Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: It's 3:00. I'm going to call the Planning Commission to order for the December meeting. We appreciate you being in the audience, and to let you know that... if you want to say anything about an item, if you will go to the microphone over there, you'll be given five minutes and one time at the microphone. So I think that's it as far as that's concerned. Let's - do I hear a motion about the approval of minutes for the November meeting? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. Update on the previous cases, Mr Mosley? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I only have one minor item, a real minor item, to let you know that item number ten, Arbor Valley Development, which was a multifamily development on Fox Run Parkway. They've withdrawn their application from your agenda today, so the commission doesn't need to take any action on it. The applicant has withdrawn it with the possibility of coming back at a later date. SPEAKER: OK. Alright. Alright, under new business, if you would begin for us. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. The first item under new business is a request for preliminary plat approval. This is Laurel Lakes phase two. This is located off of Ridge Road and has access through Laurel Lakes phase one to North Uniroyal Road. The applicant is Blake Rice with BSI incorporated, representing Flat Iron Farms, LLC. The subject property is part of a planned unit development. I apologize, this still shows it as R-2, but it is a pod.

The development is requesting preliminary plat approval for 158 lots in the 338 lot subdivision. This would be the final phase of this development. It's 160 acres total. The overall density is 2.11 dwelling units per acre, so roughly in the R2 to R3 range. Here's a copy of page one of the plat, which shows most of the area. So you see a couple of large open space areas on the perimeter, one along near Ridge Road, two along kind of the central lake in this development, and then a few along the bottom boundary with some large buffers, kind of along the edges as well. This will take access through the phase that is currently under construction. It's not shown here as well as we probably need to have for final plat, but it takes access right here to Ridge Road. And then again, we'll of course have connections through this development to other phases of Laurel Lakes and ultimately to North Uniroyal. The lots range in size from approximately 10,800ft² to almost 19,000ft² for the residential lots. You also have, again, I believe it's for open space and common area detention lots located around the property. Here is a copy of the master development plan. And so, this darker brown section you see at the top along North Uniroyal is all part of phase one. The orange section we have down here, which is slightly larger lots, is phase two. These lots are 72ft in width and larger. We have recommended preliminary plat approval of this, as

it is in compliance with the master Development plan and the subdivision regulations. That would be subject to providing the entrance road connection to Ridge Road as part of this plat or before, a temporary turnaround required for any of the dead-end streets or stubs over 150ft in length, a final plat providing the note with the lot setback standards, revised lot 247 to meet the minimum lot width and size. Install underground utilities. Install sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Add street names on the final plat. Add the following note about the responsibility of the open space lots. Those are 336, 337, 338, 339, and 1002A2A. Change Opelika Utilities to Opelika Water Board and the signatures, provide the correct certification for the surveyor, and then show that developer's name and address and provide corrections for lot 197 as far as the distance goes. The applicant is here today. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Our surveyor had some initial comments to the submitted plat, and those have been corrected on a revised plat that was turned into us. Other than that, engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this proposed preliminary plat. Opelika Water Board states that the water for this area is available from an eight-inch main within the existing development, and Opelika Power and Tallapoosa River will both service this area or territory. SPEAKER: All right. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this item?

There being none, public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for approval of staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number two is a request for final plat approval. This is the Hidden Lake subdivision, the Lake County Addition, and a revision (AUDIO DISTORTS) for part of the original Hidden Lakes subdivision. The applicant again is Blake Rice with BSI Incorporated for SMB land. The property is located off of Lake County Road. It is part of a planned unit development. This actually includes two planned unit developments between the original Hidden Lakes and the Hidden Lakes (AUDIO DISTORTS). The applicant is requesting final plat approval for 28 lots. The access to these lots is off of Lake County Road, primarily, and then you have connections through Brock Drive back into the original Hidden Lakes development. These single-family homes... They're - excuse me, there are 28. Excuse me. 27 single-family homes and one open space lot, lot 20 here at the back. Most of these lots (AUDIO DISTORTS) internal streets. There are two lots, lots 18 and 19, which take direct access off Lake County Road. They are also quite a bit bigger than most of the lots in the neighborhood. I think they're kind of intended to transition from this development into the earlier developments on Lake County. The lots range in size from 10,000ft² to approximately 32,000ft². Again, there's about three acres of open space across

the creek on the opposite side, adjacent to the Opelika Sportsplex properties here. They have shown the buffers required as part of the original planned unit development, and part of this development modifies the back lines of some of these lots in the original Phase 4B to follow better with a stormwater utility or stormwater easement that cuts through the back. In reviewing this through both planned unit developments, we found them to be in compliance with the subdivision regulations and those HUDs. We're recommending, subject to the following comments. If they provide sidewalks on both sides of the street, all utilities be underground, provide minimum of one tree per yard for single-family lots, (INAUDIBLE) should not be the primary cladding materials, buffers shall be undisturbed unless an alternate plan is provided to the planning department, provide access to lot 20. This can be through an easement unless another route is (INAUDIBLE). A note should be added to lot 20 to limit it to open space or public use, not for residential use, and the name and address of the owner of the development should be shown on the plat. Again, Mr Rice is here representing the development. SPEAKER: This item does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: OK. Any discussion? I'd like to ask if we're talking about one tree per yard, if we're talking about a canopy-type tree, or a pine tree. SPEAKER: I don't believe that it specifies whether it is a canopy or understory tree. And this... as part of the planned unit development, I believe they just specified that they have a minimum of a tree in each yard.

Typically, it would not be a pine tree because most people don't want them next to their homes. SPEAKER: Well, I know. SPEAKER: I know what you're saying. SPEAKER: But I'd like for it to be sort of a shade tree myself. OK. All right. Any other discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: This conditional use request. This is for Iglesia Ebenezer Church, located at 1500 Second Avenue. The subject property is zoned C-2. It's in the Gateway Corridor secondary. The applicant is Rural Register, representing the property owner, James Kirk. The subject property is an existing commercial building that is approximately 3500ft². It's part of an almost 16,000 square foot lot. You kind of see here, it's adjacent to another property and building owned by the same property owner. The church is requesting to go into this space, which has previously housed a heating and air contractor, and then most recently, the rage room here. The church has an attendance of 50 adults and 15 children. The seating for this, what would be the sanctuary, would have up to 75 seats, and they would be approximately five times a week, including Monday morning, Wednesday evening, Wednesday or Friday morning, Saturday evening, and Sunday evening. It doesn't have any associated uses that you sometimes find with churches.

We looked at this most carefully from a parking standpoint. They're required to have one space per four attendees in the sanctuary capacity. Since that's 75 people, the parking would be 19 parking spaces. They've drawn out a room, and most of the lot is currently paved with enough parking spaces to have 25 spaces, one of which would need to be accessible. And so, it appears that they would meet the parking requirements. Again, the use, the times this would be in use would also not be similar in most cases to times when other businesses around would be in business, at least for their larger services. And so, there may be some opportunity for some sharing if necessary. We are recommending conditional use approval subject to them striping the parking spaces, providing a handicap accessible space. Happy to answer any questions you may have. SPEAKER: What happens (INAUDIBLE)? SPEAKER: Typically, if in the case where a congregation like this would grow, in most cases, they begin looking for a bigger spot. We would always be cautious about making sure that they don't overcrowd a space. Sometimes we don't know, always, but that is something that if we did find out, we would either limit them through the building or fire department, or require that they do something to self-limit their attendance. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding this condition. Use. The access and egress is as illustrated.

Opelika Water states that the site is currently served by 3/4 inch water line, and Opelika Power services the site. SPEAKER: All right. This calls for a... public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this item? There being none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to approve conditional use with staff recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number four is at 1105 Columbus Parkway. This is the Pace Commons. This is converting a hotel motel to an apartment development. You saw this last year, I believe, back in April. They've been moving forward towards this, and we're unaware that their conditional use approval from that time had expired. And so, they're back to get approval for it again. So this is the existing layout for the motel that was located there. The applicant, Roy Assaf with Pace Commons LLC, has actually purchased the property. They have been working with architects to redesign and kind of renovate the development, largely using the same footprint that is here now, but basically going through and pretty much gutting the entire interiors of the building, redoing

connections, and revising the site. There's 108 proposed apartment units with this. This item did go before the zoning board of adjustment, and they requested a reduction down to 127 parking spaces, which would be roughly 10% of the number of or, excuse me, almost 20% over the number of bedrooms that they have. That variance was granted. So, they've come back with a revised kind of layout, which you see here showing the parking spaces. They've also provided us an updated landscaping plan showing screening, especially along the eastern side, where it backs up to the racetrack area. And then they've provided, through the building department, updated floor plans for the units and the common area. And so what you'll see, this is the - I believe it's formerly a restaurant or bar but is now - they're showing a co-working space with an area for multiple desks and computers, a central lobby, and then they have a workout room on the opposite side, a small gymnasium area. And then you have the building, the rooms themselves, which again, they're going through and kind of demoing the interiors completely, redoing the rooms, the bathrooms, whatnot, and have kind of shown how they work as a studio unit. And then they provided some brief elevations showing what

the outside would look like, largely, I think, redoing all the doors and windows and preparing roof, things along those type of lines to make sure that it's up to code. We did review this again. Based on the updated parking, we are recommending approval, subject to the following. They've gotten the zoning board of adjustment approval of the density by the Planning Commission, which was previously approved, working with the police department to increase safety and security including lighting, cameras, access control, fencing, security personnel or other measures, noting that its location just kind of right off the interstate, provide lighting, parking spaces and entrances, including security lighting, each apartment having minimum kitchen appliances described in the report, including refrigerator and freezer, no unit be rented for a term less than 90 days, and I believe last time they said that most of their leases are 12 months but occasionally they would do a six-month lease. But no shorter. Landscaping meeting all the requirements of the ordinance, any new poles or service line be run underground, air handling units integrated into the units and screened to the extent possible, dumpsters being screened through the means of fence or gate meeting other corridor-approved materials, any modifications to the building meet gateway corridor planning and screening requirements. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments or concerns regarding the proposed conditional use approval. Opelika Water states there's a four-inch service line to this site already. Water is available from an eight-inch main on the south side of Columbus Parkway. If additional services are needed, if they are needed, then have that permit be required for the new connection. Opelika Power currently services this site.

SPEAKER: All right. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this item? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to approve conditional use subject to recommendations. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? S5: I have a question. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Who would monitor the six-month lease or 90-day lease? Because we're trying to... SPEAKER: So typically that would be something where... it would be something we would check into on a regular basis. What typically happens is, if a lease, if we start to see or start to hear from, say, the police department or other entities that leases were being done either nightly or weekly or something like that, we would reach out to the applicants and remind them of that stipulation and enforce it that way. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: All opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number five is a rezoning request. This also shows the future land use amendment. In reviewing this, we've determined that the future land use amendment is not needed based on - we originally looked at the 2030 plan. The 2040 plan shows this as a residential growth area. So while the Planning Commission still has the ability to look

at this based on the zoning, the land use is in compliance, should the commission decide to rezone this to a plat. And I'll go through that here in just a moment. The applicant for this, and I apologize, it says Hill Zafer, that is incorrect. It's David Greene representing David Ryan. The subject property is 73 acres, and they're again proposing to rezone this from an R-1 to a planned unit development. The property is located on the south side, kind of southwest corner, southwest side of Crawford Road. You remember this from, I believe, our August Planning Commission meeting. This time, the applicant has come back and... a similar concept, similar layout to what was previously shown. However, there are some significant changes. So in the previous layout, this development was, I believe, 223 total units. This time it is 171 units, and the reason why that is is here, you see the original layout. The interior areas here were originally 50-foot-wide lots, with the exteriors being 60-foot-wide lots. Those lots were 57 to right at 7000ft². With this layout, the interior lots, the lighter this kind of lighter color here, are 60-foot-wide lots with these exterior lots being 70-foot-wide. So those 70-foot lots are much more closer in size to an R-3 zone, which is what is across the Crawford Road there. They have also revised some of the layout and provided

a little bit bigger buffer. So originally, there was about a 15-foot buffer surrounding the property. That's been increased to 25ft in most areas. They have also reduced, because of fewer lots, the density has dropped from three units per acre to 2.33 units an acre, so a decrease in overall unit count. And then the last thing I think that's worth mentioning here is they are showing a... there's quite a bit of discussion during the last meeting about safety and access to Crawford Road. That's still something that we want to closely monitor and look at. But what you'll see in this layout is that they have provided turn lanes based on a traffic study they performed, showing coming from highway 51, Marvin Parkway, right turn lanes, and then a left turn lane at this northernmost entrance. And then further down, you see a right-turn lane again coming from the north heading south into the development as well. Let's see. They still show the stream in the middle, which was, of course, present there before and... Let's see. Two access points. Reviewing all this based on our previous recommendation, we do feel that this is in compliance with our long-range master plan.

The density is 2.3 units per acre, which is fairly low overall, and it's consistent with what's across the street here in the R-3 zone. This also happens to be kind of in a unique area between a residential development and the back of this M-1 industrial zoning as well. Based on all of these, we are recommending a positive recommendation to City council for the rezoning, provided that sidewalks be on both sides of the street, utilities be underground, providing a minimum of one tree per single-family lot or attached single-family home. There are no attached single-family homes, but all homes should meet the gateway corridor platting requirements, including not allowing vinyl or aluminum siding. Buffers should meet the underserved; shall be underserved unless an alternative plan is approved. Provide future stub-outs, streets, and those would be connections to the south and to the east here. Approval of both access streets connecting Crawford Road via Outer shall be required prior to approval of any of the construction plans, and if the access streets cannot be provided, the pad will be required to come back through the pad process for an alternative approval. An outer approval for the traffic study, with turn lanes, be contingent point for addressing the traffic concerns. Mr Green is here. If you have any questions of the applicant, I'm happy to answer anything as well. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no other comments regarding this proposed rezoning, other than the ones Mr Mosley stated about the traffic and turn lanes on Alabama 169, which will be governed and controlled by ALDOT. Opelika Water states that water is available from the south side of Crawford Road.

Connection to the main at both entrances will be required. The existing 12-inch main on this property will be abandoned in place when the existing customers are removed. Opelika Power will service this subdivision. SPEAKER: All right. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? State your name and your address, please. EZEKIEL ROLLINS: Ezekiel Rollins, 1305 Crawford Road. Back in August, we had discussed, you know, roads very highly trafficked. People come flying over the hill at the Global Impact Church. I live right at the corner of that property. I don't like the idea of having, like, a turn lane in front of my house, but I mean, I understand the right of way, you know, I signed up for that when I bought the house. I still don't understand the zoning aspect of it, where we're all in the R1 zoning and across the street are R3. We're trying to go with PUD, but really across the street, it's - I mean, they're bigger lots and everything and less dense than kind of we are on the opposite side of the street. So I mean, to me, they should be zoned in R1, not R3. And, I don't know, I'm just - adding that much volume to that road, especially right over that hill, I just don't see it being too safe and, you know, during the process of, you know, widen the road or adding turn lanes like it's just going to cause just a lot of headache with how heavily trafficked that road is.

SPEAKER: Are you (INAUDIBLE) to go across? SPEAKER: A street to go across Crawford Road. SPEAKER: I believe he's talking about just concerns about traffic during construction of the development and the turn lanes. SPEAKER: Yeah, correct. SPEAKER: Well, that's something ALDOT rates as a state road. EZEKIEL ROLLINS: Yes, ma'am. Yeah. And I mean, you know, the last time there was a lot of other people here that are speaking out against it, and I don't know if they got a letter or not. I didn't get a letter this time. But that's neither here nor there. I just... but not again. Not for it in my opinion. That's all I got. SPEAKER: Any other... Anybody else to speak for our audience? DAVID GREEN: Hi, commissioners. My name is David Green, address 2140 Varsity Court. And I appreciate the chance to speak with you guys today. As Mr Mosley alluded, we were here back in August, and I think we were a little bit preliminary when we came our first time. And after that motion was tabled, we went and we spoke with many of the neighbors around the proposed site. I had the chance to speak with some of you guys in the interim, too. And there were really three main concerns that we heard from the neighbors and from you guys, and those had to do with density, with safety, and with privacy. And some of this will be a reiteration of what Mr Mosley has already said. But the way that we tried to address those three concerns

that the neighbors and that some of the commissioners had, as far as density goes, we did take our density down from 223 to 171. We reduced our - oh, I'm sorry. We increased our lot sizes from 50-foot lots and 60-foot lots to 60-foot lots and 70-foot lots, which did help reduce the lot count. And as far as safety goes, we have completed our traffic study now, and we've submitted that to ALDOT for their review and approval. As the traffic study is written right now, we are in favor of what the traffic study recommended, which was the two right-hand turn lanes and the one left-hand turn lane. As far as the safety concern, we think that actually improves the safety along Crawford Road, at least from the standpoint of school buses. That was something that was mentioned last time. This actually provides a nice way for school buses to pull over for kids to get in and out of the school bus when, you know, it's not stuck dead in the road. So we think that it actually improves safety in the flow of traffic, those turn lanes. And then finally was the privacy issue. We wanted to create more privacy between our proposed development and the existing homeowners. So we increased our buffer size from 15ft to 25ft. And, you know, we'd be happy to plant trees along in that buffer as well, just to greater ensure privacy. So those are the three main things that we heard last time, and we have done our best to address those in the interim. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed.

Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: This is a recommendation to City Council. SPEAKER: Yes. This would be a recommendation to the City Council. Staff comments, Mayor Smith. SPEAKER: Do I hear a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Yes. I have a quick question. So, has the city seen that travel study? SPEAKER: It has not been submitted to us. There's one more step before it gets to us. It has to go through a preliminary plat. That's (AUDIO DISTORTS) for construction review. DoT is their biggest hurdle. They take the longest time to review and approve, so having them start early in this process is a wise idea. SPEAKER: Correct. Good. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) questions. We talked about the buffer zones. They don't have to do any mitigating (INAUDIBLE) there where they cross it over. SPEAKER: They will have to mitigate the creek when they cross over it. That's part of their engineering process. They do that one part. Yeah. They're staying well off of it, which helps them a lot too, from the cost perspective. But yeah, that's a later phase after this is done, and certainly around the preliminary plat process. Oh, and Mr Menifee, I do agree with the turn lanes, and I agree with what Mr Green said about the safety of the turn lanes, that they really help that area get off the road. To get off the road to turn, it's much safer idea than trying to turn from... SPEAKER: Would a traffic light help? SPEAKER: No. SPEAKER: One... SPEAKER: No, there's not enough traffic for a traffic signal at this location. It has to have multiple areas. But certainly, turn lanes are the first factor. Now, if this were a 2,000-unit development, that's where more of a traffic signal, but something this size would warrant a traffic signal at this location.

SPEAKER: And that was my biggest concern. It's, does the city agree with... SPEAKER: Yeah, I want to reinstate that. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? We have a motion already to approve to the City Council for a positive recommendation to the City Council. Do I hear a second? SPEAKER: Second. I second, yeah. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number six is a request. SPEAKER: Let me address this. We don't need to do the B on this agenda, so... SPEAKER: When we looked at it a little bit closer, the new long-range plan actually shows this as a residential growth area, meaning it needs to meet certain criteria, but it's generally in line with a place we felt that residential growth would occur because there's already existing roadway and sewer, water, all available. SPEAKER: OK. I was just dotting a nine, crossing a T there. SPEAKER: That's correct. SPEAKER: OK. Six. SPEAKER: Item six is a request for vacation of the right-of-way. This is a request from Thomas Gamble, who owns the properties both at 1114 and 1200 First Avenue. This is a property just across where Norfolk Southern, I believe, crosses First Avenue coming out of downtown, heading to the west. So 12th Street was platted at times all the way through town. However, because this area fell between two railroad tracks where CSX and Norfolk Southern come together, it does not

appear that 12th Street was ever built in these sections. What you have is you have, I believe, a couple of buildings built close to the street. Some have been some offices, some repair shops, other types of light industrial uses, and then a - I believe it's an oil storage location adjacent to it, right in the corner of these two, Railroad and First Avenue meeting. Then, across the street, you have Dorns Auto Suppliers, and it doesn't appear that 12th Street was ever really constructed there either. Mr Gamble has purchased both sides of this property and is requesting for the city to vacate the right of way in between there, between First Avenue and the railroad right of way. In looking at this, there is a sewer that runs through this property in the right-of-way, and power. You can see a pole that goes back through there. As such, with that, we would require that any easements be placed on those utilities or the utilities be moved out of the location. Most likely, he would be able to place them in easements and utilize the property a little bit more than he would if it remains a public right of way. From the city's perspective, there are no plans to build 12th Street in this section because it really doesn't go anywhere. There is some access that goes around through to Grady's Auto. They also have access, if you look at it from 13th Street, which is just further down here, and then also directly off First Avenue. So there's likely no cutting off any direct access to any particular parcels or properties.

In talking with utilities and engineering and other city departments, we do recommend that this property be vacated. And because it is owned by one person, it could be vacated solo to that property owner, subject to any utilities being placed in easements. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. SPEAKER: All right, engineering? SPEAKER: No comments. SPEAKER: This item does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion to vacate this property? SPEAKER: It'd be a recommendation to city council. SPEAKER: A recommendation to city council. OK, I didn't write that down. SPEAKER: Positive recommendation to city council with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: I second. I got a question for you, Matt, though. It looks like someone is using, you know, that unbuilt portion of the road for access back behind. I guess that's the barrier story. Is there any prescribed rights? SPEAKER: So Mr Gamble owns the property right here where this kind of reddish rust color roof is. He also owns this, so he's using that for access back to his property. This also connects back around to the rear of Anderson Properties. I believe Tim Anderson and his family own Grady's and a couple of other buildings through here. So I believe they do utilize this on occasion to access some of the buildings in the back here. Now, Mr Anderson or the Anderson Properties LLC owns the other buildings here along First Avenue, this building that kind of sits in the middle in the back here, and then some of the buildings here to the side.

They own everything else within this block except for, I believe, the Holt Fire building right on the corner of 13th Street and First Avenue. And so, they made it (AUDIO DISTORTS) now, and we would notify them for the public hearing that would be held by the city council if you send a positive recommendation. But I believe there are other ways that they could access those properties, either through their own property or through North 13th Street. SPEAKER: I just want to make sure they've got, you know, don't have a prescribed right back there. SPEAKER: That would be something we'd be very careful about, making sure that we're not cutting off any access to any properties. Here you kind of see the... Sorry, it's in this green right here, but you kind of see the different Anderson properties. These two, this one, and then the back one here. So that drive kind of loops around the entire property. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? So the motion is to recommend and have a positive recommendation to the city council for this vacation. Do I hear - all in favor say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Items seven, eight, and nine are all on the table, and we're not requesting they be heard today. We are going to go ahead and try to move and get the King Honda items off-center for next month, so either withdrawn until they're ready to move forward or have permission, go ahead

and move forward with those. But again, we're asking those remain on the table as well as the recycling center on Old Columbus Road. They have requested a little bit more time to present a better plan to answer some of the concerns staff raised at this time. We are asking that item... Number ten has been withdrawn by the applicant, so you don't need to take any action there. Item 11, though we are asking the commission to hear that one. And so, if you'd like to take that off the table, I can kind of go through the kind of the updates associated with it. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion that we take number 11 off the table and talk about it? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? OK. SPEAKER: Thank you. So last time, I think we had some discussions primarily concerned with buffering some of the uses in section 13, the new part that was being annexed, being added to the planned unit development, and then some of the uses in sections one and ten. So I'll start with the... the uses in items 13 and part 13. What we've done is, working with the applicant, gone through, and they've agreed to remove some of the more intense uses off of 13. And 13, of course, is the section right here where the new Thomassin extension will come through, just north of Bechet Woods, the kind of residential neighborhood that's been out there a little while. It's just below part eight, which is this darker pink color here.

So the uses now in this pod would be largely interior retail and office-type uses, with some light kind of small manufacturing or processing-type uses. Nothing that would be significant. They've removed auto maintenance, convenience store, daycare center is still an allowable use in that section. Restaurant uses are allowable. Dry cleaners, church, some of the fitness - indoor fitness uses - and then storage. Not many warehouses are climate-controlled, but just small storage uses would be allowed in that zone. So that really takes anything that has much of an outside or potentially noisier or disruptive use away from the residential section. What we've also looked at is, with the development of the road, adding in some additional landscaping on the backside of this Bechet Woods neighborhood. Through the development, they've already kept some of the trees behind that development. You could kind of notice it shifts away from the neighborhood and starts going a little bit to the north. And so, we've already committed to adding some additional screening along the backside. That does two purposes. It basically screens the back of those houses from the road, so as people drive through the new road, they won't be looking at people's backyards and trampolines, things like that. It also provides more privacy for the individual property owners so that they have better enjoyment of their property as well. I think that will really help create or limit those interactions and issues for many potential uses right here in pod 13. On the other side, we've talked to the applicant as

well about some of the uses, and they've agreed to put in some additional minimums and standards for these. And so, one of those that came up was packaged liquor store. In this, they are again restricted to pods one and ten, which are the ones closer towards the other end of the development. They've set a minimum of 2000ft² in the area and size of those stores, and they've limited to a maximum of three total in the entire project. So, that would prevent it. You wouldn't be able to have a huge proliferation of package stores in this particular area. They've also, I believe, tried to limit fueling stations. And that was one thing that changed with this request. Previously it's that they were requesting those be moved from pod nine into pods one and pods ten. And so, that is reflected here as well. With that, we are recommending a positive recommendation to the city council based on those previous conditions we provided to you, and are happy to answer any questions you may have. Again, Mr Rice, representing the application, is here as well. SPEAKER: Engineering. SPEAKER: Engineering has no comments regarding the proposed rezoning approval. Opelika Water states water is available from the east side of Gateway Drive and the west side of Cunningham Drive. The developer will be responsible for bringing water along the future Thompson Drive to the point of connection needed for each development. Connections at both ends of Thomas and Drive will

be required. Opelika Power will service this entire development. SPEAKER: All right. This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? There being none, the public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: And so, you need two motions in this as well. One would be an amendment to the future land use, and the other would be rezoning. I would suggest you start with a recommendation on rezoning. SPEAKER: That goes to council. SPEAKER: That goes to city council, yes. SPEAKER: I was going to say send it in a positive recommendation to the city Council for the land use map. SPEAKER: For the rezoning. SPEAKER: For the rezoning. SPEAKER: Rezoning goes to city council. The land use is... SPEAKER: OK, OK. So the rezoning. Do I hear a motion for that? SPEAKER: So done. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: And then next would be an amendment to the future land use for the 5.1 acres shown as residential to a mixed use. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion for that? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: The last item of business on your agenda today is, we wanted to go ahead and set the dates for the November and December Planning Commission meetings, because we've run into a little bit of confusion this year.

So, we've gone ahead and set those dates for November 17, which is the third Tuesday, and then December 15, which is the third Tuesday of December. Much like what we're doing this year. Again, the dates in November and December fall right on the... right at the holidays, so this would put it on the third Tuesday prior to the city council, which could provide us with some conflict, but typically it has not been an issue. SPEAKER: OK. This does not call for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear any discussion or a motion? SPEAKER: To approve amendments, I second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: That's all the business I have before you. SPEAKER: Do I hear a motion we adjourn? SPEAKER: So moved. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: OK. All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Thank you, and I hope you all have a merry Christmas and happy New Year. SPEAKER: Oh, I also wanted to to welcome Mr Treece to... SPEAKER: Oh, and I should have done this, but I forgot we had a new... SPEAKER: Oh, yeah. And Ben Bugg. Yes.