Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: January Planning Commission to order. Just Mr Mosley, do you have anything you want to add to. MOSLEY: No, ma'am, not this time. I did want to, of course, let you know. We've got a full house today. We have included an update to item number three, the Piper Sage station plant. They have made some corrections to that based on comments, and so that is at your table, and we'll show it on the overhead as well. SPEAKER: OK, MOSLEY: Again, the first item under your business today will be the election of officers for the year. SPEAKER: Thank you. We'll adjourn the work session and get back to order at three o'clock.

(BACKGROUND CHATTER) SPEAKER: I'm going to call the January meeting of the Planning Commission to order.

We have a full house, and just to let you know, you have five minutes at the microphone if you have something you want to say for or against and one time at the microphone. When you get up there, speak into the microphone so we can hear what you have to say, and give us your name and your address. Alright, the next item is election of officers. Do I hear any nominations? SPEAKER: I make a motion we elect Lucinda Cannon chair and John Sweatman vice chair. SPEAKER: Thank you. We got the second OK. That's great. Alright, all in favor. SPEAKER: Alright. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstained? Thank you very much for your confidence. Now we have the approval of the minutes. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstaining? Motion carries. Any update on previous cases, Mr Mosley? MOSLEY: No, no ma'am, not at this time. I don't have any updates. As I mentioned in the work session, we do have a updated plaque for the Piper Station stage station subdivision, which we'll go through at that time. SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. Under the new business, the first item we have is an annexation of 239 acres, plus or minus, into the city limits. This does not call for a public hearing. Commissioners.

MOSLEY: Briefly, to let you know, this is a request from J&J Development for LLC for Patriot Development Group. This is in the planning jurisdiction, and it is surrounded on all sides by the City of Opelika. It is what we call our priority one area for annexation, meaning it's an area that is completely surrounded by the city. And so we are recommending approval of the annexation. This is separate from the rezoning, which will be the next item. I propose a recommendation to the city council for annexation. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor of sending the positive recommendation to City Council vote ahaa. SPEAKER: Aha. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstaining? The motion carries. The next item is the rezoning of this particular piece of property for the annexation. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. This item, as you mentioned, is the annexation, or, excuse me, the rezoning associated with the annexation you just heard. Again, this is located at the intersection of Rocky Brook and Hillflo Avenue. On the opposite side is Palin Avenue. This is again in the planning jurisdiction. It is completely surrounded by the city of Opelika, and you see in the overhead where it sits. The applicant is Anthony Slaughter with Moon Meats and Associates for JMJ Development, LLC. They are proposing to rezone this from an R1, which is the typical zoning that comes in with an annexation, to a planned unit development PUD. They are proposing a development that would include up to 400 single-family homes.

Then we noted there is some some back and forth between the narrative and the Actual drawing here one shows 370, but the the text shows 400 units I think that goes towards this being a conceptual plan 400 units at 239 acres comes out to a density of approximately 1.7 units per acre What you'll notice here is the development has is bisected by a Stream that cuts through the middle also has some floodplain associated with it would take access off of Rocky Brook Road and Hill flow where they intersect also from the extension of Palin Avenue making connection through the middle with some Connectivity to the properties owned by warehouses to the north subject property has again up to 400 units proposing a typical lot size of 60 feet wide by 125 feet deep with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. They provided us some information as far as some of the amenities proposed, including walking trails, park space, the sample elevations of the development, and we'll go through those and then also the general narrative you see here again. The overall property the middle area through here that is hashed in as floodplain areas again. You have some on the western side as well. That is also the floodplain. We went through in the staff report talking about density. From what they're proposing and what is surrounding it, what you'll see in the area surrounding Cedar Creek is

that most of the lots through this area are approximately 20,000 square feet and higher. Some are as large as one and a half to two acres on the Cedar Creek side and three acres on the opposite side. You do have some closer to 431 Lafayette Parkway, which is a ways away, that are a little bit smaller. But generally, they are both wider and larger lots in the surrounding area based on the R1A R2 zoning that is around here. You've also got The See here. You see that zoning R2 again on the west side, R1 and R1A on the north, south, and east, and then you have a couple of sections of the Cedar Creek planned unit development. Again, these are generally smaller than the other lots, but they are still larger than what is being proposed in this development. One thing that we look at through this is the subdivision regulations and their discussion of watershed protection. This is in the Saugahatchee watershed, which is those areas in the watershed that flow towards the Saugahatchee Lake, and in this stream does. So, there are protections in the guidelines that limit the number of developments within the watershed, and that typically is a minimum of three acre lots if there is not sewer available and 15,000 to 20,000 square foot lots when there is sewer available. Now, there is an exception for what they call cluster developments, which is where you have innovative design that

tries to minimize development and impact on the stormwater or receiving waters. And those lots are allowed to be smaller than 15,000 square foot which is the minimum proposed In the base zone and requires a PUD which is what we propose here You see through this development there is some Again mentioned trails open space The Engineering Department will touch on on traffic and engineering And as we mentioned before this is currently not in the city limits, although you made a recommendation to City Council to do so That that comes into play with a couple different things when it's the property is not in the city limits That means that it is There is no zoning or land use control on it. We have subdivision regulation over how big the lots can be, but if it does not proceed through annexation, we do not have any controls over what's actually built on their setbacks. Types uses things along those lines, so that is something that we took into account. We also looked at the future land use plan. This is shown as what we call rural reserve, which is those areas that may not quite be ready for development this time. Most of the Cedar Creek area through this northern half is listed as rural reserve because it's in the Saga Hatch watershed. One small difference between this and many of those properties with that designation is that this does have sewer already proceeding through the property, so there is some potential for development there. Looking through this, we do feel like there are some positives to what they propose as far as maintaining development away from the floodplain and stream areas. This has some considerations of what the subdivision regulations

calls a cluster development, which is often called a conservation subdivision, where you try to create denser developments in areas that can be developed while maintaining those sensitive areas and preventing development closer to it This will have to meet the requirements of those subdivision regulations as far as water the protection measures in the Saga Hatch watershed. Those are administered by the Oplock water board, but overall, looking at this, we did feel that there was some disconnect between the lot sizes proposed here and the lot sizes of the surrounding areas. Again, these are roughly 7,500 square feet, the minimum lot size, and the R2 typically again is 15,000 square feet. So, this is about half the size of those Again while we do feel this is a somewhat innovative design We we think there could be some increase in the lot sizes to that help Make them more in line with this one thing with the PUD is you do get some additional buffering that may not be present if this were to be developed as a Conventional subdivision they would typically at those points Make some larger areas part of the lot and not And Develop closer to the property lines not have as much open space because it's not required except for in a PUD or some other types of zoning like this Really quickly just wanted to finish going through this they do propose having a Landscaping for individual lots they provided some elevation showing What appear to be homes with two car garages approximately 1,800 to 2,100 square feet. General layout for the width cross-section of the streets and again a different street section showing trees and The streets sidewalks and then some of the amenities

as proposed including walking trails horseshoe pits Some strict shade structures picnic tables And then a general description of the nature trail which they note is being designed under Department of Interior standards Real quick just to make sure Again noting that they are proposing something of a conservation or cluster development this is the general concept behind that it which is instead of developing lot line to lot line under the Typical ordinance they would try to reduce the size of the lots and develop those areas that are less sensitive that maybe Include wetlands floodplain or sensitive areas archaeological or other areas. Again, we've reviewed this, we have made a recommendation at this time of a negative recommendation to City Council just because we do feel like there is some disconnect between the lot sizes proposed here and the lot sizes adjacent. We have provided you with a list of conditions. Should you choose to send a positive recommendation that I can go through if you'd like, or we can discuss it, should you? SPEAKER: decide to make a policy recommendation. SPEAKER: Engineering? SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. The engineering department will require a regional traffic impact study with this development. That will be after or if the rezoning is approved by city council. A little item of clarification with this impact study is different from a normal traffic study that we require that is with the subdivision off a collector road. Take, for example, Hidden Lakes, which is off a sports bike road.

That road has a capacity to carry more vehicles, so what we require there are turn lanes, which has been installed for that development on Sports Bike Road. This one, because the access points are to local streets, such as Hillflo, Palin, and Rocky Brook, we would require a broad study to include surrounding intersections that would be impacted by any additional traffic that could be generated here. These intersections would include Palin and Oak Bowery, Rocky Brook and Morris, and even Morris and Hillflo at 431. So, that would be a more extensive traffic study that we would require, and it would also use transportation engineering techniques to determine the trips generated. That's the technical term of vehicles that would be increased on these local streets. It would predict the generated trips to the access points, and it will determine that if there are any improvements that will be required further out, such as on 431 or Oak Bowery, to accommodate this subdivision. Other than the traffic impact study that we will require with the approval of this, engineering has no other comments or concerns regarding the rezoning of this property. Oak Lackawater has a report that they state that an 8-inch water main is available on Palin Avenue, and also an 8-inch main at the intersection of Hillflow and Rocky Brook. Connections to both of these water mains will be required for this development. Also, the site is located in the Saugahatchee Watershed Protection Overlay and falls within a watershed critical area. The overlay limits development density and impervious surface ratios, forces buffering and building setbacks, and restricts land clearing for all acres that drains to Saugahatchee Lake.

A detailed review of this development will be required by Oak Lackawater, and they reserve the right to deny any development that does not meet the watershed protection requirements. Oak Lackawater states that they will serve part of this development, and the Talapusa River Electric Co-op will serve the rest of it. I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding this. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. We're interested in what you have to say. We're always interested in what you have to say. But if you'll say it in different ways, it's going to be better. So, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against? Would you go to the microphone? JEFF TICKLE: Yes. SPEAKER: Give us your name and address, please. JEFF TICKLE: My name is Jeff Tickle. I'm a resident of Oak Lackawater. I live on Hickory Lane. My property actually fronts both Hickory Lane and Rocky Brook, approximately 200 yards from the proposed development. I'm here to talk about some of the concerns I had about the development. I just found out about it over the weekend. Is that mic not working? SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) JEFF TICKLE: I just raise it up a little bit. A couple of concerns. I'm very familiar with the property. I've been familiar with it from when Cedar Creek was developed. I was associated with the Cedar Creek development and had walked this property, actually, with Mr Beach. We were just discussing the property, and I'm familiar with the layout. I looked at the lot sizes and the proposed construction. The runoff from the hard surfaces that are proposed in any development increased the flow velocity.

They decreased filtration, vegetation, and by reducing all of those in the developed areas, you negatively impact the water quality that ultimately run into the watershed. To develop this property in the areas that will be developed, they can't develop any of the wetland property. That's going to be protected. ADM is going to come in and look at that. But the property that they can develop, the upland property, the dry property, each of those lots will have to be stripped clear to the ground. The road beds will be put in. And the lots will have to be cleared clean. They're planning on putting a tree back. But essentially, one canopy tree... Essentially what that does is makes that whole area impervious. The houses take up the majority of the lot, the driveway, the sidewalks, the streets, the roofs, makes that impervious. The way the natural water flows in the watershed is the water flows naturally down through the vegetation, which acts as a natural filter. It also decreases the flow, takes out siltation, and protects the water and the pollutants. The vegetation clean up the pollutants when you remove all that. Your flows become... You have increased velocity of the water flows through the subdivision that will hit the areas that are left green. And those will slow it down, but it won't be as clean as it would have been had we had a larger R1 development with larger lots, even with the yards, grass, and such, would have then acted as those natural filters that you're just not going to get with this type of development. You're going to have an increase in siltation downstream and pollutants. And that ultimately ends up in our water supply, flows down into Oaklax's main water supply. We have both erosion and habitat damage. Forest Lake, which is a subdivision I live in, has a lake.

Most of the water run off of the south side of Hill Flow all the way up to 431, and Morris Avenue runs into that lake. That lake acts as a siltation basin that catches all the silt pollutants before the water goes into the creek. So, there's a natural... Those lots through that subdivision are three, two, four, five, six acres, lots of vegetation, and that cleans the water up, which is the purpose of having a watershed, is you do not want to contaminate our water supply. We've all done with the summer water that we get here, and it's because of the different things that flow into our water. Taking that into consideration, there are also some traffic concerns. Adding 400 units at the end of Rocky Brook will create additional traffic burdens. I know our engineering department will address that, and they'll have to address that, but the dam at Rocky Brook is not capable of handling that type of load. It should almost be a no truck load. We've had deaths on that road. We've had major accidents on that road. It's just by its natural design because of solid rock in certain places. It has high elevations, and it's just not meant for that type of traffic coming up at Rocky Brook between the Morse Avenue and Hill Flow. And the impact on the existing utilities, the city is more capable of addressing that. I was concerned about a couple of other things. When I looked at these lot sizes, they talk about cluster homes, and that's their way of doing this. And yeah, it's a cluster. It's a cluster of buildings on one portion of the property. You take 50% of the property and make it impervious. And that's what that does. And in a normal environment, when you have one or two or three units per acre, you get a lot more vegetation and green, and you're allowed to save some trees.

And they're not going to save a single tree. They can't. They've got to take them all down. So, these clusters will negatively affect our water supply. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. JEFF TICKLE: Alright. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: I stand up to speak. SPEAKER: Would anybody else like to speak for or against? OK. JEFF TICKLE: Well, do y'all have any questions of me since I'm familiar with the property and have been associated with it for the last 15 years and understand hydrology, hydraulics of land? SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. JEFF TICKLE: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Thank you. JEFF TICKLE: Y'all have a great day. MICHAEL COLLIER: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Collier, and I live at 300 Hillflo Avenue. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of Alabama. I'm speaking today on behalf of numerous residents in the neighborhoods adjacent to this proposed development. I want to talk about a couple of things that the submitted application, some inconsistencies. One thing that Mr Mosley brought up, the applicant states their housing density to be 1.7 units per acre, and they compare it to the R2 zoning of 2.5 units per acre in the neighborhoods next to it. The site actually includes about 94 acres of wetlands that are not buildable. And so when you actually run the density, when you take that non-buildable area out of that development, your density becomes about 2.75 to 2.85, which is much higher than the surrounding area. And for clarity, the R2 zone that the applicant mentions, the smallest lot size in that zone is actually half, in reality, is a half acre. So, they're not showing the true buildable land when they give that calculation. Also, the applicant describes the property as having

vegetative bottom land and natural flowing water, creating an appealing scene. But in reality, it's classified as wetlands, and it resembles more of a swamp. The title block on the plot that's included, that's shown on the screen right now, provides an incorrect location. It actually says, if you zoom in, it says Opelika-Lee County, Georgia, which shows a lack of accuracy in the development of the Document One. And how do they know what's good for our city if they can't even get our state right? It's pretty disappointing. And you all know the requirements to qualify for a PUD under 8.18 of the city ordinance. Within part E of that section, there's a list of the nine criteria that must be met. I would say that three of those criteria, at least, they do not meet. Regarding criteria number three, the proposed development does not provide compatibility and harmony with existing adjacent properties. Regarding criteria four, the proposed development does not ensure compatibility with the natural features of the site and the adjacent properties. And then regarding criteria four, the proposed development will have major impact on traffic patterns on the existing roadways. Also, just a couple of things to highlight on the nine compatible items with the adjacent properties. The provided light dimensions that have been mentioned multiple times, the 7,500 square foot, that's an R4 zoning, if you go and look at the city regulations, none of the adjacent properties are R4. The majority are R1, summer R2, summer PUD. The adjacent home sites that immediately touch this property, they range in size from 0.9 acres to 8.29 acres. There are 44 existing homes on Hillflo Avenue. The average light size of those 44 is 2.09 acres. That's taking it all the way back to 431. On Palin Avenue, there are 14 existing home sites. The average lot size there is 1.15 acres.

These are the two existing streets that would feed into this proposed development. The proposed home sites, again, we've already 0.17 acres. The developer has not provided any transition. There's no transition going from these existing neighborhoods that are R1 to R2 with big lights into these 0.3 acre or less lights. The photos that they provide for the proposed homes, those are incomparable to the custom built homes that are on Hillflow Avenue and on Palin Avenue. The item that's already been brought up that should be most concerning the citizens of Opelika is the impact this could have on Saugahatchee Lake and the city water. In closing, we have submitted a letter by email to the commission. I have a paper copy if I need to submit that for the record now as well, but we've submitted a letter from neighbors that are opposed to this rezoning. We respectfully request that you deny this proposed rezoning, as it's not compatible with the established adjoining neighborhoods. Also, we gathered information on six developments that are ongoing right now within three miles of this property. There are about 1,700 buildable single-family lights, about 620 townhome lights that have been approved to go forward. Our neighborhood has already experienced failed development in Cedar Creek, and we don't want, we would like to not experience another one. We see no positives for our city in approving the use of this this slide as proposed, and this this out-of-state developer, you know, they're taking advantage of PUD zoning by installing a high density neighborhood to maximize their profit, and they're not taking any efforts to make this property compatible with the joining established neighborhoods. SPEAKER: Your five minutes is up. MICHAEL COLLIER: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) SPEAKER: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Thank you. CHAD NEWBOLT: My name is Chad Newbolt. I live on Hunt Lane. I'm a biologist with Auburn University. I'd like to focus my time on the environmental implications, particularly as they relate to the Sogahatchee Creek watershed and the City of Opelika's responsibility to protect its drinking water supply. Before doing that, I think it's important to clarify what this action does. Rezoning this property from an R1 to a planned use development or PUD does not simply change the zoning label. A PUD ties a specific development plan to the land and once approved, that plan becomes the framework for future development. Because of that, we are evaluating this plan, not a conceptual idea, and whether it aligns with the intent of watershed regulations. The maps provided to staff provide a site reference and show the close proximity of the proposed development of Sougahatchee Lake. The site lies entirely within the designated watershed critical area, the city's most restrictive watershed development zone, because of its direct hydrologic connection to the lake. The maps also contain a representative image of the site at a proposed walking trail. The image shows extensive water standing, which is common throughout the low gradient wetland dominated site. When intact, these wetlands function as natural filters and buffers, slowing runoff and reducing sediment and pollutant loads before water reaches the lake. Section 3.9 of the subdivision guidelines clearly states that the purpose of the Sougahatchee watershed regulation to prevent water quality degradation. And to protect present and future drinking water supplies by minimizing pollution, contaminants, erosion, and sedimentation from development related activities. These regulations are preventative, recognizing that once water quality is degraded, impacts are difficult and costly to reverse. Within the watershed critical area, Opelika's regulation increased minimum lot sizes to half an acre on sites with sanitary sewer and three acres for septic sites to reduce density and limit environmental impacts. The PUD designation creates a limited exception to that rule, allowing smaller lots when cluster development is used. Cluster development is defined by the city's guidelines as the grouping of buildings in order to first, conserve land resources, and second, to provide for innovation in the design.

That exception exists because cluster development is intended to reduce overall environmental impact through conservation design. Cluster development and conservation design are intended to reduce environmental impact by directing development away from sensitive features, minimizing infrastructure intrusion, and preserving functional open space. When applied effectively in a watershed critical area, conservation design results in meaningful buffers, fewer crossings, and reduced long-term runoff risk. In this case, while the plan is described as conservation design, the outcome on the ground does not achieve that result. Development is concentrated immediately adjacent to wetlands rather than set back from them, and infrastructure, including road crossings shown here, which may include bridges, utilities, and proposed walking trails, is still required within the wetland. Here, the development pattern is dictated by the constraints of the extensive wetlands that are not suitable for building sites. Nothing is being intentionally conserved as the land is forcing the layout. Applied in this way, cluster development does not reduce environmental impact. Instead, it unintentionally encourages high-density development immediately next to sensitive wetlands. Precisely the condition, the watershed critical regulations are designed to prevent. Even seemingly minor features like walking trails are difficult and often impractical to construct and maintain in areas with standing water and saturated soils, requiring fill or elevated structures that increase long-term disturbance and sedimentation. SPEAKER: And from a watershed protection standpoint, impacts from roads, bridges, and trails are just as significant as building footprints. Across the watershed critical area, Opelika's regulations consistently seek to reduce density near sensitive areas and minimize disturbance. Here, the plan achieves technical avoidance of wetlands for building footprints, but it does not meaningfully reduce development pressures on those areas. As a result, the proposal does not function as conservation design in practise, even if it meets certain technical criteria. This site drains slowly except during heavy rains, meaning sediment and pollutants introduced during construction or long-term runoff are likely to accumulate before being rapidly flushed to the system.

The potential associated degradation of water quality in this watershed affects not just nearby residents, but the entire Opelika community that relies on Sauk Hadji Lake as a public drinking water source. If cluster development can be used in watershed critical areas to justify increased density rather than reduce impact, it sets a precedent that weakens the protection the city has intentionally put in place. In that scenario, the exception becomes the rule. For these reasons, this proposal does not align with the intent of section 3.9, and does not function as conservation design within a watershed critical area. I respectfully urge careful consideration before approving a plan that permanently ties these impacts to critical land draining into our community's water supply. SPEAKER: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) SPEAKER: This is not an auditorium, this is a place of business, and if there's any more clapping like that, then we're going to clear the room. ALLISON JACKSON: Good afternoon, I'm Allison Jackson. I'm here to speak as a property owner at 804 Hillflow Avenue. My property is directly adjacent to this 239 acres that's being proposed for rezoning. If you look at the proposed development plan, lots 106, 150, 151, and 152 directly touch the west side of my one lot. I'm going to discuss reasons why I think the commission should deny the request for the rezoning. I want to bring your attention to section 8.18 of Opelika Zoning Ordinance. It governs planned unit developments. In context, this proposed development, like Michael says, fails part E of compatibility and harmony with adjacent properties. The proposed density and lot configuration are not consistent with the scale, spacing, or character of my adjacent property nor my neighbors in our residential area. Proposed lots are 7,500 square feet, as mentioned before.

My lot is 2.211 acres compared to .17 that they're proposing to put directly next door. Proposed home sizes are 1,800 to 2,150 square feet. My house is 3,586 square feet. That's a difference of 1,786 square feet from their smallest house and 1,436 square feet from their largest. There is no transition zone provided between the proposed high-density PUD and the low-density R1 and R2 properties. Contrary to best planning practices and the stated intent of section 8.18, I will literally look at the backside of four lots every day leaving my house. That buffer zone will be taken away. Part H of section 8.18 specifies maximum allowable density being calculated using the overall land area exclusive of public streets, rights-of-way, and non-residential uses. That density should be consistent with the applicable zoning district. Our surrounding properties are primarily zone R1, as mentioned before. When evaluated under section 7.3 of the ordinance, it's related to specific district regulations. The proposed density and lot size are consistent with the R4 classification and are not characteristic of the surrounding area. As mentioned before, the lot sizes that surround it are ranged from 8.29 acres to 3.04. That is a significantly difference from their 0.17 acres. Outside of legal ordinance speak, I would like to express my concern over property values. My house will literally sit at the entrance to this 400-lot development, and I will be subjected to the drastic incompatibility and potential devaluing of my home. I'm an accountant. I dive into numbers every day, so

allow me to provide a few hard numbers for you. As Michael says, according to information that was requested from city officials, there are 1,728 single family lots and 620 townhomes, twin homes, just on our side of Opelika. That's ranging from Blackberry Reserve off Highway 431, Warwick Retreat on Sanford Avenue, Andrews Road, Hidden Lakes, Northgate Drive, and Box Run Village. If you do the math, that's 2,348 approved lots already. Just on our side of Opelika. The current growth rate in Opelika is 3.9% annually. That's 1,365 people based off an estimate of 35,005 people in Opelika using verified city limit data. That's currently approved lots. So, if you assume every one of these 1,365 people moving into Opelika occupies just one of those homes, that's only consuming 58% of available space that's currently approved just in our area. That does not even account the rest of Opelika that has construction going on. So, again, I would like to emphasize that we might have houses and properties sitting vacant for years that may be walked away from by development agencies that are then gonna devalue the property in our area. I realize that it's inevitable that 239 acres will eventually be developed since it's a top area of priority for the city as far as annexation for your 2040 plan. I'm not opposed to development. I'm opposed to the type of rezoning being considered. I urge you to request access to this property and actually put your feet on the ground in the wetlands. You will see this proposed development will not work.

Keep it R1 and have a vision that will keep Opelika beautiful. I'm not opposed to smartly planned growth in our city... SPEAKER: Your five minutes are up. SPEAKER: but all growth is not good growth. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? RACHEL WHITE: Hello, my name is Rachel White. I live at 1401 Piedmont. And are you aware that if approved, this development would be in direct violation of the city's currently adopted policies, both in the 2020 comprehensive plan and the 2040 comprehensive plan? Section 3A of the city's 2020 comprehensive plan lays out future land use as it relates to low density residential zoning or single-family units. "In stable neighborhoods, the neighborhood is preserved, and the integrity is enhanced". This is a stable neighborhood. You were looking at homes that have been there for 20 to 40 years. We have family that live on roughly a 20 acre lot. You're looking at two- to 20 acre lots in this area. So, these lots are also mature land, well built up. It's beautiful property over there. A roughly 400 unit development exceeds the city's density goals, does not preserve the integrity of this particular neighbourhood around it. You are directly violating and undermining your own policies by approving this, which is just crazy to me. Additionally, in violation of the 2040, let's see, comprehensive plan, which is not yet finalised to understand, but you do have the plan that highlights managed growth intensity. That's how you lay it out. And we are going to have just unmanaged growth

intensity with this unit, with this development. You're looking at 800 cars. You have on average two cars per household. If these people are just going to work, just picking up their children, we don't need engineering to tell us. That's thousands of trips on these roads a day, thousands. Additionally, that road system is not set up for that. The amount of dollars that the city would have to pay for the infrastructure alone is astronomical. Is Patriot Development or J&J Development, are they covering the upfront costs? What about impact fees? Is that part of this? Because it should be if this is going through, which I do not recommend. Additionally, the infrastructure of our schools, this development, if you go with the current statistics in our area, in our city, of having roughly 26% of homes have children, those homes having 2.4 children, that's a 5% increase on our school system with one neighborhood. Have you talked to the school board? Do they know that they have a 5% increase across the board and all their schools that they're going to have in one fast swoop? I don't think our principals are prepared for that. Additionally, you are going to have roughly a 3% population increase with this one development. Is that something we want in one development? I mean, I am all for growth, as said here before, but this is not managed growth. Additionally, in that 2020 comprehensive plan, the city's goal, the Planning Commission's goal, is, quote, to maintain and improve the overall quality of life for the citizens of Opelika by wise land use decisions. I would ask this committee if this development is a wise use of our land.

If this improves the quality of life for the citizens of Opelika. Whether it be the people who live in that area or the school board or the engineers who are gonna have to maintain our road. The sewer systems that are going to have a massive increase, the amount of waste management that's going to be picked up, because I think we have a very clear answer here. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. CAMERON HUMT: Good afternoon. My name's Cameron Hunt, and I live at 3101 Oak Bowery. Actually, I see my house in the bottom left corner of that map. And I wanna be clear from the start that I'm not opposed to growth as well, and I'm not opposed to development in Opelika. What I am opposed to is approving a rezoning of this scale on the surrounding roads, public safety infrastructure, and the environmental safeguards are already strained and demonstrably inadequate. This request involves the annexation and rezoning of approximately 239 acres for roughly 400 single-family homes. A substantially similar development was proposed on this same property in the past and was denied because the surrounding road network could not safely support the traffic. That condition has not changed, and in fact, this proposal increases the density and intensity of use. Rocky Brook Road and the surrounding streets are two-lane roads with limited shoulders and constrained sight lines. They were never designed to serve as a primary access for hundreds of homes, and there's no clear funded plan to widen or improve these roads before development begins. Compounding that issue is the proximity to Morris Avenue School. Traffic in that area is already a problem during morning drop-off and afternoon pickup. Adding hundreds of new households will increase congestion during peak school hours, creating predictable and unacceptable safety risks for children, parents, school buses, and emergency responders. The site design relies on stub-out streets that push traffic and future impacts in the surrounding neighborhoods,

shifting long-term consequences onto the existing residents without enforceable protections. There's also a serious environmental issue that must be addressed, and it has been addressed, and I hope you'll value that input. But the southwestern portion of this property isn't just a floodplain. It is an established wetland. I know this for a fact because I spent my childhood exploring that area. Many years ago, my dad used to own this track that's in question today, so I'm very familiar with it. And that wetland connects directly to the city lake, which has already been mentioned. The wetland's function is a natural filtration and flood control system, protecting public water resource, increased impervious surface and altered drainage patterns increase the risk of sediment and pollutant runoff into the lake. Once wetlands are compromised or the lake is impacted, the damage is long-term and costly to correct. This is not a small-scale project to improve existing neighborhoods. It's a high-density development that relies on public systems already under strain and leaves current residents to absorb the long-term consequences. That imbalance requires this body to slow down, ask harder questions, and prioritize the interests of the people who already live here. Rezoning this property to put removes predictability for adjacent landowners and lowers this threshold for future changes with reduced public input. Once granted, those protections cannot be restored. For these reasons, I'm respectfully asking this commission to deny this request. The roads cannot handle it, school traffic is already failing, and the wetlands protecting our water supply at risk in this development do not belong here. And one last thing I'd like to add, and I'll close with this. People here today are taking time away from their jobs and their families because this decision matters to them. Respectful applause is not a threat to order, it is evidence that the public is engaged. This commission has a duty not just to hear the public, to value that input, and I hope the commission will see that as something to be protected, not to be curtailed. SPEAKER: Thank you.

LARRY MURPHY: My name's Larry Murphy. I live at 2710 Rocky Brook Road. I have an eight-acre lot, heavily wooded, beautiful. I'm opposed to the rezoning because of the density, traffic, water pollution, all of the above. This has been stated. I ask the council to please vote negative to rezoning. SPEAKER: Thank you. VINCE STILETTO: My name is Vince Stiletto, and I'm a resident on 1895 Palin Avenue. My family moved to Alabama in 2016. We rented in Auburn for a year to really get our bearings and found our home in Opelika. When my wife was a teacher at Opelika Middle and I began discussing potentially moving to Alabama, we agreed that we liked Auburn but loved Opelika. It had a charm and personality that was clear and evident 10 years ago that felt like a great place to raise a family in a town that cherished green space. I live in a neighborhood that has had its fair share of issues stemming from poor development plans and failed oversight. I have spent thousands of dollars within the first few years of owning my brand new home on flood and sewage control. When we bought a brand new house, we were foolish in believing large but necessary expenses would not come to fruition for many years. The small neighborhood of 12 houses was poorly graded in a low-lying, swampy area. I can show numerous videos of extreme water runoff challenges that cost thousands of dollars to fix. The city of Opelika stormwater experts have assisted me many times and have said this should not happen. Errors were made. I have videos of water running through my yard 72 hours after a rain, prompting neighbors to ask if I had an irrigation leak. Nightmares occur when only a 12-home neighborhood near a swamp is constructed and not perfectly executed. What is the chance a developer can master this with 400 homes in a swamp? My occupation is that an integrative health practitioner. I use functional medicine labs to determine origins and root causes of health challenges to minimize chronic health problems. The test I run more than any other is a toxic metal test from Analytical Research Labs. With this test, I look for excessive lead, mercury,

cadmium, arsenic, and aluminium that have accumulated in the tissue of people's bodies. These toxic metals are detrimental to chronic health, leading to cancer, autoimmune disorders, neurological disorders, and much more. When I see excessive heavy metal toxicity within my clients, it is immediately priority number one to address it before all other concerns. The first step as a practitioner I must take when these numbers are concerned is to address water quality in the client's homes. Why? These toxic metals often come from water sources high in urban runoff. Pesticides, herbicides, road pollution, and more create these toxic conditions. The proposed development is guaranteed to raise the level of these metals in the city water supply due to their proximity of our drinking water source. The health of the city of Opelika residents will deteriorate with a 400 home development dumping chemicals directly into the drinking water of the city. I mentioned my outrageous videos of water drainage issues. I often see when my neighbors have fertilized their yards, as oddly colored pellets head directly to the wetlands as they pass through my property. I don't want to fathom how much of that fertilizer and herbicide would come from that large of a development. The EPA water runoff calculations show that the current plans will include massive runoff. I also mentioned issues with plumbing. Our neighborhood utilizes a pump grinder basin system that has created many headaches. The neighborhood was in talks of a class action lawsuit before the city had a pump station installed at the end of Palin Avenue. Every house has had tremendous sewage challenges with extensive costs, and this has alleviated much of the problem. The location of the pump station happens to lie smack in the middle of the developer's future road. Disturbing this would create a lawsuit scenario once again from a poorly planned plumbing system. SPEAKER: There are also many lots projected to be well directly within the wetland areas based on the National Wetlands Inventory maps through the US Geological Survey website. The amount of homes in the area is far from what R1 or R2 in density. There are only around 149 non-wetland acres on this property, the smallest lot in R2. Palin Avenue is 0.75 acres. The development calls for lots to be as small as 0.17, less

than a quarter of the size. The number is used by developers are misleading at best. These numbers do not even closely reflect the true density, which calculates much closer to 2.7 houses per acre at least. We're talking about an R-4 type of development here. To meet the criteria set forth by the city, the total homes need to be less than a third of 400 homes to be in compliance. There are at least 15 developers in Lee County, and every one of them that has investigated the property for development wanted no part of this potential nightmare. Our neighborhood of just 12 houses has been littered with problems living on the edge of the swamp, much less hundreds of homes built into peninsulas of somewhat usable land and surrounded almost on all sides by a fragile ecosystem. Wetlands are not designed for large neighborhoods. Thank you for your time. SPEAKER: Thank you. MATT MORRIS: Hi. My name is Matt Morris, 2709 Rocky Brook Lane, and I'd like to share some intricacies of this property that you may not be aware of and haven't been shared so far. I grew up, and I'm intimately familiar with the property. I grew up just a short distance from there and chased squirrels and hiked around the property. But the one of the original settlers of this area, Nelson Clayton, his plantation home, is on this very same piece of property that's going to be developed. Nelson Clayton was a house for early Lee County. This part was Chambers County originally, but became Lee County. He actually, with his own money, helped equip the Opelika Regiment during the war between the States. We know from historical purposes that he has had between 40 and 80 enslaved persons, but interesting enough, according to slave narratives, which he's mentioned and also his diary, which is preserved, the University of Alabama, he seemed to have quite a cordial relationship with him. And we know from his diary that several of his enslaved persons are buried there on the family property. The also had buried some of his family there, which were later removed to Rosemary Cemetery, and where they are today. You can walk across the property today, and you

can still see the remains of where the slave quarters were. There's an old formal garden that's enclosed by a stone wall, in which daffodils and flowers still come up. 130 years later. Today. So, what I wanted to say that by looking at the map, it doesn't appear that the home place is respected. And this hundred and 80 year old magnolia tree that's about three foot in diameter, would, that would be put to it and so forth. And I think, it's important that although we don't know the exact location of where these graves are located, we know they're there due to his diaries, so that, I think it'd be important that we be real careful, where the lots are placed and, you know, don't wanna dig up any bones when someone's laying a foundation for home or so. Very valid points have been made before with lot sizes, pollution, highways, and so forth. And I won't belabor those again, but the historical nature of this property is kind of unique in this county, also. So, thank you very much. SPEAKER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this? DAVE MEADOWS: Yeah, my name is Dave Meadows. I live at 1848 Hunt Lane. And in addition to what everyone else has said, I really do want the council to consider the impact of zoning this to a PUD. It. I'm in construction. I do it every day. I analyze job sites and development. I strongly think that this development is not going to be buildable on this site. Even the way they've drawn it. But what it does is it opens up the door to other potential developments. When you change something to a PUD, they're allowed to propose a multifamily site, an apartment, some other high-density development, which is completely incongruent with

the entire area. And so it's not only just that we're what's being proposed is 400 homes, which obviously sounds crazy. It also opens the door if it's not able to be built, even the way they're showing it could be proposed a different way. That would be even worse. In a lot of ways, it would completely change the whole area. And so, even just considering the planned development, zoning, I think, is a really big mistake to even consider. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. DREW WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is Drew White. I live at 1401 Piedmont Avenue. Well done, everybody. This has been fun. I'm gonna tell something different. I think that was the instruction, you know, try to mix it up a little bit. So, I'm going to tell a story. That story is this: I grew up here in Opelika. My wife and I moved back here in 2021. Two small kids. We needed some assistance from our family with Covid, and I'm sure a lot of people can probably relate with that. We now have four kids, so we need even more help. But at the time, we were living in Central Texas in a little place called Georgetown. Georgetown is north of Austin. If any of you all are familiar with that area. It's a really beautiful place. It's very quaint town, similar to Opelika, beautiful limestone city square with lots of little shops around it. And Georgetown decided to make a decision. And that decision was growth for growth's sake. And they rubber-stamped every single project that came through. Every developer, every single planning commission, every single concept for growth. And within five years, Georgetown was unrecognizable. People moved in that didn't share values of the people that had lived there from their entire lives, multiple generations. People moved in that had different ideas about what energy policy should look like. And now Georgetown is actually kind of famous for not having

a reliable energy grid because they switched where they drew their power from. And then there are events that happen that don't really align with the people who live in that community and have lived in it for multiple generations. And on top of that, church attendance is down, and crime is up. And I guess through that story, I would say this, this development, you've heard a lot of, I think, a really good data, really good stats, really good concerns on traffic and environmental issues and all. But ultimately it's about, I think, preserving the community, the community's identity, keeping it recognizable. And I think actually, Opelika City leadership has done a pretty good job, particularly in relation to Auburn. I went to college in Auburn. I don't even recognize Auburn. Auburn is growing so fast and so furiously that it's in danger of actually losing its identity in Opelika, so far has done a really good job. And so I think moving forward, I would just encourage you guys to, to keep in mind that the identity of the community, that some of you have been elected to represent, the identity of the community that y'all are making decisions for, keeping those values intact is actually probably the most important thing. You know, rubber stamping, something like this. I mean, it would instantly increase the population of Opelika about three to 4%. There's been some stats thrown about, a 5% growth in school kids. I mean, these are all real things, y'all understand this, but it's more about who's coming in, you know? Who are we trying to draw? We're already over capacity. As has been pointed out earlier, there's a lot of developments that have been approved. And even right now, those developments are likely not gonna be filled anytime soon. So, I would caution this commission, I'd caution city leaders, don't turn Opelika into Georgetown, Texas. Don't do it. The people who live there, you can talk to them, you know.

We had friends that lived there, people that went to our church. They were devastated and still are devastated because the town is gone. The identity is gone. And that can't happen here in Opelika, particularly for people who have lived here their entire lives. People have moved their families here that are trying to make this place a home, because Opelika has got a really good reputation, I think. I think Opelika has done a really good job of keeping that family dynamic in place. And this is thoughtless. This is just a thoughtless, almost violent growth effort that's gonna benefit a single developer who doesn't even know what state this is in. So, don't do it. SPEAKER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who? RICHARD COMPTON: I'm Richard Compton, 3150, Oak Bowery Road. I just have one question. How many people have come here in opposition to this development? Thank you. SPEAKER: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this? JERRY KELLY: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Kelly. I recognize many faces here at the dais, and I recognize many of you in the audience. And that recognition goes back to, we had a very similar development in concept, however, not at the density that this is proposed on this same 130 acres. At that time, when I was planning director, we looked which I came in 2007 from Scottsdale, Arizona. There was a really interesting concept, and it was well

prepared and researched about building a two-story independent living facility, along with an attached building of memory care. Also, as part of that was a density that was about half the size of this. It was around anywhere from ten to 15,000 square foot lot size. The road pattern was somewhat different. Over time, the developer backed off from the memory care and the independent living. We wanted to hold their feet to the fire to make that a reality, and they would not agree to that. So, they backed off of that, increased the density somewhat. And ultimately, here I was living at 404 Hill Flow, right in the smack-dab middle of this, what we are here for. And you all have heard excellent comments from the audience and from professionals. But, I see this as a poor development of these 138 acres, and I'm just coming from experience of 48 years in city planning in five different states. I've seen multiple puds, I've seen damn good ones, and I've seen some bad ones. Basically, we've got a postage stamp development that's not gonna work.

And everything else that you all said, from environmental to roads, is applicable. But I just wanted to say, if you do anything, if you wanna make a recommendation to City Council, recommend the annex only and come back with a major revision to a site plan and a zoning that creates a much more feasible single-family subdivision. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: I make a motion to negative negatively propose to rezone from R-1 to Putt on Rocky Brook. SPEAKER: I second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. This is not an auditorium. SPEAKER: Next item on your agenda is a request for subdivision. This is for preliminary. SPEAKER: If you would leave the room quietly so we can continue with our meeting. Quietly. SPEAKER: Mr Michael. SPEAKER: You know, I was about to jump out of my chair. SPEAKER: I just turned mine off. I just turned. I was on. Your phone (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Can you hear me?

I'll speak louder. School teacher voice. SPEAKER: The owner wasn't here. SPEAKER: Yeah, well. SPEAKER: If he was here, he probably got up and left. SPEAKER: Can we get this going now? SPEAKER: Intermissions. SPEAKER: I would imagine he'll withdraw his annexation. It'll be done. And he'll never get unless he gets it. But it'd be way down now. SPEAKER: They were mighty. Mighty. SPEAKER: If we can ask you all to take any conversations out to the lobby, please. SPEAKER: Right. It's on. It's not lit up. SPEAKER: I still have a lot to do. SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: But you're right. SPEAKER: We're going to continue with item three. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. Item three is a request for preliminary and final plat approval. This is Piper Sage subdivision, Redivision of lot C. The applicant is Kurt Haley. Haley Enterprises, LLC. Properties located the block between North Railroad first Avenue, Ninth Street, and 10th Street.

Includes almost the entire lot. Not exactly all of it. This is part of the C one zone. The applicant has recently purchased the property, and owns what is shown here, except for the the two right against 10th Street, the two buildings there. Those are the ones that look one looks like a fueling station or service station. The other is more of a metal building. The entire property is in the C one zone. It is also in the historic district. And so the applicant is looking to come through and divide these 1.38 acres into individual lots that would be available for sale or lease. So, if you look at the. Former premium beverage building, as many people know, hall property the building from the roof has multiple parapets that rise up out of the roof structure. The applicants coming in basically, and dividing along those lines, and reestablishing the internal walls that would create individual units instead of having one open warehouse as the previous tenant had. This would allow, smaller retail commercial sites that are typically desirable in a downtown urban environment. Typically, we look at sites that are anywhere from 1,000 or actually smaller, sometimes 1,000ft² to 2,500ft², as typical sizes for these areas. Recently, the City Council, based on your recommendation and what we proposed, reduced the minimum lot width in the C1 zone to zero, which is consistent with what most cities do in their urban zones. They have no setbacks in these areas, no minimum lot size, and minimum lot width. And that allows you to utilize those historic structures as they were intentionally designed. Now that is the case in this as well. So, the applicant has requested preliminary final.

We are recommending, those subject to the adjoining property owners being shown. Utilities board being labeled as Opelika Water Board signature line for the Planning Commission chair, added, removed preliminary plat from the title, and add any utilities in lot C. I believe this revised plan, as shown, meets those requirements, and we're recommending approval of preliminary final plat here. SPEAKER: Do you have any other staff recommendations? SPEAKER: The engineering department reports that there are no comments or concerns with the proposed preliminary final plat. Opelika Water Board notes that the water is available from a four-inch main in North Railroad Avenue. There are only two existing services to the building. Six new services will be required to serve the new spaces. Installation of these services will require demolition and rebuilding of the sidewalks in the area of the services. Opelika Power Services notes that this is in their territory, and Mr. Haley is here if you have any questions for him. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this? Come forward. SPEAKER: If you come to the microphone and state your name. JEFF MOULTON: My name is Jeff Moulton. We own the property across from the tracks. You're splitting this up into seven different buildings, correct? Seven? SPEAKER: I believe it's nine. Eight different units, and additional lot. JEFF MOULTON: Parking was 29 spaces in front. What? Do you have any plans for parking? Or is it just gonna be same old, same old? SPEAKER: Again, we would utilize parking that's available there, as most of the C1 does.

This site does have an entire lot on the backside that is vacant. JEFF MOULTON: I mean, I don't object or for I was just curious, what if we're gonna add eight more places, where are we gonna park? SPEAKER: Sit. JEFF MOULTON: OK. SPEAKER: Anyone else? SARAH: Am Sarah (UNKNOWN) with the PLS Group. And I'm just if there's any questions. I believe one of the slides kind of shows some of the parking that is available, but across the street by the railroad track. SPEAKER: I didn't hear a thing you said. Wasn't in the microphone. SARAH: I'm sorry. SPEAKER: There is parking shown on this plan across North Railroad against the railroad tracks. You have the existing on-street parking. I'd also mention that we are planning on looking at the entire site as it redevelops. The current site layout for the warehouse was designed as a warehouse and dock. And we expect that as we start working with the developer on the sidewalks needed for more of a commercial, retail, and entertainment area, that they would probably need different sidewalks there. COMMISSIONER: That was part of my question. This is coming in for a preliminary final plat approval. What if they need or want to change demising walls and move space around? This is, you know, this says final plat approval. SPEAKER: They would have to come back to revise those. But what they've done is they have basically laid those lines along the existing center lines of the building as they're laid out now. So it could be very easily where it could be easy

if somebody wanted to have, say, two of the units, they either occupy both lots or they remove the lot line in between through an administrative plat. COMMISSIONER: So you expect them to probably come back? SPEAKER: I expect there to be some changes over time, based on this. It's somewhat modular space in a way. COMMISSIONER: OK. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER: Motion for approval of staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? Any discussion? All in favor? COMMISSIONER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item four is before you for final plat. This is a request for final plat for equal subdivision. This was before you, I believe, in November of last year. The applicant is Emily Kee, representing Three Keys Property LLC. Subject property is located on Bay Court Avenue. You may remember they were proposing to divide this from two lots into five lots. As we previously noted, Ray Avenue is very small. The road that is currently there may not be completely within the right-of-way that is there. The right of way itself is very narrow as well, doesn't meet city standards. And so we sat down with the applicant with multiple utilities and started looking at options that would help create limited development in this area. At this time and may proceed as future development happens in this area, because there are quite a few lots further back to this.

So, still proposing five lots similar to what was done before. However, you'll notice in the middle that you see this T area, which is an access for fire and driveway access. So this envisions having the development, all of the lots take access off of Bay court, which is the wider area, would allow these lots to be accessed both by the residents, utilities, and anyone else who needed to from this area through this shared access easement, which we utilize often in different configurations. It would be a 20-foot access meeting any fire utility requirements and would allow these to be developed. The developer is also providing additional right of way along Gray Avenue, which means that at such time, where we can continue to kind of add more development along this road and gain more right of way, we could potentially work with a developer to make the street, bring the street up to standard, both in size and in requirements for the area. We are recommending final plat, subject to the following requirements. Install the access easement as shown on the plat, and saw signs on Ray Court adjacent to the easement prohibiting parking on the access and fire lane easement. At ten feet right of way to the right of way on the south side of Rea Avenue, as shown on the plat, and the access easement should also be labeled as utility easement, providing utilities to those plots as well. The engineering department notes that there are no comments or concerns with plat for final plat. Opelika Water states that a ten-foot utility easement will need to be shown on the western boundary of lot three, on the eastern boundary of three B along the southern boundary of lots three E and northern boundary of three B to allow for

access to private service lines going to lots three D, three C, three D and three E, and selling private service lines do not fall under the documented easements for such, and may be denied water service. If they do not fall in the (UNKNOWN) easements for such, will maybe denied water service. This is in the Opelika Power Services territory. SPEAKER: This item does not have a public hearing. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER: Motion for final plat approval with staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? COMMISSIONER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item number five is also a request for final plat. This is Hidden Lake subdivision North. This is a planned unit development for final plat on Sportsplex Parkway. The applicant is Blake Rice with BPCI incorporated for the 280 Land Company, LLC. Subject property is located across the street from the primary Hidden Lakes development, across the street from the Sportsplex, and to the east, going towards the roundabout. The applicant is requesting a final plat for 90 lots in phase one. The development, this was approved initially in 2022 as part of the master plan. Here you see the proposed development. So the primary access is on Sportsplex, North is to the right side of this drawing. So this is kind of see the area proposed. You can see floodplain and some stream areas to the north side of this development that run along property line. The applicant is proposing to plant these lots. 25 of the lots are proposed as 90ft wide. The remaining 65 lots are 60ft wide.

Based on the master development plan, they all have the same front setback of 20ft, range in size. The smaller lots range in size from 8800ft² to 17,000ft². Larger ones are 14,000ft² to 21,000ft². And then you have this large open space area access from the new road as well. There is also an additional open space lot right along the Sportsplex Parkway that would probably hold any signage or entry features to the site. And then you'll notice that the buffer on the adjacent to this on the eastern side is also shown in an open space lot. We are recommending final plat approval on this, subject to the conditions that sidewalks be required on both sides of the street, or utilities should be located underground for a minimum of one tree in the front yard, or for any lots to face the street corner, lots for each street. For the PUD zoning district, at the minimum, setbacks on the final plat in the notes. Add a note about the uses allowed in lot 195, which is the Open Space lot label. The 24-foot buffer strip on 195 and adjacent lots one through 24, as that buffer and secondary access will be required prior to the issuance of the 31st building permit. This access shall meet the minimum requirements for the fire access road. And so we'll have to watch that to make sure that this does meet that as they constructed. It is my understanding that they plan on continuing construction. And so it may be that phase two becomes the access prior to that road being needed. The engineering department notes that this has been inspected. They've been inspecting construction and testing of the infrastructure. Certificate of completion will be completed and signed by the Engineering Public Works Director as soon as

infrastructure completion items below have met and received positive recommendation for approval. Approval will be given based on the following. That all drainage structures in aggregate have been completed. All stop and roadside signs will need to be installed. Maintenance bond will need to be submitted. Performance bond of 125%. Estimate to be placed on the remaining roadway. Surfaces and sidewalks will need to be submitted as as-built documents of the roadway and storm drain in the form of AutoCAD PDF will need to be submitted to the engineering department. This will also require the elevation of the inverts of the system and right of way for the lots that have been graded and stabilized with seed mulch, and other erosion and sediment control have been added to protection against erosion and sediment issues. There are no other concerns from the engineering department. Opelika Water notes that the water infrastructure must be inspected and accepted by Opelika Water before final plat will be signed and approved, and Opelika Power Services notes that this is outside their territory. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. So, commissioners, do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER: Motion for approval with staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER: I'll second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? I'd like to ask. They resolved the access issue? SPEAKER: Yes, Ma'am. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: Yes, Ma'am. We feel like we have a plan in place to make sure that there is access before there are more than 30 lots for 30 homes. SPEAKER: Any other discussion? All in favor? COMMISSIONER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain. Motion carries. SPEAKER: Item six is two parts. It includes both a rezoning and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2040.

The applicant for this is Paul Brummett, representing Gateway Community Church, incorporated. The property is located at 1550 and 1570 North Uniroyal Road. So if you're familiar with this, exit 64 is located at the top of the map, where West Point Parkway crosses and then makes a turn on Highway 29 going towards Beulah. If you continue along that section, this turns into North Uniroyal. Go around the large curve, and this is right along Interstate 85. Where it meets Interstate 85. The applicant is requesting to rezone this from R2 gateway corridor primary to a C2 gateway corridor primary. It's approximately 12.5 acres. A couple of years ago, I believe it was 2024, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use for a church located on the site. And part of the development was graded at that time. So, looking at this site, you'll notice immediately that this is the adjacent properties here are zoned C2, which is office retail zoning, typically doesn't have an outside component to it. The applicant is proposing to rezone it to that. In most cases, we would look at that, and it would make sense to rezone those to a C2 zone. One concern that we have with not just this property, but the entire area through this, is that none of these properties in this general area have access to sewer at this time. So this was all zoned before sewer was available here. It is still not available. We are currently working on a plan that would bring sewer, near what's shown here, is Lee Road 161 on the backside, and continue on towards the sewer treatment

facility on Columbus Parkway. But at this time, these properties do not currently have the one developed property out here, which is, this C3 zone, a trucking logistics facility. It has a building on it which is currently using septic facilities. Along with this, there's a proposal to change this from the future land use from what is currently shown as an office business park to a more intense commercial corridor commercial land use. Office business park includes both or can include uses like, of course, office business uses, light manufacturing, office warehouse type facilities, those types of things, depending on what it's located with and where it's what's adjacent to it. Again, and here you'll see. Let me pull that up. Again, they've provided some drawings showing the area. Here's the future land use. And what you'll see here is this blue area is this entire section shown as kind of that modern office, industrial business office park. The commercial corridor nodes, which you'll see, are typically those around Pepper Parkway, Tiger Town. They're generally much larger commercial areas. We feel that at this time it would make sense to maintain that as an office business classification in the future. Land use code until such time again that either a larger area were to be reclassified as a more general commercial.

It's not usually those regional corridor commercial uses are larger in size and scale. And typically, we don't want to change a single use out of one area. We have recommended a negative recommendation to the city council for rezoning this property from R2 to C2, with both in the gateway corridor. We did note, however, because of the adjacency of the C2 existing zone, that if you do so, we would recommend that it be rezoned, subject to a condition that no commercial development take place until such time that sewer is available to the property. Again, wanting to make sure that this is utilized for. SPEAKER: It's its best use, which we feel cannot happen until such time as sewer is available. As far as the future land use designation, we do feel that this is still best designated as a modern office business park based on future land use, and no matter whether you send a positive or negative recommendation to the city council for the rezoning, we recommend that that be maintained as current land use designation. If at such a time the larger area in the loop here or to go more towards a commercial corridor, I think it makes sense to change the land use of the entire area at one time, but this time we don't feel that that would be appropriate. Happy to answer any questions you may have on that. The engineering department notes that they don't have any concerns or has concern that there's no sanitary sewer to the site. Opelika Water reports that water is available to lot parcel 13.004 from an eight inch main at southwest corner. I believe that's shown I've noted that here

where water is available. Currently terminates at the western property line of 1701 North Ural Road. Developer will be responsible for existing responsible for extending the main to their property for either connection point. Opelika Power notes that this is in both Opelika Power and Alabama Power service territory. And so what I would do is hold a public hearing on both items and then vote on them individually. One would be a recommendation, positive or negative. The other would be an up or down vote on the future land use. I think you could speak to both of them at the same time. Yes, sir, sure. Good afternoon. My name is Josh Hallmark, and my own home our properties. I'm representing Paul Brumman and Gateway Community Church. He is the president of their nonprofit. He's also the pastor of their church. So, anyway, they bought this property originally to build a church on and they cleared the property. I have pictures there for you so you can see what it looks like. And when I talked to Paul and he asked me to list his property, we did that about a year ago and all our conversations that I'm having from people that are interested there for commercial

purposes, and so very, very few developers that want to develop it for residential. And so anyway for them, their end game is to treat this as an investment property. They want to position it with commercial. So, if you look on that pink side if you flip one side over the pink, that's all commercial. That's 1,100 feet of commercial frontage, and then you've got 1,500 feet on I-85 and then you have another 1,500 feet on Unaroyal. So, there is a little sliver, the little corner that touches residential, and I sold that piece of property also, and there's really nothing on there, and so it almost feels like that goes with commercial if you're riding on North Unaroyal Road there. And so anyway, my objective is just to help my clients position themselves to make a great investment so that they can eventually build their church for those funds. I think, actually, I think they may want to even buy instead of build. That might be what they came to. So, a lot easier, by the way. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your service. Good afternoon, sitting committee. Paul Brummett, representative of Gateway Church. I guess I want to echo what Mr Hallmark proposed as well. The sitting where the property is at location would be more suitable for the use of commercial. The volume of the traffic on North Unaroyal there, as we've heard the other discussions here before us.

The development is inevitably here, and it's pushing out toward that direction, and the use of this property would be for small offices, cafes, et cetera., offering services, amenities, or whatever it may be to the residents there. So, we feel that it would be at the best use for not only ourselves but the city as well and feel that it is already a future plan of the city of Opelika to develop this. So, just want to echo that, and hopefully we can, you know, accomplish that today from a C2 or from R2 to C2. Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. Anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion to make an amendment to... SPEAKER: Question first. SPEAKER: OK, we have to have a motion. SPEAKER: Oh, you have a motion, OK. SPEAKER: I move a motion to deny amendment to the comprehensive plan. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: There's no sewer. SPEAKER: Yeah, obviously, but if it were to be changed, would the developer or the church be paying for the sewer? Can they do that? SPEAKER: Oh, so typically, yes, we do require sewer to be extended by the applicant for a development. Now a church is one use that has been approved in the past at this location, and it was previously approved with septic facilities. Churches are one of the few uses that they don't

necessarily follow traditional development because they sometimes jump out where other commercial non-residential uses may go, and so that's how that was approved. Typically, though, if a sewer were to be extended to this area, which right now, like I said they're working on some plans to extend sewer down through, I believe, Double Hill Road, uh, that would probably be within the next 18 months to two years. SPEAKER: That was my next question. SPEAKER: But if it does come down to this area, you do have a stream that comes back up this way, which you would likely follow to make that connection. It would still be about a quarter to a half mile away from sewer. We would typically limit commercial development where sewer is not available if even if it does get rezoned. So, if they're proposing general office uses then the lane use does not appear to be an issue at this time. SPEAKER: Yeah, I was leaning towards saying it it fits in with the other commercial property that I would say, you know, approve it subject to the owner providing all necessary utilities at such time they decided to develop it. And I think that's the route you're headed down. SPEAKER: Then that would be what we recommend if you choose to rezone in the next or choose to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for rezoning, which would be the next motion presumptively. SPEAKER: I thought we had a motion on the table too. SPEAKER: So, you have a motion right now for the future lane use which is something that the Planning Commission votes on. SPEAKER: To deny. SPEAKER: To deny the change of the future lane use.

Yes. So, based on that, it would remain an office business park classification. SPEAKER: All in favour. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstentions? Aye. The motion carries. SPEAKER: So, that would deny the change of the future lane use. Now, no matter what you choose with the future lane use you can choose to recommend a positive or negative recommendation to City Council. It's unique in this situation that we don't run into very often. Both the proposed future lane use or the existing future lane use now is does work with the C2 zone as well. Our hesitancy to rezone it has been because it doesn't have infrastructure there. So, again, if you choose to send a positive recommendation, we would recommend that be done on the condition that utilities be in place prior to any non-resident non-residential development. If you otherwise would, we would recommend that you deny the rezoning. SPEAKER: Alright so we've denied the change to the... SPEAKER: Yes ma'am. But that... SPEAKER: But now we decided whether to... SPEAKER: Rezone the property. SPEAKER: Rezone the property. SPEAKER: And again you can make in this case you can make the decision either way based on the existing lane use. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: I make a motion to rezone the property with the restrictions that Mr Mosley mentioned. SPEAKER: Those will be city utility services correct.

SPEAKER: Yes I mean those would be utility services needed to develop the property. Particularly water sewer which were both pointed out here. It has roads and power to the site already. SPEAKER: A second. So, was that a positive recommendation? SPEAKER: That was a positive recommendation to the city council. SPEAKER: Subject to utility services. Yes sir. SPEAKER: OK. Any other discussions? All in favour? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstained? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: The next item on your agenda is actually the next I believe it's three items on your agenda are all related to the same property. This is a request to rezone the property along with a land use amendment. A request for conditional use approval which would be item eight. And then item nine is the request for subdivision. But we'll talk about the land use and rezoning first because they all potentially could be done or this could be done separate from the other two one way or the other. E7 A and B is a request from Lee Tharp with Cadre Engineering representing Richard Starr and James Starr. 1500 block of Century Boulevard. So, here you see the property highlighted in the R3 zone. This orange colour. The property is just to the west of this going down Century Boulevard R zone to R5 and these are the Solstice and Shiloh developments and then Providence Apartments across the street from those. The applicant is requesting to rezone this property

from the R3 to an R5, matching those other two. It's approximately 42 acres 42.7 acres. A good portion of this development lies within the floodplain. You see here that area the shaded area is what's in the floodplain. The applicant has gone ahead and in future items to show that they're proposing to put townhomes on this site but that would be I think right now we should discuss just whether or not the zoning is appropriate. Let's see. The subject property again would have the density difference between R3 and R5 goes from approximately nine and a half units per acre to 16 units per acre. The development here would be much lower because of the amount of floodplain but the zoning as you can see is located between institutional zoning which is city cemetery property and the fire training facility and then two or three residential developments in our R5 zone on the west and commercially zoned property on the east side along Frederick Road. Reviewing this we're recommending a positive recommendation to rezone this property to the city council from R3 to R5. The future land use shows this currently as a single family neighborhood. What we're proposing it be changed to is a mixed use resident or mixed residential zone which is a slightly higher density which would be consistent with what is adjacent to this. A bit of that is in in keeping with the overall land use plan and the surrounding properties and so we're

recommending you make a change to the future land use from single family neighborhood to mixed residential. Happy to answer any questions you have. Mr Tharp is here representing the case as well. The engineering department notes that there are no concerns with the proposed rezoning. Opelika Water Board notes that water is available through a 12-inch main Century Boulevard and an 8-inch hang off on Bullock Court on the western side of Bullock Street. Opelika Power Service notes that this is in their territory. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak forward against this as far as the amendment? SPEAKER: Afternoon. Lee Tharp, cadre engineering for the applicant. Just wanted to reinforce what Mr Moses said. Happy to answer any questions if y'all have them. The what we're asking for here obviously directly related to one of the later agenda items we look forward to speaking with you about, but I think the piece of property here that we're talking about, we're at the end of the development potential of anything in this area as you guys saw on that plat with all the floodplains. So, happy to answer any questions associated with that as we move forward. Thank you. SPEAKER: Anyone else? Commissioner. Do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: This is for (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: So, we need two motions. First, I would say do the rezoning. So, it would be a recommendation, positive or negative, to the city council followed by amendment to the land use. SPEAKER: I make a motion for a positive recommendation to city council for rezoning with staff recommendation. SPEAKER: Second.

SPEAKER: I just have a question about which of the 42 acres that they're talking about are they these all separate pieces of property, but they're all going into the changing of the land use map? SPEAKER: Right, right now this is one large piece of property. So, it is a you see it here this orange piece it is a large piece it cuts across and it's in the red here. It cuts across the stream connection here and we go from where Century Boulevard currently ends all the way to Bullock Street. SPEAKER: The question I got is I'm looking at the next going to the next page as it relates to if we rezone it. I mean now I'm looking at the plan that allows for this density. So, there's one way in and one way out. Let's talk about traffic a little bit. SPEAKER: Well I think MARK : I think you can make a case that the traffic, the density allowed under this zone, may or may not be appropriate. But really, I think you should separate the discussion of the site plan or the conditional use from the rezoning. So this really should be whether or not the zone itself is appropriate at this location and that... SPEAKER: But they dovetail, do they not? MARK : They do to a degree. But there are multiple things that could occur with the zoning. If you approve the zoning and not the use approval, they could come in with a single-family development that meets the R5 zone. Or even if you do approve it, they could come back later and ask for conditional use for maybe a more dense development of apartments. So, I think approving one doesn't necessarily approve the other. But if you feel that there are concerns about access,

I can understand that. Now, what we have requested through this development, not to get too far into it, is this does go all the way through to just off Frederick Road. And so, we're requesting through the next phase that they provide the right of way so that we can potentially make that connection in the future. But we're not telling them that they have to make that connection immediately at this time. SPEAKER: So, we have a motion to send a positive recommendation. MARK : Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: For the land use map. MARK : For the rezoning. SPEAKER: For the rezoning. All in favor? MARK : Aye. SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: I oppose. Any abstain? Motion carries. MARK : So the next item, I think we'll get into more of the discussions about their specific plan for this area. And so, here you see the overall area again outlined in a darker color. What you'll notice is Century Boulevard is shown here extending from where it ends currently near the solstice development across the floodplain and into what is shown as I believe that's Bulloch Avenue, which connects to Frederick Road about a block away or half block away. The applicant is proposing a development that would have 48 townhome units on fee simple or individual lots. And here you see a blow-up of that coming off of where

the street currently ends, around, and then there we have an additional cul-de-sac, or two cul-de-sacs that would come off that main road. The... SPEAKER: What about the amendment? MARK : Oh, sorry. Yes, I apologize. You don't need to do the land use amendment. My apologies. I'm getting ahead of myself. SPEAKER: I've missed something. MARK : No, you're absolutely right. Sorry, I apologize. So, yes, there would still be the request to change the future land use from a single-family residential neighborhood to mixed residential. SPEAKER: We've had a public hearing. MARK : You don't need to have a public hearing. You'd just be a motion to (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: Motion for a positive recommendation (CROSSTALK). SPEAKER: It's all straight up and down. MARK : It's just a... SPEAKER: Positive amendment... MARK : Amendment to the future land use map. SPEAKER: Motion to amend the future land use map. SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: I'm opposed. Any abstain? Motion carries. MARK : I apologize about that. So this is a conditional use request. Again, it's Mr Tharp with Kadre Engineering representing Richard and James Star. Pending R5 zoning. They're requesting to have 48 townhome units and six open space lots on 42.3 acres. The reason why this is required to be rezoned is because townhouses are not allow conditional use in the R3 zone. They are allowed in R4 and R5 zones. And so, based on the adjacent R5 zoning, they proposed to rezone it to that zone.

What you'll see is they have proposed townhome units, two stories with 2100ft², two bedrooms, two baths. The lots are shown at, I believe it's, excuse me, 27ft wide for the narrower ones. And then the corner ones are a little bit wider to deal with setback, 37ft wide. Most lots are 125ft long, which gives you about 3300ft² for each individual lot. These would be front-load townhomes, meaning they enter from the public street in the front. Again, these are, I think I said 2200ft². They're actually 1800 square feet. They provided a landscape plan which shows some buffering along the edge and then along the roadway providing some hedge and screening in those areas. The overall density is 1.1 units per acre. That is because this area includes so much floodplain area and the overall development. From the developable acreage, it is closer to 4.6 units per acre, including some of the additional open space they have between individual units and along the sides and rear. We have noted in here, again, as I mentioned before, the need for connectivity through this area. And so, we have requested that they provide the right of way to extend all the way through the development to the adjacent

drive coming off Frederick Park, Frederick Boulevard. This allows the city or someone to potentially connect that in the future. 48 lots is probably requiring them to make this additional street improvement, and creek crossing themselves would probably be much more of an impact than 48 lots would generate, generally to create that cost. And so, that's why we're not requiring them to extend it all the way across the creek at this time. But that would give us the opportunity, if we ever needed a secondary means through the Tigertown area, to help with traffic flow. They provided us some elevations. You'll notice these are almost all brick. There is some board and batten located in the eaves and near the second story. And again, as I mentioned, these do show a one-car garage that would be accessed from Front Street. Based on all of these, we are recommending conditional use approval provided that the city council approve the rezoning. And then, they provide a sidewalk on both sides of streets A and B, all utilities shall be underground throughout a landscape plan that meets the base points, parking points, and buffer requirements for the landscape and zoning ordinance. Townhouse exteriors matched the materials presented to the Planning Commission, including materials provide the minimum setbacks for all lots, including lots 34, 35, and 36, which are slightly below the 25ft requirements. Revised the site plan.

So, the three parking spaces on the cul-de-sac are not are on private property right away. And any fences constructed for townhouses be consistent, maintain a uniform appearance. The engineering department notes that they have no other comments or concerns with the proposed conditional use. Opelika Water Board notes that this is water available from the 12 inch Main on Century Boulevard, and the eight-inch hang off on Bullock Court, western side of Bullock Street. Opelika Power Services notes as this is in their territory. SPEAKER: This item calls for a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against it? LEE THARP : Lee Tharp for the applicant, Kadre Engineering. I just wanted to point out from the applicant's perspective. They take no issues with staff's recommendations on anything associated with conditional approval. I know access was brought up at one point. A lot of that's gonna be dependent on the right of way, but there is an alignment that's already done, which informed its preliminary, but a preliminary alignment for the right of way dedication. That's what informed how that looks on the plan there that you're looking at, that was done by the city outside of our development. So, working within the bounds of that to try to make everything congruent at the end of this, but again, happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. APRIL: April, Bullock Court. Really just have a question. SPEAKER: Please speak up. APRIL: April White, Bullock Court. I just really have a question. And my question is, will the easement go through

Bullock court, which is not a paved road? And my question is, when they're talking about the water usage, how does that affect residents that are there now? MARK : So, yes, ma'am. Previous plans have shown Bullock Court or... I believe that's Bullock Court extending through this area before. And so, the right of way would be continued through there. It's not planned to open in the near future. It would be something that would happen potentially down the road. They would be required to run additional water through the area. And then, before this road were to be extended, it would have to be brought up to city code and standards. So, that would have to be improved to make sure that it's a passable street. Improved. APRIL: Thanks. SPEAKER: Anybody else? Public hearing is now closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion for conditional use approval with staff recommendations. Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Mark, there's staff recommendation. Does that include acquiring the right-of-way easement? MARK : Yes, sir. They do require, because it's shown here as part of the plan, it would be required as part of the development. SPEAKER: So we would have that right away? MARK : Yes, sir. And there's some question on whether or not the actual right of way is currently actually already there (INAUDIBLE), old flats that existed almost 100 years ago now. But this would solidify that right away.

SPEAKER: I'd like to add to that motion that the developer would be required to build Century Boulevard through the portion of the right-of-way to access the street at Frederick, and I don't know what's the name of that street. MARK : To access Bullock? SPEAKER: Bullock. There is a condition to development that the developer be required to build not only to provide the right of way, but build the road to Bullock, and the city would take over from there. MARK : Which? SPEAKER: Through this property. Through the property, there's now... MARK : Through the entire development? SPEAKER: Through the property that's been annexed and now zoned that we're discussing, Century Boulevard. MARK : So, from where it extends at Century Boulevard, basically to where it comes across at Bullock? SPEAKER: Correct. MARK : So, to do that, you would need to make a motion to amend the current approval request. SPEAKER: That's what I was trying to do earlier. I would amend the statement to read that the developer would be required to pick up at its property line, the Century Boulevard Road, pushing through its development to Bullock Road. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE). SPEAKER: Can he make a change to somebody else? MARK : No. So, what would happen is, if he was requesting to amend the motion, there would have to be a motion and a second on that, which he's made a motion. There would have to be a second.

And you would vote on the amendment prior to voting on the overall motion. SPEAKER: What is your motion? SPEAKER: You got a first motion, you got to address first though, don't they? MARK : No. You would address the amendment first and then address the overall approval. So... SPEAKER: My amendment to the motion would read that the developer would be required to complete Century Boulevard through its development to Bullock Road. SPEAKER: I second that. MARK : So, you have a motion and a second to add an additional condition to the approval that they build the stretch of Century Boulevard from where it currently ends to across their entire property. SPEAKER: We vote on that. MARK : You would vote on that. And if that is approved, then you could vote on the approval with that amendment. If it's not approved voting on the amendment, then you would vote on the original amendment as it was presented or the original approval as presented. SPEAKER: So all in favor? SPEAKER: Point of discussion. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: I am not in favor of that amendment. I think it puts an undue burden on the developer. That's not necessary at this time. We would secure access to do it in the future if we ever needed it for fire safety reasons and connectivity. So, I'd be opposed to that amendment. SPEAKER: And this is in addition to the planned right of way onto Frederick. MARK : So, what we've asked previously in this was that they provide the right of way, which is basically the space to go all the way through. They would only have to undo what we'd previously asked that they would build to basically where their development stops, which is here, where this connection is, before the creek crossing.

The proposed amendment would, instead of not just asking for the right of way, would require that they build the street and crossing across the creek there as well. SPEAKER: So, where are we? MARK : So, you have a motion to amend the current approval to add that stipulation that they build the road? SPEAKER: Yes. MARK : All the way through to that. And you would basically vote on that and then vote on the original approval one way or the other. SPEAKER: So, you would just comment on this discussion. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: Any other discussion. All in favor? MARK : I don't know if you would like to ask the developer if they have any concerns with that or not, or it's up to the commission? SPEAKER: Well, we've got a motion. MARK : Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: I'd like him to speak on it. SPEAKER: Let him speak to it. Is that what you're saying? SPEAKER: That's fine. SPEAKER: Thank you. Couple concerns on that. I guess one question I had was part of the issues with... SPEAKER: This piece of property in general, obviously, the size of it is very large. It's got a lot of natural encumbrances on it. There are two creeks that meet on it a lot of floodplain. There's really not an opportunity for any more dense development other than what we're proposing at this time. With that being said, 48 lights. I don't believe what even would hit the fire code requirement for the city for a secondary access point. SPEAKER: You would. SPEAKER: We would.

SPEAKER: 30 lots you would be required to have secondary access. SPEAKER: Even so, I think that that would even be at a limited point available with, I think, Street B showing on your plan there. I don't see the viability of really any development on this piece of property if the road is required to be constructed all the way through. Simply, not necessarily if it were just the road. That might be one thing, but the creek crossings associated with that, I think, is really going to impact the viability of what's going to be able to be done, if anything, on this piece. I can't speak to, you know, how that might affect, you know, obviously this development is probably not viable at the density that's proposed with that condition put on the development. We can certainly look at that if that's something you guys decide to do. My expectation would be that at that point, we're likely, again, I don't want this to affect the view of the preliminary plat that's after this, but we would likely be coming back with maybe a different conditional use request that might be, that would have to be more dense than what's shown here, like an apartment-type development or something. To make the project viable at that point, and I imagine any future request on this pitch property would have to be pretty similar. I don't know how that would affect proposed right away dedication, things like that, obviously, because that's going to be part of the plat. So, just something to consider there. And I guess one question I would have - I don't know if this is something we can discuss, but are there other concerns about, are we just thinking about going ahead and getting infrastructure in for access to Frederick for this development? Particularly in the future, or maybe not in the future, but right now with the development?

Maybe that's one thing I was just curious about. Matt, I'm looking at two things - Fire safety, and I'm also looking at the density, and maybe it's a time to do a combination city developer joint venture on punching this road through at the appropriate time, because you can't build this type of density with one way in and one way out, and it's not going to get approved to begin with from the standpoint of fire safety. So, I'm just trying to get proactive and on the front end and see what we could do to maybe form a venture that would get it done. So, you gotta... So, if you don't put the restrictions on the requirements on it, I don't know how you go. SPEAKER: And that would be something that would have to be a discussion that would have to happen with city engineer involved, and then ultimately any agreement or discussion like that would have to happen at a level with the city council. So, you know, I think it would be, it would be to the planning commission should make a recommendation how they feel is best appropriate, whether or not you feel the access and the construction of that road is needed with that project, or if it's something that can happen later. I think both are acceptable based on the authority the commission has. It's whether or not you feel it's appropriate at this time to put that requirement on there. SPEAKER: And this is a long way down that street. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Understand I'm in no position to make a request, but I would ask that if that condition is something you guys want to put on it, that the language of that condition may be less restrictive to at least open the door to some

shared development project for the city street in conjunction with the city of Oplaca. We've had some discussions on that to this point with Scott, I know he's not here to speak on that, but that's been part of the buildup to this thing coming to y'all, so. At a minimum, I think we'd like to have that language tour that's available, and you may have something different. SPEAKER: I think if that's something they want to discuss and that's something that the commission is open to the best route would probably be to table this until a future meeting to have that be able to have at least some of that discussion. Again, if the commission is ready to vote tonight, it's your priority to do so. The next meeting is within 30 days, so you can table with your own, if you so choose, or if you feel you're ready to vote tonight, that is, that's also within your rights. SPEAKER: I'd like to go out there and look at the project before I vote on this. I haven't been out there. To see where the road would actually connect, I drive that road quite a bit. I don't see a traffic flow problem today over there, but I don't know. SPEAKER: So, why don't we create a large amount of mitigation that's going to have to be purchased? Mitigation credits to... SPEAKER: I mean. Anytime you're crossing a stream or crossing something like this, you're going to have to go through some environmental review. That's not my expertise, but I would have guessed that there are going to be some requirements there, whether it's through floodplain looking at floodplain

and potentially amending that or crossing through a creek. Those items would have to be examined and discuss. SPEAKER: There would be significant Army Corps of Engineers impacts and FEMA impacts associated with the extension of that road. I'll table this. I'll change my motion to amend this for 30 days. SPEAKER: Well, so a motion to table would take precedent over everything. SPEAKER: I'll motion to table this until the appropriate time. SPEAKER: So, any discussion about tabling? All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any Stay. SPEAKER: Are we tabling the amendment? SPEAKER: So, this would be tabling the conditional use to next month. What I would then ask is if the applicant would be open to tabling the condition or the subdivision along with it. SPEAKER: I think that's appropriate. So, if y'all are OK with it. SPEAKER: If we haven't had a resolution on the conditional use, there's no need to go through the subdivision planning. And so the applicant is basically granted us the ability to table that as well. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: I think you should make a motion with the African's consent to table that. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Table. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: No, you voted on the conditional use. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. That was the conditional use. SPEAKER: OK. SPEAKER: The next item is the subdivision. The subdivision doesn't work unless conditional use is

approved, and the applicant has requested that that be tabled to next month. We accept. So, if you would vote on a table that to next month with the applicant's consent. SPEAKER: So, I'm here (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: For Matt's statement. I make that motion. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any. Motion carries. SPEAKER: The last item on your agenda to be heard tonight is request for rezoning and land use amendment. This is a request by Nicholas. How or Eagle Warehouses LLC. This is 1502 Spring Drive. You'll notice on the zoning map here, the subject property is this are five area between King Lake Road and Spring Drive just south of Dale Avenue. The subject property is approximately 1.5 acres. It's zoned R5M, which is high density residential with potential for homes. The applicant has currently a warehouse, and the warehouse has been on the property for at least a couple decades, I believe, prior to the zoning. It has been used non-commercially for some time. The applicants using it now for some commercial storage for business, not necessarily to be rented out for multi for many warehouse or warehouse storage for sale. He's asking to rezone this from R5 to a C3. You'll notice that most of the properties around here are zone C3. And that would be an appropriate use for a warehouse or commercial zone, commercial use. So, we're recommending a positive recommendation to the city council for rezoning 1.5 acres from R5M to C3.

Along with that, it currently is a mixed residential classification that goes along with higher density residential. We would make a recommendation that the commission change the future land use from mixed residential to commercial corridor. Engineering notes that they have no concerns with the rezoning. There's currently a three quarter inch metre on the site. And this is in open power services territory. Here you see the overall lot with the existing long warehouse here. And again, you can hold a single public hearing and then two separate votes. SPEAKER: This calls for a public hearing. If anyone who would like to speak for or against this item. Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do I hear a motion? SPEAKER: Motion to send a positive recommendation to the city council to rezone 5M to C3. SPEAKER: Any discussion? SPEAKER: Matt, on the very top of that would be probably above that. Is that a single family homes? SPEAKER: Yes sir, it is. I believe a single family home that is still in the R5M zone. SPEAKER: Any other motion? Any other discussion? All in favour? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: The last item is a request. It's under your old business for conditional use. That is still on the table. We're hoping that the... SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: I apologize again, so I'm getting out of order myself.

The last item on this item would be to amend the future land use from a mixed residential to a commercial corridor designation. SPEAKER: Alright. Do I hear a motion that we amend the future land use? SPEAKER: So, moved. SPEAKER: Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstain? Motion carries. SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologize again about that. The last item again is on the table. We're requesting you remain on the table. We have asked them to go ahead and have something prepared for you for your February meeting so we can go ahead and deal with that request. SPEAKER: And we've got one of our commissioners would like to have a few minutes to... SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. If I may have just a few minutes to share with you all something that I'd rather share with you all than you hear it. I'm going to pass these down. SPEAKER: One more. I've got one. I've got it here. SPEAKER: You go. Matt. SPEAKER: At the council meeting on Tuesday night. This ordinance is a request for a temporary moratorium, and the moratorium would include new subdivisions,

new apartment complexes, or new mobile home parks. The moratorium is being requested for a one-year period of time. If you will, a pumping of the brakes. Obviously with the things that we are going through here, or we have, and you heard during some of the public hearings about the number of houses that were on our lots that were already on the ground for consumption. I think that in order for us to keep our infrastructure up to date, then we're going to have to stop for a little while. So, I wanted to make you all aware of it. You're welcome to take it home and read it if you have a question. You can call me, Robbie, or Matt. We'd be happy to talk to you one-on-one. Put a lot of thought into this. You'll see that the dates would be April 1st, May 1st through April the 30th of next year, and maybe we can absorb some of the things that are already on there. And by making it start in May the 1st, if there are some people that were close to bringing something, then they have time to get it. And then we can deal with it here. But after May the 1st, it's going to be my recommendation to the Council, and we'll see how that goes. But it's going to be my recommendation that we impose this moratorium to give us a little chance to pump the brakes, make sure our infrastructure is in place. And as you know, we're looking at a couple of school projects that we need to make sure that they get done before we fill them up. And so if we keep going like we are, we'll never

be able to build one big enough to keep the growth. And so there's just a lot of things that have gone into this thought process. And if you'd like to say, if you'd like to discuss it one-on-one, I'd be happy to do that with you. I did talk to the Chair before pursuing this, and she was aware of it, and it was OK with me moving forward. And so now I'll share with you all to take a look at, just to contact me if you have a question. SPEAKER: OK. This is good for the City Council. SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: OK. This is Tuesday night. SPEAKER: Tuesday night. OK. Alright. So, y'all are making a decision on this Tuesday night. SPEAKER: No, no. It requires two readings because there's an ordinance, and so it'll have to be introduced unless somebody made a motion to suspend the rules. And in order to suspend the rules and pass it, it has to be unanimous. And so most likely it's going to be introduced, and then it will be the second meeting in February. SPEAKER: I applaud you. SPEAKER: OK. Great. Do I hear a motion for your turn? SPEAKER: So, moved. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: I made the agenda of the dinner. SPEAKER: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate it. I thought that was a good idea, too, there. SPEAKER: That's not always the case.