cut it out that way. It wouldn't be much more. You're saying that you'd be you'd come in under R1 and you're worried about you might want to do something like R3. This this X right here isn't in city limits. So they couldn't Oh, you got to connect to city. You got to be touching. That's right. And and all right so Zach if we Oh

Jimbo's told me before that because each and every property is different and specifically different that you really don't create a president but are we is there in any way creating someone's level of expectation on a different case? So to answer that question I'll use his example. I mean, he's using this, and you know, I'm not for or against anyone in this room, but they're using this as the reason for this should be okay because they were able to do it in 2010.

You didn't necessarily set a precedent in 2010, but 2010, this created that. And then now we're here, you know, 15 years later. And uh and and that wasn't the first one that was done either. the ones I mentioned to Tim earlier. There's two or three others up there that have that 20 foot strip to other places. What about something like that right there? What they're drawing right there. I must have missed that meeting cuz I would

that make it like that. Right. If you did something, you followed your property line to the south like he has the red and then went over to the eastern property line like that right there. That would mean I can stomach that besides what you're trying to do. Yeah. I think that at least makes it so non and on the west I guess the west side we're talking about bringing that one out even with the property below it. I'm saying do something like that little red square. Yeah. Like that. Yeah. So I mean I don't think you got to do that. Just but at least make the lots

logical. Logical looking. Yeah. It's not completely unprecedented in that that's how we got Mercedes Ben. Yeah, I agree. I mean I I I got no problem with I mean I think we warm in the city, but not a good Yeah. No, it's the county. It's the county until you get to the gate. Yeah. So you can't So the only way we're getting there is by by virtue of him doing his because he couldn't do his because he wouldn't be able to touch this bigger piece or the one across. My my parents annexed that 20 foot strip from the lake property. that strip that goes from the lake property over. My parents did that for Uncle Robert and Alice when they annexed their oneacre in.

Go back and look at Watermelon Road and Lake Nickel Road on the other side by the dam and you'll see more strips than just that one right there. So, you're saying that we've done something like this? Yes, sir. You go from Highlands over on Watermelon Road to the west there's a strip up. Okay. Cumins family property. I did that to get up there to deun. I did the house. And then there's an but then you keep adding strips and you suddenly got a Well, actually that was Tman. Tulman development. Yeah, I remember. Yes, sir.

So myire go Tim, it doesn't sound like the staff has an issue. There were no issues on that. It sounds like the commission has the issues, not the staff. So, we would be bringing it in in what? R1 would be R1. So, the commission has the issues, but the staff is the best working.

So, so I'm trying to think of what he would not be. So if he wants to develop this property, he could probably be more dense and he's afraid if he does more that it'll it'll cost him, right? So Mr. Rumsy, I have no plans to develop that property. I'm just trying to think. Yeah, I'm not. It's timberland around me. It's going to be like that as far as I listen, I'm all around you. I just realized I'm all around.

Yeah, I'm not going to develop it. the the the original owners of the property did so in the 1600 or 1800 to about 1864 which will be his grandfa his grandfather's grandfather's grandfather my wife and them and they've been in custody of most of this property and the city uh condemned or took uh 40 acres of the original 40 for the water supply for Lake T like Tus Lake Nickel And in doing so, and that was in about 1950 whatever before the lake was built, uh, one of the springs that feeds that lake is on that piece of property that I own. And I have no, yes, I have absolutely no desire. And then the property behind us is another feeder spring that serves that lake. And as far as my family, my children, and my current grandchildren, we have absolutely no desire to see anything developed there, uh, is one of the reasons why we're doing this this way. I can go out and sit on my back porch and look into the mocking birds and watch hummingbirds. And

you understand it's in our best interest. I do. We just don't want to meet ourselves in the road. I I I I do, Mr. I understand that. and the Cummins family. My wife used to work for them and that was years ago. But I understand a good bit of how development and all that wants to be. So it the the reason for as in my lifetime it will not be developed. Mr. Grammar, you seem to be upset just at the mere mention of trying to meet in the middle somewhere. Is there is there a reason for that? No, ma'am.

I I will also say that this is a recommending vote. So, you know, y'all could vote on it and make your intentions clear as to what you know, which way you're voting and then ultimately city council would be that decision on it. In other words, we can tossibility on the council. It is a in the end a council decision. Well, we just got well, if we're going to make we're making comments, it needs to be obviously reported and passed the council just to say Yeah. I mean, we we have no objections with annexation. We just want to make sure that this body going forward, I don't care what happened 30, 40 years ago, but in 2010 that we weren't this body wasn't here. That's right.

But we're trying to do things more logical. I think our is our goal, especially with annexations and with zonings and subdivisions. And that's my only thing is like it'd be a oddlooking subdivision. If we asked for that, you are in the city. I'd be like, heck no. Yeah. Another so this uh may be worth mentioning even if he were to develop it, it's within one mile of the drinking water basin. So you have to have one acre minimum lots and septic tanks have in other words, you don't have sewer and you're not going to have sewer up here for for a while. Well, it it'll eventually get there probably a 30 years. I I don't know.

Where is it? At North River Yacht Club on the corner at Todd Bombers. All right. Any other questions for the petitioner? So, it doesn't matter what we do is going to the council. It's going to council, but I mean I think if if if anybody on this commission wants to I guess add a comment or thought for the council to consider from our perspective and let them have it at at their level and good luck. My preference would would be to see an alternative that was more in keeping with the things that we've suggested.

I would feel much more comfortable voting yes with a plat of a plan that that was more in keeping with the kinds of things we've been I think yeah I think we're on the comment I I think that's what we're going to probably do we're probably going to pass it on the council with some comments and then you'll have a chance to state your case in front of that body but I think we at the end of the day I think we'd like annex you know that's not the issue it's not either or want you got to figure out what we think from this body makes some sense All right. Anyone else care to speak for against this petition request? I I think it would Okay.

Kevin Hinkle, 21107 Forest Lake Drive, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35406. I don't have anything to do with that. But it would seem that annexing that in the way he has it to benefit his children going to school, it would open up doors of opportunity for the property that he's going around the annex into the city, which could steamroll, steamroll, steamroll, where you you do create large developments for the city along Nickel Park Road. That's just an observation. Enables that Deborah Neil track. Yes, true. Very much so. That's just an sure outsiders's observation.

Yeah, Kevin, I you know, it's not that we don't want it. We We do want it. We want that. We want the kids to come to school. We want we But there's some configuration issues as you that comment wasn't brought up. I just thought it would be good to add it in. Thank you, Kevin. Good point. Let them shoot it down if they don't want. I guess I' I'd love to give everybody's input just briefly what your thoughts might be so the council can hear those or consider them. Anybody? Mr. Ramsey, you gain

I would I'm kind of I'm kind of with him on on it opens up opportunities to to spread the city and and and bring more kids growth into district three eventually. Uh that corridor since we've got the new watermelon is it what's the new extension call? Yeah, I agree. It's It's coming.

I mean, I'd like first I mean, we'd like to see it in the city. We just um want to make sure that we're doing things. We do have a absolute brand new plan and we've been adhering to a lot more um they're not really strict, but they're more comprehensive and sort of more foresight in our new rules. And I would prefer not to see this kind of configuration regularly, but I wish they would come back,

you know. Uh I bet I'm sure we have done things sort of similar to this, but the vast majority of annexations are in what I would say blocks. you know, we we have a big city, you know, boundary and then we have a block that's attached to it. That's the normal way we do annexations. And uh that's in my opinion the the better way to do it. Looks more orderly and so I I I I think a better plan needs to be presented. They come back to us but then they want to go to the city. Then if they go to the city and the city does not allow it, do they have an opportunity to redraw it and come back to us?

Okay.

So rejection didn't create a six month. I agree with Miss Hornesby. I just It's not that we don't want the annexation and not that we don't want the children to come to city schools, but I think it's it's a logical request to ask for it to just be tidied up. I don't feel like that should be I don't think that's that big of an ask. So, I agree with Miss Hornsby. So, I'm not speaking for everyone on the council, but um I know that most of all of my colleagues feel the sentiments that I have that we respect the time and the recommendations of this body. So, I'm for the annexation as it is. I believe this is uh could be seen as an isolated incident or not not the term the best term, but an isolated situation or agenda item. And so and I understand the consequences surrounding it and then the uncle does own the majority of the land to the what right of this property. So I and then it does open up more opportunities for the property owners below your property and across the street to annex into the city in some whatever way that that benefits them. However, since this is a recommendation to the city council, I do believe that some consideration could be given to some of the options that were recommended here tonight, such as making the um the amount of acres that's going to be annexed in just increasing that a little bit. But I don't know how this would go with the city council and like I said that I am for, you know, once you're in, you're in. So,

so, so while it's not in in the city, it's still in our planning jurisdiction. Correct. So, but to his point, if you did the whole thing, it would be R1 and that would limit.

See, see the the real issue is because of where it is, they're going to have to be minimum 1acre lot. So, you can zone it R1, you can zone R3, doesn't matter. They're going to have to be one acre lots because they're in the the within one mile of Lake Tuscaloosa, which is the drinking water Tuscaloosa. So, it's really almost a non-issue as far as to go. Well, I guess what looking more closely, one thing that said about opening up to other area growth areas, but in reality, that's not true because you really open up to one more lot. That's the lot to the south because the petitioner is saying he has no no plans to Okay. Yeah. zone reszone the other orex other part. So,

you want to add another body? You're adding one lot. So, so Bill, if they did, so let's say the person that Debra Neil or whatever the person south if they annexed in at some point can you go across the road or does that not you can you can go AC so that actually would open up south of the road uh you see what I'm saying but then but then okay open up two two lots then there's no way to

but but is but like if you come let's say this Deborah I'm going to keep calling her name because I'm looking at on landlot the box of seven acres just south that would allow them to come south of the road and then I don't know what's going on way over all all this over here south of the road but it does open up the entire south of the road as everybody's touching each other if there there's a benefit to them particularly because the school as that develops residentially well you've got your work cut out for you we do so all the question but I appreciate everybody's comments it helps

I hope that I hope the staff will not advocate for any position position, but at least be able to explain the different scenarios we were talking about just talking about what others have talked about as far as being an alternative idea and they they let them do as they wish. But yeah, and to my point earlier, it is best practice to not do this. That's all you can do. Okay. So now, as far as there's people that on this on this vote, we usually do a voice vote. Do we recommend taking a roll call vote? Is that necessary?

I don't think I think you'd have some yays and nays and all. You got some point. You got to be able to count the heads, right? Yeah, exactly. I mean, I think we should make a roll call. So, so I guess I'd ask for a a motion for the annexation of 1825. Motion. Second. All right, Mr. Rumsy. Yes. No. No. No. No. Yes.

No. All right, commission. We have another annexation request that is AN1925 annexing approximately 4.5 acres located at 3311 and 3327 Harrove Road East and 3728 34th Avenue East. Uh you can see we are just south of the interstate here, east of the uh Belulk Center. You can see that property today does have some homes on those lots and you can see um that uh area to be annexed in the blue hatch mark uh city limits in yellow. Uh the city is pursuing an island annexation here. Uh this area is identified as a primary expansion area and framework. Here are department comments. Uh and just some context. I I don't know if anyone on this board has seen um an island annexation. So, this is coming from the state code uh that municipalities may annex um islands that are less than 15 acres and fully enclosed within city limits for more than a year. Um and this is kind of that that whole uh law written out here. Uh we did receive one public comment. Do you have any questions for staff? I've never seen one of these. When was the last annexation of this nature that was done by the city?

The last one subded was in around 2000. I think I don't think that went through was probably between 96 and 98. Okay. And then for some reason when the city stopped doing them you wanted an explanation as to what they are? Sure.

Right. It's a state code that includes Tuscaloosa parcels of 15 acres or fewer enclosed within the corporate limits of the municipality for a period of one year or more. The annexation must be in the best interest of the public good and welfare of the municipality. It's effective following adoption, publication and filing in probate. So is this this is an island annex right and the petitioner in this case is the uh planned so will the petitioner would please come forward and state their case I would say it's the city I'm sorry

it's the city I would say we're we're not bringing it forward as the planning division somebody come up here and state by saying name and address for record

so obviously annexations are not a engineering matter but I do I think this comment uh applies here. Nothing if this is going to get developed, it needs to be put on our public sewer system and the only way that can happen whether it ends up being commercial, residential, whatever, is for it to be in the corporate limits. So I guess from the engineering department I'm advocating we annex this so that it can be properly developed at the time that development is proposed.

What what's there now? Houses homes. There's houses there for the resial staff remind everybody what what what's happened here the last couple of months with this parcel. Right. So the past couple or I don't know the exact dates but January I think first

on two occasions there have been an annexation and a reasonzoning request for the northern portion portion of this. So this is all one lot and then you've got two lots here. So on these two lots here, we have seen a request for the commercial or um man what contractor offices. Um so that would be a reszoning to general commercial um as well as an annexation because of course they need to connect to sanitary sewer. So the there's three lots, three lots and the lots one and two are owned by one individual, right? And the lot to the south is owned by separate or the same individual

separate. So you got two different property owners right now. Were they notified of this annexation? So is there any legal requirement? No, there's no legal and normally we would courtesy them a copy because they're the property owner. They have known about it and we have had correspondence with their attorney and with him directly today or yesterday and they've objected. Is that correct? Yes, they object to being annexed.

And just to also remind you how those votes went. Of course, the two the two annexation requests were recommended for approval. Um but the two reasonzoning requests as part of you know what he brought forward what they brought forward were recommended denial. So the the petition in January did not pass or they withdrew. I was not here. They withdraw or did they uh they just didn't pursue city council. They went back to the drawing board. So they came back before us last month or the I think it was a few months ago. August. Yeah.

Okay. And that one we did A lot of the neighbors came out against it as well. It was the same kind of argument as the first one. So in the January petition, lots of problems. Came back in August, attempted some improvements, still didn't pass. Right. Yeah. Y'all did not recommend approval of the reasonzoning. And there's another plan that was possibly going to be submitted for this again, right? They're I believe they're working on another project

and that was probably going to be better or worse. Do we have any idea? What did they ask for last the last last time they were was it a storage unit? Yeah, it was well so the last time they they asked both times for uh contractor's offices annexation and and a reszoning and reszone annexing and bringing in as R1, right? And so it was the same request both times. It was just a different, you know, different concept of the same use. Was it um for several different people? Weren't weren't there going to be several different

businesses located in that building? So, the way that a contractor office works is yeah, they'd have multiple tenants. One that we were having problems with ingress and egress sort of how they were going to get around it. I might be confusing it. I don't I think this was the twotory office two or three businesses. We didn't know what they would be exactly. No, this was the aesthetics of the rows of warehouses that had the tradesmen where they had the rollup doors and a small office area there that one, but then I think they came back with that was one that was in August.

So, so you're saying that if the city is somewhat petitioning because it's an island, it needs to be under our purview. Right now, we're going to keep I mean, and that's that's that's all legal based on what was up on the screen on X number of months, right? One year, 15 acres.

I I get the we had the legal right to do this, put on the city half for a second, but as we talked a lot up here about property owners having rights, I I mean, I struggle with this us just saying that we're going to do this as somebody's property. They're not petition. Now, I it should be in the city. I agree with 100%. But the way we're doing it, I just I mean, yeah, I think all the property owners when we've done this have always been opposed. Otherwise, they would have just petitioned. So, when did we notify these property owners of this meeting? When? For council.

Oh, wait. No, no. When when would when would these three property owners or two property owners notified of this intention to do this to annex it? Like when they haven't been they haven't been. I thought I heard they had been and well they have not been sent a postcard but we have been in communication with them since last week. So for a week you've been talked. What zoning are you recommending the R1? We're not recommending any reszoning. So they're we're recommending an annexation which in turn would they would come into the city as a SFR1. SFR

was one of the I mean I'm just sitting here wondering how this that development as it was proposed how could they operate with the septic tank with the septic system. I mean if they can't hook on to our sewer was that not one of our concerns? Yeah. Okay. Good. So if

if they propose a development, it's going to have to have a land development permit from my office. Our the office of city engineer will have to approve the plans. We're not going to approve an on-site sewage disposal system for any form of development here with sewer adjacent to it. It won't happen. They could propose storage units that do not require any site that wouldn't propose storage units and wouldn't have any sewers. No office, no storage unit. So, and what is the current zoning?

Wouldn't you require zoning? It's not in there. So, those stores could have no office at all and be stored. That's what we want to avoid. I get it would but you would have they would also even if we annex it comes in at R1 they would have to request for reszoning correct change and that's going to be a piece of property that's totally surrounded by residential if I remember the map. Yeah. Okay. Look there it's totally surrounded. I know we don't do, you know, spot zoning anymore, but that used to be spot zone. There is some commercial around the area

across there is some commercial around the area. Well, but it's I know to the north a church. Is that still in the county though? I mean, is that where the commercial is? Is that

believe there's some commercial within city limits in this area? I could I could be okay with the um annexation because the council person for this district um I guess this district 7 well yeah this would be will be annexed into district seven district six. So at that time, the residents and the council person would definitely have some input on the reszoning if that happens because when it's annexed in, it'll just be annexed naturally into R1, right? That's right.

It would come before us before it goes to the council for anyone in the future if it ever happens. Do you do you have any problem reading the letter from this property owners posing when you put it into the record? I know there's a letter from the opposing. Do you mind reading it for the record? I've been the I had a citizen quite extensive. Well, before you read that, I do want to say I don't remember there being Miss Prince any egress and ingress issues, but I do remember there were some concerns about traffic on Hogwell Road in the traffic study. I think I do remember that clearly that this area there was concern also about tapping into 34th Avenue as well as far as theress

the whole thing. Okay. Never mind. Never mind. We'll be here a while. Well, this goes to city council anyway. So, and to we never had two more complicated annexations and

right nuts. To Miss Howard's point, obviously the um the district 6 representative is aware of this request. They're in support of the request going through to council. Otherwise, it wouldn't be in front of you guys today. Anyone else have any more comments or thoughts? Anyone care to speak for or against while we collect our thoughts?

All right. I say we discuss it one last time or we take a bonus. Moving on. This is this is um all news to us, right? Um and I don't see any real urgency about it. wondering if why if there's a way to take some time and look at it further. You know, I guess the urgency would be this is that this petitioner has come several times for his body and gotten rejected and he's looking at a way to possibly do a storage without an office, which would be a big middle finger to this body and this staff. And this is a way to protect that from happening.

I hate to say it that way, but that's probably the damn truth. to the res and to the res. I mean, I agree with you. It's it's I spoke with Miss Hegler's daughter on the phone and she seemed like she was not opposed of the the annexation and that's the third property owner the second property owner wanted. So, she's probably about the same thing. She's probably going like, I'm okay with it because this guy's probably gonna put a warehouse with no off no no bathrooms and then but to m Mr. You're right. To your point earlier just now, you know, it's not really necessarily about us or you guys in the whole middle finger to quote you. Sure. Come on. Exactly.

It's also though the you know, y'all are looking at it as this perspective of the neighbor the neighborhood character of the neighborhood. Own the property. He's trying to do something with it. He's getting nowhere. And of course, last meeting we had a comment about, hey, we he's not going to let him tap into the sewer. He's like, okay, then I'll I'll I'll show you. I'll figure it out. And he's got a way to figure it out and nobody's going to like it. Well, staff or us or or the councilman. That threat does occur from time to time, but rarely does it ever raise its head because people don't usually do what's in the highest and best use of a piece of property. What? I'm not saying it won't.

Is there an act? What's the access to lot? We know the bottom line 34. Okay.

But building it in our planning jurisdiction also even if they you're saying they can just go build menu storage without coming no water. Yeah. No no no water. No doesn't need to tap into the sewer. I mean, so it's no chicken storage building. The old chicken farm scenario we talk about all the time in the county. I mean, the county you can do anything you want to get a chicken farm or a bunch of warehouses on there with no water. I want to become a chicken farm.

Why has it gone down? Stephen, again, I can I can wear both hats. I see the city hat. I see the property owners hats. So anyway, any last comments from any by the commission? If not, we're going to take a vote on it. All right, I think we need to take a roll call vote on this one as well. All right, have a motion to take a vote on annexation. Motion. All right, Miss Hornsby. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Was that a roll call vote? Do a roll call vote or was that for the annexation? Yes. You relive it to us.

All right, commission. Next up, we have a reasonzoning petition that is Z2425. Longleaf Engineering petitions to reszone approximately 18 acres located at 112519th Street from MR1 to MR2. You can see we're south of 15th Street here near Central High School. You can see that property today does have an existing home um in a shed uh located off the alley. You can see that zoning. It's MR1 on that block today. Uh they'd like to reszone from MR1 to MR2 to build a duplex on the site. You can see this is the property from the front and just a side view of the property. Uh here is a conceptual site plan. um they like to to build that unit on the rear to make it a duplex. Um this is identified in framework as multifamily residential uh that does allow attach residential development. So this request does conform uh to uh framework as well as the use. You can see that multifamily residential uh zoning here. Uh you can see our permitted uses in MR2. Um, as you can see in MR1, a duplex is also permitted. Um, they are not meeting the lot standards in order to build a duplex. Um, whether from MR1 or our nonconformity section in the code. So, just to clarify that for you, we did receive one public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Hold on. Back up the rendering that they had up there. Yeah, I want to see that, too. Yeah. So, that What size structure could they? So, I believe what they're doing is using the existing house and adding Oh, sorry. This top portion is the existing house and they want to add a second one that I believe will, you know, have access either off of here or off of here. So, this will be one duplex and this will be one duplex. Did it have to be fixed to the current structure?

Yes, they're going to Yeah, that's like what I understand as to what they're trying to do. Like an addition but as a dwelling, a separate dwelling. So the driveway goes all the way through the lot. Is that behind the property? Two in the front and two in the back. Yep. Two in the back. What district is this? Sorry. Two. District two. That's me. Is this district two? Yes. I'd love your your thoughts. I'm not sure. We're we're looking into it.

Okay. Yeah, I believe so. But um Okay. So, that driveway that driveway will be behind the the proposed property. So, the the driveway is behind the house. No parking in the front. And this this driveway comes all the way to 19th Street. All right. So, they'll have a and the petitioner might be able to speak to the design of the building. Let's let's hear that petitioner. And it is district two. Yes. Sharon Harrison's own.

Good evening. Tom Sims with Longleaf Engineering, 1927 Street. Um yes, this is uh this is an existing residence and uh Miss Harrison was um proposing to extend that residence to the rear and then extend the driveway uh to the rear as well. There would be two parking spots per unit. So two uh in the front and two in the rear. So one at the top and one at the bottom of your drawing. So basically, you're going to put a new You're going to park front for the front residence will be a parking in the front. Yes, sir. They have separate parking for the front and the rear.

The current driveway we saw a picture of is going to just be extended down. Correct. The current driveway is shaded in gray there. It kind of stops right there now. And then we would extend it uh the rest of the way to the bottom.

Basically, that's the hardest part. There could be parking in front of that. Bill, if you remember when we when we increased the density in the box, we reestablished the front yards and put parking to the rear and everybody was winner. Although the density was increased, we the streetscape was improved dramatically. Um, okay. So, to that point, they're they're currently, you know, they don't have a garage structure now, so they currently park in the front. So, that

that portion wouldn't change. We would just add parking to the rear. That's not Tim. That Oh, that's kind of like that's that's an existing driveway. I wouldn't call that might call that parking front, but putting those two spaces up there, that's really parking front. Sure. That's like Can you circle where the on the proposed lot where the parking would be? Is it like right there in the corner coming off the street? Um, Zach, excuse me. Okay. So, that's the parking for the existing building. And that Okay, gotcha. Yeah, that one's on the alley and in the front yard.

Is there no room to put all four spaces in the back? Looks like there is. It's it's possible we could add the spaces in the back. Uh, you know, maybe a little more inconvenient for the front for the for the existing house, right? But not for the proposed house. Or what if we left it like it is for the existing house, but improved it to put the parking in the back on the proposed house? I'm sorry. Could you hear me? That that's I thought that's what the to put the parking on the back on the new lot, right? Okay. That that's what that's what we're proposing. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then

leave the driveway though for the front instead of adding I guess I guess kind of like just grandfather it in since it's already like that's already existing. But I do like the the idea of having the parking in the back. But you could strike it. I mean, you can strike it because if you're giving them the right to increase their density and increasing the value of their property by virtue of doing so, reestablishing the front yards and and doing something positive for the neighborhood would be a

I would like it consistent. You could put four parks in the rear and and have them park park them all to the to the rear and make sure that maybe maybe they have a five foot tall fence at least so the headlights don't all shine into the joining neighbor to the rear's yard and then they all park to the rear and then you then you can tell the neighbors that yes we did give them greater density but we also started a president of reestablishing front yard grass and that sort of thing which we won a an award for that plan in the Okay. Yeah. wide enough.

Uh, yes, it is. There there's there's uh approximately 12 feet or so between the side of the house and the I mean if you're the if you're the owner of the property you're in the front you're not real excited about parking in the back and walk up all the way to the front and you're going tendency is to park there where she is now but then you're blocking the unit in the back getting around there. They're going to drive the yard. I see what you're saying. Yes. I don't think that would be an option for them to continue parking there because it would block the access. That's why I said yes. It wasn't It's not enough room to not You said 12 ft though, right? Right. Right. They not would you be able to, you know, have this one access or

I don't know. So that way she can still or they can still use the two parking spots. 100%. Yes. I will also say that this is just conceptual. You know, they're not going to be held to any of the site plan or anything like that. You could bay park off that and get and get five spots. I think there's a need to protect that. No park in the front yard. Yeah, I would like for us to keep that consistent and to set that president that we're keeping that consistent. We're increasing the the value of the area.

I think we can work with staff on trying to get an acceptable layout there. And as always, I I'd really like to see what the conception is of what it's going to look like and not just something that you're not bound by. Yeah. It would be better if you you force them to park off the alley. I didn't see the alley. I'm sorry. And you may park it off the alley and then you don't have you don't have that car traffic down the side of the house, which could have to have a driveway. Yeah. I think their intent was to try to maintain some of that rear yard, you know, it's currently f fenced in, but I mean, we can I'm sorry. The the rear yard's currently fenced back there, you know, and so you would kind of eliminate that

take up you're going to lose a lot of the backyard parking. Well, how many I'm not saying they would be against it. I'm just saying I think that was their thinking initially. Actually, the parking space is is 22 feet. So you can get some idea about how deep if you bay parked off the alley you would still have basically where that parking parking design is that would be could be yard and you would get rid of this parking in the front and it would probably be an improvement overall it's going to create some tra is this an alley that is traversed generally I don't I don't know what the current traffic uh is on there some of our alleys are not so that's a good alley it is nice and see And this is a well right over there.

With your city rightway, you'd have actually more space. And well, no, you could come off of 12 lot. I believe it's something on 18th Street, right? If you go back to that area to the south of them, Mart and across the street and and to the north across the street. To the north. Okay.

Yeah, I think we just had that alley repaved. So, what I would like to see No, we just got the alley paved, I believe. But what I would like to see is some renderings or conceptual drawings and then another design of the parking. Okay. Want push it. We can we can uh table it for 30 days if that was trying to make you some money. Yeah. I think the council person appreciate that. She said it for the record. So continuence request. Yes sir. Okay. All right, Commissioner Forest, we have a continuous request for Z2425. All those in favor say I.

I. Those opposed. Eyes have it. Thank you, Tom.

All right, commission. We have our preliminary plat starting off with S8925, Cloverdale at Hackberry, a reservey of lot 43, Cloverdale, and unplatted land. This is consisting of one lot on approximately 0.95 acres, located at 1405 and 1431 Hackberry Lane, Council District 4. You can see we're north of 15th Street here near the bread factory. Uh you all saw this one last month for a reasonzoning on the southern portion of this property. Um, now they're back before you tonight for the subdivision. So, you can see that existing configuration here today. There's some commercial on the south, um, a residence on the north lot. They'd like to remove that lot line, create one lot as you can see here, um, and then develop some triplexes as you can see in this um, uh, conceptual site plan. We do have one variance request for rideaway dedication. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff

engineering on the rightway dedication? So, we are we are in favor of it and it's not a complete waiver of the rideway dedication, but we've worked with the engineer on what we can acquire and kind of stair steps through the development plan. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Al Cabinets with Cabinet Engineering representing Chase Adcock. This is the one which y'all saw 30 days ago for for a reasonzoning. Um the um as Leo told you most everything about it. We're removing that one interior lot line. There was originally a platted lot part of part of the Cloverdale subdivision that has the the one remaining small house on it. So, we're removing that lot line. um combining. Yes, I'm sorry. If you get get a little closer to the mic.

Okay. I'm sorry. So, so we're removing that one lot line so we can you know have four buildings on the one parcel. It's slightly less than an acre 95 acres. Uh four buildings total of 54 beds. So, we're well under the density um meeting all the setbacks. Uh as city engineer just spoke, uh we are dedicating right away that eventually gets back to the existing rightway. The lot two at the top of the screen there was recently redeveloped. So it's new. The across the street to the north, there's a recent redevelopment. And then the railroad crossing, of course, it's established with the paving and sidewalk. So, we're uh kind of stairstepping back in in a way that makes sense for the future. We are part of the uh site plan. We're reconfiguring the intersection there. So, you get away from the odd intersection that's there. Now, we get a full four-way intersection. So, we're we're aligning we're aligning with 14th Street. Currently the commercial driveways up here creates kind of an odd traffic configuration. So we are improving that.

I'm sorry. Can you go back? Did Did you say you're eliminating the four? So actually you can kind of see it there. Um currently these center lines don't really line up. And so when when when we get through um the center the center lines of those streets will will align. It that's a can be a difficult traffic area and that alignment improves that. That's not a turn lane. Is it a turn lane?

No. No. Now, as to what could happen in the future, there would be rightway for there to be a turn lane, but I don't I don't know if there are any future plans for improvement there. Like a lot lot of lot of cars coming out of that little piece of property now that's they're going to be trying to go away from campus towards 15th. They're going to have a time getting there. So, Bill, I'll point out there is a center turn lane there today. It's a there is, you know, directional turn lane for both the north and the southbound traffic to use threelane section that kind of starts the turn. So that's that's actually that's actually the current striping right now center turn

part of that but really it's you know once you cross the railroad tracks or I guess all the way down Hackberry it's got a center the center lane that you can turn left on and turn right on. Would it not be wise for the see to make that an actual turn lane into this car? Well, you've also got an access point into the shopping center. Could we see the area as well? Yeah, let's go back to the area. Okay. So the road you got turn

right there where land that's turn there's an access there someone northbound they would need to turn left. I don't think we should make that a dedicated direction. I think it should stay as it is. Uh today you can turn right or left in that center lane. That makes sense.

It's hard to see the striping on that, but that center turn line actually is striped today. Turn right. Right.

All right. We've seen motions before anybody. Any more questions for a petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Cav. Anyone here to speak for or against? Anyone signed up for this petition request? Okay. Having heard none mission before us we have S8925 Coverdale Hackberry with request rightway dedication engineering has worked it out with the petitioner and has no issue with do I have a motion and a second motion to approve second Mr. Rumsy. That's right. Sorry. Uh, I was about to say my name. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right. Next up, we have S9125, Arcadia Number 9. A re-ervey of lots 72 and 73. Arcadia number five, consisting of two lots on approximately 0.93 acres located at and around 72 Arcadia Drive, Council District 5. You can see we're in the Alberta area just west of Arcadia Elementary School near Five Points. You can see there's two lots here today. Um, one of those is vacant, one has an existing home. You can see they'd like to adjust that lot line getting ready to build on that corner lot. You can see that existing lot line here just shifting this way a bit. And here's that plat without contours. We do have two variance requests. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff

engineering on the varian request? We concur with those requests. Thank you, petitioner.

Kevin Hinkle, Montgomery Hinkle, Inc. Professional Land Surveyors 203 Harbor Road East representing the petitioner. Miss Jordan owns both lots and was approached by uh somebody wanting to build a house on the vacant lot. She agreed, but she'd like to move the lot line over to give her a buffer beside her driveway and get another home built in a desirable neighborhood. What's that make the second lot size acre wise?

17,860 square ft, half acre. Any other questions for petitioner? Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against this petition request? Commission force we have uh S 9125 arcade number nine uh suit two lot subdivision two marriage request engineering has no issues with have a motion and a second motion second yes yes yes yes

yes yes motion approved

all right next up we have S9325 reservey of lots 9 through 16 block 89 TCIL subdivision consisting of one lot on approximately 1.47 acres located at 1 through 10613 street and 12 111 111th Avenue Council District 4. You can see we're just south of Tutweiler in the Evergreen Cemetery. You can see there's multiple homes and lots here today. Uh what they'd like to do is remove all those lot lines, create one large lot here. You can see that without contours and with that uh build duplexes on that lot. Uh we do have one variance request. We did not receive any public comment. Do you have any questions for staff?

Engineering. We don't have any issues with that request. You petitioner commissioner. I'm Robert Martin with Duncan Coker Associates. Um, this is just a lot consolidation for construction of a series of duplexes. Be happy to answer any questions. You have any render with the duplex? They'll look exactly like the existing two that are on the corner there at the southwest corner. Same property owner.

Yes, sir. And the only purpose of getting rid of these lot lines is so we can construct the parking more efficiently. Um instead of having a driveway for each duplex, we'll just have three driveways coming off the alley. Yeah, that's good. Okay. Any other questions for petitioner?

Dumpster. Yes, sir. That's dumpster enclosure. Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against? Having heard none. Commissioner before we have S9325, the reserve lots 9 through 16. We had a right away dedication variance request engineering has no issues with. Do I have a motion and a second? Motion. Second. Mr. Ra. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion approved.

All right. Next up, we have S9425, a reservey of part of lots 27 through 29, block BWE Bowers, consisting of one lot on approximately.24 acres, located at 9121st Avenue East, Council District 5. See, we're in the Alberta area just south of University Boulevard East here near the tennis center. You can see that property today is vacant and what they'd like to do is remove these two uh remnant lot lines and we did receive um a revised plat since the packets were posted. This is what you saw in the packet. You can see that revision here to get that uh radius in the northeast corner. Uh you can see with contours without uh we do have two variance requests. We did receive one public comment. Do you have any questions for staff

engineer? We're okay with those requests. Thank you, petitioner. Members, commission Chris Sintel, Sentel Engineering. Uh, it's very well explained. We're eliminating two lot lines to make consolidate the lot. The city requested a radius on the northeast corner and we gave it to them. Guess no one had any questions for you. Hang tight. Don't be hurt. Do you have any questions? I'm hungry. Any questions for petitioner? Y'all know where this is? Was the public comment was about sidewalk. How can you build too?

Yeah. Yes. Our waiver for sidewalks along the east and north is because we we we feel like with the due to the terrain, it's such a steep slope that we would not meet ADA compliance with sidewalks. Okay. Sidewalk to nowhere, right? H. And there's no sidewalk currently anyway. There's a house here, right? There's a house there. There used to be a boy scout troop 89's boy scout scout hut used to be there. Um, and there's a you can see the shadows on the north side. There's a retaining wall and that's that's in already in place. So, you're going to put two structures on this lot? Yes, ma'am. You can We can do that.

Is that new? It's an access one of them is an accessory structure. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't Yeah, there's a square footage limitation on accessory structures, but yeah, we we we our developers been doing it throughout Albert City. Okay. Build two houses on one, right? We can't see 22. Are there sidewalks on 22nd Street? uh 21st 21st uh there's some there's some current sidewalks I I don't even know is there not I'm not sure there is public comment is what I was looking at there's maybe some sidewalks on that development right there

but that would be it that's the only thing on that street Any any other questions for petitioner? Thank you. Anyone care to speak for or against? No one's here to speak for or against. All right. Commission for S9425, the reservey of lots 27 to 29 block BWE request engineering has some issues with him. A motion is second. Mot. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Motion approved. Staff, can we get these computers fixed? If not, you better bring them to Seuss next time. Next one. Like I wasn't aware that they were broken